I don't know where I'm in contact.

I get what you're I think I get what we're doing.

Okay.

So that's the one.

Well, yeah.

And it's one of the things that we've got.

I mean, but it's a show.

Okay.

Yeah.

And at 5 30, we'll go ahead and get started with tonight's meeting.

Mindy Payne.

Here.

Jonathan Townsend?

Here.

Jempa.

Here.

Jason Cohen.

Here.

Robert Gorin's in.

Here.

Item number three, old business.

We have an item four consent agenda.

We have any items which be pulled from the consent agenda.

If not, we're ready for motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda items per staff recommendations.

I'll second the motion.

I have a motion second approval and roll call vote.

Mindy Payne, yes.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

Jaley Klempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorin's in.

Yes.

Item number five, items removed from the consent agenda.

We have none.

Item six, public hearings A26-315.

Staff want to cover that.

Yes, this item is a public hearing consideration and possible action regarding PUD-002627-2026.

A minor amendment to PUD-000725-2023, 15.59 acres, agricultural to commercial general via PUD 725 and BAZ-000724-2023, located one half mile north of New Orleans Street, one half mile west of 9th Street.

The rezoning was a request to rezone 15.59 acres from agricultural to commercial general.

It was approved by city council on May 16, 2023.

The purpose of this request was to facilitate the expansion of an existing major utility facility.

Proposes to amend the screening requirements for the existing major utility facility.

According to FEMA maps, none of this property is located in the 100-year floodplain.

Although 100 year floodplain is located immediately east of the property, based on the location of the property and surrounding land uses, staff recommends that this item be approved.

Thanks, Mr.

Kenzie.

And that would mainly that request would mainly be so it would stay uniform with the rest of the fancy, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Any questions applicant or staff?

Is the applicant presentation?

Mike Zedford would have to be able to do that.

Well you'll need to go to the microphone and give us your name.

Mike Sedford with Wallace Design Collective.

I just want to make sure I read that right.

No change.

Oh you're just wanting to match the rest of the fancy, correct?

Okay.

It's a nice looking fence.

It's not about security or safety at all.

Well, we do have that concern as well.

Uh the user, you know, the it's a facility for utilities and there's a lot of combustibles in that area.

So we but apparently the existing fencing is working for you.

Yeah.

Correct.

Right.

Well, I'm just saying the the change from eight to six isn't about security.

Well, we have the razor wire on top.

So essentially that's the that's the other part of this.

Is the I mean we we've had six foot for or they've had six foot for a number of years, and that's worked.

Just fine.

Okay.

So and then we you know we've added the the slats, which is a better looking fence of what's been out there for a number of years as well.

So, yes, security is a concern, but you know, the razor wire covers that, and we're trying to just match existing in a nutshell.

We're gonna go into the eight foot, not only would it not match, but if uh I I'm I don't do that kind of thing, but if I was wanting to break in there, I'd just go at least resistance.

That'd be six-foot fence, not the eight foot, so you might as well make it all six foot.

So I think it's really pretty, and I like fences, as we know.

So I was like, Well, thanks for the pictures.

All right, thanks a lot.

So I'll open public hearing.

Did we have anybody who wish to speak on this?

Uh closed public hearing had got any discussion.

Well, I just think it makes sense that they allow it to be with the existing if it wasn't there at all, then I'd say we'd probably need to stick with the eight foot, but that would be ridiculous to do have part of it eight and part of it six.

So I think it makes sense to make it all look the same thing.

Similar.

So if there's nothing else, I'll go ahead and make a recommendation to approve item six A per staff recommendations.

Second change motion second for approval have a real call vote.

Mindy Payne, yes, Jonathan Towson.

Yes, J Lee Clempa.

Yes, Jason Cohen, yes, Robert Gorington.

Yes.

And McKenzie, this was a minor amendment, correct?

Correct.

So this will not go to the city council.

Go to the city council, that is right.

Okay, so you're good.

Next item on the agenda is item number six B 26-326.

Yes.

This item is a public hearing consideration and possible action regarding PUD-002644-2026 for Allegian Fields 3, a major amendment to PUD 306, 53.55 acres, agricultural to single family residential preservation, and PUD 306 via BAZ 2050 located at the southeast corner of Tucson Street and Garnett Road.

On June 2nd, 2020, City Council approved BAZ 2050, which was a request to rezone 53.55 acres from agricultural to single family residential preservation and PUD 306.

Uh PUD 002644-2026 proposes three primary changes to PUD 306.

One, it will increase the maximum number of dwelling units allowed.

Currently, the maximum number of units allowed is 182.

The applicant is requesting an increase to 186.

Uh second, it will allow for potential development of a 2.05 acre commercial area at the hard corner of Tucson Street and Garnett.

This amendment only modifies the development area of the PUD and any further comprehensive plan changes, rezonings, or other applications for commercial zoning would be made at a future date.

The exhibit is up currently.

Adjacent to reserves F and G internal sidewalks will be provided as required, and arterial sidewalks along any potential future commercial tract will be required when developed.

In addition to the PUD amendment, a sidewalk waiver will be required to modify the land subdivision code, which would come before you at a future date as well.

The proposed development is designated as level two urban residential in the comprehensive plan.

This level supports RSP zoning, but a comprehensive plan change would be needed for any future commercial development.

According to FUMA maps, there is some 100-year floodplain located at the west of the property based on the comprehensive plan, the location of the property, and the surrounding land uses.

Staff recommends that PUD-002644-2026 major amendment be approved as presented.

All right, thanks, Kizzy.

Any questions staff?

Um I do.

And it might just be something that that the applicant needs to answer.

But um so are there only sidewalks proposed there at the west um entrance and not the east entrance on Tucson?

Correct.

Okay.

I don't like that, and I'm wondering why, but that's probably for him to answer.

Any other questions, discussion?

Stafford.

What did you know?

For the record, please.

Uh good evening, Commissioners.

Nathan Cross to West 2nd Street, Suite 600 Tulsa here on behalf of the applicant.

Um I'll start by telling you what the impetus for this is.

Uh the the picture that's on the screen now reflects the 100 year floodplain that's on the west side of the property.

When this was originally approved, that floodplain extended farther east.

Uh there's been some work done in Bixby on Hakey Creek that has changed the FEMA flood map, which has shrunk this back to the west considerably and opened up a couple of areas to build where you could build now.

You couldn't build the four originally.

That's uh would allow for uh a potential of we have asked for four more, we think it's probably realistically closer to three, but don't have the engineering yet, and so uh we want to be safe.

Um but the the balance of the request is uh to sort of I guess acknowledge, I think that's the word that they uh used when they filed the application, that commercial would go in on the hard corner in the in the future.

Keep in mind that the hard corner is currently basically squarely within the hundred year floodplain, and significant work would need to be done on that area to bring it up.

Uh additionally, um the Garnett is as you all know the dividing line with Bixby, uh, which means I think widening that is uh conversation amongst multiple people.

And although Tucson's uh I think scheduled to be widened with the with with bond money, the the I don't know that Garnett's widened anytime soon.

Point of me saying all of that is that there would be a lot of things that would have to happen, including uh additional public meetings for for commercial to actually wind up there at that hard corner.

The the history that I've had personally with broken arrow and that my client is have with broken arrow is that there's a desire to see commercial on hard corners uh for sales tax revenue, and because of the combination of the floodplain and and that knowledge, uh the goal is to leave that for um uh future commercial development potentially.

There's no plan to develop it currently, though.

Um with regard to the sidewalks, I guess my um my question is is there I thought there was a sidewalk.

I thought that's what that that is right there on the on the already existing part of the development.

Well, I I I didn't hear anybody debate that it wasn't.

I mean it is right there.

Yeah, and if it is Okay, well I thought the question was is it not on the east entrance?

Is it on the only on the west entrance and not on the east entrance?

No, you you have it over on the on the western side of the of the layout.

And you're saying that the the reason why you're not putting it on the east side is because there is already sidewalk there.

So that's right.

That's the answer to the question, I think.

And I'm sorry for confusing the message, but that makes sense.

The point is to say is to demonstrate we're carrying it through to the other side up to the potential commercial, and it w if and when that were ever developed, it would they they would then be required to add sidewalks to the case.

Yep.

See, we could see the existing sidewalk right now, it's out there.

Matter of fact, the yellow is pointing it to it.

Yeah.

If you go to the other drawing that you had show it, it'll show it right there.

Right, right up there in the red that's E F and G, I believe it is.

Yeah, yeah.

And it was confusing.

So and you're not wanting to take it to the hard corner because you're expecting that sidewalk to be built in future development.

Is that correct?

Okay.

And I think the city would require it.

So do we do we roll that into escrow after what we do tonight or with city council?

Does this go into ESCO or does it just wait also?

You're talking for the sidewalk in the hard corner.

That's shown right there or out to the hard corner.

To the hard corner.

From the I believe that's E or F or G, I don't know which one it is.

I think that is part of that that's contemplated to be that part of that development.

Someone uh checked my answer, but I think that that's the idea is that that money would be would be part of that development concept.

Okay, so there would be no escrow then.

It'll just be included in that project.

Right.

Okay.

So on your flood plan, you you mentioned Bigsby a while ago.

Did you say they did some more?

Did y'all do a letter map revision or did this did the new flood map come out?

I think it's the new flood map came out.

I don't think they did a letter map revision to increase this.

I think it was I think.

I would I mean you guys have seen me before.

I was not in on the ground floor.

I know I got glasses, I'm a little bit more.

Nobody said anything.

Well, yeah.

Not yet.

I think that's a good idea.

Right.

The I don't the glasses got me.

I don't believe that we did a flood map revision.

I think this is sort of it serendipitous because of the downstream stuff that was done in Bixby, and it was just a recognition, like, oh, there's more land now because as you can see, some of those lots are still in the floodplain, but there's enough there to build on and not be in the floodplain now.

Yeah.

And I'm not going to question it, but I would as long as staff is happy with whatever it was submitted first time and that was submitted something that backed it up that that's where the new edge of the zone is.

So I imagine it was, right?

Otherwise you wouldn't be here.

I mean, uh otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Right.

Okay.

So when will you know that whether you're going to go from four lot four additional lots to three lots?

I think that uh it just based solely on my personal experience and representing people in these situations, that usually doesn't come until you actually really get onto the ground and start doing the grading to determine what you actually can achieve.

And I would just tell you that's just my sort of thumbnail of what I normally see when we get to the platter phase.

Right.

We come in for a preliminary plat.

What the PUD normally sets is the educated guest at the maximum amount we could possibly do, and we try to build into that the idea that um uh we probably are gonna come like we go maybe one above what we think we can do on paper today, but it gets clearer once you get into the actual engineering on the when you move dirt around.

And I understand that.

And the reason why I asked that is because what we're approving tonight is up or if we approve it is up to 186, correct?

Okay.

So that's up to so if you went anything below that, it doesn't matter as long as we know that we're talking about up to, and that's the way the original one I guess was written up for up to 182, correct?

I would imagine I presume it is.

That's how they're that's how they're all done.

Yep.

Which means if it goes to 185, you're not coming before the planning commission again for a minor amendment.

So you are looking pretty good, Mr.

Cross.

Well, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

I don't know if we have some people that want to.

All right, I'll open it up for public hearing.

We have two people that wish to speak on it.

I'll call your name and it'll come up and you'll have three minutes to speak, whether you're for or against it, Michelle Rivera.

I think I already got my questions answered.

Oh no.

Okay.

So you're not gonna come up, correct?

Okay.

The next one was Brian uh Wilsman.

Hey, can you clarify that she's she said that uh that her answer her question was answered?

I called her, she didn't come up.

No, I know, but it's okay.

Hello, Brian Wiesman, 11831 East to 121st Street.

And I'm owned the property due north of that big retention pond.

So and uh I guess a little history on this neighborhood was initially platted by right to do RS4 lots.

The developer took a decent amount of uh public input, withdrew the request, ended up making it a PUD to get more lots than RS4.

So they they re-engineered the whole project on phase one.

So now we have phase two and three that gave us a maximum number of lots, and they're trying to again get out of that scope and go to an additional lot.

So I'd like to see I would have loved to see an RS3 in there, but that didn't happen.

So I'd like to see that the PUD remain consistent to where they were before.

So any questions for me?

No.

Hold on.

So explain to us again, uh McKinsey, what are we differing from?

Is the the other PUD to this PUD right now?

Isn't it at the sidewalks and the number of lots?

Are we changing anything else?

The sidewalks, the number of lots, and commercial.

So I guess you what you're talking about, Mr.

Weissman is from a another PUD or something that was asked for before.

Yeah, initial before phase one was built.

Okay.

Then it was going to be by right.

The public input was real strong.

So they came back and did a PUD, which made some larger lots to reduce the density.

So what I'm saying is now we're going back to what the originally were doing, increasing the density, and I'd like to just stay where we're at.

He wants to keep it at 182.

Is that a minimum of the original PUD?

That's I think that's just fair.

We're giving them a nice uh relief on that long sidewalk through some very tough terrain.

It is so uh I think that that's a great relief that the city is nice enough to uh to offer this, yeah, to be to be accommodating on this, which is substantial.

Obviously, a sidewalk to nowhere doesn't do anybody good right now.

So um at a minimum the density should be uh not expanded, but should stay where it's at.

Keep kept at the current level.

So if at a later time when they do the comprehensive plan do the comprehensive plan would it take into the whole whole area, maybe change the comprehensive plan to the properties to the north.

There's two property owners to the north of uh that pond.

We have the 20-acre track and then the 15 acres to the west of it.

So I didn't know if a comprehensive plan is a regional look or if it's just a specific site where it looks like you're kind of giving sort of preliminary comprehensive plan approval by putting this on that plat.

So that's just my okay.

So when we look at the map right now, I uh if if you could zoom in just a little bit on that.

So we see what the exist what's what's being built out there right now.

Yeah.

Okay, and then if we could go back to the other drawing, if you don't mind the the rendering that there.

You can see how much is left on that.

So the the amount of density we would be changing would be not the existing, unless you look at it overall, would we really be affecting the density of the remaining structures that's gonna be built?

Correct.

And we're only talking about maybe three homes out of that.

That's yeah, it'd be it'd be a small number out of the piece, but uh from the city standpoint they have been very accommodating to uh allow this this higher density.

So I understand so I'd think that a meta minimum that should be a uh the that the city has has granted enough relief, in my opinion.

So now what we can do is we'll ask Mr.

Uh Cross to come back up here to discuss what you brought up.

And we can ask him again about that 186 versus the with the 182 to 186 to actually talk about.

He even mentioned that it might be one less than that may be one eighty five.

They didn't know the exact number before they turned the shovel.

Exactly.

Oh, yeah, they're going to so actually we can ask Mr.

Cross how close are they really feeling to whether they're gonna have one eighty six, one eighty five.

Maybe we should lock it in at one eighty-five tonight.

That would kind of be helping you out a little bit too.

But maybe it where it's at possible.

That's fine.

But I'm not sure if just taking out one house is gonna be enough to really but if we have design standards that wouldn't we keep giving exceptions to the case.

Yeah, exactly.

Exactly.

Well, right, and that's why we have the PUD is to kind of it make it a win-win situation where some flexible so uh if I may.

Um the I believe the way they're getting the additional four is on the west side where that floodplain is smaller.

Yeah, um, they're actually it used to be floodplain, so all of the design criteria will remain the same.

All of the size and setbacks will remain the same.

Um they just have room now for those additional lots because it won't be in the floodplain.

And if so, if we could zoom in on that northwest corner to where that yeah, right in there.

So the only one that they're probably looking at would be not putting in based on the flood zone would be uh it looks like lot five.

And that would where it would take it down from one eighty-six to one eighty-five, but we'll give Mr.

Cross a chance to there'd be a lot of design changes that might happen based off the total.

I guess my point is that would be probably the only place where they're losing a property.

Uh it like I said, we'll get him to address that.

Correct.

So did you have anything else, Mr.

Weezing?

That's all.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So that's all we had signed up to speak.

So Mr.

Cross, you want to come up and uh we had some emailed comments on the okay, I didn't know that.

All right.

Well, I hope that her read.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They're short.

We're good.

Um the first one.

Hello, please keep our residential zone completely and purely residential.

I live nearby and would prefer not to have commercial traffic near a park and homes.

Thank you.

Adrian Carabio.

Next one.

As a long time broken arrow resident, I disagree with the proposed changes to all business operations next to residential areas on Garnett and Tucson.

Joseph Marino.

Next.

Please leave our neighborhood as a quiet place to live.

I'm not against growth and development, but please don't make our quiet dwelling places into businesses.

Juanita Harris.

I live in Allegian Fields.

I want to register my vote against transitioning the portion of the area from RS3 to commercial general.

My reasons are as follows.

This change will increase traffic to the area.

This change will increase noise pollution to the area.

This change will increase the production of refuse in the area.

Those are the practical reasons.

I am against this change in zoning.

From a personal standpoint, this area is one of the last rural regions filled with wildlife and beauty that will be lost to us with the addition of commercial ventures.

I cannot be alone in desiring to maintain this natural beauty.

We are fortunate in that we can look upon the farms and agricultural plots around us, yet have every convenience within a three-mile radius.

Thank you for your consideration.

So tonight is not a comprehensive plan issue.

Yes, we would still have to do all of the future zoning.

It would just mean that they don't have to do a PUD amendment with the rezoning at that time.

But what my point is is the commercial at that node, which is what we like to see is pretty much commercial at nodes, right?

That's our list shown in the comprehensive plan is a commercial node, correct?

That's what I would like to see is the comprehensive plan.

Can someone pull that up real quick?

Is that in the agenda?

It should be in the agenda packet.

Did I miss it?

Oh no.

Yeah.

That's what I was hoping to see.

Yeah.

Well, you're getting that.

I I just have a question.

Um you can't build in a floodplain, right?

Correct.

No, you have to raise it up and make it out of the floodplain.

So therefore you have to get with um the core, etc., etc.

And you know more about that than I do.

But that's not what they came in to do here.

The reason there's no um the the whole area is level two.

The reason there is no higher levels on the hard corner is because that's floodplain.

So I guess my point is.

My point is the commercial is not shown on there on the current comprehensive plan.

Correct.

So they, according to the narrative, they would have to come back for a comprehensive plan.

So I guess I'm not sure if we need to lock in the PUD that that be a comprehens uh comprehensive plan and change.

It seems to me the comprehensive plan and change requests would have to come in first.

First, and then you can do that.

Before the PDT.

It could go either way.

Um with this direction, the process would be it would be designated as a commercial future commercial development, and then they would still have to do all of the rezoning, but when the rezoning came, they wouldn't need to amend the PUD at that time.

And the comprehensive plan.

Right.

The comprehensive plan would need to go either way.

Um but if we were to remove that from this request, then the future applications would be the comprehensive plan and then a rezoning and PUD amendment.

And that could be in the same night, right?

Yes, but it would be an additional application for the RPM.

Correct, correct.

But I mean that's the way it is.

I I I guess if you approve of the commercial in this PUD and you don't have to, but if you do, you're it's almost like you're sending a message that yeah, we're gonna approve of the PUD or the comprehensive plan change, and we don't know that.

Even though that's what we prefer, is the commercial to be located at the nodes at the intersections.

I'm just throwing it out there.

I don't know what so I was bringing up the question because it did seem like we were putting the cart before the horse.

Um but now that you finish that portion of let you speak.

Well, I'll speak to that.

It's not that big of a deal to this application.

It was just because we're amending it.

We and we know broken arrow is wants that at that area.

That's why we included it because we're doing an amendment tonight.

It doesn't i it really makes no difference as to what we're talking about tonight, whether or not that's designated as commercial or not moving forward.

So we can also do things tonight to keep from dragging the feet in the wagon.

In other words, we don't have to have to approve the commercial, but we could prove everything else in the PUD.

So you could keep making progress, that makes sense.

And if you do ever decide to you're really adamant about getting that commercial correct, you come through with a comprehensive plan change and a rezoning and PUD amendment.

Correct.

Correct.

So in that that to me that makes more sense to put it in that line of thought, I guess.

Fair enough.

Yeah.

Um I don't that's not an issue.

Okay.

Um so I want to touch on the comment earlier though, that because I'm not following, and I'm I'm not I'm not trying to be rhetorical.

I truly am not following.

The the code, as you all know, defines density, which is how we define uh the clo res the classification of residential uh housing that's that's that's um appropriate for an area in one way.

I mean it's the it's the air, it's the acreage divided by the number of dwelling units.

And the I mean staff again can this is I I obviously work for the applicant, so but the the density with these increased lots is not above RS3 on the project.

It's it's squarely within RS3 and actually significantly lower than what RS3 would be allowed by right if you just rezoned this RS3.

Am I wrong about that?

Is that a well we don't really have RS3 anymore, so it might be a little bit of a um research project.

To answer that question, which does it?

Mr.

Cross, when you do look that can you compare and I understand what you're doing there, but you got the RS3 versus the strict zoning, straight zoning, correct?

Correct.

Which covers every everything, and then you have your PUD which takes out your on-site to storage stuff like that.

When when the comparing you're saying you're saying you're saying the would you take out the compensatory storage that shouldn't count towards the I that's what I'm wondering, and the PUD, I thought, okay, on the straight zoning, RS3, you just have your area, right?

It's you don't take out any ponding on site store stuff like that.

So you have that number.

Correct.

Okay, then when you do your PUD, you usually take out your on-site storage for the densities.

Is that not correct?

I thought that's the way we did it.

I'd have to look that up.

Yeah.

One moment.

Pardon me one second, I'm sorry.

Do you have any idea, Jose, in that the way we do things?

Sorry.

Don't we take out when we're doing the the these densities for a PUD itself, don't we subtract out the on-site storage?

I'd have to also double check, but I think that is correct.

I think there is a um between neckland area and both.

And all I'm saying is you need to remember that because it's not comparing apples to apples.

Maybe red to green apples, but it's not quite the same.

Yeah.

I thought.

Yeah.

So I agree.

So I guess maybe let me let me say it this way.

But I understand what you were saying.

Yeah, so well, I I is so we're at 2.69 per acre by my math, based on what I think is the is the net acreage.

I don't I understand his point, and I'm not arguing it, because it's it's uh I do this all the time, and and he's speaking from what a normal person uh how the how a normal person observes this.

The the addition say you're not normal.

I agree, but I well I might have some mental issues for how much I do this.

The the uh the um the the point I would make is that I don't know that it's a it's it's accurate to say that adding four lots dumps you over into a significantly different density level because I don't think that's true.

Well, and see that's the way I look at it as but also is do you got that corner, the northeast corner or northwest corner right there, just taking out one house like that, and you got th four lots you're gonna combine to three, it doesn't really affect that much the overall zoning.

Oh overall density for the subdivision itself.

So I don't know, it's almost like kind of late in the game to be changing that, if that makes the density level.

Yeah, well, yeah, I would I think well I would say it this way if we were adding enough lots that we would had to change the allowed density, then we would be here talking about the allowed the allowed changing the allowed density.

Yeah.

I'm not so I'm not saying he's wrong for asking that.

I understand that's the same.

No, I'm not either.

I'm not either.

I'm just looking at what we can deal with because we've already approved of your lot sizes and things like that for the overall PUD.

That's right.

So the best bet would be, and I don't know how to say this, but where you do your engineering and you find out you can only get three lots in there instead of four.

And that reduces the overall density.

So but it only affects that northwest corner.

Yeah.

I I mean it makes sense.

Are you asking me for a response to that?

No, I'm probably thinking out loud again.

Okay, okay.

So I have a couple comments, but I want you to have the opportunity to to speak on that.

Is that okay?

Because he may need a little more time than is five minutes.

Okay.

We'll give Mr.

Cross as much time as they need.

All right, so just a couple things, and I I need city staff's help um in correcting me if I misunderstand, but I'm looking at this boundaries where it's showing where the floodplain is.

Can you even build a house on lot number five?

When you look at the setbacks and everything else, and is this layout, is this based on the 186 or 182?

I can speak to that.

This layout, well, I can speak to both of them, but you asked staff, so I don't want to get in your way.

Feel free.

It was a general question to anybody that had an answer.

So the uh to answer your first question.

The representation here is an approximation.

We would not be here if we didn't think based on the engineering and the survey work that we could build if we couldn't build houses outside the floodplain and still fit within setback and density requirements on lots that we would be creating.

Does that make that make sense?

So the whether or not as projected on the screen, it you look at and you go, I don't know if you can build a house there outside the floodplain.

I don't know that that's like two scale accurate.

Exactly.

That's the one.

But it's a it's just a visual representation of the concept.

Possibly, yeah.

Okay.

Not an actual right.

So but my point is still that I don't think we'd be here talking to you if we didn't think we could, based on the math and the survey, do build uh on an additional lot.

And I'm sorry, I forgot your second question now.

My apologies.

Oh no, it was just wondering one if you could set that on there.

Um what's my second question?

Versus 186.

Oh, this is 186.

That's the 186 layout.

Okay.

Yeah.

So uh now I can also understand that hey, now you have more more land because the the floodplain changed.

You basically gained land.

Yeah, I don't really have an issue with that.

I did want to ask that question on the floodplain.

Um but I do want to talk about the sidewalk for a second, because we have had a number of people who have come before us wanting exceptions.

Some of them are single family homes that are expected to have a quarter mile stretch of sidewalk.

Uh we've had other developers and required other locations to have a sidewalk or an escrow account for the future, even in other areas that was arguably spaces that nobody would ever walk in.

So I also understand that the intent would be that the sidewalk would be added for that future commercial when the future commercial was developed, right?

Okay.

But if that never happens, if that remains in a floodplain, if that any of those things, and then 10 years down the road, Bigsby and Broken Arrow decide to widen that street.

This is the one development that doesn't have the escrow to help cover the sidewalks that we've required other people to do.

So that's that's where my issue is.

So do you have a problem having an escrow account to cover the cost of the sidewalk that would be on the west?

That would be along up and on the no, we don't.

The the the pro the the I get your point asking for whether or not you'd you'd escrow it, but the reality is I'm not sure you can build it with it being in the floodplain right now.

So the premise would be once that's developed or raised up, whether it's through road widening, and I'm talking about Garnett, really, is then maybe you could you could build it then.

The problem is you get into in some cases additional considerations about water flow when you go building the floodplain without raising it up.

Separate and apart from whether or not you can get a permit to build it.

I'm not sure you can.

Right.

So that was the premise behind, you know, what why would leave it for later when the development actually comes to that area because there's no reason to connect it right now, and even if you did, you'd be doing work in a floodplain to to build a sidewalk to no end.

But the question you've asked is about an escrow account, and that's not an issue.

Okay.

That's all I had.

Any other question and discussion with staff?

Or I mean the applicant.

No.

All right, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'll close the public hearing.

So any discussion.

Why does it seem like a microphone at all?

Well, like you all heard me speak.

I don't know.

I I am curious as what others think um regarding the sidewalk on the west.

Uh I think it needs an escrow or sidewalk.

I do too.

I agree.

Because I don't think that they're gonna be able to build.

And and yeah, road may be widened and that sidewalk may be removed, but then that road widening can fix it.

Would address some of the flooding and the and that's what I'm thinking because we've had other developers that we've said no, you need an escrow account because there's if we do it for one follow.

I think so as well.

Um especially with that being a capstone corner.

And I do know that Tulsa County is working on with different with different cities widening that road.

That's a good point.

All right.

So what's your point?

If nobody else has any comments or discussion, I am going to make a recommendation to approve PUD 002644-2026.

Item one to increase the allowable uh units to be no more than 186.

And to require an escrow account for the sidewalks that are along Garnet.

Not Tucson, just Garnet.

And Tucson.

Thank you.

Okay.

And that's only from that reserve uh reserve app or G, whatever that one was on the west side.

Yes.

From there on over to Garnet.

Okay.

Do I it is that good?

I follow what you're saying.

Okay.

And what about the commercial?

Yeah, oh, I'm sorry.

Uh in the P and make them come back.

So for the commercial property, I think they need to come back after a comprehensive plan change.

Okay.

That's my record.

We only want it to be the PUD for item one approved and item three of the PUD to have an escrow account for the sidewalk requirements.

Okay.

So does this is would this still be a minor amendment or is this a major thing?

I mean, I'm sorry, is it still a major amendment then if we took off the change of the zoning for that corner?

Yes, yes, because it's modifying the maximum number of dwelling units.

Okay.

So that's good.

So it'll go to the city council if it's approved.

So we have a motion for approval for with those stipulations.

Did you second?

I'll second.

Mindy Payne.

No.

Jonathan Townsend.

Yes.

Jaley Clempa?

No.

Jason Cohen?

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

Now that'll go before the city council on March 24th, right here at 6:30.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I did have a question, and this might be for Jane or Graham, or maybe neither of you know.

If the sidewalk is escrowed, do they still need a subdivision?

Uh a side road variants.

What kind of variance?

Uh sidewalk waiver for the subdivision uh land subdivision code.

Why the escrow by itself, but is there something different?

The sidewalk then we might have to research that one.

Okay.

McKinsey, I think it came up on the screen that motion failed.

It was a two to two vote, but it should have been it passed three to two.

Okay.

So just in case anybody's watching, it did pass for approval, a three to two vote.

So it'll be going to the city council March 24th, right here at 6 30.

So you have an opportunity to speak again if you wish.

Just sign up in advance.

Would you get to the meeting?

All right, thanks.

Next item on the agenda is item number 6C26-316.

Yes, this is public hearing consideration and possible action regarding PUD 002519 2025, a major amendment to PUD 307 and BAZ 002633 2026.

Aspen Creek Villas, 90.33 acres, commercial heavy to single family residential compact, RSC located north of Tucson Street and approximately one quarter mile east of all of Avenue.

These PUD is a major amendment to PU PUD 307 with the property located north of Tucson, quarter mile east of all of Avenue.

Um this major amendment and rezoning request proposes to change the underlying zoning from commercial heavy to single family residential compact.

This area is currently classified as level two urban residential under the land use intensity system via comp 001296 2024.

That was approved by City Council on my on May 7th, 2024.

The PUD development outline details a details of a minimum lot width of 52 feet, minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, rear and front setbacks of 20 feet, and proposes a maximum of 415 dwelling units for this PUD.

However, because this property is located along the Creek Turnpike, should the rezoning and planned unit development be approved, 80 feet of right-of-way will be need will need to be dedicated along the north boundary of the site for a frontage road on the south side of the turnpike when the property is platted.

Any additional required right of way and utility easements will also need to be dedicated at the time of plating.

The dimensional requirements are nearly identical to what is within the RSC zoning requirements of the broken arrow zoning ordinance that came into effect this past summer.

Developments in RSC zones are allowed to plat smaller lot sizes in exchange for 15% of the project area being dedicated as open space.

Requirements for open space are listed in section 3-1-13G of the broken arrow zoning ordinance.

The open space requirement will also be discussed in the plating stage of the development.

The development outline also details that no final plat for the development should shall be approved until funding for the Tucson Street widening is approved.

The April 2026 general obligation bond does name Tucson 121st from all of to Aspen as a project to be funded if the bonds are voter approved.

The proposed widening would increase the number of traffic lanes from two to five, as well as other improvements such as sidewalks.

More information on the 2026 GoBond can be found at BuildOurfuture BA.org or by contacting the automated bond, the automated, excuse me, automated bond helpline at 918-228-5921.

The surrounding land uses are as follows.

And there's residential multifamily there.

According to FEMA maps, no portion of the property is located in the 100 year floodplain.

Water and sanitary sewer are available from the city of Broken Arrow.

Based upon the surrounding land uses, the location of the property and the comprehensive plan, staff recommends that PUD 002519 2025 and BAZ 00262633 2026 be approved.

All right, thanks, Jose.

Any questions, staff?

Discussion?

Yeah, I had a question, and it was just based on the Tucson widening.

This in a world where the bond doesn't happen, what's the contingency plan to mitigate traffic there?

That's a good question.

Yeah.

Um, in terms of, you know, if if the bond um doesn't pass, I know that other communities have seen that happen before.

Um the one that comes to mind is Edmund.

I know they had a bond that didn't pass and did lead to some of their developments being impacted in that way.

Um I know that the city admin was working to find other ways to fund those projects, um, but they didn't have anything necessarily set in stone.

Um so if say the uh city of broken arrow bond package uh doesn't pass, um, I'm sure there will be uh larger discussions, um city staff and council and um city residents and all that about uh what steps would be uh necessary moving forward.

Uh my understanding is that a lot of the projects that have been named uh in this bond package have been um gone through lots of different uh sorts of community engagement and um input to get you know kind of what idea of what projects um residents in broken arrow want.

So um so I my understanding is that um there's a good comp level of confidence that this bond will pass and you know have these projects uh be funded.

But you can never know.

Voters uh voters can do what they do, so it's a good question.

Well, let me ask uh before the applicant comes up.

Let me ask you this, Jose.

So is it staff's opinion that I don't know how to say this really, but that the approval should be based on a on this it should be based on whether the bond is approved by vote or because that's all there was discussion about the funding, or actually when the funding I mean, what's the deciding factor?

The approval of the vote or later on down the road when no pun intended when funding is there, if that makes sense.

Yeah, with uh my understanding of of the bond vote once um and particularly with this project the that Tucson Street widening, it's it's a named project.

Um so within these bonds, um there has to be a certain amount of projects that are named and unnamed.

Um so the name projects, this is one of the named projects, and it's actually the first on the list of the uh street improvement projects.

So that's kind of one of the reasons it's uh it's kind of so we could say when the bonds approved that the money's there.

Yes, yeah.

Okay.

I mean the vote's approved.

Yeah.

Okay.

And one thing as well is um he adds in there that it's for the final plat, so you know that's still, of course, some time down the line.

We still have to go through uh, you know, preliminary, conditional, all that good stuff until we finally get to that point.

So um so I think you know April's pretty close, so we'll be past that vote uh for sure before that comes.

Okay.

Applicant.

We'll need your name for the record.

I did have one question of staff real quick.

Um you can stay there, that's fine.

Um I know that they have just depicted their plans and their their um their thing, but does that look like that number of houses could get in there with 15 percent?

And that that's a I think that's a good question.

That's one of the reasons I um added that in here that that discussion would come up for sure later on in the plating process.

Right.

I know I had discussed some of it shortly with um Alan as well previously, and uh my understanding was that for now this was just kind of the um conceptual plan that they have for the rezoning discussion.

Um he mentioned that when we get to the plating discussion, you know, right that will come up in the right.

It just looks like uh a lot more houses than I would think would fit with the 15 percent, but you know, it's wants to speak inside the options on your discretion.

I am a final problem.

All right, okay.

Thank you.

Um sorry, Alan Betchin, AAB Engineering 200 North McKinley and Sand Springs.

This actually isn't the first time that essentially this PUD has been heard by the planning commission and and ultimately it went before the city council where it it didn't fail, it just failed to pass because of a two-two vote.

Um the concerns that we heard at council were specifically about Tucson and the traffic along Tucson and um approving this number of lots on it and whether or not that was uh without some surety of an improvement coming on Tucson, whether that was a good a good decision, that was where the a lot of resistance was met.

Um through some ex extended conversations, that's how we came back to what's in front of you today.

What happened in the middle of that was the new zoning code was approved, which then changed some of the underlying asks that were in the PUD, but the PUD was already sent.

We didn't want to make any changes of hey, we're misrepresenting your or any of the conversations that we had had with staff or with council members were different.

Like if hey, I I came and talked to you about this, but then I brought you a different PUD that didn't look the same.

So our our ask and what we put before you is exactly as what it was before with the requirement that that Tucson be funded prior to any final plat approval.

Um my understanding from our conversations that whenever we were at the city council meeting and and the indications that we had from staff is that Tucson is actually already a designed roadway, so it was fully designed, sitting on the shelves, ready to go be built, and it was a primary choice of the initial funding packages of what would be because it was something that could essentially shovel ready.

We could go put it on the street as soon as bonds were coming out.

Um that that was part of what staff represented at that time.

Um regardless of that, if the bond doesn't pass, the the developer and we understand that we have a final plat requirement that's fully required for Tucson to be funded before we're allowed to move forward with our final plat.

Um this gives us the opportunity to move forward with some of the engineering discussions, get to the next layer of the project while not holding up, but ensuring that there is protections that were a concern with the city council and and the neighborhood of hey, it was mainly traffic driven.

That was the big concern, and and here's a solution to that.

Um and we can say that we are a hundred percent can't go go in the ground until that solution is we can't sell a house until that solution is funded.

Um that that's really what's in front of you.

So I I do anticipate that there will be changes to the layout due to the RSC zoning coming in in the interim here, because that that's where that 15% came.

So there will be some pieces of that.

Um certainly we have to comply with the requirements of as they're laid out, and we're not asking for any waivers or modifications thereof.

So if if I can't get to 415, we don't make it to 415, and that's okay.

That's that's the understanding of it.

But this sets up the protections necessary to be able to come forward asking for a project of something that we feel is uh what we've discussed with with neighbors with council and and ultimately with staff.

Let me interrupt ask you a question, Alan, before I go before you go any further.

So you want you would if the bond didn't pass, you would stop at the before asking for the final plat, correct?

Uh why would you stop there and not maybe go on farther and maybe look at is it because of engineering or would you not go and fail look at phases instead?

Whether that's in this bond or through a street improvement package, or whether they do it in sales tax.

I I don't know.

I'm just asking why you would go that point instead of going farther.

Because we want to well technically that's about as far as you can go because that means I could have already constructed the infrastructure and just be sitting waiting without an ability to sell a lot.

But it's really to offer the maximum of protections for this was the concern that was brought up to us, and we're trying to be very mindful of that concern.

I do meet it's at our risk.

We understand that.

I did have a question too.

Is the 15% is all that um in the PUD language?

Okay.

There's actually a minimum open space described in the development standards, and we do not we are bound by the language of it to the RSC standards, which require that 15%.

So there's no there's no exceptions afforded that to us in the document.

Okay.

Good.

I hadn't seen that, so no, and that's not that that is 100% the intent.

We know what this is, we know where we're at.

But like it or not, sometimes projects endure across those changes, and we are stuck in kind of one foot in one side and one foot in the other, and I just didn't I wanted to be very mindful and respectful of what we have spoken to everybody about that there was and no one thought we were changing the world on them.

So same same deal, same document, same restrictions.

Okay.

Go ahead.

We didn't shut you off.

No, please.

Yeah.

I'm good.

Well, let's touch on the frontage road.

Okay.

So you had the frontage.

Yeah.

You're smiling.

Yeah, it's been a lot of colours.

Because you knew it's coming.

You knew it was coming.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

I've had a lot of conversation about this frontage road with staff.

But not with us.

Oh, we had it, we had it on the comp plan and we had it on the PUD when it came over the first time.

Okay.

So, but I don't see any indications on any drawings, and that's okay.

And there's but let me ask you this.

On the front.

On the frontage road, you're showing 80 foot, right?

That's the requirement of a front road.

Okay.

So you're showing you're you're indicating 80 foot.

So that's taken off like I guess the fence sign of the turnpike, right?

And coming back to 80 feet, right?

So I I I guess why why, Alan, are we not showing it on the drawings to show the frontage road where it to make sure that it's we see that it's fitting in there.

So to be really clear, the the comprehensive plan does not say that it's a front edge road.

It defines it as a collector and it looks at it as mid block.

Okay.

Not to be done, like if you look at literally how it was drawn in, the only reason why it's being thought of as a frontage road today is because the apartment project is a very good thing.

How about service?

Humble service road.

That and that's that's very true, but it changes so we can we can roll a collector into an interior configuration to the subdivision, it be wider and built to that collector standard and still meet the same carriage responsibilities.

I understand, yeah.

Um and that's some of the conversation that we want to have with staff, but you really have to have that with a plat with what we're doing, and here's the ass that we have, and that's the next step.

Um we we have a layout that has an interior and internal collector road that connects back to the creek, because really running a frontage road whenever you have the creek turnpike at that angle, and then whenever you look at what it does at all of, it doesn't end up being very practical physically to what you have on the west side as you approach all of all of is almost three-quarters of a mile between the turnpike and Tucson.

So a collector road over there makes sense coming in somewhere in the middle, but whenever you shove it up against the frontage, it it starts to lose some of its transportation.

So this is like a very engineery response of that, like why we're there and what bothers me about that.

But that conversation is fully we are not there is nothing in this that waives a requirement of anything else that is in the subdivision regulations in courting, including a collector road, if that is what staff feels like has to be here when it's well it may not be staff requiring it, it may be us requiring it as a board.

The deal is is that you know we saw what was coming through on the west end was proposed on the west side, and how that frontage road was going to go through service road, whatever we're gonna call it today, okay, and how would this tie into it?

I mean, I'm not trying to make a big deal, but I'm trying to make what I do easier, and I don't see any indication of what would be in there.

We we can absolutely I think we should.

However, it however it gets tied up is a conversation that involves what the transportation purpose of that collector is that comes through that mid, because it's actually I think it's it's lay it at one point in time it was a mid-mile collector.

Was that how is it was defined?

Which mid-mile is the turnpike, which is where the question of do we need it comes?

But there is a configuration that makes the most sense, and I don't know exactly where that's going to be because there's a deeper conversation with staff about what that needs to look like.

Well, let me ask you this then.

What about the uh how many billboards are on your adjacent three?

There's four total, I think, between the parts of the city.

Three and the lease that's expiring.

So there's three that's in okay.

So you want to touch on those because there's no indication on any drawings that I see other than the aerial billboards.

It'll be subject to the lease, and if we have to leave green space around them, that's how it will they'll be dealt with.

Because those are sitting like 30 feet off from the fence, too, aren't they?

How far off of that?

They're really close to the closer than 30 foot?

They're the edge of the billboard sitting on the right-of-way.

Yes, sir.

The the the polls upright.

Okay, so there's a well see, and the cars aren't gonna be driving up there, so I was looking down below.

So I'm wanting to make sure that we got the billboards.

Taking that into account also to the extent if they exist and when they exist when we file a platform.

Well, but you threw me a loop there now because I didn't know anything about the expiration of the lease.

Yes, that's why we don't show a lot of I mean, there's there's a that's why there's another step to everything, which is the platting step.

Well, I may have to ask staff about this because if the leases are expiring, do they automatically re-up or anything like that?

I don't know.

I mean, if we would approve of something and that would put in the city in a bad shape, bad position about well, you approved of that with the applicant, but this automatically re-uped even though the signs, the billboards, even though it expired.

Our zoning designation does not preclude us from having to meet any restriction of a lease or any other private deed restriction that was on the property.

Okay.

So nothing that nothing that's approved from a pure zoning standpoint changes anything that otherwise is in effect on the property.

But this is PUD, correct?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

And that's all the more reason why I would think that we would kind of uh mention it in a PUD because it's not straight zoning.

There's no frontage road, service road, whatever we want to call it in the billboards.

Yeah, but that's a separate contract private to private.

Which doesn't have any which no, I'm just showing that locate showing the locations on the drawings themselves.

No, I'm coming.

There's no you can't, other than what you see on the aerial right now, and I'm not trying to get an argument with you, but there's nothing indicates to me on on your site plan or what you got your aerial right now that shows any uh service frontage road or the making a uh whatever for the billboards themselves.

I didn't know about the expiration of the leases.

Do you know when those are when those expiring?

Uh soon.

And probably depending on what happens tonight, they will probably be re-empt our soon.

I but I'm also the owner of this, so if they renew a lease or if there's any, I can't do that.

Well, we're not in the business assertions of the city.

I mean, here, I I can't there is there is nothing that precludes an existing duly authorized billboard from existing after this PUD is approved, nor is there anything in this PUD that allows us to remove something that is otherwise an authorized use.

Whether those stay here or a new release is renewed, I can't tell you.

But you have to understand that nothing was submitted in our package that indicated us anything about the billboards.

Sure.

So it's fair game.

If it anything in that that you deem to have the conversation is fair game in the PUD conversation.

Well, my point is we don't know what's gonna happen there.

And and I don't see anything about the service road or the frontage road or whatever called.

And my there is nothing in this that precludes the service road being required.

Right.

That this is a conceptual development plan.

There is a plat that has to adhere to the development standards that are outlined within the PUD that will come back and will have to address that service road requirement and any billboards that are on the plat of tracks as we get to them.

So we could go and proceed with an entire project on the south half of this that's 80 acres that never gets up to the service road, never gets up to the billboards, and could go you know what, five years down the road, half of it could be developed, and that could still be up there that that is still not as it's not subject to what could be any phase of this as we come in.

And I would I will add that just because I mentioned the the the road itself and the the billboards, it doesn't matter whether it's commercial or whether it's uh agriculture or residential, those things are there.

It's still there.

So I'm not just picking on you because you're residential.

So it's it's and there's an existing PUD that is already on this that has a commercial zoning associated with it that also does not mention anything about the billboards because they're an existing condition that you have to that you have to design around.

Um what is before you is frankly the only thing that could move forward in conformance with the comprehensive plan because the comprehensive plan amendment was approved conditioned on a PUD largely similar to the one submitted was actually a condition of the comp plan approval.

So anything that I brought to you that was other than what we have, there is a a very real argument for hey, that is not in conformance with what the comp plan amendment was approved to specifically do.

This PUD with the addition of the 15%, because obviously there was a zoning change in here, was actually the PUD that was the draft PUD submitted along with the comprehensive comprehensive plan amendment, and the comprehensive plan amendment was conditioned on a PUD substantially conforming to that being approved.

So this is is literally the only zoning that conforms to the comprehensive plan.

Is that I mean, is that a fair way to put that, Jane?

If it was a condition to the comprehensive plan approval.

Can you repeat that statement?

So the comprehensive plan was approved, can conditioned on the draft PUD that was submitted along with the comprehensive plan amendment.

I was not here when that was approved.

I'll have to do that.

If one was let's say assume assuming one was that so this is the thus the reason why we don't I'm trying not to mess with the PUD.

I'm trying to be very much in conformance with what we've always said we were going to do because that was the requirements of what was approved of the comprehensive plan amendment.

Yeah.

Because he understands that we like to see what we what they think is going in there before we make a comprehensive plan amendment.

And my interpretation, and I'm not speaking for any counselor or any former counselor or anything, is that the major concern associated with approving a zoning was the traffic and not being able to handle it on Tucson, it wasn't ready.

So this PUD amendment addresses that concern that is what we understood coming from the city council whenever this was previously heard by them last year.

Okay.

That's I'm I'm gonna ask you straight up now.

So on the area where the uh parallel road, service road, frontage road, whatever we're gonna call it, is is if it was shown on this drawing right here in the billboards, would that decrease your lot depths that you have up there right now?

It would be a different layout completely.

Okay, that's what I thought.

Yeah, there's no there's no when you put a collector on this layout, we changed the layout, which is a collector, okay.

You said collector, okay.

I understand.

And and that's that's where now the question is is it a frontage road?

Is that what the city wants to see?

Do they want to see a collector?

I don't know the answer to that.

So I can't tell you what we'll come back for.

That's a cladding conversation with staff.

But it also makes it harder for me to want to say, yes, I I think this is great, because I'm not sure if it is.

I'm not sure if it's what the city's really intent was when they laid out the comprehensive plan.

The collector street going through the neighborhood.

I'm not sure that's what they want.

I uh well and that islands off the the residential on the northern side of it that runs parallel to the turnpike.

I and uh well, I know we wouldn't want to do that.

I all I can tell you is that this was not a relic.

This was an amendment to the comprehensive plan that can specifically contemplated changing this area to the densities that are shown with that layout.

And I'm not trying to pick on it, I'm trying to try to do what I think is right.

I I hear you.

Uh and I'm I'm not I think this is a little misleading than what really our intent of the comprehensive plan was.

What I see on the north.

All I all I can tell you is this is the layout that was included with the comprehensive plan.

Where'd you come up?

How'd you all come up with the stub for the connectivity or stub street on the west side?

How'd that come about, right?

That location.

It's it's what we selected.

Who's we?

Staff and the other.

Um stub streets are chosen by the development that comes in first.

So that's how that's nothing other than that.

It was the convenient place for the layout.

Okay.

I didn't know.

And honestly, it was it split up the tract of land between little inks and the golf course.

That's why I didn't stub it into little links.

If you're gonna know the truth of it, I was like, hey, that's where I would want to connect to, it would be usable for me.

I'm just curious.

I didn't know if you sat down with the city and looked at a long-range plan about this and that or the developer or the app with it.

So we've had this is this original application, which was uh how long ago did we make the original P close to a year ago that it was heard.

The comprehensive plan was heard in 24, I believe.

So this application it followed nearly five years of conversations of how to develop this with the schools and trying to see if they wanted additional land we were going to donate land to them and all these pieces and and ultimately the answer was there there wasn't funding to build another school, so don't give us land because then we have an obligation to fund something and we we moved forward with the project that didn't have an objection from the school because we had tried to work for them so with them so much along the way.

Um I'm not trying to dodge any conversation about appropriateness of a collector or anything else, but I can honestly say from the engineer who is the responsible one on the other side of that like detailed conversation, that is a whole nother level layer that we have not gotten into with staff that I can't sit here and tell you what the appropriate solution is because I haven't had the conversations with staff today to to answer that question.

Today I can tell you we are not waiving any requirement that they have for a collector or anything else if it's a front end road carriage road or whatever we want to call it in the future, and it is 100% constructible across this site, as is the project from a development standpoint, and there are certainly conversations that I have no doubt that this commission will hold our feet to the fire for with whenever we come forward with a plat that answers those questions.

Well, you know, we've had applications come in previous to this, and the app and it was adamant that we want to comprehend or the uh the frontage collector, whatever you want to call it, the frontage road, service road.

We'll call I'll call it a service road now.

Sure.

So that's going through.

And it was my understanding that it was going to start at the apartments.

So the apartments are there on the west side.

There's no way to get through the west to the east, or the I'm sorry, the east side, east side to the west side without another service road going through your project.

It's true.

Or the collector, you know, whatever you want to do.

Yes, sir.

And and you have the stub street, and I guess the substreet would still be needed if you let me ask you this.

Okay.

And I'm thinking out loud, but if if the a service road was up there, would you tie into that with your subdivision itself?

Would you tie into that to go to Olive Street?

I um boy, that's a loaded uh depends on what you're not buying.

It depends on if it's built.

If you don't have to do it, it's a belt if it's built two ways.

Because right now, as to give you an example, right now there is a there's a collector right-away dedicated across the middle of the apartments, but because there's no way to get to the east side of the apartments over to Aspen because it's an unplated tract, and there's a significant creek crossing, which is really well.

I asked that because if if your subdivision is not tied into it, then the only use is gonna be from the apartments themselves, correct?

Or what development is going to take place west of you.

And which is why I've had questions about whether or not a collector was the right thing to have in the area.

Okay.

You're you're chasing down the rabbit of that that is a conversation that is deeper from a planning standpoint and an engineering standpoint with staff that we have not fully vetted out.

Okay.

But I can tell you if one's required.

Staff has made it abundantly clear in the in the recommendation that right now there is a collector requirement associated with it because of the comprehensive plan, and we're required to provide that collector or the 80-foot of right-of-way associated with it.

That's that's a requirement right now.

And the city just went through a big issue with it on the west side of you about having that road going through there.

I'm aware.

So there's no way I see it going from the east to the west on your property, your project, without something being up there.

So if that's the appropriate location that city staff wants a collector to go, then we will do it.

And if that means that we have a tract of land that is not viable for residential or in the configuration it is that's landlocked to the north of it economically, that's the requirements that we have of infrastructure.

That's would that help your 15%?

If we left it green.

That's what I mean.

I mean, I don't I don't think the city I I mean, I'm speaking super out of turn, but I don't think the city staff is would be hey, we want you to take a tract of land and landlock it up here and make it green and call it a park and not make any adjoining any of our residents that would otherwise like to use that.

That seems anti what is in the RSC code.

But hey, I'm not speaking for them of what the future may hold in that planning process.

Okay.

We we have a lot of expense that goes into the next stage, and we need to be sure that this is an agreement that city supports housing of this characteristic at that location with the appropriate conditions and protections put on it, which I feel like we have in this PUD.

our residents that would otherwise like to use that that seems anti what is in the RSC code but hey I'm not speaking for them of what the future may hold in that planning process okay we we have a lot of expense that goes into the next stage and we need to be sure that this is an agreement that city supports housing of this characteristic at that location with the appropriate conditions and protections put on it which I feel like we have in this BUD okay questions for the applicant I'm sorry I talked quite a while but not correct come on there's got to be more that one was fun no that's what the bucks for right big bucks all right thanks we have somebody that needs to speak so open public hearing we have somebody signed up to speak uh Caroline Ingram I think I got that right there I'm Caroline Ingram pull the microphone to you please thanks I'm Carolee Ingram we are the owners of Little Lynx golf course which is to the west that 40 acres there we we understand that there's a lot of development going on in that area um proposed and we know this project has been um going through many rent many renderings and and conceptual drawings so um we're sensitive to that and understanding that they're trying to get a solution to what they would like to build there but obviously our golf course is there it's our business it is the only taxpaying business in that area um we still have the floodplain issue that was discussed heavily in the last um round of this side of the creek turnpike so uh those things have not been resolved the traffic issues on all of and Tucson we all know about you've spoken about them the floodplain is right there um our back nine is just north uh east no excuse me northwest of that uh retention pond they've got on the drawing that area is prone to flooding already we would lose those holes if something is built soon I understand that they are trying to they'd have phases of their project just like you were discussing with the uh service road but we don't have resolution to where the water is gonna go downstream still and we I'm happy that to see that there may be a bond um ready to go for the widening of uh Tucson but we have the huge innovation district going on all that water is being pushed over to the west it's gonna widen what is the creek uh the floodplain now and there's been no nothing to address that yet we have met with the city to discuss our concerns with that but um again money we've talked about two count to uh one county two cities potentially all the way down to the river so those are concerns of ours as business owners and taxpayers and we'd like to have those addressed um or understanding that they will be addressed if if development is going to happen in the area and this goes for anybody not just them.

I mean there are our neighbors we've known them for a long time so our concerns are about our business and our land and what the future holds in that arena you have any questions for me regarding that.

So you understand you mentioned that you understand the uh Tucson the the bond issue on that we do your big concern is the drainage right absolutely the drainage and and where the water is going to go when you develop it even though this is not just a complete you know piece of concrete like we discussed two weeks ago three weeks ago right um this is many little pieces of concrete that add up to a impervious paver uh a paved area and we want to make sure that we're not gonna be taking on that water because we're already taking on a majority of it as it is so all right thanks Psyche and what we'll do is we'll give the applicant uh a chance to come up here and talk about that and I guess he'll explain to you about on site storage because we we can't we can't allow them to increase runoff on somebody upstream or downstream right or backwater upstream etcetera so they they actually have on-site storage to actually so to be honest with it and I'll let the applicant talk about that they could make it not total improvement but make it better for you by absolutely holding back that Ron I thought I'll let the applicant talk about that.

Yeah right if nothing's constructed then there's nothing there to help you but if something's constructed right there's a lot of roughtop lot of pavement like you said in purpose areas.

Yes but they can actually hold it on site and slowly release it to keep from flooding.

Possibly but we literally on 121st Street and I understand that this would be part of the bond package have a uh you know the skinniest um under culvert over the under that road to take on a huge floodplain which I've turned into the city um already um you can see that on the FEMA map coming down that way so any time it would excessively rain or anything like that it can't it can't handle it already did y'all go to the drainage advisory board on that because somewhere I thought I saw something out in this area that was mentioned to them or the city uh my brother who's been he who is head of our water management is not here tonight but um he has met with many people city we've taken them out there um we've shown them what our issues are and where where we have problems where we've broken um pieces of equipment that we put in to help retain the water on our own property um you know just we are the retention basically because we're a golf course obviously we take on rain and that's the intention to um have our holes be complicated you know not complicated but challenging for players um so it's like a soccer field it takes on the water

Um we've shown them what our issues are and where we have problems where we've broken um pieces of equipment that we put in to help retain the water on our own property.

Um, you know, just we are the retention, basically.

Because we're a golf course, obviously we take on rain and that's the intention to um have our holes be complicated but challenging for players.

Um so it's like a soccer field.

It takes on the water and then it goes away and everyone comes out and plays.

So we just want to make sure you know we're not continuing to repair our our property and it get damaged over and over and over again, which we've identified with the city and those people um that are in charge of those areas, council members and engineers.

All right, thanks.

Okay, thank you.

So I'll close the public here and see the applicant.

Do you want to come up here and address her concerns?

Actually, sir, sorry.

I I did have um one letter from an uh uh resident that's up.

My apologies.

So this is from Therese Tim.

Uh he lives in the 6700 block of South Joshua Avenue.

Um he is in opposition to the item.

Uh he is um no says I strongly oppose this getting approved.

The school is overcrowded, the two-lane road cannot support any more traffic.

The stop sign at 121st and olive is already backed up with traffic.

We cannot have more housing in this area with current road school situation.

Sorry.

Thank you.

So again, one of the big concerns was the traffic and with the bond.

So do you want to address those?

Yeah, so we've um it the condition that we have for the for the requirement of funding of Tucson prior to uh being able to essentially move forward with any kind of improvements on the project helps both the the concerns from Little Lynx as far as the existing culvert constraints that are underneath Tucson, um, and obviously the traffic concerns that are in the area are addressed by a widening of the road that's to up to what is you know larger than what many of the road improvements are in other parts of the town.

Um we uh uh we'll we'll provide on-site detention that reduces the peak runoff rates to add or less than what they are in the existing conditions.

That's a requirement of development, and we have to document that as we move forward with the process.

Um and we will to your point that um we're we are proposing a detention facility very much on that tributary that directly goes across that, so we have an opportunity to do a very controlled mitigation effort right at the concerning location.

So that'd be the one on the west end of the road.

That's correct.

Um, we've already identified that as a place that that we were going to be very um intentional with our efforts.

So that gonna be a wet pond or is that that's okay.

That's what we believe.

Okay.

Um so I I think uh honestly we've addressed the the application before you addresses the concerns that we've heard from the community that we've heard um as we've tried to pursue this project over the last five or six years, and I think is something that um should be supported so we can move forward to the next levels and actually start implementing some of the changes that we're here to fund.

So have you uh this is usually Jonathan's question, but have you had any kind of engagement with the little links?

I'm sorry, I stole your thunder, but any kind of discussions with the Ingrams or or anything at Little Linux to uh we've probably drainage at some point in time back in in the initial phases of it.

I've certainly talked to them.

Okay, um, but I can't I I'm relatively certain we actually had detailed conversations when we were looking at the original phases of this PUD.

Um I I hesitate to make assertions like that because I've been on this property for 15 years.

Well, okay.

So it's like which one did I talk about when?

I was just curious.

I was just curious if you had the opportunity to sit down and talk to them about the drainage, how you will handle in detail about the drainage on their property.

And see, I don't see it getting any better in their area until somebody starts turning a shovel to do something.

And this is the closest thing right now.

That's directly tributary and upstream.

I have a question over all these years of trying to develop this property.

Um not considered reducing the number of homes to help address some of the concerns that people have shared.

We've we've had why why still the push for such a high density.

We've had multiple different revisions on it, um, from commercial to two single family.

Um the the reality from a single family standpoint is getting a product that's accessible from a housing standpoint is difficult in today's economic market.

Um density is one of the ways that that we can get into housing that and and I I choose my words carefully that I'm not defining affordable housing and what people think of as affordable housing, but gets to an accessible rate where we can get to something that is approachable like attainable.

That's attainable.

That's attainable housing, because affordable has very different meanings in our world.

We know that too.

Totally understood.

We're we're always competing against economics of trying to get something that is viable.

We've looked at um very different product, but that's there's a lot of that product out there, and the truth is is there's not as much demand for that product as there is hey, an attainable housing product that sits at this location accessible to the Creek Turnpike.

Um what I would say is if you're going to put density someplace, putting it next to an improved five-lane arterial row that's within a half mile of two entrances to a turnpike is the place that you want to achieve those type of densities.

So from a planning engineer standpoint, once Tucson's improved, this is absolutely where you want to do it because this is the place where it has the least most ability to turn over.

Um and so there is a give and take with that, and and we have looked at a bunch of different options, but this is the one that that we think is the most viable and and that we're proposing.

Thank you.

But weren't weren't you denied at one time uh on this piece of property for another application?

No.

Uh I'm going to choose my words.

I I failed to pass.

Oh, that's right.

That's right.

It was a two-to-two vote because we had a council of four on that night, and which is deemed a denial.

You're right, you're right.

Failed to pass.

And it was on the the PUD as presented without the requirements associated with Tucson.

It was the same for the residential.

Yes, yes.

It was this I couldn't remember what that was.

And our understanding of the concern was we don't know that Tucson's going to be funded, therefore we don't feel comfortable approving this density without knowing that we had to do that.

And when was that?

Within the So you waited for the year.

Um it's a our conversations with City Legal was that the addition of Tucson Avenue as a requirement for the project was a material change to the PUD and would be like to require the whole year.

Okay.

But we're we're dang near at a year.

Yeah.

So I'm not gonna lie to you whenever you work it all out.

I think this is the noise in this now.

Yeah, uh just real quick.

How is noise being addressed, especially for those properties pushing up against the turnpike?

The the turnpike is actually so these properties are are much higher elevation wise than the turnpike, which is the best solution against a noise problem because it comes up to the top and then it's falling off as you go away.

So there's actually it creates a natural mound system, so it's falling south away from the turnpike, and the turnpike is probably 20 or 30 feet lower than the roadway along those houses on the back.

Um and and there's certainly there's fencing and everything else, the the normal things that are on those edges.

Um honestly there hasn't been a real concern with that from a user standpoint and a home standpoint as you go east, there's a lot of residential that butts up to the turnpike, and it hasn't been a big concern.

So I live on the other side of the turnpike by the gate.

And up until the roller coaster revision, you never hear of the turnpike.

Yeah, now that you hear construction, you hear a lot of it.

All they don't there's a weird like and like there's a bunch of engineering sound study stuff that goes into whether they're required whenever you do a project with FHWA money.

But there it's an odd thing that I don't fully understand about why sometimes it's very intense, and then some places it's it's not.

I can tell you that we've done multiple projects along the turnpike as you go east from here, and it's never been a it's never been a concern of people purchasing homes up against that the home sold.

Well, around here right now is worse time because of all the leaves and stuff are gone.

And so it's pretty bad wherever you're at around broken out.

Yeah.

I'm like, slow down, please.

Sorry.

I know.

No, thank you for sharing, but as far as you know, possible tenants and customers go.

No, there's not your concern.

There hasn't been any concern with that.

And the and maybe I'm too jaded when I say this.

Uh-huh.

But the turnpike's there whenever you come up to purchase your house that's abutting the turnpike, so it's not like, hey, I was baiting swaps.

It's a known when you come up to it.

Right.

And and that's not to say that we shouldn't be mindful of that, but it's not it's not like, hey, I didn't tell you there was a planned road coming.

You know what I mean?

It was it was the turnpike before they got there.

My realtor said there'd never be a highway here.

Yeah, right.

That's real.

My backyard is going to stay forest.

Yes.

We've been a factor of that conversation more times.

Actually, I was on the planning commission back then when we approved that south.

They called it the South Loop at the time.

That was a lot of people did not want it.

Oh well.

Jonathan, do you have any other questions for that?

No, no, that was I held that one to the end.

You guys were doing doing doing great.

So I'm let them get through all that first.

But looking at the at the map, that's that was probably not saying.

No, that one is one of the thank you for answering.

Absolutely.

Well, I would like okay, thanks, Halley.

I would like staff's comments if if you have any about what your position is on the way of the service road, frontage road, whatever we call it, but it's identified in the comprehensive plan, correct?

Yes, it is.

And it's also shown on the West property going to Olive Street.

Yes, it is.

And I guess I'm a little concerned that we're not really identifying it anywhere.

I mean, to me, the drawings misleading to everybody that's looking at it.

It is, but it's just a representation in that.

I don't care, it's in the PUD.

And the same thing with the the uh billboards.

And and it the applicant admitted that if that has to go in, then it's gonna crunch down on the on those lots that are up there.

Right, but we're not talking about number of lots, we're talking about percentage.

This one has no mention of number of lots, it's talking about a 15%.

I want I don't want to I want to make sure it's clear we cap the number of lots under the density.

So it's it's less than density that that would otherwise be afforded.

So they're capped, it's capped at 415 we can't come back.

I mean we've seen you can come back and ask for more, but that is an action that's a major amendment that has to go back through the full vetting process, but it is less than the density that would be afforded by RSC on the same person.

Well, and that's fine and Danny, but it still doesn't address my concerns about the frontage road, a service road or the billboards.

So ask me.

I mean, unless I know for sure it's gonna come in later that way.

So ask him if he's willing to come back next in two weeks with that information.

You mean the table?

Mm-hmm.

Uh-huh.

For for with what purpose?

To show those items on a conceptual plan.

We we can show a conceptual plan, but I'm going to say the same thing that I'll say right now.

It's conceptual, and that is not the plan that necessarily is going to come back to the process.

But it's on the record that I see it on a drawing.

It's it's on the record that it's required in the minutes.

Is it yeah?

That's a requirement of staff's recommendation is that I have to have a collector going across to that's I said it because I want you to say that it's on the no, it's on the record, it's a requirement.

Okay.

And and uh if you presuming you approve per staff's requirements, they are very explicitly in their recommendation saying a collector is required across this.

It's in the unequivocally.

If I can add um the staff report actually does say frontage road.

Yeah, it doesn't say collect.

So it doesn't say collector.

It says the 15% too.

It says and and we actually have the 15% baked into it because we already saw that in open space.

What's comprehensive plan call it?

Do we know it calls it a frontage road, and it also shows um kind of a curvilinear north-south road from the frontage road to Tucson uh that is recommended in the NCOG go plan.

Yeah, and I'm not sure if we have to follow the the serpentine or whatever it is, but I want to make sure we're using the right version.

It's not up against the highway there.

Right.

And if we're I don't want to show you, like if we're getting serious about it has to be there, then I would rather do it right and bring the black that comes in right.

Saying that it's a requirement.

I'm perfectly I've not asked for a waiver of that requirement, and I'll be expressly clear.

Hey, that the comprehensive plan requires a collector road that transverses that that crosses this property, connects presumably to the collector right away that's donated that has already been dedicated in the apartment project to the east and will stub to the west.

That is a requirement of the comprehensive plan.

There is nothing in this that waves that requirement, and I understand that our zoning is subject to that.

Yeah, absolutely.

If my understanding is correct, the apartment complex to the east did dedicate an 80-foot um section for um right up against the highway.

Um and the legend within the transportation future transportation map in the complan does distinguish between frontage road and collector road.

So you're sat satisfied the way it's presented then for that for to address the frontage road and the billboards or anything like that, right?

Um I've also looked up and I don't have it with me tonight, but the approvals for the use permits for the billboards.

Um it did say that the property owner had to provide access to them to maintain them.

So that would also have to be addressed in any um future plans for the the site.

I just thought when I was since I didn't see the details on your drawings that when when I look at the billboards and I look at the area needed there, and then I look at the area that's needed for the road going through there.

I didn't say what type of road going through there, that it was actually gonna push you back quite a bit.

Sure.

Eighty eighty to a hundred feet.

Yeah.

That's a good thing.

Which is really gonna affect your lot.

Scale is very misleading on this.

That's nearly three-quarters of a mile along our western boundary.

It's a hundred feet is not as as devastating to a project of this size as as we would it's doesn't materially change the game.

If that's where if that's where it needs to be.

But I don't want to I want to do a collector the right way.

And I'm not gonna tell you that I that the right way is shoving it up against the highway and running along the highway the whole side.

If staff, if that's ultimately where city staff wants it, and engineering comes up with, whatever.

That's not my decision to make.

But there is I don't believe that is how it is represented in the pictorially east to west.

It doesn't connect to all of at the end at the turnpike own ramp.

No, it's it's down.

That's my point of sometime I have to deviate from that place.

And what is the most intelligent and logical place from a development standpoint that makes that road useful for its purposes, and I don't know the answer to that because I haven't had all those conversations with staff to know that.

Yeah, I think if you look where the church is, what is it, walnut grove, and you go up, it's about halfway between there and the north up to the turnpike itself.

Absolutely so somehow that's got to tie in once it crosses the creek there, right?

And we have we have a layout that that uses it internal to the residential.

Um I just don't know that that's even really what is desired by a frontage road whenever we look at it from a planning standpoint.

So I I'm not prepared to show you what is correct because there's a number of conversations to have, but I'm telling you it's required, and staff has made that abundantly clear, as have you in your conversation right here, and we're not disputing that.

I just want it to be on the record.

That's all I'm doing.

I'm not disputing it.

Yeah.

I mean, I would now because it's on the record.

That's not it's not I it is what it is.

And you understand you could have fewer homes because of it.

Yeah.

Everything is not an issue.

Maximum number of housings, houses associated with this.

15%.

That that is the nature of development, and that's getting to the next stage.

Okay.

All right, any other discussion.

Thanks.

All right, I guess we're ready for a motion.

Or some more discussion, whatever you want to do.

I'll just tell you that I've been hearing from a number of people.

They wish to see larger lot homes and broken arrow.

There's been so many passed with the smaller lots.

Now I don't remember what I voted on before when this went for recommendation, but um just concerned that's that's still 400 plus homes.

That's a lot of homes packed into a lot area.

An area, and it is a large area.

And and I do agree with what the applicant was saying that if you're gonna have something like that, you need it near the highway.

But again, I'm hearing something different from the community.

Stop approving these compact neighborhoods.

Right.

With these zero lot lines complex right next to it that has the apartment complex right next to it that lends itself even more to a housing situation like this versus one with larger lots.

So you're an agreement to the residential, just not the compact lots or whatever, is what you're saying.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with this being residential and the homes and the the layout, and I would expect the developer to make sure he didn't have any water intruding on other people's properties.

And uh I know the city engineering would be on top of that when they're development, but I just know what I'm hearing from the community regarding compact homes.

These these smaller homes and that's just my opinion.

So I just thought I'd mention it.

All right, any discussion?

Um let's let's well, not hearing anything, I'll just make a motion to deny um item 6C26-316.

I'll second.

I have a motion second, I have roll call vote.

Mindy Payne, yes.

Jonathan Townsend?

No.

Jaley Klempa?

No.

Jason Cohen?

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

No.

Okay.

So actually your motion got denied, so that means that does that mean it's approved?

Yeah, I have to make another motion.

Okay.

Okay.

I think it's I would like to see.

I someone else can make another motion too.

Yeah, Mindy's working on one.

I would like to see bigger lines.

Or this to stay commercial and well, I would recommend that we table this or give the applicant a chance to address.

I I don't know, maybe I'm wrong here.

To address more of the frontage road service road.

Uh-huh.

Uh that and the billboards.

I think to me, those are two items that really stick out to me.

How it's going to tie in from the west to the east side.

And if you want to go with uh larger lots, we can put that in there too.

I mean, I know you're going to lose some lots.

Now, whether you can get 415 or not, I don't know.

Should we say 285 lots?

No, I don't think so.

But I think I I I agree with Jason that we are getting way too many of these smaller lots, but we shouldn't hold your property hostage.

We shouldn't take it out on you.

But there is a way to actually put some smaller, some larger lots out there too.

Is that workable to you?

Like a two-phase, like we've done that.

What's the property that's Lynn Lane and where the FFA barns were?

What am I thinking of?

Out that way where they did two phases.

This would be like what's at Tucson and County Line.

Yeah.

On the southwest corner, Tucson Village is the name of it.

This is also what that's not thinking of.

I that just this is exactly the same requirements.

And um Lynn Lane.

Well, it's doable because I know at Lowe's when that was put in years ago, we put just north of Lowe's, we had a strip of RS2, and then from the r the rest of that was RS3.

Right.

So okay, and we also did that at another place not too long ago.

My statement to you is the more things we take, large swaths of usable developable land for collectors or additional green space or whatever have you, it's the less density we have, which is then we're gonna have like the smaller lots are how we make up for that because I'm losing area to what otherwise would have been developable tracts of land.

So to your point, if it's uh if if it's a maximum number that hey, I'm I'm concerned about density, then that's a different conversation than I just don't like 52-foot lots.

And that kind of brings back a different both of those are very different plans that would be presented.

And I I'm not trying to this isn't our it's truly a hey, I want to bring something that answers the concern and taking big swaths of them out of land out isn't going to get us to a uh a project that gets to the home.

If you're looking for a bigger footprint lots, uh houses, not lots of sales, but you know, a lot of people next to the apartments, they don't want that too.

They don't want to be adjacent apartments when you have the bigger footprint of a home.

I mean, if bigger, bigger footprint is more expensive housing, which is usually not where we go up against the highway.

Highway or apartments, and we talked about that's transitional right.

And which is why uh and I'm not I I certainly respect your what you're hearing in your statements by no by no means am I refuting your statement.

It's fine.

But that's why we look at that something like this as hey, there is an appropriate place for them that is transitional because they're because everybody can't afford a half million dollar starting home.

But there's no reason this being see, this is a PUD.

So you could come back, you know.

This is what supposed to be a win-win thing, right?

Scratch our backs, whatever it is.

So at the frontage, your lots along the frontage of Tucson, you could come back with larger lots just along that stretch there.

And is maybe that's something that we would be willing to look at.

That doesn't we we can absolutely look at mixed product and and blending it if that if that is the ask right that that we're hearing.

I would think yeah, Tucson and maybe to the west and keep the court or typically want to do your biggest houses up against the arterial.

Well and that may not be, but that's something that's a good thing.

But there is a button.

Somewhere in the middle to the west.

If that is the ask that we have that maybe do a horseshoe we were looking for a blended product, we've had a blended product layout that we've done on this maybe a horseshoe and with the larger lens in the middle on the west.

That kind of guidance is is a little bit of what respectfully I I ask whenever it's hey, we want a continuance to come back and bring us something that's more what we want.

Okay.

What what is it w uh help me understand what that is so that we are giving you what we want you want to come back to us on coming back with the two.

To look at something like that.

I think there's d the concern I've had is the quality of homes.

So let's just put it in.

We do hear that we do hear that.

Smaller compact neighborhoods with with homes that people would desire to be of a better quality.

So what does that look like?

So can you do it with this?

See, we can do it.

Can you you know that mix it workmanship?

We can't do that.

That's not our job.

There's arguments about it.

I I understand.

But that is but that's the problem.

They come with compact community, you know.

Right.

So some of them.

Some of them.

Yes, I I do know some that are half a million dollar homes in your life.

Three feet between one home to the next.

Totally get it.

Totally understand that.

I just thought I'd raise a concern that I have heard from people, and here we are looking at a development with 415 homes maximum.

So I just put it out there as a concern.

As far as this being residential, uh as far as the the PUD itself, as far as the um waiting on the time for the funding to be available.

I think it's a good plan.

I think it's good laid out.

I think it answers a lot of people's questions for sure of what are you gonna do about traffic, what are you gonna do about this, what are you gonna do about that?

And I think you've answered all those questions.

And uh I can appreciate the work you've put into this.

Especially 15 years, and didn't really oof.

You just want to get rid of this one.

That's that one that just won't go away, will it?

Off the dock, guys.

I'm just looking to get it off the dock.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

And anyways.

So that that's where I'm at, but I'll leave it all to you.

Well, I agree with what you're saying on the smaller lots, but I also know for being on here before and now that you're right.

I mean, you're not gonna get the big lots adjacent to the turnpike or or railroad tracks or the apartments, they just don't want to be there like that.

So that's something that maybe depending on what you want to do with this, you could go back and look at and say, or is there a time you could do it between now and another if we were to prove of this tonight?

I don't think we want to do that because there's too much stuff in the open to approve of it, I think, tonight.

That we would be willing, I think, to table it if that's or you can ask us to table you want to do it.

Continue it.

If the if there is uh a willingness from the commission to table it and let me go back and talk to the client and find out what is reasonable on it.

Yes, there's that'd be fine.

There's a reality um that of what is viable.

Right.

And and I'm and I can totally respect the sentiment of quality of housing, and there's even things we can do with masonry requirements and some of the stuff that helps with those quality of housing construction.

We can that may be something that we can come to implement as well.

And with it being a PUD, could absolutely ask for those things.

That is a that is a a reasonable thing to to look at as something that we can do.

Um though you can build a really poor quality masonry house that doesn't affect.

But yes, yes, you can.

Absolutely.

If that's the concern, it's not the lot size and the density, then we can go look at things to help guarantee quality coming back in and the quality of the house and what it is.

Um and still meet the same goal and the intent.

And and we'll I'm I'm happy to go back and look at what that looks like and and see what we can offer and what makes sense and what's still is within the bounds of what is the if this was a table it and I know you probably may not have time to lay out your drawings and stuff like that.

Would the would the planning commission if we did table this two weeks, whatever you want to do with it?

Would that give you plenty of time to put together a narrative or whatever to present to us?

Maybe you don't have to have the detailed drawings, maybe start circle and say I'm looking at doing this in that area and this and that area, something like that.

Or do you need more time?

Two weeks is enough for and I don't want you to spend a lot of time on the CAD machine, you know, putting the changes.

Yeah, but at the same time we got it we gotta make sure it works so there's a functional thing for us.

But two two weeks is enough time for us to bring something back to the planning commission that um because I think there's a real opportunity for us to do it without my messing necessarily with what is proposed, other than the collector.

But I think we I hear it, I hear you.

I'm not doing anything about that, but I think we need to give it something that ensures quality that is something that's durable that lasts, that the project is something that you're proud of, and but I think we need to give you decent direction, decent direction on what you need to bring back to us so we don't just keep going back and forth.

It helps me a lot.

Right.

I can s I can throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.

Well, not to mention you could have a nice home right now by a golf course.

You can, so hey.

As long as it's there.

Okay.

Do you need anything from us on this or do you um we'll we'll look at it if if you guys will continue for two weeks, we'll bring it back and we'll see what we can come up with.

Do you have enough direction from us?

Uh well, we got enough to swing.

I'm not gonna ask the applicant this, but I am gonna ask staff.

So am I asking too much for them to show the service road on the drawings?

If they provide us in drawing, somewhere at least the right-of-way that should be dedicated for it.

Um if we do um table for two weeks, um, that would be the March twelfth meeting.

However, uh we would need the plans in earlier than that, so staff has a chance to review them.

Okay.

So we're in the new staff report.

So when would you need them by how much time do you need?

Preferably the Thursdays, like week beforehand.

That would be kind of a week from today.

Well, no, we need to give you plenty of time.

Let's not do um, March 26th.

March 26 good with that.

Yeah, yeah.

That's remote a week.

I'm not gonna we can't get home to that.

I'm not gonna lie.

C twenty-six dash three one six to the March 26th planning commission meeting.

Second.

And I think you're clear on things we're gonna look for.

Okay.

Motion and second have roll call vote.

Mindy Payne, yes.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

J.

Le Clempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorin's.

Yes.

So we'll see in four weeks.

Four weeks.

Four weeks.

Except are you coming in with new glasses and everything?

The other guy.

So Mr.

Betcham, I'm actually gonna bring something up for discussion.

It's gonna be a short one.

So do you got a few minutes?

Sure.

All right.

So I I know you'll be able to touch on this, I think.

It has nothing to do with yours.

Okay.

So item number seven appeals we have done, general commission business number eight, we have done nine remarks inquiries.

Something I didn't want to bring at earlier one, but I know Alan could probably talk about this compensatory storage.

That elision field, whatever, that one lot that they could take out.

Are you all familiar with compensatory storage?

Yes.

Okay.

So do you want to talk about that as an applicant's point of view of how you would handle that?

The process.

Have you done that in any of your applications or um story?

Uh because actually, if you look at south of his where the floodplain is on that property, he could have filed for compensatory storage.

And he could have backfilled what that is.

You want to explain how it works out.

So you take a floodplain, we go in, we uh all the dirt that we place in the floodplain, we take out of the floodplain, so there's one to one ratio of everything that's below the floodplain elevation.

Um with additional documentation, you can show that there's no adverse impact to the floodplain, and you can actually modify the floodplains legally totally in conformance with the code.

Um there's requirements associated with that beyond just volume, depending on where you're at, like there's could be floodplain modeling that we have to do and those type of things.

But yeah, we may have and we've done it before.

Yeah, they didn't have a lot of things.

So you rob Peter Paul.

So to tell somebody they they're not gonna be able to build in that lot, period.

No, there's another way to do it, and that's compensatory storage.

Well, they have to build the best way to put it is they have to build per the rags.

Yeah.

I guess is I'm not criticizing because it it's a heavy lift.

Clearly it's not when you're running, I'm not running a new floodplain lots.

But it's it's it's doable.

Yes, it is, it's possible.

Well, I wasn't aware of that.

Well, no, that's why I didn't want to bring it up to the other guy, but it is.

You take preparation.

You did take it.

I mean, it's usually yeah, and it's usually a commercial or a school project that does something like that because there's a lot to do with the core of engineering.

We did it with a church over there off Olive Street between 81st and 91st year.

Uh yeah, 81st, 91st years ago.

Well, I remember other applicants coming up before us that was waiting on the final documents from FEMA because they had submitted a floodplay change and stuff like that, but I didn't know that that type of modification could be done.

So appreciate that.

Months, months.

How long?

Months.

Yeah, yeah.

Three to six at least.

Once we turn it in, because you're not there anymore.

Oh, so it comes back quicker.

Oh, anyway, I just wanted to.

I just wanted to bring it up.

There is another way of doing that.

But you don't want to build fast.

You're not building in the floodplain, but you backfield and you took it out of another area.

Yeah.

So anyway.

All right.

Any other items for discussion?

Yes.

I want to remind everybody to on the bond for Monday night, March 2nd.

Union, 8th grade center.

From 6 30 to 8 30.

Go see what it's all about.

Right?

Yeah.

And then March 12th and March 26th.

And then also April 2nd.

Yep.

Can I get a few more of those um cards that we had last meeting as well?

There's actually a stack of them.

If you come in that door down there when you come in that entrance right there, that shelf right there where that lady works right there.

There's a whole bunch of them on the counter right outside.

At least there was while a good one I walked by.

Okay, thank you.

A stack about that tall.

I have not yet found um what you were asking for about whether uh density needs to be calculated after we forgot all about that.

Uh but I will have that information for next time.

Okay, that's fine.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I I did find that uh it looks like it's only within the new zoning ordinance.

Um and it does say the gross land area for the purposes of the above described computation, and that is for permitted dwelling units.

Shall be the gross area of the PUD, less the lot areas, lot area or areas designated for any use other than dwellings, quasi-dwellings, and this is a key point, residential open space and recreation areas.

So the open space, recreational areas, and the dwellings do count into that gross land area calculation.

So I guess as long as the detention area is designated as a recreation, it's a reserve, but as long as it's day if it's designated a recreation area.

There are certain requirements for the open space.

Um, and those are within that 3-1-3G.

Um, and some of the are some of those requirements in there detail um on that open space how much how much of it can be within, for example, a floodplain or you know, an area that is kind of inaccessible, like a ravine or something like that.

Um I don't know the exact kind of calculations within there, but um, but there are specific there are uh requirements specific to that 15%.

So it can't just be you know the the floodplain, you have to actually it has to be usable open space.

Well I just remember that we used to look at it, and correct me if I'm wrong from what you know, Alan, that they were not you're not comparing apples to apples, you got the straight zoning, strict zoning, whatever you want to call it, and then you got the PUD and the PUD actually uh eliminates some of the stuff that is that not correct the PUD adds gross area if it's in the if it's in the regular zoning, it's net say that again the PUD adds so the PUD counts for the street rightways around it, and the other way it was net.

So we actually had more area we could get more density in the PUD than we could in street zone.

It was the other way.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Yeah, right.

You get more density in the PU.

Yeah, so Jose, you you're saying that essentially you could have two neighborhoods that are exactly identical, but one of them they're using the pond as a recreational area because it meets criteria ABCD, and the other neighborhood is missing one of the criteria, so it can't be counted as a part of that open space.

Is that correct?

Correct, yeah.

Okay, and there's initially so there's checks and balances on both ends to make sure and it's pretty well um detailed in that section uh 3-1-3G.

Um it's got pretty good protections in there, so that way it's it's not just you know, like a pit and you know say, hey, that's your open space.

No, it's yeah, I think in our old really kind of iffy or something.

I don't remember now.

I just remember Amanda talking to me about it, and I don't remember it.

So ready for motion?

Anything else?

Was there any other remarks?

Anything from the to me?

None from me.

Move to adjourn.

Well second.

Mindy Payne, yes, Jonathan Townsend.

Yes, Shaley Clempa.

Yes.

Robert Gordon.

Yes.

Thanks, everybody.

Thank you, everybody.

That was nice.