Welcome to TMAPC meeting number 2961, Wednesday, May 20th, 2026.

I call this meeting to order.

I don't have a chairperson's report for director's report or recognize Susan Miller.

Okay, good afternoon.

Um a lot has happened since we last met, a lot of big kind of big projects approved.

If you remember Riverline, um that has been approved by council.

We've had a subdivision out east with about 300 lots.

That's been approved at 41st and 129.

Also some apartments at 61st in union and then some more on um at about 42nd union.

Also wanted to mention, as far as from the city side, we don't have a lot coming up on the next couple of agendas.

I just wanted to make you aware.

I don't know.

I know that um I believe the next agenda, the county has a few things.

Kendall, are you listening at all?

No, he's not listening.

So I do believe they do.

I don't know, but the summer's looking a little light as we start getting into it just to FYI.

And um, I think that's about all I had, unless you have questions.

Any questions for Susan?

Thank you.

Mr.

Secretary, we please read our rules.

Good afternoon.

Uh the 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 for any interested parties or protestants.

A timeline per speaker may be in post.

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 representing the city legal 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.

And these proceedings are broadcast live on cable channel 24.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Item number one, we have a motion.

I move to approve the minutes of the May 6th, 2026 meeting.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash, a second by Commissioner Shivill.

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

Thank you.

We do not have any continuance today, I don't think.

So moving on to number two, consent agenda items.

Do any commissioners wish to move the consent agenda item to the public hearing?

No.

Entertain a motion.

Motion approved item number two.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Humphrey, a second by Commissioner Whitlock for the approval of item two.

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

Item number three.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Item number three is Z7852.

This is a city rezoning request that you originally heard back on April 1st and had received a couple of continuances while ongoing conversations with uh neighbors uh happened.

This is kind of an unusual request.

It's they're not actually changing the zoning of the property, however, they are requesting to add an optional development plan for the purposes of allowing the two lots on the north side of East 119th Street to be served by a private street.

Uh this would be the first step of a few that would have to happen in order for them to ultimately privatize that portion of East 119th Street.

Uh first the zoning would have to allow it, and then they will have to go through a process with the city to actually close the public right-of-way and dedicate that over to an association of some kind to maintain it.

Um it's my understanding that since the last hearing, um there have been ongoing conversations with the neighborhood to the west.

You all may remember the president of the HOA to that neighborhood had had originally objected to the application because they are seeking to get access to Yale via 119th Street, and they were worried this would prevent their ability to then access out to um South Yale.

So the applicant for this project has met with them, and I believe uh you all also received an email that they've reached an agreement that they would be able to ultimately share uh the gate that is proposed as part of this project to serve both of the gated neighborhoods that exist in this area.

The staff recommendation is is unchanged, it's still just a rezoning to add the optional development plan and allow for private streets.

Um, and we do know that there would be follow-up processes that they will have to go through before this is actually effective.

So, staff recommends approval and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Nathan?

May have you back up.

All right, is the app can hear?

Nathan Cross, two West Second Street, Suite 600 Tulsa.

Um, as Nathan summarized, uh, we if you'll recall there was some discussion last uh meeting about whether or not Wind River Crossing, which is the subdivision to the west, would be able to go forward with a plan to use this as secondary access to the neighborhood uh at the commission's request.

We met out in the hallway and then continues those discussions for another three weeks.

Uh uh, which is why we had a month long break between when we were here last time and now, and as Nathan said, we've arrived at an agreement, which is evidenced by the emails that I've shared with staff, uh, to uh have both neighborhoods have access with uh the developer of Wind River Plaza who I represent building and maintaining a gate, but providing uh the ability for the residents of the adjacent neighborhood to have key fob access.

Uh and the residents of the adjacent neighborhood have agreed to keep their fire gates but open them up, uh reserving the right to close them in the future if they would like.

And sort of as a final point, uh I'll go back to where Nathan started, which is uh we're not privatizing a street today, we're merely asking uh the only request before you is whether or not these two houses that are outlined can sit on a private street, and we are not changing any of the underlying development standards for those lots.

And I'll take any questions you might have.

So, Nathan, are the Vandalia homes part of Wind River?

Uh the Vandaly is Vandalia the street to go south.

I'm sorry, yes, they are.

So that's all Wind River to the west, and that it's wind river is to the east, and well, it's Wind River Plaza and Wind River Crossing.

That's why it's confusing.

So and everybody's in agreement.

Everyone's in agreement.

Can you show the the public where all of the gates are?

Uh yeah, if you could turn to the diagram that has this one out before maybe the back.

So this is a conceptual uh picture of the gates and where the gate would be, and it's actually uh right down on the east end of the uh easternmost house that sits on 119th street.

Uh do you want a aerial?

Do you want me to indicate on the area?

The aerial is easier.

I just want to see the access for it so everybody can see it.

Okay.

Uh will you go back to the overhead?

Yeah.

So the gate would be right here, basically at the end of where this box is.

Their gate is here, and it would remain but would be open, and access would be allowed both ways for just for the two neighborhoods.

This gate would be under the agreement, would be resident only for both neighborhoods, so it's not a public access, it's operated by key fob, and it will have a pedestrian gate that will allow residents from this neighborhood to walk this way and this neighborhood.

What about 121st?

What do you mean?

Where are the gates on 121st?

Oh, well, the gate the other gate for this neighborhood is down here on the south end, and it's already there.

This yeah, this street is private uh already.

Okay.

You're adding the one gate.

Adding one gate.

That's the request.

That's the deal that we've we've brokered with the uh adjacent neighborhood.

No one's signed up to speak.

Well, I think maybe the fact that the HOA president is not here uh indicates that we've arrived at a uh mutually agreeable solution.

Okay, any questions for Mr.

Cross?

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We do not have any speakers, just letters.

Move approval of item number three per staff's recommendation.

Second.

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

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

Steal that.

All right, item number four.

This is another city rezoning request.

Uh this is Z7861.

It is for almost an acre of property that's located south of the southeast corner of East Newton Street and North Oswego Avenue.

Um the request here is to rezone the property from RS3 to an MX1 F35 district.

Uh, that is a mixed use zoning district.

The one is an indication of the scale of mixed use, which our code would call MX1 and neighborhood scale mixed use district.

The F is the character designation, which is flexible.

Um, and then the 35 is the height maximum that would be established by the zoning district.

This request is an effort to try and construct some new townhomes, but also with the potential for a new neighborhood coffee shop to be included with the development.

Um the 35 foot height maximum is aligned with the existing height maximum within the surrounding neighborhood of RS3.

That would be what would be applicable today on the property.

Um the MX 1 district is very limited in the commercial uses that it would allow.

Um most of them because of that neighborhood scale indication would be small scale, could be a small retailer, could be a restaurant like a coffee shop, um, and would be incorporated into a mixed-use building.

MX districts also come with additional design requirements that are not found in some of our other zoning districts, uh such as transparency requirements along the building, uh ground floor ceiling heights, uh, build two zones, and so it it ultimately helps to accommodate more compatible development within these these neighborhood areas, but overall this project would accomplish some additional housing choices within the neighborhood as well as this opportunity for for potentially a small coffee shop.

We found that the MX-1 district is consistent with the neighborhood land use designation, and so we've recommended approval of the rezoning.

Okay, any questions for night 15?

Do we know how many units they're proposing?

I think they said six to four.

She's saying four.

The applicant is here and would probably have a lot more detail for you about the proposal.

So cool.

Thanks.

Okay.

The applicant like to come up.

I knew that was the applicant.

Hey folks, I'm Kayla Lee.

I'm an architect with Lee Simon Design.

We are the applicant for the project.

Um, I'm also representing the client who owns the land, and so we're kind of working in partnership to build out the project.

Um, yeah, I actually live at on Knoxville, a couple of streets over.

So it's my neighborhood also.

Um, and as an architect, I've sat in a lot of um conversations with folks who are wanting, you know, walkability, bike ability, all these missing middle, and I finally have the opportunity to uh put forth some effort to bring some like local um functionality to this neighborhood.

Um me and my neighbor, if we get coffee pretty regularly, Gene, uh he's uh 83.

Or maybe just turn 84, maybe 7th.

Um, and we have to like drive all the way like downtown, or sometimes we go to Brahms, but he doesn't like the coffee, so then it's just like it would be really cool to like so literally went to Shades, and then he had his walker and we walked to the gathering place.

And I was like, we could have just been the neighborhood and had the same kind of experience.

Um that neighborhood, I've lived there since 2019, and um you know, got to meet some of the neighbors who had been there, bought their houses in the 80s, and our kids grew up there and they're still living there, and those kids walk to Will Rogers and they walk to um where the alternative school is now.

I think it was a different school at that point.

So it's just like in an effort to bring more neighborhood scale flexibility.

Um that's where this project is.

So we're proposing four townhouses, so back to back to back, and the ground floor is gonna be 12-foot ceilings, so we can have coffee or pottery studio or whatever like the the guys who own the lot are going to hold it, so they get to control really the tenant mix.

Um, so we do really get to decide what happens here, which is pretty cool.

So that's the um that's the project.

Okay, any questions?

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh one uh Ivona Gardner, Ivana.

Please give your name and address.

Ivana Garner, 3525 East Latimer Place.

I question the need for the zoning change RS3 to an unknown mixed use, MX 135, inside our neighborhood and not at on the outer outer perimeters.

You have to work hard to find the address.

How could a business through survive?

Application does not indicate what the actual use may become.

It's open.

It could change.

The change would might not allow an option that would be more in more invasive for a family neighborhood.

Children actively playing, parents, family, and friends out in the yard, birds, green grass, open air.

And mixed use should have some scale requirements that would ensure that the that the new use be less family disruptive to our quality of life in the neighborhood.

A few examples, the size of the use, limited to the hours of operation, small vehicles making deliveries, low traffic volume, noise, sounds outside of the structure, low outdoor lighting, typical to residential neighborhoods, on the on-site parking that is permeable to assist in the rain to soak up into the ground before it runs off into the drainage.

And the rain, right?

Perhaps rain gardens included to also hold the water before going into the drainage.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

That's all the speakers we have.

So I want to make a few comments.

Um in response to that.

The RS1 would allow like almost all paved area, which would this use is no different, like so it I appreciate your concern.

I appreciate your concern, but I think the multifamily could be done without the commercial use, which would still have the same impact on the impervious use.

But I commend this.

I think I've I am sitting in this seat, and in my day job uh as a senior advisor to the mayor on housing.

I hear a lot of requests and desires for walkability and neighborhood serving retail.

Um, and so I think this is something that a lot of people in the community need.

So I would move to approve uh item number three pursuit of staff recommendations.

We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash, second by Commissioner Whitlock, all those in favor, posed, and that item is approved.

I don't remember five.

If it's okay, I'm gonna talk about item five and item twelve together.

Uh this is a there are two applications.

One is a rezoning application under Z 7860, as well as a comprehensive plan amendment under CPA 131.

Um, this is for property that's located east of the southeast corner of West Edison Street and North 41st West Avenue.

Um, it's about 3.8 acres of land.

Currently, about a third of the property is already zoned, um CS commercial shopping.

The request is to rezone the entire property to CS.

Our land use plan already is a bit misaligned with the current zoning pattern in calling the entire property neighborhood.

As you can see, there's existing local center to the north of West Addison Street at this location that would accommodate additional commercial uses and aligns more closely with some of the commercial zoning that you've seen.

Overall, we found that a location like this with this amount of land located on an arterial street is an appropriate area to find a place to insert smaller scale commercial uses.

The applicant has indicated and has met with neighborhood interested parties about the idea of potentially doing an RV park at this location.

And one of the things I want to be clear about is that an RV park is not permitted by right under the CS zoning district.

It requires a special exception.

So for them to achieve their ultimate proposal, they will still be subject to an additional public hearing with the Board of Adjustment where a site plan like the one that was provided in the packet would be shown to the Board of Adjustment.

The Board of Adjustment would be given the opportunity to place any conditions on the use as an RV park if they were inclined to approve it at this location.

With that being said, there were some other things within the CS district that we met with the applicant about and discussed the possibility of putting an optional development plan in place to help address some of the neighborhood concerns.

Primarily the optional development plan focuses on limiting even further what uses would be allowed within the CS district by eliminating things like a sexually oriented business, a principal use just parking lot, and then the list that you would find in your packet under that optional development plan.

It also incorporates a mandated screening requirement for all the areas along the neighborhood boundary that is an F1 screening as defined by our code, which is a minimum height of a six foot privacy screen, along with a tree planted every 25 feet to provide additional landscape buffers between neighborhood areas and any type of commercial use.

Alternatively, that can be supplemented with a masonry wall if the applicant were to choose to do so.

It also incorporates a higher level of screening along 39th West Avenue.

We don't allow privacy fences in street setbacks for visibility reasons in order to accommodate visibility up and down the street.

However, an S1 screen, which is a low profile screen in our code, is consistent of either a landscape buffer with a three-foot height along the street frontage or a small two and a half foot wall along with some landscaping.

This not only provides additional screening for neighbors across that street, but would prevent any like headlight trespass that would happen as cars maneuver through the site.

And so those screening requirements are baked into the zoning.

So even if an underlying use, like an RV park, didn't have an actual screening requirement stated in the zoning code, it would they would still be subject to installing all of those screening components as a part of that project.

So with those justifications, staff recommended approval of the land use change to take this property to a multiple-use property, and with the multiple use, we would find that CS would be a consistent zoning district with that designation, and we've recommended approval with the optional development plan standards that have been included in your packet.

Okay.

Any questions for Nathan right now?

Thank you, sir.

Sure.

Is the applicant here?

Would you like to come up?

Hello.

Thank you.

My name is Darnell Blackman, 8660 East 103rd Street.

And thanks for uh entertaining this today.

We are requesting a rezoning to uh place an RV park.

I do know that uh in that neighborhood there are some residents who had concerns, and so we've met with them a couple of times and entertained some of those concerns, which has actually led to planning meetings uh with the city uh for the screening.

I know that there's a six-foot uh fence that can be allowed.

We've talked with some of the neighbors.

We plan to make that eight feet uh to be consistent with some of their privacy.

We've actually changed the plans a little bit uh because there was going to be a dog run on the south side.

We moved that to the front part of the uh facility so that uh you know sounds from the dogs don't disrupt neighbors or there's no smell.

Um we also know that safety was going to be a concern, and so uh it's gonna be a gated uh area with the privacy.

Um we've also met with the uh city planning.

There was, I guess, a meeting last week.

Uh there's a hundred and ten million dollars that's going to be placed into the Charles Page area.

So we uh requested to be able to extend some of the sidewalks as well as some of the um the the street posts that are um I'm trying to think of the name of that solar uh so that they automatically come on in the evening um for more safety.

And so we've uh tried to do our due diligence.

I I'm sure we can't please everybody, although I'd love to, but would love for this project to go forward.

Well, we have some speakers and we'll let you come back up.

Yes, sir.

Any questions at this time?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So I'll call the first speaker, uh JP Morrison.

Please give your name and address.

JP Morrison, 41st West Avenue.

All right, 618 41st West Avenue, excuse me.

Um I have concerns about the scale of this project in that area, um, the 55 lots and what our neighborhood can sustain in that regard, whether or not our water and street infrastructure is in a state to handle that kind of load of RVs in the area, as well as the the traffic load.

Previously, that property was a greenhouse and a burger stand.

Uh it has been derelict for a long time, but it's a much quieter part of the city.

Um I do have a mechanic there as well as uh an office building or concrete test equipment, but this would be a much larger scale in an area that is primarily residential, and I have concerns about the infrastructure and what it would do for the neighborhood.

Okay, thank you, Miss Morrison.

Next speaker, Kelly Pendleton.

Hi, I'm Kelly Pendleton.

My address is 540 North 33rd West Avenue.

Um I'm also the president of the neighborhood association for this neighborhood.

I've lived in this neighborhood my entire life, raised my kids in this neighborhood.

I own five rental properties in this neighborhood.

Mr.

Donell, we did meet him a couple of weeks ago at one of our neighborhood meetings, and um and just an FYI, we we do have a current uh petition going to oppose this, and we started that people are without hesitation signing it.

This there it was an old burger joint is this area where he's wanting to put this, but you're talking this would back up to people's houses.

It's all two lanes coming in and out of there from the expressway.

In fact, I live off of 33rd that comes right off the expressway, and about three weeks ago the city did a study, and in a 24 hour period, I have 2200 cars that already come in front of my house in a residential area.

The last thing we need is now RVs coming through there, and um, so again, all of the neighbors were like, no way.

And I told Donnell said, If you want an RV park, put it in your backyard.

You know, nobody wants to live next to that and the stuff that that comes with that, the noise, the cars you have to come in, you know, haul in with your RV park.

And the other concern is if over time we see this in this neighborhood, we have old um convenience stores that are no longer convenience stores, and then once it's been turned over to something else, people can do whatever they want to with it.

We have three convenience stores down Charles Page that are now like chop shops, and they're just an eyesore for the community.

You know, he wants this to be a luxury RV park.

Well, if you don't end up getting luxury vehicles to pay that, then you're gonna lower that standard to get whoever you can get in there to make money, right?

And then he could sell it in a few years and then it turns over, and then it just it becomes another run-down property.

It's just not the ideal thing to have an RV park right smack in the middle of a residential area.

It's different if it's on the outskirts of town where you're not, you know, walking and your dogs and in the schools.

It's just not the place for it.

And I live right down the street from it.

And sadly, he's on the property for two years, but he only wants to do something about it now.

Why not two years ago?

If you really wanted to invest in the neighborhood, you could have come in, met with us, and said, you know, and like we told him, we want something, it's not fair to the people that have lived there.

I mean, we've got hundreds and hundreds of life people that have lived there that have been born there, raised there.

I mean, we had over 600 years of people living that at our last meeting of people that have grew up in this neighborhood, and they are all like, no way, we do not want this because the chaos that's gonna be it's just not the right location.

I'm all for growth, I'm all for bringing things into a neighborhood to, you know, to bring our neighborhood up, and we want new businesses, but we don't want an RV park, and it's just not the right place for it.

So, thank you, Ms.

Pendle.

Thank you.

Joan Camille Wright.

Hello, my name is Joan Camille Wright.

I live at 524 North 39th West Avenue, 74127.

Uh, thank you, members, for meeting with today's with us today.

My name again is Joan Camille Wright, and I live right next door to 4020 West Edison.

And I appreciate this opportunity to speak.

First, I want to acknowledge that I do appreciate the continued communication from the property owners and the willingness to meet with the neighboring residents regarding the proposed development.

I understand and respect that it is a private property, and I recognize the owner's right to improve and develop their land.

I am not opposed to thoughtful growth and progress in our community.

However, after reviewing the updated report and proposed development information, I remain deeply concerned about the long-term impact this proposal could have on this established community and residential neighborhood.

While the current request is technically resoned for commercial shopping with an optional development plan, the report clearly states that he intends to put an RV park containing approximately 55 units on 3.8 acres.

That level of density and intensity is simply not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character.

This proposal is not a traditional residential development.

It's a high turnover, high activity commercial use that includes internal roads, recreational amenities, and concentrated occupancy directly adjacent to long-standing homes and families.

That is detrimental to our neighborhood and our community.

My concerns remain centered around several major issues.

Increased traffic and congestion along West Edison and neighborhood streets.

I've spoken with John 316 across the street, they do not want it.

I have spoken with the school, they do not want it because they are concerned about students walking to and from.

Also, local bike clubs use that area for their biking.

They don't want it either, because that would put a high traffic and also could potentially cause injury to their bikers.

And there's also retirement community across the street that also is not wanted.

Infrastructure and wastewater capacity concerns, especially in an area where many of the surrounding homes rely on septic systems.

Noise, lighting, and the activity associated with high density RV development.

The impact on adjacent property values and neighborhood stability, the lack of sustained buffering and setbacks between the commercial activity and residential homes.

There is no RV park in this area in the county that is right next door to a home.

There's not.

Long-term property maintenance and management concerns, given that the documented history of code enforcement issues on the property.

While I appreciate the optimal development plan now includes certain prohibitive commercial and minimum screening requirements, the proposed standards still do not adequately protect the neighborhood residential properties that it most directly impacts.

A six-foot privacy fence with limited screening is not sufficient, especially with the impact of 55 RVs and continuous internal traffic.

This neighborhood is made up more of just land for rezoning map.

It is a long-standing community made up of families, homeowners, and residents who have invested years, sometimes generations, into maintaining a stable and the character of this area.

Some residents, as have been said, have lived there in these homes their entire lives.

As someone who both lives and works in the community as a special education teacher, I understand how important stability, safety, structure, and long-term community investments are for families and children.

I am not opposed to development.

I support responsible development that fits the character, infrastructure, and long-term vision of the surrounding area.

However, I do not believe this proposal as it's currently presented, does that?

Decisions like these don't just affect property, they affect people, families, neighborhoods, and future character of established communities.

30 seconds.

One parting thought, ask yourselves whether you would want this next to you.

If not, you shouldn't want it for your constituents.

We are a community and we have responsibilities.

Pat Jones.

But from hearing from other people, uh I can understand if that was if they were turning out into a four-lane road, 33rd West Avenue.

I mean, Edison, what you hit 33rd and go west of 33rd is two lane, 40 now.

If they had that road was wide enough for a trailer, uh, a truck and a trailer to turn left or right there.

I'll guarantee they're gonna have wrecks right there.

The SG and them and that uh West Edison is a narrow road, really.

I know the city isn't believed uh new black club and stuff out there, but I'll just tell you, I don't think that it'll handle the traffic that's gonna be because what we have when we got one coming from the west, one coming to the east, and uh, and with cyclists are out there quite often, a group of them.

And so, you know, we uh we give the cyclists one of our lanes of our street all through Tulsa, but they don't have a lane out there, but I'm just telling you, something might happen, and that's what I feel about it.

I'm not really against it, I'm not really for.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Annie Pollard.

Hello, everyone.

My name's Ann Pollard James, and I live at 622 North 41st West Avenue, and I have not been included in any of the neighborhood meetings.

I heard about this through uh an article, I believe, in the Tulsa Flyer, discussing what it is.

Um, let me just say that I am a fan of intentionally interesting properties, um, and I live in one.

Um, my opposition to this blanket rezoning ask is that what happens next and what happens when the RV park is in place.

Um, are there are there ramp or are there conditions to be placed on the development that would allow for things like length of stay for RVs that are allowed to park in said um RV park?

Are there requirements for the age of the RV?

Like, what does it mean when you say yes to an RV park?

You're saying yes to, um, I think we've all seen uh vacation with Chevy Chase, Christmas vacation, I think, with the RV.

Um so my question is more: a blanket allowal for a an approval to this use and two CS changes everything forever, and so if there aren't conditions in play for perhaps even if we changed or offered an MPD for that use for that specific plan that created conditions that would be allowable for interesting kinds of housing.

Um I am concerned about any kind of background checks on uh length of stay RV park folks.

Is there any?

Is there any background check for the people coming in into our community?

Are there um is 55 really a good number for that space?

Does it not create the impetus for a change in the neighborhood that is kind of permanent?

So again, I'm not opposed to interesting and thoughtful development.

I'm I'm a huge fan, but I am not a fan of unrestricted development in that location that allows for 55 plus their friends of people to come into the neighborhood unchecked, um, and temporary without a commitment to the neighbors that surround them.

So I'm opposed to this in the way it's been put forth, and I'm a fan of interesting, thoughtful developments for that particular piece of land.

But I will say the last two years there has been no care and attention to that space that's been owned by the current owner, and so I fear that that's pretty indicative of what happens down the road.

So thank you all for your time.

Have a great day.

Thanks, Ann.

That is all the speakers for item five and twelve.

Uh so we can have the applicant come back up.

Thank you very much.

And I I thank all the neighbors that are here and appreciate their comments.

Um, I like to address some of them.

Um, first of all, the the RV park in terms of safety.

Um, RV parks are not um designed so that there's a lot of traffic.

They tend to be longer term stay uh residents.

Um, typically about 60 to 70 percent are long-term stay, meaning six months or so.

Those people that stay there also want to have a safe environment, and I don't think it's gonna be disruptive.

There's a screening process uh to be able to select those that are able to come.

Um there are background checks.

Um I'm very sensitive to that because we do want safety.

In addition, um I've spoken with Joan several times.

Uh she and I agreed, not just on the six-foot fence, we agreed to make it an eight-foot fence to increase the privacy.

We we did that together.

Um, initially it was gonna be a six-foot fence.

So I'm very sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors.

In addition, currently, there's brownouts in that area.

Um, and so a lot of the residents, their power will go out during the daytime and clocks will have to be reset.

So, because of that, I've already engaged PSO.

PSO is is planning to come out, take a look at that and remediate that problem.

So they're not gonna be brownouts.

Um, we've looked at our design in terms of water coming in and water going out, and so we have a plan for all of that.

Um I don't have concerns for the surrounding area.

Um they mentioned that the school was not in support of this, but I take exception to that because I actually have a mentoring program at that school, and the school is in full support of it.

Um, and so I'm not sure where that came from, but you know, improving that area is is of concern to me.

Prior to me purchasing that land, it looked like a wooded forest.

There was a lot of uh homelessness and squatters, there were a lot of rodents when there were storms, trees would fall.

Currently that land's been cleared, and so that's not an issue.

And I I did that even before seeking the zoning because it was gonna improve the area for the tenants when the land is flat and clear, no one can come and squat there, or and then the rodents are gone, and so we're we're already cleaning it up.

Uh the tenants next door, there is a hamburger stand there that's closed down.

Uh, that was very dilapidated when I bought it.

Um I had no plans on owning a restaurant.

Um, next door to that's a tire shop.

Uh, the other there's another business on the corner, and so we'll be in between two businesses and then fenced in for privacy and security.

There's gonna be a uh indoor basketball court as well as pickleball court for the residents for something for the kids to do.

Typically, when residents are there, they're inside of their RV, there's not a lot of noise, and when they're not in the RV, they typically leave.

Um so there's not a lot of traffic one way or the other.

The RVs are not what's leaving the park, it's the small vehicle that they bring with them, right?

Just like any other car that's gonna be in the neighborhood.

So that's it the the traffic's not a concern at all.

In fact, um I don't see that posing any problem.

We have um on the backside of the RV park, um, made it accessible to go out to 39th Street, uh, so that if there's any type of emergency, emergency vehicles can come in, but that's also gonna be screened, and otherwise there won't be an access on that road.

Everything's gonna be on West Edison, so it doesn't go through the residential neighborhood.

So I think we've looked at all of the concerns that the neighbors have had.

Um, and again, I certainly understand their concerns.

I don't think it's gonna be disruptive to them.

I don't plan to run a business that's gonna be run down or make the neighborhood look worse.

We do want a luxury RV park.

I don't plan on selling it in a couple of years.

That's not the plan.

In fact, I've communicated this to all of the neighbors, and they know this.

And so I I'm concerned about some of the things that I hear, but I want to hear them because I want to address them.

And I'm I'm I'm committed to continuing to work.

Any questions for Mr.

Blackman?

Questions.

Um, how real is your plan right now?

The reason I asked that one is because it has a watermark on it from Fiverr.

Correct, which makes me think that it's not too real right now.

But the other thing is 55 RVs on here, it doesn't look like maybe you know, traffic widths, curb you know that that stuff has been thought of yet.

So I'm wondering if that 55 is a real number right now or if that's gonna go down in the future.

Um, and it also only half the plan is here, maybe I'm not sure if it's open to the to the side street over here on the side.

Um, I was wondering how how real this is currently.

If it's just it's a preliminary schematic, and yes, it will change.

Um, if as you're looking at it, um from West Edison on the west side is the entrance, on the east side is the exit on the um southeast corner is the emergency entrance, and so that's gonna be closed unless there's an emergency, but that's wide enough for a fire truck to come in, uh, and so those roads are a little bit bigger.

So is that is that gated?

That will be gated, yes.

We we do understand that some things will move.

For instance, when we put the fence up, there's gonna be a tree every 25 feet.

I've spoken with Joan who has three trees.

We've agreed to move those trees for her for free because they're kind of a little dilapidated, and then we'll put the fence up and plant another tree for her privacy.

So we've had all those discussions.

Um, in addition, um, all of these spaces that you see on the schematic are subject to change and move to help to benefit the neighbors.

For instance, again, on the south side, there was gonna be a dog run there.

We're moving that because the neighbors don't want a dog run there, so we're very open to the suggestions and have tried to work with them as best we can.

But I don't think that those concerns um should prohibit an RV park.

Any more questions for Mr.

Blackman?

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh Nathan, I got a question for you.

We've got CS next to residential in our city, and it's on an arterial, but the speakers make some compelling comments.

Sure, yeah.

No, I will say, I mean, I I think everything that has been brought to our attention by the neighborhood has been extremely reasonable.

Everybody I've interacted with has been extremely pleasant.

Uh it sounds like they have a really great neighborhood in this area.

Um I do want to reiterate when the applicant originally approached us, the idea was the RV park.

We were not supportive of a zoning district that would allow an RV park by right.

Um, that's how we landed on the CS zoning as an option, which still subjects them to further approvals before an RV park could ever be permitted at this location.

Um so I I looked at it as a little bit of a compromise.

Um, they obviously are gonna have to go through multiple hearings as well as a hearing specifically on their final RV park plan, whatever that might look like at a time whenever they're prepared to actually make that proposal.

Um I also want to apologize.

The plan, I was looking through the packet.

Um, the applicant hadn't given us this plan when he made the application.

This was actually provided, I think, by Miss Camille Wright in one of her letters that she sent in after she had received it at one of the public meetings.

That's why I think it's a little cut off.

But I do think they're maybe attempting to get a full version of it.

But again, this commission's really not reviewing the RV park at this point in time.

Um that would be something that comes to the board, and and the board has the authority to really get more into those details about the number of spaces, place further conditions on any type of use approval that they give through a special exception.

And so that hearing would be really more focused in on the R V park component.

Um the CS zoning is is really just the avenue they're asking for to be able to even go make that request at this point.

Yeah, I think that was kind of my questions, which you sort of already answered, but just to clarify like what's before us today is not the plan, it's not 55 RVs or 42, or it's the zoning, and as you already said, you've you've kind of gotten to a place where you as the experts think this is the best use, the best zone that would allow the applicant to do what they want to do, but it's up to the board of adjustments to make those specific deals.

The board like we can't say yes, but right to us the question is yes or no to this rezoning request, but then the board of adjustment could do all sorts of conditions.

They could limit it to 20 RVs, or they could add additional screening or the requirements that the neighbors have raised.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Um the only correction to that I would make is is like we have we've supported this or we've recommended approval of this zoning district, not because it gives them path to get approved, but to give them a path to make the request.

So again, this nothing about this change guarantees them approval of an RV park.

That's still a another process they have to go through.

It does, I mean I want to be clear, it does open this property up to commercial uses.

And so, you know, in our review of this, we knew that a portion of this property had already been used commercially.

There was a commercial establishment there on the corner, and there's other commercial establishments along Edison, but we weren't comfortable recommending anything above that lowest tier commercial district, which was CS to try and limit what types of uses, and then beyond that, adding the optional development plan to even further limit what commercial uses could actually be allowed on the site, and that's that's how we arrived at our recommendation.

I think that that's the question I have about this is that that even though we're not really looking at it as the RV park itself, is that we've opened up the gate of optional development plan with the idea that it's going to be a the potential of it being an RV park.

Well, and I I mean if you look at the optional development plan, there's there's nothing in it specific to an RV park because it is a little bit of an unusual circumstance.

It's like I wasn't we're not writing development standards around something that isn't even allowed here yet.

Yeah, um that is something I think we're leaving more up to the board of adjustment if that proposal was made in the future.

We were just trying to create some some baseline standards that would have to be adhered to even if the RV park idea went away, and somebody decided to do a commercial use here on this property, they would they would still be subject to the screening and they would still be prohibited from doing the uses listed at that time.

And when you have the uses that are prohibited, we're talking about you know, like financial services only personal credit establishments.

That's that's right.

Right.

The ones that are a bank could be there.

Yeah, you could have a bank, uh, you could have a grocery store, a small convenience store, um the specific uses listed in here that were prohibited by the development plan were the personal credit establishments like a payday loan establishment, a plasma center, a principal use parking lot, a bar, um, a medical marijuana dispensary, a sexually oriented business establishment, those would all be prohibited uses.

Did that come from the applicant?

So was that part of the the applicant and I met um last week to go through some of these the some of these are just part of our recommendation.

Um they were open to the idea of of prohibiting the sexually oriented business establishment, as well as I think the personal credit and plasma center piece of that.

Um but yeah, I don't I don't know as far as the other pieces that we've included in our recommendation if they're necessarily were in agreement with that or had any issue with that.

Were in it was any of this run through the with the neighbors?

Oh no, the prohibited uses, no, not beyond I I forwarded one of the neighbors this morning an update that this was the optional development plan that would have been included.

And then the applicant mentioned the eight foot fencing.

Is that something that if we were to approve this, we would need to put that in as a condition?

You could.

You obviously could add additional conditions to the optional development plan as part of your motion if you wanted to increase the screening to an eight foot fence.

Well, I say that he the applicant said that he talked with the neighbors and that was what they'd agreed on.

So I just make sure that would be if that were to happen, that would be in there with that.

Um lighting or any of that kind of stuff.

I didn't add any additional lighting standards to the optional development plan.

Um however, our code already establishes, you know, you have to shield any any lighting, you can't trespass on your your neighbor, um, and so they would still be subject to all of our standard lighting requirements for any development.

Would a development like this allow tiny homes?

Because aren't tiny homes usually considered RVs.

Yeah, you could do a cottage house development in a CS district.

Um there's a range of of housing types.

I mean you you could do quite a few different things.

But if it was an RV park, for instance, and you had a tiny home that I think aren't tiny homes usually considered.

So tiny properties as it would be separate uses.

Um an RV park, and this is gonna be counter to to what Mr.

Blackman said, and I don't think we talked about these details, but the zoning code identifies R V parks as a lodging use, which establishes a 30-day timeline where rents are charged by weeks or by day.

Um and the so the anticipation of the code is that it's a 30-day basis that you're renting.

Now that's not to say somebody can't rent again for another 30 days, but um that is its own use category.

If somebody were to establish a tiny house or any kind of permanent residential structure, that would be subject to a different use category.

Any more questions for Nathan?

Thank you, sir.

Sure.

We're in review.

I mean the only thing I'm gonna say is that I feel like there is the possibility of some compromise to make something that'd be interesting would work on here, and in it, and I also feel like maybe those people haven't sat down and talked talked through this on some of these things.

That there might be a stronger optional development plan that could be brought in front of us with a couple things um that the neighbors would like to see uh and that the applicant could maybe sit with some of these neighbors and and walk through this and create something that would work for the neighborhood and for what he's wanting to do.

Um my concern is that even if it's not RV and we approve it, which I always feel like is backwards that we're approving this and then going to get a special exception for something to even see if it can happen, is that this becomes something not what uh these property owners have been led to believe it's gonna happen um down the road, if that makes sense.

But anyways, I'll put that out.

So are you proposing uh suggesting a continuance?

I I mean, I would I think there are people in the crowd that have made some compelling arguments in terms of things that they're concerned about, and I and I would like for those individuals to be able to have that ability to talk with the applicant for them to sit down and for the applicant to come back and say, well, I've either changed it or we're not gonna do that.

But it to them to at least have that kind of conversation work on this.

Um because I too think I mean I think it could be a cool little thing, but if it's gonna infringe heavily on people around it, I think it's also could be a problem.

So yes, the long way around it is I would think a continuance so that there could be some communication between parties would be in the best interest.

But I have something to do, because I I I look at this a little bit a little bit different, but I hear I see what you're coming from there.

My thought is that part of this property is already zoned CS correct commercial already, uh just uh to make it the whole property, the VCS commercial.

Um, if this this proposal goes forward with the RV park is great, but the whole property probably needs to be zoned CS regardless for development purposes for anybody to do anything really.

Uh so that's gonna have to happen regardless.

Uh and it will even help, you know, hopefully this plan goes forward, but even helping resell value the property too if the plan does not go forward.

I agree to the property.

I think now you know the part that is currently zoned CS is also bound by a burger place, uh a street and an empty lot for the most part, right?

It's on two on all two different sides.

So it's a commercial property on the on the left and a right of it.

So that's just currently commercial businesses to the right and left already.

Yeah, and it's smack dab in the middle.

I think it's I think my uh I think my my concern is that we're doing now doing CS right up against uh homes.

Whereas, anyways, well I think what you're saying, like yeah, yeah, we we gotta figure out a way to you know, but also RS3 could be uh, you know, or multiple, you know, multifamily could be an option as well for this.

So, it's commercial does with multi-family the option to a commercial area too.

So yeah, so and then the I guess the question is it could it be optional development plan?

Does it need to be ironed out today or I guess that's the question I guess really or I guess that's a neat the question from Nathan, I guess I mean I think ultimately it's it's at your discretion.

Um you can a continuance would afford additional time if if there were additional standards that the applicant wanted to include in that development plan and come back with you all to propose.

Um we could certainly work with them on getting those revisions um submitted to you at a future date.

If there were some, you know, you guys have the ability and a motion to add things to an optional development plan, but if you're not sure necessarily what those are or if if it starts to become a lot of things, well then I think a continuance is probably.

Yeah, I mean, I I think there's there's four individuals here who've all you know all have even have mentioned things that they, you know.

If this is gonna happen, we'd like to at least see something like this happen.

And if they haven't been part of that optional development plan or haven't seen those things yet, it would be nice if they have the option to be able to.

Mr.

Blackman, come on back up.

Yes.

What a uh continuance and more meetings with the neighbors and maybe Nathan be beneficial to you.

I don't I don't have a problem with it.

I I do want to make a comment that there was a proposition for housing, apartment complex.

They were completely against it.

They said that would increase the crime rate, increase the traffic.

They did not want that.

And so when it comes to residential, they're in opposition.

And so, you know, you talk about an RV park, and then there's an is opposition.

There was a comment made, hey, why not just level it and leave it green space for us?

So, and that's not consistent with with me.

I mean, I there's a obviously some issues with that.

But so there has been some of those comments already, some of those some of those talks, but there was complete opposition to residential there.

So you're not that in favor of a continuance.

Sounds fun.

I'm I'm concerned about what further discussions we've had because the comments that have come up, I think we've had those discussions, even in the meetings that we've had, and um with Nathan, we sat down and exhaustingly went through those lists.

In fact, there was the proposition that, yeah, we don't want a sex club there, right?

And if we could put residential, it'd be great, but they didn't want residential there, so we decided let's not do that to the neighbors.

The idea to have more affordable housing.

We know that the mayor wants you know six thousand doors, right?

Um I'm part of some projects that are helping to do that, but this was not that type of property.

So okay.

I think we know where you stand.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Blackman?

You get okay.

What do you want to do?

I mean, I'm I'm gonna propose that that we we have uh a continuance uh to allow the applicant and the and the the uh the the property owners, Jason property owners to sit down and and try to hash out some kind of compromise to come back to us with an with an optional development plan that was created by the two of them.

Um I think that's the only thing.

I hear what the applicant's saying about having these discussions.

I just I also feel like those discussions might have been with the city and not directly with the with the the property owners.

And I and I think that even if you do go to the property owners and and there's still some some opposition, we can come back here and have that cleared and and so um that was a really long and rambling uh motion.

I'm I move for continuance uh to allow for further communication between applicant and owners.

Kim, do you want to speak?

No.

What date?

What date do you like?

June 3rd.

Gene?

I'll second the motion to continue to June 3rd.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Hood, a second by Commissioner Bullmash to continue items 12 and 5 to June 3rd.

All those in favor opposed, and that is approved.

Where are you going?

All right, bye, Louisa.

See ya.

Are you?

Okay.

Again, a minute.

All right, go ahead, buddy.

Good afternoon.

Item number six, CZ 588.

The applicant is Ahmad Mordavi.

The request here is a county rezoning from AG to RE for residential use.

The property location is 17096 South Yale Avenue, Bixby, Oklahoma.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from AG to RE.

Concurrently, the applicant is pursuing a lot split to subdivide the property into four individual lots, each slots, each consisting of slightly more than one-half acre.

Approval of the proposed lot split is contingent upon the approval of the requested rezoning as the lots would need to comply with the development standards of RE district.

The requested RE zoning appears to be compatible with the surrounding development pattern and generally consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.

The property, which includes rural residential, commercial, and neighborhood commercial.

The subject property is located along east 171st Street South and is in proximity to the existing commercial and institutional uses, including property currently zoned IL and OL immediately adjacent to the site.

The request also appears to be consistent with the future land use designation, which supports low density residential development and areas that may that maintain it that maintain a more rural character.

While portions of the surrounding areas are designated commercial and neighborhood commercial, the requested RE zoning provides a less intensive land use than those future classifications.

Staff further finds that the proposed rezoning would not injure or injure their surrounding area, provided development occurs in accordance with the Tulsa County zoning code and all applicable subdivision access, drainage, and engineering requirements, therefore, staff recommends approval of the request rezoning.

Alright, thanks, Kendall.

Any questions for Kendall?

Thanks, sir.

Is the applicant here?

Are you in agreement with staff recommendation?

Okay.

We do not have any speakers for item number six.

I'll move to approve per staff recommendation.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Hood, a second by Commissioner Whitlock for the approval of item six for staff recommendation.

All those in favor.

Yes.

Would you like to hear the rezoning or the PUD first?

Oh what you just give us your briefest one.

Okay.

CZ 589 related to PUD 878.

The applicant is Mark Capron with Wallace Design.

The request here is a county rezoning request from AG to AGR with a new PUD to allow residential gated subdivision with private streets.

The property is located on the northwest corner of South Lewis Avenue and East 171st Street South.

Staff finds that the request is to be consistent with the rural future land use designation, which is intended to preserve the open low density character of the area while accommodating limited residential development compatible with surrounding agricultural and rural residential uses.

The surrounding vicinity is characterized primarily of agricultural land, large lot rural residential properties, and scattered single-family homes on acreage.

Staff further finds that the use of the PUD is appropriate for this request as it allows development standards to be tailored specifically to the site while ensuring compatibility and compatibility with the surrounding rural context.

The proposed gated subdivision in private street design allows for a coordinated site planning, controlled access, reduced reduced through traffic, and flexibility in the lot layout and internal circulation.

All future development of the site will remain subject to the county engineering review and subdivision plating requirements.

Emergency access requirements and all applicable permitting processes.

The private streets and gated access will also require review and approval by the appropriate agencies throughout the planning and development stages.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of this application.

Thank you, Kendall.

Any questions for Kendall?

Is the applicant here?

Be in agreement with staff recommendation.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So seven and eight.

Can we hear these together?

Separate event.

Separate.

So seven, seven and eight.

Seven and eight.

No speakers.

No, seven then eight.

Motion approves item number seven.

Are we done?

Second.

Okay.

No, we'll do seven.

No, we're good.

We have a motion by Commissioner Humphrey and second by Commissioner Shivel for the approval of item seven per staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And item seven is approved.

Item eight.

Neither do eight.

Most approved item eight.

For staff recommendation.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Humphrey, a second by Commissioner Shivill for the approval of items eight for staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And that item is approved.

Item number nine.

Our item number nine is also related to PUD 879.

So I assume we can do that one the same.

What's the last one?

CZ590.

Actually, I'll do the P.

Okay.

CZ 590.

Roach applicant for this is uh Robert Bell with Bell land use.

Um the request here is a county rezoning request from AG to RM0 with a new PUD to support redevelopment of a non conforming of non-conforming uses in an AG district.

The property is located at 3939 East 161st Street, Bixby, Oklahoma.

The subject property is currently developed with residential uses that do not fully conform to the standards of the underlying AG zoning district.

The purpose of this request of this requested rezoning is in the accompanying PUD is to establish the zoning framework that more accurately reflects the existing development patterns on the site while allowing for future redevelopment.

The site improvements in incremental compliance with the current zoning and development standards.

The proposed RM0 zoning district is intended to accommodate medium density residential development, including multifamily residential uses, and is more consistent with the existing character of the property.

The surrounding area contains a mix mixture of agricultural land, low density residential development, and emergent and emerging suburban residential patterns.

Nearby properties are zone AG RS2, RS 2.5, RS3 and CS, reflecting the transitional character of the area along East 161st Street South and South Yale Avenue corridors.

Staff finds that the requested RM0 zoning in accompanying PUD represent a reasonable transition within the area given the residential character already established on the subject property.

Staff further finds that the use of the PUD is appropriate because it allows development standards to be tailored specifically to the site in the existing conditions.

The proposed rezoning promotes improved long-term land use administration by transitioning the property from an agricultural zoning district that does not accurately reflect the existing use on the property to the zoning classification intended for multifamily residential development.

Based on the existing residential character of the site, the surrounding development patterns and additional development controls provided through the PUD process.

Staff finds the request to be reasonably incompatible with the surrounding area.

Therefore, staff recommends approval.

Thanks, Kendall.

Any questions for Kendall?

Okay, we do have some speakers.

We'll maybe have you back up.

Mr.

Bell, would you like to come up?

Robert Bell 101, East Aquarium Place in Jinx, Oklahoma.

And thank you all very much for your service and I'm glad to be here today.

Um I worked with Kendall on this property uh quite extensively to get us to this point.

The uh the county has had some issues with this property, and they've been trying to figure out a way forward to recognize the existing 12 houses that are on the property, and they're there between the duplex, two triplexes, and one fourplex that exists.

And the owner who's recently purchased the property is looking for a way to maintain this, improve it, move it forward, has no plans to expand it at that point.

The county wants to have more control than the pre-existing condition uses that are there, and I think that's was their argument between them, was there's a lot that he could do under the pre-existing non-conforming use that the county really didn't want him to do because they wanted to control have more control on this property.

So, where they ended up at was the county said let's zone it to RM0, their suggestion at that point, and let's move it forward on PUD because we've got properties that are buildings that are too close to the property lines at that point.

So we had to figure out a way forward.

The RMG the zoning is important because that's the uses that are there at that point.

We don't know as we move forward and go through their building permit process and improving these properties under the approved zoning.

The there's a and I if we can get a picture of the property up here, I want to show you, and it's gonna be hard to see in here.

There's a water course on this property that goes all the way down the middle towards a pond that's located on the back half of that.

All that's really associated with this.

That's where the storm water is at that point.

Water the requirements for to improve that in the future, parking areas or get improved in the future.

All of that, I believe, is comes into play under their uh permits for development related to the existing structures at that point.

So uh all that's important for where this property is going in the in the future.

At the same time, I saw some of the uh comments uh from the public notice coming in, and and so I put a limitation.

I've always had a limitation out there that they couldn't expand that use unless they did a the plat.

We took that a step further and I put a letter in today that said we couldn't expand the number of units unless we did an amendment to the PUD and brought that back before the board.

So if you guys have some questions for me.

I drove the property yesterday all those mailboxes that are there that was that for all the multi-tenant yes but but it's vacant now.

It everything yeah come on up this is this is the owner okay Mr.

Roach John Road please give your name and address John Roach my address is 5521 East 181st Street south in Bixby.

So two miles south of there.

What was your question?

I was just questioning on the the mailboxes I was wondering what the use was and is it vacant and um no there's uh well there's a couple vacancies right now in the middle of a uh um you know uh remodel so there's a couple units that aren't okay I was just curious.

Yeah we did so we started um this remodel project about this time last year and I was on the impression that I could do uh you know I was replacing siding windows doors just your typical remodel and um then the county came in and said hey you need a permit for a remodel but technically you don't unless you are doing an addition or something like that.

So replace siding and windows um you know we I just said okay fine I'll give you the whatever the permit 225 and then then they find me for not getting the permit and it's 700 and then on the next building that was building two on building one that's up there closest to the street I I was just I went applied for a permit and they said um we got to talk about this zoning issue and I said okay let's talk about it and then we started having that dialogue last year and then they said I didn't I went to the county commissioner Kelly and and uh Darren and those guys had a meeting just set down and I said why do I have to have a permit to replace siding and windows on a property and they said I don't I don't know I don't think you do and so then it came back I got an email from the county saying um you know you don't need a permit.

I was like well I did last month then can I get my 700 back but um anyway uh so it's been a back and forth so basically said okay you can remodel as you saw who's who drove by it I did you did sir so you saw the first two buildings have been remodeled the exterior look really nice right I thought they'd look nice.

But the other two are not done the county told me to hold up they said get the rezoning done.

So they're the ones that asked me to get this property rezoned.

So I went and met with NCOC and I said look I don't um what what zoning do I need here and they said your buildings qualify and that's the whole point was to get the buildings um you know in in accordance with the zoning or the zoning of course with the building I should say or conforming so they said it's it's RM zero that's the zoning for these four buildings so I'm just going at the advice of the county and NCOG at this point.

Okay we have one speaker we can have you back up all right thank you okay Nicole Watts.

First I'm a private citizen standing up here today um not a representative of Wallace.

So you're qualified.

Thank you.

Um Nicole Watts 16208 South Harvard and Bixby.

First I'm not against development I know there's there's development happening all over it's we need to be thoughtful and be um think about how we handle things.

And I under and I've lived out here for over 10 years and I've seen the tremendous growth and do I like it no but it's part of it right these buildings have been here forever and so I commend the owners for wanting to make it look better than when it was.

They were really dilapidated.

They um it was it was an ISOR so appreciate putting that in, but the application that was put in for the rezoning and the PED for the entire 10 acres, I think is very overreaching.

Um you look at the comp plan for the county, this whole area for Bixby and the Tulsa County.

This is for single family, it's for rural, it's for um everything north of 161st Street, it's RS3, RS, you know, 2.5.

That's what's being zoned in in um Bixby.

Um these four 10 acre tracks are still in the county, but they're surrounded by single family.

This on the south side is all agriculture.

You're throwing multifamily zoning in the midst of all the single family where I don't believe the comp plan really supports it.

I am and then I believe there is a lot of things lacking in the PUD.

It was like, hey, we want to try to fix this problem, so we're gonna throw a PUD at it, but we're not gonna really put in what you usually see in a PUD.

When you see, when you usually put PUDs in, you talk about development standards, you talk about site plans.

It wasn't even a site plan included.

You talk about restrictions, number of units, um, heights, everything.

There was nothing, it was just like here we want to put a block inside a circle and figure out a way to do it.

Um I know that they reduce the number to the 12 units, which is great, but I think I request that we reduce the area of the zoning and the PUD just to be around the units, leave the rest of it egg, and if they decide to come back later, then there'll be another zoning.

But I think if somebody wants to develop it, you need to think about placement, setbacks, screening.

How is that interacting with the rest of the single family residential that's surrounding it?

There's nothing in this document as submitted that provides any of that.

Okay, any questions for Nicole?

Okay, thanks, Nicole.

Thank you.

Nicole and I go way back.

I'm sure.

So, and I don't disagree with some of that.

The problem with this side is that, and that's why we set it up to say we're trying to deal with this problem between the the ownership and the county and the existing uses, we're not trying to expand past the existing uses.

I don't know what the future development would look like until we get out there and do topos and and everything else.

That's why we're saying we're we're not trying to expand the growth past the 12 existing units that are there at that point, but and but if we if we and I'll be honest with you, if if you we limit it down to an area, and these subdivisions that are going on on the around it at that point, the next hearing we have on this related to the zoning means there's 80 80 houses that got notices for this use, and and we all know what that's gonna be.

So the best the best interest of everybody involved is to approve the zoning, approved the PUD with the limitation that no further development can transpire until the PUD with all the development criteria is submitted that it can be reviewed at that point.

And that was the and that's what our proposal is.

Did you have a neighborhood meeting?

Uh there's no neighborhood, there's just some there's just some existing PUDs in place on properties to the north and to the west.

So those are coming.

Well, um, I'm just asking what it would continue.

To meet with Nicole and whoever else be helpful or not.

So Nicole lives a half a mile away or a mile away.

Or 60 seconds.

Yeah.

I'm just asking out loud.

Yeah if that would be beneficial.

So the only the only and that that correspondence, if that correspondence would have got to me before today but I got it this morning.

And I think the county got it this morning.

So um and and to put our process off for another month.

What what was yeah I I just felt it got best interest okay to move on that for yeah.

I've got a question yeah Rob for Susan.

How did this get on the agenda without a public meeting?

Kendall.

Did you you asked how did it get on the agenda without a public meeting?

Um I mean that's not a requirement that we have we definitely recommend that the applicant does that but we don't set those meetings, sir.

Yeah we we noticed everyone um see of Bixby has been contacted no contact back from them after uh sending the staff report and all the plans that you guys see here today but as far as the public meetings I'm never we don't we're not involved in that.

Okay.

All right guys any th any more questions for Mr.

Bell?

Mr Roach?

No?

Okay.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

We're in review.

It wouldn't hurt.

I mean, they don't want to do it.

I mean that's what you may come I mean I I think my thoughts on this is it feels that there's some things that could have been talked about before it came here uh the presentation there um I hear that did that both the uh seems like the applicant does not want to um have a meeting with neighbors like that at this point I guess that's there's no neighbors according to him okay okay so um or so I I don't feel like we have I mean I mean uh footing to kind of move forward with this because of some gaps of even on the PUD itself.

Uh so that's my thought unless you have any thoughts say my only thoughts is that I mean is that uh the applicant has said they're gonna limit it to twelve right and and if there's any more than that they have to come back and amend the PUD uh and the only person that spoke against it or or had a concern about it was just asking that we limit the rezoning to the area in which the the the four structures are are currently sitting so I mean what's the difference you know if if it's just zoned for the four buildings uh for um uh we rezoned just the area for the four buildings and they want to re zone the additional rest of the space isn't that the same come here for a meeting and do that but are they in agreement with is it p I'm saying I don't do I don't think they are but I'm saying that the the difference is that like coming and getting amendment to a PUD or coming and just rezoning it to the uh the additional space I mean is it's the same amount of time and effort to come to that correct I mean it seems like maybe maybe I'm maybe maybe no I see I see heads shaking up and down and no left and right so everyone has their view.

I'm just I'm just it seems like if we were to say hey this stuff is RS3 or or not uh arm arm zero and that gets us down the road that allows these things to be working within uh within the zoning code and then it leaves the opportunity for future development to happen if that was what they want to do.

Can you have one parcel with two different zoning designations?

I don't know I mean I see it all the time.

Yeah, yes.

Like one lot.

Typically, like different, like I mean I'm saying I see I see lots often that are just are are are split up in two different zones that are on one lot.

Uh, but it might just be a leftover of uh, you know, I don't know, something previously.

Kindle.

I just wanted to uh make the clarification.

It's it would be a minor amendment instead of or major amendment instead of minor.

Okay.

So if it was so it was major, I mean, you sp for the PUD, right?

Yes, sir.

So they would still have to come in here, sir, and and come in front of us and ask for the permission to do that.

That's correct.

Uh, I mean, you might be able to answer the question that Gene had.

Like, can you yes, sir?

You can if you do if you do an exhibit for the land to do that as an as RM0 and then leave the rest of it agricultural.

Yes, you can definitely have multiple zones on one lot, yes, sir.

So then I guess my question would be I mean, we kind of said that you said something you were worried about, you know.

If the rest of the the area gets developed and you come back, then you're gonna have 80 people coming here and saying we don't want that.

Robert, come to the mic.

We're we're kind of touching on several different levels here, yeah.

If we approve the facility, so he has to go to the county to get a building permit, and and they require some use or something related to the stormwater, and it's on the remainder of the property, we're gonna be back here to deal with that process if it's dual zoned at that point, or or we need to go through some sort of split process and put easements in place, and and what we're saying is this is all of that concept is concerning, and that's he would have been better off not committing to the county going to the news new new survey and spending the six thousand dollars for a surveyor and spending the money for me, and let's come in with this proposal.

Let's have the fight with the pre-existing non-conforming uses because that was a cheaper process and probably a proper way to go for him, it was not a proper way to go for the county.

The county's the one that said come in and apply for the RM0 because that is the proper zoning for the existing 12 houses or 12 units that are there at that point, so the to alleviate the the need under a the current owner doesn't plan to expand this.

He may he doesn't have any plans.

He's always told me four or five years from now, I might try to expand it at that point.

Four or five years from now, you're gonna have eighty to a hundred houses surrounding out here, people buying next to this, and if we go through a full zoning, whether the zoning says whether I've had to apply for an RM0 at that time, and and now I've got 80 residences that I've had to send a letter to, and they're all gonna say, Well, I don't want multiple family next to next to my single family house.

The character changes in four to five years from now, that I don't think is fair to the current owner who's purchased this property, who's looking for a way to move this forward, and the county and the county commissioners have have worked with him to say, do this, apply for this, and and then that way we have control of it in the future, and and they have control of it through their building permit process at that point, and we're not uh and then to alleviate the possibility of them just putting the plan together without bringing that plan for the public.

I made a criteria of the PUD.

So the PUD is there for one reason, it's a setback.

Now it's there for two reasons.

It's a setback, and any expansion of 12 units would require a full process a full amendment and notice to the neighborhood and and public hearing for approval.

So that was that's the compromise between the two.

Any other questions?

I think thank you, Mr.

Bell.

Yeah just one thing I'd like to say uh on the the lady that wrote the letter uh Miss Watts the number she was talking about as far as the number of people that you know if you maximize 10 acres or wherever math was at eight acres or 10 acres uh the the the uh the building sit on approximately about two acres so when you look at it that way but the other eight acres that um are not don't have any buildings on them you can't maximize those eight acres like you could on any typical property because there's power lines and setbacks there's water features so that number is is uh a little high to say least so there's not the really potential that is being um presented as far as the number of units that could be built and and all that so okay thank you guys you bet in review nine and ten we make a motion motion we approve uh item number nine and ten second I'll make a second any other discussion we have a motion by commissioner witlock and a second by commissioner walker for the approval of items nine and ten per staff recommendation all those in favor opposed let's what's the result Kim so that doesn't pass I'll make a motion to continue to June 3rd to allow the parties and the county to have some more discussions and see if they can come up with a reasonable compromise.

Okay.

Okay.

Well then we I don't know if we can make a motion if it's already dead I think it's come on up Susan so I I don't know the county rules on this the city rules and the zoning code if if it's a tie vote it gets forwarded to city council I don't know what the county zoning code uh says about that but if it's a tie was it a tie if it's a tie then it just whatever the county zoning code however that directs it I'm not sure what do you got Kendall so I do know for a fact in county board of adjustment that rule applies at that meeting if it's tied then it's denied usually but I can't speak to the plan commission we have to I'd have to do some research on that well we we voted we'll wait to hear from you okay all right thank you item number eleven real quick on that um never mind I was just okay some time eleven two yeah can I is it okay yeah, go ahead.

Yep.

So here in chapter 14 of our procedures um basically says following the receipt of plan commission recommendation the county commission must hold a public hearing on the application and to act to approve the proposed zoning map amendment approval um proposal and amendment with modifications, including approval of less.

Oh, basically it's supposed to go to Board of County Commissioners.

Perfect.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Sorry about that.

And that's even if it's a tie, right?

Yes, sir.

Because we're we're making a recommendation, and then it goes, then they can have that conversation.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Pat.

Thanks, Robert.

Next case is CZ591.

The applicant is Dan Shirley.

The request here is a rezoning from AG to RMH to allow for a residential mobile home park.

The property location is 15843, North 113th East Avenue, Collinsville, Oklahoma.

The applicant is requesting a rezon the subject property from AG to RMH.

The subject property is currently operating as an existing mobile home park.

However, the AG zoning designation does not appropriately reflect the current use of the property.

The proposed the proposal of the rezoning request is to bring the site into compliance with the Tulsa County zoning code and establish a zoning classification that more accurately aligns with the long-term use and operation characteristics of the property.

The surrounding areas characterize primarily of agricultural and low density residential development patterns.

While mobile home parks can create compatibility compatibility concerns in some situations, staff notes that the use has historically operated on the property, and the request would formalize the existing development pattern already occurring on the site.

Staff further notes that the portion of the property and surrounding area appears to be impacted by the FEMA floodplain designation, including zones AE.

Any future redevelopment, infrastructure improvements, replace replacement of units or site modifications will remain subject to the applicable floodplain regulations, drainage requirements, and Tulsa County engineering review.

Staff finds that bringing the property into zoning compliance through the RMH district promotes improved long-term land use administration and regulatory consistency for the site.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request and happy to answer any questions.

One quick question.

No, sir.

No, sir.

They'll still have to go through those other requirements.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Any questions for Kendall?

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Are you in agreement with staff recommendation?

Okay.

Thank you.

We do not have any speakers.

We're in review.

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

Second.

We have a motion like Commissioner Hood, second by Commissioner Humphrey for the approval.

Item eleven per staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

And that item is approved.

Item 12.

Oh, we already did 12.

Hold on.

13.

Item number 13.

Um is a project that you have heard and seen and maybe driven by.

In the past, it's project anthem.

Um so this will cover this item and also the next item.

Um project anthem, the the request for you right now is an extension of the preliminary plat approval.

It was originally approved um two year or on August 7th, 2024.

They are requesting to extend that approval by one year um to 2027.

Um they are actively working on the infrastructure.

You can see them doing that.

Um staff's, and nothing with the subdivision regulations has really changed.

Um, so I we do see it would be more burdensome to halt that process.

So staff recommends approval of that extension.

Okay, thank you, Austin.

Any questions for Austin?

Thanks, sir.

Is the applicant here?

Oh.

Would you like to come up?

Are you in agreement with staff recommendation?

Okay.

We do not have any speakers for items 13 or 14.

Do we need a presentation for 14 or can we do both at one time?

Um we might do them separate.

Alright, I move to approve item number 13 pursuit of staff recommendations.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash, second by Commissioner Shivle for the approval of item 13 for staff recommendation.

All those in favor?

Opposed in that item is approved.

Um so this is the same project, but is a different request um and will show up differently on the agenda.

Um it is a request for the accelerated release of a building permit.

So this is a uh request to be able to file the building permit before um the plat is actually recorded.

And you would have received um an amended plan um in your packet, and I I do request that you uh do your approval based on uh those conceptual improvements.

Um uh in the packet we originally received, we included some old plans.

Um there has been some um, I guess I don't want to say compromise, but at the request of neighbors, um they changed the location of some of their cooling towers, and that's reflected in the plan that you were given after the fact, and so I do request that you uh approve it per that plan.

Um but as far as the accelerator release, um they have provided funds in an escrow account with the city to guarantee all the infrastructure they are responsible for.

Um that won't be released until it's um finished.

Um in addition to that, they won't get final occupancy on the building until the plat is filed.

So with those requirements and conditions, staff recommends approval.

Thanks, Austin.

Any questions for Austin?

Okay, I do have a question for the applicant if you don't want.

What's that?

Oh, you're di it's different?

Yes.

I just come on up if you don't mind.

Please give your name and address.

I'm Mike Shilley with Fortis Construction 650 South Cherokee Street Catusa.

Okay.

What's the anticipated completion date for everything out there?

Uh right now, construction complete will be likely towards the end of 2027, early 28.

We're still working through finalized construction schedule with the owner's team.

So early 28?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Any questions?

Thanks, sir.

We're in review.

I'll move to approve item number 14 pursuant staff recommendations.

We have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash, second by Commissioner Shivel for the approval of item 14 per staff recommendation.

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

Item 15.

This here is a uh preliminary.

It's under the preliminary plot um section on the agenda, but it's actually a replot.

Um, the estate Swiss.

Um the applicant for this item is Alan Betcham.

Um you guys seen this previously.

The name was I believe the West Estates when we all reviewed it.

Um shortly after, I think it was probably a week after it being approved at the Board of County Commissioners.

We were contacted by the applicant's group requesting that we could change the name.

Um we went through several different avenues.

It was something that I don't believe anybody that we worked with has ever had to.

Oh, yeah.

We're pause real quick, Kendall.

Go ahead, Brian.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Oh, you were cruising?

Well, we we don't have a quorum then.

Uh, do we continue it, Kendall?

If we if that's what we have to do, yes, sir.

All right, you know, make a motion.

Is June 3rd okay?

Yes, yes, sir.

Um we make a motion.

I move to approve items there.

I don't if we don't have a quorum.

We can't have a forum now.

We don't want to continue.

That's a part of the vote and that's what I recommend.

Just participate in the containments.

Okay.

I'll do that.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Bullmash, second by Commissioner Shivel to continue item fifteen to June third.

All those in favor?

And that is continued.

I'll say for the record, I'll recuse myself from the vote uh going forward on like uh the next day, which would be continuance, which would be June third, okay.

Okay.

Sick now item sixteen commissioner comments.

Um I'll make a motion for adjournment.

All those in favor, posed, we are adjourned.