►
From YouTube: Planning Commission - April 9, 2020
Description
The regular meeting of the Oklahoma City Planning Commission for April 9, 2020.
A
It's
important,
however,
that
the
work
of
the
Planning
Commission
continue
as
best
it
can
within
the
strictures
of
our
new
reality
and
the
requirements
of
the
open
meeting
act
as
it
has
been
interpreted
to
meet
the
challenges
of
the
situation
in
keeping
with
those
parameters
were
embarking
on
a
new
adventure
teleconferencing.
Thank
you
in
advance
for
your
participation
and
your
patience.
A
This
change
in
format
will
require.
We
do
a
few
things
differently
as
we
go
forward.
Here
are
few
things
you
should
know
if
the
teleconference
is
disconnected
at
any
time
during
meetings,
meeting
a
stop
and
it
will
reconvene
once
the
audio
connection
is
restored.
If,
for
any
reason,
communications
cannot
be
restored
within
30
minutes.
Those
items
which
have
not
been
heard
will
be
continued
to
the
next
regularly
scheduled
Planning
Commission
meeting
on
April
23rd
2020
at
1:30
p.m.
A
which
will
also
be
conducted
by
teleconference.
If
an
individual
participant
is
disconnected
from
the
teleconference,
please
try
to
call
and
again
before
calling
staff
at
2
9
7,
2,
2,
8
9.
The
agenda
and
documents
are
located
on
OKC
gov
staff
will
present
each
item
heard
summarizing
the
application
and
identifying
any
points
remaining
Leigh
resolved.
A
Anyone
who
wishes
to
speak
about
an
agenda
item
or
to
speak
under
citizens
to
be
heard
if
you've
previously
notified
staff
by
phone
or
mail
I'll
call
on
you
to
speak
at
the
appropriate
time.
If
not,
I'll
also
call
for
public
comment
on
each
agenda
item.
Anyone
who
calls
in
after
their
item
has
been
heard
will
be
allowed
to
speak
many
citizens
to
be
heard
when
called
upon
to
speak.
Participants
should
state
their
name
and
address
for
the
record.
A
All
comments
should
be
directed
to
the
Commission's
because
of
the
extraordinary
circumstances
and
the
challenges
of
this
format
will
hold
time
limit.
Some
speakers
comments,
as
participants
call
in
staff
will
mute.
The
participants
phone:
please
keep
your
phone
on
mute
until
you're
recognized
to
speak.
That
applies
to
all
participants
except
the
Commission
members
who
are
allowed
and
the
staff
we're
allowed
to
ask
questions
or
comment
at
any
time
during
the
meeting.
Please
remember
that
only
one
person
can
be
heard
at
a
time
if
more
than
one
person
speaks,
neither
one
can
be
heard.
A
D
F
B
I
A
I
A
J
B
G
A
J
18
been
called
out
for
separate
vote
item,
19
consideration
of
a
resolution
changing
the
name
of
American
Indian
Boulevard,
extending
from
south
of
I-40
to
the
Burlington,
North
railroad
tracks
to
first
Americans,
Boulevard
and
finally,
20
in
the
consent.
Docket
is
a
resolution
adopting
preserve
OKC,
the
citywide
historic
preservation
plan
as
an
amendment
to
the
city's
comprehensive
plan
and
just
to
brief
explanation
there.
This
item
is
one
the
Commission
it's
familiar
with.
As
we'd
hat
we've
had
some
study
sessions
on
it
and
some
presentations.
G
H
E
I
A
I
G
H
L
I
F
M
J
L
Okay,
for
this
proposed
subdivision
is
PUD
1737,
which
was
approved
in
2019.
The
Commission
also
recently
approved
an
amendment,
the
comprehensive
plan
for
this
area,
removing
the
employment
reserve
layer
and
designating
the
area
urban
low
intensity.
The
plat
proposes
138
dwellings
with
duplex
and
triplex
development
on
eleven
point:
five,
one
acres
that
finds
the
preliminary
plat
consistent
with
the
PD
and
recommends
approval
subject
to
state
technical
valuations.
L
G
This
is
this:
is
Commissioner
Cravens
systems
in
my
ward
off
to
take
the
lead
on
this
I've
reviewed
it.
As
indicated
this
preliminary
plat
conforms
with
the
subdivision
regulations.
It
also
conforms
with
the
underlying
zoning.
I.
Don't
have
any
objections
or
concerns
if
there's
no
further
discussion
on
the
item,
I'll
make
a
motion
I'll
reserve
a
moment
to
see,
if
that's
the
case,
but.
G
K
A
E
N
C
L
Family
residence,
three
common
areas
on
26.8,
six
acres
for
a
gross
residential
density
of
two
point:
three
one
dwelling
units
per
acre,
the
preliminary
plat
for
a
ballet
additional
was
approved
on
November
14th
of
2019
staff
has
recommended
approval
subject
for
taste
for
evaluation.
The
applicant
agrees
to
the
C
and
we'll
be
installing
an
emergency
access.
Drive
satisfies
our
departments
requirement,
as
requested
in
p3.
No
variance
is
required
for
TE
three
Chris
Anderson
at
SMC.
Is
the
engineer
and
should
be
on
the
line
to
answer
questions
if
needed.
A
E
A
G
I
A
G
This
is,
this
is
Commissioner
Cravens
there
were
two
protests
weather
is
submitted
in
our
packet.
Neither
of
those
protests
outlined
a
reason
for
their
protest,
just
that
they
were
in
protest
if
other
either
of
those
people
are
present
on.
Today's
call
I'd
certainly
like
to
hear
from
them,
if
not
I'm,
prepared
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
item
as
written.
D
A
F
J
O
G
A
B
E
A
D
J
O
Office
but
has
been
used
for
an
event
center.
The
applicant
came
into
zone
and
offsite
parking
street
additional
parking.
It
was
discovered
that
the
event
center
it
was
not
properly
zoned.
So
what
this
application
does
is
bring
the
event
center
in
disowning
compliance
and
provide
for
an
overflow
offsite
parking
lot
across
Lindsey
Avenue,
there's
one
to
e
that
request,
sidewalks
along
Hill
and
Lindsey
Street,
and
the
applicant
agrees
to
that
de.
A
B
O
This
is
an
application
to
add
agricultural
processing
to
an
existing
retail,
commercial
and
auto
sales
use
these
five
mirrors
all
the
regulations
and
uses
of
the
existing
spud.
But
for
that
one
addition
there's
one
teehee
to
limit
access
to
one
drive
on
Western.
The
applicant
agrees
with
that
technical
evaluation.
A
Make
sure
this
is
in
my
ward
and
I
have
been
in
education
with
the
applicant.
It's
a
little
bit
of
an
odd
thing
about
this,
because
the
property
owner
operates
a
internet
car
sales
business
from
an
office
on
this
property.
The
rest
of
the
office
is
dedicated
to
these
other
uses,
which
I
have
no
problem
with
it
all,
but
I
am
concerned
was
concerned
continue
to
be
concerned
about
the
idea
of
there
being
zoning
in
place
that
would
permit
this
site
to
become
what
we
think
of
as
a
traditional
car
lot.
A
As
you
know,
we
tend
to
cluster
those.
This
is
not
an
appropriate
location
for
that
kind
of
clustering,
and
so
we've
gone
back
and
forth
with
the
applicant
to
discuss
how
we
can
limit
the
language
to
make
sure
that
the
business
he
operates,
which,
as
I
say,
is
an
internet
sales.
Business
can
continue
to
operate.
He's
got
to
have
the
zoning
that
reflects
that
or
the
car
sales
in
order
to
get.
B
A
I
A
The
automotive
dealerships
and
malls
is
limited
to
internet
sales.
Only
I
don't
sell
autos
will
not
be
displayed
for
sale
on
the
property.
No
more
than
15
autos
may
be
stored
at
one
time
and
they
will
be
stored
in
the
far
west
and
the
property
in
the
area
that's
depicted
and
designated
on
the
side
plans.
The
applicant
is
indicated
and
she's
been
conversing
them
back
and
forth
with
the
property
owner.
A
They
are
okay
with
those
designations
that
lines
up
with
what
they
want
to
do,
the
property
it's
not
as
bulletproof
as
I
would
like
it
to
be,
but
I
think
it's
enough
to
keep
this
from
becoming
like
the
first
of
many.
As
you
may
know,
Britain
the
old
town
of
written
is
improving
and
there
some
exciting
things
going
on
up
there.
I'm
hoping
that'll
trickle
down
Western
I.
Don't
want
to
see
this
particular
piece
of
property,
become.
You
know
a
drag
on
that.
A
In
addition,
we're
gonna
limp,
eliminate
again
by
agreement
with
the
applicant
and
the
property
owner,
we're
going
to
eliminate
fast
food
and
the
laundry
so
with
those
changes
which,
as
I
said,
have
been
agreed.
I
would
I'm
okay
with
this
application.
I
think
this
will
be
a
fine
use
of
this
property
so
and
I'll
ask
if
there's
anybody
else
present
who
wishes
to
be
heard
or
if
anybody
else
has
any
questions
or
comments
they
want
to
make.
G
The
Craven,
this
is
your
award
and
you
were
not
able
to
make
a
motion.
I
wanted
to
firm
that
I
understood
your
change
is
from
the
youth
units
presenting
on
the
application.
You're
gonna
you,
the
applicant,
and
you
discussed,
write
in
eighty
three
hundred
point
three
five
and
eighty
three
hundred
point:
four,
eight!
Yes,
in
addition,
it
appears
eighty
three
hundred
point,
one
eight
limited
as
you
described-
has
been
memorialized
in
the
application,
so
there
would
be
no
change
except
what's
presented
on
our
application
of
that
correct
I.
A
I,
don't
know
whether
that
change
have
actually
been.
You
know
memorialized,
yet
it's
the
language
that
shows
in
the
staff
report
is
essentially
what
we
have
agreed
to
I
refined
just
a
little
bit
even
just
this
morning,
but
it's
essentially
what
it
says
there.
So
no,
no
real
change.
It's
just
really.
A
question
of
emphasis.
I
want
to
be
very
sure,
not
worry
about
these
applicants
and
property
owners.
A
G
Understood
I
think
just
the
clarity
and
teleconference
the
application
were
presented
with,
for
which
I'm
prepared
to
make
a
motion.
If
there
is
no
discussion,
stipulates
that
no
more
than
fifteen
autos
on-site
for
sale
at
any
time.
Internet
sales
only
is
what's
permitted.
Auto
shall
not
be
displayed
for
sale
on
the
property
and
others
for
sure
will
be
located
at
the
far
west
into
the
property
in
an
area
to
take
it
on
the
side
and.
N
A
A
So
I
would
simply
remove
that
language,
the
for
sale
and
say
that
no
more
than
fifteen
autos
will
be
on
site
at
any
time
stored
on-site
at
any
time
and
that
those
autos
that
are
stored
will
be
on
the
far
west
and
to
the
property
in
in
the
area
depicted
inside
plan
and
leave
out
that
double
reference
to
autos
for
sale,
because
I
think
after
saying
that
they
won't
be
displayed
for
sale.
It
just
invites
confusion.
G
G
A
F
A
N
G
G
M
G
None
this
is
Commissioner.
Cravens
I
will
make
a
motion
to
recommend
approval.
The
City
Council
on
SPU
D
1204,
which
is
item
number
27
on
today's
agenda,
striking
the
units
8300
point
three
five
and
8300
point
four:
eight
from
the
application
and
amending
the
language
presented
for
8300
point
one.
Eight
two
strikes
from
the
first
line:
no
more
than
15
autos
on-site,
the
words
force
l
shall
be
struck
at
any
time.
B
B
J
B
This
is
Commissioner
coffee
I've
had
a
couple
of
discussions
with
the
applicant,
although
communications
was
somewhat
difficult.
I
wanted
some
assurance
from
the
applicant
of
his
intended
use
for
this,
but
it
does
appear
that
it
truly
is
a
small
construction
operation.
There
were
several
cars
parked
in
and
around
this
area.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
not
something
along
the
lines
of
automotive
repair.
It
appears
that
it
is
not
so
I,
don't
really
have.
I
A
I
E
B
I
E
O
G
Commissioner
Cravens
I
spoke
with
the
applicant
representative
Kendall
Dillon,
about
this
application,
when
it
was
first
I
expressed
concern
about
the
traffic
and
logistics
at
this
location,
because
counsel
Loeb
does
not
provide
a
so
interchange
on
to
the
Turnpike
and
in
addition,
Memorial
Road
for
those
who
are
not
familiar
is
a
one-way
road
between
up
to
council
west
of
Council
to
county
line.
It
is
a
two
way
road
that
is
only
accessible
via
the
south
side
of
the
turnpike.
So
it's
a
logistical
challenge.
G
My
understanding
from
the
staff
report
is
that,
oddly
enough,
there
are
no
concerns
with
traffic
steer.
I
am
concerned
about
the
traffic
here
for
the
record,
but
can
we
they
reduce
the
dwelling
units
per
acre
from
thirty
four
to
twenty,
which
further
appeased
my
concern.
I
also
visited
with
them
briefly,
and
this
is
a
bit
of
a
change
from
the
positions
that
I've
taken
in
the
past
to
address
their
architectural
regulations.
G
The
facade
regulations
here
provide
for
sixty
percent
brick
veneer,
rock
or
stone,
and
then
no
more
than
40
percent
efis
I
have
been
thinking
about
this
for
some
time
and
have
grown
more
increasingly
convinced
with
homework.
That,
while
efis
is
a
provided
building
material
in
the
code,
it
presents
safety
challenges
and
lack
a
sort
of
caveat
and
poor
inclination
for
buyers,
since
it
is
becoming
increasingly
a
material
that
is
exempted
from
insurance
policies.
They
have
agreed
so
in
other
words,
damage
to
that
portion
of
someone's
property
is
not
coverable
by
a
lot
of
insurance
policies.
G
That
concerns
me
they've
agreed
to
8e
--this
from
the
facade
regulations.
So
with
those
two
changes,
I
am
Griebel
to
the
balance
of
the
application,
is
presented
and
intend
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
it.
But
I
will
await
comments
from
other
commissioners
or
from
members
of
the
public
who
are
on
today's
call.
A
G
G
C
J
O
Okay,
so
this
is
a
33
acre
parcel,
that's
a
larger
residential
development.
The
application
is
in
the
urban
low
density.
You
Luda,
we
recommend
approval
the
two
technical
evaluations.
One
would
be
to
increase
the
lot
size
on
the
West
to
7,500
square
feet
and
two
would
be
to
provide
a
connection
stub
to
the
west.
I
believe
the
applicant
agrees
to
two,
but
they
certainly
do
not
agree
with
increasing
the
lot
size
on
the
West.
O
A
A
G
Baby
box
by
22,
Colcord
Drive
I
mean
you,
don't
is
also
on
the
line,
as
well
as
my
client,
mr.
Anthony
Mears
I.
So,
as
JJ
pointed
out,
we
do
agree
with
GE.
We
don't
agree
to
te.
One
I
had
the
opportunity
to
visit
with
most
of
you
most
of
you
be
a
some
sort
of
video
function
so
that
you
can
see
the
site.
G
The
reason
we
don't
agree
that
te
number
one
is
I
frankly
think
that
the
TE,
1
and
C
2
are
in
conflict
and
the
reason
I
say
that
is,
if
you
look
at
what
T
P
2
is
suggesting
by
connecting
to
the
West
in
my
mind,
that's
anticipating
that
the
current
development
pattern,
what's
over
there
to
the
west,
which
is
5
acre
tracks,
some
of
which
are
vacant
all
which
are
abandoned.
It's
it's
the
belief
of
staff
that
that's
going
to
redevelop
at
some
point.
Otherwise
they
wouldn't
want
us
to
connect.
G
If
it's
going
to
redevelop,
because
there
are
sewer
and
water,
it
will
redevelop
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
smaller
single-family
lot
development.
So
as
such
I
don't
think
that
there
is
a
need
for
the
larger
Lots
there
be
a
need
for
the
larger
Lots
if
it
wasn't
going
to
redevelop.
But
if
it
wasn't
going
to
redevelop,
of
course,
then
we
wouldn't
need
the
stub.
A
Well,
without
going
into
all
of
that,
I
would
ask
mr.
Chambliss.
Is
it?
Is
it
your
assessment
that
the
property
took?
It
is
if
the
basis
of
the
te
that
the
loss
existing
to
the
West
are
these
large
I
think
there
are
actually
five
acre
lots
that
sort
of
thing,
if
that,
why
you're
asking
for
this
increasing
lot
size
here,
yes,.
O
A
Yeah,
nobody
nobody's
got
a
crystal
ball.
It
does
seem
pretty
obvious
that
the
property
to
the
west
is
I
mean
to
refer
to
it,
as
developed
now
is
probably
being
generous,
and
so
what's
likely
to
happen
to
it
in
the
future,
I'm
guessing
will
be
something
smaller
than
five
acre
lots.
Commissioners
does
anybody
else,
have
any
comments
or
questions
about
this
item.
G
This
is
Commissioner
Cravens
I
would
just
sort
of
make
the
point
that
if
you
look
at
this
area
on
a
map,
I
think
with
the
forthcoming.
Well,
it's
now
open
the
Turnpike
loop,
the
southwestern
Pike
loop,
and
you
can
see
the
developments
that
are
going
on
around
it,
which
are
much
more
high
density
in
nature.
I'm,
not
so
sure
that
I
see
the
need
to
limit
the
lot
size
here.
I'm,
not
totally
sure
about
the
two
tees
I
can't
decide
whether
I
think
they
are
really
in
conflict.
G
A
B
N
P
J
L
L
L
They
have
agreed
to
provide
that
stub
to
the
to
the
West,
so
te3
I
believe
they're
agreeing
to
that
fee
as
well,
and
they
don't
need
a
variance
to
that
requirement
because
they
are
going
to
stuff
the
the
final
tease
it
that
is
in.
There
is
B
II
to
again
discussing
the
7,500
square
foot
requirement
this.
There
is
a
portion
of
the
plat
at
the
northern.
The
northwestern
portion
of
the
plat
is
zone
r1.
I
G
So
this
is
David
box
again
Jarrod's
correct,
so
we
the
plat
itself
because
of
our
recognition
of
the
development
of
north
being
a
more
stable
by
the
core
tract
development.
That
is
not
likely
to
turn
over,
like
the
one
to
the
west
already
provided
for
larger
Lots
in
the
northern
part
of
the
preliminary
plat,
and
so
what
we
are
agreeing
to
is
TD's
one
four,
five
and
six.
G
We
do
then
not
agree
to
tv3
because
of
what
was
just
approved
in
the
PUD,
so
I
think
that
can
be
deleted
and
then
I
do
believe.
We
need
a
te
well
Kindle
or
Jared.
Do
we
need
the
te
on
number
two
because
of
the
north
and
I
understand
we're
providing
the
sub
the
west?
But
it's
my
understand.
We're
still
need
to
te,
as
relates
to
the
north.
G
G
G
N
G
Box
you
are
in,
you
want
the
variance,
because
you
don't
want
the
stubs
in
the
north,
but
you're
willing
to
connect
to
the
west.
Why
aren't
you
willing
to
stub
something
to
the
north
yeah?
So
if
you
look
at
the
development
to
the
north,
that
is
a
very
stable
develop.
It
is
not
a
development
that
is
likely
to
ever
turn
over
or
at
least
in
the
foreseeable
future.
G
The
reason
we
provide
the
development
the
stub
to
the
west
is
it
is
fairly
certain
that
that
is
going
to
redevelop
and
when
it
redevelops
it
will
be
redeveloped
single-family
that
stuff
to
the
north.
If
you
look
at
the
map,
it
is
just
unlikely
because
of
the
nature
of
the
homes
and
the
development
that
exists
there,
that
it's
going
to
turn
over,
and
so
it
is
inconceivable
that
there'd
ever
be
a
need
to
stub,
because
we
don't
think
that
developments
going
away.
L
G
B
A
A
L
E
D
Q
J
G
I
G
K
P
C
I
J
O
K
N
K
M
Ma'am
I'm
mighty
must
roll
it
ball.
My
address
is
801
Northwest,
288,
Street
and
I'm,
the
one
who
had
the
application
for
SPU
d1,
1
7
0
I,
just
wanted
to
indicate
that
I
have
had
two
meetings
with
the
neighbors
and
I
had
addressed
some
of
the
concerns
they
had
from
the
previous
master
design
statement.
M
We
submitted
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
a
staff
report
and
we
have
made
concessions
after
listening
to
the
neighbors
on
the
number
of
units
on
the
actual
height
of
the
building
and
mostly
things
which
they
were
concerned
about
also
referring
to
the
parking.
So
it
started
at
the
40
minute
development
which
was
trying
to
reflect
what's
across
the
street,
but
now
we
have
bought
it
down
to
eight
or
maximum
number
like
eight
flex
and
nothing
more.
C
M
I
H
We
had
a
problem
getting
the
developer
to
be
really
plugged
in
and
listen
to
the
neighborhood
and
work
with
the
neighborhood
it'd
be
very
proactive
hearing
about
the
opinions
in
the
neighborhood.
So
I
want
to
really
applaud
the
developer
for
having
numerous
meet
community
meetings
to
say
that
I'm
strongly
in
support
of
the
application.
With
that
I'm
moving
a
full
item,
33.
E
G
I
A
O
Summary,
that's
right.
This
is
a
specific
plan
for
a
new
Wendy's
restaurant
located
in
PUD
1628,
we've
reviewed
the
specific
plan
and
it's
it's
typical
of
the
new
branding
for
Wendy's
the
signage
in
the
building.
We
had
no
issues
with
the
specific
plan
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
PUD
David
box
is
available.
If
you
have
any
questions.
G
N
M
A
B
P
E
Q
O
The
only
issues
that
staff
identified
was
south
across
Melrose
is
a
assumed
heavy
industrial
and
with
located
on
the
property
in
meeting
with
the
applicant,
we
tried
to
come
up
with
ways
to
mitigate
that
and
the
applicant
moved
the
actual
building
the
housing
solution
as
far
north
on
the
property
as
possible,
separated
it
with
parking
and
put
the
garages
along
the
South
property
line
and
then
increased
landscaping.
Trees
along
the
South
property
line
staff
recommends
approval
with
no
technical
evaluations.
I
K
A
F
Brenda
had
at
30
14
Delaware,
Avenue,
joplin
missouri,
and
I
am
representing
harmon
and
Kittel
properties.
I
did
want
to
just
reaffirm
that
we've
done
everything
that
we
can
to
mitigate
any
issues
from
the
batch
plant.
I
think
we
have
sufficient
distance
from
them
by
putting
the
garage
buildings
between
interior
corridor
building
that
we'll
be
building.
This
will
also
be
very
green
building
the
be
very
tight.
It
has
additional
insulation
and
we
are
also
committing
to
using
the
highest
grade
of
residential
filter
in
our
system.
I
B
I
O
This
is
the
application
for
US
soil
and
gravel
excavation
typical
type
of
you
see
you
along
the
river
throughout
Oklahoma
City.
The
only
issue
that
staff
came
up
with
was
preserving
any
healthy,
mature
trees.
We
asked
for
those
in
the
required
setbacks,
but
if
you'll
notice
on
the
aerial
most
of
the
required
setbacks
are
there
are
no
trees.
O
What
they
happen
that's
proposed
is
to
detain
all
existing
trees
within
a
200
foot
setback
from
the
river
and
then,
if
you'll
notice,
on
the
aerial,
there
is
a
stand
of
trees,
west
of
Post
Road
along
the
South
property
line.
They
agree
to
retain
all
those
they
said
exhibit
subsequent
to
the
staff
report
going
out
and
we
between
now
and
Council.
We
will.
We
can
incorporate
that
as
Xzibit
is
the
special
permit
going
forward.
H
A
G
G
More
severe
for
those
of
us
who
are
close
and
I
think
I'm
right
in
saying
that
my
house
is
the
closest
to
the
pit,
although
it
it
I
know,
there's
some
other
properties
that
are
across
the
road
south
or
on
the
cross.
The
road
north
I'm
on
the
south
side
of
the
street,
and
we
bought
this
property
in
2000
and
builds
a
new
home
here.
G
G
G
In
operation
I
mean
it's
horrible.
We
just
endure
several
several
years
of
the
sand
pit
that
was
at
a
hundred
and
twenty
second
Street
and
and
Westminster
and
and
the
truck
found
this
road
all
day
long
every
day
quit
about
a
year
ago
when
they
used
up
all
their
sand
and
these
trucks
drop
pound.
This
road
and
I'm
talking
about,
if
100
trucks
a
day
every
day
and
so
were,
and
the
other
concern
that
I
have
is.
We
received
zero
notification.
G
G
G
G
G
E
A
G
G
A
G
G
G
Additionally,
this
these,
as
JJ
rightly
pointed
out
guns,
are
very
common
application
on
rivers
within
the
city
limits.
This
is
one
of
I.
Think
I
can
count
four
or
five
within
one
mile
of
here.
This
is
a
type
of
use
that
is
heavily
scrutinized
at
frankly,
not
really
the
municipal
level,
nor
the
state
level.
We
must
go
through
the
State
Department
of
mine.
We
must
go
through
the
Corps
of
Engineers
and
we
must
go
through
Oklahoma
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
all
of
which
have
received
applications
in
the
way
down.
G
On
its
the
very
detailed
reclamation
and
disturbance
plan
that
was
submitted
to
the
Department
of
mind.
I
will
submit
as
a
part
of
this
application
to
serve
as
our
program
description,
which
goes
through
detail
of
what
will
happen
when
it'll
happen.
How
will
be
revegetated?
How
will
be
it
will
be
reclaimed
as
this
process
moves
forward.
D
G
Was
advised
Monday
that
somebody
called
in
and
was
going
to
seek
to
call
into
this
meeting?
There's
no
contact
information
given
is
my
understanding
so
there's
just
there
wasn't
an
opportunity
to
do
so,
but
because
no
protest
letter
was
filed.
We
weren't
aware
until
Monday,
okay
this
week
that
anybody
even
had
had
called
in
again
years.
A
A
H
F
H
A
Well,
I
think
the
the
the
question
before
us
is
whether
you
know
this
type
of
use
is
use
that
is
permitted
within
the
limits
of
our
ability
to
control
it
and
one
of
the
ways
that
we
do
seek
to
control.
It
is
the
impact
on
surrounding
neighbors
I
think
what
might
be
a
good
idea
would
be
for
us
to
take
some
time
on
this
application
meet
with
the
neighbors.
Let
them
hear
about
the
operation.
Let
them
express
their
concerns.
A
A
G
A
G
I
A
If
I,
if
I
might
get
your
permission,
I
will
make
sure
that
mr.
box
has
your
phone
number
as
well,
and
that
way
you
too
can
see
if
there
is
some
way
that
you
can
set
up.
Perhaps
this
kind
of
teleconferencing
meeting
with
your
neighbors
so
that
they
can
hear
about
the
application
voice
of
questions
and
concerns,
see
if
there's
anything
that
can
be
done
to
mitigate
those
questions
and
concerns
or
answer
this
question
sisters
and
then
my
only
real
question
for
you.
Mr.
bata,
for
a
few
weeks
is
going
to
be
enough.
I
C
A
M
H
If
you
would,
it
would
be
great
if
you
could
put
all
of
these
issues
into
one
page
of
a
dot
of
FAQ,
addressing
the
things
that
that
mr.
Murray
mentioned
specifically
the
traffic
the
noise,
the
hours
of
operation.
Just
so,
we
can
have
the
facts
very
clearly
laid
out.
It
might
also
be
helpful
to
have
the
map
with
the
other
mining
operations
that
are
also
in
the
area,
so
that
everybody
is
working
with
the
same
set
of
facts.
Yes,.
N
K
F
F
I
G
B
G
H
G
Feel
like
being
an
individual
person
that
our
chances
of
having
any
success
are
between
somewhere
between
zero
and
whatever
below
zero.
However,
we,
if
we
could
just
get
the
assurance
that
they're
not
going
to
come
back
and
make
this
thing
bigger
than
what
the
map
shows.
Now
that
would
have
a
major
influence
on
us.
F
A
That
you're
listening
to
an
eight
you
have
eight
people
listening
to
you
with
open
ears
and
open
minds
at
the
moment.
I
assure
you
that
you
have
absolutely
just
as
much
chance
of
prevailing
on
your
concerns
as
as
anybody
else,
private
public
corporate
whatever
and
I
think
that,
if
you
can
be
specific
about
what
your
concerns
are,
it
will
really
help
the
process
along
you've
been
very
clear
today
and
I
appreciate
that
very
much
I
assume
we'll
hear
from
you
again
in
two
weeks.
G
A
I'll,
ask
I'll,
ask
staff
to
take
another
look
at
that
in
the
interim
and
make
sure
that
our
processes
and
procedures
were
followed.
Sometimes
there
are
things
about
notice
that
that
don't
seem
to
make
sense
on
their
surface,
but
the
process
is
one
that
is
dictated
by
state
statute.
So
all
that
we
can
do
is
follow
it
and
I
will
ask
staff
to
take
another
look
and
make
sure
that
that
process
was
followed.
A
G
A
You're
very
welcome
what
one
thing
that
I
would
suggest
that
you
do
is
do
as
much
as
you
can
to
facilitate
communication
between
yourself
and
your
neighbors,
so
that
when
there
is
a
meeting
in
whatever
form
it
might
take
with
the
applicant
it'll,
be
it'll,
be
quick
and
efficient
to
disseminate
that
information
to
anyone.
Who's
interested
in
participating.
I
A
I
O
G
G
No
I
mean
I
reviewed.
This
I
think
it's
to
me
I
think
it's
a
smart
use
of
the
lot
there's.
Obviously,
staff
recommendation
of
approval.
I
think
you
know
you
guys
know
me
I.
Think
density
is
always
a
high
priority,
especially
within
Ward
6
and
I'm,
ready
to
make
a
motion
assuming
everybody
else
is
happy.
B
A
G
E
G
E
B
A
O
O
A
G
My
only
comment
is:
there's
a
single
entrance
that
we
exist.
It's
on
the
very
south
side
of
the
frontage
and
it
is
in
track
two,
which
is
the
rear
tract
track.
One
up
front.
We
had
reginal
II
thought
that
that
might
need
its
own
entrance
and
we
can
maintain
a
200
foot
separation
between
entrances.
If
that's
problem.
G
O
O
C
A
G
A
O
G
G
A
So
we're
oh
I'm,
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
clean
up
what
it
is
we're
agreeing
to
and
not
agreeing
to.
You
cannot
agree
to
te
number
one
you're
saying
because
you
cannot
agree
to
limit
the
number
of
drives
to
just
one,
but
you
can
agree
to
te
number
two,
which
was
which
requires
that
200-foot
separation
and
you
can
agree
to
outdoor
storage
and
service
areas
being
screened
for
code,
which
was
in
this
case,
means
on
tract
one
not
on
track.
Two.
That's.
G
K
A
G
This
is
a
commissioner
I,
Smith
I
agree
with
Commissioner
Clare's
comments.
I
understand
that
you
might
envision
two
different
uses
for
the
tracks,
but
to
me
a
road
is
a
road
and
I
think
if
we
provide
access
from
track
2
into
track
go
on,
then
that
would
solve
your
issue
and
I
believe
it's
a
much
better
outcome
and,
frankly,
I.
Don't
think
that
I
can
support
the
item
unless
you
agree
to
that
te.
Personally,
that's
that's
my
theme.
Ok,.
N
B
E
G
J
G
Commissioner
this
is
Commissioner
Craven
I
would
just
make
the
recommendation
for
staff
to
consider
on
te
2.
It's
asked
me
to
provide
a
specific
plan
for
new
developments.
If
there's
really
a
concern
about
it,
I
think
we
should
probably
add
some
language
that
would
allow
the
Planning
Commission
to
review
and
approve
or
alter
the
items
or
the
provisions
of
the
PUD.
Otherwise
it's
almost
certainly
going
to
comply.
G
J
So
I
think
so
the
point
there
was
just
the
concern
about.
Excuse
me
the
amenities,
because
they
once
that
western
portion
goes
away
there'll
be
very
very
little
in
the
way
of
open
space
left.
So
it
was
just.
How
are
they
going
to
so
do
that
so
are
you?
Are
you
saying
we
should
have
set
a
certain
percentage
so
that
the
future
Commission
has
something
to
go
from.
G
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
be
sure,
I
understood
the
full
context
of
what
authority
you
were
trying
to
grant
in
a
future
review
process,
because
I
mean,
as
we
know
what's
gonna
happen,
is
that
they're
gonna
read
the
PUD
and
then
they're
gonna
put
a
specific
plan
application
together.
That
says
that
either
complies
or
it
doesn't
so
yeah
you're
wanting
to
specifically
use
something
in
the
future.
I
just
want
to
be
sure.
That's
memorialized
and
the
key
yeah.
J
I
think
I
mean
you're
right.
It
would
be
more
specific
to
say
that
we
wanted
the,
for
example.
There
there's
a
playground
and
ball
fields
over
there.
So
if
there's
no,
no
active
recreation
and
a
tremendous
loss
of
open
space,
so
if
the
Commission
is
okay
with
that,
with
kind
of
the
loss
of
open
space
on
the
western
side,
our
thinking
was
that
we
should.
We
should
indicate
that
those
active
active
recreational
uses
the
playgrounds,
etc
should
be
moved
somewhere
else
to
the
site.
J
I
B
That
area
that
have
becomes
severely
debilitated
and
run
down
and
then
needed
renovation,
particularly
in
consideration
of
its
look,
ya'll
and
location
near
Oklahoma,
City,
Community,
College
and
I.
Think
this
is
a
very
good
example
of
what
needs
to
happen.
That
I
would
certainly
support
any
effort
to
maintain
some
green
space
and
some
recreational
opportunities.
It
is
one
of
the
main
complexes
that
need
to
rehabilitation.
G
We
can
certainly
agree
to
something
I
mean
I.
Do
think.
That's
part
of
what
the
te
number
one
is
trying
to
get
to
is
the
percentage
of
open
space
that
would
that
we
have
agreed
to.
If
you
look
at
the
additional
criteria,
lay
down
the
PUD
I,
don't
think
you'll
find
that
it's
very
different
from
other
PUD
knees
in
terms
of
you
know,
facade
and
building
high
and
those
types
of
things.
G
J
I
believe
so
is:
do
is
amenities
specific
enough.
Do
we
need
to
say
something
like
I,
don't
know
playgrounds
or
active
amenities
or
trying
to
think
of
a
better
word,
but
maybe
that
maybe
that's
sufficient.
Would
that
be?
Would
that
be
meaningful
for
you
guys
in
the
future?
If
this
came
back
in
a
year.
J
G
A
C
C
B
E
I
J
K
A
F
B
E
I
I
O
Continued
use
and
office,
commercial
and
assisted
living
uses
on
the
property
after
its
approval
with
for
technical
evaluations,
applicate
applicant
agrees
with
tes
one
three
and
four,
and
we
want
to
amend
te
two
to
state
that
the
existing
curb
cuts
that
are
there
now
will
remain
until
the
development
occurs
and
then
the
new
curb
cuts
will
align
and
staff
is
okay.
With
that
amendment,.
A
G
David
back,
in
addition
to
the
the
te
and
visiting
with
commissioner
Coffee,
she
would
also
like
us
to
add
a
te
number
five
to
remove
the
use
unit
that
would
allow
a
restaurant
with
alcohol
and
instead
make
it
eating
establishments
sit
down
alcohol,
not
permitted.
That
was
her
request.
I've
asked
my
client
they
have
agreed
to
that
and,
in
addition,
my
client
would
like
to
it
possible,
provide
for
an
EMD
level,
three
sign,
rather
than
the
two
only
for
the
church
use.
A
K
G
Well,
at
some
point
it
I
mean
so
there's
three
curb
cuts.
Now
one
is
for
the
church.
One
is
an
oil
lease
road
and
then
there's
another
I'm,
just
curb
cut
there.
So
really,
what
we're
asking
for
I
think
did
is
right
just
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution.
We
wanted
to
just
make
sure
that
TV
was
clear,
that
whenever
we
do
develop
a
how
to
meet
that
alignment
requirement,
but
right
now
it
doesn't
really
serve
anything.
G
K
I
guess
my
my
concern
is
you,
you
provided
a
lot
of
office
a
lot
of
retail
space
and
assisted
living.
You've
got
one
point
of
access
for
all
of
these
I,
actually
don't
see
the
fire
marshal,
allowing
that
having
having
done
some
of
this
before
he's
gonna
he's
gonna
theorize
that
you've
got
a
vehicular
collision,
there
is
the
entrance
and
fire
truck
or
the
ambulance
can't
get
back
to
the
assisted
living
facility
when
needed.
So
I
guess.
My
concern
is
the
number
of
access
points
that
there's
not
enough.
G
A
G
Sure
so
my
client
controls
the
whole
site,
but
week
I
mean
whatever
I
think
would
make
courage
from
Claire
and
other
satisfied.
We're
happy
to
to
add
that
and
I
don't
know
if
we'd
want
to
force
all
the
traffic
through
the
curb
cut
that
is
utilized
by
the
church,
but
there
would
be
two
additional
curb
cuts,
obviously
on
Southwest
15th
that
would
be
utilized.
So
we
think
a
cross.
G
G
Big
box:
this
is
Commissioner
Cravens
couple
things
I
actually
I'm
glad.
You
clarified
that
because
I'm,
an
agreement,
commissioner
Claire
the
exhibit
provided
or
Exhibit
B
in
our
package,
was
not
entirely
clear
because
there's
like
a
Oilwell
service
road
that
used
to
cut
the
whole
thing
off
from
the
church
from
this
property,
the
West,
a
Good,
Shepherd
property,
the
West
a
couple
other
things
before
your
te5.
I
G
G
It
relates
to
bars,
but
not
restaurants,
that
might
just
serve
alcohol.
If
you
think
about
Northwest
Highway,
just
west
of
Hefner
Parkway,
you
have
that
Lutheran
Church,
that's
right
there
on
I,
believe
that
would
be
Portland
and
right
next
to
that
or
two
separate
restaurants,
I
think
ones
are
on
the
borderland,
a
barbecue
place,
both
of
which
that
serve
alpha.
So
the
there
is
no
prohibition,
as
it
relates
to
restaurants,
that
just
happen
to
serve
alcohol
next
to
churches.
That's.
B
N
G
A
D
G
G
G
B
A
I
B
A
K
K
K
And
they
don't
they
don't
they
don't
show.
There
is
one
north
side,
north-south
Drive
that
goes
up
through
the
retail,
the
mixed
use
and
terminates
at
the
assisted
living.
The
other
access
point
is
a
well
road.
There's,
no
there's!
No
access
from
that
I'm
presuming!
That's
a
gravel
road!
That's
not
going
to
get
used
at
all!
Well,.
B
K
B
Think
we
probably
ought
to
sleep
it
in
at
the
time
the
property's
developed
there
is
a
gravel
road.
In
fact,
it's
used
quite
often
for
overflow
parking,
there's
a
lot
of
open
field,
baseball
nests
and
soccer
games
and
things
that
go
on
in
there
and
that
little
gravel
road
is
used
pretty
extensively.
Although
it's
casually
used
but
I
think
maybe
yes,
I'm
a
development
would
be
a
better
way
to
say.
B
I
B
I
G
J
I
O
E
G
Business
commissioner
Cravens
I
think
if
people
are
concerned
about
this
and
I
can't
I
wish
I
was
in
the
room,
so
I
could
read
the
room,
but
if
people
are
concerned
about
the
env
signage,
that
goes
back
to
my
point
about
having
this
site
divided
into
separate
tracks,
because
then
we
could
make
track
worn
the
church
tract
and
limit
EMV
signage
to
track
one
and
prohibit
it
on
the
track.
The
adjoining
track.
G
G
G
G
A
G
I
think
we
can
get
there
with
that,
as
long
as
that
is
comfortable,
we'd
have
to
add
yet
another
to
eat.
In
my
view,
c7
would
definitely
the
church
are
so
and
attract
one
and
the
balance
of
the
property
in
the
track
to,
and
then
you
define
that
with
a
site
plan
before
council
I
think
that
I
think
its
staff,
probably
simple,
that
boundlessly
Park
I
think
that
I'm
I'm
fine.
I
E
Q
G
I'll
second,
that
motion
and
just
for
confirming
for
the
record
I,
will
read
those
technical
evaluations
into
the
record
and
takes
us
any
objection.
Go
ahead,
I
think
with
a
technical
evaluation
number
one.
We
need
to
change
technical
evaluation.
Number
two
will
be
amended
so
that
existing
curb
cuts
shall
be
allowed
to
remain
new.
Curb
cuts.
Shall
wine
to
number
three
would
be
unchanged.
A
A
G
G
T
number:
six
provision,
nine
point:
nine
point:
five
of
the
master
design
statement
shall
be
restricted
to
the
church,
use
and
number
seven
further
clarifies
that
tract
one
shall
be
designated
as
the
church
site
and
track.
Two
is
the
balance
of
the
parcel
which
shall
be
further
defined
prior
to
City
Council
and
bring
it
with
staff.
G
G
N
G
B
M
F
B
C
L
The
developer
is
proposing
a
hundreds
of
48
single-family,
residential
lots
and
for
common
areas.
Thirty
nine
point:
three:
three:
nine
acres
yielding
a
gross
residential
density
of
3.76
dwelling
units
per
acre.
The
site
was
known:
PV
240
in
1985
staff
is
recommended
approval
subject
to
nine
technical
evaluations.
The
appling
applicant
agrees
will.
I
L
L
That
would
be
to
connect
to
the
west.
There
is
a
physical
barrier
over
there.
There
is
a
a
creek
and
associated
floodplain
in
that
direction.
The
other
vision
regulations
allow
consideration
of
physical
variances.
Our
physical
barriers
for
the
variance
six
affirmative
votes
would
be
necessary
for
the
approval
regarding
te.
Five
staff
is
requesting
that
the
applicant
provide
a
connection
to
the
east
across
the
creek
that
will
connect
to
a
collector
street
that
will
be
built
within
a
later
phase
of
the
development
the
applicant
has
agreed.
L
So
we
would
like
to
amend
ce-5
to
say
that
the
preliminary
flash
should
be
amended
to
contain
at
least
one
connection
across
the
creek
to
the
east
size
for
connection
to
the
future.
North-South
collector
Street
in
the
applicant
has
agreed
to
that
change
and
then,
with
regard
to
te
to
the
applicant,
does
not
agree
de
to
requires
fire
suppression
for
each
home.
In
this
development,
the
development
has
been
determined
to
be
outside
of
the
rural
response
time
for
fire.
L
G
This
is
Commissioner
Highsmith
I'm,
going
to
go
ahead
and
jump
in
on
on
te.
Two
we've
talked
about
this
before
and
I
am
gonna
echo.
My
previous
statements,
but
maybe
even
you
guys,
can
disagree,
obviously
with
the
way
that
I'm
going
to
state
this.
But,
as
you
know,
professional
architect,
life
safety
is
our
number
one
concern.
G
G
He
can
state
otherwise,
as
he
runs,
but
my
understanding
is
to
protect
licensed
safety
for
anyone
in
any
part
of
the
city
and
a
build
structure,
and
if
the
fire
marshal
says
that
these
homes
presents
a
potential
danger
to
the
occupants
and
asks
for
fire
suppression,
there
is
no
chance
that
I'm
gonna
go
against
that
from
from
the
Commission,
because
to
me
that
we
are
making
the
decision
that
about
zoning
or
about
the
things
that
we
typically
take
into
account
as
a
commission.
But
we
are
considering.
C
G
Safety
issues
and
I
will
not
accept
the
liability
as
a
commissioner
for
the
potential
loss
of
life
that
that
could
occur.
You
guys
can
say
that
silly
I
mean
maybe
people.
You
know
just
fundamentally
disagree
with
with
what
I'm
talking
about
here.
But
for
me
that's
what
it
comes
down
to
I
cannot
support
the
item
unless
either
the
applicant
agrees
to
te2
or
the
fire
marshal
changes
his
opinion.
But
for
me
it's
a
non-starter
I
can't
I
can't
support
the
application
unless
something
is
a
result
on
that.
F
H
G
This
is
Steve
Rollins
with
arc
engineering,
consultants,
135,
Deer,
Creek,
Road
and
Edmond
representing
to
answer
your
question:
no,
the
existing
homes
to
the
south.
If
that's
what
you're
referring
to,
they
do
not
have
fire
suppression,
and
this
is
basically
an
expansion
of
that
development
directly
to
the
South
Council
Ridge.
A
F
A
A
Empowered
a
successor
right
word
now
and
you
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
development
out
in
this
area
over
a
lot
of
years,
whether
it
was
all
done
at
a
time
when
that
kind
of
technology
was
even
available,
I
don't
know
so
whether
it
is
or
is
not
applicable
to
other
humming
from
the
area's
is
not
controlling.
In
my
view,.
G
N
G
City
should
prioritize
a
fire
station
for
this
area.
I
believe
it
is
necessary,
but
to
shift
that
burden
from
the
city
to
the
homebuyers,
but
ultimately
is
who
you're
shifting
it
to
to
install
these
systems
and
maintain
them
throughout
the
life
of
the
home.
I.
Just
don't
believe
it's
the
correct
thing
to
do
well,.
I
G
Gonna
jump
back
in
this
is
Commissioner
Highsmith
to
you
know
the
the
public
pays
for
those
fire
stations
either
way.
I
understand,
you're,
saying
well,
the
difference
is
we're
asking
for
a
specific
group
of
homeowners
to
pay
for
it,
but
if
we
imply,
if
we
as
a
commission,
applied
this
rule
unilaterally,
then
of
course
you
would
get
your
fire
station
because
the
pressure
would
would
develop
and
the
city
would
agree,
but
the
more
that
we
allow
these
to
occur,
the
less
likely.
You
know
that
that
that
is
going
to
happen
sooner
rather
than
later.
G
That's
my
opinion
again,
like
it
doesn't
matter
to
me
what
arguments
that
we
can
even
state
today.
It's
a
life
safety
issue.
If,
if
people
could
be
hurt
by
this
decision,
it's
a
decision
that
I
won't
I
won't
be
involved
in
the
approval
of.
So
again.
Sorry
just
wanted
to
jump
back
in
on
that.
One
comment.
A
G
But
this,
like
we'd,
said
before
this
is
relatively
new
for
Oklahoma
many
other
states
are
doing
it,
but
for
Oklahoma
anyway,
it's
it's
new
technology
I've
been
over
in
the
fire
marshal's
office
for
almost
10
years
now
and
it's
it's
been
sprinklered.
We
had
residential
sprinklers
before
them
before
I
came
over
here.
So
it's
it's.
It's
still
new
ish
technology,
but
it
is
really
needed
for
these.
G
Thank
you,
Michael.
Is
this
a
change
of
ordinate
that
was
adopted,
or
was
this
a
policy
that
was
changed?
This
is
the
fire
chief's
recommendations
for
these
developments.
When
we
do
these
plants,
the
having
it
being
Indian
ordinance,
would
be
in
the
part
of
did
be
in
the
building
code
when
it's
adopted,
and
no
it's
not
in
that
code
as
a
requirement
for
every
house
in
Oklahoma
City,
but
it
has
on
a
national
basis
and
in
the
national
code.
G
It
is
there
as
a
requirement,
but
Oklahoma
has
always
taken
that
requirement
out
and
Oklahoma
City
has
followed
the
state
and
taken
it
out
of
our
amendments
like
the
state.
Did
our
problem
comes
into
these
in
most
areas
of
the
city?
It's
not
necessarily
warranted
that
you
should
sprinkle.
You
know
a
house
because
you've
got
a
fire
department
that
can
get
there
in
a
short
amount
of
time.
G
Yeah
I'd
like
to
make
some
comments
that
this
is
my
ward,
here's,
my
here's.
My
concern,
I,
think
that
everybody
should
should
think
about
I'm
I'm
all
on
board
with
fire
safety.
The
issue
for
me
is
that
the
case
we
just
approved
on
this
item
went
to
Council
and
was
approved
and
they're.
Aware
of
that
argument
and
I
think
there
at
some
point
has
to
be
an
ordinance.
G
There
has
to
be
an
adoption
of
a
building
code
that
provides
for
this
because,
while
it
may
not
be
as
paramount
and
life
safety
to
adjust
the
policy
that
this
significantly
shifts,
the
economics
of
a
development
on-the-fly
is
simply
not
a
good
way
for
the
city
to
do
business
with
it
with
the
development
community.
It's
not.
This
is
not
the
way
to
go
about
this.
G
These
people
have
no
notice
of
this,
and
so
plans
get
put
an
emotion
developments
begin
to
get
constructed
in
phases,
and
then
you
go
turn
the
economic
upside
down,
because
we
come
to
the
realization
that
there's
going
to
be
development
here.
I,
don't
agree
with
the
premise
at
all
that
that
we
should
sprinkle
these
homes
in
an
effort
to
get
the
fire
station
built.
That's
just
a
matter
of
the
capital
being
allocated
within
plans
that
I
admit
are
probably
not
funded
at
anytime.
G
Soon,
there's
probably
not
going
to
be
a
fire
station
at
any
time
soon,
which
is
certainly
a
consideration
and
I
I
respect
people's
opinion
for
having
that.
But
the
other
side
of
that
is
that
we're
making
this
decision
on
the
fly
without
notice
and
I
would
point
out
that
today,
in
this
meeting,
we
just
approved
the
construction
of
an
apartment
complex
with
20
dwelling
units
per
acre,
that
is
barely
a
mile
and
a
half
from
this
exact
location.
So
we
have
the
end.
G
It
line
will
be
fully
sprinkled,
okay
and
that
and
that,
so
that
that's
where
the
difference
in
the
code
is,
is
that?
But
my
point
is
this
expansion
of
homes?
It's
really
about
density
Mike!
It's
coming
out
here,
so
we're
building
apartment
complexes
out
here
now
I
mean
this.
Is
this
area
is
going
to
continue
to
see
this
pressure?
This
isn't
some
far-flung
remote
area.
This
is
an
area
where
we
looked
at
the
patch.
It's
the
last
meeting.
There's
been
all
kinds
of
side
before
you
got
here.
Are
you
guys
communicating
this
to
them?
G
Are
you
reaching
out
to
make
sure
these
people
know
about
this
because
it's
just
not?
This
is
not
a
good
way
to
do
business.
I'm!
Sorry,
it's
not
I!
Don't
I,
don't
know
what
this
this
commission
and
this
item
on.
This
is
a
staff
report
that
is
for
our
review.
You
have
proposed
a
preliminary
plat.
We
have
not
seen
a
bunch
of
little
bitty
Lots
on
this
land
before
until
you
proposed
this
plat
and
we
said
no,
we
feel
it
needs
to
be
sprinkled,
so
I'm
not
sure
what.
C
G
Wrong
reason:
Ben:
the
reasoning
is
the
safety
of
the
occupants
you're
not
going
to
get
a
fire
station.
There
don't
have
the
infrastructure,
even
if
we
did
have
a
lot
more
money
to
have
the
total
number
of
fire
stations
everywhere
throughout
the
city
to
handle
and
and
keep
people
in
a
in
in
what
we
call
the
urban
response
time,
and
if
people
want
to
build
these
small
Lots
out
in
outlying
areas
that
are
a
long
ways
away
from
a
fire
station.
We're
saying:
okay,
let's
sprinkle.
F
A
C
G
A
So
I
to
that
I'll
just
say:
I,
don't
think
that
in
1985
you
know
we
signed
a
passed.
That
said,
you
know
you're
not
going
to
be
subject
to
any.
You
know
additional
improvements
or
requirements
of
the
city.
I
think
you
know
that
the
idea
that
that
we're
doing
this
required
in
order
to
force
the
city
to
build
a
fire
station
is
nonsense.
It
doesn't
mean
you
do
with
that.
A
The
idea
is
I
mean
if
your
concern
is
that
the
development
community
doesn't
understand
or
know
this
is
coming,
then
I
think
that
the
response
to
that
is
for
us
to
be
consistent
in
our
application
of
the
requirement.
If
this
is
something
that
is
being
told
to
us
should
be
done
as
a
life
health
safety
matter,
then,
to
me,
that's
a
simple
decision
to
make
the
fact
that
it
may
cost
more.
That
is
unfortunate.
Perhaps
although
the
trade-off
there
is,
as
mr.
I
G
G
M
N
G
G
Well,
the
fire
has
been
more
and
more
pushing
that.
No,
we
want
to
leave
that
in
because
we're
seeing
you
know
what
we're
seeing
developments
moving
out
getting
further
away
from
every
all
the
services.
Well,
that
does
that
does
temper.
You
know
my
original
comments,
because
I
did
believe
that
this
was
you
know
we
don't
do
it
I,
don't
professionally,
do
a
lot
of
projects
out
in
these
areas,
but
I
did
understand
that,
apparently
wrongly,
that
it
was
a
part
of
our
ordinance
and
that's
what
we
were
basing
this
on.
G
G
G
Look
I
know
this:
is
it's
a
bye
noise,
Commissioner
craters
again,
I
know
this
is
a
difficult
issue
and
I
don't
want
to
seem
to
my
fellow
commissioners
that
I
am
insensitive
about
life.
Safety
I
am
NOT
if,
if
somebody
came
in
and
asked
for
a
variance
or
something
from
the
code
to
do
sprinkler
and
we'd
adopted
an
ordinance
as
a
city
through
Council
for
that
to
be
applied,
I
would
have
no
sympathy
at
all
for
mr.
Rollins
or
anybody
else
and
I'm.
G
You
know
I'm
not
saying
that
the
city
can't
change
those
things,
I'm
saying:
there's
a
process
for
the
city
to
change
those
views
and
they
continuously
adopted
these
things
without
that
provision,
and
now
staff,
I'm,
sorry,
but
staff
is
making
a
unilateral
move
to
amend
that
as
a
matter
of
policy,
and
that's
just
not
the
right
way
to
go
about
this,
we're
all
going
to
have
our
own
opinion
on
the
issue.
We
don't
need
to
belabor
it
anymore.
That's
where
I
am
on
it.
G
I'd
love
to
hear
other
commissioners
or
spots,
but
it's
there's
just
a
right
way
and
a
wrong
way
to
do
these
things.
Their
ordinances
and
that's
why
there's
a
legislative
process
I?
You
know
this
is
very
frustrating
just
from
the
standpoint
that
I
feel
like
we're
in
rounding
the
the
way
it
should
be
done
to
accomplish
something
if
it
needs
to
be
done.
That's
what
a
people
plus
the
mayor's
gonna
like
to
devote
on,
but.
G
Part
of
the
planning
review
process
asked
the
fire
department
for
their
review
and
we
look
at
Life
Safety
and
that's
where
this
comes
from.
Is
our
review
of
this
plat
and
we're
saying
what's
needed?
I
I,
don't
know
how
else
to
say
it
that,
yes,
we
anticipate
that
as
a
fire
department,
we're
gonna
push
more
and
more
to
just
get
all
residential
sprinkled.
You
know
that
it
may
not
happen,
but.
G
The
fire
department
is
going
to
try
to
push
for
so
that
we
don't
have
any
loss
of
life
in
residential
structures,
but
that
may
take
a
long
time,
but
on
these
new
developments
that
we
see
a
problem,
we
physically,
we
can
identify
the
problem
that
we
can't
get
there
fast
enough.
We
have
come
to
that.
This
is
the
alternative
that
someone
can
do
and
we
feel
it
safe
that,
yes,
it's
up
to
the
Planning
Commission
to
make
the
decision.
E
P
N
D
G
Well,
Commissioner
Highsmith,
you
know
I'm
I'm
on
the
fence.
Now
I,
don't
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
approach
it
it
to
me.
It's
still
a
life
safety
issue,
and
you
know
the
ethics
of
my
profession
are
pretty
clear
on
on
where
I'm
supposed
to
be
on
it.
As
a
commissioner
there's,
there's
obviously
a
little
bit
of
hesitation
on
my
part
now
but
I
don't
know
you
know,
I'd,
look
to
the
again
to
the
wisdom
of
my
peers
to
help
help
chart
the
path
here,
a
little
bit
I,
it's
a
tough
one.
K
This
is
Commissioner
Clara
I
can
tell
you
where
I
stand.
If
the
Park
City
Council
has
adopted
a
building
code
and
amended
it
to
remove
the
requirement
to
sprinkle
residential,
then
they've
made
that
decision
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
on
us
to
counter
that
if
the
fire
department
is
pushing
for
better
safety,
which
I
am
completely
in
agreement
in
support
of,
then
they
need
to
push
Council
and
they
need
to
push
adopting
the
building
code
in
its
entirety.
Without
those
those
amendments,
I
think.
A
That
is
a
baby
and
the
bathwater
argument.
For
this
reason,
if,
if
the
kind
of
required
sprinklers
it
would
require
sprinklers
in
every
house
and
City
of
Oakland
City,
what's
in
front
of
us
right
now
is
whether
we
are
going
to
permit
in
the
process
of
a
primitive
plat
urban
level
density
in
an
area
where
there
is
not
the
infrastructure
to
provide
fire
safety.
Well,
we
can't
even
meet
rural
response
times
so
I
mean
to
see
that
that's
an
apples
and
oranges
argument.
A
Yes,
you
can
argue
all
day
long
about
whether
the
city
should
or
should
not.
You
know
buck
up
against
the
development
community
hard
enough
to
adopt
a
code
that
would
require
every
single
velcome
city
of
Oklahoma
City
to
be
sprinkled,
but
it's
awfully
hard
to
make
that
argument
about
a
house.
That's
you
know
a
block
away
from
a
fire
station
here
we're
talking
about
a
situation
that
exists.
A
G
Unfortunately,
descri
mr.
Cravens
have
to
do
this
differently.
We've
had
three
meetings.
This
issue
has
come
up
in
two
of
them.
I
would
point
out
that,
although
Mike
Wilson
indicated
something
differently,
I
take
issue
with
the
point
that
there
were
pointed
out
to
us
a
number
of
other
developments
that
are
in
some
phase
at
this
juncture,
some
of
which
are
going
to
be
preliminary
flats,
some
of
which
are
going
to
be
final
plat.
They
previously
been
zoned
for
r1
under
our
code,
which
allows
this
type
of
development.
G
So
all
I'm,
all
I'm,
going
to
say
about
this
and
then
I'm
finished
is
how
are
we
going
to
vote
on
final
claps
that
where
this
issue
has
arisen,
how
are
we
going
to
vote
on
because
we're
going
to
keep
seeing
these
and
we're
acting
on
a
matter
of
policy?
So
I
think
we
need
to
be
thoughtful
about
that
before
we
make
a
decision
about
this,
because
this
won't.
This
won't
be
the
last
one
of
these
that
we
see
so.
G
G
Yeah,
this
is
ace
again,
I
think
you
know
I
think
I
have
to
agree
with
Clare
on
this
one
that,
although
I
disagree,
I
mean
if
it's
the
position
of
our
City
Council
to
take.
You
know
the
final
responsibility
on
on
whether
this
is
safe
or
not.
It's
it's
hard
for
me
to
overrule
that
on
a
plat
decision
for
this
project,
I
mean
you
obviously
know
how
strongly
I
feel
about
it
or
I
wouldn't
have
brought
this
all
up,
but
I,
just
just
like
at
our
state
level.
K
G
G
G
With
that
one,
four,
six,
seven,
eight
and
nine
were
all
agreed
to
by
the
applicant
I
have
a
minted
language
45
we're
going
to
need
a
variance
for
tv3,
which
I
have
no
objection
to
given
what
Garrett
said
and
I
looked
at
the
site.
It
makes
perfect
sense
and
then
te
2,
which
we
just
beat
to
death,
am
I
missing
anything
Jared
or
mr.
Rawlinson's
for
the
Appleton.
Is
there
anything
that
I
got
wrong
in
that
review?.
L
E
C
B
G
G
G
I
G
G
Any
time
on
any
issues
that
they
have
in
this
phase,
the
stormwater
there's
a
creek
very
close
to
the
property
on
our
west
boundary.
There
will
be
most
of
the
water
goes
to
the
northwest
corner
of
the
property
where
it
exits,
there's
also
a
Creek
on
the
east
side
of
the
property
that
doesn't
affect
mr.
mrs.
Collins,
but
that
continues
to
go
straight
and
north
across
160
fourth
Street,
and
that
there
is
a
small
area,
drainage
that
will
go
to
the
west.
C
G
G
I
K
G
And
we
had
some
people
out
here,
but
the
mud
fences
are
down
on
your.
What
is
that?
The
phase
two
and
you
washed
out
part
of
my
Road
there
and
every
time
I
do
that
you
come
in
and
you
dig
trenches,
which
somebody
just
did
this
last
month.
They
keep
digging
trenches
and
they
tear
down
the
mud
fences
and
they
don't
put
them
back
up.
I,
don't
know
who.
G
E
F
G
G
I
G
Q
G
G
N
A
I
A
F
N
P
P
G
Alright,
with
that
I
will
make
a
motion
to
recommend
I'm
sorry
to
approve
two.
Seventy
one,
fifty
two
subject
to
the
technical
valuations,
deleting
team
number,
two
actually
I'm.
Sorry
to
do
the
bearings
first,
so
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
variance
to
see
7152
amending
section.
Five
point:
three
point:
one
B:
five
of
the
subdivision
regulations.
E
I
E
E
G
E
I
P
I
G
A
motion
to
approve,
see
7152
subjects
of
the
technical
evaluations
deleting
GE
number
tube
and
a
mini
key
number
5.
To
read
as
follows.
Preliminary
flats
should
be
amended
to
contain
at
least
one
of
the
connections
across
the
creek
on
the
east
side
of
the
site,
a
connection
to
the
future
north-south
collector
Street.
E
G
O
O
O
G
This
is
a
David
box
once
again,
so
you
may
recall,
this
item
was
actually
on
the
docket
the
last
time
that
we
were
able
to
meet
in
person
at
time
of
that
hearing,
we
had
a
protestor
that
showed
up
mr.
Neil
I
assume
he's
on
the
line.
We
were
not
aware
that
sort
of
protest
until
that
time,
so
we
continued
the
item
we
went
and
we
were
able
to
have
a
conference
call
with
mr.
Neil
my
client
and
the
only
issue
that
he
raised
and
I
think
his
letter
will
support.
This
is
that
mr.
I
G
Not
want
that
connection,
and
so
I'm
going
to
briefly
focus
on
that.
If
you
look
at
the
aerial
that
is
included
in
your
your
packet,
you'll
see
valley,
crest,
trail,
valley,
crest
trail
is
a
public
street
immediately
south
of
us,
and
when
that
plat
was
developed,
that
developer
provided
a
stub
to
the
north.
What
we
seek
to
do
is
to
connect
to
that
street.
We
explained
to
mr.
Neil
that
you
know
the
issue
is.
If
we
decided
to
not
connect
that
Street,
we
likely
face
a
challenge
from
you,
the
Planning
Commission.
G
It
would
violate
all
the
policies
that
you
have
enacted
to
require
connectivity.
If
you
look
at
the
aerial,
I
would
submit
to
you
that
connecting
that
Street
will
not
increase
traffic
in
their
neighborhood
rather
I
think
what
is
more
likely
to
happen
is
the
traffic
from
that
neighborhood
is
going
to
travel
through
our
neighbourhood
to
178.
If
you
look
at
the
kind
of
curves
nature
of
that
platform,
so
it
is
inconceivable
to
me
that
somebody
residing
in
our
plot
would
want
to
take
that
Kirby
street
to
get
to
164.
G
So
we
will
provide
connections
to
the
south
to
the
west
and
178
JJ
said
one
connected
to
178.
It
is
a
legal
and
physical
impossibility
to
align
that
drive
we're
slightly
off
of
that.
We
can
do
two
things
that
will
help
ease
our
sight
distance.
We
will
be
knocking
down
a
portion
of
the
hill
that
exists
to
help
sightlines
and
in
addition,
we
can
elevate
the
drive
to
again
to
increase
the
sight
distance.
G
So
we
think
with
those
two
things
that
were
in
a
position
to
not
create
a
safety
issue,
and
so
that's
why
we
ask
you
bolete
T,
you
want
to
think
JJ
said
they're,
fine
with
that
and
then
finally
to
youtube.
We
do
agree
to,
but
the
only
protest
issue
I'm
aware
of
is
the
neighbors
desire
for
us
to
not
to
connect
I
believe
it's
mr.
Highsmith
at
the
time
of
the
hearing
some
four
weeks
ago,
that
told
mr.
G
K
G
Q
Q
A
sight
distance
issue
I'm
not
sure
if
right
in
route
would
fix
that
problem,
but
we
did
basically
throw
out
there
to
put
in
a
warning,
sign
and
flashers
that
warns
of
an
intersection
coming
up.
That
has
been
done
on
several
other
developments
in
the
area,
and
so
we
thought
that
would
help.
You
know.
Warn
people
of
the
intersection
coming
up
to
help
would
be
I.
G
I
A
Q
I
K
Q
K
Commissioner
Corrigan,
it
just
looks
like
you're.
Basically,
the
west
edge
of
your
drive
is
on
the
property
line,
so
it
doesn't
look
like
you
have
a
whole
lot
of
room
to
do
that
unless
you're
going
to
get
some
kind
of
construction,
temporary
construction
easement
and
have
permission
from
that
owner
to
do
the
earth
work
on
their
site.
Q
K
C
C
P
P
P
Again,
Brian
Neil
presiding
at
5:29,
Northwest,
174th
Street
in
Edmond,
Oklahoma,
seven,
three
zero
one:
two
I
had
filed
the
letter
in
protest
and
also
drafted
petition
for
homeowners
and
residents
in
the
subdivision.
You
have
a
petition
there
with
some
20
signatures
and
the
concern
was
and
I
still
think
it's
a
valid
concern
with
respect
to
mr.
Bach.
P
There
may
I'm
certainly
would
be
traffic
back
and
forth
on
Valley
Crest
Trail,
both
north
and
to
the
south.
But
right
now
this
the
valley
subdivision,
where
I
reside
on
174th
Street,
it's
a
quiet
area.
We
were
in
the
eighth
edition
of
the
subdivision:
we've
been
here
14
and
a
half
years
and
the
people
I
can.
N
A
N
P
I
P
In
this
subdivision
or
customed
the
access
points
they
have
from
Western
access
to
15th
Street,
which
would
be
164th
in
Oklahoma,
City
and
people
readily
signed
the
petition.
It
only
took
us
a
couple
hours
to
get
the
signatures
that
we
did
get
there's
a
and
by
having
the
crash
gate
to
separate
the
subdivision
from
the
proposed
the
development
it
would
allow
emergency
vehicles
to
access
the
site.
But
the
concern
is
178.
P
Access
is
174th
Street
inside
Valley
subdivision,
and
that
seems
to
have
worked
well
and
when
neighbors
were
contacted
about
possibility
of
crash
gate
they
again
readily
signed
and
we're
going
to
agreement
with
that
and
I
understand.
There's
certainly
differences
of
opinion,
but
the
limiting
the
access
into
the
valley
from
178th
Street
is
extremely
important
to
the
residents
that
we've
talked
to
in
this
neighborhood
and
I
would
urge
you
to
use
the
crash
gate
and
to
modify
the
technical.
P
G
No,
but
this
is
Commissioner
I
do
believe
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
protesters
in
regard
to
the
connectivity
issue
to
hear
from
our
planning
director
on
why
connectivity
is
important
or
why
we
value
it.
As
a
commissioner.
J
Yeah
sure
so
plan,
okay,
see
it
it
talks.
We've
been
talking
about
connectivity
for
for
many
years
now,
one
of
the
reasons
it's
important
not
only
for
internal
connectivity
and
for
you
know,
neighbors
to
be
able
to
get
to
each
other's
houses
easily
and
so
forth.
But
if
you're
on
the
internal,
if
you're
inside
a
square
mile-
and
you
have
our
arterioles
all
around
you-
it
takes
traffic
off
of
the
arterioles
to
be
able
to
to
get
from
one
place
to
another
within
your
square
mile.
J
If
you,
if
you
don't
have
that,
then
you
have
to
have
people
go
out
onto
the
arterioles.
Just
to
you
know
just
to
get
you
know
a
hundred
feet
or
200
feet
as
the
crow
flies.
So
it
does.
You
know
these
little
decisions
do
make
a
big
impact
over
time
with
increased
traffic
on
the
arterioles
and
increase
can
increase
congestion
Oh
all.
J
Having
multiple
access
points,
because
there
are
times
when
due
to
a
car
accident
or
a
flood
or
who
knows
what
certain
accesses
may
be
closed
off
and
there
will
be
a
need
to
get
out
or
get
in
through
another
point,
so
those
kind
of
the
basics
as
to
why
connectivity
is
important
and
that
we
we
try
to
get
that
as
much
as
possible.
With
with
new
development.
G
And
news
commissioner
Highsmith
again
I
would
add
that
you
know
it
was
a
highly
public
effort
in
the
comp
comprehensive
plan.
The
the
recent
comprehensive
plan
update
to
establish
the
values
of
our
community
and
one
of
those
you
know,
values
through
that
process
was
indeed
connectivity
and
obviously,
as
a
commission,
we
review
every
case
and
try
to
understand
its
importance
to
the
whole
of
the
city,
but
generally
I
think
it's
a
rare
occurrence
that
I
disagree
with
that.
G
You
know
personally
me
as
just
one
Commissioner
it's
it's
rare
that
I
disagree
with
the
concepts
that
were
stated
in
that
document,
and
so
for
me
I
still,
you
know
in
order
to
support
this
application,
I
need
to
see
that
connectivity
I
understand
your
concerns,
but
I
do
believe.
If
it's
completed
with
that
connectivity
that
you
will
find
that
your
concerns,
you
know,
I,
don't
want
to.
G
A
I
E
A
Think
at
mr.
Nehru
we
are
not
unsympathetic
to
your
concerns.
They
are
concerns
that
we
often
hear
expressed
but
I,
see
by
and
large
I,
don't
want
to
speak
for
out
of
turn,
but
I
think
by
and
large
you'll
find
that
the
Commission
is
committed
to
the
this
concept
of
connectivity.
It
has
proven
itself
to
be
a
valuable
tool
as
we're
trying
to
limit
people's
need
to
get
out
onto
arterial
streets
in
their
automobiles
in
order
to
get
from
one
place
to
another.
A
We
find
that
the
best
way
to
accomplish
that
and
to
accomplish
also
just
sort
of
a
unified
sense
of
community,
is
to
adhere
to
these
connectivity
opportunities.
So
I'm
it's
hard
to
reach
the
room
when
you're
on
the
telephone
but
I'm
guessing
that
you're
going
to
find
that
the
Commission
is
pretty
committed
to
this.
P
This
Brian,
Neil
and
I
understand
that,
but
I
did
contact
my
wife
and
I
contacted
neighbors
property
owners
and
residents,
and
and
no
one
that
we
contacted
refused
or
said
no
I'm,
not
interested
or
I,
opposed
that
they
were
all
in
agreement
and
I
felt
obligated
to
bring
that
forward
and
bring
it
to
your
attention
and
urge
you
to
see
a
difference
in
this
particular
matter
and
I.
Understand
that
may
not
be
what
you
what
you
do,
but
I
felt
obligated
on
their
behalf
to
bring
this
forward
and
continue
to
pursue
it.
Then
we
appreciate.
A
G
Just
have
this
Commissioner
trading
that
is
having
one
small
issue
that
I
suppose
they
box
about
on
the
facade
regulations.
I
asked
him
if
he
would
commit
to
removing
things
like
wood
and
stucco
from
the
70%
requirement,
and
he
was
agreeable
to
that.
I
would
like
to
see
those
changes
made
just
to
ensure
the
quality
of
the
developments
are.
C
H
H
I
J
L
Okay,
limitary
plat
is
associated
with
the
last
time.
The
plat
includes
77
single-family,
residential
lots
and
one
common
area
on
fifteen
point,
five,
one
four
acres
yielding
a
gross
residential
density
of
four
point:
nine
six
dwelling
units
per
acre
staff
has
recommended
approval
of
the
application.
Subject:
the
approval
of
the
PUD
and
the
eggs
technical
evaluations.
The
applicant
agrees
with
te
one
and
tes
four
through
eight,
the
applicant
has
requested
to
delete
te
two,
as
the
site
has
been
determined
to
meet
the
requirements
for
open
space
and
recreational
area
staff
has
revaluated
the
flat.
L
We
agree
that
it
meets
the
requirements
and
agree
the
t2
can
be
deleted.
The
African
applicant
is
requesting
a
variance
to
te3
related
to
the
site
business
that
we
discussed
earlier,
that
is
in
the
subdivision
regulations
and
would
require
a
variance.
The
sight
distance
requirement
is
currently
620
feet
along
178
Street,
the
applicant
and
our
Traffic
Division
would
be
able
to
speak
to
what
they're
what
they're
currently
able
to
meet
regarding
that
distance,
David
box
and
Dean
colita
are
both
on
the
line
to
represent
the
item.
G
Once
again,
David
box,
as
Jared
said
we,
we
agree
with
te
one
four,
five,
six,
seven
eight,
we
believe
te
two
can
be
deleted
as
we
meet
the
open
space
requirement
and
we
need
the
variance,
as
we
discussed
in
detail
on
the
PUD
to
the
side
distance
that
we
believe
with
the
three
things
that
we
discussed
being
the
knocking
down
in
the
hill,
that
being
the
flashing
lights
and
the
elevation
of
the
driveway
that
we
can
satisfy
the
safety
issue.
So
with
those
we
would
ask
for
your
approval.
A
You
know
I'm
just
a
little
bit
uncomfortable
about
the
whole
thing.
With
the
site.
Business
I
mean
I,
I
I
just
want
to
see
it
memorialized
somewhere
what
it
is
exactly
that
you're
proposing
to
do
and
what
exactly
it
is
that
you
think
it
will
result
in
in
terms
of
improvement
of
the
side
distance.
Are
you
saying
that,
if
you
do
these
things,
you
think
you
can
meet
the
sight
distance
requirements?
Are
you
saying
you
think
that
you
will
have
reduced
the
danger
of
not
meeting
the
sight
distance
requirements?
A
G
Great
question
yeah
David
box
again,
so
it
doesn't
remove
the
need
for
the
variance.
What
it
does
is
the
variances
ain't
or
the
sight
distance
is
aimed
at
safety.
We
believe
that,
even
though
we
can't
meet
the
sight
distance,
the
elements
that
we're
going
to
put
into
play
will
ease
those
concerns.
That
being
the
slashing
of
the
sign
is
with
the
flask
rooms
signal
that
you're
approaching
an
intersection,
a
2,
we
will
be
knocking
down,
I
think
Dean
said
about
4
feet
that
retaining
wall
and
he'll.
That's
there
and
then
3,
elevating
the
driveway.
Q
A
A
A
I
G
So
that
the
the
tea
you
would
do
want
to
eat
the
TE
is
that
the
developer
shall
be
required
to
install
a
sign
with
flashing
lights,
notifying
the
traveling
public
that
they
were
approaching.
The
intersection
to
that.
The
hill
will
be
reduced
by
approximately
four
feet,
to
help
with
sight
distance
and
that
finally
be
drive
off.
The
178
will
be
elevated
in
a
manner
to
also
help
the
sight
distance.
K
Q
Just
the
eastbound
traffic
that
way
they
know
when
they're
coming
to
the
east
from
the
West
that
there's
an
intersection
coming
because
that's
where
the
sight
distance
issue
is
because
the
hill
there
so
it'd
be
the
the
eastbound
traffic
and
we
would
place
the
sign
based
off
the
standards
by
the
Traffic
Division.
There's
a
TC
mu
D
for
basically
manual
that
states,
where
you're
supposed
to
place
those
based
off
the
distance
from
the
intersection
and
so
we'll
follow
those
codes
right.
Q
E
I
P
I
H
A
E
I
I
K
K
Q
J
J
First
of
all,
nicely
done:
everybody
get
to
get
not
only
the
tell
the
teleworking
or
the
video
conference
meeting
done,
but
to
do
two
meetings
at
once,
but
yeah
the
the
development
code
we're
starting
partially
because
of
kovat
19
we've
been
delayed,
we're
we're
waiting
for
the
for
the
stakeholder
advisory
put
together,
but
we
couldn't
wait
any
longer.
So
we've
gone
ahead
and
we're
starting
to
move
forward
with
the
sign
code.
J
What
we
think
we
can
do
we
think
that
the
sign
code
is
able
to
be
kind
of
a
packaged
and
done
pretty
much
independently,
because
it's
kind
of
a
hot
issue
we
have
various,
as
you
all,
are
well
aware,
for
various
reasons.
It's
it's
on
people's
minds
and
there's
some
clarity
that
we
laughs
like
to
get
taken
care
of,
and
there
are
best
practices
out
there,
we'd
like
to
review
and
and
all
of
that,
so
all
that
to
say
we
will.
J
So
what
we
would
like
to
do
is
is
move
along
with
that,
so
that,
when
we
do
get
the
stakeholder
advisory
team
put
together,
we'll
have
something
to
move
forward
relatively
quickly
with
them.
So
what
we
think
is
that
we'll
be
able
to
associate
any
new
the
new
sign
code
with
the
current
zoning
districts,
and
that
will
be
pretty
easy
to
translate
it
at
the
end
of
the
project
to
new
zoning
districts,
whatever
those
might
be.
J
If
not,
we
might
have
to
do
put
something
else
together,
so
that
we
can
move
forward
with
the
Commission's
input
and
kind
of
have
everybody
on
the
same
page.
So
that's
that's
what
we're
able
to
do
right
now
and
I'll
report
back
as
we
if
we
get
that
stakeholder
risk
advisory
team
put
together
soon.
I'll
of
course
report
that
that's
that's
critical,
want
to
be
able
to
just
to
have
them
on
board
and
get
started
in
the
right
way.
A
E
J
E
E
I
K
G
P
N
G
J
D
D
D
E
J
As
as
far
as
I
know,
that
is
still
that's
still
happening,
but
you
know,
of
course,
that
naturally
could
be
subject
to
delays,
but
we,
as
last
I
heard
that
was
still
on
schedule.
That
could
change
any
day,
though.
Okay,
that's
good
and
I
will
say,
since
you
brought
that
up
that
it
would
be
a
good
opportunity
for
us
to
move
to
a
digital,
so
I
guess.