OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Tulsa Planning Commission Meeting – May 6, 2026: Infill Overlay Expansion and Rezonings Approved

City Council — Wednesday, May 6, 2026
BodyTulsa, Oklahoma
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, May 6, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:58:40

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Then there was an MPD and uh land use amendment, so that was approved.

0:04

There was an additional condition put on about no digital display.

0:07

So that uh we just want to make sure that they didn't do a digital display sign, for instance, along Riverside Drive.

0:14

And you know, not really in character with the building.

0:17

And the other thing is the uh this was for uh one is caller counselor cue.

0:24

But um for the small commercial property on Southwest Boulevard for that gift shop for Route 66, and that's all.

0:32

Any questions for Susan?

0:34

Thank you.

0:37

Uh item number one.

0:40

A motion.

0:43

Motion approve minutes.

0:46

So if you want, we have a motion by Commissioner Craddock, a second by Commissioner Shivill for the approval of item one.

0:52

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

0:57

Consent agenda items.

0:59

Do any commissioners wish to pull items two or three to the public hearing?

1:08

Entertain a motion then.

1:13

I'll move to approve the consent agenda items number two and three.

1:18

We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmesh, second by Commissioner Turner Addison.

1:24

For the approval items two and three, all those in favor?

1:27

Opposed.

1:28

And those items are approved.

1:30

I just wanted to say it was second by Jenny Q.

1:33

Oh, okay.

1:33

Sorry.

1:35

Um, so before we go to the public hearing, Mr.

1:40

Secretary, will you please read our rules?

1:43

Good afternoon.

1:44

In order to conduct the public hearing in an orderly manner, we ask that you abide the following rules.

1:50

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

2:04

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

2:10

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

2:15

Time limit per speaker may be imposed.

2:18

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

2:24

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

2:28

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

2:34

During the hearing, the commission may ask questions of staff, the applicant, or interested parties in the room are representative of the city legal uh department and development services department and the Tulsa Planning Office staff.

2:51

We do have a taping system, therefore, please direct all of your comments into the microphone.

2:57

These proceedings are broadcast live on cable channel 24.

3:01

Thank you.

3:04

Okay, I'm gonna move item six and eight to the front of the public hearing as the staff has requested a continuance on both items to May 20th.

3:15

Are there any speakers for items six and eight today?

3:21

Good motion.

3:29

I'll move to approve continuing items six and eight pursuant to staff's request.

3:34

So May 20th.

3:36

Second.

3:37

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Bullmesh, a second by Commissioner Humphrey to continue item six and eight to May 20th.

3:45

All those in favor?

3:47

Opposed.

3:48

And those two items are continued.

3:52

Item number four.

3:57

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

3:59

Item number four is a city rezoning request.

4:02

This is Z7858.

4:04

It's for a property that is located at the southeast corner of West 49th Street and South Union Avenue.

4:11

The property is currently zoned, both OL and a very small portion on the northeast corner is RS3.

4:17

There is an existing operation on this property of a tree business that was found to be out of compliance with the zoning regulations.

4:26

And so they are seeking to get into conformance by rezoning the property to a commercial general zoning district with an optional development plan.

4:37

The reason for that optional development plan is that the CG district did allow certain uses that they had no intention of doing, and also they found could be inappropriate near the neighborhood area, and so they have prohibited that list of uses that are included within your staff recommendation.

4:52

The comprehensive land or the comprehensive plan does uh designate this property as a multiple use property that is consistent with the commercial properties on both the west and the south of this existing location.

5:04

Staff reviewed the request as well as the optional development plan, found it to be consistent with the land use recommendation, and so we've recommended approval with the ODP.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Housing█████████████████████████████████████████████59%
Affordable Housing████████10%
Community Engagement██████8%
Procedural████5%
Pedestrian Safety███4%
Engineering And Infrastructure██3%
Economic Development██3%
Code Enforcement██3%
Public Engagement██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Tulsa Planning Commission Meeting – May 6, 2026

The Tulsa Planning Commission met on May 6, 2026, to consider several zoning and planning items. The most significant were the proposed expansion of the Neighborhood Infill Overlay (SA8) and associated text amendments (ZCA38), which generated extensive public comment. Commissioners ultimately approved both items after debate, along with several rezoning requests and a plat extension.

Consent Calendar

  • Item 1 (Minutes): Approved by voice vote (motion by Craddock, second by Shivill).
  • Consent Agenda (Items 2 & 3): Approved by voice vote (motion by Bullmesh, second by Turner Addison).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Laura Woods (Sequoia area): Opposed expansion, citing existing crime, lack of infrastructure, and a high Hispanic population that may not call police. Urged the city to address health services and transportation before increasing density.
  • George McCallum (North Tulsa): Opposed, describing poor sidewalks, stormwater issues, illegal dumping, and safety hazards from vehicles and ATVs.
  • Tyler Perrett (Housing Forward): Supported expansion, stating it opens parcels for the Town Home Catalog, redevelops vacant lots, and ties to affordability. Urged approval.
  • Martha Thomas (Downtown, family land north of 36th St): Opposed overlay on her family’s 50+ acres (zoned AG), noting it is not a functioning residential neighborhood, is a food desert, and has limited services. Also cited a procedural issue: the second public meeting was moved with no written notice.
  • Dr. Lloyd Bingham (North Tulsa): Opposed, stating “why North Tulsa?” and that the overlay benefits developers, not homeowners. Concerned about property value decreases and multi-unit homes attracting crime.
  • Ivana Garner (Sequoia area, 40-year homeowner): Opposed, arguing higher density on 1950s infrastructure increases stormwater runoff, parking problems, and strains utilities. Compared the proposal to the Pruitt-Igoe failure.
  • Chad Sue Cockin (Rockford Ave): Opposed, saying the overlay lowers standards (parking reduction), favors out-of-state corporations, and increases renters without owner investment.
  • L.J. McCondichy (North Tulsa): Opposed, claiming the city is “dumping” homeless problems in North Tulsa without infrastructure. Noted lack of sidewalks, transit, and mental health services. Urged postponement for further study.
  • Shelby Karamoko (Greater Tulsa Association of Realtors): Supported, citing similar successful measures in Broken Arrow and Claremore. Noted that infrastructure follows rooftops and that most Tulsa households are 1-2 people.
  • Richard Ball (Admiral Court): Opposed, describing blighted properties, shootings, and stabbings in the area. Accused the city of neglect and urged investment before overlay.
  • DeMarco Brown (Greenwood): Opposed, arguing the overlay will create “cookie-cutter” homes with no yards, forcing families into small rentals. Questioned the one-car parking requirement: “Who is paying the bills?”
  • Brittany Anderson (North Lewis): Opposed, citing lack of public notice and concern about city overreach on private property.
  • Frank Zidel (Newton Street): Supported the overlay but objected to the boundary splitting his street (his property excluded). Asked for boundary expansion; staff noted no expansion possible now but adjacency allows future rezoning.

Discussion Items

  • Items 7 & 10 – Neighborhood Infill Overlay Expansion (SA8) and Text Amendment (ZCA38): Nathan from Planning staff presented the proposal to extend the overlay from downtown to parts of Council Districts 1 and 3 (roughly 17,000 mailers sent, two public meetings, 24 formal letters: 5 support, 5 oppose with addresses; 10 oppose, 3 support without addresses; plus one organizational letter from Housing Forward). The overlay would allow duplexes, townhomes, sixplexes, and accessory dwelling units by right, reduce minimum lot width to 40 feet, and cut parking requirements by 50%. Staff argued it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopted small area plans. Commissioners questioned the parking reduction; staff cited data that ~50% of Tulsans have one car or less. During commission debate, Commissioner Craddock supported the overlay as proactive zoning. Commissioner Turner Addison expressed mixed feelings but leaned no due to community opposition. Commissioner Bullmesh supported, noting the council will hold a public hearing. Commissioner Keugh expressed frustration with code enforcement but voted yes. Commissioner Fuge voted yes after analyzing parking – he argued construction financing will require adequate parking regardless. Commissioner Shivill voted no, citing unmet infrastructure needs. Commissioner Q voted no, saying majority of speakers opposed.
  • Item 4 – Z7858 (Tree business rezoning): Approved per staff recommendation (unanimous).
  • Item 5 – Z7859 (IL rezoning near Lynn Lane): Approved per staff recommendation (unanimous).
  • Item 9 – St. Francis Hospital South Preliminary Plat Extension: Approved (third extension request, complicated by hospital operations).
  • Item 11 – Initiation of Housing Feasibility Amendments Part 2: Commissioners voted to initiate staff work on further zoning code simplifications, including consolidating building types and reducing reliance on Board of Adjustment exceptions.

Key Outcomes

  • Items 7 & 10 (Infill Overlay Expansion & Text Amendment): Approved as separate motions. Item 10 (ZCA38) passed with 3 opposed; Item 7 (SA8) passed on a voice vote. The matters now move to the City Council for final decision and a second public hearing.
  • Items 4, 5 (Z7858, Z7859): Approved unanimously.
  • Item 9 (Preliminary Plat Extension): Approved unanimously.
  • Item 11 (Initiation of Feasibility Amendments): Approved to begin stakeholder outreach and bring draft amendments to a summer work session.
  • Continuances: Items 6 and 8 were continued to May 20, 2026, per staff request.
  • Next Steps: All affected property owners and speakers will be notified of the City Council hearing date (likely a Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. in the same room).

Meeting Transcript

Then there was an MPD and uh land use amendment, so that was approved. There was an additional condition put on about no digital display. So that uh we just want to make sure that they didn't do a digital display sign, for instance, along Riverside Drive. And you know, not really in character with the building. And the other thing is the uh this was for uh one is caller counselor cue. But um for the small commercial property on Southwest Boulevard for that gift shop for Route 66, and that's all. Any questions for Susan? Thank you. Uh item number one. A motion. Motion approve minutes. So if you want, we have a motion by Commissioner Craddock, a second by Commissioner Shivill for the approval of item one. All those in favor, opposed, and that is approved. Consent agenda items. Do any commissioners wish to pull items two or three to the public hearing? Entertain a motion then. I'll move to approve the consent agenda items number two and three. We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmesh, second by Commissioner Turner Addison. For the approval items two and three, all those in favor? Opposed. And those items are approved. I just wanted to say it was second by Jenny Q. Oh, okay. Sorry. Um, so before we go to the public hearing, Mr. Secretary, will you please read our rules? Good afternoon. In order to conduct the public hearing in an orderly manner, we ask that you abide the following rules. Commission will first hear from the staff for an explanation of the application, physical facts of the property under application, and the surrounding property, followed by the presentation of the staff's recommendation. The commission will then hear the applicant's presentation not to exceed 15 minutes. Next, the commission will hear from any interested parties or protestants. Time limit 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 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 uh department and development services department and the Tulsa Planning Office staff. We do have a taping system, therefore, please direct all of your comments into the microphone. These proceedings are broadcast live on cable channel 24. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna move item six and eight to the front of the public hearing as the staff has requested a continuance on both items to May 20th. Are there any speakers for items six and eight today? Good motion. I'll move to approve continuing items six and eight pursuant to staff's request. So May 20th. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Bullmesh, a second by Commissioner Humphrey to continue item six and eight to May 20th. All those in favor? Opposed. And those two items are continued. Item number four.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com