15th, we have a work session.

Starts at 11.

Um it'll we'll send all this out, obviously.

Um in 10th floor north, 10th floor north conference room.

So obviously if you've been here before, you know we'll send you give you lunch.

What what date, Susan?

It's April 15th, 11 o'clock, 10th floor, north conference room.

We will serve lunch.

Um let Kim know if you have any dietary restrictions.

You know, something so uh before I don't know when you need it, but maybe before next Monday or the Monday or Tuesday before the meeting, that either the third Monday the 13th.

So let me see, I think so Lana net since you didn't hear me.

So let Kim know if you have any dietary restrictions for our lunch on the work session on the 15th, uh when she sends out her quorum call.

Um at that meeting now.

It comes down to kind of two big items.

That's why we're starting at 11.

We think that'll give us enough time.

The NIO extension and the residential code updates.

So NIO extension.

We have had a couple big meetings.

We had a big meeting last week in district one, counselor sponsored that.

Uh about 300 people there.

And then we had one last night, uh, district three counselors sponsored that, about over a hundred.

So a lot of all kinds of comments and questions and discussions, some about the proposals, some just you know, maybe adjacent to those issues.

So a lot, a lot happened there.

Um the only thing since we last met that was approved in PD six, which is the large 6200 acre um area at Far East Tulsa that was approved by city council.

There's still if you see something on the if you follow council agendas, and you see something on the agenda the night of just adjusting a motion, but it is approved.

And that's really all I have.

Okay, any questions for Susan?

Okay, thank you.

I have one quick one.

Do we have a meeting invitation for the working session?

Um Tim will send it.

That'd be cool.

Yeah, it's just like an it'll be an agenda just like this, but a separate one.

Cool, thanks.

Okay.

Moving on to item number one.

Move approval of minutes from March 18.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Shivill, a second by Commissioner Bullmash for the approval of item number one.

All those in favor.

Opposed, and that item is approved.

Uh before I move on to the consent agenda and the hearings, Mr.

Secretary, we please read our rules.

Yes.

In accordance or in order to conduct the public hearing in an orderly manner, we ask you by the following rules.

Commissioner will first staff from first hear from staff for an explanation of the application, physical facts of the property under application and the surrounding property, followed by a presentation of the staff's recommendation.

Commission will then hear the applicant's presentation not to exceed 15 minutes.

Next, the commission will hear from any interested parties or protestants.

A timeline per speaker may be imposed.

Those wishing to speak must use the sign-in sheet over to my left by the door.

For the record, please state your name and address if you do choose to speak.

Finally, the commission will hear the applicant's rebuttal, if any, not to exceed 10 minutes.

During the hearing, the commission may ask questions of staff, the applicant or interested parties in the room are representative of the city legal department and development services department and the toll supply office staff.

We do have a taping system there for please direct all of your comments into the microphone, and these proceedings are broadcast live on cable channel 24.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

I want to address the withdrawals first since we have so many, and if there's anyone in the audience or media here, we will not be hearing items three, four, five, twelve, and thirteen today.

Is that right, staff?

So if anyone's here for those, we will not be hearing those today.

Yeah, 12 and 13, 3, 4, and 5.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, uh moving on to consent agenda item number two.

Do any commissioners wish to pull number two to the public hearing?

Yep.

Come on up.

Um you should have gotten a request for continuance to May 6th.

On the item on the consent agenda duty.

So no, sorry, May 6th.

Okay.

We do not have any speakers to that.

So yes.

Okay.

So is there a motion to continue item two to May 6th?

I move to approve item number two to May 6th, presented to the applicant's request.

Okay.

We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash, a second by Commissioner Humphrey to continue item two to May 6.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And that item is continued.

Item number six.

Good afternoon.

Item number six, CZ583 is a rezoning request to rezone subject tracks from AG to RS3 to allow residential subdivision.

The property location is on the east side of South South 65th West Avenue at West 26th Street South.

The track size is approximately 19.254 acres.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from AG to RS3 to allow future residential subdivision development consistent with the comprehensive plan designation of new neighborhood.

The development is anticipated to consist of single-family residential lots arranged in a coordination, a coordinated subdivision layout that reflects the surrounding residential development pattern.

Lot sizes are expected to be consistent with the RS3 standards allowing for a range of moderately sized residential lots.

New neighborhood is intended for new communities developed on vacant land.

These neighborhoods are comprised of primarily single family homes on a range of lot sizes, but can handle townhouses, low rise apartments, or condominiums.

These areas should be doesn't should be designed to meet high standards of interal interval and external connectivity and shall be and shall be paired with an existing or new neighborhood town center.

The request the requested rezoning from AG to RS3 is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation of new neighborhood.

And basically with that being said, staff supports this and uh recommends approval.

Okay, any questions for Kindle?

Okay, sorry.

All right Kendall, this is our item related to item number 14, correct?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Did you want to why don't you go ahead and talk about 14 then?

Okay, is that okay?

Please the real the related case is the preliminary uh subdivision plat, the West Meadows at Berry Hill Creek.

This is also a request for a preliminary subdivision plat to allow residential subdivision.

The applicant is proposing the preliminary plat for the West Meadows at Berry Hill Creek, which is a residential subdivision located south of West 25th Street South, north of West 31st Street South, west of South 57th West Avenue.

The development is designated to create a cohesive single family residential neighborhood consistent of approximately 72 lots.

The subdivision layout incorporates an internal street network with multiple points of access, including connections to the existing surrounding roadway system.

The street pattern is collinear in nature and is intended to follow the natural topographic of the site and minimizing grading impacts, particularly near Berry Hill Creek, which transverses the southern portion of the property.

The technical advisory advisory committee met on this item on March 19th, 2026.

system the street pattern is co co co covalinear in nature and is intended to follow the natural topographic of the site and minimizing grading impacts particularly near Berry Hill Creek which transverses the southern portion of the property the technical advisory advisory committee met on this item on March 19th 2026 staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for West Meadows at Bear Hill Creek subject to all required release letters in compliance with applicable county res uh regulations any questions for Kendall thank you sir thank you uh is the applicant here would you like to come up we're in agreement with staff okay uh we want to hear can you take these together Jeffrey all right yep are there any speakers we have no speakers move to approve item number six per staff recommendation we have a motion by commissioner craddock a second by commissioner shivill for the approval of item six per staff right keep staff recommendation all those in favor opposed and that item is approved move to approve item number 14 per staff recommendation we have a motion by commissioner craddock a second second by commissioner fugate for the approval of item 14 all those in favor opposed and that item is approved seven CZ 584 is a rezoning request to rezone the subject properties from RS3 to AG the property location is at 822 East 64th Street North Tulsa Oklahoma the track size is approximately 3.6 acres the applicant is requesting to rezone the subject parcel from RS3 to AG so that they can utilize the full agricultural uses that RS3 does not support the applicant is currently going through a lot combination process to form the subject tract that you guys see in the exhibits the subject property is located within the rural residential slash agricultural land use designation of the Tulsa County comprehensive plan particularly within the Turley planning area this designation denotes land that is sparsely occupied and used primarily for agricultural uses in single family homes on large lots usually half acre or greater in size staff has reviewed the request and finds that it is non-injurious to the surrounding proximity properties and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is anticipated future development pattern of the surrounding areas therefore staff has recommended approval of this application.

Okay any questions for Kendall yeah right um I see a lot of single family residences around here and we want to go back to ag on this uh full ag and I'm I'm kind of I'm confused because I don't see where that actually in my opinion doesn't look like it would fit in to go back to AG when you've got all this single family residence uh even though they're large lots but I'm and and what uses you know are they intended to have they told you and we can I can ask the applicant too but uh I believe so the applicants they are here based off the conversations that we had working up to this application I believe the property owner originally thought the properties were zone agriculture before he purchased them he had play he has plans to have horses um agricultural uses um things of that nature so um basically he's wanting to run a farm there and it's I think it's gonna be within like a family kind of ordeal so that's really where we we this is why they basically came into our office and is requesting this yeah I mean I've got a I have a concern because there's so much other single family residences there and the impact on them for changing this stuff so uh but we I can we can I can uh yeah we'll have them up uh have the applicant up thank you kind of is the applicant here would you like to come up yes sir yeah please give us your name and address my name's Leo C.

Bray Sr.

I live at 822 East 64 Street North Tulsa Oklahoma 74126 I have what we just heard you want to kind of create a farm but I mean I'm looking at this I'm very familiar with the area and so there are a lot of residential houses there so I'm concerned that the impact to all your neighbors where you go from res uh the requirements of RS3 of not having a lot of farm animals to having farm animals horses and so forth what is the impact to your neighbors who are relying on this RS3 zoning so they don't have to worry about a neighbor having animals and so forth that may impact them.

What is the impact to your neighbors who are relying on this RS3 zoning so they don't have to worry about a neighbor having animals and so forth that may impact them?

Yes, sir.

I spoke to my neighbors that when they got the notice, they all kind of stopped by the house and they asked me what I was doing, and as I told them I that I was planning on bringing in some chickens, some I was gonna have a horse too.

Also, I want to do a uh I'm gonna do a little garden and also um I explained to them exactly what I was gonna do, and each one of them felt that it was positive because everyone in the neighborhood has either horses, chickens, or some type of uh livestock.

So I just wanted to be legal as being in uh law enforcement for several years.

I just wanted to buy by the rules that was laid out.

Also, um agricultural is uh is the best way to go in that area across the street that whole the whole area is agricultural.

Um I came in and I spoke to um spoke to your office, spoke to you and and the the commissioner uh also I spoke to the the engineer and he was advising me also that he thought that uh from what I'm doing that it would be AG from RS3.

Okay, thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Yes, sir.

Any questions for Mr.

Bray?

I don't have any question, but when I uh initially looked at this item moving for RS3 to a G, although I know we're trying to increase housing stock, I saw it as a positive because I don't feel like we need to just completely remove agriculture and if the opportunity exists, and if you spoke with your neighbors, I will be supporting it.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

We don't have any speakers, so we are in review.

I didn't notice that the total the conference of uh land use plan calls it rural residential slash agricultural, and if that's what's meant to be there, but everything there that is zoned prevents agriculture, this seems like there's a disconnect uh in the way that it's zoned.

So if someone would like to use their property for agriculture and something that on the comprehensive plan is labeled for agriculture, then I don't have a problem with that.

Okay.

I would go ahead.

So we have someone that wants to speak or has a question, but they would have to sign up and you want to sign up to speak, please.

Um I'm in agreement with Mr.

Braith.

I live in Paul Montgomery.

Please give your name and address.

I'm sorry.

Paul Montgomery, I live at 739 East 63rd Street North.

I also own the property that Jason at that 749 East 63rd Street North, which is also absolutely west, directly west of Mr.

Bray's property.

Mr.

Bray is correct, all the property uh south of that street, like about 80 acres over there is farmland.

I mean it's used for agriculture.

Same with me.

I agree with him.

I I farm, I have animals, and I've taken care of that property for 10 years without any problems, and I'm in agreement with him.

I would like to be zoned in that same planet as well.

That's possible.

I sent an email last night, so I thought it would give me an opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I move approval of agenda item seven CZ584, subject to the factors listed.

Second.

Any others?

Okay.

We have a motion by Commissioner Turner Addison, a second by Commissioner Fugate for the approval of item seven per staff recommendation.

All those in favor opposed, and that item is approved.

He's good.

The next item is CZ585.

It is a rezoning request to rezone the subject properties from RE to CS.

The property location is 9481 North 42nd Avenue East, Sperry, Oklahoma.

The track size is approximately 0.52 acres.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject section of the lot from RE to CS.

The section being rezoned is also going through a lot line adjustment, and the section will be absorbed into the rest of the CS zoning to the north.

The subject property is located within the highway 75 planning area of the Tulsa County Comprehensive Plan.

This designation has some of this designation has goals to promote growth between commercial, residential, and industrial zones to encourage higher density commercial, light and light industry industry, and light industrial and mixed use development, and to provide the framework for land use development on properties near in abutting highways in abutting highway 75 into a key economic planning area.

The Highway 75 amendment to the Tulsa County Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates OL OM basically all the offices, all commercial IR, IL, and IM zoning as compatible with the Highway 75 planning area established by the amendment.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that is non-indressed to the surrounding proximate properties and is and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the anticipated future development pattern of the surrounding areas.

Therefore, uh staff recommends approval of this application.

So Kendall on page 85, 8.5, where's the subject property on the map?

So it is a really so it's I wish we had a zoomed in one.

So it's really small.

If you were able if you were able to see it on the zoning map, you would see a portion of you would see a portion of RE kind of bleeding into that the section line, and I believe previously people who went in and did a lot line adjustment on this, they were inaccurate with their dimensions, which has caused the layer to kind of shift further down south than it was actually supposed to.

So the current applicant is basically coming in and cleaning that up and taking the portion that is CS in the in the RE that is already there, basically bringing it back up to the section line.

Well, I just want to see it related to the other land uses, and I can't see it.

Where is it?

Um that's the highway.

Oh, six street.

Yeah.

No.

But it's not marked.

I guess my point is, Ken, I know we're not gonna be together that much longer, but we've got to clean this up for the public.

Okay, you know, going forward, yes, sir.

And and us, and then it's just hard to see and hard to identify.

Yes, sir.

Um questions for Kendall?

Um my understanding, the it's the same property owner of both uh that the metal building, what I'm gonna call the metal building track to the north, correct, uh to the to the house that's on the where this and they're just cleaning up where they are, they have a uh parking lot that they want to attach to the that's CSU to attach to the CSU to the north, correct?

Correct.

And so all right.

So and that and they're doing that within all the guidelines that that uh uh per county zoning and so forth.

Yes, sir.

All right, thank you.

So seven, and I would agree with the uh you know the ability to zone zoom in and look at what just so we know exactly where I mean I know where it is, but uh thank you.

I don't have more questions.

Uh okay.

Any questions for Kendall?

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Is the app in here?

No.

Okay.

We are in review.

We do not have any oh wait, we do have a speaker.

Hold on.

No, no, we just leave it.

Well, Josh Gowan.

No, item number eight.

Okay.

We're in review.

Nine.

Oh, your nine, sorry.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve per staff recommendation.

Second.

Uh we have a motion by Commissioner Hood, a second by Commissioner Craddock for the approval.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

That item is approved.

Ready for item nine?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Just making sure.

Item nine is a um an optional development plan request.

Uh this is Z 7852, and it covers two lots that are on East 119th Street South, just west of South Yale Avenue.

Uh to the immediate south of this proposal, there's an existing RS4 with optional development plan that has been developed as a gated neighborhood.

At the time that neighborhood was developed, the developer did not have ownership of the lots that are under application today, but they would like to now add those two lots to this gated neighborhood and extend their private street out along 119th and install a gate on the eastern border of this particular project.

The uh review is really of just the optional development plan to allow those lots to be served by a private street.

There is no request to change the underlying zoning, nor are there any additional development standards included in the end option in the optional development plan.

So the lots would still be subject to the RS1 zoning that they're subject to today.

They would just be afforded the ability to do a private street.

Um there are several steps the applicant will still have to go through in order to close and vacate the public street and ultimately dedicate that to the HOA as part of this particular neighborhood.

Um those will be handled through a separate flating process, but before they can pursue those items, they would have to get the zoning to allow those lots to be served by a private street.

So the request is just for the optional development plan to be included on those lots, and staffs reviewed the proposal and has recommended approval.

Commissioner Bulmage?

Quick question.

So the the staff report talked about just the private street.

Is there any do we know is there any tent?

Maybe this is a question for the applicant.

Is there any intent to do anything different with the houses on the two lots that are being added?

Uh my understanding is no, but yeah, we could verify with the applicant.

The reason I ask this because we got an email from a concerned by a nearby property owner that's talking about construction of two-story houses, and I didn't see how one had anything to do with the other.

So I thought maybe I was missing something.

I will say that nothing's changing about what could be done on those lots.

I mean, you could tear them down and build a new house on them today, and that's the same would be true if this were approved.

Really, the only thing this change would affect would be the the pri the street could be turned to a private street.

Okay.

Thanks.

Yep.

More specifically, you could build a house that's 35 feet tall with three stories per RS1 zoning currently right today.

Yeah, well, and and I I don't know what if any covenants exist on the two lots under application today as far as private restrictions, but per code, yes, even today you could tear down one of those homes and build a 35-foot tall house per the RS1 rules.

So any more questions for Nathan?

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

The applicant, would you like to come up?

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Nathan Cross, two West 2nd Street, Suite 600 Tulsa.

Uh the other Nathan uh summed it up pretty well.

It's a straightforward request to allow these lots to be served by uh a private street.

The mechanism by which we have to approach this is a function of the code.

Um, and so that's why we've chosen an optional development plan, but nothing is changing about the underlying zoning on the existing lots that are there.

It is all driven by the fact that um you've seen the layout of the proposed private street.

While it's currently configured with the public street, there's no way to put a gate on the north end of the existing private street.

So the the south of the where the red, can you go back to that hashed area to give you some context?

South of the hashed area is already a private street that's served by a gated entrance down at the south end.

This is part of a goal to put a gate on this end of it.

And uh in looking at the ability to install a gate where the two lots are at the end of that north-south street, there just isn't any room.

And so uh the plan has become to um bump this out and move it around and then provide for uh fire code required turnout for a fire truck to be able to turn around on land that the developer also owns over to the east.

So that's what you are looking at.

But that is the only request.

Nothing about what can or cannot be done on the two lots or the size of those lots uh is changing as a part of this application.

Any questions for Nathan?

Thanks, sir.

We have a couple of speakers if you want you can come back up.

Um first speaker, Eric Walter.

Good afternoon.

Eric Walton.

I live at 11817 South Urbana, which is the house right next to the RS1 zoned house right now.

Um I am also the president of the HOA of the community that is just west of this one that we're referring to.

I was also part of the organization that approved the previous zoning application change so that Alan Staub could build the community he has built.

At that time, at no time was it ever communicated to us that he was going to change the gate location.

At all times, he was going to put a gate at the end of the street that he built at all times.

I'm not talking about the RS1 lots that he has bought.

He can put any house there that is within code, even though that butts up against my house.

He can do whatever he wants there.

The street is a public street.

We have a gate at that location, which you can't see too well, but we have a gate.

It is a fire gate.

Our development is is planning on putting in a resident only gate at that location so that we have access to Yale.

If you're familiar with Yale and 121st Street, it's become an extremely busy street.

There's recently put a stop sign there where they had a death.

The city will eventually put a street light there.

But in the meantime, as they are building at 131st in Sheridan, a couple of thousand homes, the the traffic on 121st will continue to grow.

Our community, which you can't make a left-hand turn during busy hours out of our community, is going to put a gate there.

We have already talked to the city.

The gate requires no zoning changes whatsoever for us to put in a residential only gate.

So that gate would allow us access to Yale and would avoid the whole problem of us trying to get out on a busy treat and potentially cause accidents.

At this particular point, my suggestion recommendation is to not allow the zoning change.

Let him finish what he said he was going to do and not deal with two lots that he bought and put in a private gate on a public street, which we have access to.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Walton.

Yeah.

I I did not hear where you uh which pri which private house is yours in the one just west of the RS1 proposed of the RS1 house.

It is uh I am south.

No, I am north of 119, sorry.

There are two homes that really got the notification.

My my home, which is the first one where I'm actually on 119th, and the second home, which is one house north, is also affected because they've got to be.

So in looking at this map here, you're the one on the left.

Correct.

Okay.

That's exactly where I am.

Oh, right, okay.

So you're not in the proposed area, but you are already in within the gated area.

I am within the gated area of Wind River Crossing.

Got it.

Okay.

And so the gate, which you can well, you can sort of see there's a gate right there.

Yeah, I kind of see.

I would I think I was thinking you were on the other side on the proposed area.

That's why I wanted to verify.

I understand.

No, I am the neighborhood that is about to be affected.

Got it.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Does your neighbor currently does your neighborhood currently have gates?

We have a gate there right now.

It is currently a fire gate.

There's that wire zone.

Do you have one that's down on because it's we have two gates on Urbana?

Yeah.

One on Urbana, one on Toledo that lead out to 121st Street.

That is our own.

So we have a horseshoe.

Yeah.

And so the only way out right now is 121st Street.

So at our expense, we'll put a gate up that allows us to get access to Yale.

Public street that we've always thought was going to remain public.

And are your streets private or public?

Our streets are private inside our community because we're gated.

You can't exit one nineteenth to Yale right now?

Cannot.

It is a fire.

In other words, the gate is locked with a fire department lock.

Yep.

So we've talked to the fire department and to the city.

All I got to do is put in a uh take the lock off and put an automated gate in, which the fire department would have access to, and we get to go out the other way.

So you're at odds with Mr.

Staub on that specific.

That would not be the first time, but yes.

Mr.

Chairman.

He was the developer of our development, by the way.

Yes.

And so your objection is that if the application goes through as proposed, you would not have access to 119th Street or to DAL via 119th Street.

That is correct.

Which you currently don't put your planning to.

That is correct.

Have you had any conversations with the applicant about you all being able to access that?

There was no reason to have that conversation with him because it was a public street.

But now since he filed the application.

I have not talked with him, nor has he talked with us.

Who put the fire gate in?

We did.

Okay.

Actually, Alan did.

The developer of that.

The developer of the lot, same developer, put that fire gate in.

So the the opening is all set.

Literally, I just have to put remotes on it, and I'm done.

I mean, based on that, I just have a question for staff.

Which is thank you, Mr.

Walton.

Thank you.

Is that exit required?

Yes.

So they were required a secondary point of access at the rear of their subdivision for for emergency purposes.

And upon our review of this application, what we understood was that was all it was was fire access.

The fire department in a brief meeting looked at this with us and determined that it could still maintain an emergency access through this portion if this developer were to change that.

I didn't know, and and I know he he probably did speak with someone at the city and they said, Yeah, it's public street.

If you switch the gate out and make it access, you have the right to use that public street.

I wasn't aware that the neighborhood to the West was pursuing trying to change that from an emergency access to a a primary access to the subdivision.

Um kind of to Commissioner Bullmash's question, I I don't know if and maybe Nathan will want to respond to this, but there could be a possibility that there's some sort of shared agreement that still allows them access to Yale if this were to be switched to private.

Um but I think that's going to take some time for them to to negotiate and work through.

So I would defer to the applicant as far as what they'd like to do.

So if that was if that's a required uh fire access point right there, then this other gate is going to be required to be a fire access.

Yeah, well, which it would already have to be accessible by the fire department as a gate, and the fire department said, yeah, as long as we still as long as it remains a street that provides us a way to get in there, we can we'll go through two gates and that's fine.

Um but I don't we in talking with the applicant on this project were not aware that the neighborhood of the west was pursuing the option of opening that up as an actual access to their subdivision.

Could we as a team APC include in our approval in the optional development plan to require the development of the West to have access?

That is a good question.

Um I think it I I don't think that because those lots are not part of this application, it would be uh an odd stretch to require that, but I think it it could be feasible and likely maybe we could we could come up with answers to that if we were to get a continuance on this and and review it.

But would we need a continuance to run that by the owner of the East uh Yeah, well, and I think to discuss with the applicant about what kind of proposal we might put forward if that is something they can talk with the neighborhood to the West about and and come to an agreement.

Um but all of that would be dependent on them being okay with it still being switched to private um for that to occur.

So we we have one more speaker.

Okay, and I would ask Mr.

Walton to think about while this other speaker is there, Mr.

Walton.

Would would how would you feel if the if we allowed the request to go through with some contingency there that you you you all were able to use that access?

Like I guess my question is if if you were able to do what you want to do and and gain access to Yale, would you still be opposed to the request of making these streets private?

Think about it while we while we have the access speaker, please.

Josh Gowan or Gowie?

Gower Gower, sorry.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

This is my wife Heather.

I'm Josh Gower.

We live at 4710 East 118th Street, so the property just to the northeast of the uh rezone in question.

Uh and we just have some questions about exactly what's going to uh happen here.

We uh just heard that we're not going to uh talk about just uh dismantling the homes or making the lot sizes smaller.

But just realize, counsel, that we are one of the last few remaining uh subdivisions or not even the subdivisions, or we're just uh uh two streets with half acre lots in South Tulsa with mature trees and beautiful uh layouts, and we want to kind of be left alone.

And what it seems to me uh is in this uh manner we've we uh had uh an agreement to put a gate in on the north side of the uh of the development here, and instead uh we can't make that work because we ended up putting two more houses in that area.

So now we have to purchase more land in order to make a gate, which is now intruding on uh everyone that has been there in that area for so long.

Um so we just kind of would like some clarification on uh we'd like some some ground rules to say hey, if uh are we planning on tearing down these houses?

If so, what are we gonna do with the pool that's in the backyard uh of the uh house on the east?

Uh different questions uh of that nature.

Any questions for Mr.

Gower?

Okay, thank you, sir.

Um Mr.

Cross.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I'll I think that in response to the last point made, there's no change.

I mean, there's nothing in front of you today that would change anything that couldn't be done today uh on the lots relative to construction or it's not part of this request.

Um nor is it uh I I really think the subject of this discussion.

Um with respect to the to the street privatization, I would simply say there already is a contingency.

This board doesn't privatize streets, except in plats on green fields.

Yeah, I mean when you when you recommend approval for a plat, this board has no ability to privatize a public street.

What this board has the ability to do is allow the two lots there to be served by a private street, which is subject to the city of Tulsa approving vacation of the public street and making it private, which is where this conversation that was just raised would come into play.

Mr.

Stevens can speak to this, I'm sure, if he uh if the if you want more color on it from the city's side.

So if they were uh basically what you're saying is uh we're the vacation of that street goes into a surrounding adjacent neighbors that are affected by it, 300 foot radius is affected by it.

It is a wholly separate process that's done by the city council.

Yeah.

Uh and it it is not it's not handled with this request.

This request is not asking to privatize the street.

It is asking to allow two lots to be served by a theoretical private street in the future if a private street is is if that public street is vacated by the city council.

So you're not in So I I mean uh uh having vacated alleyways and things like this in the past, that process basically is uh is a process through um the city, not here.

You fill out paperwork, but you want to get rid of you have to publicly you have to publicly uh uh notify adjacent property owners within three hundred feet, but that's not here.

Correct.

So um essentially what is happening is the the zoning request is making it allowable to serve these with a private street and is a prerequisite to them going and making an application to close and vacate what is currently a public street, which is a separate process, requires an ordinance by city council to close a public street.

So during that process of actually closing the street, there would be additional notices sent out to affected property owners and an opportunity for objections to be raised to any closure of that public access.

So my my experience, we could say, sure, this could be closed to public street if you go through that process and everyone agrees to it being closed as a public street.

And that would be mandated of them anyway.

I mean, in order to make that a private street that is currently publicly have to go through that for us.

We're saying if you want to close this for the theoretical street, sure, that is somebody else that's gonna figure that out.

And you guys have the opportunity to meet with the pri with the private property owners and hash that out.

Right.

They're gonna look at that process and and say yes or no.

Yeah.

And I I I mean, I in I guess as a response a little, it's you, the planning commission, like the the decision today is not closing that street.

There is still a process that they would have to go through to accomplish that.

This is just allowing two lots to be served by a private street, assuming that is something they can accomplish in the future.

Um during that process, are there is there the ability to add like guidelines or require something like what Commissioner Bullmesh was talking about?

There would be.

However, most of those discussions are generally limited to the rights holders within the public right-of-way.

So I think if the public has comments in it, then absolutely council could potentially require certain things to be done before they approve an ordinance to close the street.

But a lot of times the discussion is around the utilities that are in that right-of-way, easements that may need to be dedicated, et cetera.

To your point though, having done this, I have to get consent from adjacent property owners for this.

So it would bring in those individuals as part of the conversation.

So I'm closing that up?

I think the important part is adjacent.

So the section of the street we're talking about is just the section that's outlined here on this exhibit today.

And I I don't know what the total realm of notice requirements are when you close a public right-of-way.

We don't know that offhand.

There's a three hundred uh another three hundred foot requirement from that too.

So is the requested approval from us today required before the property owner applicant can go to the city council to start that vacation or privatization process?

Yes, because we are involved in that review and would object if the zoning does not allow a private street.

So if somebody comes in and tries to close the public street in front of their home, one of our objections to those processes would be the zoning would not allow a private street at this location.

And so the applicant is trying to get the zoning piece covered so they can start that process and avoid any of those objections coming up during the review.

Yeah.

Brian.

In in times when this happens in the past, uh do typically these groups kind of have a right-of-way agreement or something like that that you're talking about giving a continuance before maybe them working something out before another agreement that kind of you just have to do.

This is a supplemental or put a part of this packet or I mean this is a bit unique in that it the applicant is is separate from the entity that's currently interested in keeping that a public street.

A lot of times when we're talking about private streets at this juncture, it's because they want to build new private streets.

This is a little unique because it's an existing public street, they're asking to switch to a private street.

And so there are other members of the public that want to have access to that, and whether or not they can come up with an agreement for some way managing still providing access to the neighborhood to the West is just, I think, a question that I don't have an answer to right now.

And it sounds like they haven't had those discussions to this point.

So I could speak to that in one sense.

Nathan, did you have a neighborhood meeting?

Did you guys meet?

No, we didn't know that the we didn't think it would be necessary for a request like this.

The but the again, I'll go back to the the sort of the the larger point, which is that the discussion that we that is that we're talking about here today is a city is a different process.

And I and the color I wanted to add on to what's already been said is that you know we've heard that we didn't know that they intended to make that an access point other than emergency access.

Staff didn't know that.

Well, if they've approached the city about that, when we get to the point of requesting this, that's going to come up in the discussion.

But that's where that happens is in that that process.

That it this this process, I'm not minimizing this process, it's necessary to get there, but this process is about allowing two houses to be served by a a private street that may or may not ever come into existence.

So you would not be in favor of a continuance?

I would not.

Uh because it just slows down the discussion.

Okay.

Any questions for Mr.

Cross?

Uh hold on one second.

Any questions for Mr.

Cross?

I I don't have a question, but although there is a different process, you know, it would to me just be nice if the discussion could happen with the neighbors.

Because we're talking about access to a public street, a gate, that's what I'm keep hearing.

Uh why can't that conversation happen?

Mr.

Walt, I'll give you a couple minutes.

I'm not saying it can't happen.

Um I'm saying that that in order for us to actually file the application and be in the process with the city, which is where the checks happen that result in departments saying, oh, we've already had a request from another group to keep this open as an access point, that's where that discussion happens.

Uh I'm not suggesting it can't happen.

Uh so simple.

It's all about respect.

We had a plat, they approved it.

They were going to put a gate at the end of the street that they built.

It's that simple.

We didn't there's no reason for us to talk to them about putting a gate that already exists under a public road when they didn't tell us until literally just until we saw the zoning request that they wanted to put a gate in.

So in terms of communication, if I can be so bold, it's a two-way street, and they have not talked to us at all.

So my opinion here, before I let this pass through, is that I'm asking the city council, this is silly.

You should you should say continuous right now, and the two organizations should talk with each other.

And if we come to an agreement, that'd be great, which case we would fully support things going on.

If we don't come to an agreement, why do we have to let them have more leverage to then go to the next meeting where then I have to do more things?

I'm here right now saying all they got to do is respect the homeowners and just let us know how they could we potentially work together.

It's really not that hard.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Walton.

Nathan, is there too much animosity to have a quick meeting?

No, there's not, but I would reiterate uh the I know it's another step, but the point is that so if you approach the city today with a theoretical concept, all you're going to get is a theoretical answer.

What I'm and what staff has told you is that we cannot make this application unless or until we have zoning approval on the two lots to be able to be served by a private street.

When you make the application, then you're in process.

That's when actual conversations where people say yes or no at the city level happen.

You walk in and say, here's what I'm thinking about doing, you'll get an answer that we've gotten and they've gotten, which is some level of, yeah, that sounds great.

But once it gets into process, it actually goes through a review, which is where these discussions happen.

And when was the Vendelia development done?

When when was that subdivision done with the conversation about the private street south of 119?

When was it what do you mean done?

What do you mean when were the houses built?

When was that subdivision rezoned and platted and don't know when it was rezoned?

Do you 20 20 I'm sorry, 2017?

Eight years ago.

Yeah.

And the houses are still in the process, I think it'd be a built-up.

Either way, my point is the reason I asked that question is I'm trying to understand what the urgency is.

If we were to request a continuance for two weeks, um I tend to agree with Mr.

Walton that I I don't see the point of us granting a request when it seems like there's a difference of opinion.

So I would be inclined to move, make a motion to continue this to another date.

Can I ask uh maybe a clarifying question?

If I'm understanding the staff report and like what you are recommending approval for, nothing in that could possibly change in two weeks, right?

Because you would still only be recommending that yes, we think it's appropriate for these to be served by private streets as that.

I guess I'm I'm thinking like nothing in what comes back in two weeks could actually include the product of that.

I think what would be different is there might not be public comment that was against it.

Right, because my guess is that staff, when they made the recommendation was not aware of the opposition or concern.

So that I would love to give time for everybody to talk and come to an agreement, and then hopefully in two weeks we get a recommendation from staff and public that everybody's on board.

So I mean, I see what you're saying.

I just wanted to mention that.

Yeah, I think I mean I think it's accurate that I I don't anticipate a recommendation from us changing as to we think it would be appropriate for a private street here given the context.

I mean, there's private streets to the west, there's private streets to the south.

The question of the access to that street is not something we were aware of at the time the application was made.

And so I I think that while the recommendation may not change, it does maybe result in the applicant coming back with a report on what discussions they've had now about possible solutions to the access question and whether or not that could be worked out through that closure process.

Troy?

So if I'm understanding this correctly, I mean we see this quite a bit in another scenario with the request for a zoning change and then a follow-up approval for a plat, and if I understand correctly, you can't get the plat approval without the zoning change.

And this sounds a lot like that.

Is that if we were to kick this to the curb, it's not gonna change the recommendation, it doesn't sound like the applicant cannot go through to the second step, which would allow for a public hearing and allow for the people to come and plead their case.

He cannot move forward with that without having the zoning approval to start with.

Is that correct?

So I will correct one thing that Mr.

Cross said.

The application can be made.

You you can apply to close the street and get that review started.

But what I mentioned earlier was that planning will object to a request for a private street in a situation where the zoning has not yet been approved to allow for that private street.

So other components of that review would be able to take place if that application were made.

And I don't know what other if any objections may arise through that process, but it they're not prevented from starting that process, I guess, is what I'm saying in short.

But it's not going, it wouldn't be something that wraps up in two weeks before this were we're back for a discussion.

So I'm hearing that to say a two-week continuance wouldn't prevent them from starting the process.

No.

No, it wouldn't.

Yeah.

I I mean it wouldn't prevent an application for closure being made.

I don't think there would probably be much result from that application by the end of two weeks.

I think the only potential outcome of a two-week continuance would be that they can talk with the neighbors and try to talk through whether there's any potential for for an agreement to be made.

But any more questions for Nathan?

Thanks, sir.

Yeah.

Uh I presume we have the authority.

I would move to continue case number nine Z7852 for two weeks to allow the applicant and adjacent property owners to have conversations.

Second.

Any other discussion?

We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash and a second by Commissioner Turner Addison to continue item nine for two weeks.

All those in favor?

54.

Item number 10.

Thank you, Commissioner.

You guys are mean.

Item number 10.

This is another rezoning request.

This is located east of the northeast corner of East 11th Street and South 129th East Avenue.

The request is to rezone the property from CS to CG.

There's a proposal to redevelop the existing building on this property into a tortillo and an event center.

Both of those items are not, both of those uses I should say are not currently permitted by the CS zoning.

In fact, they will still require additional steps going beyond this process.

So the rezoning to CG gets them into a district that would permit a low-impact manufacturing use, which covers the tortilleria and an event center by special exception.

So if this rezoning were approved, there would still be additional requirements that they go through the City Board of Adjustment in order to get to their use.

Otherwise, they would have had to request up to an industrial zoning district that staff wouldn't have found appropriate at this location.

So the compromise was go for a CG zoning that would allow you to go to the board and ask for those additional uses.

Did this come through before, Nathan?

A few years back?

I don't remember.

Was there an event center on 11th or Adam?

We've had a few similar like event center cases in this area.

I don't remember this particular site.

I think this is a former skating rink.

Okay.

No.

No, no, no.

I take it back.

I take it back.

Austin's shaking his head.

That's a separate case.

Act like I never said that.

Okay.

Any questions for Nathan?

Uh quick question.

As far as on event center on the zoning, uh, we don't deal with uh light hours and anything, but there were other ordinances that would deal with noise and so forth that they would have to fall within the Yes, that's correct.

Um one mention I will say is the event center.

Our code distinguishes event centers into two categories.

There is event center, like indoor assembly and entertainment that is less than 250 people.

That would be permitted today.

It would also be permitted in the CG district.

However, if your occupancy exceeds 250, you are required to go get a special exception.

Um another piece of that is if you intend to serve alcohol, it requires a special exception uh given the proximity to the residential district to the north.

So there are a few things that will still have to be addressed.

The CG zoning just puts them in on a better footing to be able to go pursue those additional requests.

Anybody else?

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

No.

We do not have any speakers.

We are in review.

I'll move to approve item number 10 pursuant to staff recommendations.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash, second by Commissioner Humphrey for the approval of item 10 per staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And that item is approved.

Item number 11.

Item number 11.

This is another rezoning request.

It's for approximately nine acres of land located south of the southeast corner of West 41st Street and South Union Avenue.

This is a fairly large set of properties located, sandwiched rather, between South Union Avenue and Highway 75, and bordered on the north side with a stormwater channel.

The request is to rezone these from RS3 to RM3 to permit a multifamily apartment development.

There is a conceptual layout of that particular development in your packet.

In reviewing this case, uh staff re staff believes that the particular location is a suitable location for a higher density residential development given the proximity to the highway, an arterial street, an arterial street which is also considered a multimodal corridor.

It has an existing bike lane as well as existing regular route bus service and is set up well to serve a new development of this nature.

It's also consistent with the land use for this, which calls it a neighborhood area, and even includes language related to proximity to highways and arterial streets allowing for higher density type development.

So in reviewing the request, staff found the RM3 to be an appropriate request, and we recommend approval.

Okay.

Any questions for Nathan?

I have one question.

It looks like there are a couple different site plans.

Two story option, three story option.

Is that right?

Let me get to the pages.

Looks like top, like somewhere it says our architectural site plan two-story option, and then the next page, AS 101 is described as a two-story, AS 102 is described as a three-story option.

But both of the top right project data is say two stories and different number of units.

I guess I'm a little confused as to what the I think they there may be alternatives being presented.

Uh the RM3 zoning would allow two or three stories depending on how they would like to move forward, but I would defer to the applicant to maybe provide details on the differences in the two and and what they're trying to present.

Yeah, I'd like a little more information about that.

Sure.

Thanks.

Is the applicant here?

Would you like to come up?

Good afternoon.

Justin DeBruin, Walls Design Collective, here representing the applicant.

So for that particular question, yes, there's basically two different options that they're looking at right now.

If you look at the two different site plans, the big change you'll see is the use of the southeast property for additional parking.

Um ultimately this will be a multi-phase development, likely three phases in total.

Um the difference between this two site plans is roughly one hundred and thirty-two units versus 136 units.

But um the site plan is still in the works right now, but they're very, very similar in scope.

Okay, any more questions for the applicant?

Are they uh planning on saving any of the uh forestry?

I don't know the answer to that to be to be honest with you.

Uh I think what we're doing is going through the the process.

We've talked to staff generally about the site plan.

Um we do have members of the development team that are here today as well.

Maybe they can answer that question when we when we get to it.

But the only things I would I would really add is to kind of reflect what Nathan has already said that that we we do hope for a recommendation for approval.

We've looked at the site, especially as it compares to the different land use designations to the west and to the north.

And um even the uh the neighborhood designation that currently has fits the multi uh multi-unit use.

The plan would also entail 42nd street as it exists on the east side of union, would likely be vacated.

That'd be a different process that we would go through.

That would create an internal drive that would make sure traffic all is maintained internally before it exit out exits out onto union.

Any other questions from Mr.

DeBrun?

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We don't have any speakers.

We are in review.

I'll move to approve item number 11 pursuant to staff recommendations.

We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmesh, a second by Commissioner Shivel for the approval of item 11 per staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And that item is approved.

Item number 13.

15.

Item number 15 is a preliminary subdivision plat approval related to a previously approved PUD, PUD 876 to allow warehouse and commercial warehouse commercial and wholesale uses.

The property located property location is 9802 North Yale Avenue.

The track size is approximately 16.48 acres.

The proposed development consists of a commercial business park subdivided into multiple lots across two blocks intended to accommodate light commercial office and flex-based uses consistent with the underlying CS zoning and PUD standards.

The layout reflects a coordinated campus-style development pattern with shared access, internal circulation and integrated utility infrastructure.

The technical advisory committee met on this item on March 19th, 2022 2026.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for center 75 business park subject to all the required release letters in compliance with the applicable county regulations.

Any questions for Kindle?

Okay.

Mr.

Bell, are you in agreement with staff recommendation?

We are in agreement.

Okay.

We are in review.

Move to move to approve item number 15 for staff recommendations.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Craddock, a second by Commissioner Turner Addison for the approval of item 15 per staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And that item is approved.

Item 16.

Thanks, Robert.

Um item number 16 is a request to extend the preliminary approval on a subdivision plat.

Um the property is located at the northeast corner of South 129th East Avenue and East 11th Street.

Um the property um does have a development plan on it that is set up for the northern portion of the property will be a truck uh trucking terminal in the southern portion.

Um it allows several commercial issues uh uh uh uses but the proposed use is a restaurant uh at the hard corner and the plat hat fully has development services release um they are still working through some of the construction uh with PSO and so staff recommends that the one year extension of their approval and they staff does feel like they will get done in a year.

Okay.

Any questions for Austin?

Thanks, sir.

Is the applicant here?

No.

Okay.

We are in review.

No, no speakers.

Move to approve item number sixteen for staff recommendations.

We have a motion by Commissioner Craddock, a second by Commissioner Shivill for the approval of item 16 per staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed, and that is approved.

Item 17 similarly, this is another request uh for an extension of a preliminary plat approval.

This is located southwest corner of East 36th Street North and North Lewis Avenue.

Um this site um you've seen several times originally the entire site um is in a development plan and was platted as NP North uh NP30 NP36.

Um they are further subdividing the site for additional uh industrial users.

Um you might know uh kind of the south western portion of this um is the Mun City Power um facility, and so they have additional users coming in on the northern uh portions and are further subdividing those.

Uh they do have uh infrastructure approved um and under construction, if not as of today, complete as nothing is really changed in terms of their intended use or any regulations, so staff does recommend approval of that additional extension.

Okay, any questions for Austin?

Okay, is the applicant here?

No, no applicant, but we do have a speaker.

Candace Wilson.

Yes, please give your name and address.

Well, um Dr.

Corinthians Wilson, uh 1750 East Mohawk Boulevard, just right where this new industrial kind of area since 2024.

But I was hoping to kind of hear more information as it relates to the extension or the need for the extension.

And I was wanting to kind of speak with the applicant.

So that was my kind of reasoning for attending today.

Well, they didn't show, but um maybe you could visit with staff right after since this is our last item.

Yes, I will I would do that.

Thank you.

Well, thank you for coming.

We are in review.

Move to approve item number 17 for staff recommendation.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Craddock, a second by Commissioner Shivill for the approval of item 17 per staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed, and that item is approved.

I will make a motion for adjournment.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, and we are adjourned.