Jill are we ready?

All right, it's after 5 30, we'll go ahead and get started, have roll call.

Mindy Payne, here.

Jonathan Townsend.

Here.

Jalee Klempa.

Here.

Jason Cohen.

Here.

Robert Gorenson.

Here.

First item is item number three, old business.

We have an item for consent agenda.

Do we have any items that need to be pulled from consent agenda?

I do not.

And then we're ready for a motion.

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

I'll second the motion.

Have a motion second half roll call vote.

Mindy Payne, yes.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

Jempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Goron says.

Yes.

And Jill, just to clarify those none of those will go before the city council, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Item number six public hearings.

Item 6A 26-547.

Staff want to cover that.

Yes.

This is public hearing consideration and possible action regarding COMP 002721-2026 comprehensive plan change.

Creekside Commercial Center, 52.6 acres, levels 6 to levels 2 and levels 3, located north of Houston Street and east of the Creek Turnpike.

Comp 002721 2026 is a requested change the comp plan from uh designation from levels uh six to levels two and three on approximately 52.6 acres that is currently unplatted.

Um the property is located north of 81st Street, east of the Creek Turnpike.

The applicant is requesting this change to the comprehensive plan for the purpose of a future rezoning and development of the property.

The applicant intends to apply for a planned unit development and rezoning in the near future.

The development area plan document uh that is one of the attachments attached details the proposed development areas.

Area C is proposed to be the level three area, while area D is proposed to be the level two area.

Area A and area B will be other areas as part of a master plan development.

The comprehensive plans, transportation plan map does describe a frontage road connecting from Kenosha Street and Houston and Houston Street along the east side of the Creek Turnpike.

This road will be dedicated during the planning process of any future development in the subject area.

The surrounding land uses zoning and comprehensive plan.

For the north to the north of the property, the comprehensive plan is level six.

The current zoning is agricultural, and the land use is vacant and agricultural.

To the east, it is level three, the zoning is currently agricultural and it is vacant and agricultural.

To the south, it is the um Creek Turnpike and Muscogee Turnpike US 51 highway interchange.

Um so it's kind of there's no zoning or comprehensive plan really for that area directly south of the um the subject property.

To the west it is level six, uh, and that was recently uh rezoned um to industrial light and PUD 002489-2025, but the land is still vacant and agricultural.

Um and according to FEMA maps, none of the property is located within the 100 year floodplain.

Um, and then water water and sanitary sewer are available from the city of Broken Arrow.

Uh so the staff recommendation is based on the location of the property and the surrounding land uses.

Staff recommends COMP-002721-2026 be approved.

All right, thanks, Jose.

Any questions?

Staff discussion?

I do have something I just want to clarify for myself, Jose.

When you talked you were talking about the the frontage road itself.

Of course, we got areas A, B, C, and D, right?

Yes.

You said the uh the frontage road subject to area, you meant the whole area itself, A, B, C and D, right?

Not just certain like area C that was down along the turnpike.

That you mean that we'll um see I I guess what I'm asking is first of all, staff still encouraging or require gonna require the frontage road, whether it's approved or not approved, correct?

In the future, yes, yeah, during the plating process for when are we gonna actually have them dedicate right away for the whole frontage road along areas A and C itself?

Yeah, it it doesn't necessarily have to be or for um for area A and so the areas A and B are outside of this comp plan um request right now.

So the the ones that we're looking at is that C and D.

Um and the exact routing of that frontage road um can depend.

So it might not even go into area C or D.

It might be maybe they're wanting to do it in between C and D, kind of um, you know, taking advantage of those development areas and using that road as like a boundary for the so the frontage road may be dedicated in phases then.

Yeah, yeah.

And um, and if if uh you can pull up the uh and I'll get to the applicant here in a second back there.

The comprehensive uh transportation plan map, right?

Right.

No, there we go.

Yeah, and it's um you might want to try to rotate it.

And it's it is we we need to get a better um version of this document that's a bit more higher detail.

Um but if if you'll see along um the creek turnpike in between 81st um and 71st, um it kind of shows um a frontage road and the exact you know location and where we will be, you know, right um that will be more kind of in the plotting process later on.

Um but that's just one thing that's in the comprehensive plan.

And um I just wanted to bring up and having as a part of this.

Well, and I just want to make sure I know you submitted that document in our pack.

I just want to make sure that that y'all were still gonna require it no matter whether the comprehensive plan chain was approved or whether it's gonna stay as it either way you're gonna require that in the future.

Gotcha.

Okay, I understand your question.

Yes, and the dedication of the right-of-way will probably come in phases, not all at once.

Yeah, more than likely, yeah.

And especially if um, you know, say they you know do area B first and or area D.

Um it might be a thing where you know they're just dedicating the right-of-way.

Um one thing is well with this frontage road requirement.

Um the city isn't necessarily requiring the developers to build the road.

Um they're just requiring them to dedicate that right-of-way.

Right, right.

Um but with this development, you know, they might have to build it anyway as a part of the entire you know, master plan development.

Right.

Um but we're still in early conversations with them about the entire development.

What all the people are.

Well, I just want to make sure because anything that we uh say up here could.

I don't I want to make sure that we're not given the uh the idea that we're trying to waive anything like that.

So yeah, no, and if anything for the applicant, of course, um you know that frontage road requirement will affect, you know how the you know surrounding residential uses can be platted, um, you know, what properties can you know abut it, you know, can't have any you know homes fronting a frontage road or a collector road or something like that.

But uh but of course that's all more in the plotting process.

But I will ask, I I know we it's not tied down where it's gonna be in the and Nicole will she probably knows this, but I guess when that frontage road would come out on Kenosha Street, it would probably at the light itself right there next to the creek turn right where the entrance and exit is right there.

That that's why it looked like it was drawn up to me.

So I was just curious about that.

Yeah, more more than uh more than likely, and just especially in terms of you know for that future whenever the city does build that road or connect that intersection, you know, there's already a a light and intersection there.

So I'm taking any advantage of that.

But for the um but following along that line of uh thought the on the south end on the 81st one, um that one there has been some some discussion with uh the applicant and the developers um because I'm sure you all are familiar.

There's a um 81st is kind of like on a mound, right, to go over the creek turnpike.

Yeah.

Um so for them to connect in there, they'd have to do a lot of engineering.

So um so the exact location and what all you know that frontage road or collector road, whatever you want to call it will look like.

Um we haven't discussed too much in detail with the applicants, but um but I just wanted to.

Well, you know, and I know it's comprehensive plan change, but it's things that people might be interested in too.

And you submitted it in the packet, so I figure it's fair game, you know what I mean?

Yeah.

So the applicant, I think you have something you want to present, right?

You're right.

Obviously in that one.

Uncle Watts, Wallace Design Collective 123 North Art Lutheran King Junior Boulevard Tulsa.

Um did you guys get a conceptual layout that we provided at with our application?

Could you put this up or no?

It was not in my packet that I read.

Okay.

We submitted a draft PUD to try to answer some of the questions that you had.

Um the development area plan uh one might.

Is that the one that maybe I was talking about the whole draft PUD we submitted?

Um you guys don't mind sharing a little bit.

Oh no, not at all.

Sorry, I just brought three.

Thank you.

No problem.

Okay.

Um just to answer your questions and to kind of show you the plan for the whole development.

Um what we're looking at doing with the north part, um, half of the property fronting 71st Street.

We're looking at doing commercial lots and industrial.

Can you get this on on the overhead?

Okay.

I mean, can you you're do you have white put it up or not?

They don't have the overhead over there.

Not a problem.

And then this other in half is for a single family residential subdivision.

Um and as you can see with the collector road, what we are um proposing to um connect at the signal at the turnpike and then run south and then around the east and come out down on Houston Street.

Um so we are aware of the requirements to do a full, you know, collector road through there.

We've had um conversations with the city on that um and understand that.

Well, you answer a lot of questions with this because we what we were not provided.

And I know you're not locked into this because comprehensive.

But that's kind of what we're looking at.

That's what you will see when we submit the PED.

See, because my other question was will you tie into the stub street next to the industrial area right now?

And so we will provide access and um for that development to be able to get to the signal as well.

Because you know that um intersection by tractor supply is so dangerous.

Um so to be able to provide access from that industrial subdivision through there and up to the light is going to be a huge safety too.

Right.

Well, and I know that a lot of people concerned about the traffic at uh Houston and 2009th right there, this will relieve a lot of that traffic.

This will help there's that other development, which you actually show on your drawing here.

They're we've had and we're having small conversations with the development to the east as well about trying to work with them to provide them access as well off of that street to try to you know be the best for the whole area.

But you know, it could be quite a long time before this road ever goes all the way through from Houston all the way to Kenosha.

Yeah.

Unless probably not you plan on phasing it and doing it faster.

It's um that's why I was asking if you're gonna not only dedicate the right-of-way, but were you actually gonna try to build it first before other development happens, other like phase the areas, what is that C and A and B, I guess on top, the north.

Yeah, I mean, so A and B obviously uh as soon as we get zoning um is going to be going really quickly.

Um, and then there's a lot of interest on the south side as well.

So I would expect to see a lot of movement quickly on this whole thing.

So let me ask you this since you're up here.

I'm sure you all have some stuff to say.

But so tonight we're really looking at okay, the comprehensive plan change, but we're looking at uh items.

What is that uh C and D, right?

Area C and D.

Right.

So how do we handle areas of A and B if we're actually you're not looking for a change of level, correct?

No, but it's uh it's already level six, so it it supports what we're proposing.

And then um as soon as well, hopefully, once um council approves this comp plan change, then we will submit a full PUD for this entire 102 acres um to reflect what you guys are looking at.

So tonight it's only gonna be A and B, right?

Right, because that's because we're actually downgrading those levels to allow the single family residential subdivision on the south side.

Okay.

Not A and B, D and C Not A and B, D and C.

A and B is already allowed.

We're only talking about C and D.

Right.

Yeah, C and D.

I I'll admit when I was reading it, I wasn't the most um enthusiastic about it.

Um just doing the readings and mostly because I was thinking about the proximity to the turnpike, and considering that that should probably be more so a job generating business generating space primarily.

So but I do hear you mention a moment ago that there was some um commercial um some some ideal commercial situations or scenarios to provide that too.

Yes.

And I wanted to hear you just touch on that a little bit more, at least what is being envisioned there.

And is this space um are you hoping that it becomes more overwhelmingly residential versus commercial kind of what's the balance there?

Sure.

So as you can see, kind of with the plan, the north half is what we are proposing to be commercial and maybe light industrial.

The plan is, you know, you we've got that huge draw through the um center, which we're from old pits, and so the plan is we're gonna use that as an enhancement and put the detention in there and make them wet.

We're going to have fountains, we are going to put trails along the edges to try to create more of a community for that for the northern side.

Um, you know, with the amphitheater going on just down the highway, there's a lot of um activity going on.

And so the hope is we're gonna see restaurants, we're going to see different um commercial activities that might support the amphitheater and the other stuff that is happening in the area.

Um we did put a buffer to the east with for like a light industrial because we know we have the timber ridge industrial part to the east, and so we provided the like the light industrial right there to provide a buffer from the higher commercial or trying to do to the existing um industrial park there.

And then when you look at the south side, you look at the drop, you look at what's there already, you see the existing, you know, Bell Ago, you see the um, even though it hasn't started yet, the um development to the east with the cluster homes and the duplexes and stuff, it really lends more for um residential use on the south side.

And with that draw there, everything abutting the tree turnpike is only is going to be commercial, possibility apartments, you know, that you know, higher and and then tucked in the southeast corner on the other side of the draw would be the residential that kind of abuts with the rest of the sing you know single family to the east.

And that's kind of how we were looking at it.

Well, thank you for that.

I uh I wasn't committed to being against it.

No, yeah, there just wasn't a ton of information.

But I yes, I I do have those concerns, and I was like, I wonder if we can if we still had a point where we can just ensure the balance that is needed becomes a reality.

And I like how you said that closer to the term price to the term pipe, the more commercial it is.

Yes.

And that makes sense to me at least.

Let's see what helps to provide this document right here.

This picture, because not a requirement for you to present that to the planning commission, but it does help us to see what you're going to do to go from a comprehensive plan change.

Otherwise, just going to a comprehensive plan change leaves it really wide open for you for a level three or in a level two.

Yeah, we had submitted a draft PUD with the application.

So I apologize and didn't get to you.

Oh, that's okay.

That's it's up to city staff what they want to present to us.

So questions.

Applicant?

No.

Did we have anybody to speak on it?

I'm gonna ask.

I thought you had something.

No, no.

All right, thanks a lot.

Thank you.

All right, so I'll open public hearing.

Do we have anybody speak on this?

Nobody signed up.

I guess we'll close public hearing.

Ready for discussion with motion?

Uh I'll make a motion, but I I just wanted to say that I think that it's blended nicely.

Um the way the design is for that particular area.

So I I'm in favor of of the concept here and the uh the change.

So I'm gonna make a recommendation to approve item 6A per staff recommendations.

Okay.

I just just kind of wanted to say I don't think that that should be residential there.

I envision something more commercial.

I envision maybe like a hotel or something there in that little niche, and then the commercial stuff to the north, but you know.

I was just thinking the tied into that neighborhood that's just to the E the southeast there.

Right.

And just thinking that it kind of I just see tied in the blend.

But I I do understand what you're doing.

Yeah, I mean it's yeah.

I believe, like she said that they're more duplexes and smaller, they're not.

Um, and of course, this isn't really representing what it is.

It looks to be like single family dwellings, separate dwellings, which to me is we're going back from more transitional back to more residential, right up next to it.

Uh you know, maybe if they'd done something a little bit differently, but you know, that's just my take.

What do you think about I mean, because you can you heard my question.

So I had this the exact same concerns this week.

But what do you think about the the tie-in and the balance that that she was saying would have I understand it to me it's not quite balanced, which that's okay.

I mean, that's you know, but I mean I could see it more hotel multi-purpose.

Especially with the amphitheater going down.

I feel like this land could probably be better use for supporting that for supporting that instead.

But so but we still have a motion on the table, so I just needed to say my piece.

All right.

Any other discussion?

There's motion.

Well, I'm gonna second the motion.

I think it looks pretty good myself, too.

So I understand what you're saying.

Commercial I think we got a lot of other areas in that would go commercial too, but I'll just go with the second on the motion.

So we'll have a roll call vote.

Mindy Payne, no.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

Jaley Klempa, no.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

There we go.

All right.

So that will go before the city council on May 19th, right here at 6 30.

All right.

Next item.

Still love you, Nicole.

Yes.

Next item on agenda is item 6B 26 dash 565.

Yes, this is public hearing consideration and possible action regarding PUD-002519-2022, excuse me.

Major amendment to PUD-307 and BAZ-002633-2026, Aspen Creek Villas, 90.33 acres, commercial heavy to single family residential compact, located north of Tucson Street and approximately one quarter mile east of all of all of Avenue.

Excuse me.

PUD-002519 2025 is a major amendment to PUD 307.

This property is located north of Tucson and approximately one quarter mile east of Olive.

Uh the land is currently unplated and is 90.33 acres in size before right-of-way dedications are accounted for.

PUD 307 was created for a master development, including multifamily residential and commercial uses.

POD PUD-307A amended this PUD and changed the planned location of the multifamily development to where to where the now constructed multifamily development, the trails at Aspen Creek is located.

This PUD and rezoning request proposed to abandon the commercial development portion of PUD-307 in favor of single family residential development.

BAZ-002633-2026 is a rezoning request to change the zoning of the property from CH commercial heavy to RSC single family residential compact.

This area is currently classified as level 2 urban residential under the land use intensity system via COMP-001296-2024 that was approved by City Council on May 7th, 2024.

And this comprehensive plan designation does support this rezoning request to RSC.

This proposed PUD development details that the maximum number of dwelling lots is 350 or sorry, dwelling units or lots is 350, with 225 of those dwelling units or lots having a width of at least 52 feet in width, and the remaining 125 lots having a width of at least 60 feet in width.

The minimum size for all lots would be 6,000 square feet.

Building setbacks would be 20 feet from the rear lot lines, 5 feet from the side lot lines, and 25 feet from the front lot lines.

The development outline, the development outlines a request for zero requirement of open space area.

However, staff is requesting that some percentage of land developed for open for housing is set aside as common open space.

And I'll go ahead and interject myself.

So some of this staff report was written before an updated PUD development outline was submitted to staff.

And so we'll go over some of those changes at the end of my staff report.

So let me continue back to where I was at.

So, however, staff is requesting that some percentage of land developed for housing is set aside as common open space with requirements as with the requirements as described in section 3-1-3.

This section regulates what land can be considered as open space and how it can be used.

A development under the RSC zoning would be required to dedicate 15% of development areas as open space.

The applicant has stated that the intention is to provide livable open space on each lot as outlined in section 2-2-6-2.1.d of the zoning ordinance.

Staff recommends that common open space also be provided.

This could be accomplished by incorporating trails around ponds, providing a neighborhood park or another open space amenity.

Additionally, staff requests that there be additional information included on how the frontage road along the Creek Turnpike will be accounted for in the development as identified in the transportation plan of the next comprehensive plan.

While the property owner will not be required to build a frontage road, dedication of the 80-foot right-of-way is required.

The property owner of the eight of excuse me, the property owner to the east of this property has dedicated an 80-foot right-of-way.

There have been previous discussions on the widening of Tucson Street, the arterial road to the south of the PUD area, and this housing development.

On April 7th, 2026, voters in the city of Broken Arrow approved proposition one of the Broken Arrow Go Bond packaged, which include bond funding for reconstructing and widening improvements to the intersection of Tucson Street and Olive Avenue and on Tucson Street between Olive Avenue and Aspen Avenue.

Should this PUD and rezoning be approved, this development will be required to provide connectivity to adjacent properties in accordance with action item LU 2-4 of the next comprehensive plan, which states that new development provide access to more than run more than one roadway to allow for ingress and egress at multiple points and allow and to help alleviate traffic congestion.

Further, transportation and mobility policy M15 states that neighborhoods shall be linked together to provide ease of access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public vehicles, including police, fire, sanitation, school buses, and utility vehicles.

The initial public hearing for this request was held during the February 26, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

An adjacent property owner spoke with concerns about potential draining impacts, drainage impacts from the development.

After much discussion, the item was tabled to the March 26, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to allow applicant time to address dedication of right-of-way for a creek term for a creek turnpike frontage road, access to existing billboards, and to consider a mix of lot sizes.

The item was tabled again to the April 23rd, 2026 meeting.

The applicant has submitted some revisions to the development outline.

The surrounding land uses and comprehensive plan for the area.

So to the north, it is level 7 and levels 3 and flip plain and the zoning is agricultural and industrial light.

And the land use for the north is the Creek Turnpike, the innovation district, and some other vacant land beyond that.

To the east, it is level six regional employment commercial with residential multifamily, that PUD 307A that was discussed previously, and the land use is that residential multifamily to the south it is level two urban residential with the zoning residential single family, and it is a single family neighborhood to the south.

To the west, it is uh level three uh and greenway floodplain area as well.

I mean the zoning is currently agricultural and the land use is for um a golf course according to the FEMA maps.

No portion of the property is located in the 100-year floodplain uh and water and sanitary sewer are available from the city of Brocanero.

Um and then, like I mentioned, there had there were some changes to the development outline.

Um and then Jane, I guess you want to detail this.

Uh yes, if you could put up that document, that'd be great.

Uh just to point out what has changed in the PUD document.

Um page one under the development concept, it inadvertently refers to exhibit F depicting the conceptual infrastructure improvements.

The revised document has changed that to E, but I wanted to note that the correct reference should be exhibit D, which uh we can show you in just a moment.

On page two, under development standards, uh, what was included in your packet was um under open space, that the 15% minimum open space required by RSC zoning shall not apply since RSC densities are not achieved.

Uh in the revised document, that language now states that the 15% minimum open space otherwise applicable in the RSC district is modified by this PUD and is reduced to 8% of the gross development area.

Um there was just a typographical error under plating on page three, just the spelling of ballot uh when referencing the go bond, and then in the footer on pages one through five, there was just a reference to a different PUD number that has been updated to reflect PUD- uh zero zero two five one nine.

Um and then the um actually before we get to the maps, I just wanted to point out that also under the development concept.

Um the applicant did state that they proposed to abandon the remainder of PUD 307 on this site.

Um it would still remain on uh the trails at Aspen Creek to the east, but um, should this commission decide to make a motion to approve?

We would also want to see a motion to abrogate that portion of PUD 307.

So you would want it in the motion to abrogate to abrogate it on that yeah, it's in the PUD document.

Um it just wasn't in the recommendation line.

Um, if we can go to the updated um exhibits and zoom in on that so the conceptual site plan exhibit in your packets uh showed a collector road going through uh not quite along the turnpike, just a little bit south of that, uh running east to west.

Um this modified exhibit now shows the um area for a dedicated 80-foot right-of-way frontage road as well as a reserve area to account for the existing billboards that have leases on the property.

So now it will have the frontage road instead of going through the neighborhood now.

It will be up to the north on outside of the private neighborhood itself.

Okay, and when the trails at Aspen Creek went in, um, the property owner of this site granted in a permanent emergency vehicle access.

There is a reserve area showing there to provide that access to the apartment complex.

Um, and then this doesn't have to be addressed tonight, but we will eventually need a 20-foot-wide access area to the reserve areas.

So right now you've added a step street in also in the northwest area, right?

It looks do I see it?

You'd have to zoom in, but it looks like I see a step street on the northwest.

Yes, yes.

The the exhibit we have right now does not show the step street, but now you're good with having that step street in there.

Ideally, we'd like to see one along the southwest.

Should the property uh to the west ever change hands?

Uh, we don't know if we'll ever see development before.

Well, I was surprised that I didn't see like one down here on the lower portion also.

Yeah, like up along where the property line is up there.

Up right in there somewhere.

Yeah, yeah, just north of golf links or whatever.

But I'm sure the applicant will address this.

So I think that's the extent of the changes.

Thank you for that.

You're welcome.

Well, that's a big change taking the uh front edge road from within the development.

You'd have to see the other document that we have before us to change it all of a sudden go to this one here.

That's yeah.

And the applicant has been working with staff to try to come to this.

So Jane, I I was trying to think of something and you were still moving on, but let me ask, let me go back and tell us about the could you pull that picture down?

Just look, think right there.

That's good.

The the billboards that are out there now, how are we handling that now?

Are we gonna have enough the right-of-way is going to be outside enough to get the road in and still leave the billboard signs up?

We're not even gonna mess with that, right?

Correct.

The applicant is showing um, I don't know what the width of it, but a reserve area that would cover uh three of the billboards.

There is another one way off the northwest corner that may be over on the property uh to the northwest there.

I just see them there.

And the applicant had stated that that's one of the issues they've been trying to figure out is how to get the frontage road in, but again, for the billboards also.

Well, and that's what we were talking did a lot of discussion about before, and I just want to make sure that whatever that is done in this development here is not gonna be detrimental to the billboards themselves.

And it sounds like y'all's got that worked out, right?

Yes.

Okay, well, that's that's a big difference in what we had last time, I think.

Yep.

In a good way.

Can I ask a question about the open space?

Yes.

You mentioned 15% was recommended or requested from the city of the space.

Per the zoning ordinance, 15% is required for RSC zoning.

Okay.

Um in this particular case, there is all of the right-of-way dedication along uh the frontage road plus along Tucson Street, plus the reserve areas.

Um I'll let the applicant address what kind of um open space amenities he'd be proposing.

You know, it could be trails around the ponds, or there could be some other amenity on the site.

I'll definitely want to hear that.

But uh but I was wondering, I was asking you um you know how we got to eight percent.

Um what the process was that landed on that number, why why that was?

The applicant is proposing that.

Uh staff had not identified an exact number, but um the code also calls for livable open space on each lot, and the applicant is definitely in agreement with providing that.

And I think it's uh 2800 square feet per lot.

Okay.

Um, but we wanted to see some other kind of common open space for people in the neighborhood to use.

Yeah, me too.

Um, so so the eight percent is proposed by the applicant.

Okay, well, we can talk about it then.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So let me ask you another question.

It's not a trick question.

I'm just curious.

How did you locate the stub street itself at that location right there instead of like another lot up or another lot down?

How did you locate that stub street for the was there some mathematical process that y'all went through to arrive at that?

Or that's something the applicant will have to address.

Uh he probably just let the core and said that looks good to me.

But we'll so the applicant president you wish to talk?

Sure.

Alan Betan, AAB engineering.

Um we have, I mean, there's been a lot of iterations and a lot of different concerns that come through with this.

Um let's go with the the first part of the livability space.

So RS does not require require has zero requirement associated with it.

And whenever we go to 60 foot, so whenever all those lots that are conforming to 60 foot are really conforming to an RS standard that doesn't otherwise carry that 15% onus on it.

The PUD itself requires a livability open space that can be provided on the lot or in conjunction with um in common spaces.

It gives a flexibility associated with it.

RSC is unique in that it creates an additional 15% in common open space that has to be maintained.

Since we modified our requests to reduce the lot density and and create some uh variation in lots from a quality and number standpoint, we were looking to well really a significant portion of the development is now conforming to RS, which otherwise does not carry that requirement, and it does carry the livability open space requirement because it's part of the PUD, and that's how we got down to the 8%.

If you do the math on it, it it it equates.

That's how we chased it.

Um we've we've went a bunch of different ways with the collector, trying to find a place where it made sense.

This is paralleling what was done, which there are billboards existing onto the apartment project to the east, and this is paralleling what was done with that and what has been accommodated and fit.

So this is keeping in what was already in the corridor.

I think that's far better than what you have here on what was presented to us.

I agree.

There the lot mix um to some of the concerns that we heard specifically about number of lots and the type of housing that was proposed.

We went back and looked at okay, if we can blend the housing type up, one of the offsetting advantages to that from a commission standpoint is you're going to a higher price point of house, which fixes this the quality more aptly of what the smaller footprint of house is because you can't create nobody wants to buy that level of house next to a poorer quality small lot house.

And so giving you the blend because we can't regulate quality, that's always the problem that we have whenever we start talking about PUDs and lot sizes.

You can build a really nice high-quality 50-foot product, and you can build a really poor quality 60-foot product.

So, how do you regulate that in the document?

Um, this was a way to to one address the density issue that was specifically brought up.

So originally we were authorizing 415 lots.

This now maxes out at 350.

So there is a significant reduction in density from what was originally brought to you guys on our on our first plan submitted.

Um that also comes with costs and other things associated with it.

So that's part of the game that we're playing and why it takes so long to get get it to where it's something that functions and meets all those requirements.

Um the the plan that we actually show right now, and and I moving things around quickly is not a is not necessarily an easy come, and I don't want to represent something that's not substantially conforming to what we plan to build.

Um so there are some moving pieces that we want to do with some refining of where the 60s, some of the 60s may be in that kind of piece, but we set the structure of the PUD that limits the numbers.

So there's not going to be more than um 225 lots that are less than the 60 foot in width.

There may be more 60s than that number, but I can't go less.

So it is setting a minimum, and and I want to stress that because I think the site plan you have now doesn't it it's a little heavier to the 60s than it is the 52s, and I I think we'll probably go even a little heavier to that in in the splitting them.

Um the there will be two detention facilities, those detention facilities will have walking trails, they'll be um our intention is for them to be wet, so there'll be a trail system, there'll be ponds, they'll there'll be amenities of themselves, and there's also a plan for a spray ground um slash pool on the project.

We haven't lauded out that because there's some combination of the nicer pond.

A lot of times we try to get it in front of whichever one is the most aesthetic pond whenever we do that.

So that will get worked out as we work through the plat and the design phases.

There are still details about stub streets and where those should or shouldn't be.

There is a I mean this is setting the structure of what we can then come back and bring you a final plat that needs to conform to this.

Those discussions about exactly where those stub streets and whether they should be on the north or the south, are there's plenty of room for interpretation on that.

Um we'll certainly work through those issues with staff as as we go through to the next stages.

There's a practical concern of we need we need to make sure that everyone's in agreement and that and that council agrees and planning commission that hey, this is an appropriate use in this kind of classification, and then we can go through a lot more fine details than what's even here.

I would say, as far as a scrub development plan, you're probably farther along than a lot of them that we would do for a conceptual PUD whenever we we do that, we're closer to finalize because we were trying to be real about how it fit and making sure the economics worked.

Um it's a tricky site with the collector road and billboards and trying to be mindful of different product mixes, and staff has been amazing to work with, and I appreciate it because it's we're we're uh everybody's kind of got different angles that they're trying to come at, and we're trying to make sure everyone's meeting and we're and we're addressing the issues.

So I I think this um addresses what we understand of what staff's concerns were to the to the extent, like certainly we did not discuss a percentage, they just said they weren't comfortable with losing at all.

And that wasn't really our intent.

We knew there was still a common open space.

I was just letting the PUD language govern how much that would be.

It's fine, we can guarantee it because those aren't in addition.

The and it this would still be there's an one meeting one doesn't create the other, like they can both be met, the PUD language and the common open space, but one doesn't take out the other either.

So this is setting some pretty good boundaries that we want to work back against, and I think starts to put create the protections and at least address the concerns that I heard from the commission and that we've seen from staff.

Yeah.

Um I'm happy to answer any other.

Well, one thing I'd like to mention, like if and this was in your case at the your project over the what is that 209th and in Omaha?

Well, one thing I'd like to mention, like if and this was in your case at the your project over that what is that 209th and in Omaha where if if there was a if there was a subdivision right there where that steps step street is where I'm talking about, you we would have required you to put a 50-foot buffer in there, correct?

I believe that's correct that we would have required that.

If there was a subdivision at an RSP, if it was RSP, I think it carries a buffering.

I think the RSC requires a 50-foot space too, does it not?

It depends on how many houses on like I'm not saying wrong.

I I don't like I don't I won't I just looked it up again, but I don't know.

Buffering between those two, uh you may be very right.

Anyway, in case that was coming up about the having a buffet right there, that's not required because there's not a housing condition in there.

And that's why I was asking about the stuff curious about the stub street too.

That carries Jose could tell me more, tell us more about that.

We're in level we're in level three, and and level three provides some variation in what can be done.

So it it is transitional, and it I mean that's that's what it is, it's the definition.

Um I wouldn't I would anticipate a significant portion of that starts transitioning to more commercial as you get closer to the arterial, like what's happening as you go to Ward Aspen, and then you have apartments that are the transition piece between that.

This is kind of this is very uh it's right in the middle of the it's Euclidean in the middle, right?

So this is the place where we start working out, so you're getting down in densities as you go to the middle and kind of.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm not I'm not I'm not saying you should have that 50 foot in there, and I agree you should not have it in there because you're the first one in there.

Your housing district.

You know what you're you know what you're coming into.

If one was in there before you had we'd be talking different, but it's not there.

So what you're the first one in there, so you don't have to have it, so that's good.

We we've we've allowed for the things that our understanding of the major issues that have been presented as far as transportation connectivity and and what some of the concerns were with the collector, that's still a sticky piece of how that all fits, and but it's allowing it to continue on the path that it's been that that has been set.

Well the last time Aspen Creek Trails set a path.

Yep, and and that is the path that we're perpetuating.

Um whether that's right or wrong, it's the path that we're perpetuating, it's what the the plan states, and we're effectuating against that plan.

If that needs to change, not not by our drawing, I'm fine with where we're at.

If that needs to change between here and the final plat, that's certainly something that can come up as staff and that plan's evaluated and we bring the the plats forward with the development.

So that even what we show if if staff feels needs to be something different as we move forward or engineering staff, it can be addressed.

That's part of the platting process.

Well, the biggest issue.

Biggest issue for me the last time, and maybe the rest of the planning commission, I can't speak for them, but was the service road or frontage road itself and the the uh billboards themselves, and you address both of those.

Sound like there are a lot of like administrative text type type stuff that was fixed for the last stuff.

So I mean it's it's far better than what we've seen before.

We've and what we're seeing in here right now.

We've done we've it's not a small like we've we've tried.

So thank you.

That's been it's just been the effort.

We're trying to address the concerns we hear.

Believe it or not, we take them away and we really do try to put them into effect.

Now, this is considered a major amendment to the PUD, correct?

Or the abrogating abrogating the last PUD.

Yeah.

And recreating of PUD 307 on this parcel.

Um and then approval of the new PUD 2519.

Um there was a rezoning number 2633, I think.

Is it 307 or 307a?

It would be 307.

307A is the apartment complex.

That'd be the one that would still sit.

Perfect.

Okay, trying to get that through my head.

So okay.

Yeah.

Either way it's going to the city council.

So if it's approved, so three 307A was a major amendment where we shifted all the apartment movement to the east.

So you can make the argument that 307A is on this one too, because the apartment used to sit here.

So either way, the intent is that one goes away.

Yeah, I'm like, that's an interesting question because I don't know how I would look at that.

Yeah, we don't want to stir it up.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'm going with the underline with Jose's Yeah.

Yeah.

As it relates to this tract.

I do want to say that I appreciate the effort in addressing the quality of housing concern.

I I think it's the first time that I've heard somebody try to make an effort in a way that doesn't prevent it present any legal issues.

So uh just wanted to say uh I do appreciate that effort, and I could tell that you've you've heard from the planning commission some concerns.

So I I do really appreciate staff uh the amount of time because this wasn't just one of those routine things that came across.

So I just want to acknowledge all that.

Well in your smallest is 52 foot.

Wasn't it 60 and 52?

60.

Well and your smallest is 52 foot right wasn't it 60 and 52 60 two we we restrict them so 60 is the breakover point where we say we can if anything under 60 it it has to be 52 still our minimum but we may have something over 60 if that's the way that it fits.

But that's the I guess what I'm guessing that's better than the 45 we've seen too.

Which corresponds to a a wider lot than RSC would otherwise authorize by code and then the 60 fits to RS which that that that's the corresponding smallest slot size associated with RS.

So that's why that line was drawn there because it failed it followed the zoning in a very easily distinguishable kind of fashion.

So that's why we pick 600 it's uh and to you I'm sure this being a PUD that it is it's a win-win situation for you and the city for the applicant and the city.

So what does the city get now with PUD let me ask you that so we are restricting what otherwise would be an RSC if I can't just ask for it's 50 foot lots across the whole thing.

Okay.

Now they get 15% open space and but there is also no lock cap.

So we're capped at 350 we have a split of housing and we're still providing open space and the PUD adds a redundant open space requirement of the livability open space associated with a lot that's embedded in the PUD code that I can't walk away from so that they're not I don't want them they're they're not the same thing and they have different ways they're measured but it is another open space that can be met between the two of them.

So it's it is very much giving some compromises back to that.

And it it's less important now than it was when we started this but it also made sure that the the GOBON passed prior to any final plotting so that the that road was funded because that was very material.

No that's a good answer.

I was just asking that because you know a lot of people think okay PUD is based on just topography things like that site layout how it's gonna be the terrain etc.

There's more to it than just that.

A lot more there's also it's a it's you know the city got it has to get something out of it too hopefully and that could be in the way of the fencing the ra like wood rail fencing along uh Tucson Street things like that.

So I don't know what your plan is on there.

This would be pretty we will make a very nice frontage along to you can be guaranteed of this.

I bring that up because you may you're right about not having the quality of the houses actually being built itself.

We don't we don't either and as planning commission is somewhat but we do in the way of like making the beautification like the landscaping the wood railing that kind of stuff on there too.

So we have that avenue there too.

The amenity setting an open space because open space that's just open actually doesn't meet some of the requirement associated with it if you strictly read the code there has to be a benefit now whether that's like because it starts to create that creates expense and expense creates minimum s standard associated with it which ultimately gets you to a quality of people aren't gonna pay for that kind of house.

Our effort was really to create a blend to to secure some of that to alleviate some of those concerns because that's the best way I know because you can build a really ugly masonry house that is not a good quality and I don't like using that as the stick because it just doesn't I don't think it achieves the goal.

So Mindy's probably asking or thinking what kind of fencing are we going to have along frontage road and and along Tucson Street.

Maybe not maybe she kind of brought that up already.

Yeah.

The frontage road has to um has to though it'll meet the landscape code which does require articulation it requires it to be full and continuous and matching in character as long as the land as well as the landscaping associated with it.

We're not modifying what the code does because I think the code as far as a residential setting with this much frontage is pretty it it does a good job of making sure that you're getting what you want out of out of out of that corridor.

If we were in a more of a commercial setting where I was worried about like we weren't going to have that perimeter fencing we will on this and the code's explicit about that.

But correct me if I'm wrong what I'm my point was as a PUD we can actually ask for a little bit more than just meet the code.

You can correct yes we can you can so that's all I'm saying else that does not I like that I think he's far better than one we're seeing right here on my screen right here.

I think he's covered everything we've asked you been a good student.

Yes.

I just I just have one question you know the reserve space to the South are you going to fence straight across Tucson.

Or are you going to allow that to be seen?

Usually when we do those and and this is part of the usually it goes to a um open like a r uh an iron fence or something along those lines something that's more visible especially because it is a nice wet I mean this is it's an amenity.

It's truly designed to be an amenity.

And that's why some of the stuff whenever we get into well, what are your fence look like up front?

Well, I think whenever you we have to look at what the pond looks like and what our final deals.

So that that's something that's we're mindful of issues.

But it's a wet detention side.

Okay, yeah.

Yes.

And and then I would I think the code and and correct me if I'm I think the code's pretty explicit that if we count it as open space, it has to be wet and have amenity.

I think there's actually specific language in the code.

Like an area of reference stuff, right?

So if in the event we didn't, now I don't get to count that as my open space, which means I have to go find open space someplace else and create some other sort of a mini associated with it.

So there is protection built into the to the code itself to assure some of that.

Okay.

Thank you.

So does that is this gonna have like clubhouse or anything like that in there?

Yeah, there'll be a pool.

Okay, where will that be located at?

I we'll know.

Not there yet.

Not there yet.

You may not think this, but we enjoy you coming in here.

At least I love it too.

Look at that.

I know it.

Yeah, we were a little concerned when it started and we were like, oh, oh no.

In my defense, that was actually what was approved.

We were close to done with that one whenever we started this.

We were just bringing it back for road purposes.

So I get it.

The code changed in between it, and we have to address the issues associated with that code, and when we're we'll welcome that conversation.

Well we all we want to be able to say that hey, this is a model development.

That's a nice product.

I'm I'm hoping you can't.

And we don't know where, but we've done everything we can to get you there.

I don't know what else I can do at this point with them about all I have at you.

The last the last thing I'm gonna add is your client owes you a steak dinner, whether or not this passes.

I'm not kidding you.

Like I mean, this was a joke at the office.

This this was layout 67 for this site.

Uh I mean that's a long time.

We've done commercial, we've done residential.

I'm I'm ready for this tract of land to go and be something.

Very much.

So I I respect it.

It's a unique place.

This is an odd little this is an odd little tract of land.

Uh-huh.

And then of course other course in the applicant.

No.

All right, thanks.

Thank you.

So do we have anybody sign up on this?

No.

Open closed.

We do have uh one letter that was sent.

Okay.

And then this letter was sent in um, I think it was sent in March.

Uh but of course the item was was uh continued a couple times.

So um so it's I don't want to say dated, but it's from um two or two months ago or so.

Um so the letter is from a um Miss Buckmaster.

Um and it is I would like to formally oppose planning commit planning commission agenda item 26-316.

Um of course this item's been continued since then, so the item number is changed.

Um 121st is currently a two-lane road with several housing additions as well as a large apartment complex with many cars traveling in both directions 24-7.

There's only one entrance exit into the apartment complex as well as the proposed Aspen Creek Villas.

Aspen Creek Villas is proposing an additional 415 homes with at least 415 cars entering and exiting the addition on a daily basis.

121st Street is a two-lane road with no shoulders, no turn lanes, and no immediate plans to widen the street.

I feel that this is going to directly impact our home values as we will not have any easy access into or out of the neighborhood.

God forbid an accident should occur, causing traffic to be backed up for miles or emergency vehicles not being able to get to an accident or fire due to traffic.

Aspen Creek Elementary is not equipped to absorb the additional increase in student enrollment that this development could create.

Long-term infrastructure planning needs to be in place before any new development or any new development are allowed to be to being in this area.

The proposal was already brought to the city council once and they were denied.

Please do not allow this to pass.

That's the end of the letter.

What was the name on that?

It's from a um Elisa Buckmaster.

Okay, Buckmaster.

And then once again, this was sent um it looks like it was sent before um back in March.

So some of the things have changed, some details have changed um since then.

But yeah, I don't think we have the details then anyway.

Right.

Yeah.

And but we wanted to just go ahead and read it out since um since they had sent it in and uh get it in the record as well.

Now will that go before the city council also on that or not?

For this for this item this minute, yes, yep.

Okay, so it goes on to the city council also.

Okay.

And across the board, broken arrows enrollment is down, so I think Aspen would love more kids.

First time I heard that.

I know.

It was it's a newer school site.

And it was it was built larger.

It took uh it was what Indian Springs became.

And with this last um school bond that passed, like they've built on to several schools across the district, and there's a lot of um empty classrooms, so we need more children.

Okay.

I know.

I know.

All right, we'll close the public hearing any discussion.

Ready for a motion.

And we need to make sure that I guess in the motion on the abrogation.

If you're I've got it, abrogation of PUD 307 on this property.

Um and if you could also include that the applicant amend the PUD document to include all of the updated exhibits.

I think Jay Lee's working on this for you.

Okay.

For us.

Okay.

All right.

So I make a motion to approve item six B 26-565.

PUD 002519-2025.

No, sorry.

No, that is the correct one, right?

Okay.

Yes.

To abrogate the underlying PUD 307.

And for the applicant to amend the document to include all updates that were presented this evening.

Will that work?

Yes.

Per staff recommendation.

And B A Z 2633.

Oh, yes.

And B A B A Z 266 2633.

Yes.

I'll second the motion.

Mindy Payne.

Yes.

Jonathan Townsend.

Yes.

J Lie Klempa?

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

And I would like to say the applicant thanks for working with staff and uh hearing us last time on frontage row and the billboards.

Appreciate that.

So the planning uh city council May 19th, 6 30, right here.

Good job.

Yay.

Thank you.

All right.

Item number seven, appeals we have done.

Item eight, general commission business, done.

Item nine, remarks, inquiries, planning commission, staff.

I do have one.

Um the next meeting is scheduled for May 14th.

Uh that is also the day that rooster days begins.

Um didn't know if the commission wanted to entertain uh starting the meeting earlier.

Um I believe Main Street will be closed.

I don't know the exact time that it will be closed out.

Doesn't matter me as long as I get a parking spot.

But it's up to the planet, yeah.

Good luck with that.

That I know.

Because um we I usually get here a little bit before or five, and y'all get off usually at five, right?

And so sometimes I have to wait for somebody to leave and pull in.

So if you could make sure we have parking spot.

Um Jill, do you know what time they will close the streets or they closed the streets a couple days before to put all the rides and things in?

So it's not all of Main Street.

I think it ends at 81st.

It's like 81st to 91st is closed, I believe.

Oh, yeah.

Years ago they put the rides in Central Park.

Yeah, they're not doing that anymore.

I remember when the rides were on Main Street.

Yeah.

That was that's a long time ago, I know.

No, a long time ago.

Yep.

So what do you all want to do about the meeting on May 14th?

We could probably leave it and play it by the way.

Yeah.

I know I can get off and come from Lin Lane and come back in the back way.

So they could easily put here because it's the next one.

Do I?

It's the next view.

You need to make a decision tonight.

One or the other.

I say we have it, I say you put something out there so we can park.

Well, no, the decision is to start it earlier than on the regular time.

I think we're going to be able to do that.

I don't think that's gonna matter.

That's up to you.

Not unless you're talking about nine in the morning.

Nothing happening.

Same time, same time.

Same time, same time.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

No action required.

Yay, okay.

Any other discussion?

Nothing else from staff.

If we have to park too far, can you have some lime scooters?

We could have golf cart.

Yeah, golf cart.

Need a shuttle.

Yeah, because we don't have lime scooters.

We do the bicycles.

Oh, are they gone too?

Oh I didn't realize that.

Well, uh, yeah.

Shows you how much I rode the bicycles.

Oh wow.

I used to see Larry Curtis when he was still here riding once in a while.

Wow.

Okay.

Okay.

Ready for motion.

Move to adjourn.

Second it.

Yes.

Jonathan Townsend.

Yes.

Jayley Klempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

No.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

We've got him to the dark side.

Yay.

I'm gonna miss you guys.