This meeting to order.

I don't have a chairperson's report for director's report.

We'll recognize Susan Miller.

Hi, good afternoon.

So I don't have any cases that have been recently approved.

There'll be a lot more coming up soon.

But I wanted to give you an update.

As you know, City and County are both working to establish their own planning commission.

So the process would be for both the city council and the county commission to adopt a joint resolution to dissolve TMAPC.

And then only speaking from the city side, then the city will need to adopt a resolution to establish a new city of Tulsa Planning Commission.

So we're also just behind the scenes working on other details that will help set that up.

And anyway, so once we get a little further along or know when that date is, the mayor will start appointing people to the City of Tulsa Planning Commission, so that'll happen.

And I'll just keep you posted as as I know more.

Okay.

So any questions?

Or did you want to give an update on the county side?

Just uh briefly, you know, we did get the uh uh state statute changed to allow uh the modification of the county uh zoning board.

The original law is uh stated there's six members.

Uh they served for six-year terms, very onerous, and no one wants to you don't want to go and ask the volunteer to say, would you serve six years?

So we able to mod get that modified for two-year terms, um, uh six members plus the chair or the chair or appointee as far as the uh chair of the BOCC to be the chair of the planning commission.

But yeah, so the good thing is that law that was signed and had an emergency clause, so that will actually go in it's already in effect, so we now can operate under the new the new um state statute.

We are uh we've been meeting weekly since I got the phone call from uh from the city that we want to uh break this up and stuff.

So we're working on our process.

That the big hurdle was that the change in the statute.

Once that we are now pushing as far as as fast as we can, but um my I think we're looking probably 60-90 days at minimum, uh which I think is what is in talk with uh the city legal and so forth.

But the attorneys they're all over it.

They've just they're they Jeff and uh is dealing with our ADAs and he's just loves it.

Working diligently to get that accomplished.

Yep, thank you.

Thanks, Susan.

Uh no, we don't have any minutes approved.

There's no consent agenda item, Mr.

Secretary.

We please read our rules.

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

Commissioner 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 staff's uh presentation of the staff's recommendation.

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

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

A 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 or representative 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.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

So item one is a rezoning request Z7860, and then item four is a comprehensive plan amendment CPA 131.

Uh this was an item that was continued from your previous meeting for uh roughly 3.8 acre property that's located east of the southeast corner of West Edison Street and North 41st West Avenue.

Um the existing conditions on the property are that about a third of it is zone CS.

The applicant is requesting to change the remainder portion that is currently RS3 to CS as well.

Um I do want to mention there is now an optional development plan included with this.

There was at your previous meeting as well, but um we noticed on the agenda it just still said rezoning, so um just keep that in mind as as you're making any considerations that the optional development plan would need to be attached.

Since your last meeting, um the commission had requested the applicant meet more with the neighbors who had been here last time, and I'm gonna I'll leave it up to him to give you an update on the discussions that he's had with the neighbors.

Um the only change we have made at this point to the optional development plan was the increase of the fence height that is um from six feet to eight feet.

Previously we had the standard F1 screening fence requirement that we had modified now based on discussion at the previous commission meeting um that he had agreed to go to an eight-foot fence height between him the property and the neighbors' properties.

Uh other than that, the request remains the same.

The the development plan still has a list of prohibited uses that would not be allowed on the property.

Um and I do want to reiterate, I there was around this project, there's discussion about a proposal for an RV park.

Um the CS zoning as presented today, does not permit an RV park by right and would require still another approval through the city's board of adjustment uh before it would be an allowable use on the property, uh, but I do think that's where a lot of the conversation um has been focused from the applicant as he describes what he'd like to do with the property.

But at this time, our recommendation is is still a recommendation of approval for both the land use change and the rezoning, uh finding that the the commercial zoning would be appropriate at the location that it is in and limiting it to CS with the optional development plan standards included.

So okay.

Any questions for Nathan?

I have a question.

Um I understand there would have to be a separate process for the approval of an RV park, and I think I saw in here something about you know they don't want to develop detailed plans about that park until you know they have the rezoning.

When they went to get the next approval, would it have to be the full detail, or would it just be like yes, you could have an RV park or no, you could not?

So at a minimum they would have to propose a site plan to the board of adjustment.

Um the board is routinely tied special exception approvals to plans, uh and that's their preference.

They want to tie it to what was presented at that meeting.

Um so yeah, a more robust plan would have to be provided to go through that process and to get any decision from the Board of Adjustment.

I realize I don't know anything about that.

Thank you.

Then this is another there's an ODP with this, correct?

There is, yeah.

So it's but it's not in our packet.

It is in your package, should be attached with the staff recommendation.

Um so on the second page of the staff recommendation, you have Z8760 development standards.

There is a list of expressly prohibited uses that includes um personal credit establishments like payday loan facilities, plasma centers, uh principal use parking lots, bars, medical marijuana dispensaries, and sexually oriented businesses.

So it's just it's there.

I I I've read that, but when you said I was looking for the ODP.

Yeah, the only other standards are on that next page.

There is some increased landscaping and screening requirements associated with it as well.

Commissioner Hood.

When this goes to the BOA, or if we go to the BOA, uh applicants can be required to show a hardship correct for special exceptional, or is it not?

Not for an exception.

Yeah, only if they needed variances with a hardship be required for the exception, it's really an assessment of compatibility, whether it creates any injury to neighboring property owners, and obviously would be dependent on what kind of feedback it's coming in from neighbors.

So, I thought I read somewhere in the materials um that RV parks require a minimum of five acres.

Is that accurate?

I don't believe so.

It may have been an uh email from a neighbor.

Let me let me double check that against our our code provisions and I'll I'll verify one way or the other.

That were the case, but then presumably they would be requesting a variant and a exception.

That's great.

Yeah, in which the variants would have to demonstrate a hardship.

Okay.

And then another question, and I apologize if we discussed this at the last meeting, but um out of the memory of a uh uh goldfish.

Um RV park.

When I think of that in my head, I think of like mobile homes pulling in, staying for a period of time, hooking up to water and electric and then leaving.

Is there as opposed to like a mobile home park, which I think of as more permanent structures that typically don't move, but technically could.

Is that a distinction in the zoning code, or is that just something in my head?

No, that is.

So we have separate use classifications for a mobile home park.

Um an RV park is classified under a lodging use in the zoning code, which primarily just says you are limited to 30 days or less in the time you stay at that location.

Um, and that's how we would classify an RV park.

So this is more temporary than uh mobile home park.

A mobile home park doesn't is considered long-term housing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions for Nathan?

I think there's a mention of uh the minimum of five acres for mobile home park.

I did see that.

That's what Austin just showed me as well.

So it's that's where I think the confusion lies.

A mobile home park has the minimum acre requirement of five acres, but that would not apply to the RV park.

So the uh 30-day maximum stay um we would have to rely on the city code enforcement to go out every month and at whatever 90, whatever law the uh that could be staggered or every everyone could be different time.

I mean, that's uh you know how is that actually you probably don't even know how that actually would be enforced.

Yeah, I think it would it would stem from initially uh complaint probably of of somebody that it's extended their their stay longer than that time period, and code enforcement would have to do an investigation to determine if any of those RVs were staying longer than that 30-day period.

No, yeah.

Welcome to the county, they'll stay.

Any other questions for Nathan?

Oh, did I not mention there's a CPA?

No, you didn't.

Okay, yeah, CPA 131 just to also go back to that.

It is a request to change the entire property from a neighborhood designation that is currently to a multiple use designation, which would support commercial zone.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

Is the app coming here?

Would you like to come up after the speakers or?

Okay, we'll call the speakers and let you up.

Okay.

Uh first speaker, Joan Wright.

I apologize for the way I look.

I'm teaching a summer camp, so I had to run over here.

Uh Joan Camille Wright, 524 North 39th West Avenue.

Uh Telsa 74127, I uh live directly beside the property in question 4020.

I want to be clear that neither I nor my neighbors are opposed to development.

We understand that growth is important, and many of us will support appropriate development with the portion of the property that is already zoned commercial.

Our concern is the residential portion of the property.

Previous planning commissions intentionally maintained a distinction between commercial and resident sections at this site.

That balance has protected established neighborhoods while allowing development.

There has been no compelling reason presented to eliminate those residential uh protections.

Last night many of us met with Mr.

Blackman, and while I appreciate the opportunity at the meeting, the discussion reinforced major concerns.

Residents are being asked to support a permanent zoning change before seeing detailed plants.

We still do not have clear answers regarding wastewater disposal, sewage capacity, drainage, lighting, security, traffic impacts, emergency access, management.

These are fundamental issues that should be addressed before a zoning change is considered.

The current condition of the property remains concerning.

These roads were not designed for RV traffic, they were designed for residential traffic.

Service vehicles, delivery tracks, visitors, and all that with a 55-unit uh RV park would be astronomically bad.

Quite frankly, this process feels like putting the cart before the horse.

Residents are being asked to support a permanent zoning change before an established development is being determined, and that will change the surrounding neighborhood.

I want to emphasize again that we are not asking for the stop of development.

If Mr.

Blackman wishes to develop a commercial zone portion of the property, we are force for that 100%.

However, the resident portion remains residential, just as previously planned by this commission.

Once again, once that zoning is changed, the character of the neighborhood will be permanently altered, and the decision cannot be reversed.

I ask you to preserve the balance of the previous planning bodies intentionally created and deny the request rezoning for the residential portion of the property.

However, if the rezoning is approved, I ask for meaningful protections to be required to ensure at least possible disturbance to the surrounding homes and families.

Thank you.

Thank you.

JP Lous.

Hello, my name is JP Lands.

I live at 618 North 41st West Avenue.

I have lived in my home for 12 years.

I purchased a second property on Edison eight years ago, which I have rented since to members of the artist collective Black Moon.

I maintain over six acres of land in this area and am currently in talks with another neighbor about the possible purchase of their home for my aging parents.

I am more than simply emotionally invested in the intentional development of my neighborhood.

Many of us were first-time owned homeowners when we came to this neighborhood, and we don't plan to move again.

We have invested back into our community where and how we can.

We are a quirky area with a variety of home types.

I can think of 11 artists who live within blocks of me.

We are a community interested in unique developments in our area and supporting our local businesses.

The mechanic directly to the east of Mr.

Blackman's property works on my car, and I am friends with all the artists who rent the space at Leeksa Regan's Edison Artist Studios directly to the west of Mr.

Blackman's property.

I even looked at purchasing the property now owned by Mr.

Blackman back in 2019.

At the time, it was still owned by members of the family that had lived there for generations.

The original home on the property in question was built in 1911.

The commercial businesses they ran, which front Edison, were a hamburger stand and a greenhouse.

None of the neighbors I have spoken to are opposed to the continued commercial use of the front of Mr.

Blackman's property.

Edison has always been a mixed-use street.

The port property in question has desperately needed attention since before its initial sale in 2019, and we would be excited to see someone finally treat the space with intentional care and development that benefits our neighborhood and its walkability.

However, the rezoning of the entire allotment into commercial property is opening a Pandora's box that cannot be closed again.

The wheel of development rarely rolls backwards from commercial to residential.

This property is surrounded on three sides by the backyards of 13 homes.

These homes have never experienced commercial activity behind their homes, as the previous greenhouse business only grew produce for sale in the front of the property.

Mr.

Blackman has promised some interesting things with his proposed RV park.

He has said that he wants the community's feedback throughout the process of his project and for us to be happy.

His words can be exciting, and of course, I deeply hope.

They are true.

However, I only have his actions and tangible indicators of his intentions with the property.

Mr.

Blackman purchased the property in February of 24, shortly thereafter, having an exceptionally derelict building on the property demolished.

He then maintained the green frontage of the property on Edison and let the remaining land and neglected buildings sit.

The buildings were not properly secured at times and there was transient activity.

About a year after purchase, Mr.

Blackwin relisted the property for sale for double what he paid for it via commercial real estate listing sites such as Loopnet.

There was no movement on the sale at that time.

He has reiterated that he wants the neighborhood happy with his development, but he is already in litigation with a mechanic shop to the east over disputed weather damage from tree fall.

Last month, Mr.

Blackman half cleared the property as the notice was posted for this upcoming rezoning meeting.

I would be interested to know the timeline of when Mr.

Blackman took up an interest in maintaining the property again after the previously mentioned litigation after the land set, mostly untouched for a year.

Mr.

Blackman has only provided a schematic of his development for 55 RZ RV slips and their amenities.

And that was rendered by his primary consultant on the project, real estate broker, Austin Wacheskowitz.

Sorry if I'm just Mr.

Wachetskowski.

Sorry.

And his initial investigation of the site is only one small facet of the multifaceted steps involved to prove the viability of the stated development.

No engineers or architects have explored if this currently proposed project is even possible as of yet.

He has not conducted any feasibility studies and has only provided vague information about talking with an architect from RCJ Designs about his plans.

At this time, there are no tangible designs for the RV park.

He doesn't know what the drainage and sewage requirements for his property are, as gaining that information is, quote, not worth the investment before the rezoning.

30 seconds.

We are almost all on septic, and um I still thought I would have five minutes.

Um having to replace two systems myself.

I know that it is a simple phone call to check about these procedures.

If Mr.

Blackwell has to put in lateral lines or a system, it will change the um viability of his development.

He has said he has spoken with PSO about the gra the grid, and that doesn't really indicate what he will build, only that he plans to build big.

We are all in walking uh, we all walk and exercise in our streets.

My nine-year-old rides his bike around in various loops of regularly.

When I shared my concerns about the addition of 110 individuals and their traffic to our neighborhood, assuming there are two occupants per RV, and that we would prefer zoning to remain residential.

Mr.

Blackman asked me what I would think of 150 occupancy apartment complex instead.

This did not feel like a productive exchange, but extremely combative.

Mr.

Blackman expects us to take his proposal in good faith to rezone our residential neighborhood and commercial and hope that the few restrictions under CS rezoning protect us from the deep investments in the area that most of us have made.

Yet he has shown almost no concrete investment in the proposed RV park.

It is as yet only a shiny speech and an initial schematic with no feasible feasibility studies and bare minimum investment into the property's maintenance self over the last two years.

It is my concern that Mr.

Blackman would truly like what he would truly like is to get the sale price he unsuccessfully listed the property for last year.

Please conclude or ideally increase this the flip rate with the commercial rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Monica Smedley.

Hi, I'm Monica Smedley.

I'm at 518, North 39th West Avenue, right next to next to the land that you're talking about.

I own four properties in that little area right there, uh, four houses.

And I'm just worried about the noise and the traffic, and I would rather it just say residential.

We got kids playing right across the street, and I just think it's gonna be a bad deal to make it commercial.

And we do have a petition signed by all the neighborhood that does not agree with it.

Okay, thank you.

Brooke go lightly.

Brooke go lightly, 562 North 38th West Avenue.

I grew up in this neighborhood.

I spent a good part of my childhood going to the burger stand and the uh subsequent or the next door uh florist that used to be there.

I played on these streets for a lot of my childhood, and now I've bought my first home and I live in the neighborhood again.

I love my neighborhood.

I love my home.

There has been quite an increase in traffic in the last few years on Edison and sometimes it feels a little dangerous.

I cannot help but wonder how much more it would, how much more traffic would considerably influence the enjoyability of my property if this gets approved for rezoning.

Um I would ask that you please consider not rezoning this residential area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hunter Jacob.

My name is Hunter Jacob.

I live at 525 North 41st Worth Avenue.

Uh, forgive me, I just had a tooth pool about an hour ago, so if I struggled through this, please understand.

Um I just wanted to I attended the last meeting.

I wanted to speak on some points that were brought up there.

Mr.

Blacken speaks that he's trying to alleviate a lot of the neighbors' concerns and be neighborly per se, but nothing he has done in my experience has been neighborly.

The issue that he is having with the mechanic shop on the corner of the property due to the tree falling weather concerns was not from a weather concern.

Whenever he hired the crew to come uh prune the property, clean the property, bulldoze the property basically, multiple power lines were brought down, and $3,000 in damage to my house was caused as well.

I can't get an invoice from the company that I had to do the work to fix my house, so I can't go after him to get it back.

But I've discussed with him and he's trying to blame.

Well, you'll have to take it up with my contracting company.

No, PSO was well aware of it, they shut the power up to your house before anything happened, before it was ripped out of your house.

No, we had no part in that, even though I have documentation from PSO showing that they were not aware of the issue until I called them out for my power being out that day.

Uh Mr.

Blackman lives in a $500,000 house half an hour away from the neighborhood.

He's had the opportunity to meet with neighbors.

We have monthly neighborhood meetings in the neighborhood in which he refuses to attend.

He gave us the opportunity to meet with him last night at 101st Memorial, two blocks from his house, half an hour away from any of us.

Mr.

Blackman has not offered anything as far as a permanent plan, a solution as other neighbors have alluded to.

We're all on septic.

There are no plans, there are no drawings.

There's nothing that's rendered from an engineer or anyone qualified to show that you can fit 55 RBs on that park even, let alone support the water, the power, anything else.

Nothing that he has done has planned this through, thought this through, and all we from the neighborhood has wanted to see is something that reflects our values.

We're not against development of the property.

We want to see something happen with the property.

Even as it sits today, there are still two abandoned buildings that are not secure and there are piles of rubble everywhere.

Even in his current state, it is not being maintained to the degree that he says it is.

We want to see that change, but it's just not the way that he is proposing, not the way that he is approaching things, not the way that he is handling things with the neighborhood is in a way that reassures us that even if you guys do grant the commercial zoning and he wouldn't get the the RB park designation, that he isn't just going to turn around and flip that property into something else.

Like nothing he has done has been forwardly of being a neighbor or trying to alleviate our concerns.

So thank you.

Oh thank you.

Ann Pollard.

Hello, my name is Ann Pollard James.

I live at 622 North 41st West Avenue.

Um I came with an open mind to the meeting last night to hear Mr.

Blackman talk about his development, and I left feeling disheartened about a few things.

And to that end, I am in opposition of this proposed zoning change.

And it saddens me because I am a huge fan of interesting and intentional development.

And I feel like that some of the ideas that he came up with in a talking situation were great, but I feel like that's what they are are talking points to get a neighborhood kind of off his back.

Um the front portion zone CS currently is an exciting possibility to think about how it could be zoned and what could be there, what what wonderful things to the community that Mr.

Blackman might bring.

But the part to the back that is three parts or three sides residential feels like so premature.

Because once you decide that that neighborhood, that residential part of the neighborhood can be commercial, you can't put it back.

It's not nothing is ever gonna go back to residential, but because we don't have any indication of an actual plan of any financial investment into the planning of what that proper project could look like.

We're left sitting with a property that now becomes available for development of so many unknown possibilities.

And I think that's incredibly unfair and incredibly dangerous to a neighborhood that sits on the line of rural, sits on the line of urban.

It sits on the line of having so many different kinds of intersections that make it all so wonderful and also need to be protected.

The single family residential that surrounds it, it's there on purpose.

The neighbors have been there for a very long time.

And I don't think you'd find any neighbor that would be against thoughtful development of the commercial.

I think everyone would be for it.

But this doesn't feel like there's been any investment and it doesn't feel genuine to the project that he talked about last night or previously.

So here are a few things that I've written just so that I wouldn't forget.

My concern is that this zoning change appears premature and speculative.

I've not seen evidence of a well-developed plan or any plan that demonstrates how this property will be transformed in a way that serves the neighborhood.

I am a fan of development on the portion zone commercial, but in it but am in total opposition of the rezoning of residential to commercial.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh Stacy Lucio, Luco.

Yeah, one more.

Okay, yeah, one more on that one later.

Yeah.

Hi, my name is Stacey Cuccio.

Um, my address is 3504 West Edison Street here in Tulsa.

Um I attended the neighborhood association meeting where Mr.

Blackman and his team presented the idea of RV park.

Uh, the last plenty commission meeting regarding this property and the meeting last night with Mr.

Blackman.

When I first saw some clearing happening at 4020 West Edison Street, truly I was excited to see what the property owner had in mind for their property since my property is just a little to the east.

Although since a rezoning sign was posted, I've heard several concerns from neighbors related to the rezoning request with the intention to build an RV park.

These concerns are related to noise, traffic, infrastructure, property upkeep, light pollution, change of environment, bringing people into the community that will not be invested in the neighborhood, potential crime and concerns about property values if an RV park is constructed at this location.

I'm a licensed engineer in the state of Oklahoma, and one of the things I'm required to do as I work on projects is to help protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

When working on projects, I always try to consider what if I lived here?

What if I had family or friends that lived here?

This helps me as I make decisions that will impact people's lives to consider what may be the best solution and what may be the most preferred solution by residents and business owners in the area.

That same idea is one applying today.

Some suggestions I've heard from neighbors for this property are small retail shops that would bring businesses into the area that people living in our area could also utilize in single-family residential homes.

Other ideas have been stated, but these have been the most common.

I'm opposed to the rezoning of the entire property to CS due to the plan being to build an RV park suited for at least 55 RVs, maybe more.

I recognize this may be this may limit the type of development that Mr.

Blackman would like at the property, but with many concerned neighbors adjacent and nearby to his property, it seems like the rezoning of a portion of the property, you're only utilizing the portion of the property off the arterial that is already zoned CS for um would be best for commercial development with residential development on the south side of the property that would be better suited for our neighborhood.

From talking with Mr.

Blackman, he has completed some and is currently working on some different types of development projects across the Tulsa Metro, including both commercial and residential.

So this seems like it could be a good compromise for all parties, maybe to consider what else he could do with the property outside of fully developing the full property CS.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Blackman.

Good afternoon.

Thank you all for being here today.

Um I just want to clarify a couple things.

Um, after our last meeting, and there was a request for a continuance.

I did reach out to Mr.

Foster.

I think he was out of town, I didn't know.

Try to plan a meeting at his office with all of the uh neighborhood.

And once that was not successful, I knew they had not moved forward.

And as time was of essence, I picked the place that was available, in fact, at the library where I picked there was one room available that I thought more people would show up.

I think five or six people showed up last night.

We met for nearly two hours.

Um, wasn't a short meeting.

The way I see this issue, and let me just give a little more clarity on the land.

The land was purchased, and uh the prior owner and the gentleman to the east of me had several conversations about a tree that was hanging over his fence, and I don't know what their uh conclusion was.

I know after I purchased the land, there was a tornado, it severed the tree, the tree fell on his fence.

Um he had had the opportunity to cut it down because of that, he found litigation regarding the tree, and that's the issue with the tree.

This had nothing to do with negligence.

Since that time, $50,000 has been spent to clear that land, and we're in the process of continuing to do so.

So the land is not being left negligent.

There are buildings that are left there on purpose with intention of rehabbing as opposed to tearing down, and so it's not that they're dilapidated, dilapidated and being neglected.

In addition, there was some discussion about what's gonna go on the property, and as you all know, I'd like to place an RV park there.

And I think, in all fairness, I should have the opportunity to do so.

It does require rezoning.

Of course, I could go there and place a 150 unit apartment complex.

You're gonna have the same increase in density of people, the same increase in density of crime rate, and travel with cars.

And so to make the argument that putting a development of an RV park there versus 150 unit apartment complex, is gonna increase the traffic or increase the crime rate.

I think you have those options with each.

With one difference.

With an RV park, the people who typically go to an RV park are older, they're retired, they're traveling.

These are not the typical people that are going to commit crime.

Um if you travel to some of the RV parks, they're typically quiet.

People are not lording about.

We're gonna put up privacy fences, and we've worked with the city on several uh things that we could do to make sure that it's gonna be quiet, well lit, and that we would make sure that it's safe.

Background checks and so forth, and a gated entrance.

Um, in addition, when we look at um uh the development and how it's situated, being a mixed or I should say commercial and residential, if the commercial is developed in front, there's not enough residential space to develop anything.

And so at the meeting last night, we talked about several options to actually modify the plans that we have to be able to satisfy some of those concerns.

For instance, on the schematic which we presented in the front of the property, there's gonna be uh basketball court and a pickleball court, and Joan had concerns about being uh having visibility into her backyard.

We discussed yesterday that maybe it's a good thing to move that structure from the front to the back to the residential area that would shield those properties and give them more privacy.

That was something that they thought was a good idea when we talked yesterday.

I'm surprised to hear something opposite today.

In addition, we talked about community engagement, different ideas where the park would be able to engage the community to allow some of the community to come in, even for facility use.

We also talked about making the basketball and pickleball court a storm shelter to be able to assist the community.

So we talked about some very healthy things yesterday.

Um I don't believe this is gonna be a development that brings down the value, but it's gonna increase the value.

I've also heard that something in terms of flipping the property.

If I were gonna flip the property, I wouldn't be putting $50,000 into clearing the land.

That's not the intention.

My intention is to develop this property and hold it.

We discussed this at length last night.

In fact, I plan on my kids to inherit this property when I'm no longer here.

That's not flipping a property.

And in fact, I have a lot of different uh properties or developments around town that the idea is not to flip them.

And so I take exception with putting words in my mouth or tainting my character to be different than what it is.

In fact, I think this is an issue of trust.

They don't know me, I don't know them.

I'm coming into their neighborhood.

And I understand that.

And so what everyone told me last night is we don't know you, and so we don't know if we can trust you.

I completely get that, but that doesn't mean that I'm not trustworthy.

And we discussed last night, and I've shown them different developments and things that I've done around town that are still standing, and the quality of them.

And so this doesn't to me seem like it's about the RV park.

When if you had a different development, would create some of the other problems, that would be acceptable.

I think this is a trust issue, and I'm a trustworthy person, and and so I take exception with attacking my character in that way.

But I do want to bring the RV park.

I think this should be zoned, and this should be allowed to go to the Board of Adjustment who would then make modifications on this development.

Thank you.

So you're prepared to you're anticipating a successful board of adjustment application.

I am for your RV park.

Yes, sir.

Gene.

Quick question.

You mentioned intentionally leaving some of the buildings to rehab them.

How does that fit into the RV park?

Well, so an RV park has to have an office.

And so the building that is on the west side near the front, I think used to be a residence.

We've actually already replaced the roof on that building.

And so that would be an office space, also have concession stands.

There's gonna be washers and dryers there, somewhere for tenants to come in and have some rest and relaxation.

Um we've also talked about moving the dog run to the front so they don't have the noise and the smell in back, taking the building with the basketball court and uh the pickleball court to the back to give them more privacy.

There's a lot of concessions that we have uh made with the tenants, and I don't think that's being represented fairly.

And so I I understand that it's their neighborhood and that and that we're visitors, but I also understand that this piece of land's been there for a long time.

And if someone wanted to have retail, they should have bought it and developed it.

But don't penalize me because I come and buy it and I want to put a development there.

I think that's unfair.

Thanks.

One other question.

Is it possible to do this in phases?

So could you develop the commercial portion as an RV park, show the neighborhood your intentions, and then come back in a year or two or whatever to then expand it to get the rezoning?

Because I I right if if you were before us saying you've been operating an RV park here for three years, and here's what it looks like, and you know, all the neighbors came in and said he's a great neighbor, and it's a beautiful da-da-da.

That'd be a different story.

So I'm just, is that at all feasible or something you have or would consider?

Uh Jean, I had not considered that.

Um, that would be much more challenging for me.

And I'm sure that you know when you're developing, it's a lot easier to do an entire development.

That development would then be on the back end of the park, which would mean you'd have to either come in through their residences or go across what you've developed already.

I mean, just I I think it's an unfair proposition and position to put me in as a developer when I'm just asking for a rezoning.

These things will all be sought out with the board of adjustment.

They'll make uh suggestions on where things should go and how they should be, and how you bring the water in, how you get rid of it is your is your detention pond.

Those are still battles that we have to address, even with development.

And you know, the question was asked why didn't you go get an engineer and completely develop this out and then bring it to us and show us?

That just doesn't make a lot of sense at this point.

I mean, it's things change, and it's hard to get someone who's not a developer in that doing that to understand that.

That's difficult.

And so I'm trying to do the best that I can.

Um, I'm trying to engage them, uh you know, I'm trying to make concessions, and you know, but at the same time, you know, they're spending my money, right?

I'm not asking for their money, and they could have developed this.

You might all good things.

Is that okay?

Did you sign up?

Did you sign up?

Yeah, co-applicant.

So along she, I was gonna sign up.

She told me to just.

Okay, come on.

I just uh state in Austin Wojesky is how you pronounce it, just so you know, way easier than it looks on paper.

Um, Oak and Sage Realty.

So um I I represent Darnell on all matters.

Just three quick points.

Uh first on Darnell, uh, been in the community, uh Tulsa community for over 20 years, has been a very upstanding member of the community um both in the medical field and in the development field now.

And so uh I just want to point out that he plans to be here a long time, and so uh, you know, questions of his integrity or things like that, I take take issue with.

So just want to put that out there.

Uh secondly, uh as far as it was just briefly mentioned.

I'm just gonna talk quickly about the RV park and then quickly just about the zoning.

So on the R V park front, um, when when you have a gated luxury RV park with amenities and things like that, I can provide you guys the studies.

It actually lowers crime in the area, not raises it.

Uh there are common sense measures put in place to have uh no older than like 10 year old RVs.

Um we have technology measures, uh surveillance measures, and all of those things.

Um, and I'm happy to provide you the studies that show actually decrease in crime rates in the area from that, not an increase.

So uh that and then specifically on the zoning for this property.

I mean, we're looking at Edison as a it's an arterial um, you know, uh, through traffic area.

Uh zoning for commercial on these arterials is the normal pace of development.

And so saying we don't want to, you know, go further into the neighborhood on this residential piece, it's in my opinion a little bit short-sighted as far as what the future plans for uh any of these areas that have arterial measures for commercial zoning.

So even if we didn't get the R V park approved, which of course we hope we would, uh this fits the future needs for the area, in our opinion, uh long term.

So just wanted to put those.

Any questions for Mr.

Blackman?

Troy?

Yeah, I've actually got a question for each one of them.

Um so to the agent.

So we have a picture here of what I think is the proposed RV park.

What percentage of the 3.61 acres is this taking up?

Uh as far as actual spots or as far as percentage of how much how much how much grass, how much ground is the RV park covering?

I think it was around like eighty-five percent was covered, but we're also uh this is something we talked with Nathan about in planning commission.

We're talking about whether we should do gravel or uh concrete pads.

We'd prefer to do concrete, but for drainage purposes, it may be better that it's gravel.

And so that's something we're doing.

I don't have a concern about the about the structure.

My concern is one of the current owners around the the proposed park said that the this is a there's no rural, there's no sewer out here.

This is they're on seven.

I think sewers across the street on the north side of Edison.

Okay, so your intent is to you you you've worked into your proposal to attach to the sewer, yes, sir to service 55 RV, yes, sir.

Okay, all right.

Um it's not something we normally cover, but you guys both brought it up this factor of um of trust and and diligence and things like that.

I'm just curious about a comment that you made earlier.

Did I understand you correctly?

Is you bought the property with an existing tree on it, and the tree was hanging over somebody else's property, and after you owned it, a tornado came, and you said that you said that a individual had the opportunity had an opportunity to come in and chop the tree down, and he didn't.

The individual you're talking about, is that the previous owner or was that the neighbor?

So I I got this from the uh the guy who filed the complaint from his wife.

Um she told me when that it was shortly after I bought the property.

She told she was she called me and said there was a tornado at free fell.

And she said that she had been talking to the previous owner and they had been arguing about whether or not to cut the tree back.

Um I was unaware of that.

It was a healthy tree.

And so uh if there were no tornado, that tree was not gonna fall.

And so that's how I learned of it.

Well that's not true.

I mean, there was a tornado on the tree, did fall, correct?

Well, yes, but obviously, if there weren't a tornado, I I don't anticipate that tree would have fallen.

I think the tornado caused the tree to fall.

So my question goes to this.

The tree, the the tree was on your property you own now, correct?

Correct.

And the tornado came and knocked the tree down onto somebody else's property.

Onto the fence, yes.

Okay, and you don't feel like that's your responsibility because of a because of a conversation that a previous owner had or didn't have, or I actually went and remediated it.

Okay, so the tree has been taken care of.

Yes, it has.

Okay.

Okay.

And in fact, sir, um, just to be clear, um, it wasn't just that one tree on the property, there's probably about 40 or 50 trees on the property that have been taken down.

Okay.

And so that's gonna prevent another tornado from knocking that onto another structure.

In fact, also the gentleman that came up said that uh there was something that fell on the wire and knocked out power.

I remember the morning he called me and they were out clearing the land, and he called me and so did the contractor who was clearing the land and said, Hey, we were cutting a tree down, it hit a wire, talked turned off the power.

He said, I've contacted PSL, they're gonna come out and they're gonna take care of this.

After the problem was remediated, I spoke with this gentleman again, and he was completely satisfied with what had happened.

I did tell him that the contractor would stay in touch with him.

He went by and left something in his mailbox.

We never heard anything back about that until today.

All right.

Let's get back to zoning and comp plan.

Any other questions for Mr.

Blackman?

No one, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, we are in review for the two items.

Uh comp plan and zoning.

Anyone want to go?

Okay.

Right.

Uh, I'll go.

So I'm somewhat familiar with this area, uh, been out there.

Uh my daughter used to play basketball out there at the church.

Uh, she probably to the gym over there in Edison, and know a little bit about the area as far as infrastructure.

It does need a lot of infrastructure, actually.

There's not a lot out there.

Um, and I'm really for uh development in this area because development brings infrastructure.

Uh it brings, you know, brings water, sewer, things like that to different areas and allows different other projects to happen there.

Uh also do I do understand the concerns from the community about the RV, and I don't know if that's gonna work or not, but I do think that the uh the zoning for commercial uh will uh entice someone or I it should should I believe bring about more development to this area that I think it needs for infrastructure.

I'm in favor of it for that uh reason.

I do understand the community's concerns there, but I do think a lot of these things could be hashed out uh maybe in a development plan or something like that, or something else with the board of adjustments there that can kind of happen from there.

Commissioner Karat.

Uh we are I know this board is very familiar with frontage of uh zoning, future use, past use.

I mean, we deal with this every meeting, so we we're very very aware of those issues, and that's nothing's new.

Um my major concern is the impact on the residentials.

Every everybody that has lived here for years is relying on um the zoning that is in place.

Uh they are they are okay with the commercial zoning that's out front, which is very typical along this type of street, but to go back behind the residential.

I I just cannot in good faith say this is a proper rezoning uh to allow the commercial to go that deep into this uh small neighborhood, and I think personally will definitely impact them uh just from a livability standpoint.

I just cannot in good faith tell the neighbors uh your concerns are not founded.

I think they are um they I think their concerns are founded, so I'm I will not be voting in favor of this.

Okay.

So Nathan, I have a question.

No, you're not with uh public works, but if a sewer line is brought across the street, sometimes there is potential that the neighbors, if they wanted sewer, could get on the sewer, yeah.

I um I wouldn't say that it's that easy.

I think if it depends on location, obviously, and what route they would have to bring sewer to this property, whether others would benefit.

Based on what I had looked at, there is a sanitary sewer line on the north side of Edison, and if they were to just bore under directly to their property to provide service to this development, that would not provide a broader benefit likely to others in the proximity of it.

But that might be something that would benefit the neighborhood if uh when the developer, when someone would come in the architect and see that, it could potentially happen.

It's hard to say.

I mean it would obviously if they brought it in and they served this property with it, that would bring sanitary sewer closer, but I I don't think it would bring it to a place where everybody would all of a sudden have sanitary sewer acts.

Okay, so I think there would be significant amounts of engineering required to get all the other homes served.

So thank you.

Gene.

While you're here, Nathan.

Sure.

Um, one of the speakers mentioned something about previous planning commissions intentionally keeping the zoning.

Is so are there like applications for this property to be rezoned in the past that you know of, or is that just by inference the fact that it's I think I I'm and I'm assuming, but I I'm not familiar with any cases that had previously been brought to expand the commercial at this location.

Um, but I do know obviously the the zoning map that exists was adopted by ordinance and was put in place uh at some point in the past.

I believe if I if I remember right, and I think in the staff recommendation it has the history, this was established as a part of the 1970 comprehensive zoning update to the city um when the CS was applied and the RS3 that that exists today.

Okay, thank you.

So Nathan, Commissioner Craddock make it made a compelling comment about the CS going deep into the neighborhood that you just you felt being on the interior on the arterial that CS is warning.

Yeah, I think I mean our recommendation obviously doesn't look at this from the scope of the the RV park proposal.

Um in fact, when we first met with the applicant, they there are districts that would allow that by right that we discourage them from asking for.

Um CS is a fairly low-intensity commercial district that we've restricted even further through the optional development plan, and so I think that there are safeguards in place to ensure compatibility.

We have CS adjacent to neighborhoods and other parts of the city.

Um, but that's not at all to discount the concerns that neighbors have.

It is different and it would change um what their neighbors could do on their property.

So I I um I think that from our recommendation standpoint, it is the idea that this could be an opportunity to add some commercial development to an area that may need it with limitations that are described in the staff recommendation, and obviously the condition that the actual proposal still has more uh opportunity or more hurdles to jump through to get to it.

So any more questions for Nathan?

I I agree with Commissioner Craddock, but I just want to add something to that is that uh you know uh 100% understand the concerns of the neighbors that back up to this property and going this deep with the CS.

The other thing I've noticed it's doing is that this change also goes deep into 39th West Avenue.

So you're not just affecting the change of what's on the other side of these people's backyard on their fence.

If that commercial comes all the way out to 39th West Avenue, which it can, you're changing the entire aesthetic of the neighborhood.

Um I just think I mean, you know, there are reasons why we have commercial on the main arteries and then the residential behind them.

And um I see that, you know, i if anything, I think the smart play here would be to use the CS as it is and then subdivide that property and sell the rest of the back of it off as residential.

It keeps the aesthetics of the neighborhood, allows an investor to make money, and uh it's not it wouldn't be so intrusive to the people who are already there.

Okay.

And so I'm not gonna to go back over that, but the other thing that I have an issue with is the fact that if we rezone this that we are rezoning it, we're changing the comp plan as well to send it to the board of adjustment to then maybe or maybe not approve an RV park here for a special exception.

And changing the zoning and changing the comp plan is a big thing in my mind.

Debating whether or not maybe we can have RVs here is not.

Yeah.

And I'm I'm just I don't know that I'm it seems kind of like a weird roundabout way of going about that, but that is the rule that we have, but I just it it I'm just not comfortable approaching it that way.

Um in anticipation got blanky on another.

No, like a moment.

Well, okay.

Uh but first, Jeff, CPA first or and then the zoning, or do you care?

So you do the CPA, okay.

Anybody else?

Yeah, I am really considering what my options are.

I know what they are, but I'm inclined to support it because of the prohibited uses and the concessions that I'm hearing that Dr.

Blackman is willing to make or is making.

But what I've heard over and over about the CS, the RS, and that when this happens that it never can be reversed.

Is that accurate or is I don't believe it is.

I I would say no zoning is permanent, um, but it would require a property owner who comes in and asks to change it, or you know, a a motivated city councilor to go in and rezone a property that that they didn't um want to remain a certain way.

So, you know, zoning is changed by ordinance.

It goes through this process, and so I would say there is a way to go back, but it is unlikely most of the time if something was to change to commercial and and any kind of development occurred in a commercial way that it would ever return back to a single family residential district.

So again, while you're here, sure.

It's not me to bring any back, by the way.

While you're here, the RS3, right?

Right.

Um would allow multifamily.

Is that correct?

RS3 wouldn't.

Um RS3 is just single family residential, uh 60 foot minimum lot widths.

So the the C S would so they it could be developed an apartment building on the C S or multifamily.

Yes.

There could be a rezoning to a multifamily RM type if if they're just like, yeah, if they wanted to pursue maybe a higher density residential or a different design designation on the back side of the property for that purpose, we would have to kind of start over with the application, but that would be a possibility that they could propose changing the residential while maintaining the use of residential to get to something different.

Thanks.

Okay.

I will make a motion uh on item number four CPA 131 to deny that application.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Craddock, a second by Commissioner Whitlock for the denial of item four per staff recommendation.

So it's not for staff recommendation.

No, it's not.

Denial.

Sorry.

You're welcome, Jeff.

Motion for denial.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

Can we do it again?

Okay.

Okay.

We have a motion for denial.

All those in favor.

Opposed.

Six to deny to deny.

Okay.

Item one.

I would make a motion to deny uh item number one.

Z 7860.

Is there a second?

We have a motion by Commissioner Craddock, a second by Commissioner Fugate, for denial of item one.

All those in favor?

Opposed.

Okay.

And that could you can we get a clear six five which way?

To deny.

Okay.

The motion was to deny, but there were six votes opposed to the motion.

Yes.

That's five.

No.

Motion passed.

Who voted in favor of the motion?

To not to deny.

So only five of you.

Oh, Gene.

And Jean voted to deny.

Okay.

So that was the one I think that was missed by several in the front row.

Okay, and that was the same exact vote.

Okay.

So both motions were.

So my motion to deny on both items passed.

Yes, yes.

Both items were denied.

Okay.

Commissioner Crew is first vice chair is will be chairing the rest of this meeting.

Thank you.

Can I grab this?

Can I have your thank you?

Okay, item number two.

Well, some people are leaving, maybe give them a second.

Good afternoon.

Item number two, C Z 592.

The request here is a county rezoning of an IL lot to an AG to AG for the purpose of building a home in a small farm.

The applicant is Robin Cagle.

The property location is 25015 West 41st Street, Sand Springs, Oklahoma.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from IL to AG.

The applicant intends to use this land to build a home and establish a small farm.

The subject tract is located on the north edge of West 41st Street South, approximately 1.4 miles from Creek County limits.

It abuts another I.O.

zone lot of slightly larger size on the west and CS commercial shopping zones lots on the east.

The north and south neighboring properties are AG with AGR lots spread out through them.

The CS lot on the east, despite having the designation of rural commercial per the Tulsa County comprehensive land use plans, are currently residential in use.

The subject property and adjacent IL property both are designated as industrial under the land use plan.

However, most of the land in the one mile radius falls under the designation of rural residential/slash agricultural.

Overall, the surrounding area reflects a rural or semi-rural residential character with a mix of very large and undeveloped agricultural or single or single family dwelling lots scattered throughout, with the exception being the property to the west of the subject lot.

Based on the existing use of the property in the consistent consistency with the surrounding uses, staff finds the request to be reasonable and appropriate.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of this application.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Kendall?

Is the applicant here?

Are you in agreement with staff's recommendation?

Okay, we have no speakers, so we are in review.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Craddock and a second by Commissioner Shivill.

Uh all in favor.

Any opposed?

Any abstained?

And that motion is approved.

Item number three.

Item number three, CZ593.

The request here is a county rezoning from AG to RS1 for the purpose of developing a residential subdivision.

The applicant is Tanner Consulting.

The property location is 6900 block of East 116th Street North.

The applicant's conceptual uh development plan illustrates approximately 108 residential lots with a minimum lot width of 125 feet in a maximum in a minimum lot size of approximately one half acre.

The conceptual site plan submitted by the applicant shows an internal residential street network with multiple cul-de-sac features, winding street alignments, perimeter lots, and internal open space, and drainage features intended to support the rural density residential subdivision pattern.

The development summary identifies a total of 108 lots.

Staff recommends approval of this application and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for Kendall?

Yeah, uh Mr.

Kendall on uh uh is the road to the west, is that Sheridan?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Sometimes we'll get a little higher view aerial.

Yeah, we got the close up.

So that's always a little hard to tell, but I was um that's not it.

That's a different one.

Um, but thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Kendall?

Is the applicant here?

So we do have one speaker.

Um, so if the speaker wants to come up and then the applicant, um, or you can come first, whichever you prefer.

But Eric Michael is our.

Oh, that's okay.

I'm Dr.

Eric Michael.

I've been in that area for 37 years.

I bought my pro I'm sorry.

Um the address is 11400 North Sheridan Road.

We are just exactly west of the property that they want to rezone.

That is zone agriculture.

As a matter of fact, that square mile is agriculture.

We moved out there are also on registered black angles cattle.

All my neighbors are either cattlemen or horsemen or whatever.

Most of the neighbors, when the track was here at the fairground, most of those racetrack, the horses come from that area there.

Of course, they can come from all over, but mainly those are horse people and all around.

Now I can understand if you want to build a house there, but I don't want the zone change.

I'd like to remain agriculture.

I'm wondering what effect would that have on all the neighbors in that square mile that is also agriculture.

There's horses, there's cows, there's sheep, there's pigeons, there's chickens, the whole bit.

I don't want that zone residential, perhaps to later on be viewed as uh we would have to go through uh uh eminent domain.

And we've kind of went through this before, but uh I would like for the zoning to stay the same as agriculture.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Michael?

Dr.

Michael, excuse me.

Uh okay, is the applicant here?

Does the applicant want to come speak?

Oh, they're just not here.

Okay, okay.

Yes, we're in review, unless anyone has any questions for Dr.

Michael.

I do.

I have a question.

So I I want to make sure we're on the same page here.

Are you under the assumption that there's an area larger than the project that the zoning is changing, or just the just the area the project is in itself?

The area that that is well, Matt, I hopefully that you have a map of it.

It's right in the center of a square mile designated as agriculture.

They want to rezone it as residential to build houses in there.

I'm not opposed to them doing houses there because there's houses all each already, each area have five or ten acres all around it for the purpose of agriculture.

Horses and as I mentioned before, cows and sheep and whatever.

I'm concerned that making that residential will have an effect upon the agriculture zoning later.

So the sort of density is the issue, correct?

I guess because if they rezoned it, it's gonna be the density's gonna change.

Yes, okay.

Uh so we are in review, unless anyone has any more questions.

So I want to start with a question just so he can get his question answered, and I don't want to talk out of turn, so help me if I'm wrong here.

I believe his concern is is that if we make this change that it's gonna have some effect on any of the surrounding areas outside of this subdivision, and I want to make sure that I'm in line when I we tell him that it's not.

It's we are just simply changing the zoning in this subdivision and his property and all of his surrounding properties are staying exactly the same way they are, correct?

Okay, and let me make sure I'm understanding you though.

But your concern is how it's going to impact your community, correct?

As far as how it's gonna impact having a subdivision neighborhood with houses next to basic cattle, horses, things of that nature, which are your property neighbors too.

And not only me, just my other neighbors are kind of elderly, and I'm kind of supporting them as well.

We have, as I mentioned before, some kind of livestock in that square mile section that they're also concerned about if this re rezoning that would it make a change for us.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, the applicant's not here, so I'm not sure if someone wants to make a motion or if I'll make a motion to deny, I guess, the uh application.

Kendall, do you have anything you want to add?

Um, nothing that I would add, but I would say that I I did speak to the owner, not the applicant.

He did tell me that he would be here.

Um, but he also called to let me know that he wanted to move forward with this application, even if he didn't show up, I guess you could say, but we did receive calls.

Do you know if he did any engagement with the surrounding property owners?

Or I'm I'm assuming that notices went out.

Yeah, just our typical notices, but no, I didn't hear anything.

Okay, so I think we are in review.

Was it there was a motion and then I didn't hear a second.

So no, so the question is that the that motion die?

Because there was no second.

Oh, well, does any would anyone like to second the motion?

I'm sorry, the applicant not being here got me off my my routine.

Yeah, so would you like to restate your motion?

Yeah, I'm gonna say the motion.

I make the motion to deny uh the request for this item there.

It's item um is it number four?

Number uh three, number three C Z 593.

So we have a motion to deny this application by Commissioner Humphrey and a second by Commissioner Schiffel.

I've got a comment before you take a vote.

Um I think it's kind of unfair.

Uh, uh one and I don't know why they're not here.

I was going to make a motion to continue this to give them the opportunity, uh, to have communication and and so forth.

So I'm gonna vote against the motion, but I'm gonna bring up a motion to continue it to next meeting to give that property owner the ability to meet and then to uh be here.

Now, quick question, Kendall.

They were they were aware of this meeting, correct?

Yes, yes, sir.

All right, correct.

And you made them aware when did you make them aware of this meeting?

When did I make them aware?

Yeah, when this was scheduled when the day that they filed an application, okay.

So they were aware of this and they chose not to show up today, correct?

Yes, and I talked to him yesterday about the meeting, and he just gave me some feedback and told us not to continue if they don't show up.

He does not want to continue either.

Oh, he tells you that, okay.

Well, he would like to go forward, but if you guys are going to continue so that he can have some feedback with the neighbors, and I think that would be but he was made aware of this meeting, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second to deny this application.

So, all in favor of that.

Oh, sorry, another comment.

Yeah, before you we have a vote, just clarification.

If the motion to deny fails, could then a motion be made to continue.

Okay.

Okay, so all in favor of the motion to deny.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay, so I believe I'm saying this correctly.

The motion to deny has failed.

Is there another motion?

I will make a motion to continue this until next meeting.

Okay, so there's a motion by Commissioner Craddock and a second by Commissioner Turner Addison.

All in favor.

Anyone want to make a comment?

Sorry.

Okay, all in favor.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, that motion to continue to the next meeting, which is June 17th, 16th, June 17th.

Okay.

And that will be communicated to them, Kendall.

Yes, yes.

Uh is it possible that I have a no unfortunately.

But you can talk to Kendall afterwards, I'm sure.

To put Kendall on the spot or yes, okay.

Uh item number five.

Item number five, the estates West.

The request here is a request for a replat to change the name of the previously approved subdivision plat for a single family for a single family subdivision.

The applicant is Alan Betcham.

The property location is at the southwest corner of East 86th Street North and North Yale Avenue.

Um basically, it this request is just to rename this plat.

It was originally filed at the Board of County Commissioners on March 18th, 2026, and then shortly, I wouldn't say a week after we we received a request to change the name.

Um we worked with the DA tried to figure out what we would do in that scenario.

Apparently, that's something that has never to happen over at the county before.

Um but doing some research in our subdivision regulations, we came to the conclusion that we just needed to bring it back forth to you all to make a vote and a decision on that.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Kendall?

Is the applicant here?

Do you have anything you are you in agreement with staff's recommendation?

Okay, we do not have any speakers, so I will entertain a motion.

Move to approve item number five for staff recommendations.

Second, uh we have a motion by Commissioner Craddock and a second by Commissioner Turner Addison.

Uh all in favor?

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

And that motion is approved.

Uh item number six.

Oh, was he recusing himself?

Oh, yeah.

Can somebody grab him?

We're going to go right off the call.

I thought uh good afternoon.

The last item is a preliminary plat.

So this is River Line.

Um so this is located north and east of the northeast corner of 91st Street South and Riverside Parkway.

Um if you are familiar, this is property that includes a TIFT, and that also included a master plan development that was approved by the commission uh a few weeks ago and that is currently pending uh through the city council process and the ordinance process uh to get that approved for a mixed-use development.

Um this is uh has several entities involved, including uh City of Tulsa and the nation, um, for a pretty impressive project.

Um this will be the first uh I guess phase of this project.

So the MPD extends further south, but this plat is just the area identified in the geography here.

So you will see further.

Um, I don't know if it will exactly be called a phase, but a second portion of the MPD will be platted at a later date.

Um staff has met with the technical advisory committee, and the applicant was given a list of conditions and comments to fulfill, and staff does recommend approval of the preliminary plot.

Any questions for Austin?

Is the applicant here?

Are you in agreement with staff's recommendation?

Uh any?

We're in review.

Entertain a motion.

I'll move to approve item number six pursuit of staff recommendations.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Bullmesh and a second by Commissioner Q.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right.

Uh any commissioner comments?

Uh, entertain a motion for adjournment.

I'll move.

Second?

All in favor?

Any posts?

This meeting is adjourned.

Great job.