[0:05] Let's go ahead and start the meeting, change that for whatever,

[0:09] and I would like to call the meeting to order. And there are a few items that

[0:13] we need to, uh, uh, discuss.

[0:19] let's do, yeah. Uh, the first items are the, uh,

[0:23] uh, on the general consent item, uh, number, number two. These

[0:28] items are listed under general consent, are usually approved as a group with the proper

[0:32] motion from a member of the planning commission. Members of the planning commission may

[0:36] pull any item under the general consent for separate discussion and

[0:40] or, uh, action. And the first item on this

[0:45] is a consideration of approval of the minutes

[0:49] from our, our previous planning commission meeting. Can I hear a motion?

[0:53] if you've, hopefully you've read those. I can hear you back here. Hear,

[0:57] hear. Is it on? Can you hear me now?

[1:04] okay. I'll put it right here. Is that okay? All right. Are there any,

[1:09] uh, corrections or deletions from the minutes that you can

[1:13] see? All right. If there's, uh, none. Can I hear a motion for the passing of

[1:17] the minutes? Motion? I'll second.

[1:21] thank you. Uh, the other two items on this, uh, consent agenda

[1:25] are two items that, um,

[1:31] will be, are there any, uh, members of the planning commission that want to pull any of these items

[1:36] you vote on that? Oh, sorry.

[1:40] thank you. I will need further instructions as we go along. Thank you.

[1:44] we got your back. Alright. Anyone from the

[1:49] planning commission want to pull any of these items to discuss them individually?

[1:54] if there's not, can I, uh, hear a motion to approve these two

[1:58] items? So moved.

[2:03] second. I second.

[2:10] all right. Those items will be heard at counsel on july 14th,

[2:15] all looking at the, uh, public hearing items. These are items listed

[2:19] under public hearings are usually discussed and considered individually by members

[2:23] of the planning commission. Each item provides an opportunity for members

[2:27] of the public to speak regarding the agenda item. Comments must

[2:31] be directed to the chair of the meeting. And, uh, we are

[2:35] gonna talk about four items today. Uh, one of them

[2:39] is, uh, number d, case number pr 2 4 2 7.

[2:47] that will be, um, uh, continued

[2:51] to july 22nd planning commission

[2:56] meeting. And I need a motion and a second to, uh, to move

[3:00] that to, uh, july 22nd. I

[3:04] continue second. Okay. Uh,

[3:08] and then an, I'm sorry.

[3:14] okay. Thank you, ken. Mm-hmm . All right. Uh, the

[3:18] next item, item c. We're gonna move that up in the, uh, agenda.

[3:23] and we're going to hear that one first. And, um,

[3:31] yeah, let's go ahead and do that. Uh, case number pa 2 5 0 0 0 1

[3:37] public hearing consideration for a cons comprehensive plan agreement to the edmond.

[3:41] plan, 2018 from rural neighborhood to suburban infill

[3:46] for the property located at 1421 east covel on the northwest corner

[3:50] of bryant and cove. Is the applicant present?

[3:57] is that okay? If you want to, um,

[4:04] can, if you could go ahead and present this item, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. Um,

[4:08] as you indicated, the applicant is requesting approval of a change to the city's comprehensive

[4:12] plan. The edmond plan 2018. From the rural neighborhood

[4:16] category to the suburban infill category to a site located on the northwest corner

[4:20] of covell and bryant, you can see it here on the map. The subject

[4:24] property is approximately 1.5 acres. The site is zoned a single family dwelling.

[4:30] nearby. Zoning includes a single family to the west, which is

[4:34] developed as a church south undeveloped. That's

[4:38] alright. Um, the size characterize categorizes suburban commercial

[4:42] in the edmund plan 2018. These are wrong. My apologies.

[4:47] uh, nearby plan categories include suburban commercial to the east,

[4:51] suburban two or s two neighborhood open space and suburban one s one neighborhood

[4:56] to the south, rural neighborhood to the north and west.

[5:00] uh, the potential availability of public water and sewer support a wider variety of plain categories,

[5:05] including suburban infill. This category is designed to provide

[5:09] items that might be missing or underrepresented in nearby developed areas such as

[5:13] additional housing types. The applicant's proposal can be considered appropriate based

[5:17] on the site size and in support of citywide goals related to housing variety.

[5:22] staff recommends approval. Happy to answer any questions commissioners may have. Okay.

[5:26] any questions from the commission to the city, city staff?

[5:32] alright. Uh, applicant, would you like to add anything to

[5:37] the summary? Greg

[5:41] massey with red plains professional. Um, I don't have anything to add.

[5:46] speak up. Yeah, I can hear you. Greg massey with red plains

[5:50] professionals. Uh, I don't have anything to add that mr. Bryant didn't

[5:54] already address. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions,

[5:58] um, that you or, um, any of the folks here have.

[6:03] okay. Any questions for the applicant from the commission? Okay.

[6:07] I don't see any. Um, thank you greg.

[6:12] uh, any comments from the public?

[6:16] anyone that would like to speak, ask any questions?

[6:20] we, we have a couple people coming from overflow and then some hands up right there. Okay.

[6:28] are you coming in to speak or observe? Okay. Alright,

[6:32] come on up and, uh, state your name and address. Uh, dave

[6:36] me's at 3 0 0 8 short drive. It's, uh, oh

[6:41] three blocks or four blocks to the west of this location.

[6:45] uh, you know, we're just small, uh, rural

[6:49] property and we're extremely worried about our property values

[6:53] and, and how it's also gonna change the flow of traffic

[6:58] and which is, that's a very congested yes. Intersection as it is.

[7:02] do we know, does he know? I did. We didn't get to hear what he had, what the applicant had to say because

[7:06] we were in the overflow. We were flow room, so we were okay. He just said if you had any questions. So he

[7:10] really didn't talk about it at all except for the, uh, uh, the summary that,

[7:14] uh, mr. Brian gave. Yeah. And part of the reason we've been there at that

[7:19] location for over 20 years and when before we moved,

[7:23] we looked and there was no, you know, multi-family.

[7:27] that was one of the things that we looked for when we bought our property.

[7:31] and so I know it's a major consideration for lots of people in the area around

[7:36] there. I appreciate y'all hearing me. And do you have anything else?

[7:40] does he, do we know what, uh, if you could just speak up to the, uh, microphone so you

[7:44] know, what, what he plans. Does the applicant know what he plans to develop

[7:48] there? Do we know that? Yeah, it should be in your packet about what it's gonna be, but I can ask,

[7:53] I can have him, uh, uh, respond to that. Okay. I appreciate

[7:57] it. I did, we didn't have a packet, so I didn't know. Okay. Yeah. Things were kind

[8:01] of chaotic over there. Yeah, . Okay. Uh, we'll just find a comfortable place to

[8:05] stand and, uh, mr. Massey will come up and, and, um,

[8:09] uh, give his spiel. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. I think we

[8:13] had somebody else in this. Oh, is there another person that yep. Yes, please come up.

[8:28] good evening. I'm john bracken. I live at 1316 nay

[8:33] avenue, which is in the burnham woods edition, which is directly across the street from the

[8:37] subject property. Um, we settled there, uh, several years ago

[8:41] because of the rural nature of that, the trees. And, um,

[8:46] we understand that area's developed, and for those of you that have driven down cove

[8:50] lately, it took me 10 minutes to get out of our neighborhood because of the traffic.

[8:54] and, um, to add, uh, uh, density of living

[8:59] to me is, it doesn't make any sense until I know the plan is to widen cove.

[9:03] and perhaps when that happens, we'll have a better, uh, way to get in and out of our neighborhood.

[9:07] but, so we're, we're concerned about that. Um, I guess I would ask, um,

[9:11] I haven't, we haven't studied where we know where the plot is, but one of my

[9:16] questions is where, where will the entrances be? Will there be one on bryant

[9:20] and one on covel? Uh, it wasn't clear.

[9:26] that intersection is just a nightmare. I if you guys haven't been there lately, especially around

[9:31] five o'clock and this is only gonna make it worse.

[9:35] anybody know the answer to that? Okay. I'll write that down. Okay.

[9:41] um, and we also would be concerned about property values. I'm sure these will be rentals.

[9:46] um, we already have rentals in our neighborhood. Um, it wasn't built to be

[9:50] that way, but it's turned into that and, and we all are concerned about our property values 'cause that

[9:54] is a very desirable place to live in edmond. That's why we settled there.

[9:59] alright, thank you. Oh, let me also just say trent, I'm on

[10:03] the, uh, board of the hoa, I'm president of the board of hoa. Trent

[10:07] is vice president. Um, we also have our secretary, nancy's here and

[10:12] marsha is one of our residents who's been involved with us, so, okay. We

[10:16] have four of us here. Okay, thank you. There's 95. Okay.

[10:20] if you could state your name and address please. Uh, trent cornman. I live at 1300 lemon ranch road

[10:25] in burnham woods. Uh, there's 95

[10:29] residential units in our neighborhood and we've got a real nice

[10:33] quiet neighborhood. We have a real strong hoa

[10:37] and, um, most of the people in there are retired older people like me.

[10:42] um, it's a real nightmare getting

[10:47] out of our addition onto cove.

[10:52] um, I just, I know something bad's gonna happen there

[10:56] one of these days. Um, if

[11:00] at the very least you can do is to cut down the number of units on this

[11:04] piece of property. Uh, 15, 15

[11:08] residential units on an acre and a half is obscene

[11:12] in my thinking. Oh, okay. No, no, I'm sorry. But,

[11:16] uh, please, no comments after each. Let's just keep this civil please. But

[11:21] I mean, it is going to create a nightmare for traffic in that area and

[11:25] it, it already is. We've got cars racing up and down,

[11:30] uh, bryant all hours of the

[11:34] day and night. Um, and I mean, these people are really tearing

[11:38] up the street up and down the north street cove. They race

[11:43] up and down cove. Um,

[11:47] that's about all I've got to say except, you know, at least consider the

[11:51] density and the number of units on that if you would please.

[11:56] alright, thank you. And you don't know which way we're going to get

[12:00] egress and ingress or whatever. We don't have that yet.

[12:04] uh, no. That comes with the, uh, site plan. When do

[12:08] we get, when do we, do we get to look at the plat? Do we get

[12:13] to look at something that's gonna go on that property? Uh, or does this thing

[12:17] just whistle on through and we don't, we don't get to comment

[12:21] on it. This is, this is kind of the first step of that process. We'll talk a little bit about that as I'll, I'll note that

[12:25] question as well. Okay. That's all I've got. Thank you.

[12:29] okay, thanks.

[12:44] okay. Alright. Dan, I just saw something on the

[12:48] report that, uh, was prepared by the city. One of the changes motivated

[12:52] this, uh, change, uh, was that, uh, water and sew had been

[12:56] added to the area. How close and how, uh, how significant

[13:01] is that? I don't remember anything in particular on that. And

[13:05] uh, maybe staff can answer that for us. Thank you.

[13:12] okay. Any other resident or citizen

[13:16] like to speak? Alright, would the applicant like to,

[13:20] uh, oh, one more. I'm sorry.

[13:32] my name's dennis shannon. I live at the corner of missile toe in

[13:36] covell, about a quarter mile from this property.

[13:41] everybody on my side of the road

[13:45] from there to the corner has two and a half to five acres.

[13:51] and I'd like to echo what people have said about the traffic

[13:55] already getting out onto covell,

[13:59] which is just two lanes means,

[14:03] and on either end of it to the east and west, you've got four

[14:08] lanes of traffic coming down and all of a sudden for the, for

[14:12] the mile between coltrane

[14:17] and boulevard, you've got just one lane

[14:21] and each direction and it is a nightmare. I'd also like to

[14:25] echo the part about people racing up and down

[14:30] the roads. And until you hear a number of people say this,

[14:35] it doesn't, if you just have one person saying it, you say, okay, one person,

[14:40] we don't care. There's a lot of people that would like this to say

[14:44] we don't want it, and I'm one of them. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

[14:49] who else did I miss?

[14:54] alright, now it's your turn. Okay. Quite a

[14:58] few items. Um, of course one of the ones is,

[15:02] uh, is the traffic seems to be the, uh, the biggest question here is, is

[15:06] how is your project going to affect traffic?

[15:10] I know that there, well, you can answer that. Uh, also, what,

[15:14] uh, what are your total projects? I know that it's, it's included in there about the, uh, living units.

[15:19] if you could also talk about the ingress and egress and, um,

[15:26] how you foresee the project in fitting in with

[15:30] the surrounding areas. And,

[15:35] and maybe, uh, kim can address the process after this is,

[15:39] uh, if, if this item is approved and if you could also,

[15:44] uh, respond to the water and sewer, uh, location, where it is,

[15:48] what the progress is. You didn't write any of that down, so, oh,

[15:52] okay. I forgot to bring a pen in with me and I apologize. Uh,

[15:57] but I'll try and address all of those items as best I can. If I

[16:01] leave any out, please bring 'em to my attention and I will take care

[16:05] of that. Um,

[16:09] mr. Hutchinson has lived in the area, uh, for a

[16:13] number of years himself. Um, he lives within a quarter mile

[16:17] of this property. Um, I think his son currently

[16:22] occupies this, this property. Um,

[16:28] based on the current zoning of the property,

[16:33] um, this tract and everything around it could be zoned a single

[16:37] or could be developed as a single family, which would,

[16:41] um, increased traffic. With this proposed development, we're

[16:46] limiting it to a maximum of 16 units.

[16:50] there will be a single point of access on cove

[16:57] additional. Okay. Just a minute. Okay.

[17:01] um, if you continue to make comments, we'll have to ask you to leave. Let's just, uh,

[17:05] just keep this, you know, that, that we just listened to everything

[17:09] he has to say. Thank you. The single access on covell

[17:14] is based on the topography of this property.

[17:18] um, there's no reasonable access that could be taken,

[17:23] um, to the east on bryant. Um, however,

[17:27] there will be additional right of way granted on this two acre

[17:31] track for the widening of coval and also the widening of

[17:35] bryant through that intersection. Um,

[17:40] we have no way of dealing with current traffic situations,

[17:45] um, but with 16 units,

[17:49] that is not a great impact. Um,

[17:54] as far as the utilities, public water and sewer

[17:58] will be extended to this facility currently. Public water ends,

[18:03] uh, at the northeast corner of the burnham woods subdivision

[18:07] that will be extended into this property and also provide

[18:11] access for adjacent residents to extend and

[18:16] tie into that public utility. Sanitary sewer is located

[18:20] approximately, um, a quarter mile to the east

[18:24] on cove that will be extended over to this property. And

[18:28] again, we'll also, uh, allow adjacent residence,

[18:33] uh, to the northwest to tie in to that facility as well.

[18:38] um,

[18:43] uh, I I'm sorry, what were the other items? Oh, yeah, only one more item. Pretty

[18:47] good. Uh, how will this, what material are you gonna use?

[18:51] how's it gonna fit into the, uh, uh, surrounding rural,

[18:55] uh, feel of the area? Yeah. Well, the intent is to

[18:59] provide more diversity of housing. Um,

[19:04] when we planted burnham woods, we went through the same situation.

[19:08] um, you know, a single family residential, uh,

[19:13] smaller lots going into an area that was primarily,

[19:18] um, larger acreages. Um,

[19:22] again, traffic is an issue. It has always been an issue.

[19:27] um, you know, the individual developers can't

[19:32] mitigate that completely, but by providing the additional right of way,

[19:37] um, and providing the widening where it's required,

[19:41] we can at least mitigate through the frontage of that property.

[19:45] um, I I, I can't reduce the number of cars.

[19:50] I can't reduce the speed limits. Um, what we

[19:54] can do is make this a location that

[19:58] provides expansion of diverse housing in the city of

[20:03] edmond, particularly in this location of edmond, where there are

[20:07] not products like this, uh, with duplex and fourplex

[20:11] units that have been very popular in

[20:15] the, uh, edmond municipal area.

[20:21] okay. I think, uh, any of the fellow

[20:26] commissioners have any items that I forgot? No, I just have

[20:30] questions. Okay, go ahead. Um, okay. I'm a little concerned about the, um,

[20:34] 16 units, let's say 32 cars where, I mean, where's the parking,

[20:40] the parking's within development? Um, obviously, um, these

[20:45] units will all have garages, driveway. Okay. They're gonna have garages because we haven't seen

[20:49] anything. Um, I mean any, christie,

[20:53] what, did you not include that preliminary layout?

[20:59] I, no, I think there were just the number of items.

[21:05] okay. Yeah. I just kind of hesitant to move forward with this.

[21:09] so we haven't seen what it's gonna look like.

[21:13] yeah. We have a preliminary layout that, um,

[21:18] that was provided to the city with the pud document,

[21:22] or excuse me, um, with this application

[21:27] that was to be included with the pud document, which would be the next step,

[21:32] um, for rezoning. Um, again, this

[21:36] is just to request plan amendment mm-hmm . So that

[21:40] we can then move forward with the rezoning following that preliminary platting,

[21:45] final platting. And then of course we would have to do site plan

[21:49] approval, um, based on the multifamily use. Is

[21:53] that correct mr. Bryan? It depends.

[21:58] . Um, okay, so you referenced the process, which is,

[22:02] uh, something I was gonna address. So yeah, the comprehensive plan establishes,

[22:06] um, you know, kind of the, the, the character and the intensity

[22:11] of the area. The, the change here is you, you, uh, you

[22:15] outlined the change in utility availability. So of course that wasn't available

[22:19] when the, the plan was initially, um, approved years ago.

[22:24] um, so the next step would be to come in and request

[22:28] a zoning map, amendment to a plan unit development that would,

[22:32] that is then when you would show your layout, talk about materials, those kinds

[22:36] of things. There's a public process of course related to that. Um,

[22:41] and then you reference platting and then it depends if the details,

[22:45] what details you provide in your pud or the platting, whether a site plan is

[22:49] required. But yes, all of those components are potentially next steps in this

[22:54] process and there's sequential. So, and I, I would also

[22:58] like to address, um, it was brought up about, um, bringing

[23:02] more rental units into the area. Um, obviously

[23:07] any house can be rented. Um, single family

[23:11] multifamily, regardless the intent if this

[23:15] is approved tonight, is to move forward with a pud that would allow these

[23:19] units to be sold individually as single family

[23:23] residence. Um, so we're, we're not

[23:27] looking solely for, uh, rental properties to be developed

[23:32] here. Okay.

[23:36] any other questions? Ken, could you clarify if

[23:40] it, if we approve tonight, how many other meetings you mentioned kinda the process, how many other

[23:44] public meetings will occur to where more feedback could be given

[23:49] before what he's describing gets built? Is that 2, 3, 4?

[23:53] uh, 'cause you mentioned it, but I just wanna make sure we're clear.

[23:57] yes, thank you for that. Um, well, there's one more public meeting on this item.

[24:01] so this will go to council planning commission is recommending body, um, for

[24:05] the rezoning that is also planning commission and city council, um,

[24:09] for preliminary plat. Um, that's, uh, planning commission has

[24:14] authority to approve that. And then c site plan, um, is planning

[24:18] commission as well. So I don't, I didn't count all that, but it's like six. Okay. Thank

[24:22] you.

[24:28] quick question, remind me what can go into suburban infill again?

[24:33] um, good question. So of course it's not necessarily about the

[24:37] use. Um, that's more about, um, an opportunity to,

[24:42] uh, provide a transition from one thing, you know, a near one nearby development to

[24:46] another one. Um, it, it's an opportunity to provide something that's missing

[24:50] from the area or the neighborhood. And, um, yeah,

[24:54] so it, it, whatever future development or

[24:58] use kind of meets those, um, that those concepts

[25:03] can potentially be a good fit for this plan category. Okay.

[25:07] so most likely it's gonna be more dense than it is today? Well, it only

[25:11] has one house on it right now, so yeah. So two would be more dense,

[25:15] so it could have, yeah. Okay.

[25:20] okay. Any other questions? Alright,

[25:26] thank you craig. Thank you.

[25:30] um, excuse, are we doing public comment a second? Oh yeah, I don't

[25:34] think so. Yeah, unfortunately that's, uh, we're just doing it. Uh,

[25:38] we're having given you one chance to, uh, to ask a question and one time to respond.

[25:43] so that map wasn't up here before so I couldn't the

[25:47] one that showed the units, so I couldn't ask the question about it.

[25:52] there wasn't one with the units on it. She

[25:56] found it. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Comments? It's closed.

[26:00] good job. May I just ask? Yes, you may because I missed it. I'm

[26:04] sorry.

[26:10] now again, this is just a estimate. It's not approved, it's just, uh, his,

[26:14] their idea of what they would like to build there. I'm a retired teacher, so I believe

[26:18] in taking okay, go ahead and state your name and address please. My

[26:22] name is deborah shannon and we live about a quarter mile from this

[26:26] location off of coville on missile toll lane. And so

[26:31] I use this intersection all the time. And when he mentioned there

[26:35] was gonna be one entrance and exit on covell,

[26:40] as you can see where bryant is, if someone is coming out of there,

[26:45] they'd have to turn right . If they tried to make a left turn,

[26:50] they wouldn't be able to that, there's just no way you could do

[26:54] that. You'd be blocking traffic and everybody goes out

[26:58] cove to I 35 or to get to sooner or wherever. I mean

[27:03] we started living there in 91 before covell even

[27:07] connected to I 35. It stopped it sooner. So we've seen

[27:12] the change of it over, over the years. It's been massive

[27:16] and um, that's the direction from fire station

[27:20] five when they come over all of the sanitation, unless they're going down second

[27:24] street, they have to take vale to go across 35 to get to where they

[27:28] are. So this is such a high, high traffic area and

[27:33] for a lot of these things that are in the planning, I just

[27:37] feel like we need to do the streets first and

[27:41] then address something like this.

[27:45] um, you know, 16 units, 32 cars,

[27:50] people have visitors and family and everything else. I think this would be

[27:54] a very, very dangerous, um, and

[28:00] I like the idea of people being able to own a property. I really do,

[28:04] but I'm not crazy about this particular

[28:08] diagram with all of these. Fewer would be better. Okay.

[28:12] uh, thank you. And tonight we're just, uh, talking about the change of use,

[28:16] right? So not, not so much of this, we're not approving this, we're not talking about traffic,

[28:21] but thank you for your concerns. So thank you. Appreciate it. Okay.

[28:28] alright. Um, we ready to,

[28:33] can I hear a motion to um, approve? Uh, to approve,

[28:37] to approve. Second.

[28:45] alright, uh, uh, this vote failed and uh, but it

[28:49] will be continued. I mean it will be, uh, moved to,

[28:54] uh, counsel on july 14th and you'll have another I, uh,

[28:58] opportunity to, uh, to talk about that. Alright, thank

[29:03] you. And now, uh, let's move to item a.

[29:08] this is, uh, case number pr 20 0 0 0 2 7.

[29:16] we'll take a minute to, uh, let people leave.

[29:22] uh, this is a public hearing in consideration for revised preliminary

[29:27] plat for wild rose ranch located

[29:31] northwest of sorghum mill and bryant.

[29:35] ken, will you present this, please? Yes, sir. Thank you.

[29:40] the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat. The approximately 63

[29:45] acre subject property is located on the south side of sorghum mill and west of coltrane.

[29:49] it's shown here on the map. Um, the requested revision

[29:53] to the, uh, preliminary, a previously approved preliminary plat adds seven lots

[29:57] in the southwest portion of section two. This brings the total to 196

[30:02] lots. The subject property own a single family and the additional lots are in

[30:06] conformance with the zoning. The additional lots are supported by updated sanitary

[30:10] sewer capacity. Staff recommends approval, happy to answer any questions. Okay, any

[30:14] questions from the commission to the city staff? The, is the

[30:18] full subdivision built out in the aerial in the packet? It looks

[30:23] the 10th built out. Is it fully developed? I believe maybe

[30:27] the applicant can help us a little bit with that, but I, I believe section one is under construction

[30:31] and this is the, the revised preliminary pla for both sections. So yeah, they've

[30:35] started, they've started construction but the revision is for uh,

[30:40] section two, which I believe is to the north of the area. You

[30:44] see where the streets are going in. Yep. Thank you.

[30:48] any other questions? Alright, uh, is the applicant

[30:52] present?

[31:00] hello? Uh, kevin masters 300 point park boulevard.

[31:04] I'm here, uh, representing uh, the applicant and we request

[31:09] approval for the, uh, revised preliminary plat for water rose ranch. Um,

[31:13] so originally the original plant was plat was approved four

[31:17] years ago with us allowing 189 lots, but due to sewer

[31:21] capacity, uh, we had a bunch of septic, uh, septic lots,

[31:26] lots with septic systems and um, but we got new information that

[31:30] the, uh, city can allow us to add nine additional lots

[31:34] further. Um, the city changed their subdivision regulations,

[31:39] um, back then, uh, for lots on septic systems, the

[31:43] minimum lot square footage was 30,000 and they changed it to 21,780.

[31:49] so 0.5 acres, which is basically deqs minimum, uh, required

[31:53] lots for septic system. So with those two uh, points, that's how

[31:57] we got the seven additional lots and um, I'm happy to answer any

[32:01] questions and uh, uh, staff recommends approval.

[32:06] alright, the only question I have could, um, christie, could you

[32:10] pull up the, uh, the previous map? Yeah, right there. Where

[32:14] were the, uh, seven added, uh, I can show you.

[32:28] so we got five extra lots on this side right up

[32:32] here. We got two one lot and another lot. Okay,

[32:36] thank you. Any other questions from the applicant?

[32:43] alright, thank you. Alright, thank you. Are there any questions or comments

[32:47] from the public? Any

[32:52] comments regarding that? Alright, can

[32:56] I hear a motion to bring this to a vote? Motion

[33:00] second. Okay. All in favor,

[33:07] that motion passes and

[33:17] that, uh, that, uh, that ends here. It will not be going to counsel.

[33:22] alright, let's see.

[33:31] alright, case number s sp two five. This is item number b,

[33:37] sp 2 5 0 8.

[34:00] all right, ken, you want to go ahead and uh, present that please, sir? Of course. Thank you.

[34:05] applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for a walmart neighborhood market,

[34:09] approximately 9.6 acre. Subject property is located at the northwest

[34:13] corner of coltrane and coval. You see that here. Uh,

[34:17] the subject property is zoned e two pud, um, a pud that's titled

[34:22] ashford oaks site plan. Details include, um, the proposal for

[34:26] approximately 44,000 square foot building

[34:31] access will be provided with two driveways, one each on covel and coltrane.

[34:36] the building will be approximately 27 feet tall at its highest point.

[34:41] the facade will consist of architectural masonry and concrete masonry units with

[34:45] metal accents and canopies. Screening

[34:50] includes a fence and land and landscaping, which will be installed along the north

[34:54] and west sides of the subject property. In order for the development

[34:58] to proceed, the site must also be platted. This is a separate and additional step that will include

[35:02] details about the arterial roadway and intersection rights of way.

[35:06] and there are improvements that will be constructed by the applicant. There's additional engineering

[35:11] design work to do related to the driveway on culturing to ensure that it meets all drainage

[35:15] requirements. Mr. Beatty representing, um, the engineering department may wanna offer further

[35:19] details. The engineering and design details must for the site plan must

[35:23] meet the city's adopted standards before a site plan can be authorized for construction

[35:27] by the city engineer staff recommends approval of the site plan based on compliance

[35:31] with the flood plain requirements associated with the drive on call train. Mr. Batty, you want to offer

[35:36] a little more on that, that flood plain issue? Well, where they're coming in

[35:40] for the drains, we were a little concerned that it could cause a rise properly designed.

[35:44] it probably will not, but the engineer has not supplied us that information

[35:48] yet.

[35:53] we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Any other questions to the staff?

[35:58] excuse me, keith, I'd like to ask the one question. Is there,

[36:03] you know, mo, most of the um, uh, conversation

[36:08] on this has been about, uh, widening

[36:12] the road, uh, widening covell, uh, what is the

[36:16] city's plan of widening covell from coltrane to bryant?

[36:21] uh, and, and you know, the previous applicant was, uh, from bryant to boulevard. How

[36:25] about those two sections? Um, not sure on bryant and cove,

[36:29] but they're coltrane that has been under design, but at this point the city

[36:33] has no funding source for construction. Okay, so it's not in the, uh,

[36:37] the near budget? No, sir. Okay. How about, uh, traffic lights for coltrane

[36:42] and cove? Is that, uh, included,

[36:47] uh, in there that currently has traffic lights? Now

[36:51] the applicant will have to do some road improvements on cove and coltrane.

[36:56] um, they have submitted a traffic impact analysis and we're still looking

[37:00] at that. And as they go through on the site plan, there will be discussion about

[37:04] section line requirements and as part of that, the lighting system will be revised

[37:09] based upon what they do for widening.

[37:13] alright. Alright. Is the applicant present? Yes, sir.

[37:20] tell us about your project. Yes, good afternoon, david box 5 25 northwest

[37:25] 11th street. So I'll drop that, uh, here

[37:29] on behalf of the applicant. Uh, as well with me, I've got, uh, members of, uh,

[37:33] my team including the, uh, developer as well as the civil engineer for

[37:37] the project. So as staff said, what is before you this evening is, uh, a

[37:41] site plan application. It's a bit of a unique site plan application. So

[37:45] I think we probably need to look back to the history of this site. And when

[37:49] it came before, uh, the commission last time, starting back

[37:53] in 1990, the city council approved a pud on this site. Uh,

[37:57] the pud is a little different than the puds you expect to see these days in

[38:01] that it's a three page pud, it has really

[38:06] no requirements. It's an e two open display commercial pud

[38:10] that doesn't seek to limit e two in any meaningful way.

[38:15] so in 1990, the city council passed the ordinance approving

[38:19] e two on this site. So what is not up for debate this evening is

[38:23] whether or not a grocery store makes sense here. That was decided

[38:27] in 1990 before the ashford oaks residential neighborhood was constructed.

[38:32] what is not up for debate here is whether or not traffic will be impacted. That

[38:36] will happen at the plating stage. As staff said, a traffic impact analysis

[38:40] has been submitted to the staff. When we move forward, staff will have suggestions

[38:45] that we will have to do at the platting stage. We do not intend in

[38:49] any way whatsoever to seek to vary any requirements that the city

[38:53] of edmond has for development of this site. The pud allows

[38:57] for a, uh, a grocery store and that is simply not up for debate.

[39:02] so a site plan application cannot be used to strip away

[39:06] rights that exist pursuant to legally authorized zoning.

[39:10] that's what we have here, an e two open display commercial.

[39:14] now, why I want to talk about what happened in 2015

[39:19] is there was a lot of discussion and debate about what a site plan application

[39:23] is and what it is not. When we came through in 2015, we

[39:27] had a walmart neighborhood market, just like you have here before you.

[39:31] um, it came before planning commission on site plan review, and at that time

[39:36] the vote was two to two. Two to two was deemed a denial. So we appealed

[39:40] that to the city council. The city council in a vote of two

[39:44] to three denied it. So we appealed to the district

[39:48] court of oklahoma county at that time. We had a site plan that was fully

[39:53] compliant with all regulations and ordinances that existed

[39:57] on the subject site. We took the position that when you

[40:01] have a site plan that's fully compliant with ordinances, the duty of

[40:05] the planning commission, and ultimately city council, if it gets there, is a ministerial duty.

[40:09] that means there's no discretion afforded this body or the city council

[40:14] if in fact the site plan is submitted, that conforms to all of

[40:18] the rules. And if you think about why that's important, think about what zoning

[40:22] is. Zoning is a discussion of compatibility. Does

[40:27] e two open display commercial at this site find itself compatible

[40:31] with surrounding uses? The only body that can make that choice is of course

[40:35] the elected body. The city council and the city council in 1990

[40:39] approve the pud telling us that development under the e two

[40:44] standards is compatible and appropriate at this intersection.

[40:48] so after we were denied at city council, we found ourselves

[40:53] at the district court. The asford oaks hoa intervened

[40:57] into that lawsuit. All three parties filed cross motions for summary

[41:01] judgment. The district court ruled against the city

[41:05] of edmond, ruled against the asford oaks, hoa siding

[41:09] with my side. And what the district court said in their ruling at paragraph

[41:14] nine is city council's decision to uphold the

[41:18] planning commission denial based upon broad standards of public

[41:22] health, safety and welfare was arbitrary and

[41:26] unreasonable. Health, safety, general

[41:30] welfare. Those are standards used in legislative decisions.

[41:35] this is not a legislative decision. Zoning decisions are when

[41:39] the broad standards of health, safety and welfare come into place,

[41:43] not psych blame. Further at paragraph

[41:47] 10 of the district court opinion, the court says the city council's

[41:52] decision to uphold planning commission's denial deprived plaintiff of

[41:56] its property rights. Well, why that's important is those property rights

[42:00] were vested in september of 1990 when the city council

[42:04] saw fit to a proven ordinance granting e two open display commercial,

[42:09] this property vested with the right to develop

[42:13] a grocery store. Now of course, it's subject to meeting the rules and

[42:17] regulations that exist in both the pud and the zoning ordinance.

[42:22] but what we have before you is a site plan that is fully

[42:27] compliant with all of those things. After

[42:31] the district court judgment, edmond and ashford oaks appealed

[42:35] the matter to the oklahoma supreme court. The oklahoma supreme court

[42:39] transferred that case to the oklahoma court of civil appeals. The oklahoma court of civil

[42:44] appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming

[42:48] my client's position, specifically what they say at

[42:53] paragraph 11 while discussing the role that edmund has in site

[42:57] plan review says, pursuant to oklahoma statute section

[43:01] 43 dash one 12 city's review of developer site

[43:05] plan application was confined to determining whether the

[43:09] plan met conditions and standards of the pud and applicable zoning

[43:13] ordinances. For that reason, if developer site plan met or

[43:18] exceeded the requirements of the pud and applicable ordinances, city's

[43:22] review should be deemed ministerial. So what does

[43:26] ministerial mean? Well, marian webster's tells us it means an act

[43:30] done in obedience to a legal order without exercise of

[43:35] personal judgment or discretion. Your

[43:39] analysis is a simple one. Does the site plan before you

[43:43] comply with e two? Does the site plan before you

[43:47] comply with any other development regulation that the city of edmond

[43:51] may have on the books? If the answer is yes,

[43:56] the court of civil appeals on this exact property on this exact

[44:00] type of application told you the answer is your

[44:05] decision and your analysis is ministerial, meaning again,

[44:09] an act done in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal

[44:13] judgment or discretion. One of the things we

[44:17] can look at to see if in fact we meet those ordinances

[44:21] is of course your unbiased objective planning staff.

[44:26] they have recommended approval of this for the only reason

[44:31] that we meet each and every ordinance provision that

[44:35] exists for development of this site.

[44:39] now you're gonna hear issues from the neighbors about traffic. I suspect,

[44:44] um, as staff said, that is a platting issue. If you look at your staff report staff,

[44:48] um, in fact tells you under paragraph 12 of your staff

[44:52] report, platting will be required in order for the development to proceed.

[44:57] the developer will be responsible for improvements to both cowell road and coltrane

[45:01] road in compliance with the platting process because these requirements are

[45:05] associated with platting title 21 verse site plan title 22.

[45:10] many of the roadway components shown on site plan will need to be modified to meet planning requirements.

[45:14] what I'm here to tell you is whatever your public work staff tells us we have to do with the planning process

[45:18] as it relates to traffic management, we will meet,

[45:24] you may hear about a landscape

[45:28] buffer that the neighborhood believed is required. The

[45:32] wording of the pud and this is litigated and decided by the course of

[45:36] appeals, the wording of the pud says there shall be a 125 foot

[45:41] green belt area surrounding the subject site.

[45:45] the word surrounding, of course, means outside of and not within.

[45:49] what you see here is the 125 foot buffer is satisfied

[45:54] with the land surrounding the subject tract. Now we have

[45:58] significant opportunity within our site plan to landscape this and create

[46:02] a environment that is full of trees and compatible

[46:07] with the neighborhood. I think it's important to note that when you look at

[46:11] the way that the site sits, it provides I think a

[46:15] wonderful opportunity to be compatible in that we, this

[46:19] site sits down. So here's a line of sight exhibit. So what

[46:24] we have here is the an, an average human standing here looking this way and looking

[46:28] this way. The top of our building is 27 feet tall.

[46:33] our site sits 30 feet down. So what does that mean? Well, we

[46:37] are gonna have a six foot tall fence, all new plantings throughout here

[46:42] and terrace landscaping moving down. It will be unable

[46:46] to be seen from the neighborhood.

[46:52] the structure is masonry product, which

[46:56] complies with the architectural compatibility requirement of the pud.

[47:00] that was again, litigated the last time the court of civil

[47:04] appeals specifically addressed that, saying that in fact it was compatible.

[47:09] compatible doesn't mean identical compatible means compatible.

[47:13] so what is before you is a site plan that complies with everything

[47:18] that the city of edmond has for development regulations

[47:22] on this site. We're here to answer any questions. We

[47:26] urge you to follow the law that was set

[47:30] by the court of civil appeals on this very issue, on this very piece

[47:35] of property and uphold the property rights that my client

[47:39] now enjoys. And everyone since 1990 has enjoyed.

[47:43] happy to answer any questions. Alright, commission, do you

[47:47] have any questions for the applicant?

[47:52] uh, so let me ask a quick question here. Uh, mr. Box, would your client

[47:56] be willing to reduce the footprint or parking lot to a size more appropriate

[48:00] for like a dollar store, dollar tree, family dollar,

[48:05] uh, walmart, dollar wall, dollar,

[48:09] anything like that? Well, because, because what I'm, what I'm getting at is here is

[48:13] is just the, the overall mass of it. The size of it. Yeah.

[48:18] I mean our, I mean it does, it still fits within the pod, but I didn't know if

[48:22] there was a, uh, smaller footprint that was within the, uh, walmart family

[48:26] for the the parking or the building? Uh, for the building. For the building? No, just

[48:31] a smaller building. No, the the building's before the is before you on the side plan is what?

[48:35] okay. Um, we need, which again is as you know, fully complies

[48:39] with the ordinances. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, I

[48:44] just have one thing. So I did read through that p and it is, you're right, it's only three pages.

[48:48] um, section 12 of the pud states that the concept

[48:53] is to develop this tract in a manner and architectural style

[48:57] that will be consistent with the surrounding area. Yeah, that's a, that's where I

[49:01] just have a little con a little concern 'cause I don't see that matching the surrounding

[49:05] area. Well, when you say matching, I guess, uh, it compatible

[49:10] doesn't mean matching. Uh, what I would point you

[49:14] to is in the court civil fuels opinion at paragraph 12,

[49:18] uh, it says, and I quote the pud design statement places few

[49:22] demands on the subject tract chief. Among those requirements are the 125

[49:27] foot green belt surrounding the property on the west and the north and the

[49:31] edict that the tract is to be developed in a manner and architectural style that will be consistent

[49:35] with the surrounding area. City's own planning, excuse me, director of planning and

[49:39] zoning, testified that the site plans proposed architectural style complies

[49:44] with the pd requirements. This is the exact same architectural

[49:48] style. The color is different. Mm-hmm . It is the, why is the color different? I noticed it used

[49:52] to be brick, like the, you know, red images now it's the gray walmarts

[49:57] kind of yeah. What they're going into their prototype and blue.

[50:01] yeah. Okay. But there's nothing stopping a neighbor from painting their house

[50:06] this exact color. But that was litigated before.

[50:10] and what we have from a comp compatibility standpoint is

[50:14] a masonry building. Most of the homes are of course masonry being brick.

[50:20] it's a flat roof. There are plenty of flat roof structures. In fact, in

[50:24] my motion for summary judgment below, we attached an exhibit showing all of the different

[50:28] flat roof single family residential homes that exist within a couple mile radius.

[50:32] yeah. So that's why the course of appeal said this exact architectural style

[50:36] is in fact compatible with, with paragraph 12 of the ped.

[50:41] okay. Thank you. I have a few questions here.

[50:46] um, so I've got the review criteria here from the code

[50:51] and um, I'm not gonna argue anything you, you said earlier,

[50:55] but there are three items in the review criteria. So subsection

[51:00] dd three, d four, d five, uh, the safe public health safety

[51:04] welfare. I think you kind of mentioned that the visual compatibility he kind of just

[51:08] discussed, but I stood on that corner. I didn't see any, uh,

[51:13] 12 by six or eight gray center block buildings

[51:17] anywhere. Uh, I even took the liberty and taking a tee time at fairfax, didn't see

[51:21] any. Um, so I want you to discuss that in a little

[51:25] bit more detail than what you just did. And then number five, my primary concern

[51:29] that ingress egress internal traffic circulation.

[51:33] um, so it drives me nuts when people do this whenever there's a congested

[51:37] intersection they cut through the nearest parking lot, uh,

[51:42] myself as a rule follower, it makes my blood boil when I see a car cut

[51:46] an intersection. Um, I can see with how this intersection

[51:50] already plays out. I get that has nothing to do with your site plan, but people cutting

[51:55] through your site that will have a safety issue that I'm concerned by.

[51:59] now, I was hit by a car while running around uco when I was in college. So

[52:04] partly when someone, a pedestrian is crossing right here

[52:08] during this or wherever entrance is this turn lane, if someone's gunning it

[52:13] left in and out, uh, I believe that does create a safety issue within

[52:18] your site that has nothing to do with coville or coltrane. Um,

[52:22] so I think that's the visual compatibility. Um,

[52:26] I don't think that's as subjective as we think it is. And then the ingress, egress and internal

[52:30] traffic circulation, which, uh, is in the review criteria.

[52:35] number five, uh, that is something that, uh, I don't

[52:39] believe this site plan, uh, checks that

[52:43] box for me. Is it pud criteria? Uh, the site plan?

[52:47] yeah. So site plan review, all I can tell you

[52:51] is as it relates to ingress and egress and circulation,

[52:56] whatever the code says is required, whatever your public works department says is required

[53:00] is what we will meet. If there are slight adjustments that are needed at

[53:05] the planning stage, those will be met. The reference to health and safety,

[53:09] I will again, uh, revert back to the court of civil appeals opinion. In paragraph

[53:13] 15, courts have been less willing to allow local governments to use the public

[53:18] health safety and welfare concern to justify site plan disapprovals. The

[53:22] reason is obvious site plan review is ministerial decision that follows

[53:26] from the applicant's demonstrated compliance with specific standards. The public

[53:30] health safety and welfare standard is a broad standard that demands exercise

[53:34] of discretion. For this reason, the court can usually rule that it's arbitrary

[53:38] and capricious to deny a site plan approval on grounds of public health,

[53:43] safety and welfare. So I I I don't

[53:47] if that comes from the ordinance, I'm not sure. What I can tell you is there's

[53:51] not a provision of this site plan that fails to conform to any objective

[53:56] standard that exists within edmond's

[54:00] municipal ordinance. It was litigated for three years

[54:04] after the court of civil appeals opinion, edmond and the neighbors sought a petition

[54:08] for cert at the, at the state supreme court that was denied

[54:12] by the state's supreme court, meaning the court of civil appeals opinion issued

[54:16] on june 30th, 2017 is what is on this piece

[54:21] of property. So in terms of you not seeing another cinder block building

[54:25] compatibility doesn't have to mean there has to be another one next to it. What

[54:29] it means, I think, is it's a masonry product. The

[54:33] product we are using is specifically authorized under edmond's ordinances.

[54:39] therefore, we check that box.

[54:45] these aren't my words. This is what the state court

[54:49] of civil appeals told us. That issue was litigated ad nauseum.

[54:55] that exact issue, that exact argument failed both

[54:59] at the district court and the court of civil appeals.

[55:03] thank you. Uh, I think some of the emails that we

[55:08] received were, uh, in connection to the, uh,

[55:12] unprotected left turn. I know we're not talking, that's not a site plan,

[55:16] but that is, I I didn't know if you could address that, that, uh, that will be addressed

[55:20] in the, um, preliminary plat. But, uh, I know that that's

[55:24] gonna come up in their comments. Uh, any

[55:28] thoughts on the left turn that has to be done into your site?

[55:33] how and go ahead. Yeah, I, I don't know. I mean, I would, you know, defer

[55:37] to to to staff, right? I think they're still analyzing the traffic impact analysis

[55:41] and whatever staff tells us is necessary based upon their expertise

[55:45] and that of the, the tia is what you'll see. Okay.

[55:51] any other questions for the applicant? Alright, thank you mr. Box.

[55:56] um, let me make a little statement here before we, uh, open

[56:00] this up for, uh, for your, your comments. Um, I received more

[56:04] than, uh, 70 emails regarding this project. Excuse

[56:09] me. I wish I had only received 70 . Yeah, well,

[56:13] you're more popular than I am. Um, unfortunately

[56:17] I received more than 70 emails regarding this project, and I can gladly say that

[56:21] all were several. I appreciate that. And, and I know that

[56:25] there are a lot of people here that, uh, uh, would like to make comments

[56:29] and we considered limiting comments to three minutes or a short period of time,

[56:34] but decided against it and only wanted to ask that you be brief in

[56:38] your comments, especially if, uh, uh, one of your neighbors had

[56:43] already mentioned the item. Uh, probably doesn't mean to that you need to mention

[56:47] it in detail again, just say ditto or, or I agree or something like that.

[56:51] but you must limit your comments to the site plan review,

[56:56] not the applicant's business plan. You know, even though there's a crest

[57:00] down the street, don't want to hear about it. Uh, well, it's not necessary.

[57:04] I'm sorry. I'll hear about it, but it's not necessary. , um,

[57:08] this is a site plan review of a plan that is being presented. A

[57:12] similar plan was presented in, uh, 2015 was, was deemed appropriate

[57:17] by the courts, but uh, no further action was taken. And so now

[57:21] we have a new site plan before us, and that's why we're going through this exercise again.

[57:25] so are there any comments from the public? Okay, I'll just, uh,

[57:30] sir, why don't you start here then I'll try to write down the question if

[57:34] you guys can help me. Yeah. My name is, uh, james carter.

[57:39] I live at, uh, 21 mission road. And I'm, uh,

[57:43] not gonna speak directly to your plan or the approval or disapproval of it. There's

[57:47] a few points that, uh, I

[57:51] can appreciate. Um, the concern for the traffic flow, uh, traffic

[57:56] living at 2,400 mission road is just off the entrance, um,

[58:00] on cavell or off on on coltrane, which is the first

[58:04] entrance down from cavell. And I'm assuming that

[58:08] the neighborhood walmart will be addressing the four section, the intersection

[58:13] of the four northeast, south, and west location where the stoplight is. That

[58:18] will be their mainstay of the traffic flow. I moved here in 2019 from

[58:22] west virginia prior to that, prior to the, the, the further

[58:26] development that's out near the cinemas. And then prior

[58:30] to that traffic light being introduced, that traffic flow was very general

[58:35] and it was easy. What I have found, living where I live, um, and

[58:40] I have four kids and I live the second house up in the subdivision on the corner,

[58:44] um, we now have the, the increased traffic flow

[58:48] to avoid the mess over near sooner is

[58:52] we're starting to get cars that cut through our neighborhood. So that was a valid concern.

[58:57] um, so all I would ask that if this

[59:01] is gonna be in consideration, if you look at the,

[59:06] the lead up on both, I guess covell coming west

[59:11] and north coltrane coming from the south, those

[59:15] are both two lane roads. And I know from the distance of

[59:19] that traffic light to the, the very next traffic light we're looking at,

[59:23] at, you know, two lanes, two thirds of the way. So if

[59:28] that's gonna be a consideration, I think if we're gonna employ

[59:32] this opportunity to the, to the landowner and to walmart,

[59:36] I think the infrastructure that needs to be in place

[59:40] on both cavell on the north side and the south side of the

[59:44] traffic light, and then on the west side of the traffic light

[59:48] to diminish the, the amount of traffic and cut through traffic should be widened. And I think

[59:52] that should be a consideration by the planning commission, and that should not be

[59:57] a burden on the citizens or the public tax talk tax dollars.

[1:00:02] um, my next point is, um,

[1:00:06] one of the things as a resident, I'm not gonna bring up home values. I'm,

[1:00:11] none of that is as much of a concern to me is when I walk out my back porch right

[1:00:15] now and I'm looking at the, the sky, I can see the stars

[1:00:19] and I would like to know what walmart is planning to do. They

[1:00:23] say that they're, they're complying with everything on all four corners.

[1:00:28] so you have subdivisions that surround this entire area, but what you don't

[1:00:32] have is light pollution. And we, we will

[1:00:36] incur light pollution directly from the led lights that they'll be

[1:00:40] submitting or implanting upon that property.

[1:00:45] and my last point that I'd like to make

[1:00:49] for consideration is I understand

[1:00:53] we we're talking about the drainage and they're gonna incur the cost

[1:00:57] for the drainage and storm water. Is that the increased

[1:01:01] water flow from the low slope roof that's gonna be installed on that particular

[1:01:06] building and across the asphalt that's there. And then

[1:01:10] in addition, what will be the mp epa impact with the

[1:01:14] water discharge and the oil staining that's happening on those type of lots?

[1:01:18] do we have, you know, the infrastructure in place to handle this, the increased

[1:01:23] speed for the water flow from that particular location? Because

[1:01:27] although this walmart will be sitting 30 feet lower than

[1:01:31] everything around it, I don't know when the last time you all played edmond golf

[1:01:35] club, but it is completely washed out. And to me, if

[1:01:40] we're gonna put the infrastructure to you

[1:01:44] and to the city and to the residents of edmond, if you're gonna add infrastructure,

[1:01:49] you're gonna need to add it all the way down that course to increase water

[1:01:53] flow because you have a subdivision that's being built on the

[1:01:57] backside of that, that location. You have two subdivisions that have been added,

[1:02:01] um, on covell on the new four lane. Then you have all the

[1:02:05] increased water flow from the four lane that's been added, and the speed of water

[1:02:09] is everything. Now, the one thing that nature does is it slows down water,

[1:02:14] it gives ground and opportunity to absorb water. And

[1:02:18] you have a couple of options here. You can dig a really deep

[1:02:23] pit for a spillway, which can

[1:02:28] produce, you know, um, you can end up

[1:02:32] with, you know, significant mosquito infestation, et cetera.

[1:02:36] but the end result is that will slow the water flow.

[1:02:41] but the, the last concern is the long-term effect of

[1:02:45] the maintenance of that water that's gonna be discharged off of that property

[1:02:50] and all the assuming properties down below it. See, I sit up above it, but what I do see

[1:02:54] is that my neighbor, which sits across from us on north covell,

[1:02:59] his entire front yard floods. And if you go down north covell

[1:03:03] right now between danforth, I'm sorry, not covell, coltrane, if you go

[1:03:08] between, um, danforth and covell on

[1:03:12] the left hand side, they just replaced the entire culver that just recently washed

[1:03:16] out because the water speed has increased to such a point that

[1:03:20] now we have a big backup on, on the, on, on, uh,

[1:03:25] on north coltrane below my entrance. And that's gonna happen

[1:03:29] further. And the point of the intersection that we're talking about

[1:03:33] is the lowest point in that particular area before it hits the golf course

[1:03:38] and continues to flow. So that's gonna be a significant, um,

[1:03:43] storm water impact. It's gonna be a maintenance and ongoing

[1:03:48] cost of infrastructure to the residents here in the city of

[1:03:52] edmond. But moreover, uh, to me, ,

[1:03:56] um, we're talking about traffic and I appreciate the fact that you

[1:04:00] guys are gonna app, you know, um, handle what's happening at the four lane. But

[1:04:04] if you're gonna ex, if you're gonna if go that far into it, I

[1:04:08] would appreciate if you take a look at the infrastructure of traffic

[1:04:12] flow, um, between the lights on danforth

[1:04:17] and cavell and then from, um, cavell

[1:04:21] all the way up to, I think that's, is that waterloo, that's next or,

[1:04:25] you know, northeast, south and west? I mean, I think that all of those things have to be

[1:04:29] taken into account and then I would like to see some sort of a,

[1:04:34] a limited store hour daylight planning, something that's truly

[1:04:38] neighborhood to where, you know, lights can be turned

[1:04:42] down or we can minimize the number of lights at night. So that truly you're,

[1:04:47] you're matching the infrastructure, which you're using ethos is what I'm assuming,

[1:04:51] which is typical, which is nothing more than styrofoam that's coated

[1:04:55] with a little masonry product and painted. Okay. So that's not truly a block building.

[1:04:59] alright. Um, but lastly, let's wrap it up a little bit. I appreciate

[1:05:04] you the, the commission taking this into account and, uh, thank you for your time.

[1:05:08] okay. Thank you. Thanks one, those issues, not

[1:05:13] any of those. No. Okay. Yes ma'am.

[1:05:19] thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks.

[1:05:27] hi, I'm christy bradley. I live, um, in sle chase road. I'm

[1:05:31] a civil engineer. Um, and um,

[1:05:35] I appreciate the history that you provided on the project. I wasn't aware of everything that had

[1:05:40] been going on. Um, looking at your site plan, everything that the last man,

[1:05:44] uh, mentioned was really helpful. Um, what is your

[1:05:48] plan for the flood plan over there? And do we get those answers tonight or

[1:05:52] do we get his contact information? I just kind of wanna understand how we

[1:05:56] get feedback and responses from the questions that are being asked. No, that's a great, that's

[1:06:01] a great question. Uh, we, he will answer the questions as regard to site

[1:06:05] plan, uh, the drainage and, uh, road construction

[1:06:09] will be in the, uh, plat. And, uh,

[1:06:13] I don't, keith will you answer any, uh, drainage,

[1:06:17] flood plan, flood floodplain, or any

[1:06:21] that I can't answer that. Uh, they will be required to meet everything

[1:06:25] in title 23 and which requires that there's no rise in

[1:06:29] the flood plain. If they cannot achieve the no rise in the flood plain, then

[1:06:33] they would've to go before the stormwater drainage advisory board and the city

[1:06:38] council for a variance. And that's why I put the note in the

[1:06:42] staff report, because like I said, at the point we have not received,

[1:06:47] you're gonna have to repeat everything .

[1:06:52] okay. If, if you could address, uh, just, uh, not only their site

[1:06:56] plan, but, uh, any, uh, briefly the, the surrounding area as far

[1:07:00] as any, uh, maintenance there with the,

[1:07:04] uh, with the drainage.

[1:07:09] he was talking about the culvert and the other, other parts of cove and, and

[1:07:13] coltrane. Yeah. I, yes. Like to respond to that. Okay. Uh,

[1:07:18] on the culverts under coltrane, they did not work out. They were actually rusted

[1:07:23] out. They were metal pipes. They rusted out due to age, and that's why the city had

[1:07:27] to replace the culverts under coltrane. It wasn't because they were washed out, it

[1:07:31] was just simply age and they rusted out and or failed.

[1:07:35] okay. Uh, sorry. Uh, if you could respond to the, uh, um,

[1:07:40] the drainage on the site. Yeah. Um, they'll have to meet

[1:07:44] title 23. The, uh, developed flow will have to be less

[1:07:48] than or equal to distort flow from the property. So they are doing detention. They do have detention

[1:07:53] proposed on the site. We have reviewed that they meet our title 23

[1:07:57] requirements with their detention. I'm sorry to interrupt. Where is that shown on the flat,

[1:08:05] um, parking lot. It, it's

[1:08:09] underground in the parking lot, but am I still not working?

[1:08:15] is your parking lot permeable pavement or how you guys do detention on the

[1:08:19] ground? Are you doing storm sewer inlets and it's going down below

[1:08:24] the detention?

[1:08:29] we have a laser point,

[1:08:37] correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, you're honor, but it's, the detention is right here under

[1:08:41] the parking lot, and I, they do not have

[1:08:46] impervious pavement proposed, but it, they do have inlets that'll put the

[1:08:50] water into the detention, and so they will, they, the detention

[1:08:54] as designed is meeting our title 23 requirements. So their discharge

[1:08:58] or developed discharge is less than or equal to the historic discharge.

[1:09:03] okay. Uh, going back to the flood plain,

[1:09:08] the city of edmond title 23 requires no rise in the floodplain without

[1:09:12] a variance. Uh, they have, they're working on it.

[1:09:17] I think they may have got it done, but they haven't submitted the flood study for, uh, to

[1:09:21] us on this for the drive location. And that's why I

[1:09:25] put in the staff report what we put in that, uh, if

[1:09:29] they can't get a noris, then they'd have to go before swab and the stormwater

[1:09:34] drainage advisory board and council for a variance.

[1:09:38] and if they couldn't get the variance, if they can't meet the noris, then they'd

[1:09:42] have to look at moving the drive to the north. So that, that's why we put that in there. We'll

[1:09:46] be looking at it along with the plating platting process for the

[1:09:50] widening of the road. Like I said, they've both submitted the traffic ana

[1:09:54] traffic impala analysis, and we're looking at that, at what's going to be required

[1:09:58] for their road widening and for the road improvements. Okay.

[1:10:03] thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your time. Thank

[1:10:07] you, ma'am. Yes, sir. I'll go right after barry.

[1:10:11] oh, how about the guy behind you?

[1:10:22] anthony tompkins in the windmill estates. And,

[1:10:26] uh, I just wanted to reiterate that, uh, they

[1:10:30] pretty much covered everything that I wanted to say, but I did have, uh, additional

[1:10:34] concern, uh, whether or not there was an environmental study done on this,

[1:10:38] the displacement of deer and other animals that may be, um,

[1:10:43] affected by these changes. Um, as you know, we have a lot of

[1:10:47] that kind of activity out in that part of edmond

[1:10:52] up in north central edmond. And, uh, it just, it's

[1:10:56] getting worse. I mean, as far as the safety factor, and I know that this gentleman

[1:11:00] here was talking about the safety factor, but we've had a lot of cars

[1:11:04] that have impacts with these deer late at night.

[1:11:09] and, uh, that's just another aspect is that we're chasing them

[1:11:13] out of their domain and taking it as our own. Thank you.

[1:11:17] okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Go ahead, barry. Yes.

[1:11:21] yes. That's your name. Thank you. Good evening.

[1:11:25] thanks for your time. I'll be brief. Um, my name's barry black. I'm

[1:11:29] the ashford oaks homeowners association president representing 218 houses.

[1:11:33] was asked by the board to speak tonight, so maybe we didn't have 218

[1:11:38] homeowners in line. Um, we appreciate that. As david said, this

[1:11:42] has been litigated since 1990. Uh, it's the same 44,000 square

[1:11:46] foot grocery store, um, that the

[1:11:50] pud that governs this site is, is now 35 years old. Uh,

[1:11:54] edmond has changed cove and coltrane has changed. Uh, the city itself

[1:11:58] has changed, uh, since 1990 when it was approved. Uh, the city retains

[1:12:03] the right to determine how traffic is gonna flow across the city,

[1:12:07] and that's what I wanted to touch on. Uh, there's been no community connection meeting.

[1:12:11] uh, there's not one required, but there are a lot of things the city doesn't know and

[1:12:15] the residents don't know. Uh, ash oaks abuts the sensitive

[1:12:19] border to the west, the the entire thing to, to the west.

[1:12:23] is this gonna be open 24 hours? We don't know. Are there

[1:12:27] outside speakers? There is prohibited in the pud, but they were in the last plan.

[1:12:32] uh, will there be drone deliveries as was discussed last time? Will they be flying

[1:12:36] over this home surrounding, we don't know. Will this be an online

[1:12:40] fulfillment center, which increases traffic count beyond that of a regular,

[1:12:45] uh, walmart, uh, neighborhood market? How many semi trucks

[1:12:49] will be turning into and out of the site every day? What will those trucks

[1:12:53] do to traffic at this failing intersection? The last, uh, level of service

[1:12:57] for the traffic study for that intersection was f failing

[1:13:02] during november, 2014. Uh, I've been to most every one of these meetings

[1:13:06] since 1990, as have many of the people in this room. Uh,

[1:13:10] the then city engineer said there simply isn't enough room at this intersection

[1:13:14] to have sufficient turn bays acceleration deceleration, and the ability to

[1:13:18] accommodate edmond's future traffic. He said the

[1:13:22] intersection is most challenging because of the floodplain, the utility requirements, and

[1:13:26] its narrow width. This intersection is unique to any across

[1:13:31] cove. Page six of edmond's traffic control management policy

[1:13:35] adopts the principles of the institute of transportation engineers. It's

[1:13:39] specifically addresses land use. It says, I'll quote planners

[1:13:44] who have usually focused on land use will find the need to pay closer attention to the

[1:13:48] impacts of traffic for their work. That's the case here.

[1:13:52] the coroner is zoned for a grocery store, but the city

[1:13:56] has to, uh, account for the impact the traffic will have.

[1:14:00] uh, the city's master transportation plan is already being implemented across

[1:14:05] edmond cobell is unique. It's been designated as a major arterial.

[1:14:09] the city spent $281,000 in 2007

[1:14:13] to develop this master transportation plan. It was designed to be 25

[1:14:18] years. Looking forward for a long-term vision, there's

[1:14:22] a table found on 2.9 dash 2.2 that specifically

[1:14:26] addresses traffic on cove for this one mile strip

[1:14:30] bryant the coltrane. In 2007, it revealed traffic annual

[1:14:35] increase for that one mile was 16.9%. Those

[1:14:39] figures were updated by the city in 2015 in its intersection. Traffic report

[1:14:43] found on the website, it determined traffic counts on cove and coltrane

[1:14:47] junks 24% from two, uh, 2009 to

[1:14:51] 2015. That was a decade ago. Traffic's only gotten worse

[1:14:56] just 12 months ago. In june of 2024, the city

[1:15:00] engineer stated in the public go bond project proposal that traffic through this

[1:15:04] intersection had increased by 100% from 2014

[1:15:08] to 2022 with a traffic count of 24,400

[1:15:13] cars traveling through the intersection daily. Those are the city's on figures.

[1:15:18] what will this proposed plan do to the intersection? We don't know? How can we approve

[1:15:22] their plan before we know what it's gonna do to this unique and critical intersection?

[1:15:28] we learned in the past litigation that things were promised that were never

[1:15:32] provided, never came to fruition. So I believe the city and the residents

[1:15:36] of edmond need to know what this plan will do before it's

[1:15:40] approved. Uh, in 2015, this, uh, city's strategic plan set

[1:15:45] a benchmark, and the benchmark was to pursue engineering of long

[1:15:49] range transportation improvements that supports the master transportation

[1:15:53] plan's goal for long-term transportation improvement. But this project

[1:15:58] creates immediate and long-term traffic problems that can't be undone once it's

[1:16:02] approved. The city's already spent tens of millions of dollars to

[1:16:06] strategically improve traffic flow across edmond by designing, uh, designating cove

[1:16:10] as a major arterial. The master transportation plan

[1:16:15] defines what a major arterial is. It's is a four-lane through

[1:16:19] road with raised medians to prevent left hand turns.

[1:16:24] that's the object. Um, christie, can we do image one please?

[1:16:31] so the city's plan is not aspirational. It's already been implemented from

[1:16:35] I 35 to fairfax estates to the east. This is covell, and

[1:16:39] sooner it's just one mile east of the intersection, you see four lanes

[1:16:43] for through traffic and an unbroken median to prevent turning vehicles.

[1:16:48] the city's master transportation plan is being successfully implemented at the new multi-use

[1:16:52] cove crossing development. It has a four lane through lane

[1:16:57] with raised medians, but there's a traffic light to manage traffic

[1:17:01] ingress and egress from that multi-use facility. Their entryway

[1:17:05] is four lanes, not the single lane each way that walmart is proposing

[1:17:09] on cove. Christie, can we see two, please?

[1:17:15] so image two is covell and kelly. The master transportation

[1:17:19] plan has implemented there, have been implemented there from mitch park to just west of

[1:17:23] broadway. That is the plan four through lanes unbroken medians

[1:17:27] to prevent left hand turns. Vehicles can move across edmond efficiently.

[1:17:31] that's the reason we're developing this to the cost of millions and millions of dollars.

[1:17:36] we built a railroad truss over the four lanes of cove, so traffic could

[1:17:40] efficiently move from east to west and west to east. This four

[1:17:44] lane that's been built from the east and the west is designed to

[1:17:49] converge at cove and coltrane. It's been estimated by the city that

[1:17:53] the improvements required will cost an excess of $45 million because

[1:17:57] of the unique, uh, topography, the narrow width, the flood plain,

[1:18:02] that big gas exchange on the southwest, uh, corner.

[1:18:06] one oak is here tonight. Uh, so the,

[1:18:10] the plan itself is not historic. In june of 24,

[1:18:14] uh, 2024, about 12 months ago, the city engineer confirmed in the go

[1:18:18] bond proposal that cove is a major transportation

[1:18:23] thoroughfare. Speaking specifically of the plan for cowell and coltrane, the city

[1:18:27] engineer wrote in that public record, and I'll quote, the project will provide

[1:18:31] two through lanes, um, medians, left turn lanes, and

[1:18:36] possibly right turn lanes at the signaled intersection. That's cowell and coltrane.

[1:18:40] the engineer also said the project limits begin 3,200

[1:18:46] feet west of coltrane on covet image.

[1:18:50] three, please, christy. The city's plan,

[1:18:54] which has already been implemented to, is to begin improvements. 3,200 feet

[1:18:58] west of coltrane. That will be nullified if walmart has a private left

[1:19:02] turn lane in the middle of the road and a private driveway less than 650 feet

[1:19:06] from the intersection. The proposed walmart plan will deny the city its ability

[1:19:10] to solve the congestion at coville and coltrane as outlined in the master transportation plan.

[1:19:15] their plan takes that limited space that our engineers have discussed

[1:19:19] and puts in a left turn lane in the middle of the road that benefits

[1:19:23] only walmart, not the citizens' bed. It, it will, uh, be

[1:19:28] put in at the expense of the city's plan. Ma'am, can we have number four?

[1:19:33] I asked an architect to review the plan. Their plan is here in black. The

[1:19:37] architect's notes are in red, the left turn lane that walmarts

[1:19:41] wants in, uh, the center of cove. That limited stretch

[1:19:46] will accommodate about eight vehicles. You'll see 'em there as little yellow squares.

[1:19:50] any other vehicles will be backed up into eastbound traffic at the bottom of

[1:19:54] a blind hill. The left turn lane is in direct conflict with the

[1:19:58] master transportation plan, which calls for an unbroken median to avoid left

[1:20:02] hand turns. Their plan leaves westbound, covell as a one lane through

[1:20:07] road. It adds untold number of semis and customer traffic turning

[1:20:11] in. How many will that be? We don't know. We don't know. 'cause nobody's

[1:20:15] seen the traffic impact. So how can we approve a plan if we don't know what's gonna happen?

[1:20:20] their plan has no raised medians, just striping. So vehicles

[1:20:24] you'll see in the red arrows can turn left across westbound traffic

[1:20:29] to go east on covel and left hand turns are actually encouraged

[1:20:33] by this left turn lane, which is prohibited by the master transportation plan.

[1:20:37] the plan should be denied because the master transportation plan, which has already been implemented

[1:20:41] across cove, a great expense states an unbroken median is

[1:20:45] absolutely necessary to keep through traffic moving and prevent left turns.

[1:20:51] there are no private curb cuts for other businesses along the cove improvement.

[1:20:57] you, you can't turn into uptown grocery, you can't turn into the us post office without

[1:21:01] a feeder road. The master transportation plan had the foresight to address

[1:21:05] new construction, which is what we're discussing here. Section 5.2 states

[1:21:09] that eliminating curb cuts for this driveway cost the city nothing

[1:21:14] while allowing a four-lane road to function like a six lane road disallowing. This

[1:21:18] driveway will increase road capacity by 50%, but cost the citizens of

[1:21:23] edmond nothing. Ingress and egress should promote efficient, uh, vehicular

[1:21:27] circulation. And their plan does not do that. The proposed entrance

[1:21:31] on cove should be rejected as well as the left-hand turn lane. That section 5.2

[1:21:35] goes on to state that denying commercial drive driveways along cove is

[1:21:39] extremely important in order to manage traffic congestion

[1:21:45] and promote traffic flow. It states that quote, congestion will

[1:21:49] be reduced to a greater extent by access management than by widening

[1:21:53] the road. We don't have to make the road wider if we limit that

[1:21:57] access. Last image is, uh, image number five.

[1:22:01] I live close enough to that intersection to hear the sirens from fire station five.

[1:22:06] okay. Can I interrupt you just a little bit, barry? Uh, I, I appreciate

[1:22:10] all the comments about traffic, but that's not what we're talking about. The, that's

[1:22:14] the site plan and, uh, I know that, uh, the,

[1:22:19] the drainage and the, and the road construction, all that is, is

[1:22:23] surrounding the site plan, but it has nothing to do with the site plan. So if you could

[1:22:27] make sure that your comments are pointed to the site plan sure. In that regard. Sure.

[1:22:31] the ingress and egress, as mr. Chapman mentioned, is part

[1:22:35] of the site plan at 650 feet from a two lane road,

[1:22:39] uh, that the city, uh, intends to widen. Uh, and I believe regardless

[1:22:43] of what happened in 1990 for an individual pud, the city retains

[1:22:48] its right to develop the infrastructure that, uh, would be impeded

[1:22:52] by this construction. Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

[1:23:01] yes, sir. Go ahead.

[1:23:10] matt farley 27 0 8 ashbrook place. I believe there's

[1:23:15] a photo in there from my house that directly looks into the

[1:23:19] property. Farley bedroom. There we go. Uh, that's my house. That's

[1:23:23] where I live. Uh, that is the second story, uh, view from my

[1:23:27] 5-year-old son's bedroom. It looks directly onto the proposed site.

[1:23:32] um, I'm glad that our friend brought up property rights because

[1:23:36] I think that that comes very relevant based on the location of my house as

[1:23:40] well as my neighbors. Um, so I'll skip a lot of what's

[1:23:45] already been discussed today and just talk about some of the property, right, uh,

[1:23:49] rules that I think are in place to help property owners like myself. Um,

[1:23:54] specifically there are several municipal codes that I feel like would be violated, uh, if this

[1:23:58] pre-proposal were to move forward. Uh, certainly the tree preservation

[1:24:02] requirements. Uh, municipal code 23.2 explicitly states that all

[1:24:06] developments shall be designed to minimize the removal of existing trees in the city. Council's

[1:24:10] strategic plan from 2014, which I also believe should be

[1:24:15] taken as precedent over the 1990 pod, uh, because

[1:24:19] of its relevancy, uh, reinforces the city's intent to preserve, uh,

[1:24:23] existing trees. I'll also reiterate, and I know that this was discussed maybe as not

[1:24:27] as much of a point, but the architectural consistency requirement, um,

[1:24:32] I do feel like that was brushed off a little bit. We do have some examples though, of what that could look

[1:24:36] like. Uh, there is a commercial structure, the one nearest to us at the fairfax

[1:24:40] business park. Uh, there are some ideas of what architectural similarity

[1:24:45] and consistency actually looks like. We don't have to speculate, um,

[1:24:49] as some people here have today. Uh, this, the nearest commercial

[1:24:53] structure at the fairfax business park to half mile east, where all buildings feature brick

[1:24:57] and stone construction with pitched roofs. It is architecturally consistent with

[1:25:02] its neighbors. Um, again, you're looking at my house. Uh, that's the second story.

[1:25:07] there are also rules that protect flat roof visibility, and I

[1:25:11] do believe that this would, uh, constitute a violation. Uh, title 22,

[1:25:15] page 110. Section g one, uh, is very clear. Flat roofs

[1:25:19] shall not be visible from adjacent properties. That's my

[1:25:23] house. Um, from my two story home, I will have a direct view of the structure's, flat roof

[1:25:27] clear violation municipal code. Furthermore, title 22, page 92 states that

[1:25:32] buildings designed shall consider perspective from higher areas.

[1:25:36] any new construction adjacent to preexisting roof, uh,

[1:25:40] structures shall make use of all architectural treatments of all sides to achieve

[1:25:44] compatibility with the surrounding area. This proposal fails both requirements.

[1:25:49] uh, finally, uh, we did mention light a little bit earlier. Again, I'm gonna take it from the perspective

[1:25:53] of my five-year-old's room. Uh, lighting regulations are specifically intended

[1:25:57] to protect property values. Again, I love that we got to start

[1:26:02] this with property rights because there are a lot of rules in edmond

[1:26:06] that help protect homes like myself. Uh, the general welfare by controlling

[1:26:10] glare and spill spillover light. Section 22.12

[1:26:15] a prohibits lights, which substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment

[1:26:19] of the property. As a homeowner whose property directs faculty to the site,

[1:26:24] any commercial lighting, and I think you guys have probably been pretty familiar with

[1:26:28] driving through a walmart parking lot for safety reasons, those things are

[1:26:32] lit up. Uh, the proposal provides no lighting plan that conforms to

[1:26:36] these protective mandates. Protective meaning my house. Uh,

[1:26:40] it is your authority, uh, to impose additional protections. Uh, admin

[1:26:44] title 22 gives you explicit authority that directs relevant that

[1:26:48] is directly relevant here. Page one 10, section eight empowers you

[1:26:53] to impose supplemental additional conditions beyond whatever the pod may

[1:26:57] require at sensitive borders. I think that's a very

[1:27:01] sensitive border, um, to minimize adverse impacts to residential

[1:27:05] property. Uh, I obviously am giving you a really great example from my

[1:27:09] home. Item 12 allows you to require preservation and natural

[1:27:13] features, adjacents to residential uses, including tree preservation.

[1:27:17] uh, where there are substantial groups of trees, it's a lot more than just like a beautiful

[1:27:22] view, which obviously we enjoy, um, that field. Uh, in the

[1:27:26] middle of that, it represents a pretty big part of our community and our neighborhood as well.

[1:27:30] that is the walking trail that goes around our neighborhood. That is the

[1:27:34] field that we are having our son's soccer team in. It is a field

[1:27:38] that we see dogs and our, you know, our, our neighborhood, um, utilizes

[1:27:42] quite well. So it's not just my individual property, but the actual asset that's owned

[1:27:46] by ashford oaks as well. It's gonna be interfered with. Um, so

[1:27:51] I'll get back to my point and wrap up. Uh, commissioners. I want you to understand that

[1:27:55] approval of this proposal, what it means for my family from my back door. Instead of

[1:28:00] seeing trees in open space, we'll see a massive flat roofed commercial building instead

[1:28:04] of a peaceful residential, uh, and residential quiet, your truck deliveries,

[1:28:08] consumer traffic and consumer operations, instead

[1:28:12] of a dark night suitable for my family of commercial lights streaming into my

[1:28:16] home, a six foot fence and a row of saplings proposed as

[1:28:20] the screening is completely inadequate for the two story home that I own. This

[1:28:24] represents a fundamental failure to protect existing residential property as required by the current

[1:28:29] municipal code. So I urge you to deny this

[1:28:33] proposal and require any future development to fully comply

[1:28:37] with current edmond municipal standards. My family, my

[1:28:41] neighbors, would deserve protection from with these codes. As a homeowner who's

[1:28:46] most, probably most directly impacted by this proposal, uh,

[1:28:50] I'm asking to uphold the standards that edmund has established to protect

[1:28:55] residential property rights. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. My compliments

[1:28:59] to your five-year-old photography skills. . Alright.

[1:29:03] yes, ma'am. Yes. Sorry.

[1:29:10] thank you. Um, my name's lydia lee. I live on walnut cove here

[1:29:14] in edmond. Um, one of the

[1:29:18] issues that has been presented to you tonight is that, um,

[1:29:22] this development is compatible with the surrounding area.

[1:29:27] that was the statement that the developer, um, his representative

[1:29:31] made. But I want to refer you back to the phrase

[1:29:36] that mr. Cher referred to in the pud

[1:29:40] design statement, which is what governs this site plan.

[1:29:45] and it says, the concept is to develop this tract

[1:29:50] in a manner and architectural style that

[1:29:54] will be consistent with the surrounding area,

[1:29:59] not compatible consistent. That is

[1:30:03] defined as acting or done in the

[1:30:07] same way. There are no ugly

[1:30:12] gray boxes in the surrounding area. This

[1:30:16] is absolutely not compatible with the

[1:30:20] surrounding area. That issue in and of itself

[1:30:25] gives this planning commission the grounds to deny

[1:30:29] this because it's their pud. They created

[1:30:33] the design statement and they used the word consistent

[1:30:38] with, and they used the, the term architectural

[1:30:42] style. That issue gives you the grounds

[1:30:46] to deny this. The developer's representative wanted

[1:30:50] to tell you that your job here tonight is just to rubber

[1:30:55] stamp this. And I'm telling you that your job here tonight

[1:30:59] is to protect the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding

[1:31:03] property owners because this is absolutely not consistent,

[1:31:08] and we ask you to deny this. Okay, thanks. Yes, sir.

[1:31:13] uh, uh, my name is chris coty, 2 9 0 1 as brick

[1:31:17] place live in the neighborhood adjacent to the subject property. I'm gonna just quickly

[1:31:21] add in addition to what everyone has cited, it was also said this evening, can we

[1:31:26] pull up a, the picture of the walmart, the front elevation,

[1:31:34] in addition to the comment, uh, in which it was correctly highlighted. And the difference between what

[1:31:39] was said tonight is compatible with actually the pud says to be consistent.

[1:31:43] a comment was also made, um, by the, uh, individuals

[1:31:47] that there's nothing stopping someone from painting their

[1:31:51] house that color. Um, there is,

[1:31:56] um, there is, and in our neighborhood, I am bound by the

[1:32:00] covenants of the pud and the hoa. If I did such a thing, I would be

[1:32:04] in violation of the architectural, um, requirements

[1:32:08] of our neighborhood. I would be asked kindly to repaint my home,

[1:32:12] and if I didn't, I would then be sued. There

[1:32:17] are many restrictions in our neighborhood that

[1:32:21] govern the, uh, uh, compatibility of

[1:32:25] the area. But, but again, more importantly, the consistency. So

[1:32:29] I want to be clear to, to, um, the commission that, uh, that,

[1:32:34] uh, as presented, um, a reasonable

[1:32:38] person, I believe would not deem this as consistent with

[1:32:42] the area. And I respectfully ask for your, uh, no vote for the

[1:32:47] subject proposal. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Yes, ma'am. Right,

[1:32:51] right behind. Yes.

[1:32:57] my name is mary ann sontag and I live at 28 17 spyglass

[1:33:01] hill road in fairfax subdivision.

[1:33:06] there's been a lot of information about that. This property was

[1:33:10] zoned for grocery in 1990.

[1:33:14] that was 35 years ago. Since then,

[1:33:19] we have not a food desert, but a food

[1:33:24] plethora. Walmart neighborhood market. Second

[1:33:28] avenue. It's second street, walmart, supercenter

[1:33:32] on I 35, crest fresh market,

[1:33:36] uptown grocery target, which has food,

[1:33:41] homeland, brahms market. Excuse me. Miss, uh,

[1:33:45] talking about the site plan. Not, I know I'm not the business plan. I'm talking about

[1:33:49] the zoning for grocery. I'm talking about zoning for grocery.

[1:33:54] okay. In 1990, yes,

[1:33:58] laws can be changed. We have nine grocery stores.

[1:34:05] we also have whole foods coming,

[1:34:09] large stores in already commercial areas.

[1:34:14] I suggest that the planning commission may be checked on

[1:34:18] the zoning and why that should not continue to be called a grocery

[1:34:23] place. One other reason is that

[1:34:27] property is part of the cross timbers ecosystem,

[1:34:32] which is a hundred year old ecosystem.

[1:34:36] as someone mentioned, there are deer, woodpecker, rabbits in that one

[1:34:40] last place on that corner. It's also

[1:34:45] a potential remnant forest that's existed

[1:34:49] since 1871. Let's keep that corner

[1:34:54] across timber's ecosystem. I ask you to stop this

[1:34:58] procedure with this walmart.

[1:35:02] yes, ma'am.

[1:35:09] good evening, members of the planning commission. My name is

[1:35:13] lou jean jones. I live at 2217 mission road.

[1:35:19] this has been an interesting evening

[1:35:23] and I've really struggled with how to, to start this.

[1:35:31] it's gonna be two, two terms that I would like to use tonight.

[1:35:35] one is cross timbers and a lot of people.

[1:35:41] yes, I am a member of the urban forestry commission, but I'm not

[1:35:46] speaking for on behalf of the urban forestry commission.

[1:35:50] this presentation is my own. We're gonna talk about the

[1:35:54] cross timbers, cross timbers stretch from southeast

[1:35:58] kansas to central texas. It's 890,000

[1:36:03] acres of old growth forests containing trees that date from

[1:36:07] 200 to 400 years old. And one of those

[1:36:11] is an oak tree here in edmond that has been verified and dated

[1:36:16] and corded as being over 200 years old. Edmond is

[1:36:20] in the center of the cross timbers forest. The other term

[1:36:24] is remnant forest as an ancient ecological community

[1:36:29] containing native flora that has not been ever significantly

[1:36:34] disturbed on the landscaped

[1:36:38] architect's evaluation. Page nine and 10, dated three five.

[1:36:43] he states that the site is a blending of riparian tree canopy

[1:36:47] and cross timber, forest. Continuing

[1:36:51] quotes. The west side is composed mostly of crops. Timber

[1:36:55] oaks in the original pdu

[1:37:00] approval was granted for an area of separations that was attended to separate

[1:37:04] the commercial and the residential. It is a

[1:37:08] sensitive border and the current plant removes

[1:37:12] the existing tree canopy of mostly cross timbers

[1:37:17] trees remove as much as 60% of street pollution and 20

[1:37:21] to 60% of storm water pollutants. According

[1:37:26] to the recent drg inventory of city trees 2024.

[1:37:31] both of these are gonna be in much greater,

[1:37:36] much greater levels from the runoff of the pace surfaces

[1:37:40] and from the cars entering. And yes,

[1:37:45] the landscape as proposed from the research, extensive

[1:37:50] research I have done, it is going to be years, if not

[1:37:54] decades before these newly planted trees and

[1:37:58] landscape pans will have the effect that those cross timbers do. Now,

[1:38:04] edmond title 22 addresses this and gives the city unique authority to

[1:38:08] preserve our natural resources. These are more than natural

[1:38:13] resources. These are in fact true ecological treasures.

[1:38:18] the, uh, cross timbers, your skypes,

[1:38:23] the cross timbers have actually their own epa

[1:38:27] designation. That is how unique this area

[1:38:32] is. Page one 10 of section 8 22 gives

[1:38:36] the city the ability to impose supplemental additional conditions

[1:38:40] beyond what an original pud submission might

[1:38:45] be regarding sensitive borders, both the 2019

[1:38:49] guide and 2023 forest composition and ecosystem

[1:38:54] analysis show that remnant forest remains in this area.

[1:38:58] and please be mindful of the fact that this is an ancient

[1:39:03] forest section 2260 1d four

[1:39:07] for sites with existing tree canopy of over 20% or greater

[1:39:12] containing any amount of potential remnant forest,

[1:39:17] a tree resource evaluation shall be performed. It

[1:39:21] has been, and we are referencing it prior, we have already

[1:39:25] established that in 2005, the leadership

[1:39:30] of the city set forth the idea

[1:39:34] of urban forestry. They also set forth the idea

[1:39:39] of realizing the value that we have in this community and the uniqueness

[1:39:44] that we have of the remnant forest as

[1:39:48] well as the cross timbers if they are both highly valuable to

[1:39:52] our environment and as living history. We seem to

[1:39:56] be looking past the fact based on recent data that 14

[1:40:00] out of 25 of the most expensive neighborhoods in

[1:40:04] oklahoma are in edmond. We have half of them

[1:40:10] over half. And two of the adjacent heavily

[1:40:14] tree neighborhoods to this development are numbers 20

[1:40:19] and 23. Why are we

[1:40:24] ignoring the standards that set us apart?

[1:40:30] edmond is unique in so many ways and

[1:40:34] part of that reason is standards. Whether it's the

[1:40:38] standards for raising a child, whether it's the standards

[1:40:42] that you want your dog to behave, whether it's the standards

[1:40:46] on how you want your dishwasher loaded, there

[1:40:51] are standards and edmond has

[1:40:55] these and they have been in place for a very long time

[1:41:01] due to very wise leadership. Municipal

[1:41:05] code 23 2 states that the development shall be designed to

[1:41:09] minimize the removal of existing trees. And yes,

[1:41:14] the current commercial code does not require tree

[1:41:18] preservation, but it is recognized as highly preferred

[1:41:23] by doubling the amounts of credits given.

[1:41:27] so where are we now? Ms. Mr. Box

[1:41:31] or the representative assures us that this is already

[1:41:35] decided. I believe strongly in history

[1:41:40] and I think the history decides it's not.

[1:41:44] new codes are being developed in 2027, and this would be

[1:41:48] the ideal time for the city with citizen input to

[1:41:52] develop new codes for treasure tree preservation on commercial

[1:41:56] properties. This would demonstrate an even greater awareness

[1:42:00] of the benefit of the trees that we enjoy in this environment

[1:42:04] and our very long held commitment to it.

[1:42:09] as for now, I would respectfully

[1:42:14] request deeply feel

[1:42:18] that this developer in good faith not destroy

[1:42:22] this unique feature of our community, but rather

[1:42:26] embrace it and let this development, if

[1:42:31] approved, help set a higher edmond standard

[1:42:35] retrieve preservation to lead us into 2027.

[1:42:40] thank you so much. Thank you.

[1:42:47] please do not clap. Thank you.

[1:42:57] thank you very much. I'll be brief. My name's allen vanhorn. I live in the fair cloud neighborhood,

[1:43:01] uh, 26 42 pawnee crossing. Um, and really

[1:43:05] my main concern here, I've got several, but I'll only pick just this one and that's

[1:43:09] cut through traffic. Um, providing sufficient capacity for

[1:43:13] existing and future traffic is a crucial responsibility of the city, the master transportation

[1:43:18] plan and other city studies draw a direct correlation between left hand turns

[1:43:23] and accidents and confirm that slowing turning vehicles cause

[1:43:27] accidents and create congestion, um, trucks turn into that

[1:43:32] location will definitely create a congestion. The city's plan for section 5.3

[1:43:37] specifies that the city's responsibility to preserve the safety of

[1:43:41] residential streets by discouraging cut through traffic in neighborhoods.

[1:43:45] plan four states, the city must provide reasonable capacity

[1:43:49] to prevent cut through trips in neighborhoods. I can tell you I live on

[1:43:53] the street where they come right by. Yeah, the cut through traffic is absolutely ridiculous

[1:43:58] right now. It would only get a lot worse with a walmart

[1:44:02] there with the way their, their road construction is

[1:44:06] going to gonna fit. They're gonna allow left hand turns there without

[1:44:10] the median. There should be no left hand turn there. Stick with the, uh, the master transportation

[1:44:15] plan. Don't allow this cut through traffic to continue to be a problem. Really

[1:44:19] nothing needs to be built there until the city invests what

[1:44:23] they need to invest to improve that intersection. It's long been

[1:44:28] a problem and allowing anything to go in there right now is a big mistake.

[1:44:32] thank you. Alright, thanks.

[1:44:39] anybody else? Yes, ma'am.

[1:44:48] hi, my name is latasha grino and I live at 30 17 ashford oaks boulevard.

[1:44:52] and although a lot of my hoa members are here, I apologize. I'm not very

[1:44:56] active in the hoa. So, um, I just came here on behalf, um,

[1:45:01] just to kind of, I've heard a lot and learned a lot. Um, and I'll be brief

[1:45:05] a lot of what has already been said I planned on talking about, but I did wanna

[1:45:09] just, um, raise this site. Plan

[1:45:13] will impede upon my exercise area. As the gentleman earlier,

[1:45:18] um, showed our green belt. I take my child, we walk. That's one of the only areas,

[1:45:22] um, that there is no traffic. We're able to look at animals,

[1:45:27] um, bugs, plant life, things like that.

[1:45:31] this site plan is going to impede upon that and then also

[1:45:36] eliminate any additional future ability for us to have bike

[1:45:40] paths, sidewalks, um, on the outskirts. And it's going to bring

[1:45:44] in a lot more congestion. Um, the one thing

[1:45:48] that, and despite the gentleman's argument that things that were

[1:45:52] true in the nineties, they do not hold true now here in the twenties.

[1:45:57] um, and maybe the city, maybe the city has

[1:46:01] no power, um, to determine that. But I would ask that you reconsider

[1:46:05] if there, if you have it in your ability to do so. It's a disservice to

[1:46:09] oklahoma's owned businesses like brahms and crest. Um, and

[1:46:14] right near crest, we see buildings that have been

[1:46:18] designed in a much more organic way in keeping with the local

[1:46:23] community. Um, the plan presented ear earlier

[1:46:27] is not outside the box. It's right within the big box. Um,

[1:46:31] and, and brings a, a big box store in a mini size version right into our

[1:46:36] backyards. Um, one thing that wasn't also mentioned earlier that

[1:46:40] I think again, it was argued that health,

[1:46:45] safety and wellbeing aren't going to be impacted. However, the commuter

[1:46:49] workforce that will be presented because of this, um, needs

[1:46:54] to be a factor in because our local, um,

[1:46:58] community are not going to be the workforce employed at this area. And

[1:47:02] so this site will bring in, um, it'll act exacerbate

[1:47:08] all of the traffic issues, but also air pollution. Um, I know he

[1:47:12] talked about adding trees very well illustrated.

[1:47:16] we do not need more trees. We have existing trees. Um, and

[1:47:21] regardless of what legislation, um, says about

[1:47:26] our h or what was ordered with the health, safety and wellbeing,

[1:47:30] um, I'm not sure that this, these aspects were taken into account,

[1:47:34] um, in that argument. Um, lastly I'll just reiterate the

[1:47:38] impact on the ecosystem. The semis, snowplows builders

[1:47:43] are just going to increase risk to health. Um, and, and our

[1:47:47] welfare based on the air, air pollution. Um,

[1:47:51] the city already mentioned funding issues with traffic in this area. Local

[1:47:56] business earnings and revenue for local businesses

[1:48:00] will fix that issue, not funding big corporate

[1:48:04] businesses. Um, and lastly, there are other

[1:48:08] ways to bring in revenue. Um, and if it's zoned for a grocery store, there

[1:48:13] are many specialized grocers that we potentially could welcome

[1:48:17] that involve compatible, uh, architecture that's

[1:48:21] more organic and eco-friendly. And edmond is a very

[1:48:25] beau, it's a beautiful city, right? That's what we value. And so I would just ask that

[1:48:29] this site plan, take that into consideration or the city, um,

[1:48:34] really analyze what they're willing to do in thinking outside of the box to

[1:48:38] meet those aspects. Okay. Thank, thank you.

[1:48:42] uh, let's have a couple more, I think. Uh, yes sir.

[1:48:47] go ahead. Yes,

[1:48:55] sir. My name is todd ing. I live reside at 1 0 4 hanover

[1:48:59] drive in edmond. Um, I

[1:49:03] appreciated your comment that said you'd gotten 70 emails on this.

[1:49:08] I think that shows a a great deal of interest and I appreciate the fact that you

[1:49:12] said that all of 'em were, uh, positive or at least, uh, they were civil,

[1:49:16] polite, polite. Let's say that , um,

[1:49:21] I'm one of the, one of the 70 people that, uh, sent you eight pages last night. Yeah. Todd

[1:49:25] oi think it was. Yeah. . Um,

[1:49:31] I'd like to, there's been a lot of things talked about here. There's

[1:49:35] been a lot of investment made by the owner of this property to, to do what

[1:49:39] is appropriate for them. But I I would like to really point out two things. One is,

[1:49:44] um, I mentioned this in my cover letter to you, and

[1:49:48] that is that, uh, I really appreciate the

[1:49:52] fact that you folks dedicate your time to look out for the

[1:49:56] citizens of edmond. I mean, we, this place wouldn't operate without people like yourselves

[1:50:00] willing to dedicate your time to this. And I, I often

[1:50:05] think of planning commissions as, as, uh, people who

[1:50:09] are following through on what winston churchill

[1:50:13] said. First, we shape our buildings thereafter they shape

[1:50:17] us. You, you folks are in the, in the charge with the responsibility

[1:50:22] of shaping the future of edmond. And I recognize that this

[1:50:26] is a very difficult issue that we're talking about tonight. But

[1:50:30] I would like to just say two things here is that this is from

[1:50:34] the edmond website that talks about what the purpose is of this commission

[1:50:38] here. It says, to reduce fire hazards and approve,

[1:50:42] improve public safety and safeguard the public health

[1:50:47] and to facilitate the flow of traffic and decrease hazards.

[1:50:51] and I, I submit that if we, if you find yourself in a position

[1:50:55] of moving this project forward as it's presented to you that

[1:50:59] you're negligent with regard to your responsibilities to look after

[1:51:04] traffic. I recognize that the site plan deals with what happened on the site,

[1:51:08] but we can't look at a, a piece of property in isolation

[1:51:13] from what the impact is to, to allow this to move forward. We'll

[1:51:17] add millions of dollars if not making almost impossible

[1:51:21] to make improvements to that intersection, which is one of the most dangerous intersections

[1:51:26] in the city of edmond. So I respectfully request that you,

[1:51:30] um, pass this on to the city council, let them make a decision on how

[1:51:34] I want to move forward with it. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. All right.

[1:51:39] okay. One more. Thank you.

[1:51:50] um, my name is parker wilson. I live at 32 0 8 st. Fergus drive here

[1:51:54] to express inconsistencies in the claim that commercial cmu block is compatible

[1:51:59] with residential brick construction. Um, this claim's not just misleading,

[1:52:03] it's factually incorrect. The materials and the buildings they represent, they're governed by

[1:52:08] entirely different business codes or building codes and built for different purposes, uh,

[1:52:12] function completely different, um, incompatible ways. Walmart

[1:52:16] acclaimed cmu structure falls under ibc, um, building code. That's international

[1:52:20] building code, uh, specifically group m mercantile. This means, uh,

[1:52:25] it must meet strict standards for structural loads, fire safety, egress

[1:52:29] and large public occupancy homes in our neighborhood. On the other hand, fall under international

[1:52:33] residential code irc. These codes prioritize comfort scale, residential

[1:52:38] safety, um, not large scale, uh, fire containment or industrial

[1:52:42] loads. Um, you simply can't take a structural, a structure

[1:52:46] design for ibc commercial code claim. It's compatible with residential homes

[1:52:50] just because they use masonry on the outside. That's not how building codes work.

[1:52:55] um, furthermore, cmu is larger, typically eight by eight by 16

[1:52:59] inches. Um, and it's designed to be load bearing, reinforced

[1:53:03] with rebar grout, um, part of fire rated structural system residential

[1:53:08] bricks veneer, smaller decorative non-structural. It's tied to wood

[1:53:12] or, uh, light gauge steel framing offers little to no fire, uh,

[1:53:16] structural performance. Um, putting these two by side by side and calling

[1:53:20] 'em compatible ignores the fact that they don't match and scale purpose, strength,

[1:53:24] or safety that's making this proposed material incompatible with the

[1:53:29] surrounding area. I build commercial buildings for a living and when I heard mr. Box

[1:53:33] say that, you know, take cme block and residential brick, they're

[1:53:37] compatible just a little silly to me. So thank you. Alright,

[1:53:42] thanks. They're both called masonry. Yes,

[1:53:46] go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. I'm dan barth

[1:53:50] and I live at 26 32 ash hollow, and I won't go

[1:53:54] back through all the things that you've heard. I think everyone's done a great job bringing that to your attention.

[1:53:59] the one thing I didn't hear very much about, and that's the noise pollution, uh, if

[1:54:03] you've ever been around a commercial site with a grocery store and the 18 wheelers coming

[1:54:07] in and backing it at night, and the beep beep beep and the banging of the dumpsters

[1:54:12] and all the commercial activities that is going on is gonna be a, a real,

[1:54:17] uh, terrible experience for the homeowners that are in that

[1:54:21] area. So I just hope you add that to it. Uh, we've talked about everything else, the traffic,

[1:54:25] the noise and all that stuff, but consider the noise of what a 24 hour,

[1:54:29] seven day a week operation will do to that neighborhood and the noise pollution

[1:54:33] area. Thank you. Okay, thanks.

[1:54:37] yes, ma'am. I did say one more. Did she too many times

[1:54:42] speak sheila ?

[1:54:50] my name's karen bryce and I live in steeplechase. Um,

[1:54:54] I would just like to encourage, if you have not driven during high

[1:54:59] traffic time in these areas that we're discussing tonight,

[1:55:03] that you do so, and that you may see what

[1:55:07] everyone's concerned about. There have been multiple accidents at that intersection.

[1:55:13] maybe not hurt people, maybe hurt people, but

[1:55:17] you can see the damages and that intersection was fixed

[1:55:21] not very long ago. The roads are in terrible condition. The heavy trucks

[1:55:25] coming in and out everywhere. Um, and walmart will

[1:55:30] have those consistently. It won't end with the building at walmart.

[1:55:34] that's all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I think that's, uh, enough to, uh,

[1:55:39] give you'll own more. Alright.

[1:55:48] members, members of the planning commission, I'll

[1:55:52] make this short. Um, I start out by

[1:55:56] appreciating the briefing that, uh, uh,

[1:56:02] box made. He opened up the door. This is about

[1:56:06] safety and I don't know if that's part of the safe site plan, but this is,

[1:56:11] he opened up the door on safety when he talked about the legislation

[1:56:15] and the attorneys and the court commitment. But this is about safety.

[1:56:20] I am 80 years old and I still know my way home, but

[1:56:27] I map it to check how to get home.

[1:56:32] uh, this, uh, cove and coltrane are already

[1:56:37] traffic choke, choke points. Thursday,

[1:56:41] I had two incidences. I emailed you all on. This

[1:56:47] one was just a backup. The other one was a traffic accident at

[1:56:51] the corner. And what you have here northbound, which

[1:56:56] is one lane, one lane northbound, one lane southbound

[1:57:00] on coltrane. There was an accident there thursday, and

[1:57:04] you to make a left hand turn there,

[1:57:08] um, it gets to be where it's a matter of patience

[1:57:12] 'cause traffic southbound. But anyway, the north

[1:57:17] decided to make a left hand turn from a southbound car. We had an accident there

[1:57:21] thursday. Uh,

[1:57:25] the idea of a site plan for walmart today

[1:57:30] on a two lane road with a little widening here

[1:57:34] in a little widening there does not make a good

[1:57:38] plan as a retired tinker employee. I love it when a

[1:57:42] plan comes together when a plan doesn't work. We call

[1:57:46] that pppi have questions on our

[1:57:50] cove improvement plan. What is the status of our colville improvement

[1:57:55] plan? What is the impact of this

[1:58:00] plan here on our existing plan?

[1:58:04] is this going to prevent us from doing anyway? What's

[1:58:08] the impact? And we'll site plan approval for walmart on a

[1:58:12] two lane road, create, create a traffic

[1:58:17] crisis. We're talking about safety here on

[1:58:21] a site plan. If so, maybe we can change the title of

[1:58:25] a planning commission to crisis management. That's

[1:58:30] the concludes of my speech here. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.

[1:58:34] alright, david, uh, mr. Box, could you

[1:58:39] visit with, uh, some of these, uh, issues, uh,

[1:58:44] one being, uh, light pollution store hours,

[1:58:48] uh, speakers, um,

[1:58:53] made the, uh, the traffic, the, the interior around the site,

[1:58:58] uh, and a lot of comments around the, uh, being consistent

[1:59:03] with the, uh, surroundings. And also, uh,

[1:59:07] I I I'm interested in what, uh, your comment would be on property rights.

[1:59:11] on property rights. Yeah. Well, perhaps we start with what

[1:59:15] judge andrews said, um, and what judge andrew said

[1:59:19] in his journal entry of partial summary judgment, november 3rd, 2016,

[1:59:24] is that the decision made by defendants city council to uphold

[1:59:29] planning commission denial of the site plan deprived plaintiff

[1:59:33] of property rights. So perhaps

[1:59:38] let's start with the, the consistent, um,

[1:59:42] the architecturally consistent that was specifically addressed

[1:59:47] in both the district court and the court civil appeals.

[1:59:52] and both of those bodies ruled

[1:59:56] that this exact site plan, this exact

[2:00:01] building, this exact design, met the

[2:00:05] requirements of the pud. The only thing changed in

[2:00:09] this verse, that version is the color

[2:00:13] of the masonry product. The color

[2:00:18] is the only thing changed. What you see before you in this site plan

[2:00:22] is exactly what was litigated. And both the district court through judge andrews

[2:00:27] and then three different courts of appeals judge, all

[2:00:31] ruled that this site plan saved for the color

[2:00:37] complies with everything that a property owner has to comply with to develop

[2:00:41] this site. In fact, if you look at page 11

[2:00:45] of the court civil appeals opinion, uh, all three

[2:00:50] of the judges concurred. Of course, one of them, two of them,

[2:00:54] somebody could have dissented and had a different opinion. But instead, when you see paragraph

[2:00:59] 17 affirmed, um, then you see that

[2:01:03] gore and joplin both concur.

[2:01:09] so the issue of consistency has already been litigated

[2:01:14] and the ruling was direct that

[2:01:18] this complies with the pud as it relates to property rights.

[2:01:23] there was a lot of talk about things are different now than they were in 1990.

[2:01:27] the law in oklahoma is absolutely crystal clear. Zoning

[2:01:32] runs with the land. We may not like it, but zoning runs with the land.

[2:01:36] and this was zoned prior to the neighborhood being developed.

[2:01:41] if the neighbors had looked at the pud

[2:01:45] when they bought their home, they would've seen that they were buying a piece of property

[2:01:49] next to a wide open e two open display commercial

[2:01:54] site at a hard corner. What they would've found had

[2:01:58] they dug into the code, is that a grocery store exactly as presented

[2:02:02] to you here this evening is absolutely authorized.

[2:02:07] now as it relates to lighting, your code has lighting requirements

[2:02:11] as it relates to development of commercial property. Next to single family residential,

[2:02:15] we will meet or exceed all those lighting requirements. There's a sensitive border standard,

[2:02:20] which we meet. Um, one of the, the

[2:02:24] image of the, the five-year-old's bedroom, I believe was

[2:02:28] somewhere over here. So it's worth noting that's why we created this line of sight

[2:02:32] study. So, um, a person here, of course, again,

[2:02:36] we have this 125 foot buffer, and then you have a row of trees, and then you have

[2:02:40] a series of terraces, all of which are landscaped. And then you have sunken down

[2:02:44] 30 feet below is our building. Given the

[2:02:49] fence and the trees, you're not gonna be able to see that structure.

[2:02:54] so what more can a proper owner and developer do

[2:02:58] other than comply with the rules as prescribed

[2:03:03] by a city? There's nothing more they can do

[2:03:08] to put additional requirements would be absolutely subjective

[2:03:12] and violate every principle of development and every principle

[2:03:17] of legal authority that exists for the state of oklahoma. What I will do

[2:03:21] is close with two specific quotes from the court

[2:03:25] of civil appeals. Again, there's a lot of talk about safety and, and the general welfare. So

[2:03:30] within paragraph 15, courts have been less willing to allow local

[2:03:34] governments to use public health safety and welfare concern to justify

[2:03:38] site plan disapproval. The reason is obvious site plan

[2:03:42] review is a ministerial decision that follows from the applicant's

[2:03:46] demonstrated compliance with specific standards. The public health safety and welfare

[2:03:51] standard is a broad standard that demands an exercise of discretion. For this reasons,

[2:03:55] the courts will rule that it is arbitrary and capricious to deny site plan

[2:03:59] approval on grounds of public health, safety or welfare.

[2:04:04] most courts regard the site plan review step akin to a building permit

[2:04:09] if the requirements are met. The decision making body has no discretion to

[2:04:13] deny the site plan. We have

[2:04:17] presented to you a site plan fully compliant.

[2:04:22] your staff buying through their staff report, recommending approval,

[2:04:26] confirms that you see site plan applications routinely

[2:04:30] that will have variances in them. That variance

[2:04:34] request in a site plan application is telling you

[2:04:39] that site plan doesn't conform to all of the rules required for

[2:04:43] whatever that zoning district is. That's not what you have here. Here you have a recommendation

[2:04:47] of approval with not a single variance because we meet all of the

[2:04:52] rules. And just as the court of civil appeals has already told, the city of edmond already

[2:04:56] told the ashford oaks neighborhood, if that is the answer, then it is

[2:05:00] ministerial and it must be approved. We would ask that you follow

[2:05:04] the precedent set on this site to the city of edmond

[2:05:09] back in 2017. Thank you. Can I ask you one more question? Yes, sir. I'm

[2:05:13] sorry. Just, uh, but there was a comment about the, uh,

[2:05:17] the landscaping with the, um, uh, the, the

[2:05:21] trees, uh, are, are you going to completely, uh, replant trees

[2:05:25] over there or leave the existing trees on the, in the 120 foot

[2:05:29] buffer? So we'll have to replant, uh, some of the trees on top of that terrace.

[2:05:34] okay. Just because that, uh, there's construction work on

[2:05:38] that. Yes, sir. And, uh, we have submitted a tree survey that we believe has been approved. So,

[2:05:42] um, yeah, we will have to, to plant trees. We will meet or exceed

[2:05:47] all landscaping regulations.

[2:05:51] okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission?

[2:05:56] are we ready for a vote? I, I have a, an additional comment. Okay. Um,

[2:06:00] before my current role for my day job, I used to work for a developer here in at

[2:06:05] oklahoma. And it's very normal for there to be a dialogue, uh, between

[2:06:10] a developer and the community. Um, and to come

[2:06:14] back after and to fix requests. I think it's a shame you'd

[2:06:18] prefer to litigate than be flexible. Um, I,

[2:06:22] I believe, and I see a path forward where this gets approved

[2:06:27] and a walmart's on that corner, uh, following the code and where

[2:06:32] majority of people can be happy. Um, it, it appears to me you'd prefer

[2:06:36] to go to court and fight than work with the community. I think that's a shame.

[2:06:40] um, the first thing you stood up there and said was when it

[2:06:44] was litigated. I just think that's a shame. Um, that's not the precedent

[2:06:48] that most developers and admin have set. Uh,

[2:06:52] I think that's just a shame. No additional comment. If

[2:06:57] I may, mr. Chair address that. I will say, um, my client did have a sit down

[2:07:01] meeting, um, with the hoa president

[2:07:05] to discuss whether or not there was a path forward. Um, the indication we

[2:07:09] got was, you know, there there's not. So,

[2:07:14] I, I don't know that it's fair to say it's a shame there was nothing we could have done well

[2:07:18] let back in 2015. We have raised concerns as well that from what I

[2:07:22] understand, you don't plan on, uh,

[2:07:26] altering the site plan to accommodate either. Is that correct?

[2:07:31] so I think you have to appreciate that

[2:07:36] significant amount of money had to be spent litigating this last

[2:07:40] time and years spent litigating this last time.

[2:07:45] and one of the things that we have in america is

[2:07:49] precedent. And what the court told us is this is

[2:07:53] the rule. Our fear was if we start modifying

[2:07:58] the site plan in a manner that perhaps no longer

[2:08:02] met the strict interpretation of the code, we find ourselves in a

[2:08:06] position of not being under what that opinion said

[2:08:10] from the court of civil appeals. And so our goal, and this started, I believe it was

[2:08:14] october, we started meeting with staff. And at every meeting we made it

[2:08:19] clear, our goal is what do we have to do to meet your rules?

[2:08:23] um, and so it was only after we got to a point where we met

[2:08:27] all the rules that we formally submitted and, and found ourselves here.

[2:08:32] mm-hmm . But I I don't think it's shameful that a developer

[2:08:36] spent three years and significant money litigating

[2:08:40] to find out that in fact they were correct and they were right. And it should have been approved to

[2:08:44] then come back and meet what the court told us. The rules

[2:08:48] are. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, excuse

[2:08:53] me. He mentioned to me, uh, mr. Tapp called me personally.

[2:08:58] I did meet with him personally and I made it very clear my meeting

[2:09:02] was just for me personally. I was not representing the hoa and what

[2:09:06] I told him was, my house does abut to this sensitive border.

[2:09:10] and if this were approved, uh, ma'am, can we show that, uh,

[2:09:16] uh, fair farley fence image that's on the thumb

[2:09:20] drive, christine?

[2:09:24] I think we're aware. Uh, there we go. The, that one. Yeah. So

[2:09:28] this is the wooden fence behind the second street, walmart. I said, this

[2:09:33] is what we're gonna be looking at. Me personally, the hoa

[2:09:37] had nothing to do with our meeting. And what mr. Tap told me in that meeting was, if I could

[2:09:41] make the fight go away, he would take care of me personally. I didn't care

[2:09:45] for that. So I think it is a shame when we go to litigation. Thank you.

[2:09:49] thank you. Alright. Uh, do

[2:09:53] I hear a motion to bring this to a vote? Motion to approve.

[2:09:57] second.

[2:10:07] all right. This, uh, this motion, uh, fails and so there was no,

[2:10:11] uh, movement to counsel. So this ends here today.

[2:10:16] and, um, I would assume we'll probably see this again.

[2:10:23] so, um, thank you.

[2:10:30] no, no, no, no, no. All right. Let's move on to, uh,

[2:10:38] I don't realize this. We can wait.

[2:10:42] okay.

[2:10:54] all right.

[2:10:58] uh, please. We, we still have more meeting. We have more meetings to go, please.

[2:11:05] thank you. All right. We need to finish the meeting.

[2:11:09] so if you could, uh, make your way out, I would appreciate it.

[2:11:29] all right. Uh, looking at number item number four.

[2:11:34] the items listed under discussion and consideration are usually

[2:11:39] discussed and considered

[2:11:44] individually by members of the planning commission.

[2:11:49] and, uh, there were no items that were pulled from that.

[2:11:53] so any new business or, uh,

[2:11:58] citizen comments? No citizen comments. Anyone would like to make a comment?

[2:12:02] uh, no. No one signed. Alright.

[2:12:07] so do I hear a, uh, a motion to adjourn? I

[2:12:11] would make, I would make a motion to aurn. Second. I'll second as well. Thank

[2:12:15] you. We vote. Meeting is adjourned. Thank

[2:12:20] you.

Jun 17, 2025 Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript