Let's go ahead and start the meeting, change that for whatever,
and I would like to call the meeting to order. And there are a few items that
we need to, uh, uh, discuss.
let's do, yeah. Uh, the first items are the, uh,
uh, on the general consent item, uh, number, number two. These
items are listed under general consent, are usually approved as a group with the proper
motion from a member of the planning commission. Members of the planning commission may
pull any item under the general consent for separate discussion and
or, uh, action. And the first item on this
is a consideration of approval of the minutes
from our, our previous planning commission meeting. Can I hear a motion?
if you've, hopefully you've read those. I can hear you back here. Hear,
hear. Is it on? Can you hear me now?
okay. I'll put it right here. Is that okay? All right. Are there any,
uh, corrections or deletions from the minutes that you can
see? All right. If there's, uh, none. Can I hear a motion for the passing of
the minutes? Motion? I'll second.
thank you. Uh, the other two items on this, uh, consent agenda
are two items that, um,
will be, are there any, uh, members of the planning commission that want to pull any of these items
you vote on that? Oh, sorry.
thank you. I will need further instructions as we go along. Thank you.
we got your back. Alright. Anyone from the
planning commission want to pull any of these items to discuss them individually?
if there's not, can I, uh, hear a motion to approve these two
items? So moved.
second. I second.
all right. Those items will be heard at counsel on july 14th,
all looking at the, uh, public hearing items. These are items listed
under public hearings are usually discussed and considered individually by members
of the planning commission. Each item provides an opportunity for members
of the public to speak regarding the agenda item. Comments must
be directed to the chair of the meeting. And, uh, we are
gonna talk about four items today. Uh, one of them
is, uh, number d, case number pr 2 4 2 7.
that will be, um, uh, continued
to july 22nd planning commission
meeting. And I need a motion and a second to, uh, to move
that to, uh, july 22nd. I
continue second. Okay. Uh,
and then an, I'm sorry.
okay. Thank you, ken. Mm-hmm . All right. Uh, the
next item, item c. We're gonna move that up in the, uh, agenda.
and we're going to hear that one first. And, um,
yeah, let's go ahead and do that. Uh, case number pa 2 5 0 0 0 1
public hearing consideration for a cons comprehensive plan agreement to the edmond.
plan, 2018 from rural neighborhood to suburban infill
for the property located at 1421 east covel on the northwest corner
of bryant and cove. Is the applicant present?
is that okay? If you want to, um,
can, if you could go ahead and present this item, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. Um,
as you indicated, the applicant is requesting approval of a change to the city's comprehensive
plan. The edmond plan 2018. From the rural neighborhood
category to the suburban infill category to a site located on the northwest corner
of covell and bryant, you can see it here on the map. The subject
property is approximately 1.5 acres. The site is zoned a single family dwelling.
nearby. Zoning includes a single family to the west, which is
developed as a church south undeveloped. That's
alright. Um, the size characterize categorizes suburban commercial
in the edmund plan 2018. These are wrong. My apologies.
uh, nearby plan categories include suburban commercial to the east,
suburban two or s two neighborhood open space and suburban one s one neighborhood
to the south, rural neighborhood to the north and west.
uh, the potential availability of public water and sewer support a wider variety of plain categories,
including suburban infill. This category is designed to provide
items that might be missing or underrepresented in nearby developed areas such as
additional housing types. The applicant's proposal can be considered appropriate based
on the site size and in support of citywide goals related to housing variety.
staff recommends approval. Happy to answer any questions commissioners may have. Okay.
any questions from the commission to the city, city staff?
alright. Uh, applicant, would you like to add anything to
the summary? Greg
massey with red plains professional. Um, I don't have anything to add.
speak up. Yeah, I can hear you. Greg massey with red plains
professionals. Uh, I don't have anything to add that mr. Bryant didn't
already address. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions,
um, that you or, um, any of the folks here have.
okay. Any questions for the applicant from the commission? Okay.
I don't see any. Um, thank you greg.
uh, any comments from the public?
anyone that would like to speak, ask any questions?
we, we have a couple people coming from overflow and then some hands up right there. Okay.
are you coming in to speak or observe? Okay. Alright,
come on up and, uh, state your name and address. Uh, dave
me's at 3 0 0 8 short drive. It's, uh, oh
three blocks or four blocks to the west of this location.
uh, you know, we're just small, uh, rural
property and we're extremely worried about our property values
and, and how it's also gonna change the flow of traffic
and which is, that's a very congested yes. Intersection as it is.
do we know, does he know? I did. We didn't get to hear what he had, what the applicant had to say because
we were in the overflow. We were flow room, so we were okay. He just said if you had any questions. So he
really didn't talk about it at all except for the, uh, uh, the summary that,
uh, mr. Brian gave. Yeah. And part of the reason we've been there at that
location for over 20 years and when before we moved,
we looked and there was no, you know, multi-family.
that was one of the things that we looked for when we bought our property.
and so I know it's a major consideration for lots of people in the area around
there. I appreciate y'all hearing me. And do you have anything else?
does he, do we know what, uh, if you could just speak up to the, uh, microphone so you
know, what, what he plans. Does the applicant know what he plans to develop
there? Do we know that? Yeah, it should be in your packet about what it's gonna be, but I can ask,
I can have him, uh, uh, respond to that. Okay. I appreciate
it. I did, we didn't have a packet, so I didn't know. Okay. Yeah. Things were kind
of chaotic over there. Yeah, . Okay. Uh, we'll just find a comfortable place to
stand and, uh, mr. Massey will come up and, and, um,
uh, give his spiel. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. I think we
had somebody else in this. Oh, is there another person that yep. Yes, please come up.
good evening. I'm john bracken. I live at 1316 nay
avenue, which is in the burnham woods edition, which is directly across the street from the
subject property. Um, we settled there, uh, several years ago
because of the rural nature of that, the trees. And, um,
we understand that area's developed, and for those of you that have driven down cove
lately, it took me 10 minutes to get out of our neighborhood because of the traffic.
and, um, to add, uh, uh, density of living
to me is, it doesn't make any sense until I know the plan is to widen cove.
and perhaps when that happens, we'll have a better, uh, way to get in and out of our neighborhood.
but, so we're, we're concerned about that. Um, I guess I would ask, um,
I haven't, we haven't studied where we know where the plot is, but one of my
questions is where, where will the entrances be? Will there be one on bryant
and one on covel? Uh, it wasn't clear.
that intersection is just a nightmare. I if you guys haven't been there lately, especially around
five o'clock and this is only gonna make it worse.
anybody know the answer to that? Okay. I'll write that down. Okay.
um, and we also would be concerned about property values. I'm sure these will be rentals.
um, we already have rentals in our neighborhood. Um, it wasn't built to be
that way, but it's turned into that and, and we all are concerned about our property values 'cause that
is a very desirable place to live in edmond. That's why we settled there.
alright, thank you. Oh, let me also just say trent, I'm on
the, uh, board of the hoa, I'm president of the board of hoa. Trent
is vice president. Um, we also have our secretary, nancy's here and
marsha is one of our residents who's been involved with us, so, okay. We
have four of us here. Okay, thank you. There's 95. Okay.
if you could state your name and address please. Uh, trent cornman. I live at 1300 lemon ranch road
in burnham woods. Uh, there's 95
residential units in our neighborhood and we've got a real nice
quiet neighborhood. We have a real strong hoa
and, um, most of the people in there are retired older people like me.
um, it's a real nightmare getting
out of our addition onto cove.
um, I just, I know something bad's gonna happen there
one of these days. Um, if
at the very least you can do is to cut down the number of units on this
piece of property. Uh, 15, 15
residential units on an acre and a half is obscene
in my thinking. Oh, okay. No, no, I'm sorry. But,
uh, please, no comments after each. Let's just keep this civil please. But
I mean, it is going to create a nightmare for traffic in that area and
it, it already is. We've got cars racing up and down,
uh, bryant all hours of the
day and night. Um, and I mean, these people are really tearing
up the street up and down the north street cove. They race
up and down cove. Um,
that's about all I've got to say except, you know, at least consider the
density and the number of units on that if you would please.
alright, thank you. And you don't know which way we're going to get
egress and ingress or whatever. We don't have that yet.
uh, no. That comes with the, uh, site plan. When do
we get, when do we, do we get to look at the plat? Do we get
to look at something that's gonna go on that property? Uh, or does this thing
just whistle on through and we don't, we don't get to comment
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
question as well. Okay. That's all I've got. Thank you.
okay, thanks.
okay. Alright. Dan, I just saw something on the
report that, uh, was prepared by the city. One of the changes motivated
this, uh, change, uh, was that, uh, water and sew had been
added to the area. How close and how, uh, how significant
is that? I don't remember anything in particular on that. And
uh, maybe staff can answer that for us. Thank you.
okay. Any other resident or citizen
like to speak? Alright, would the applicant like to,
uh, oh, one more. I'm sorry.
my name's dennis shannon. I live at the corner of missile toe in
covell, about a quarter mile from this property.
everybody on my side of the road
from there to the corner has two and a half to five acres.
and I'd like to echo what people have said about the traffic
already getting out onto covell,
which is just two lanes means,
and on either end of it to the east and west, you've got four
lanes of traffic coming down and all of a sudden for the, for
the mile between coltrane
and boulevard, you've got just one lane
and each direction and it is a nightmare. I'd also like to
echo the part about people racing up and down
the roads. And until you hear a number of people say this,
it doesn't, if you just have one person saying it, you say, okay, one person,
we don't care. There's a lot of people that would like this to say
we don't want it, and I'm one of them. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
who else did I miss?
alright, now it's your turn. Okay. Quite a
few items. Um, of course one of the ones is,
uh, is the traffic seems to be the, uh, the biggest question here is, is
how is your project going to affect traffic?
I know that there, well, you can answer that. Uh, also, what,
uh, what are your total projects? I know that it's, it's included in there about the, uh, living units.
if you could also talk about the ingress and egress and, um,
how you foresee the project in fitting in with
the surrounding areas. And,
and maybe, uh, kim can address the process after this is,
uh, if, if this item is approved and if you could also,
uh, respond to the water and sewer, uh, location, where it is,
what the progress is. You didn't write any of that down, so, oh,
okay. I forgot to bring a pen in with me and I apologize. Uh,
but I'll try and address all of those items as best I can. If I
leave any out, please bring 'em to my attention and I will take care
of that. Um,
mr. Hutchinson has lived in the area, uh, for a
number of years himself. Um, he lives within a quarter mile
of this property. Um, I think his son currently
occupies this, this property. Um,
based on the current zoning of the property,
um, this tract and everything around it could be zoned a single
or could be developed as a single family, which would,
um, increased traffic. With this proposed development, we're
limiting it to a maximum of 16 units.
there will be a single point of access on cove
additional. Okay. Just a minute. Okay.
um, if you continue to make comments, we'll have to ask you to leave. Let's just, uh,
just keep this, you know, that, that we just listened to everything
he has to say. Thank you. The single access on covell
is based on the topography of this property.
um, there's no reasonable access that could be taken,
um, to the east on bryant. Um, however,
there will be additional right of way granted on this two acre
track for the widening of coval and also the widening of
bryant through that intersection. Um,
we have no way of dealing with current traffic situations,
um, but with 16 units,
that is not a great impact. Um,
as far as the utilities, public water and sewer
will be extended to this facility currently. Public water ends,
uh, at the northeast corner of the burnham woods subdivision
that will be extended into this property and also provide
access for adjacent residents to extend and
tie into that public utility. Sanitary sewer is located
approximately, um, a quarter mile to the east
on cove that will be extended over to this property. And
again, we'll also, uh, allow adjacent residence,
uh, to the northwest to tie in to that facility as well.
um,
uh, I I'm sorry, what were the other items? Oh, yeah, only one more item. Pretty
good. Uh, how will this, what material are you gonna use?
how's it gonna fit into the, uh, uh, surrounding rural,
uh, feel of the area? Yeah. Well, the intent is to
provide more diversity of housing. Um,
when we planted burnham woods, we went through the same situation.
um, you know, a single family residential, uh,
smaller lots going into an area that was primarily,
um, larger acreages. Um,
again, traffic is an issue. It has always been an issue.
um, you know, the individual developers can't
mitigate that completely, but by providing the additional right of way,
um, and providing the widening where it's required,
we can at least mitigate through the frontage of that property.
um, I I, I can't reduce the number of cars.
I can't reduce the speed limits. Um, what we
can do is make this a location that
provides expansion of diverse housing in the city of
edmond, particularly in this location of edmond, where there are
not products like this, uh, with duplex and fourplex
units that have been very popular in
the, uh, edmond municipal area.
okay. I think, uh, any of the fellow
commissioners have any items that I forgot? No, I just have
questions. Okay, go ahead. Um, okay. I'm a little concerned about the, um,
16 units, let's say 32 cars where, I mean, where's the parking,
the parking's within development? Um, obviously, um, these
units will all have garages, driveway. Okay. They're gonna have garages because we haven't seen
anything. Um, I mean any, christie,
what, did you not include that preliminary layout?
I, no, I think there were just the number of items.
okay. Yeah. I just kind of hesitant to move forward with this.
so we haven't seen what it's gonna look like.
yeah. We have a preliminary layout that, um,
that was provided to the city with the pud document,
or excuse me, um, with this application
that was to be included with the pud document, which would be the next step,
um, for rezoning. Um, again, this
is just to request plan amendment mm-hmm . So that
we can then move forward with the rezoning following that preliminary platting,
final platting. And then of course we would have to do site plan
approval, um, based on the multifamily use. Is
that correct mr. Bryan? It depends.
. Um, okay, so you referenced the process, which is,
uh, something I was gonna address. So yeah, the comprehensive plan establishes,
um, you know, kind of the, the, the character and the intensity
of the area. The, the change here is you, you, uh, you
outlined the change in utility availability. So of course that wasn't available
when the, the plan was initially, um, approved years ago.
um, so the next step would be to come in and request
a zoning map, amendment to a plan unit development that would,
that is then when you would show your layout, talk about materials, those kinds
of things. There's a public process of course related to that. Um,
and then you reference platting and then it depends if the details,
what details you provide in your pud or the platting, whether a site plan is
required. But yes, all of those components are potentially next steps in this
process and there's sequential. So, and I, I would also
like to address, um, it was brought up about, um, bringing
more rental units into the area. Um, obviously
any house can be rented. Um, single family
multifamily, regardless the intent if this
is approved tonight, is to move forward with a pud that would allow these
units to be sold individually as single family
residence. Um, so we're, we're not
looking solely for, uh, rental properties to be developed
here. Okay.
any other questions? Ken, could you clarify if
it, if we approve tonight, how many other meetings you mentioned kinda the process, how many other
public meetings will occur to where more feedback could be given
before what he's describing gets built? Is that 2, 3, 4?
uh, 'cause you mentioned it, but I just wanna make sure we're clear.
yes, thank you for that. Um, well, there's one more public meeting on this item.
so this will go to council planning commission is recommending body, um, for
the rezoning that is also planning commission and city council, um,
for preliminary plat. Um, that's, uh, planning commission has
authority to approve that. And then c site plan, um, is planning
commission as well. So I don't, I didn't count all that, but it's like six. Okay. Thank
you.
quick question, remind me what can go into suburban infill again?
um, good question. So of course it's not necessarily about the
use. Um, that's more about, um, an opportunity to,
uh, provide a transition from one thing, you know, a near one nearby development to
another one. Um, it, it's an opportunity to provide something that's missing
from the area or the neighborhood. And, um, yeah,
so it, it, whatever future development or
use kind of meets those, um, that those concepts
can potentially be a good fit for this plan category. Okay.
so most likely it's gonna be more dense than it is today? Well, it only
has one house on it right now, so yeah. So two would be more dense,
so it could have, yeah. Okay.
okay. Any other questions? Alright,
thank you craig. Thank you.
um, excuse, are we doing public comment a second? Oh yeah, I don't
think so. Yeah, unfortunately that's, uh, we're just doing it. Uh,
we're having given you one chance to, uh, to ask a question and one time to respond.
so that map wasn't up here before so I couldn't the
one that showed the units, so I couldn't ask the question about it.
there wasn't one with the units on it. She
found it. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Comments? It's closed.
good job. May I just ask? Yes, you may because I missed it. I'm
sorry.
now again, this is just a estimate. It's not approved, it's just, uh, his,
their idea of what they would like to build there. I'm a retired teacher, so I believe
in taking okay, go ahead and state your name and address please. My
name is deborah shannon and we live about a quarter mile from this
location off of coville on missile toll lane. And so
I use this intersection all the time. And when he mentioned there
was gonna be one entrance and exit on covell,
as you can see where bryant is, if someone is coming out of there,
they'd have to turn right . If they tried to make a left turn,
they wouldn't be able to that, there's just no way you could do
that. You'd be blocking traffic and everybody goes out
cove to I 35 or to get to sooner or wherever. I mean
we started living there in 91 before covell even
connected to I 35. It stopped it sooner. So we've seen
the change of it over, over the years. It's been massive
and um, that's the direction from fire station
five when they come over all of the sanitation, unless they're going down second
street, they have to take vale to go across 35 to get to where they
are. So this is such a high, high traffic area and
for a lot of these things that are in the planning, I just
feel like we need to do the streets first and
then address something like this.
um, you know, 16 units, 32 cars,
people have visitors and family and everything else. I think this would be
a very, very dangerous, um, and
I like the idea of people being able to own a property. I really do,
but I'm not crazy about this particular
diagram with all of these. Fewer would be better. Okay.
uh, thank you. And tonight we're just, uh, talking about the change of use,
right? So not, not so much of this, we're not approving this, we're not talking about traffic,
but thank you for your concerns. So thank you. Appreciate it. Okay.
alright. Um, we ready to,
can I hear a motion to um, approve? Uh, to approve,
to approve. Second.
alright, uh, uh, this vote failed and uh, but it
will be continued. I mean it will be, uh, moved to,
uh, counsel on july 14th and you'll have another I, uh,
opportunity to, uh, to talk about that. Alright, thank
you. And now, uh, let's move to item a.
this is, uh, case number pr 20 0 0 0 2 7.
we'll take a minute to, uh, let people leave.
uh, this is a public hearing in consideration for revised preliminary
plat for wild rose ranch located
northwest of sorghum mill and bryant.
ken, will you present this, please? Yes, sir. Thank you.
the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat. The approximately 63
acre subject property is located on the south side of sorghum mill and west of coltrane.
it's shown here on the map. Um, the requested revision
to the, uh, preliminary, a previously approved preliminary plat adds seven lots
in the southwest portion of section two. This brings the total to 196
lots. The subject property own a single family and the additional lots are in
conformance with the zoning. The additional lots are supported by updated sanitary
sewer capacity. Staff recommends approval, happy to answer any questions. Okay, any
questions from the commission to the city staff? The, is the
full subdivision built out in the aerial in the packet? It looks
the 10th built out. Is it fully developed? I believe maybe
the applicant can help us a little bit with that, but I, I believe section one is under construction
and this is the, the revised preliminary pla for both sections. So yeah, they've
started, they've started construction but the revision is for uh,
section two, which I believe is to the north of the area. You
see where the streets are going in. Yep. Thank you.
any other questions? Alright, uh, is the applicant
present?
hello? Uh, kevin masters 300 point park boulevard.
I'm here, uh, representing uh, the applicant and we request
approval for the, uh, revised preliminary plat for water rose ranch. Um,
so originally the original plant was plat was approved four
years ago with us allowing 189 lots, but due to sewer
capacity, uh, we had a bunch of septic, uh, septic lots,
lots with septic systems and um, but we got new information that
the, uh, city can allow us to add nine additional lots
further. Um, the city changed their subdivision regulations,
um, back then, uh, for lots on septic systems, the
minimum lot square footage was 30,000 and they changed it to 21,780.
so 0.5 acres, which is basically deqs minimum, uh, required
lots for septic system. So with those two uh, points, that's how
we got the seven additional lots and um, I'm happy to answer any
questions and uh, uh, staff recommends approval.
alright, the only question I have could, um, christie, could you
pull up the, uh, the previous map? Yeah, right there. Where
were the, uh, seven added, uh, I can show you.
so we got five extra lots on this side right up
here. We got two one lot and another lot. Okay,
thank you. Any other questions from the applicant?
alright, thank you. Alright, thank you. Are there any questions or comments
from the public? Any
comments regarding that? Alright, can
I hear a motion to bring this to a vote? Motion
second. Okay. All in favor,
that motion passes and
that, uh, that, uh, that ends here. It will not be going to counsel.
alright, let's see.
alright, case number s sp two five. This is item number b,
sp 2 5 0 8.
all right, ken, you want to go ahead and uh, present that please, sir? Of course. Thank you.
applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for a walmart neighborhood market,
approximately 9.6 acre. Subject property is located at the northwest
corner of coltrane and coval. You see that here. Uh,
the subject property is zoned e two pud, um, a pud that's titled
ashford oaks site plan. Details include, um, the proposal for
approximately 44,000 square foot building
access will be provided with two driveways, one each on covel and coltrane.
the building will be approximately 27 feet tall at its highest point.
the facade will consist of architectural masonry and concrete masonry units with
metal accents and canopies. Screening
includes a fence and land and landscaping, which will be installed along the north
and west sides of the subject property. In order for the development
to proceed, the site must also be platted. This is a separate and additional step that will include
details about the arterial roadway and intersection rights of way.
and there are improvements that will be constructed by the applicant. There's additional engineering
design work to do related to the driveway on culturing to ensure that it meets all drainage
requirements. Mr. Beatty representing, um, the engineering department may wanna offer further
details. The engineering and design details must for the site plan must
meet the city's adopted standards before a site plan can be authorized for construction
by the city engineer staff recommends approval of the site plan based on compliance
with the flood plain requirements associated with the drive on call train. Mr. Batty, you want to offer
a little more on that, that flood plain issue? Well, where they're coming in
for the drains, we were a little concerned that it could cause a rise properly designed.
it probably will not, but the engineer has not supplied us that information
yet.
we're happy to answer any questions you may have. Any other questions to the staff?
excuse me, keith, I'd like to ask the one question. Is there,
you know, mo, most of the um, uh, conversation
on this has been about, uh, widening
the road, uh, widening covell, uh, what is the
city's plan of widening covell from coltrane to bryant?
uh, and, and you know, the previous applicant was, uh, from bryant to boulevard. How
about those two sections? Um, not sure on bryant and cove,
but they're coltrane that has been under design, but at this point the city
has no funding source for construction. Okay, so it's not in the, uh,
the near budget? No, sir. Okay. How about, uh, traffic lights for coltrane
and cove? Is that, uh, included,
uh, in there that currently has traffic lights? Now
the applicant will have to do some road improvements on cove and coltrane.
um, they have submitted a traffic impact analysis and we're still looking
at that. And as they go through on the site plan, there will be discussion about
section line requirements and as part of that, the lighting system will be revised
based upon what they do for widening.
alright. Alright. Is the applicant present? Yes, sir.
tell us about your project. Yes, good afternoon, david box 5 25 northwest
11th street. So I'll drop that, uh, here
on behalf of the applicant. Uh, as well with me, I've got, uh, members of, uh,
my team including the, uh, developer as well as the civil engineer for
the project. So as staff said, what is before you this evening is, uh, a
site plan application. It's a bit of a unique site plan application. So
I think we probably need to look back to the history of this site. And when
it came before, uh, the commission last time, starting back
in 1990, the city council approved a pud on this site. Uh,
the pud is a little different than the puds you expect to see these days in
that it's a three page pud, it has really
no requirements. It's an e two open display commercial pud
that doesn't seek to limit e two in any meaningful way.
so in 1990, the city council passed the ordinance approving
e two on this site. So what is not up for debate this evening is
whether or not a grocery store makes sense here. That was decided
in 1990 before the ashford oaks residential neighborhood was constructed.
what is not up for debate here is whether or not traffic will be impacted. That
will happen at the plating stage. As staff said, a traffic impact analysis
has been submitted to the staff. When we move forward, staff will have suggestions
that we will have to do at the platting stage. We do not intend in
any way whatsoever to seek to vary any requirements that the city
of edmond has for development of this site. The pud allows
for a, uh, a grocery store and that is simply not up for debate.
so a site plan application cannot be used to strip away
rights that exist pursuant to legally authorized zoning.
that's what we have here, an e two open display commercial.
now, why I want to talk about what happened in 2015
is there was a lot of discussion and debate about what a site plan application
is and what it is not. When we came through in 2015, we
had a walmart neighborhood market, just like you have here before you.
um, it came before planning commission on site plan review, and at that time
the vote was two to two. Two to two was deemed a denial. So we appealed
that to the city council. The city council in a vote of two
to three denied it. So we appealed to the district
court of oklahoma county at that time. We had a site plan that was fully
compliant with all regulations and ordinances that existed
on the subject site. We took the position that when you
have a site plan that's fully compliant with ordinances, the duty of
the planning commission, and ultimately city council, if it gets there, is a ministerial duty.
that means there's no discretion afforded this body or the city council
if in fact the site plan is submitted, that conforms to all of
the rules. And if you think about why that's important, think about what zoning
is. Zoning is a discussion of compatibility. Does
e two open display commercial at this site find itself compatible
with surrounding uses? The only body that can make that choice is of course
the elected body. The city council and the city council in 1990
approve the pud telling us that development under the e two
standards is compatible and appropriate at this intersection.
so after we were denied at city council, we found ourselves
at the district court. The asford oaks hoa intervened
into that lawsuit. All three parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment. The district court ruled against the city
of edmond, ruled against the asford oaks, hoa siding
with my side. And what the district court said in their ruling at paragraph
nine is city council's decision to uphold the
planning commission denial based upon broad standards of public
health, safety and welfare was arbitrary and
unreasonable. Health, safety, general
welfare. Those are standards used in legislative decisions.
this is not a legislative decision. Zoning decisions are when
the broad standards of health, safety and welfare come into place,
not psych blame. Further at paragraph
10 of the district court opinion, the court says the city council's
decision to uphold planning commission's denial deprived plaintiff of
its property rights. Well, why that's important is those property rights
were vested in september of 1990 when the city council
saw fit to a proven ordinance granting e two open display commercial,
this property vested with the right to develop
a grocery store. Now of course, it's subject to meeting the rules and
regulations that exist in both the pud and the zoning ordinance.
but what we have before you is a site plan that is fully
compliant with all of those things. After
the district court judgment, edmond and ashford oaks appealed
the matter to the oklahoma supreme court. The oklahoma supreme court
transferred that case to the oklahoma court of civil appeals. The oklahoma court of civil
appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming
my client's position, specifically what they say at
paragraph 11 while discussing the role that edmund has in site
plan review says, pursuant to oklahoma statute section
43 dash one 12 city's review of developer site
plan application was confined to determining whether the
plan met conditions and standards of the pud and applicable zoning
ordinances. For that reason, if developer site plan met or
exceeded the requirements of the pud and applicable ordinances, city's
review should be deemed ministerial. So what does
ministerial mean? Well, marian webster's tells us it means an act
done in obedience to a legal order without exercise of
personal judgment or discretion. Your
analysis is a simple one. Does the site plan before you
comply with e two? Does the site plan before you
comply with any other development regulation that the city of edmond
may have on the books? If the answer is yes,
the court of civil appeals on this exact property on this exact
type of application told you the answer is your
decision and your analysis is ministerial, meaning again,
an act done in obedience to a legal order without exercise of personal
judgment or discretion. One of the things we
can look at to see if in fact we meet those ordinances
is of course your unbiased objective planning staff.
they have recommended approval of this for the only reason
that we meet each and every ordinance provision that
exists for development of this site.
now you're gonna hear issues from the neighbors about traffic. I suspect,
um, as staff said, that is a platting issue. If you look at your staff report staff,
um, in fact tells you under paragraph 12 of your staff
report, platting will be required in order for the development to proceed.
the developer will be responsible for improvements to both cowell road and coltrane
road in compliance with the platting process because these requirements are
associated with platting title 21 verse site plan title 22.
many of the roadway components shown on site plan will need to be modified to meet planning requirements.
what I'm here to tell you is whatever your public work staff tells us we have to do with the planning process
as it relates to traffic management, we will meet,
you may hear about a landscape
buffer that the neighborhood believed is required. The
wording of the pud and this is litigated and decided by the course of
appeals, the wording of the pud says there shall be a 125 foot
green belt area surrounding the subject site.
the word surrounding, of course, means outside of and not within.
what you see here is the 125 foot buffer is satisfied
with the land surrounding the subject tract. Now we have
significant opportunity within our site plan to landscape this and create
a environment that is full of trees and compatible
with the neighborhood. I think it's important to note that when you look at
the way that the site sits, it provides I think a
wonderful opportunity to be compatible in that we, this
site sits down. So here's a line of sight exhibit. So what
we have here is the an, an average human standing here looking this way and looking
this way. The top of our building is 27 feet tall.
our site sits 30 feet down. So what does that mean? Well, we
are gonna have a six foot tall fence, all new plantings throughout here
and terrace landscaping moving down. It will be unable
to be seen from the neighborhood.
the structure is masonry product, which
complies with the architectural compatibility requirement of the pud.
that was again, litigated the last time the court of civil
appeals specifically addressed that, saying that in fact it was compatible.
compatible doesn't mean identical compatible means compatible.
so what is before you is a site plan that complies with everything
that the city of edmond has for development regulations
on this site. We're here to answer any questions. We
urge you to follow the law that was set
by the court of civil appeals on this very issue, on this very piece
of property and uphold the property rights that my client
now enjoys. And everyone since 1990 has enjoyed.
happy to answer any questions. Alright, commission, do you
have any questions for the applicant?
uh, so let me ask a quick question here. Uh, mr. Box, would your client
be willing to reduce the footprint or parking lot to a size more appropriate
for like a dollar store, dollar tree, family dollar,
uh, walmart, dollar wall, dollar,
anything like that? Well, because, because what I'm, what I'm getting at is here is
is just the, the overall mass of it. The size of it. Yeah.
I mean our, I mean it does, it still fits within the pod, but I didn't know if
there was a, uh, smaller footprint that was within the, uh, walmart family
for the the parking or the building? Uh, for the building. For the building? No, just
a smaller building. No, the the building's before the is before you on the side plan is what?
okay. Um, we need, which again is as you know, fully complies
with the ordinances. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, I
just have one thing. So I did read through that p and it is, you're right, it's only three pages.
um, section 12 of the pud states that the concept
is to develop this tract in a manner and architectural style
that will be consistent with the surrounding area. Yeah, that's a, that's where I
just have a little con a little concern 'cause I don't see that matching the surrounding
area. Well, when you say matching, I guess, uh, it compatible
doesn't mean matching. Uh, what I would point you
to is in the court civil fuels opinion at paragraph 12,
uh, it says, and I quote the pud design statement places few
demands on the subject tract chief. Among those requirements are the 125
foot green belt surrounding the property on the west and the north and the
edict that the tract is to be developed in a manner and architectural style that will be consistent
with the surrounding area. City's own planning, excuse me, director of planning and
zoning, testified that the site plans proposed architectural style complies
with the pd requirements. This is the exact same architectural
style. The color is different. Mm-hmm . It is the, why is the color different? I noticed it used
to be brick, like the, you know, red images now it's the gray walmarts
kind of yeah. What they're going into their prototype and blue.
yeah. Okay. But there's nothing stopping a neighbor from painting their house
this exact color. But that was litigated before.
and what we have from a comp compatibility standpoint is
a masonry building. Most of the homes are of course masonry being brick.
it's a flat roof. There are plenty of flat roof structures. In fact, in
my motion for summary judgment below, we attached an exhibit showing all of the different
flat roof single family residential homes that exist within a couple mile radius.
yeah. So that's why the course of appeal said this exact architectural style
is in fact compatible with, with paragraph 12 of the ped.
okay. Thank you. I have a few questions here.
um, so I've got the review criteria here from the code
and um, I'm not gonna argue anything you, you said earlier,
but there are three items in the review criteria. So subsection
dd three, d four, d five, uh, the safe public health safety
welfare. I think you kind of mentioned that the visual compatibility he kind of just
discussed, but I stood on that corner. I didn't see any, uh,
12 by six or eight gray center block buildings
anywhere. Uh, I even took the liberty and taking a tee time at fairfax, didn't see
any. Um, so I want you to discuss that in a little
bit more detail than what you just did. And then number five, my primary concern
that ingress egress internal traffic circulation.
um, so it drives me nuts when people do this whenever there's a congested
intersection they cut through the nearest parking lot, uh,
myself as a rule follower, it makes my blood boil when I see a car cut
an intersection. Um, I can see with how this intersection
already plays out. I get that has nothing to do with your site plan, but people cutting
through your site that will have a safety issue that I'm concerned by.
now, I was hit by a car while running around uco when I was in college. So
partly when someone, a pedestrian is crossing right here
during this or wherever entrance is this turn lane, if someone's gunning it
left in and out, uh, I believe that does create a safety issue within
your site that has nothing to do with coville or coltrane. Um,
so I think that's the visual compatibility. Um,
I don't think that's as subjective as we think it is. And then the ingress, egress and internal
traffic circulation, which, uh, is in the review criteria.
number five, uh, that is something that, uh, I don't
believe this site plan, uh, checks that
box for me. Is it pud criteria? Uh, the site plan?
yeah. So site plan review, all I can tell you
is as it relates to ingress and egress and circulation,
whatever the code says is required, whatever your public works department says is required
is what we will meet. If there are slight adjustments that are needed at
the planning stage, those will be met. The reference to health and safety,
I will again, uh, revert back to the court of civil appeals opinion. In paragraph
15, courts have been less willing to allow local governments to use the public
health safety and welfare concern to justify site plan disapprovals. The
reason is obvious site plan review is ministerial decision that follows
from the applicant's demonstrated compliance with specific standards. The public
health safety and welfare standard is a broad standard that demands exercise
of discretion. For this reason, the court can usually rule that it's arbitrary
and capricious to deny a site plan approval on grounds of public health,
safety and welfare. So I I I don't
if that comes from the ordinance, I'm not sure. What I can tell you is there's
not a provision of this site plan that fails to conform to any objective
standard that exists within edmond's
municipal ordinance. It was litigated for three years
after the court of civil appeals opinion, edmond and the neighbors sought a petition
for cert at the, at the state supreme court that was denied
by the state's supreme court, meaning the court of civil appeals opinion issued
on june 30th, 2017 is what is on this piece
of property. So in terms of you not seeing another cinder block building
compatibility doesn't have to mean there has to be another one next to it. What
it means, I think, is it's a masonry product. The
product we are using is specifically authorized under edmond's ordinances.
therefore, we check that box.
these aren't my words. This is what the state court
of civil appeals told us. That issue was litigated ad nauseum.
that exact issue, that exact argument failed both
at the district court and the court of civil appeals.
thank you. Uh, I think some of the emails that we
received were, uh, in connection to the, uh,
unprotected left turn. I know we're not talking, that's not a site plan,
but that is, I I didn't know if you could address that, that, uh, that will be addressed
in the, um, preliminary plat. But, uh, I know that that's
gonna come up in their comments. Uh, any
thoughts on the left turn that has to be done into your site?
how and go ahead. Yeah, I, I don't know. I mean, I would, you know, defer
to to to staff, right? I think they're still analyzing the traffic impact analysis
and whatever staff tells us is necessary based upon their expertise
and that of the, the tia is what you'll see. Okay.
any other questions for the applicant? Alright, thank you mr. Box.
um, let me make a little statement here before we, uh, open
this up for, uh, for your, your comments. Um, I received more
than, uh, 70 emails regarding this project. Excuse
me. I wish I had only received 70 . Yeah, well,
you're more popular than I am. Um, unfortunately
I received more than 70 emails regarding this project, and I can gladly say that
all were several. I appreciate that. And, and I know that
there are a lot of people here that, uh, uh, would like to make comments
and we considered limiting comments to three minutes or a short period of time,
but decided against it and only wanted to ask that you be brief in
your comments, especially if, uh, uh, one of your neighbors had
already mentioned the item. Uh, probably doesn't mean to that you need to mention
it in detail again, just say ditto or, or I agree or something like that.
but you must limit your comments to the site plan review,
not the applicant's business plan. You know, even though there's a crest
down the street, don't want to hear about it. Uh, well, it's not necessary.
I'm sorry. I'll hear about it, but it's not necessary. , um,
this is a site plan review of a plan that is being presented. A
similar plan was presented in, uh, 2015 was, was deemed appropriate
by the courts, but uh, no further action was taken. And so now
we have a new site plan before us, and that's why we're going through this exercise again.
so are there any comments from the public? Okay, I'll just, uh,
sir, why don't you start here then I'll try to write down the question if
you guys can help me. Yeah. My name is, uh, james carter.
I live at, uh, 21 mission road. And I'm, uh,
not gonna speak directly to your plan or the approval or disapproval of it. There's
a few points that, uh, I
can appreciate. Um, the concern for the traffic flow, uh, traffic
living at 2,400 mission road is just off the entrance, um,
on cavell or off on on coltrane, which is the first
entrance down from cavell. And I'm assuming that
the neighborhood walmart will be addressing the four section, the intersection
of the four northeast, south, and west location where the stoplight is. That
will be their mainstay of the traffic flow. I moved here in 2019 from
west virginia prior to that, prior to the, the, the further
development that's out near the cinemas. And then prior
to that traffic light being introduced, that traffic flow was very general
and it was easy. What I have found, living where I live, um, and
I have four kids and I live the second house up in the subdivision on the corner,
um, we now have the, the increased traffic flow
to avoid the mess over near sooner is
we're starting to get cars that cut through our neighborhood. So that was a valid concern.
um, so all I would ask that if this
is gonna be in consideration, if you look at the,
the lead up on both, I guess covell coming west
and north coltrane coming from the south, those
are both two lane roads. And I know from the distance of
that traffic light to the, the very next traffic light we're looking at,
at, you know, two lanes, two thirds of the way. So if
that's gonna be a consideration, I think if we're gonna employ
this opportunity to the, to the landowner and to walmart,
I think the infrastructure that needs to be in place
on both cavell on the north side and the south side of the
traffic light, and then on the west side of the traffic light
to diminish the, the amount of traffic and cut through traffic should be widened. And I think
that should be a consideration by the planning commission, and that should not be
a burden on the citizens or the public tax talk tax dollars.
um, my next point is, um,
one of the things as a resident, I'm not gonna bring up home values. I'm,
none of that is as much of a concern to me is when I walk out my back porch right
now and I'm looking at the, the sky, I can see the stars
and I would like to know what walmart is planning to do. They
say that they're, they're complying with everything on all four corners.
so you have subdivisions that surround this entire area, but what you don't
have is light pollution. And we, we will
incur light pollution directly from the led lights that they'll be
submitting or implanting upon that property.
and my last point that I'd like to make
for consideration is I understand
we we're talking about the drainage and they're gonna incur the cost
for the drainage and storm water. Is that the increased
water flow from the low slope roof that's gonna be installed on that particular
building and across the asphalt that's there. And then
in addition, what will be the mp epa impact with the
water discharge and the oil staining that's happening on those type of lots?
do we have, you know, the infrastructure in place to handle this, the increased
speed for the water flow from that particular location? Because
although this walmart will be sitting 30 feet lower than
everything around it, I don't know when the last time you all played edmond golf
club, but it is completely washed out. And to me, if
we're gonna put the infrastructure to you
and to the city and to the residents of edmond, if you're gonna add infrastructure,
you're gonna need to add it all the way down that course to increase water
flow because you have a subdivision that's being built on the
backside of that, that location. You have two subdivisions that have been added,
um, on covell on the new four lane. Then you have all the
increased water flow from the four lane that's been added, and the speed of water
is everything. Now, the one thing that nature does is it slows down water,
it gives ground and opportunity to absorb water. And
you have a couple of options here. You can dig a really deep
pit for a spillway, which can
produce, you know, um, you can end up
with, you know, significant mosquito infestation, et cetera.
but the end result is that will slow the water flow.
but the, the last concern is the long-term effect of
the maintenance of that water that's gonna be discharged off of that property
and all the assuming properties down below it. See, I sit up above it, but what I do see
is that my neighbor, which sits across from us on north covell,
his entire front yard floods. And if you go down north covell
right now between danforth, I'm sorry, not covell, coltrane, if you go
between, um, danforth and covell on
the left hand side, they just replaced the entire culver that just recently washed
out because the water speed has increased to such a point that
now we have a big backup on, on the, on, on, uh,
on north coltrane below my entrance. And that's gonna happen
further. And the point of the intersection that we're talking about
is the lowest point in that particular area before it hits the golf course
and continues to flow. So that's gonna be a significant, um,
storm water impact. It's gonna be a maintenance and ongoing
cost of infrastructure to the residents here in the city of
edmond. But moreover, uh, to me, ,
um, we're talking about traffic and I appreciate the fact that you
guys are gonna app, you know, um, handle what's happening at the four lane. But
if you're gonna ex, if you're gonna if go that far into it, I
would appreciate if you take a look at the infrastructure of traffic
flow, um, between the lights on danforth
and cavell and then from, um, cavell
all the way up to, I think that's, is that waterloo, that's next or,
you know, northeast, south and west? I mean, I think that all of those things have to be
taken into account and then I would like to see some sort of a,
a limited store hour daylight planning, something that's truly
neighborhood to where, you know, lights can be turned
down or we can minimize the number of lights at night. So that truly you're,
you're matching the infrastructure, which you're using ethos is what I'm assuming,
which is typical, which is nothing more than styrofoam that's coated
with a little masonry product and painted. Okay. So that's not truly a block building.
alright. Um, but lastly, let's wrap it up a little bit. I appreciate
you the, the commission taking this into account and, uh, thank you for your time.
okay. Thank you. Thanks one, those issues, not
any of those. No. Okay. Yes ma'am.
thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks.
hi, I'm christy bradley. I live, um, in sle chase road. I'm
a civil engineer. Um, and um,
I appreciate the history that you provided on the project. I wasn't aware of everything that had
been going on. Um, looking at your site plan, everything that the last man,
uh, mentioned was really helpful. Um, what is your
plan for the flood plan over there? And do we get those answers tonight or
do we get his contact information? I just kind of wanna understand how we
get feedback and responses from the questions that are being asked. No, that's a great, that's
a great question. Uh, we, he will answer the questions as regard to site
plan, uh, the drainage and, uh, road construction
will be in the, uh, plat. And, uh,
I don't, keith will you answer any, uh, drainage,
flood plan, flood floodplain, or any
that I can't answer that. Uh, they will be required to meet everything
in title 23 and which requires that there's no rise in
the flood plain. If they cannot achieve the no rise in the flood plain, then
they would've to go before the stormwater drainage advisory board and the city
council for a variance. And that's why I put the note in the
staff report, because like I said, at the point we have not received,
you're gonna have to repeat everything .
okay. If, if you could address, uh, just, uh, not only their site
plan, but, uh, any, uh, briefly the, the surrounding area as far
as any, uh, maintenance there with the,
uh, with the drainage.
he was talking about the culvert and the other, other parts of cove and, and
coltrane. Yeah. I, yes. Like to respond to that. Okay. Uh,
on the culverts under coltrane, they did not work out. They were actually rusted
out. They were metal pipes. They rusted out due to age, and that's why the city had
to replace the culverts under coltrane. It wasn't because they were washed out, it
was just simply age and they rusted out and or failed.
okay. Uh, sorry. Uh, if you could respond to the, uh, um,
the drainage on the site. Yeah. Um, they'll have to meet
title 23. The, uh, developed flow will have to be less
than or equal to distort flow from the property. So they are doing detention. They do have detention
proposed on the site. We have reviewed that they meet our title 23
requirements with their detention. I'm sorry to interrupt. Where is that shown on the flat,
um, parking lot. It, it's
underground in the parking lot, but am I still not working?
is your parking lot permeable pavement or how you guys do detention on the
ground? Are you doing storm sewer inlets and it's going down below
the detention?
we have a laser point,
correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, you're honor, but it's, the detention is right here under
the parking lot, and I, they do not have
impervious pavement proposed, but it, they do have inlets that'll put the
water into the detention, and so they will, they, the detention
as designed is meeting our title 23 requirements. So their discharge
or developed discharge is less than or equal to the historic discharge.
okay. Uh, going back to the flood plain,
the city of edmond title 23 requires no rise in the floodplain without
a variance. Uh, they have, they're working on it.
I think they may have got it done, but they haven't submitted the flood study for, uh, to
us on this for the drive location. And that's why I
put in the staff report what we put in that, uh, if
they can't get a noris, then they'd have to go before swab and the stormwater
drainage advisory board and council for a variance.
and if they couldn't get the variance, if they can't meet the noris, then they'd
have to look at moving the drive to the north. So that, that's why we put that in there. We'll
be looking at it along with the plating platting process for the
widening of the road. Like I said, they've both submitted the traffic ana
traffic impala analysis, and we're looking at that, at what's going to be required
for their road widening and for the road improvements. Okay.
thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your time. Thank
you, ma'am. Yes, sir. I'll go right after barry.
oh, how about the guy behind you?
anthony tompkins in the windmill estates. And,
uh, I just wanted to reiterate that, uh, they
pretty much covered everything that I wanted to say, but I did have, uh, additional
concern, uh, whether or not there was an environmental study done on this,
the displacement of deer and other animals that may be, um,
affected by these changes. Um, as you know, we have a lot of
that kind of activity out in that part of edmond
up in north central edmond. And, uh, it just, it's
getting worse. I mean, as far as the safety factor, and I know that this gentleman
here was talking about the safety factor, but we've had a lot of cars
that have impacts with these deer late at night.
and, uh, that's just another aspect is that we're chasing them
out of their domain and taking it as our own. Thank you.
okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Go ahead, barry. Yes.
yes. That's your name. Thank you. Good evening.
thanks for your time. I'll be brief. Um, my name's barry black. I'm
the ashford oaks homeowners association president representing 218 houses.
was asked by the board to speak tonight, so maybe we didn't have 218
homeowners in line. Um, we appreciate that. As david said, this
has been litigated since 1990. Uh, it's the same 44,000 square
foot grocery store, um, that the
pud that governs this site is, is now 35 years old. Uh,
edmond has changed cove and coltrane has changed. Uh, the city itself
has changed, uh, since 1990 when it was approved. Uh, the city retains
the right to determine how traffic is gonna flow across the city,
and that's what I wanted to touch on. Uh, there's been no community connection meeting.
uh, there's not one required, but there are a lot of things the city doesn't know and
the residents don't know. Uh, ash oaks abuts the sensitive
border to the west, the the entire thing to, to the west.
is this gonna be open 24 hours? We don't know. Are there
outside speakers? There is prohibited in the pud, but they were in the last plan.
uh, will there be drone deliveries as was discussed last time? Will they be flying
over this home surrounding, we don't know. Will this be an online
fulfillment center, which increases traffic count beyond that of a regular,
uh, walmart, uh, neighborhood market? How many semi trucks
will be turning into and out of the site every day? What will those trucks
do to traffic at this failing intersection? The last, uh, level of service
for the traffic study for that intersection was f failing
during november, 2014. Uh, I've been to most every one of these meetings
since 1990, as have many of the people in this room. Uh,
the then city engineer said there simply isn't enough room at this intersection
to have sufficient turn bays acceleration deceleration, and the ability to
accommodate edmond's future traffic. He said the
intersection is most challenging because of the floodplain, the utility requirements, and
its narrow width. This intersection is unique to any across
cove. Page six of edmond's traffic control management policy
adopts the principles of the institute of transportation engineers. It's
specifically addresses land use. It says, I'll quote planners
who have usually focused on land use will find the need to pay closer attention to the
impacts of traffic for their work. That's the case here.
the coroner is zoned for a grocery store, but the city
has to, uh, account for the impact the traffic will have.
uh, the city's master transportation plan is already being implemented across
edmond cobell is unique. It's been designated as a major arterial.
the city spent $281,000 in 2007
to develop this master transportation plan. It was designed to be 25
years. Looking forward for a long-term vision, there's
a table found on 2.9 dash 2.2 that specifically
addresses traffic on cove for this one mile strip
bryant the coltrane. In 2007, it revealed traffic annual
increase for that one mile was 16.9%. Those
figures were updated by the city in 2015 in its intersection. Traffic report
found on the website, it determined traffic counts on cove and coltrane
junks 24% from two, uh, 2009 to
2015. That was a decade ago. Traffic's only gotten worse
just 12 months ago. In june of 2024, the city
engineer stated in the public go bond project proposal that traffic through this
intersection had increased by 100% from 2014
to 2022 with a traffic count of 24,400
cars traveling through the intersection daily. Those are the city's on figures.
what will this proposed plan do to the intersection? We don't know? How can we approve
their plan before we know what it's gonna do to this unique and critical intersection?
we learned in the past litigation that things were promised that were never
provided, never came to fruition. So I believe the city and the residents
of edmond need to know what this plan will do before it's
approved. Uh, in 2015, this, uh, city's strategic plan set
a benchmark, and the benchmark was to pursue engineering of long
range transportation improvements that supports the master transportation
plan's goal for long-term transportation improvement. But this project
creates immediate and long-term traffic problems that can't be undone once it's
approved. The city's already spent tens of millions of dollars to
strategically improve traffic flow across edmond by designing, uh, designating cove
as a major arterial. The master transportation plan
defines what a major arterial is. It's is a four-lane through
road with raised medians to prevent left hand turns.
that's the object. Um, christie, can we do image one please?
so the city's plan is not aspirational. It's already been implemented from
I 35 to fairfax estates to the east. This is covell, and
sooner it's just one mile east of the intersection, you see four lanes
for through traffic and an unbroken median to prevent turning vehicles.
the city's master transportation plan is being successfully implemented at the new multi-use
cove crossing development. It has a four lane through lane
with raised medians, but there's a traffic light to manage traffic
ingress and egress from that multi-use facility. Their entryway
is four lanes, not the single lane each way that walmart is proposing
on cove. Christie, can we see two, please?
so image two is covell and kelly. The master transportation
plan has implemented there, have been implemented there from mitch park to just west of
broadway. That is the plan four through lanes unbroken medians
to prevent left hand turns. Vehicles can move across edmond efficiently.
that's the reason we're developing this to the cost of millions and millions of dollars.
we built a railroad truss over the four lanes of cove, so traffic could
efficiently move from east to west and west to east. This four
lane that's been built from the east and the west is designed to
converge at cove and coltrane. It's been estimated by the city that
the improvements required will cost an excess of $45 million because
of the unique, uh, topography, the narrow width, the flood plain,
that big gas exchange on the southwest, uh, corner.
one oak is here tonight. Uh, so the,
the plan itself is not historic. In june of 24,
uh, 2024, about 12 months ago, the city engineer confirmed in the go
bond proposal that cove is a major transportation
thoroughfare. Speaking specifically of the plan for cowell and coltrane, the city
engineer wrote in that public record, and I'll quote, the project will provide
two through lanes, um, medians, left turn lanes, and
possibly right turn lanes at the signaled intersection. That's cowell and coltrane.
the engineer also said the project limits begin 3,200
feet west of coltrane on covet image.
three, please, christy. The city's plan,
which has already been implemented to, is to begin improvements. 3,200 feet
west of coltrane. That will be nullified if walmart has a private left
turn lane in the middle of the road and a private driveway less than 650 feet
from the intersection. The proposed walmart plan will deny the city its ability
to solve the congestion at coville and coltrane as outlined in the master transportation plan.
their plan takes that limited space that our engineers have discussed
and puts in a left turn lane in the middle of the road that benefits
only walmart, not the citizens' bed. It, it will, uh, be
put in at the expense of the city's plan. Ma'am, can we have number four?
I asked an architect to review the plan. Their plan is here in black. The
architect's notes are in red, the left turn lane that walmarts
wants in, uh, the center of cove. That limited stretch
will accommodate about eight vehicles. You'll see 'em there as little yellow squares.
any other vehicles will be backed up into eastbound traffic at the bottom of
a blind hill. The left turn lane is in direct conflict with the
master transportation plan, which calls for an unbroken median to avoid left
hand turns. Their plan leaves westbound, covell as a one lane through
road. It adds untold number of semis and customer traffic turning
in. How many will that be? We don't know. We don't know. 'cause nobody's
seen the traffic impact. So how can we approve a plan if we don't know what's gonna happen?
their plan has no raised medians, just striping. So vehicles
you'll see in the red arrows can turn left across westbound traffic
to go east on covel and left hand turns are actually encouraged
by this left turn lane, which is prohibited by the master transportation plan.
the plan should be denied because the master transportation plan, which has already been implemented
across cove, a great expense states an unbroken median is
absolutely necessary to keep through traffic moving and prevent left turns.
there are no private curb cuts for other businesses along the cove improvement.
you, you can't turn into uptown grocery, you can't turn into the us post office without
a feeder road. The master transportation plan had the foresight to address
new construction, which is what we're discussing here. Section 5.2 states
that eliminating curb cuts for this driveway cost the city nothing
while allowing a four-lane road to function like a six lane road disallowing. This
driveway will increase road capacity by 50%, but cost the citizens of
edmond nothing. Ingress and egress should promote efficient, uh, vehicular
circulation. And their plan does not do that. The proposed entrance
on cove should be rejected as well as the left-hand turn lane. That section 5.2
goes on to state that denying commercial drive driveways along cove is
extremely important in order to manage traffic congestion
and promote traffic flow. It states that quote, congestion will
be reduced to a greater extent by access management than by widening
the road. We don't have to make the road wider if we limit that
access. Last image is, uh, image number five.
I live close enough to that intersection to hear the sirens from fire station five.
okay. Can I interrupt you just a little bit, barry? Uh, I, I appreciate
all the comments about traffic, but that's not what we're talking about. The, that's
the site plan and, uh, I know that, uh, the,
the drainage and the, and the road construction, all that is, is
surrounding the site plan, but it has nothing to do with the site plan. So if you could
make sure that your comments are pointed to the site plan sure. In that regard. Sure.
the ingress and egress, as mr. Chapman mentioned, is part
of the site plan at 650 feet from a two lane road,
uh, that the city, uh, intends to widen. Uh, and I believe regardless
of what happened in 1990 for an individual pud, the city retains
its right to develop the infrastructure that, uh, would be impeded
by this construction. Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
yes, sir. Go ahead.
matt farley 27 0 8 ashbrook place. I believe there's
a photo in there from my house that directly looks into the
property. Farley bedroom. There we go. Uh, that's my house. That's
where I live. Uh, that is the second story, uh, view from my
5-year-old son's bedroom. It looks directly onto the proposed site.
um, I'm glad that our friend brought up property rights because
I think that that comes very relevant based on the location of my house as
well as my neighbors. Um, so I'll skip a lot of what's
already been discussed today and just talk about some of the property, right, uh,
rules that I think are in place to help property owners like myself. Um,
specifically there are several municipal codes that I feel like would be violated, uh, if this
pre-proposal were to move forward. Uh, certainly the tree preservation
requirements. Uh, municipal code 23.2 explicitly states that all
developments shall be designed to minimize the removal of existing trees in the city. Council's
strategic plan from 2014, which I also believe should be
taken as precedent over the 1990 pod, uh, because
of its relevancy, uh, reinforces the city's intent to preserve, uh,
existing trees. I'll also reiterate, and I know that this was discussed maybe as not
as much of a point, but the architectural consistency requirement, um,
I do feel like that was brushed off a little bit. We do have some examples though, of what that could look
like. Uh, there is a commercial structure, the one nearest to us at the fairfax
business park. Uh, there are some ideas of what architectural similarity
and consistency actually looks like. We don't have to speculate, um,
as some people here have today. Uh, this, the nearest commercial
structure at the fairfax business park to half mile east, where all buildings feature brick
and stone construction with pitched roofs. It is architecturally consistent with
its neighbors. Um, again, you're looking at my house. Uh, that's the second story.
there are also rules that protect flat roof visibility, and I
do believe that this would, uh, constitute a violation. Uh, title 22,
page 110. Section g one, uh, is very clear. Flat roofs
shall not be visible from adjacent properties. That's my
house. Um, from my two story home, I will have a direct view of the structure's, flat roof
clear violation municipal code. Furthermore, title 22, page 92 states that
buildings designed shall consider perspective from higher areas.
any new construction adjacent to preexisting roof, uh,
structures shall make use of all architectural treatments of all sides to achieve
compatibility with the surrounding area. This proposal fails both requirements.
uh, finally, uh, we did mention light a little bit earlier. Again, I'm gonna take it from the perspective
of my five-year-old's room. Uh, lighting regulations are specifically intended
to protect property values. Again, I love that we got to start
this with property rights because there are a lot of rules in edmond
that help protect homes like myself. Uh, the general welfare by controlling
glare and spill spillover light. Section 22.12
a prohibits lights, which substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment
of the property. As a homeowner whose property directs faculty to the site,
any commercial lighting, and I think you guys have probably been pretty familiar with
driving through a walmart parking lot for safety reasons, those things are
lit up. Uh, the proposal provides no lighting plan that conforms to
these protective mandates. Protective meaning my house. Uh,
it is your authority, uh, to impose additional protections. Uh, admin
title 22 gives you explicit authority that directs relevant that
is directly relevant here. Page one 10, section eight empowers you
to impose supplemental additional conditions beyond whatever the pod may
require at sensitive borders. I think that's a very
sensitive border, um, to minimize adverse impacts to residential
property. Uh, I obviously am giving you a really great example from my
home. Item 12 allows you to require preservation and natural
features, adjacents to residential uses, including tree preservation.
uh, where there are substantial groups of trees, it's a lot more than just like a beautiful
view, which obviously we enjoy, um, that field. Uh, in the
middle of that, it represents a pretty big part of our community and our neighborhood as well.
that is the walking trail that goes around our neighborhood. That is the
field that we are having our son's soccer team in. It is a field
that we see dogs and our, you know, our, our neighborhood, um, utilizes
quite well. So it's not just my individual property, but the actual asset that's owned
by ashford oaks as well. It's gonna be interfered with. Um, so
I'll get back to my point and wrap up. Uh, commissioners. I want you to understand that
approval of this proposal, what it means for my family from my back door. Instead of
seeing trees in open space, we'll see a massive flat roofed commercial building instead
of a peaceful residential, uh, and residential quiet, your truck deliveries,
consumer traffic and consumer operations, instead
of a dark night suitable for my family of commercial lights streaming into my
home, a six foot fence and a row of saplings proposed as
the screening is completely inadequate for the two story home that I own. This
represents a fundamental failure to protect existing residential property as required by the current
municipal code. So I urge you to deny this
proposal and require any future development to fully comply
with current edmond municipal standards. My family, my
neighbors, would deserve protection from with these codes. As a homeowner who's
most, probably most directly impacted by this proposal, uh,
I'm asking to uphold the standards that edmund has established to protect
residential property rights. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. My compliments
to your five-year-old photography skills. . Alright.
yes, ma'am. Yes. Sorry.
thank you. Um, my name's lydia lee. I live on walnut cove here
in edmond. Um, one of the
issues that has been presented to you tonight is that, um,
this development is compatible with the surrounding area.
that was the statement that the developer, um, his representative
made. But I want to refer you back to the phrase
that mr. Cher referred to in the pud
design statement, which is what governs this site plan.
and it says, the concept is to develop this tract
in a manner and architectural style that
will be consistent with the surrounding area,
not compatible consistent. That is
defined as acting or done in the
same way. There are no ugly
gray boxes in the surrounding area. This
is absolutely not compatible with the
surrounding area. That issue in and of itself
gives this planning commission the grounds to deny
this because it's their pud. They created
the design statement and they used the word consistent
with, and they used the, the term architectural
style. That issue gives you the grounds
to deny this. The developer's representative wanted
to tell you that your job here tonight is just to rubber
stamp this. And I'm telling you that your job here tonight
is to protect the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding
property owners because this is absolutely not consistent,
and we ask you to deny this. Okay, thanks. Yes, sir.
uh, uh, my name is chris coty, 2 9 0 1 as brick
place live in the neighborhood adjacent to the subject property. I'm gonna just quickly
add in addition to what everyone has cited, it was also said this evening, can we
pull up a, the picture of the walmart, the front elevation,
in addition to the comment, uh, in which it was correctly highlighted. And the difference between what
was said tonight is compatible with actually the pud says to be consistent.
a comment was also made, um, by the, uh, individuals
that there's nothing stopping someone from painting their
house that color. Um, there is,
um, there is, and in our neighborhood, I am bound by the
covenants of the pud and the hoa. If I did such a thing, I would be
in violation of the architectural, um, requirements
of our neighborhood. I would be asked kindly to repaint my home,
and if I didn't, I would then be sued. There
are many restrictions in our neighborhood that
govern the, uh, uh, compatibility of
the area. But, but again, more importantly, the consistency. So
I want to be clear to, to, um, the commission that, uh, that,
uh, as presented, um, a reasonable
person, I believe would not deem this as consistent with
the area. And I respectfully ask for your, uh, no vote for the
subject proposal. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Yes, ma'am. Right,
right behind. Yes.
my name is mary ann sontag and I live at 28 17 spyglass
hill road in fairfax subdivision.
there's been a lot of information about that. This property was
zoned for grocery in 1990.
that was 35 years ago. Since then,
we have not a food desert, but a food
plethora. Walmart neighborhood market. Second
avenue. It's second street, walmart, supercenter
on I 35, crest fresh market,
uptown grocery target, which has food,
homeland, brahms market. Excuse me. Miss, uh,
talking about the site plan. Not, I know I'm not the business plan. I'm talking about
the zoning for grocery. I'm talking about zoning for grocery.
okay. In 1990, yes,
laws can be changed. We have nine grocery stores.
we also have whole foods coming,
large stores in already commercial areas.
I suggest that the planning commission may be checked on
the zoning and why that should not continue to be called a grocery
place. One other reason is that
property is part of the cross timbers ecosystem,
which is a hundred year old ecosystem.
as someone mentioned, there are deer, woodpecker, rabbits in that one
last place on that corner. It's also
a potential remnant forest that's existed
since 1871. Let's keep that corner
across timber's ecosystem. I ask you to stop this
procedure with this walmart.
yes, ma'am.
good evening, members of the planning commission. My name is
lou jean jones. I live at 2217 mission road.
this has been an interesting evening
and I've really struggled with how to, to start this.
it's gonna be two, two terms that I would like to use tonight.
one is cross timbers and a lot of people.
yes, I am a member of the urban forestry commission, but I'm not
speaking for on behalf of the urban forestry commission.
this presentation is my own. We're gonna talk about the
cross timbers, cross timbers stretch from southeast
kansas to central texas. It's 890,000
acres of old growth forests containing trees that date from
200 to 400 years old. And one of those
is an oak tree here in edmond that has been verified and dated
and corded as being over 200 years old. Edmond is
in the center of the cross timbers forest. The other term
is remnant forest as an ancient ecological community
containing native flora that has not been ever significantly
disturbed on the landscaped
architect's evaluation. Page nine and 10, dated three five.
he states that the site is a blending of riparian tree canopy
and cross timber, forest. Continuing
quotes. The west side is composed mostly of crops. Timber
oaks in the original pdu
approval was granted for an area of separations that was attended to separate
the commercial and the residential. It is a
sensitive border and the current plant removes
the existing tree canopy of mostly cross timbers
trees remove as much as 60% of street pollution and 20
to 60% of storm water pollutants. According
to the recent drg inventory of city trees 2024.
both of these are gonna be in much greater,
much greater levels from the runoff of the pace surfaces
and from the cars entering. And yes,
the landscape as proposed from the research, extensive
research I have done, it is going to be years, if not
decades before these newly planted trees and
landscape pans will have the effect that those cross timbers do. Now,
edmond title 22 addresses this and gives the city unique authority to
preserve our natural resources. These are more than natural
resources. These are in fact true ecological treasures.
the, uh, cross timbers, your skypes,
the cross timbers have actually their own epa
designation. That is how unique this area
is. Page one 10 of section 8 22 gives
the city the ability to impose supplemental additional conditions
beyond what an original pud submission might
be regarding sensitive borders, both the 2019
guide and 2023 forest composition and ecosystem
analysis show that remnant forest remains in this area.
and please be mindful of the fact that this is an ancient
forest section 2260 1d four
for sites with existing tree canopy of over 20% or greater
containing any amount of potential remnant forest,
a tree resource evaluation shall be performed. It
has been, and we are referencing it prior, we have already
established that in 2005, the leadership
of the city set forth the idea
of urban forestry. They also set forth the idea
of realizing the value that we have in this community and the uniqueness
that we have of the remnant forest as
well as the cross timbers if they are both highly valuable to
our environment and as living history. We seem to
be looking past the fact based on recent data that 14
out of 25 of the most expensive neighborhoods in
oklahoma are in edmond. We have half of them
over half. And two of the adjacent heavily
tree neighborhoods to this development are numbers 20
and 23. Why are we
ignoring the standards that set us apart?
edmond is unique in so many ways and
part of that reason is standards. Whether it's the
standards for raising a child, whether it's the standards
that you want your dog to behave, whether it's the standards
on how you want your dishwasher loaded, there
are standards and edmond has
these and they have been in place for a very long time
due to very wise leadership. Municipal
code 23 2 states that the development shall be designed to
minimize the removal of existing trees. And yes,
the current commercial code does not require tree
preservation, but it is recognized as highly preferred
by doubling the amounts of credits given.
so where are we now? Ms. Mr. Box
or the representative assures us that this is already
decided. I believe strongly in history
and I think the history decides it's not.
new codes are being developed in 2027, and this would be
the ideal time for the city with citizen input to
develop new codes for treasure tree preservation on commercial
properties. This would demonstrate an even greater awareness
of the benefit of the trees that we enjoy in this environment
and our very long held commitment to it.
as for now, I would respectfully
request deeply feel
that this developer in good faith not destroy
this unique feature of our community, but rather
embrace it and let this development, if
approved, help set a higher edmond standard
retrieve preservation to lead us into 2027.
thank you so much. Thank you.
please do not clap. Thank you.
thank you very much. I'll be brief. My name's allen vanhorn. I live in the fair cloud neighborhood,
uh, 26 42 pawnee crossing. Um, and really
my main concern here, I've got several, but I'll only pick just this one and that's
cut through traffic. Um, providing sufficient capacity for
existing and future traffic is a crucial responsibility of the city, the master transportation
plan and other city studies draw a direct correlation between left hand turns
and accidents and confirm that slowing turning vehicles cause
accidents and create congestion, um, trucks turn into that
location will definitely create a congestion. The city's plan for section 5.3
specifies that the city's responsibility to preserve the safety of
residential streets by discouraging cut through traffic in neighborhoods.
plan four states, the city must provide reasonable capacity
to prevent cut through trips in neighborhoods. I can tell you I live on
the street where they come right by. Yeah, the cut through traffic is absolutely ridiculous
right now. It would only get a lot worse with a walmart
there with the way their, their road construction is
going to gonna fit. They're gonna allow left hand turns there without
the median. There should be no left hand turn there. Stick with the, uh, the master transportation
plan. Don't allow this cut through traffic to continue to be a problem. Really
nothing needs to be built there until the city invests what
they need to invest to improve that intersection. It's long been
a problem and allowing anything to go in there right now is a big mistake.
thank you. Alright, thanks.
anybody else? Yes, ma'am.
hi, my name is latasha grino and I live at 30 17 ashford oaks boulevard.
and although a lot of my hoa members are here, I apologize. I'm not very
active in the hoa. So, um, I just came here on behalf, um,
just to kind of, I've heard a lot and learned a lot. Um, and I'll be brief
a lot of what has already been said I planned on talking about, but I did wanna
just, um, raise this site. Plan
will impede upon my exercise area. As the gentleman earlier,
um, showed our green belt. I take my child, we walk. That's one of the only areas,
um, that there is no traffic. We're able to look at animals,
um, bugs, plant life, things like that.
this site plan is going to impede upon that and then also
eliminate any additional future ability for us to have bike
paths, sidewalks, um, on the outskirts. And it's going to bring
in a lot more congestion. Um, the one thing
that, and despite the gentleman's argument that things that were
true in the nineties, they do not hold true now here in the twenties.
um, and maybe the city, maybe the city has
no power, um, to determine that. But I would ask that you reconsider
if there, if you have it in your ability to do so. It's a disservice to
oklahoma's owned businesses like brahms and crest. Um, and
right near crest, we see buildings that have been
designed in a much more organic way in keeping with the local
community. Um, the plan presented ear earlier
is not outside the box. It's right within the big box. Um,
and, and brings a, a big box store in a mini size version right into our
backyards. Um, one thing that wasn't also mentioned earlier that
I think again, it was argued that health,
safety and wellbeing aren't going to be impacted. However, the commuter
workforce that will be presented because of this, um, needs
to be a factor in because our local, um,
community are not going to be the workforce employed at this area. And
so this site will bring in, um, it'll act exacerbate
all of the traffic issues, but also air pollution. Um, I know he
talked about adding trees very well illustrated.
we do not need more trees. We have existing trees. Um, and
regardless of what legislation, um, says about
our h or what was ordered with the health, safety and wellbeing,
um, I'm not sure that this, these aspects were taken into account,
um, in that argument. Um, lastly I'll just reiterate the
impact on the ecosystem. The semis, snowplows builders
are just going to increase risk to health. Um, and, and our
welfare based on the air, air pollution. Um,
the city already mentioned funding issues with traffic in this area. Local
business earnings and revenue for local businesses
will fix that issue, not funding big corporate
businesses. Um, and lastly, there are other
ways to bring in revenue. Um, and if it's zoned for a grocery store, there
are many specialized grocers that we potentially could welcome
that involve compatible, uh, architecture that's
more organic and eco-friendly. And edmond is a very
beau, it's a beautiful city, right? That's what we value. And so I would just ask that
this site plan, take that into consideration or the city, um,
really analyze what they're willing to do in thinking outside of the box to
meet those aspects. Okay. Thank, thank you.
uh, let's have a couple more, I think. Uh, yes sir.
go ahead. Yes,
sir. My name is todd ing. I live reside at 1 0 4 hanover
drive in edmond. Um, I
appreciated your comment that said you'd gotten 70 emails on this.
I think that shows a a great deal of interest and I appreciate the fact that you
said that all of 'em were, uh, positive or at least, uh, they were civil,
polite, polite. Let's say that , um,
I'm one of the, one of the 70 people that, uh, sent you eight pages last night. Yeah. Todd
oi think it was. Yeah. . Um,
I'd like to, there's been a lot of things talked about here. There's
been a lot of investment made by the owner of this property to, to do what
is appropriate for them. But I I would like to really point out two things. One is,
um, I mentioned this in my cover letter to you, and
that is that, uh, I really appreciate the
fact that you folks dedicate your time to look out for the
citizens of edmond. I mean, we, this place wouldn't operate without people like yourselves
willing to dedicate your time to this. And I, I often
think of planning commissions as, as, uh, people who
are following through on what winston churchill
said. First, we shape our buildings thereafter they shape
us. You, you folks are in the, in the charge with the responsibility
of shaping the future of edmond. And I recognize that this
is a very difficult issue that we're talking about tonight. But
I would like to just say two things here is that this is from
the edmond website that talks about what the purpose is of this commission
here. It says, to reduce fire hazards and approve,
improve public safety and safeguard the public health
and to facilitate the flow of traffic and decrease hazards.
and I, I submit that if we, if you find yourself in a position
of moving this project forward as it's presented to you that
you're negligent with regard to your responsibilities to look after
traffic. I recognize that the site plan deals with what happened on the site,
but we can't look at a, a piece of property in isolation
from what the impact is to, to allow this to move forward. We'll
add millions of dollars if not making almost impossible
to make improvements to that intersection, which is one of the most dangerous intersections
in the city of edmond. So I respectfully request that you,
um, pass this on to the city council, let them make a decision on how
I want to move forward with it. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. All right.
okay. One more. Thank you.
um, my name is parker wilson. I live at 32 0 8 st. Fergus drive here
to express inconsistencies in the claim that commercial cmu block is compatible
with residential brick construction. Um, this claim's not just misleading,
it's factually incorrect. The materials and the buildings they represent, they're governed by
entirely different business codes or building codes and built for different purposes, uh,
function completely different, um, incompatible ways. Walmart
acclaimed cmu structure falls under ibc, um, building code. That's international
building code, uh, specifically group m mercantile. This means, uh,
it must meet strict standards for structural loads, fire safety, egress
and large public occupancy homes in our neighborhood. On the other hand, fall under international
residential code irc. These codes prioritize comfort scale, residential
safety, um, not large scale, uh, fire containment or industrial
loads. Um, you simply can't take a structural, a structure
design for ibc commercial code claim. It's compatible with residential homes
just because they use masonry on the outside. That's not how building codes work.
um, furthermore, cmu is larger, typically eight by eight by 16
inches. Um, and it's designed to be load bearing, reinforced
with rebar grout, um, part of fire rated structural system residential
bricks veneer, smaller decorative non-structural. It's tied to wood
or, uh, light gauge steel framing offers little to no fire, uh,
structural performance. Um, putting these two by side by side and calling
'em compatible ignores the fact that they don't match and scale purpose, strength,
or safety that's making this proposed material incompatible with the
surrounding area. I build commercial buildings for a living and when I heard mr. Box
say that, you know, take cme block and residential brick, they're
compatible just a little silly to me. So thank you. Alright,
thanks. They're both called masonry. Yes,
go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. I'm dan barth
and I live at 26 32 ash hollow, and I won't go
back through all the things that you've heard. I think everyone's done a great job bringing that to your attention.
the one thing I didn't hear very much about, and that's the noise pollution, uh, if
you've ever been around a commercial site with a grocery store and the 18 wheelers coming
in and backing it at night, and the beep beep beep and the banging of the dumpsters
and all the commercial activities that is going on is gonna be a, a real,
uh, terrible experience for the homeowners that are in that
area. So I just hope you add that to it. Uh, we've talked about everything else, the traffic,
the noise and all that stuff, but consider the noise of what a 24 hour,
seven day a week operation will do to that neighborhood and the noise pollution
area. Thank you. Okay, thanks.
yes, ma'am. I did say one more. Did she too many times
speak sheila ?
my name's karen bryce and I live in steeplechase. Um,
I would just like to encourage, if you have not driven during high
traffic time in these areas that we're discussing tonight,
that you do so, and that you may see what
everyone's concerned about. There have been multiple accidents at that intersection.
maybe not hurt people, maybe hurt people, but
you can see the damages and that intersection was fixed
not very long ago. The roads are in terrible condition. The heavy trucks
coming in and out everywhere. Um, and walmart will
have those consistently. It won't end with the building at walmart.
that's all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I think that's, uh, enough to, uh,
give you'll own more. Alright.
members, members of the planning commission, I'll
make this short. Um, I start out by
appreciating the briefing that, uh, uh,
box made. He opened up the door. This is about
safety and I don't know if that's part of the safe site plan, but this is,
he opened up the door on safety when he talked about the legislation
and the attorneys and the court commitment. But this is about safety.
I am 80 years old and I still know my way home, but
I map it to check how to get home.
uh, this, uh, cove and coltrane are already
traffic choke, choke points. Thursday,
I had two incidences. I emailed you all on. This
one was just a backup. The other one was a traffic accident at
the corner. And what you have here northbound, which
is one lane, one lane northbound, one lane southbound
on coltrane. There was an accident there thursday, and
you to make a left hand turn there,
um, it gets to be where it's a matter of patience
'cause traffic southbound. But anyway, the north
decided to make a left hand turn from a southbound car. We had an accident there
thursday. Uh,
the idea of a site plan for walmart today
on a two lane road with a little widening here
in a little widening there does not make a good
plan as a retired tinker employee. I love it when a
plan comes together when a plan doesn't work. We call
that pppi have questions on our
cove improvement plan. What is the status of our colville improvement
plan? What is the impact of this
plan here on our existing plan?
is this going to prevent us from doing anyway? What's
the impact? And we'll site plan approval for walmart on a
two lane road, create, create a traffic
crisis. We're talking about safety here on
a site plan. If so, maybe we can change the title of
a planning commission to crisis management. That's
the concludes of my speech here. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.
alright, david, uh, mr. Box, could you
visit with, uh, some of these, uh, issues, uh,
one being, uh, light pollution store hours,
uh, speakers, um,
made the, uh, the traffic, the, the interior around the site,
uh, and a lot of comments around the, uh, being consistent
with the, uh, surroundings. And also, uh,
I I I'm interested in what, uh, your comment would be on property rights.
on property rights. Yeah. Well, perhaps we start with what
judge andrews said, um, and what judge andrew said
in his journal entry of partial summary judgment, november 3rd, 2016,
is that the decision made by defendants city council to uphold
planning commission denial of the site plan deprived plaintiff
of property rights. So perhaps
let's start with the, the consistent, um,
the architecturally consistent that was specifically addressed
in both the district court and the court civil appeals.
and both of those bodies ruled
that this exact site plan, this exact
building, this exact design, met the
requirements of the pud. The only thing changed in
this verse, that version is the color
of the masonry product. The color
is the only thing changed. What you see before you in this site plan
is exactly what was litigated. And both the district court through judge andrews
and then three different courts of appeals judge, all
ruled that this site plan saved for the color
complies with everything that a property owner has to comply with to develop
this site. In fact, if you look at page 11
of the court civil appeals opinion, uh, all three
of the judges concurred. Of course, one of them, two of them,
somebody could have dissented and had a different opinion. But instead, when you see paragraph
17 affirmed, um, then you see that
gore and joplin both concur.
so the issue of consistency has already been litigated
and the ruling was direct that
this complies with the pud as it relates to property rights.
there was a lot of talk about things are different now than they were in 1990.
the law in oklahoma is absolutely crystal clear. Zoning
runs with the land. We may not like it, but zoning runs with the land.
and this was zoned prior to the neighborhood being developed.
if the neighbors had looked at the pud
when they bought their home, they would've seen that they were buying a piece of property
next to a wide open e two open display commercial
site at a hard corner. What they would've found had
they dug into the code, is that a grocery store exactly as presented
to you here this evening is absolutely authorized.
now as it relates to lighting, your code has lighting requirements
as it relates to development of commercial property. Next to single family residential,
we will meet or exceed all those lighting requirements. There's a sensitive border standard,
which we meet. Um, one of the, the
image of the, the five-year-old's bedroom, I believe was
somewhere over here. So it's worth noting that's why we created this line of sight
study. So, um, a person here, of course, again,
we have this 125 foot buffer, and then you have a row of trees, and then you have
a series of terraces, all of which are landscaped. And then you have sunken down
30 feet below is our building. Given the
fence and the trees, you're not gonna be able to see that structure.
so what more can a proper owner and developer do
other than comply with the rules as prescribed
by a city? There's nothing more they can do
to put additional requirements would be absolutely subjective
and violate every principle of development and every principle
of legal authority that exists for the state of oklahoma. What I will do
is close with two specific quotes from the court
of civil appeals. Again, there's a lot of talk about safety and, and the general welfare. So
within paragraph 15, courts have been less willing to allow local
governments to use public health safety and welfare concern to justify
site plan disapproval. The reason is obvious site plan
review is a ministerial decision that follows from the applicant's
demonstrated compliance with specific standards. The public health safety and welfare
standard is a broad standard that demands an exercise of discretion. For this reasons,
the courts will rule that it is arbitrary and capricious to deny site plan
approval on grounds of public health, safety or welfare.
most courts regard the site plan review step akin to a building permit
if the requirements are met. The decision making body has no discretion to
deny the site plan. We have
presented to you a site plan fully compliant.
your staff buying through their staff report, recommending approval,
confirms that you see site plan applications routinely
that will have variances in them. That variance
request in a site plan application is telling you
that site plan doesn't conform to all of the rules required for
whatever that zoning district is. That's not what you have here. Here you have a recommendation
of approval with not a single variance because we meet all of the
rules. And just as the court of civil appeals has already told, the city of edmond already
told the ashford oaks neighborhood, if that is the answer, then it is
ministerial and it must be approved. We would ask that you follow
the precedent set on this site to the city of edmond
back in 2017. Thank you. Can I ask you one more question? Yes, sir. I'm
sorry. Just, uh, but there was a comment about the, uh,
the landscaping with the, um, uh, the, the
trees, uh, are, are you going to completely, uh, replant trees
over there or leave the existing trees on the, in the 120 foot
buffer? So we'll have to replant, uh, some of the trees on top of that terrace.
okay. Just because that, uh, there's construction work on
that. Yes, sir. And, uh, we have submitted a tree survey that we believe has been approved. So,
um, yeah, we will have to, to plant trees. We will meet or exceed
all landscaping regulations.
okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission?
are we ready for a vote? I, I have a, an additional comment. Okay. Um,
before my current role for my day job, I used to work for a developer here in at
oklahoma. And it's very normal for there to be a dialogue, uh, between
a developer and the community. Um, and to come
back after and to fix requests. I think it's a shame you'd
prefer to litigate than be flexible. Um, I,
I believe, and I see a path forward where this gets approved
and a walmart's on that corner, uh, following the code and where
majority of people can be happy. Um, it, it appears to me you'd prefer
to go to court and fight than work with the community. I think that's a shame.
um, the first thing you stood up there and said was when it
was litigated. I just think that's a shame. Um, that's not the precedent
that most developers and admin have set. Uh,
I think that's just a shame. No additional comment. If
I may, mr. Chair address that. I will say, um, my client did have a sit down
meeting, um, with the hoa president
to discuss whether or not there was a path forward. Um, the indication we
got was, you know, there there's not. So,
I, I don't know that it's fair to say it's a shame there was nothing we could have done well
let back in 2015. We have raised concerns as well that from what I
understand, you don't plan on, uh,
altering the site plan to accommodate either. Is that correct?
so I think you have to appreciate that
significant amount of money had to be spent litigating this last
time and years spent litigating this last time.
and one of the things that we have in america is
precedent. And what the court told us is this is
the rule. Our fear was if we start modifying
the site plan in a manner that perhaps no longer
met the strict interpretation of the code, we find ourselves in a
position of not being under what that opinion said
from the court of civil appeals. And so our goal, and this started, I believe it was
october, we started meeting with staff. And at every meeting we made it
clear, our goal is what do we have to do to meet your rules?
um, and so it was only after we got to a point where we met
all the rules that we formally submitted and, and found ourselves here.
mm-hmm . But I I don't think it's shameful that a developer
spent three years and significant money litigating
to find out that in fact they were correct and they were right. And it should have been approved to
then come back and meet what the court told us. The rules
are. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, excuse
me. He mentioned to me, uh, mr. Tapp called me personally.
I did meet with him personally and I made it very clear my meeting
was just for me personally. I was not representing the hoa and what
I told him was, my house does abut to this sensitive border.
and if this were approved, uh, ma'am, can we show that, uh,
uh, fair farley fence image that's on the thumb
drive, christine?
I think we're aware. Uh, there we go. The, that one. Yeah. So
this is the wooden fence behind the second street, walmart. I said, this
is what we're gonna be looking at. Me personally, the hoa
had nothing to do with our meeting. And what mr. Tap told me in that meeting was, if I could
make the fight go away, he would take care of me personally. I didn't care
for that. So I think it is a shame when we go to litigation. Thank you.
thank you. Alright. Uh, do
I hear a motion to bring this to a vote? Motion to approve.
second.
all right. This, uh, this motion, uh, fails and so there was no,
uh, movement to counsel. So this ends here today.
and, um, I would assume we'll probably see this again.
so, um, thank you.
no, no, no, no, no. All right. Let's move on to, uh,
I don't realize this. We can wait.
okay.
all right.
uh, please. We, we still have more meeting. We have more meetings to go, please.
thank you. All right. We need to finish the meeting.
so if you could, uh, make your way out, I would appreciate it.
all right. Uh, looking at number item number four.
the items listed under discussion and consideration are usually
discussed and considered
individually by members of the planning commission.
and, uh, there were no items that were pulled from that.
so any new business or, uh,
citizen comments? No citizen comments. Anyone would like to make a comment?
uh, no. No one signed. Alright.
so do I hear a, uh, a motion to adjourn? I
would make, I would make a motion to aurn. Second. I'll second as well. Thank
you. We vote. Meeting is adjourned. Thank
you.