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.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Item number four is a city rezoning request.

This is Z7858.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Any questions for Nathan?

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

We don't have any speakers.

Is the applicant here?

Are you in agreement with staff recommendation?

Okay, thank you.

We are in review.

Move to approve item number four per staff recommendation.

Do you want to say something?

You don't need to?

Perfect.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion by Commissioner Craddock and a second by Commissioner Turner Addison for the approval of item number four.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And item four is approved.

Item number five.

Item number five is another city rezoning request Z7859.

This is for a couple of pieces of property located just east of South 177th East Avenue or Lynn Lane on the north side of East Admiral Place and adjacent to Interstate 44.

The request is to take the zoning on these properties from RS1 to an IL or a light industrial district.

If you look at this area, IL is the predominant zoning district that exists for a mile in the east and a mile to the west along the south side of Interstate 44.

The land use plan does call the entire corridor an employment district, which is you know IL zoning would be a consistent zoning for that particular district.

The location approximate to the highway as well as the surrounding uses make this an appropriate zoning change, and so we have recommended approval of the change from RS1 to IL.

Okay, any questions from Nathan?

Thank you, sir.

Sure.

Is the applicant here?

In agreement with staff recommendation?

Okay, we do not have any speakers.

Move to approve item number five per staff recommendation.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Craddock, a second by Commissioner Shivel for the approval of item five.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And that item is approved.

Item number seven.

If it's okay, I'd like to talk about seven and ten together.

Seven and ten.

That would be SA8 as well as ZCA 38.

I think we have a presentation.

I'm gonna wait just a second here.

So SA8 is a zoning map amendment.

This is an extension of the neighborhood infill overlay that we discussed with you all at your previous work session.

To give you a little bit of background here, we originally adopted a neighborhood infill overlay around the downtown area in 2021 for the neighborhoods that are adjacent to downtown.

That was right on the heels of the city adopting the downtown housing study that showed that we had a shortage of housing units within that immediate vicinity.

Shortly after the adoption of that first round of the NIO, the city completed a citywide housing study that showed us things I think that we knew but provided us a lot more detail as far as the shortage of housing units that exist within the city of Tulsa.

That shortage is something that is gonna require a lot of solutions to fix.

I'm not here to tell you that the extension of the NIO is the solution to that problem.

There's a there's a number of other issues that will occur and that have to be addressed in order to ultimately provide the housing that we need.

However, making zoning changes to accommodate additional building types and housing choice within the city of Tulsa has been a number one recommendation of every adopted study plan that we have done around the issue of housing.

And so this is the thing within our control that we can start to make adjustments to to accommodate those housing types that are desperately needed and can allow us to meet the ultimate housing demand that the city of Tulsa has.

So first, the slides that we're going through right now, and Jaren, you can kind of flip through them.

These are the images we showed you at your work session.

These are projects that have occurred within the existing NIO.

It's a range of different items, it's duplexes, it's townhomes, it is a fourplex that have all been constructed under the provisions that were adopted under that initial infill overlay.

So what we have seen is that these changes, they do work in accommodating these new housing types that are needed in the city of Tulsa.

And as a result of that first effort, city counselors have been very interested in finding other areas to apply those allowances within the city of Tulsa.

And our office was approached first by the district one, City Councilor Vanessa Hall Harper, and the district three, City Councilor Councillor Dutton, to look at an extension of that boundary within their districts.

And that's the boundary that's shown on the screen right now and is what is before you today for your consideration.

The map amendment that you'd be reviewing today would take those same provisions and extend them to the full area shown in purple here.

It would allow by right on any lot within the overlay boundary the development of anything from a single-family home up to a six-plex apartment unit, subject to underlying lot requirements, including setbacks, including a height restriction of 35 feet that matches our typical residential district, and would accommodate smaller lot sizes to more closely align our regulations with the existing lot patterns that we have in the city of Tulsa.

So when our code was adopted in 1970, RS 3 was really the highest density single-family district that was brought in as a part of that.

RS3 established a lot width of 60 feet minimum for any residential lot and immediately put out of conformance a large number of properties within the city of Tulsa that were platted as 50-foot lots or even less.

The NIO reduces that minimum lot width to a 40-foot wide lot to accommodate use of those properties that previously had been restricted or could not be developed because of those restrictions that exist within our ordinances today.

In addition to allowing all those building types, there provides a reduction in the parking requirement.

It's not an elimination of the parking requirement.

Parking would still be required to be provided on site with new developments that would occur, but ultimately provides relief that we've seen is needed for these types of projects to work within these neighborhoods.

So often over the years, we have had a very high requirement for minimum parking standards with new development that has resulted in projects becoming infeasible or significant amounts of residential properties ultimately being eaten up by the parking needed to accommodate some of those developments.

And so that's part of the reason why there's a reduction in the infill overlay.

The final piece is that accessory dwelling units have been allowed by right within the infill overlay.

This extension would allow that as well to extend to a broader area.

I think I mentioned at your work session that in 2018 we had we finally added ADUs back into our zoning code as something that could be done, but only through a special exception with the city's board of adjustment.

And since that time, we've had about 85 applications for ADUs, every single one of them have been approved through the Board of Adjustment.

And so it seems reasonable to us to go ahead and start making areas of the city available for by right construction of accessory dwelling units.

They can be incorporated into existing neighborhood areas, they can be constructed by existing homeowners, and they can add very needed dwelling units to areas without seeing dramatic shifts in what those development patterns might be.

We believe that this is something that would greatly improve the possibilities of what can be built on vacancies, lots that have previously been underdeveloped or maybe just disregarded, have fallen into disrepair.

And so we believe that adding activity, adding units and residents to those properties would ultimately add back to vibrancy within these neighborhoods.

There's a partner item with this SAA boundary extension, which is ZCA38, and that is a text amendment to the zoning code to adjust some of the provisions that are in the neighborhood infill overlay and would apply to any areas within that adopted area.

Jaren, if you want to keep going here, that would just show you the resulting NIO.

Go ahead and next one.

So two primary changes associated with that text amendment.

The first is when we adopted the original neighborhood infill overlay in 2021, it was only applicable to properties that were zoned RS3 up through some of the RM districts.

One of the challenges that we immediately faced with that was that there were commercial properties, office properties that already allowed these building types, but were not given some of the provisions of the overlay to allow them to accommodate the same density that the overlay would.

So it was kind of a contrast where you had higher intensity zone properties that could do less than a residential property that was adjacent to it.

It actually resulted in a few cases where someone came in and rezoned from a commercial to a residential district so that they could get the benefit of the overlay.

So this text amendment would expand that applicability.

It would allow properties that are not already zoned residential to still take advantage of some of those allowances in the overlay.

It also makes some adjustments to the underlying lot and building regulations that, as people have done projects within the overlay boundary, we've still seen create different challenges, and we'd like to make those adjustments at this point so that we can continue to accommodate what we think are good developments within the area.

So, you can go ahead in the next slide.

This is the updated use chart.

As you can see, we previously still had distinctions between certain building types as to what lot area would be accommodated for the different building types.

The same was true for lot widths, and then we had a set of standard for setbacks that have been adjusted as a part of this overlay.

So we have essentially reduced the lot area down to 1,200 square feet to accommodate down to a townhouse.

So for our zoning code purposes, not building code, a townhouse is an individual unit that is attached to other units, but exists on its own lot.

So that's the most likely use case for a 1,200 square foot lot is that a townhome would have that lesser lot area requirement.

The same is true for lot width.

We may we further reduce the lot width for townhouses.

A lot of best practices showed that townhouses are very typical on about a 16-foot wide lot and accommodates a good townhouse development, and the 20-foot had become very challenging, and then ultimately going to a 25-foot lot width for everything else.

Again, these are minimums that we would expect a lot of projects would still be above as they came through for those changes.

So after the council initiated this process that happened in January of 2026, we began the process of working through the outreach that would need to be done for the properties to be included in the boundary, but also like any other zoning case, any property within the 300 foot of that boundary.

That resulted in our office mailing out roughly 17,000 direct mailers to property owners that were included in the boundary or nearby.

We developed a project web page that consolidated all the information around both the text amendments as well as the boundary.

It had an interactive map where property owners or interested parties could go to determine whether they were located in the proposed boundary or outside or any properties they might be interested in would be within those areas.

Two public meetings were held, and those were included on the mailers that were sent out.

The first occurred on March 23rd at Rudisil Library with around 300 attendees present.

The second was March 31st at Owen Elementary and had approximately 100 attendees.

We also presented this to a developer's round table, which is a standing meeting with developers interested in what the city is doing to tell them about the proposal and the extension that might be done.

At each of those outreach opportunities, we provide everyone with the opportunity to provide feedback to our office and ask that formal comments be submitted by email.

The reason for that is that our code requires that we provide you all with a map that actually shows where we received those comments from.

There was a map distributed to you earlier that actually shows that information.

In total, we received 24 letters into the email inbox for the planning department.

Only 10 owners provided actual addresses for the properties that they reside in or that they own.

And so those are the ones, it's a total of 13 properties, but 10 owners that are shown on the map that you have.

Five of those were in support, five of those owners were opposed.

In addition to the ones that provided addresses, we also received an additional 13 letters that didn't provide an address.

10 of those were in opposition to the proposal, three of those were supportive, as well as one additional organizational letter provided by Housing Forward in support of the effort.

For a little bit of, I guess, context, when we did the first neighborhood info overlay, our office sent out about 5,000 notices to the properties that would be included within that proposal area.

And we received an excess of 300 comments before this planning commission recommended approval of that effort.

In contrast for this one, we sent out 17,000 mailers and we've received 24 letters.

And obviously there are folks here who will speak to you today and state their position as well.

A range of things, you know, the support comes from those that believe this to be a good opportunity for new housing to be built, a good opportunity to expand housing choice within the city of Tulsa and to allow us to grow in a more organic way in providing that housing.

Opposition circles a lot around infrastructure, which is something I want to be clear about.

An approval of an overlay like this does not remove any requirements that would be levied against a project as it goes through a permitting process.

Your project will not be built if you cannot demonstrate that it has adequate sanitary sewer service, that it has adequate water service, that the drainage is going to flow to the correct places.

So those comments, while I think are very prudent and important, I do want to reassure people that the change in zoning does not remove a requirement that would have to be adhered to before a project could actually be constructed.

Other opposition, you know, circled around the idea of compatibility, which it's from our perspective something that we like to point to other existing neighborhoods in the city of Tulsa that already have the mixture of housing types that we're talking about.

I frequently point to the heights as a place where you have a mixture of duplexes up to sixplexes with single-family homes, living very compatibly in the same neighborhood.

Swan Lake is another example where that's a historic building pattern that exists and has continued to exist, all of which are still used today.

So it's not unprecedented to mix these types of housing within neighborhoods, and it provides a great opportunity for people to be able to live in a neighborhood and grow in a neighborhood.

They can start by renting, they can live in an apartment, they could potentially move to a single family home when they're equipped and be able to purchase something like that.

And then on the flip side, when you get to a retirement age and you want to downsize and you don't want to maintain your own house in your own lot anymore, you have opportunities to move into smaller units without leaving the place that you know is as your own neighborhood.

So these things provide a lot of benefit over time as projects like this develop.

We don't anticipate that this change in zoning creates a rapid shift in what you see in these neighborhoods, and that's evidenced by what we've done since 2021.

There hasn't been a massive amount of teardowns and rebuilds in order to utilize the NIO.

Because this doesn't accommodate the types of projects that probably would want something like that.

You know, large-scale apartment complexes that have a large large return and a lot of units to provide.

They want to do things like that.

But small scale projects like that that fit within a neighborhood are generally done by smaller scale developers, a lot of them local, who come to us and look for opportunities to build housing for Tulsa.

So we think that this is something that would provide them that opportunity, while again maintaining some of that compatibility with the existing neighborhoods.

You want to go ahead and switch.

In reviewing any zoning request, as I do when I get up here and present to you guys, we do talk about conformance with the city's adopted plans.

Starting first with the overall city comprehensive plan.

Our comprehensive plan is pretty explicit.

If you go to our housing and neighborhoods section, that the goal number three says Tulsa has a robust housing stock with an adequate mix of housing sizes, types, costs, and locations.

We believe this is very much consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan.

And also several of the strategies that underline that goal, like analyzing residential zoning impediments periodically to ensure future housing demand can be accommodated, encourage the development preservation and maintenance of well-constructed affordable housing.

It goes on to talk about conducting periodic reviews of the zoning code and the zoning map to identify feasible amendments to facilitate an increase in development of housing and continuing to remove barriers to the development of missing middle housing types.

I think all of those strategies are achieved by efforts like this, and I anticipate there will be more.

This is not going to be probably the last step we take to make those accommodations and continue attempting to implement those long range plans.

In addition to the comprehensive plan, several areas within this boundary are covered by adopted small area plans, none of which are silent on the same topic.

Starting with the Crutchfield plan that has a priority to talk about supporting compatible residential infill and reinvestment, supporting the development of an expanded range of housing types, including single-family and appropriately scaled missing middle housing, explicitly stated in the plan.

The Unity Heritage Neighborhoods plan talks about utilizing special zoning overlays to allow for higher density residential development.

Kindle Whittier, which a very, very small portion of the Kendall Whittier area is included in this boundary.

It's the area that is north of Third Street, west of Lewis up to the interstate, which is already zoned actually residential multifamily and would allow some of these building types.

That specific area within their small area plan is identified as an area for medium density residential, and it explicitly states townhouses up to small apartment complexes.

The 36th Street North Plan, housing priority one is to increase diversity of housing stock types and housing ownership.

Encourage a range of housing types, including multifamily townhomes and traditional single family.

And the Sequoia plan, which is the oldest of the adopted plans included within this boundary, is a little bit less explicit, but does talk about stabilizing and improving the Sequoia housing market, which we believe this would do.

The smaller lot sizes that are part of this infill overlay, in addition to obviously accommodating denser development, also drive down potentially the price of home ownership.

If the lot size can be reduced, the unit size can be reduced, you're still getting maybe a single-family home on a smaller lot.

You're you are increasing, I believe, affordability of what units can be constructed to give people that opportunity for homeownership that's kind of echoed throughout each of these plans.

In addition to the adopted plans that we have, as I mentioned before, the city has spent a lot of effort and a lot of resources studying this issue.

And in each of these plans that are listed up here on the screen, one of the top recommendations that came out of the consultant that did it or the staff that did it was to address the zoning barriers, because the truth is if we allocate resources, if we try to find financing opportunities, if we try to provide incentives for housing to be built, the last thing we want is for those resources to be eaten up by that development being subject to a four-month-long zoning process on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the project can even happen.

By unlocking the potential of the lots that are included within this overlay, we are making a more streamlined opportunity for those housing types to be built, but also for those resources that are going to be put towards that type of housing to be used more efficiently.

And so in each of these documents, you will find recommendations around what to do with our zoning code.

A lot of them would go farther than what we're doing.

A lot of them would say we should be making a lot of these changes citywide, which we are talking about, and which you guys will even discuss later on your agenda today, to begin making the adjustments necessary to accommodate what we believe are going to be good housing strategies moving forward.

But you can see it's it's not just about the affordable end, it's about all housing.

It's AARP who is looking at our zoning code and saying, hey, you guys are not accommodating our members with housing that they need in the city of Tulsa.

So this is this is a range of different Tulsons who need our our help in making this stuff happen, and we believe that efforts like this are only going to push us forward in accomplishing those goals.

And so what I will tell you at the end of that long spiel is that we at staff recommend approval of both SA8 and ZCA 38, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Any questions for Nathan?

Yeah, I've got a couple.

I haven't received any comments directly from them.

No.

I think there's a member of a real terrorist association in the audience, though.

Oh, is that who was waving there?

So maybe they're gonna let you know.

That's fine.

All right.

Um I just want I want to just want to make sure if if we had heard or that's it.

Yeah, no, we haven't heard anything formally from them.

Uh, I do think HBA was represented at the developers round table that we presented this concept at, um but yeah, nothing formally was was submitted.

Okay.

And since we're also talking about the uh the the other both items, I've got a specific question on parking.

Uh when we with this infill, uh we're reducing the parking requirement by 50 percent.

That's right.

Uh and so help me make sure I understand that if we build uh if you build a house, you get one your the requirements one car.

Yep.

And so you can't divide that up, so it's still gonna be one car.

Yeah, any fraction is a one.

But if you build a duplex on that same lot, that means you get can just have one car.

Mm-hmm.

So fourplex, two cars.

So I just want to make sure I understand and get the math clear.

Yep.

So, you're so I mean what you're touching on is what the code would require as a minimum.

Right.

Um, but yes, you're you're reducing our standard requirement of one space per unit by half.

So any number of units you take half of that, that's how many parking spaces on site that you are required to provide as part of a development.

So, and if if currently, if I have the ability to build a duplex with the proper zoning, I would still have to do one two cars on a duplex.

And with this would create would would only allow or the minimum would just be one car.

Yep.

That's correct.

Okay.

I just want to make sure I got that clarification.

And I think it's, you know, it's one of those things where, and you've heard me say this before, but we at the city level have a really hard time understanding what the what the right number is for parking.

Um, we can easily over-require, which I believe we've done for decades, which results in an excess amount of parking being constructed that's not used, that wastes real estate, that's expensive to build and to maintain and increases the cost of development overall.

Um, but we also believe that those that are building these developments have a better understanding of what their parking needs are.

Um if I'm out looking for a house to rent and I'm somebody that has a family with three cars, it's probably prudent for me to make sure that that can be accommodated in the unit that I find.

Um but also on top of that, there are other layers.

Uh financing institutions have their own minimum requirements.

If somebody wants to finance construction of a new project, they have to demonstrate to that institution that they're going to provide the minimum required by them.

So there are other catches to make sure that that happens.

The priority I think for us in developing this piece of amendment and these changes is really we're focusing on on finding places to house people.

And we believe that the parking requirements are not the priority and that they will be accommodated by those other factors.

Commissioner Fuge.

Yes.

So we since the time it was adopted have continued to track housing activity within that boundary.

I think we we had those numbers at the work session.

I don't have them on me at the moment, as it relates to the number of units that have been constructed.

Primarily those have been developments on vacant lots that were you know previously completely undeveloped, that now I think the highest implementation came from duplexes, and that was about 36 duplexes that had been constructed within that overlay boundary.

A lot of ADUs have been built within the overlay boundary as well as outside, just as a result of us allowing those in more places.

But overall, there has been an increase in the number of units that have been constructed within that overlay, and really what has led to I think the counselors being interested in applying this to more areas of their district is the results they're seeing within that existing boundary.

Anybody else?

Yeah, Brian?

Yeah.

I have a question there.

Just on uh how is the boundary kind of chosen there?

And also, was there any idea about phasing this at all?

Because this is this is a really broad area.

It is a large area.

Um the boundary was drawn in conjunction with the counselors who wished to initiate this for their districts.

So we we sat down with a large map and some markers, and we started talking about how to define this boundary and what the areas were.

Um we also took a really close look at where there are concentrations of vacant lots because we understand that to really be the biggest opportunity for this to make sense, those were the areas that were focused on.

The counselors, you know, were very adamant that they wanted to get it extended as far as they could to accommodate new dwelling units, new housing to be built, and so the combination of those factors were looked at together, and this is the boundary that they landed on.

Do I believe it to be a perfect boundary?

No.

I do think that there are other areas that would greatly benefit from something like this.

Um but you have to draw the line somewhere, and and like we've talked about, I think in the future I would anticipate probably more efforts of the same to get this applied in other places.

So, Commissioner Turner Addison.

Yes.

Um you mentioned single family homes being built on smaller lots.

One of the concerns that has been expressed to me repeatedly is the concern about homes being built behind homes and the lot sizes and how that's going to affect the neighborhoods.

How would you respond to a person who's really concerned about that?

So I could see that happening in a couple of ways.

Um ADUs being the most predominant.

That's probably the most likely case where someone would build a house behind the house would be an accessory dwelling unit.

However, with the smaller lot requirements, um, you could theoretically carve, and I mean, we didn't eliminate the requirement that these lots have frontage on a public street.

So that does create more of a challenge to to isolate a house in the back.

It would still have to have some frontage out onto the public street.

But overall, I I think it's it's going to be probably something very small to be able to be accommodated in the area allowed behind an existing home, and would likely not be much different from an accessory dwelling unit, even if if it were developed as its own standalone lot and home.

But at the same time, I I think it's the addition of one more unit, and probably from the street would would have very little effect on on overall the compatibility within that neighborhood area.

Any other questions right now for Nathan?

Yeah, Commissioner Keugh.

Nathan, I still have a question about parking, having my granddaughters have their own cars.

So they can, but did you not do a study that showed how many people in Tulson how many cars that the average household has?

So we did in our housing um kind of assessments that we've done in our own office, we did go through our our census data to to talk about what the you know average level of car ownership is within the city of Tulsa.

And um I'm pulling it out here right now, but essentially about 50% of Tulsons have one car or less, one or zero basically.

Um you go up to about really uh 75 or 80 percent um that have two vehicles or less for their household.

Um renters specifically are five times more likely to not own a car.

That's something that was found through through the census data that we had.

Um, and then also renters are twice as likely to only have one car as it results um from the data that we have.

So we have looked at it.

We have determined that we think overall, given Tulsa's general housing size as well as the data we have around car ownership that reductions like this um can be accommodated.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, okay.

Nathan, I think that's it for now.

Okay.

As the applicant, we'll have you back up.

All right, so at City Council is the applicant, just clarifying.

Yeah.

Okay, if anyone wants to speak, they need to sign up over here if you haven't already signed up.

Over here, you sign up right over here.

So we'll start now.

Um if some if a prior speaker makes a comment that covers your point, you can decline to speak.

We have over an hour of speakers.

Let's sign up right now.

So I will start.

Uh Laura Woods.

Yes, please.

Okay.

When you come up, please give your name and address.

And you have five minutes if you need it.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um, my name is Laura Woods, and I've been a part of NCIS pilot program.

Okay.

Is that better?

Okay.

Uh I have a list, but I didn't copy enough of concerns that have come up for my community.

I am very active.

Okay.

Okay.

And because of the NCIS program, the city gave us a great opportunity to make improvements.

And a million and a half dollars.

And I worked with Councillor Dunton in the city, and that was a great opportunity for me also to get to know my Sequalian neighbors.

And most of the people in our neighborhood didn't even know where Sequalian neighborhood, uh, name.

And so we have a high Hispanic.

One of the biggest I, my front door.

I fell on I've been lived in an area for 35 years.

I'm almost 36, 37.

I rented on your Bena and then I bought a house on Toledo.

And that's because of as a teacher and was close.

And what I've seen, there is a natural rejuvenation, like some things are already being rebuilt.

And I love how the area is transforming on its own.

Uh according to your mayor's report, and that we were picked for this overlay, and actually the NCIS pilot program.

Um we have a density of let's see, let me find it.

Housing density.

We're already higher rate, about two percent uh versus other Tulsa areas, and I'm lost where it is for a minute, but we already have two thousand units and at least two, and we have a high Hispanic population, so they are have more than two in a household.

A lot of my neighbor has probably six to eight in their house.

And I'm single.

I want to, and I have chose to live in this area because of I fell in love with urban ministry, and I look at it as opportunity to be to minister to the people and the love on and learn for diversity.

I uh on my on Toledo we have everything from Muslim to uh family lives from Tel Aviv to Belize to Hispanics, and I really love the diversity.

I love the way we already have a natural habitat in our uh area, and you wake up to the birds and we have all kinds of animals, which uh someone that is raised in the country, that's great.

And my biggest concerns are well when I went around with the NCI's program.

The number we there were three things we were asked by the uh John and uh we were asked to find out the three biggest concerns we had.

Number one, and I personally went round the neighborhood, and number one was crime.

Now the stat on this report does not show that we have a high call, but we also have a high Latino population.

They're not gonna call the police.

Okay.

And we also have another that uh people don't believe that the cops will engage and protect them.

I have numerous conversations on that with people.

I am currently working with uh the head of crime suppers, uh Karen Gilbert, and we are trying to implement that.

See, those are the things that I think we need to do before we increase our density, and the population that has a higher percentage of those kind of mental health counseling and issues that will go along with homelessness.

Okay, please conclude.

Okay.

So I would love for you what I want from this planning board is to consider those things for counseling and implementing health services.

We do not, we're low on the report for health services, counseling, transportation, and for groceries that are nearby for these populations to get to.

Thank you, Ms.

Woods.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

George McCallum.

Please give your name and address.

Sure.

Hello, my name is George McKellen.

At 4831 East Lattermer Street, and uh parking came up, yes.

Uh, let's talk about that.

Uh I move through neighborhoods here.

I don't have a vehicle.

I move through neighborhoods on an electric bicycle.

So it routes me, the mapping routes me through neighborhoods, so I know our neighborhoods very well, including Sequoia neighborhood, and uh, I see many things out there that are not looking good.

A lot of trash, litter, mattresses, sofas, discarded out in the front yard, right of ways, and sometimes illegal dumping on sidewalks or sidewalks are not open to people with wheelchairs or canes.

Just move around neighborhoods and you'll see it.

They're blocked by vehicles, they're blocked by trash, or poorly maintained.

They're disconnected.

Sometimes they don't continue in some streets where they're broken, like they're not, they don't exist.

You have sidewalk non-existent, kind of a hopscotch of sidewalks and no sidewalks.

Uh storm grates sealed over, covered with debris, trash.

I cannot report enough of them.

There's too many.

All the water comes in from multiple directions into two storm grates in front of my driveway.

I've literally got white water raft waves rolling down my driveway.

The wire goes uphill, then downhill to my garage, and I have standing water in my garage.

Something needs to be done about that.

Our sidewalks and streets are like Mad Max.

I look out and I see quad runners, motors, bikes of every kind running on our sidewalks and through our streets are loud.

All hours of the day and night, it's mixed.

Sometimes it's quiet.

We have quiet times, but they do come out once in a while, and it's dangerous out there.

I've almost been hit walking out at night.

I didn't see someone coming.

They were on a bicycle moving very fast in a very fast clip.

And I just about stepped right out in front of them.

A little hard of hearing, but you know, I should have looked before stepping out from or tees off.

And uh, you know, I'm out south, uh excuse me, North Yale Avenue.

It's very busy.

I see many dogs get hit.

You know, we might have more dogs with increased number of people living on these lights.

I see multiple vehicles in front yards, um, too many vehicles.

They're parked on sidewalks.

Five, six vehicles in a yard, single family home.

I see it everywhere.

Just move through the neighborhoods.

Just move, get on a bicycle, ride through your neighborhood streets and see what I see.

It's there.

Just look.

All right.

I appreciate for letting me know.

Thank you, Mr.

McCallum.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Tyler Perrett.

Good afternoon, Chair, Council members.

My name's Tyler Perrett.

My address is 1602 South Main Street, uh 74119.

Uh, I'm here representing Housing Forward.

Housing Forward is a policy and data organization based here in Oklahoma, committed to making sure that Oklahomans have the home that meets their needs, their life, and their future.

Um all neighborhoods change.

That is true.

Uh as the planning commission or as the planning office mentioned earlier, that change happens slowly.

Uh, but it's true that every neighborhood in the city, whether we have a tool or not to shape the change, will change.

Uh the NIO is one of the clearest tools that we have to help shape a positive change for neighborhoods.

Uh this expansion does three concrete things all at once that I'll talk about briefly that we're in support of.

One, it opens up more parcels where the T Town Home Catalog, the pre-approved plans program that has also been developed by the city, can actually be utilized, giving builders and homeowners a faster path to go from vacant lot into home that someone and a family can move into.

Um, it creates new pathways to redevelop vacant and abandoned lots that today produce no housing and contribute zero to our tax base.

And it also makes strategic reinvestment in blighted properties where uh it can make them economically viable at neighborhood scale.

So that small-scale development that's that's effective for our local builders and developers.

Each of these outcomes ties directly back to affordability.

When we don't build enough homes in our community, prices rise, and long-time residents get pushed out.

The NIO is one step to ensure that as Tulsa grows, the people who already live here can continue to own their homes and their families can continue to buy homes in the neighborhoods where they're from.

We see this expansion as an important first step.

The neighborhoods in this proposal will benefit, and what we learn from this implementation, the extended implementation of the already existing NIO will inform where this tool gets deployed next.

And Housing Forward is hopeful to see similar expansions considered in every part of the city of Tulsa.

We respectfully urge the commission to approve the expansion, and we thank you for your time and for the planning office's time and the careful work that has gone into this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Pratt.

Martha Thomas.

Please keep your name and address.

I had to find my speech.

My name is Martha Thomas.

I live at the mansion house downtown 74119.

I'm in a different position than most of the people that you're doing this overlay.

And my family has owned the property on the north and between 36th Street North and Cincinnati and 46th Street North on both sides of the street.

We've had it in the family over 115 years.

And we've worked with the city of Tulsa on corridor expansions and the area development.

When I started going out there as a child, there was barely streets out there, and the land has remained in a continuous useful state with agricultural use, it's zoned agriculture now, and active oil production.

The corridor has never functioned as a uniform residential neighborhood.

It has long reflected a transitional pattern, including a case-by-case review of commercial proposals.

The corridor already operates under a flexible zoning structure where use is evaluated on an individual basis, and contrary to wanting to speed things along, I think that things should be carefully discovered done, and any would damage our property having that overlay as single family.

There's like over 50 acres.

And part of it, there's 10 in another parcel, there's one in another parcel, and the corner of 36th Street North, and Cincinnati has four, and eventually, I don't know what's going to happen, but the interest we've had over the past 10 years has been commercial.

It hasn't been residential.

And my dad built all those houses between Northland and what it I don't even know what it's called now.

There's an OU Center right at 37th or 8th.

But my dad built all those houses when I was young, and I would always go to open houses.

So there is single family there.

But this feels um it's it's not a corridor either with it's kind of a food desert out there.

There's really no groceries to sustain what you're doing.

And in my head, I haven't asked for the overlay to see exactly what's going over our 50 acres, but it is full of beautiful trees that arborists have said it they would never be able to replace.

It's a sanctuary and it's on both sides of the creek.

Okay.

Um it's always been one long-standing mixed and traditional conditions.

There are limits.

There are limited basic services in this area.

I already touched on the groceries, that's all I need to say on that.

But it is a food desert, and the closest grocery stores always get changed because there's no security over there for them and people don't feel safe.

My core points is a long history that we've had.

We've worked with the city, we have established a lawful, useful.

You know, with our drilling on the land, we use it.

I grew up with horses out there, there's no longer horses.

If I could um 20 seconds, please.

Okay.

Um I also wanted to point out a procedural problem for the lat for the meetings that he pointed out.

You guys sent us a letter, and the first meeting went fine.

The second meeting was changed the venue with no written notice, and it really distracted from people coming.

There was nobody I spoke to that wanted the change, and I think that change of venue without written notice and giving people they changed it the day before because I went the day before and to this library, and I was mistaken on the dates, but when I went, I think it's a big error when this affects so many people in such a spans of area, and we would like to be grandfathered out of this.

My whole point in this in this thing is we've been there longer, almost as long as statehood, and I'd like our four parcels that we so deeply love to be grandfathered out of this mass um overlay.

Thank you, Ms.

Thomas.

Thank you.

Dr.

Lloyd Bingham Bingman.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dr.

Lloyd Bingman.

I reside at 1640 North Elwood Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

And I'm going to uh paint a picture for you.

My mom, who is now deceased, purchased my home our home in 1968.

I'm 66 years old.

I grew up in that house.

My mom purchased a house with the thought of not having to be around apartment buildings.

We grew up, I grew up in the very beginning.

My mom grew up near apartment buildings.

There were crime there.

There were all types of um drug usage.

But my mom wanted to have a home, a home that she can own her own.

She can call her own.

She was a hard-working lady.

And um I'm concerned, and I want you to know I'm opposed to this project.

For the first for the reasons being why North Tulsa?

Why are we hit?

It seems like everything that happens on our side of town is for benefit mostly for developers.

I receive calls almost daily wanting to purchase our home.

And I asked them what is the what is the why are you so interested in my home?

Well, I own two lots, and just now, from what I understand, uh multiple homes can be placed on those lots.

Developers want that.

It's a it's a purchase uh incentive for them.

And I asked them, I said, What are you gonna do?

Well, they're going to flip the homes.

They're going to um r remodel homes so they can uh build have more money.

My concern is these multi-purpose homes, including manufacture homes, those that are have businesses.

There can be group homes where there could be juvenile delinquents in these homes.

We'll be in our properties, near our properties.

That will decrease the value of our property.

I'm so excited right now that my property value has increased in the last two years.

Prior to that, it has really not increased at all.

And I would probably guess that the developing of downtown is a one reason why uh I'm so close to downtown.

I'm less than about three miles away from downtown.

And the development uh people in my neighborhood are congregating to my neighborhood.

Prior to probably five or six years ago, it was predominantly black owned homes, black-owned purchases.

Now I would say it's probably more than 50% white.

And that's good, but I want to make sure that my home is not being used to or my property is not being used to uh incentive incentivize developers.

Let me ask the question.

How many of you all live in North Tulsa?

How many of y'all own homes in the proposed zoning area?

And this includes staff as well.

Keep put yourself in my position.

Which you want people coming into your neighborhoods devaluing your property, which you want people who live in multi-purpose homes, patio homes, multi uh manufacturing homes, the type of people who do not pay taxes.

I pay property taxes.

I've been paying property taxes for over 56 years, including my mom has.

30 seconds.

I just want you to know that I'm very much opposed to this.

Um put yourselves in my position.

Um, what why have why haven't this happened in North in South Tulsa?

How many of you all, how many have homes have been considered in South Tulsa?

I guarantee you, they would not the residents there in those exclusive homes would not want that those type of homes in their neighborhoods.

I guarantee you that.

Thank you, Dr.

Bangman.

Ivana Gardner.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

Some of us don't.

All right, hi.

My name is Ivana Garner, and I am a homeowner at for 40 years at 3525 East Latimer Place.

That's District 3, the Sequoia area.

There's a big difference between a homeowner and a property owner.

A homeowner is a looking for a quality of life for their needs now and into the future.

This would include, but not limited to plants, trees, grass, walkability, quiet, bird singing, watching children play, sitting in your yard or on the porch and be happy to raise a family and grow old there.

A property owner, there are some who do have the same interest for the property.

That is, and provide the same characteristics as a homeowner.

But there are some property owners who have no desire to live there where they own the property, nor do they even live in Oklahoma.

So the quality of life is of little consequence for what they do to the property.

They are only there to invest in the property and make money and keep it out and take care and not take care of the property.

Putting a higher density number of people in a smaller space does change the quality of life on a property.

Their neighbor's property and the neighborhood.

Think about this.

You choose to rebuild to build a duplex with an auxiliary dwelling unit in the rear yard on a single typical lot size in the neighborhood.

This equates to indicate three independent families.

This will create create a greater load onto our current infrastructure.

Our system was built in the 1950s.

Electrical.

I've discovered this just recently.

PSOL rule of thumb in a 10 independent households per transformer.

There are only there are no alleys in this neighborhood.

So the power lines ran a course along the backyards of the lots.

This is typically means work on the lines requires access to someone on someone's property.

Do you want PSO's heavy trucks in your yard?

I have had it personally experienced this.

With that happening on my property when I when the transfer was blue and they needed to repair it.

That truck and let's see, I can't.

The truck drove and was sunk in my yard, side yard.

Plus, they they uh don't even they didn't even make it to the pole.

And I just told them to get off when I got home and found this, I told them just get off there.

I don't want you to do anything, but anyway, by the way, they didn't get there.

P.S.

My house behind my house was a vacant lot.

Timeout fingers don't work.

Okay, water sewer, storm drain, stormwater are typically street side, allowing the higher density and/or people comes at another cost to the neighbors in the neighborhood and to the old infrastructure that was built in the 50s.

First, one is the reduction of the green drainable area that slows down the rain via soaking into the ground before making it to the stormwater system, now would no longer exist.

The hard surfaces due to the roofs, porches, stoops, run of the water of the prof off the property faster and either floods or into a neighbor or faster, more faster onto a neighbor's property, faster to the out or faster to the outdated storm systems.

And then if think of it like this that same single lot.

Now you have three families.

Remember, we are on a typical single, we are a typical single lot size.

30 seconds.

Okay, the width of it basically means that you're gonna have more people parking on the street.

You're gonna have a lot more cars.

They're already.

If you would try go at the end of the day or even during the day, you will find barely being able to go down with the alley in between the cars parked on both sides of the street.

And uh, and then and then the mixed use is just another issue.

And my final statement will get your get you on schedule.

Okay, do we deal with the improvements of the infrastructure now or later when we have more people and more cars?

In conclusion, in 1954, a high density project, Purit IGO opened in St.

Louis, Missouri to meet the housing density.

Later it became famous for as a failure lending to its demolition in the 70s.

I actually saw that when I was uh went to St.

Louis that during that.

Is this the Tulsa Oklahoma Pruitt IGO?

Thank you, Ms.

Garner.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm opposed.

Chad Sue Cockin.

Hello, counselors.

My name is Chad Sakakion.

I was I'm from Tulsa, Oklahoma.

I grew up at 71st Memorial, went to Union High School.

And at 18.

If you would have told me I would have bought a house downtown, I would have told you you guys were crazy, but in the last 10 or 12 years, as this lady said, the gross of it being natural has really turned around.

It's it's viable down there.

I love it.

Um I bought a house at 819 North Rockford Avenue in September of 21.

Haven't had very much problems in the neighborhood except for some people behind my house and uh 311.

And I understand that that kind of stuff happens.

When you start building uh this overlay, in my opinion, is um we're lowering our standards.

So I our neighborhood right now, in my opinion, has a standard.

And in my opinion, by putting this layover in, it's lowering the standard.

Where you had to have two car garage, now you have to have one.

That's lowering the standard.

These people who are that have the money that will build aren't you and me.

They're they're corporations.

They're people who don't even might not even live in Oklahoma.

Um, and then you get these right now.

The majority of the people that live in my neighborhood are owners.

And when you have owners, you have people who care about your property, our property, crime, just how Mary's living down the road, things like that.

When you start putting more renters in who turn over every year or don't care about the property because it's not theirs, it's it might be raising our property taxes because it's a new six six bill uh, you know, six unit building, but it in the long run it's lowering our property value.

So where our taxes are going up, which is is a good thing because I want my property value to go up, but in reality, it's making the neighborhood less valuable.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

I deposit.

Thank you.

LJ McCondichy.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everyone.

But anyway, my name is Joy McCondeshi, and I'm a homeowner, and I also own another lot in North Tulsa.

And I just want to say that at this point, I think what we're doing as the city of Tulsa is taking our homeless problem and dumping it in North Tulsa and some of these undeveloped areas.

I just made a few um, and and that's not the thing to do, because number one, we don't have the infrastructure.

Uh our big uh case in point, the tiny home system, we're which this was the last time I addressed this body.

I I wasn't opposed to giving the unhoused a place to live.

My opposition was in North Tulsa, we don't have the infrastructure to sustain an additional 150 people in just that one one uh complex.

We have no sidewalks.

We have no lighting.

These are the things, and and just like they said, we don't have anywhere for them to shop.

We don't have the mental health capacities to sustain these people who may be of low-income status, a lot of us on fixed incomes.

We just don't, as the city, just like they're saying, we're downsizing, and we're taking this opportunity that we closed our a lot of our housing projects, um, and now all of those people are displaced.

Now we'll take this opportunity to dump all of those people into our neighborhoods.

The the part about the city not abating itself is one of my main problems.

It's just like this, these people are trying to tell us.

If his numbers are correct, at the one meeting we had over 300 people there, and and most of them opposed.

From the letters, the 20-something letters that he did receive, the the majority of that were opposed.

And so for you guys to come in and make a vote without further research on what the city's involvement is in this type of overlay, I think it's redundant to what they're saying.

This is just for the developers.

More than 300 of the homes that are owned in North Tulsa are owned by what I'm calling slum lords.

These people do not live basically even in the state of Oklahoma.

I live right next door to a to a vacant lot that I have been trying to identify, I want to buy the property.

I have been trying to identify who owns this property when the win association from the city of Tulsa comes out, they get smug with me and tell me to sue them.

Well, I would very much like to, because their trees are pushing up my foundation on my property.

But guess what?

You can't find them.

And the closest I've come to find them in the last two years is in Newark, New Jersey.

So they are correct that these developers are coming in and they plan to build all these sixplexes, four plexus on these properties next door to us.

And guess what?

The city doesn't really have to get involved.

After they make this overlay, the city doesn't have to come out and enforce them to do put in a sidewalk.

And guess what?

Did you know that they have cancel the public transit?

In other words, there is no bus to the dream center.

30 seconds, please.

There is no bus to the dream center.

So where will six additional families living next door to me?

Where will they go?

And where will they go?

And these are the things, what responsibility does the city of Tulsa have?

I think you need to postpone this vote until you investigate and research.

And then furthermore, the homeowners and the homeowners associations out there, we are ignored.

We are disrespectful.

We pay, we show up at all these meetings in mass numbers, and then we come out here put to nobody that lives here.

They tell us when they put in the pipeline, it's easier to more feasible to put the sidewalk on top.

Guess what?

There's no sidewalks, but we got the pipeline in there.

What is the city going to do?

I am vehemently opposed to this overlay.

Thank you.

Shelby Karamoko.

Good afternoon.

I'm here representing the Greater Tulsa Association of Realtors.

We are at 11505 East 43rd Street, and I am also a personal resident of the City of Tulsa, and I believe in this as well.

So for the last five or so years as an association, we have been advocating for more relaxed zoning laws, more missing middle housing, and accessory dwelling units by right.

And then for the last two years, we have looked, um, been having conversations about ways that we can creatively combat blight, not just in Tulsa but in surrounding communities.

So this proposed expansion is absolutely a step in the right direction.

And I encourage this body to consider um uh mirroring what we've seen in some of our neighboring communities, such as Broken Arrow and the City of Claremore, who have been leaders in this area.

So I know some of you, I don't know all of you.

I don't want to assume that I am um preaching to a choir here, but for those of us that are working in housing policy day in and day out and doing this for our career, this is a no-brainer.

Um, in fact, in one gentleman here mentioned, why not South Tulsa?

I agree.

You know, let's let's look at other areas of the town that we can do this uh even further.

So, yes, I'm here today advocating for approval of this expansion, but I believe that we will come back and look at um additional areas such as West and Citywide as well.

Um, previously there were cons uh some questions and concerns shared about parking requirements.

Um, I just yesterday actually we received a presentation from Housing Forward, Oklahoma, which is in the room today, and um the most common household size in Tulsa is one, and the second most uh common household size in Tulsa is two.

Um I don't remember the statistic exactly, but it was around 70 percent of the city was either one or two in the household size.

Uh also a concern that's been brought up is um the lack of infrastructure, the lack of um economic development in these areas, but data shows that um these things follow rooftops.

So with that, I would like to encourage unanimous approval of this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Caramoco.

Richard Ball.

Sorry, okay, sorry.

So I'm not a very good public speaker, but I will tell you what I think is the truth here.

Okay.

I'll try to keep it short.

Again, I'm not a public speaker.

I've lived in my house at 3315, East Admiral Court.

It was a HUD house.

I took it over.

In my younger days, I lived in Fort Worth, and I came out of the projects.

Okay.

I have progressed.

I was moved to the Tulsa Boys home in 69.

Okay.

Again, I have progressed.

I am for all these people that lived and does live in the Sequoia Elementary School District.

Okay.

That area.

Anne's bakery needs to be torn down.

It is a holding area for nothing but the homeless people.

The woman who talked about slum lords, okay.

I have seen shootings, I have seen stabbings.

Now I'm starting to get choked up, and I'm trying to hold my composure.

The city has neglected the area.

Okay.

Patrick was for getting something done with the homeless people.

Um Turner was for getting something done with the homeless.

You got North Tulsa, which I have nothing against North Tulsa.

It's great, it's wonderful.

Y'all are developing.

You put more towards 61st in Sheridan, and uh 61st and Peoria.

And in your other areas, okay.

There are buildings that are along Admiral that either need to be developed or torn down.

Okay.

All up and down that area.

The only development that I have seen sitting on that corner is Harvard keeps getting built, torn up, built and torn up.

I can tell you about four times it keeps getting torn up, built, torn up, rebuilt.

Admiral, which you're now doing at Admiral and Harvard, which they just got through with.

Great, wonderful.

Okay.

The development in that area has seriously, seriously been neglected.

Pour some money into the area.

Every one of these people who have made their statements are absolutely 100% correct.

Stop avoiding the area.

If you're gonna do this, do it correctly.

Again, I took a HUD house, made it what it is now.

And I do not want to see the property value go down, just like all these other people.

Okay.

They have lived there.

Our area is constantly moving and shaking, moving and shaking.

There are homeless people that are moving and shaking all the time in the area.

My language might not be right.

But the slum lords need to be out of there.

They are right by the private school that is over there, just down the street.

I have made reference to it, reference to it, and it seems like the city does not want to do anything about it.

Tear those homes down where they are renting them.

30 seconds.

Well, I'm done.

I'm just telling you, do something with the area and pour some money into it.

Stop developing in North Tulsa.

Stop developing out South Tulsa.

And I've said too much, I'm sorry, but Mr.

Bill.

You're gonna have to help me with this name.

D starts with a D, ends with a B.

Dame.

That's it.

I was a little nervous when I was driving.

I didn't want to speak.

My name is DeMarco Brown.

I grew up on Greenwood 5270, Slatima Court.

I'm 33 years old, grew up in the North Tulsa area.

I'm not just here for myself.

I'm here for my grandparents that will wanted to come and speak, but they are getting letters to sell out on Greenwood to sell.

My grandfather says every day, where am I going to go?

Why would I sell my home that I worked hard for?

He was the first African American in Tulsa, Oklahoma to go to the FBI Academy and graduate.

He made history here.

Not for just him, and it's not a black or white thing, but who wants to work all their life and didn't sell out?

It didn't wake up the next morning.

You have a cookie cutter house next door where kids can't even play.

You drive, you drive through North Tulsa, we're building homes where kids can't even play basketball.

I grew up where we played basketball, where we had a backyard, trampoline.

It's no action for these kids.

It's not just about cars.

And that's what got me to speak when Nathan said something about one car to each home.

Well, if we only have one car, who's working?

Is anybody going to work?

Because if you have a mother and father, we need to have some action.

Somebody needs to be going to work and provide to pay for this home.

If we got one car here or no car at all, who are we putting into these communities?

You know, from from the Peoria's to the 46 to 36.

Why are we keeping laying houses next door to properties with no structure, no plan?

Because we're just putting homes here and nobody's working.

So we have a lot of Section A vouchers, and people that have been in these properties for 40-50 years don't want to wake up to people smoking weed, drinking, partying because they got granted a Section A voucher.

Why?

And then you have kids that's riding on bikes.

I have a cousin that lives in one of these same homes you're trying to build.

And she's like, I'm scared to let my kids go out.

Why do they have to plan a garage?

Because I don't have a driveway.

Because the yards are not big enough.

Well, why did you move here?

Because this is all I had.

If that's what we're building for for people to just say this is all I have, what are we doing, Tulsa?

Let's give them an option to do more than just a cookie-cutter home and you have kids and you're not able to be comfortable.

So you're not going to stay there for 30, 40 years.

So you're going to abandon it and you're going to move out.

And then our value of the property goes down, or we have to pay more taxes.

So now we're stuck with the bill.

And you you say, Well, we have, Nathan, you're doing good.

But when you said the one car thing, you got me.

I had to get up and say something.

Who is paying the bills?

If we don't have nobody driving, who's paying the bills?

Who's providing for the home?

And that's what we need to be building for, for somebody to be able to come home and provide.

A man in a home to provide for the kids and the wife.

If we're not building for that, we don't need to be building right now.

Let's sit down and restructuralize the mother and father and get back to the old ways where we depend on the man to provide and not the system.

Thank you, sir.

Brittany Anderson.

Yes, I'm Brittany Henderson, um, the 4012 North Lewis.

And I have some concerns.

When is this gonna uh be up for vote?

And also, I kind of question the fairness of this meeting because a lot of people are at work and they're not able to attend to see what's fully going on.

And I also think I'm uh I am against it because it's not enough knowledge out there, it's not enough information out there for other individuals who are homeowners to wrap their brain around what's going on.

And is this gonna affect the current zoning laws of property owners?

The new zoning laws.

Are we have to conform to that?

Is this gonna cause overreach in terms of the city's power to dictate what private owners do with their property?

Are you gonna find people if they have more than one car on their driveway?

Are you gonna find people if they are not?

You know, I guess going along with this new zoning uh code.

That's what my concerns are.

Uh basically, I want it to be clear.

I want more of the neighborhood people or the people who are property owners to come to these meetings and be able to hear fully what this is about before voting for it.

That's what I want.

It should be, I think it should be passed, you know, not voted on.

I'm against it.

Thank you, Ms.

Anderson.

Frankie Zidel.

Hello, my name is Frank Zidel.

Um I'm speaking here today as a property owner on Newton Street, which, as you can see, the little pin handle of the overlay there, and I'm actually uh completely for the overlay.

I've seen how um the existing area, the yellow area, um in the heights uh area, has spurred a high quality development.

I think it's a great idea to allow flexibility for development.

However, my issue is that this overlay splits a street.

One side of Newton Street has overlay and the other side doesn't, which is where my property is.

So I'm a little jealous that the people on the north side will have this flexibility for future development to add additional dwelling units, whether it be a granny flat or all the things that this overlay allows and that flexibility.

Again, I think it's a great thing, it adds a value to that area, but I think that the decision to split a residential street is kind of arbitrary, and then I don't quite understand it.

I see the boundary, you know, by 412, and they seem pretty logical, but other than this little panhandle, so I'm not sure what the process is, but uh I've sent an email to the planning commission, I mean uh planning department.

I haven't received response yet, but uh I'd like to see if there's any way to expand the boundary or uh I guess that's what I'm trying to go on record statement.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Zaddle.

That is all of our speakers today.

So Nathan, you want to come back up?

Well, um first of all, I I appreciate those that did come to the meeting today that those that did provide comments.

I I completely understand that we're not gonna agree on on all points of the topic.

I did want to cover some things that were mentioned that I think maybe were just misunderstood.

Um first of all, the application of the overlay does not require anything of existing property owners.

You nothing changes about your ability to continue living there, occupying your home.

Um you're not forced to build something new.

And if you own vacant land, you're not forced to do anything with it.

Um all this does is is change the allowances about what you could potentially do with it uh if you decided to in the future.

Um the somebody mentioned that they had property that was owned AG.

The overlay does not apply to AG.

Um so they, while yes, they would have it included in the boundary.

Uh it doesn't change anything about the existing AG allowances and in conjunction with the previous statement, does not require them to develop it in any way.

Um it can be preserved in its current state, no changes will be made.

We're adjusting these regulations for property owners who wish to take advantage of them.

If somebody in the future were to acquire a property that's zoned AG and rezone it to residential or to a commercial district, they would then be given the benefits of the overlay because they were included.

But again, doesn't require anything specifically.

The overlay does not permit by right manufactured housing.

I saw a couple of written comments as well as someone who mentioned today something about manufactured homes.

That is not one of the housing types that's permitted by right within the overlay.

Manufactured housing is something that still requires a special exception, which is what it requires today to go through the board of adjustment, have its own individual public hearing, neighbors would be notified, a sign would be posted if a request for a manufactured housing unit was made.

That is unchanged.

That's what the process would be today if someone were to place a manufactured house on a piece of property.

There were questions about next steps and votes.

Obviously, you all today it's within your authority to make a recommendation to the city council.

This is not the last step in the process.

You all will vote.

You'll make a recommendation one way or the other.

That recommendation will then be transmitted to the city council who will ultimately make a final decision on whether this is adopted.

Obviously, we don't know the date of that council hearing at this time because we don't know the outcome of this meeting.

But following a recommendation from planning commission, our office will gather the materials and transmit it to council for placement on their agenda in the future.

Anyone who signed in to speak today will be notified when that will be placed on a council agenda.

And that meeting will take place at five o'clock in this room on a future Wednesday night whenever that's determined.

Um to Mr.

Zeidel's questions, um, I think we do have a meeting scheduled, both he and I and and the counselor for district one next week to talk about his concerns about being excluded.

Um what we did discuss with him at one of the public meetings was that because of the intense effort that went into the noticing of the boundary, there was no opportunity to expand it at this time.

You can't we can't add an additional property because then we would have to kind of start the clock over and re-notice and continue refreshing that.

However, the adjacency that he would be afforded if this were to be adopted would provide him an avenue to to actually request a rezoning and get into the overlay if that was his desire.

Um so that would provide him that step.

Um I don't have a lot more, but I'm I'm happy to answer any more questions.

Just to clarify that this started because the uh city council of district one wanted to include this uh in the process, or is this the city council in as a whole that said we want to do this?

So I just want to clear because some people have asked, sure.

So discussions began with district one and district three counselors.

Um that's when the idea was was brought forward, the boundary was created, the boundary and the proposal was then brought to the full city council who voted to initiate this effort.

Ryan.

Oh, Commissioner Q.

Since the city council has a lot of power to have meetings, I will probably support this because I feel that they are the ones that can answer a lot of the questions and make the difference in changes.

There's some good that's gonna come.

This is gonna take away a lot of blight or empty lots that aren't mowed, but also concerns like parking and who's living with you.

But those are things the city council can go to you and make those changes if it becomes necessary.

Okay, we are in review.

Any more questions for Nathan?

Ken?

Yes.

Yeah.

Our decision today is only moving it forward to the city council, who ultimately will have the final say.

That's correct.

Yeah, you you all will be making a recommendation one way or the other to the city council based on on what you've heard.

Um nothing will be adopted until city council takes action.

And they will ultimately probably have a public hearing on two.

Yes.

Oh, the council?

Yes, yeah.

So everyone that signed up today will be notified, and there will be a public hearing with city council where comments will be taken and the counselors will hear from anyone who wants to speak.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to address some comments, not necessarily questioned, but um just kind of addressed if we're in review.

Um I personally think this is a great idea.

I think it's a good example of a proactive step.

I've read a lot of the reports that Nathan indicated the needs assessment, the study, and one of the main things is that the city should go into proactive mode of rezoning.

And so I appreciate the collaborative creative effort that the original neighborhood info overlay was and this expansion.

Uh I want to reiterate that this was a this expansion was initiated by two council members that that are elected to represent their districts, and they were the ones that started this in their district.

So to one of the comments, why why this isn't elsewhere because it's not.

No, not you know, speaking's over.

This is before us today because the counselors who were elected to represent their districts initiated the process.

So I just want to reiterate that.

Um I think uh just to document, I think the majority of folks here today were opposed, but we have received uh mixed in mixed input both in favor of and against.

I think somebody who said it was correct.

There's about 70 percent of households in Tulsa are one or two people, and the vast majority of houses are three or more bedrooms, and there's a mismatch of types of housing and household sizes, and there's also data and I don't know the statistics, but that a vast number of people would like different options that just are not available, such as accessory dwelling units or smaller studio apartments.

So again, I think this is a great idea.

I am in favor uh and to just reiterate that this is not changing any underlying zoning.

This is not forcing anybody to do anything with their property.

The city will not be coming around and and counting cars or counting how many people live in units or issuing fines other than through our normal course of code enforcement.

So I support this.

I thank the staff uh uh for the effort getting here and the council uh councilwomen who uh address this.

Um and if and when we're ready, I'd be happy to make a motion, but open to other comments.

Yeah, Brian.

I was gonna say something.

I I I um I am for this, but I do struggle a little bit with this because of the broad area.

I do want to state that.

Uh I do think that um you have to have the city as a whole, we have demand for housing.

Um each neighborhood has has its own characteristics.

Uh and I do think that there are that the city council, you know, there are two elected officials there.

Um, and I think they will be mindful, I'm hoping they'll be mindful uh that there are various different neighborhoods there with different characteristics and it may be a better idea to phase this development uh or excuse me, it's overlay I should say there.

Um because you don't have uh really a uh the lot of these neighborhoods, some neighborhoods like growing together, akin to weird, they have kind of a quarterback, I see the audience there.

They have some some nonprofit organizations or developers in the area, which will help with some of the housings, things like that.

It will help with looking at you know how different neighborhoods are formed.

But all neighborhoods don't really have that.

Um so um some neighborhoods um you know will will benefit greatly and other benefits, some in other neighborhoods it may not benefit as as much as others.

So I do think that hopefully and we'll vote for this, but hopefully they'll consider that uh this is a massive area for an overlay, I believe.

I I think though, and I'll look at this more on a neighborhood basis, but that's one of my thoughts.

Nathan, I got one more quick question for you.

anybody else?

Uh both counselors hosted both town hall meetings, right?

That's right.

They were they were both there.

Yeah, district one was the Rudasil meeting that was on, I think the 23rd, and then uh district three was the representative at the owner elementary meeting.

Okay.

Mike.

Uh yeah.

Um I'm frustrated as a as a property owner who lives in in district one on with this.

I'm frustrated because, and I think a lot of the comments from the neighbors are because of existing problems that have yet to be identified or really identified, fixed, or even looked at.

I I I get frustrated with the volume of vehicles and the lack of code enforcement.

Yes, we've called, we've done all that, we've done everything.

There seems to be a lack of enforcement by the city of Tulsa to help my neighbors and help me have a better place to live.

I'm very frustrated with that.

And so this bleeds into this extension of the NIO because some of this is extremely good.

Some of it's not.

I've fought back on the parking requirement because I that's to me one of the number one issues.

I'm tired of watching parked cars everywhere, on blocks, in yards, everywhere, you know, where I make a decision to have a great home, spend money, do things, and code enforcement just turns a blind eye, and yes, they turn a blind eye.

So we'll have that conversation personally with them because we have called, we have done things to say, please help us.

Uh and don't know where, I don't know where that goes, other than they things don't change.

That's I think part of our frustration from a lot of the comments today is I see.

So we're our comments are bleeding into why are you doing this to us when we have problems today?

So the that's why I'm I'm frustrated because of do I throw the baby out with the bathwater and just say no?

Or do I push because some of this is good, some of these elements are really good.

I'm gonna vote no because of I can't trust the system.

Put some money in the area?

So and but anyway, so that's that's where I'm my friend and you can tell I'm frustrated with this.

Commissioner Kegate.

Um, so he he touched a little bit on you know a comment I want to make.

I mean, I heard a lot of things today that was that I would consider pushback that are really just they're not valid.

I mean, that's not what we're here to vote on today.

Um one of the things that that I would give some pushback on about other things being in order is that you know, anything that the city does, it takes money.

And and I don't know very many circumstances where really what we're talking about here is we're talking about taking backfill lots that are not mowed and pretty much do nothing but cause problems.

And we're talking about turning those into functioning residences that have taxpayers in them, new construction.

I do not know a circumstance on the planet where you bring new construction into a neighborhood that it does not make that neighborhood better.

And I'm speaking from experience because I'm in the industry.

Um I will say this the workshop we had, I really struggle with the numbers.

If I was to vote no on this, it would simply be from the parking.

So I dug into that in the past week, and and I I struggle with the numbers that was presented by staff.

I think that how numbers are put together and how they're presented are very important to say that you know 50 percent of I can't remember the exact number, but 50% of Tulson's, you know, don't are are have no one vehicle house or less uh per capita is an irrelevant number for us to consider.

Here's the facts.

2.9% of dwellings in Tulsa, whether ownership or rental, have no automobile.

2.9%, that's it.

30 percent have one car, 43% have two cars.

That leaves a remaining that's 90%, that leaves a remaining 10%.

Those remaining 10 percent have three, four, or five cars.

Now, to me, that does present a parking problem.

If you can take a dupe of a quadplex, which is a single family residence home, and put two cars in front of it.

But being in the industry, I no longer have that concern.

I will vote yes on this because it will not have a parking problem, in my opinion, and here's why.

Construction financing is going to be required to build these units, and in unit financing is going to be required to buy them.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, all the all the construction lending institutions, along with the conventional and conforming final use lending, will not allow a duplex with one car parking.

You cannot get financing for that.

And for the people who are going to be building these as primary residences or rentals, they're not going to be building a duplex with parking for one car unless they're paying cash.

And that's such a small percentage, it's not even worth worrying about, in my opinion.

So I don't agree with the code, the zoning change with the half-use automobile, but that's not the common denominator in the end user and when it's built.

If it's a duplex, I am 99% sure most of those out there are going to have the parking they require.

So that being said, like I said, a lot of the pushback I think we got was for things that are not under consideration with us.

But in the end, this will make any of the areas.

I mean, I I actually wish this would have been done everywhere, because I do not see any downside coming out of this, even from any individual neighborhood.

It all seems positive to me.

Thank you, Troy.

Anybody else?

Well done.

No, I I will go on record and just say I'm struggling with this as well.

When I walked in, I said I'm either way 50-50, and at this moment, not really knowing exactly which way to decide, but I am really sensitive to what I've heard today, and the majority of the people in this room said no.

But I also attended the library at the Rue of Sale when we had a lot of upset people.

And when I hear uh Miss McCondi, she say, you know, maybe there need to be a consideration of postpone it.

I, you know, I'm I'm really in agreement to that.

You know, just from the information I've heard so far, and just from my own review and the concerns that people in um our community have today, even though I could personally benefit, and I am a resident of uh district one in North Tulsa, um, I would have to say no.

I get three a day.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, I guess I'll go on the record as well.

Um, I've been along I I've been around development and and uh in these types of issues long enough to know that uh the thing that's choking killing the city of Tulsa right now is the amount of single family uh uh housing zoning that we have in this in this city where you can only build single-family houses, where we have a lot of empty lots, we have a lot of empty land that's not developable, not developable.

Uh just butchering that word not developable.

Um, you know, if we're gonna kill, if we're gonna kill the things we know that work in terms of density and in terms of of health outcomes in terms of uh addressing, you know, um uh transit issues and things like that.

If we're gonna kill those things because of parking, that doesn't that makes no sense to me.

If we're gonna say we're not gonna do this because uh because of parking minimums when we know that density and things like that are the actual answers to driving down our dependency on the vehicle, right?

You want to have more bus lines, more options for mass transit and things like that.

You gotta have more houses, get more rooftops in one place.

You want to have more uh opportunities for for small businesses, for uh for restaurants, for uh grocery stores and things like that.

You've got to have more people in more dense densely located areas.

Uh you want to invest and put money into an area, you gotta have places where developers can come in.

And when I say developers, I'm talking about, you know, uh people who are are small developers that are from Tulsa that can't walk down the street and and build something in a neighborhood that's gonna ruin it because of afraid of being shamed on that.

That's where the money's gonna come from because the city of Tulsa, this is the 23 years I've lived here is not going to be spending any money developing housing, developing commercial, uh developing anything.

Um, how they can't even build sidewalks and keep the lights on for the most part.

But the things that we know work, not just in the city of Tulsa, because we have an example of the neighborhood inlay uh overlay, uh neighborhood infill overlay uh around downtown, but but also because we know that this works in other communities throughout the United States, is to relax our zoning uh codes, right?

Um, nobody's being required to do anything with this.

In reality, you know, we talk a lot about uh about property rights.

It's actually saying to someone who owns a home, you can now do more with your property than right now.

Right now, you can only have your single family home.

Well, guess what?

If you own that property and it's been in your family for 100 years, and you want to build an accessory dwelling unit on the back, and you want to get seventeen, eighteen hundred dollars in rent to cover your to cover your uh your mortgage, or if you don't have a mortgage just to put in your pocket and start creating judicial wealth, then you can do that.

And right now you can't do that in the city of Tulsa.

And the problem is, and I've said this before when we sit up here is I feel like we are um up here trying to remedy bad zoning decisions for the past 50-60 years, you know, putting single-family homes everywhere, so that people who either don't want to live in a single family home, and we know that's true, right?

Because we've looked at the numbers.

60-something percent of the people might want to live in a in a town home, 60 percent might want to live in a in a duplex.

You know, some people don't want to take on the responsibility of mowing, you know, taking care of houses and things like that.

Uh affordability crisis.

Some people can't afford single family homes, right?

So they've got to have an option.

If we don't provide that option for it, that's when we start getting into issues of homelessness, right?

Number one cause, and I mean it's not my opinion, it's a fact.

Number one cause of homelessness in the United States is is an affordable housing issue.

If you can't afford to live someplace, you are much easier.

Uh it's much easier for you to end up on the street uh for things that aren't shouldn't cause you to be on the street, right?

Medical bills, um, even mental health things that you might be able to withstand and be able to treat on your own uh if you're if your rent isn't sky high.

And you know, that's what we're charged with doing.

We're charged with looking at these things and trying to figure out how do we address this issue because it isn't it's an issue and it's coming for everybody right now.

Um, if if if one of those tools in a toolbox is to step back and say, hey, we're gonna relax the requirements on a piece of property uh to allow uh homeowners property owners to develop their property in a way that's gonna assist them or help them and also helps other people in the community, then I'm I'm gonna be for that.

So thank you, Shane.

Jeff, 10 first or together.

Either way, no, I need to think, sir.

Yeah, separate.

So 10 first, probably.

10 first.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh before I make a motion, I just want to address one thing and not not as pushback, but just public announcement, if you will.

Um, there's a lot of talk here about code enforcement and uh last week there was a committee meeting of council where there was a lot of discussion about the proposed budget that's currently before council, which is proposing additional resources to the code enforcement office as well as uh improvement that they're already making.

So I encourage anybody who has an issue with code enforcement um to talk to your counselor, uh figure out what how they feel about that proposed budget amendment and support that uh because I think part of the problem is if if we if we can do better, we can address the code enforcement issues.

I don't think voting this down is going to address those code enforcement issues.

So just want to clarify those kind of two separate points.

In my opinion, I understand how they could seem interrelated.

But uh with that, I will make a motion to approve item number 10 pursuant to staff recommendation.

Second, okay.

Uh sounds like we might have a split vote, so leave your hands in the air for Kim.

We have a motion for item 10 by Commissioner Bullmash and a second by Commissioner Fugate.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

Yeah, you're gonna need to do that again.

Too quick, in favor?

All those in favor?

Wow.

Opposed three.

Okay.

Item seven.

I will make a motion to prove item number seven pursuit of staff recommendations.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash, second by Commissioner Shivill for the approval of item seven per staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

Sorry.

And that item is approved.

Item number nine.

Um item number nine is an extension of a preliminary plat approval.

Um this is the uh St.

St.

Francis uh Hospital South plat.

Um the approval expires uh or expired on 4 6, 2027.

We did receive the request before that expiration, so you can still act on it and the request or excuse me, it was on 26, the request to extend the approval to uh 2027.

Um this is the third request, which is I think the first I've ever had for a preliminary plat request without getting it through.

Um part of that is it is a very complicated project and the IDP work associated with it uh gets complicated because it is a working hospital in South Tulsa.

And so for those reasons and the uh easement closures that you're still working through, we do recommend approval.

Okay.

Any questions for Austin?

Okay, thank you.

Natalie, I apologize.

I should have moved you to the front of this meeting, and I apologize.

And I didn't I didn't think about it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm sorry.

Are you in agreement with staff recommendations?

Yes, we are.

Okay.

We don't have any speakers.

I will approve item.

Second.

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

All those in favor, opposed.

And that item is approved.

Item number 11.

Hi.

Um so this item is a follow-up from the work session that we had about a month ago.

And this is um initi we're asking for at the request of Commissioner Bullmash, uh, initiation of housing feasibility amendments part two, as we talked about in the work session.

And before I and I'll talk about them broadly, we talked about them a little maybe a little more specifically in the um in the work session, but I will say since that time, a few of us have gone to the National Planning Conference in Detroit, and so we're seeing what all other cities are doing and the national issues.

So the biggest issues, and and this con conference, well, for Louisa's been before, so she knows usually there's a lot of topics.

There might be a little bit of themes, but this one was very, there were just a few themes at this conference.

Housing, of course, was big all you know in recent years.

Um, unfortunately, AI and data centers, that was a pretty big one.

But I would say probably at the top, if not tied with housing, was zoning.

And zoning in the way that we're looking at it here too, a way to make it really simplify it, uncomplicate it, not make it so hard for people to sort through all the the use regulations and the site regulations and try to figure out from the the list of you know 15 building types which one they are and to align with all of the other standards.

So we're trying to do that in a very thoughtful way.

Um so that's what we talked about in the work session.

Um so we want, you know, we are always available and all day we take phone calls and help people walk them through the zoning code.

Um it would be helpful sometimes if you know on the weekend if they want to understand it a little better and we're not available that they can do that, and I don't think that that's the case right now.

I think it's just too complicated.

So, you know, what we also want to do is we see some things as I think uh um Nathan mentioned in relation to the NIO, some things are repeatedly uh approved at the Board of Adjustment because they are something that our you know the world has kind of evolved to be to accept, and so we want to look at those.

Um, and we think this is gonna help development and our desired development and goals specifically regarding housing because this is what this is focused on, that it'll approve development timeline, just make housing easier to achieve.

So what my plan is here is um when if if today you initiate these amendments and all that means is that it's sort of the official start of us working on that.

Uh of course we have ideas and we have we've done some you know, initial work and we know enough to start talking to stakeholders.

So we want to do that, um, really gain some traction as far as what we think uh would be the best proposal and then bring that back to you at a work session this summer, hopefully.

So that is the the path that we see.

And if you remember, I don't I don't have any slides today, but if if you were at the work session, even remember uh the use table and how we significantly reduce that.

Instead of having a lot of different use types or building types, um we really are just um narrowing it down to you have one dwelling unit on a lot or two or three or four or more.

There's not you don't have to decide if it's a town home or if it's an apartment or if it's you know a cottage district or whatever it is.

So we're really just trying to take it down to some more user friendly version of the zoning code that people can use and that don't get in the way and they have to go through both the planning commission and the board of adjustment and then ask for all these other exceptions.

So that's that's our goal.

Any questions for Susan?

Thank you.

If no comments I will move to initiate the proposed amendments for the housing feasibility amendments part two as recommended or as requested by staff.

Second okay any other discussion?

We have a motion by Commissioner Bolmesh second by Commissioner Q to approve the initiation of the feasibility amendments.

All those in favor opposed and that is approved.

I'll make a motion for adjournment.

We have a motion and a second all those in favor and we're adjourned.