►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
F
E
A
E
D
C
C
A
B
C
G
F
A
Thank
you,
laura
griggs
planning
department
at
your
last
at
the
last
time
you
saw
this
one.
The
applicant
indicated
that
she
wanted
to
file
an
appeal
on
the
staff
decision
that
a
minimum
two-story
structure
height
was
required
at
this
location,
and
so
you
continued
it
to
allow
that
to
occur.
It
went
to
the
and
cameron
hang
on
just
one
second,
because
I'm
just
going
to
do
a
brief
summary,
so
we're
not
really
doing
a
whole
presentation.
A
H
D
H
H
A
C
I
C
A
Thank
you,
there's
actually
two
addresses
for
this
project
and
I
want
to
clarify,
because
I
received
a
phone
call
from
an
adjacent
property
owner.
I
want
to
assure
and
so
cameron
we're
not
on
this
item,
we're
on
the
other
one.
Now
that
one.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
want
to
assure
everybody
that
what
we
are
talking
and
I'm
having
feedback
issues,
sorry
that.
G
A
A
A
A
One
of
the
issues
we
discussed-
that,
I
think,
is
the
most
appropriate,
is
structural
integrity
which,
as
you
can
tell
from
looking
at
the
pictures,
are
really
the
structural
integrity,
especially
when
you
look
at
the
pictures
they
provided
from
the
inside.
I
think
most
people
would
agree.
That
is
a
big
concern
right
now,.
A
Feels
that
their
application
does
meet
the
guidelines
and
regulations
and
we
are
recommending
the
demolition
of
the
pink
buildings.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that.
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
remember
the
owner
that
called
me
who
owns
the
buildings
to
the
north.
She
just
wanted
to
make
sure
her
buildings
weren't
going
to
be
demoed,
because,
unfortunately,
when
og
e
went
out
to
cut
off
the
electricity
for
these
buildings,
they
cut
off
her
electricity.
A
J
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
consider
this.
We
call
that
building
one
one,
one
two
and
one
one
one:
four
south
province
and
based
on
the
numbers
that
are
painted
on
the
building.
There's
there's
been
some
confusion,
exactly
what
what
addresses
which
building
so,
but
we
were,
we
would
like
to
take
them
down.
We've
had
a
tremendous
amount
of
problems
in
the
building
for
over
the
last
60
days,
we've
had
we've
had
the
police
out
at
least
four
times.
J
J
J
Someone
went
and
cut
the
pecan
tree
that
was
behind
the
building
down.
I
guess
for
smoking,
wood
which
caused
a
big
mess.
They
stole
the
fence
that
we
had
around
the
building.
We
briefed
fenced.
We
were
trying
to
re-fence
it
it's
it's.
A
dangerous
structure
and
people
keep
milling
around
in
there
and
I'm
worried
that
someone's
gonna
get
hurt
or
worse
and
we
like,
we
have
contracted
with
midwest.
C
D
E
C
D
G
It
doesn't
say
there
is
no
requirement,
it
just
doesn't
say
anything
at
all.
Katie
friddle
from
the
planning
department
spoke
up
in
that
meeting
and
stated
that
it
was
and
katie,
I
believe,
you're
on
the
call.
If
she's,
not
maybe
someone
from
the
planning
department
can
step
in
in
her
stead.
Please
correct
me
if
I
misunderstood
this,
but
my
understanding
was
that
the
planning
department's
intent
was
not
that
there
is
no
requirement,
but
that
their
intent
was
by
not
saying
anything
about
a
requirement.
G
K
A
L
F
This
is
laura
mcdevitt
and
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
the
the
issue
before
the
board
was
where
whether
or
not
a
variance
is
required
to
that
regulation,
and
that's
not
to
say
that
other
guidelines
or
other
things
might
be
applicable
to
this
particular
site.
But
just
now
that
a
variance
is
not
required
for
the
hype.
D
H
And
I
don't
this
is
barbara.
I
don't
recall
in
in
our
first
discussion
about
this
whether
or
not
we
brought
up
the
guideline.
I
think
that
we
spoke
about
the
zoning,
the
downtown
and
the
overlay,
but
I
don't
think
we
ever
looked
at
this
guideline
for
future
development
in
the
area,
so
that
maybe
the
committee
doesn't
think
that
it's
valid
to
even
consider,
but
because
there
was
a
conflict,
perhaps
we
might
want
to
look
at
it.
G
I
agree
with
committee
member
larson.
I
I
have
a
an
understanding
of
what
this
board's
scope
and
purview
is,
and
the
regulations
and
guidelines
that
we
act
upon.
I
will
rely
heavily
on
the
planning
department
and
legal
to
keep
us
in
line
if
we
begin
referencing
articles
that
are
outside
of
our
purview
or
attempting
to
do
something
that
is
not
within
our
ability
to
do.
But
with
that
being
said,
I
do
agree
with
committee
member
larson
that
the
downtown
design
framework
is
applicable
to
this
site
and
should
be
considered
in
our
deliberations.
C
Thank
you,
john.
I
just
want
to
make
a
brief
comment
that
you
know
it's.
It's
really
a
lot
easier.
You
know
if
we
look
at
the
case
be
before
this
one
that
we
just
proved
as
far
as
taking
down
an
older
structure
and
then
when
a
when
a
landowner
wants
to
develop
a
clean
raw
site,
it's
it's
very
easy
to
make
those
determinations
of
yes,
you
know,
go
go
with
the
two-story
guideline,
a
recommendation.
C
You
know
in
this
situation
we
have
a
a
property
owner
who
you
know.
They've
looked
at
rebuilding
the
two-story
and
and
as
committee
member
joyce
said
that
it's
just
not
feasible,
and
I
think
this
property
owner
is
wanting
to
keep
the
first
floor.
You
know
intact.
You
know
from
a
historical
standpoint,
making
some
of
the
improvements
that
they
would
like
to
make.
C
I
I
F
G
Okay,
one
objection
I
had
not
particularly
to
any
one
entity
but
just
to
the
situation
in
general,
with
the
discussion
before
the
board
of
adjustment
was
in
planning
department.
Please
correct
me
if
I
misunderstood
this,
it's
my
understanding
that
the
dtd2
regulations,
the
scenic
river
overlay
regulations,
both
pre-date,
the
the
plans
for
in
the
site
of
the
lower
scissortail
park,
and
so
it's
my
belief
that
those
guidelines
and
regulations
need
to
be
updated
to
better
better
address
the
development
surrounding
the
lower
scissortail
park
planning
department.
A
A
A
G
I'm
assuming
that
it's
not
within
the
scope
of
this
board
to
write
policy,
and
it's
certainly
not
what
I
would
like
to
do
in
the
scope
of
this
meeting
or
particularly
with
regards
to
this
application,
and
so
I
want
to
tread
carefully
and
not
not
trying
to
make
this
about
what
we
think
it
should
be.
If
that
is
in
conflict
with
what
the
planning
department
has
said,
they
think
it
should
be
because
that's
that's
their
purview
and
not
ours.
So
that's
why
I'm
asking
for
clarification.
K
It
seemed
that
staff
was
really
interested
more
in
having
a
historical
restoration
of
this
property,
and
so
in
my
new
application,
once
we
determined
that
a
second
floor
was
not
viable,
it's
all
brick.
It
will
look
very
much
like
the
original
building
and
if
those
drawings
could
be
shown,
I
think
you'll
see
that
this
would
be
a
very
nice
high
quality
one-story
commercial
building,
attractive
on
this
corner.
K
K
I've
been
told
both
by
the
contractor
and
by
advisors
that
oklahoma
city
isn't
really
ready
for
that,
but
the
guidelines
encourage
that
the
if
a
building
is
higher
that
it's
behind
the
street
front.
So
all
of
that
is
something
to
be
considered
either.
We
have
a
blank
empty
lot
here,
for
I
don't
know
how
long
or
we
have
a
very
nice
one-story
building
that
will
allow
for
future
higher
development
behind
this
one-story
street
front,
which
is
in
conformance
to
the
guidelines.
C
I
I
do
feel
that
this,
the
south
part
of
the
park
scissortail
park,
has
a
totally
different
feel
to
it,
and
the
hubcap
alley
is
something
that
I've
always
thought
as
a
bees
and
it's
not
as
grand
as
maybe
the
north
part
of
the
scissortail
park,
and
I
think
one
story.
Buildings
are
fine
here
in
this
area
and
I
think
that
starting
of
course,
like
miss
van
stavern,
said
this
is
a
a
front
and
center
location.
H
C
Well,
I
mean
this:
this
is
about
one
of
the
only
buildings
that
remains
standing,
I
think
almost
and-
and
I
think
it
wasn't.
I
don't
know
that
I
was
trying
to
set
precedent,
but
I
I
had
discussions
with
planning
department.
As
far
as
you
know,
when
you
look
at
the
you
know
the
street
frontage
and
and
redeveloping
an
area,
I'm
all
400
percent,
where
you
have
the
buildings
right
up
on
the
right
away.
C
I
think
that's
a
very
strong
component
with
urban
planning,
and
I
asked
the
question
you
know
if
you
had
a
one-story
building
on
the
corner.
Doesn't
that
provide
opportunity
for
land
or
property
owners
behind
you
to
have
taller
buildings?
That
also
benefit
of
the
same
view
that
you
have
because
they're
taller,
and
I
just
think
there
are
various
opportunities
I
I
personally,
I
don't
know
that
I
would
like
to
see
all
two-story
buildings.
I,
like
a
variety
of
heights,
just
to
provide
some.
H
G
I
I
agree
with
scott
that
it's
probably
desirable
to
have
variation
in
building
heights,
although
I
would
say
if
you
would
choose
one
location
to
put
a
taller
building,
it
would
be
on
the
corner,
particularly
such
a
powerful
corner
next
to
the
park
and
the
bridge
and
the
highway,
where
there's
not
much
else
of
height
around
it.
I
think
that
I
think
that
the
entire
lower
scissortail
park
is
going
to
get
lined
with
development
before
an
8-10
story.
Building
happens
on
this
property.
C
I
I
think
if
you
had
a
taller
building
there,
it
could
possibly
mask
the
buildings
behind
it
and
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
see
the
ones
behind
it,
but
I
do
think
if
you're
coming
over
the
bridge-
and
there
is
that
one
story
there
and
as
miss
van
staven,
stated
that
they
were
talking
about
putting
a
green
roof
on
there.
I
think
that
would
be
appealing
in
case.
You
did
have
a
second
story.
A
B
This
is,
this
is
john
joyce,
I
would
say
the
important
thing
is
the
roof
structure,
for
that
building
is
being
designed
to
support
a
green
roof.
So
I
mean
whether
it's
shown
or
not.
I
don't
know
that
that's
really
relevant,
but
the
point
is
that
when
we
rebuild
the
building,
the
structure
is
gonna
support,
a
green
roof.
So
when
she
talks
about
that,
that's
what
she's
implying
you
can't.
You
can't
just
have
put
up
start
stacking
up
a
bunch
of
landscaping
on
an
existing
building.
It
has
to
be
able
to
support
it.
H
B
D
H
G
I
K
K
Since
there
was
a
it
was
originally
a
one-story
building,
so
there's
no
place
for
a
stair.
The
stair
has
to
be
added
on
that's
an
addition.
If
it's
going
to
be
used
for
commercial
purposes,
we'd
have
to
put
in
an
elevator
and
there's
only
2500
square
feet.
It
just
doesn't
weigh
out
you
know,
there's
if
we
could
go
taller
and
that's
something
that
I
talked
to
john
about
when
we
were
trying
to
make
this
work.
M
M
I
do
see
the
ddf
on
page
13
kind
of
give
some
example
hopeful
developments
along
that
along
that
frontage
and
think
that
you
know,
that's
that's
really
what
I
I
agree
with
the
developers
of
the
ddf.
That's,
hopefully
what
we
get
along
this
park,
and-
and
maybe
you
know
the
the
the
structure
to
the
south
will-
will
benefit
from
being
able
to
look
over
this
structure
and
look
to
the
downtown
and
then
look
also
across
the
park.
M
So
hopefully
future
developments
to
the
south
will
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
of
the
location
and
and
the
opportunities
here
and-
and
you
know
a
lot
of
times
there's
as
far
as
urban
development
goes.
One
stories
are
sometimes
demolished
and
raised
higher,
so
maybe
it
pencils
out
later
on
in
the
future
once
additional
developments
are
made
along
this
wellness
frontage,
and
we
see
something
different
on
that.