CITY OF MUSTANG PLANNING COMMISSION

MUSTANG MUNCIPAL BUILDING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

1501 N. MUSTANG ROAD

MUSTANG, OK 73064

MEETING OF MARCH 8, 2016

Time 7:00 p.m.

AGENDA

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. ROLL CALL

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of minutes from the February 23, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.

V. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS AND VISITORS/HEARING OF CITIZENS AND DELEGATES

VI. PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION ON:

1. Special Use Permit Application SUP-2-2-16-1-33, 236 W. State Highway 152, Judy Padgett, Tattoo Shop in C-2 District.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

VIII. COMMISSIONER, STAFF COMMENTS

IX. ADJOURNMENT

“ The City of Mustang encourages participation from all its citizens. If participation at any public meeting is not possible due to a disability, notification to the City Clerk at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting is encouraged to make the necessary accommodation. The City may waive the 48 hours rule if signing is not the necessary accommodation.”

DATE POSTED ______________________ TIME _____________ INITIALS _________

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Minutes February 23, 2016

The Mustang Planning Commission met in a regular session on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 7:00

p.m. at the Mustang Municipal Building, City Council Chambers at 1501 N. Mustang Road.

Notification of the meeting was posted Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 in the foyer of the Mustang

Municipal Building in compliance with the Open Meeting Act (25 OAS, Section 301, et. seq.)

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Planning Commission Chairman, Mr. McDaniel called

the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. ROLL CALL:

MEMEBERS PRESENT:

Commissioner Jan Yakish

Commissioner Dan Hix, Secretary

Commissioner Billy McDaniel, Chairman

Commissioner Brad Homer, Vice-Chairman

Commissioner Jerry Brown

Commissioner Darrell Johnson

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Commissioner Jesse Bratton

STAFF PRESENT:

Melissa Helsel, Community Development Director

Morgan Shepard, City Planner

Radika Wheeler, Office Administrator

Jerry Calloway, Audio Visual Systems Operator

CITY ATTORNEY:

City Attorney, Jonathan Miller, was in attendance

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of minutes from the December 22, 2015 Planning

Commission meeting.

Mr. Homer made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 22, 2015 Planning

Commission meeting. Mr. Brown seconded the motion. The motion was approved

unanimously.

V. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS AND VISITORS/ HEARING OF CITIZENS AND

DELEGATES: None

VI. PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND

RECOMMENDATION ON:

1. Short Form Subdivision Application LS-2-2-16-1-25, 312 N. Ross Terrace, Robert Forsythe, approximately 2.5 acre lot into 3 lots of 1 acre, .75 acre and .75 acre approximately.

Community Development Director, Melissa Helsel, introduced the short form subdivision

request, or lot split, for the tract of land at 312 N. Ross Terrace. The property owner is

Robert Forsythe. The current tract is 2.5 acres; he would like to split this into three lots, of 1

acre, 0.75 acre and 0.75 acre. This property is on the northeast corner of N. Ross Terrace and

E. Frontier Terrace. There is currently one residential dwelling and a storm shelter on the

property. The property is zoned R-E, Rural Estates District. The house that is on the property

now is connected to a septic system but there is sanitary sewer now available on Ross

Terrace, this was put in after the structure was built. The applicant stated he would tie the

lots into the public sewer system. There is a fire hydrant on the corner of Ross and Frontier.

The general character of the neighborhood is low density residential. The adjacent property

is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential, to the east, R-E, Rural Estates to the west, R-E to

the north and R-E to the south. The long range plan calls for low-density residential

development in this area. This property is zoned R-E, Rural Estates, the minimum lot size in

this district is ¾ of an acre; the proposed tracts would meet the minimum lot size. There is

fire protection, and public water and sewer are available.

Staff recommends approval of the lot split because it meets all the minimum requirements

for an R-E District and it conforms to the comprehensive plan.

Mr. McDaniel opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Mr. Hix made a motion to

close the public hearing, Ms. Yakish seconded the motion. The motion was passed

unanimously.

Mr. Homer made a motion to approve the short form subdivision request. Mr. Johnson

seconded the motion.

A roll call vote was taken:

Jan Yakish Yes

Dan Hix Yes

Brad Homer Yes

Jerry Brown Yes

Darrell Johnson Yes

Billy McDaniel Yes

The motion was approved unanimously.

VII. 2. Rezoning Application RZ-1-20-16-1-27, 800-900 Block N. Sara Road, Civil Design &

Survey of Oklahoma, A-1, General Agricultural and Oil and Gas District to R-1 PUD, Single Family Residential Planned Unit Development District.

Ms. Helsel gave the staff report for the PUD rezoning application. Ms. Helsel pointed out

that this is different than probably any other project that we’ve brought before the Planning

Commission. This is a new concept to Mustang. The land is located in the 800-900 block of

N. Sara Road and is currently zoned A-1 and is approximately 23 acres.

Ms. Helsel stated that the overall concept of the PUD is larger houses on smaller lots for a

maintenance free living environment. The homes are a minimum of 1,800 sq. ft. and the

minimum lot size is 5,300 sq. ft. The developers are projecting 116 lots in this area. People

would have very little individual lawns but there would be a lot of common open space. The

current plans show three large common areas in the front, and wide green belts along the

south side and the west side. There will be amenities such as walking trails, gated entrance,

recreational facilities, a club house and the HOA will perform grounds maintenance within

the entire PUD.

Public sanitary sewer will be provided, they will tap in on the west side of Plantation Terrace

and public water will be provided and tied in at Sara Road. There is adequate water and

sewer to service this development. They intend to place an opaque 6 foot wall around the

perimeter of the entire subdivision, partially as a buffer but also to maintain exclusivity in

the neighborhood. The base zoning for the PUD will be R-1, wherever the developers have

not requested a variance from the code they will comply with R-1 zoning regulations. \

Ms. Helsel stated that the PUD calls for a maximum lot coverage of 65%, the Mustang Code

only allows 35%. The lot coverage is one of the variances they have requested. They will

have increased landscape buffering along N. Sara Road. They intend to create a very

beautiful entry way and a beautiful common area. The minimum lot size will be 5300 square

feet and the city's code minimum is 7200 square feet. All yards, common areas, entry and

buffer areas will have irrigation systems. All structures will be a minimum of 80% masonry

finish; they will be brick, stucco, or stone exteriors. The setbacks will be 10-foot in front, 7.5

in rear and 5 on sides. Mustang code requires 30 in front, 20 in rear and 5 on sides.

The developer is Sheppard and Sons Construction and they intend to build these homes. The

price per square foot of the houses will be $135 to $140. These will not be low-income

housing. The big change is that there is more house coverage per lot than there would

typically be in an R-1 District. The size and shape of the lot lends itself to this proposed

concept. This is the only way to develop a lot that is this long and narrow with water and

sewer and still be able to make if profitable. According to the developer, similar

subdivisions in Oklahoma City have been very successful and are a popular concept. The

City Attorney, Mr. Miller, requested minor revisions and the developers have provided a

revised design statement to the Community Development Department addressing these

comments.

Ms. Helsel stated that the general character of the surrounding area is low density

residential. : The property to the south is Clear View Addition zoned R-E, the property to

the west is zoned R-1, the property to the north is zoned A-1, and the property to the east,

across Sara Road is zoned R-E. The long range plan calls for low density residential

development which includes R-E through R-2, this project falls within that range.

There will be a fire hydrant placed at the south end of each of the common access drives.

There is a long boulevard style street along the south end and a series of common access

drives that come off the street. The common access drives are not considered streets; they

are driveways serving eight homes. Parking will be restricted on those drives.

Mr. McDaniel remarked that it was his understanding that residents would be parking in

their garage and not allowed to park in the driveway.

Ms. Helsel responded that residents in similar developments park in the 10 foot setback

between their side yard and garage but parking on the street or curb is not allowed. There are

four overflow parking spaces as well as parking by the clubhouse and common area. Each

common access drive serves eight units and there will be restrictions in the PUD and

covenants not to park there, this will be enforced by the HOA.

Ms. Helsel stated there is the option to approve the PUD as is or with a crash gate at

Montebella. There is a 15 foot easement on the north boundary of the development and

because the water and sewer are both on the south side staff feels 15 feet is more than

adequate.

This request is for the zoning phase, the developers will still have to bring back a

preliminary plat and a final plat for approval. That would be the time to talk about drainage,

utilities and easements. Staff recommends approval of this PUD application. The proposal

fits well within the definition and intent of a Planned Unit Development. The shape of this

lot is unique. It is very long and narrow. The design of the subdivision is also unique to

Mustang. It will appeal to those who do not want yard maintenance and want the exclusivity

of a gated community with ample amenities and common areas that are maintained by the

HOA. Staff does not feel that this development will negatively impact property values in the

surrounding area. Each home will be available for purchase as they are each on individual

lots. The fire department has reviewed it and requested changes. Those changes were all

made by the developer and the changed plans were re-submitted. The police department did

not recommend any changes.

Mr. McDaniel stated one of his concerns is the perimeter fence and the fact that there is

only going to be access from Sara Road. He wants to make sure that Montebella will never

be opened for additional access and that might ease tension for residents.

Ms. Helsel responded the developers were willing to put up a crash gate if needed. The crash

gate would not be a point of access. It could be written in the PUD that Montebella would

never be opened for public access. The only way that could be changed is if the developer

came back before Planning Commission and City Council for a PUD revision.

Ms. Yakish stated her concern was the single entry and how fast emergency services could

get to a home with only one entrance. Ms. Helsel answered that the entrance would be

divided in the middle with a gate on each side so that if one is blocked they could come in

the other one.

Mr. Brown asked what the time lapse was on a PUD before the city takes over the road and

utility maintenance. Ms. Helsel responded that the city will never take over street

maintenance; this will always be a private street. The water and sewer utilities along the

south end will be public. When the work is completed, the city will get a bond from the

contractor and when City Council approves the bond the city takes the water and sewer. For

two years we have a 110% bond so if anything happens to the public water or sewer lines

within those first two years they have to be repaired by the contractor or the city will call in

the bond and make the repairs.

Mr. Brown asked what changes the fire department wanted. Ms. Helsel replied the fire

department only had one change and that was to remove the landscaped median along the

center of the street so they would have enough room to maneuver the fire trucks.

Mr. Brown reminded the commissioners to keep in mind this request was only a zoning

change and a lot of changes will be made before it comes back.

Mr. Homer asked for clarification on the fence. Ms. Helsel responded that currently the

plan is for a 6 foot brick or stone wall around the entire perimeter with decorative wrought

iron details.

Mr. McDaniel addressed the public to remind them the Planning Commission is a

recommending body and the City Council will have the final vote at the meeting next

Tuesday night.

Mr. McDaniel opened the public hearing.

Mark Ritchie, 2201 Rambling Road, of Civil Design and Survey, spoke on behalf of the

applicants and developers, Sheppard and Sons. He wanted to reiterate the amenities that

would be offered; the walking trails, the gated entry way, the irrigated common areas, a club

house, pool, playground and scattered benches. The intent of this development is to try and

get away from suburbia where everyone has a lawn, an extensive irrigation system and

maintenance obligations. By concentrating the open area, which would typically be back

yards that don’t get much use and instead creating a central park setting which would draw

residents out and let them meet their neighbors and promote community.

The minimum lot size is 5,300 sq. ft. and the minimum home size is 1,800 sq. ft. The

development of 116 homes on 25 acres results in 4.6 living units per acre which is standard

for Yukon and surrounding areas. If the minimum home size is built on the minimum lot

size, the lot coverage would be 32%, which leaves 3,800 sq. ft. of land, around the home.

This meets the international building and fire codes and it is also below the Mustang

requirements for an R-1 District which allows no more than 35% building coverage. The

anticipated home size is expected to be 2,200 sq. ft. if you apply that to the minimum lot size

the building coverage is 40%. The maximum house size on the minimum lot size would

have 64% lot coverage. Most homes will be between 2,000 and 2,500 sq. ft. with 40% lot

coverage.

Mr. Ritchie described how the property is odd shaped and that Sheppard and Sons are trying

to make the most efficient use of the property as possible while luring residents in that have

ample means to shop and spend and contribute to Mustang. Mr. Ritchie met with staff and

residents in the initial planning stages of the development. Both staff and residents were

concerned about traffic being an issue which is why the Sheppard’s committed to a solid

masonry wall around the development with a single entrance. The layout of the development

was designed so that the common area would be located along the south and west sides of

the property where the existing residential development is. The wall and layout of the

development were designed with respect to the neighbors and their privacy. For the final

draft of the PUD that goes to council, they are prepared to commit to no accessory buildings,

no pools, no boats and no RVs. This will minimize issues and contribute to the feel of the

community as a unit. The ultimate thing the city will be responsible for is the singular sewer

and water main, everything that feeds off that into the common area and along the common

access drives will be maintained by the HOA. The developers did not want to put the burden

on the city to maintain those long lines that feed off into the homes.

Jim Sheppard, 1224 E. Highline Road, of Sheppard and Sons Construction, spoke on

behalf of the developers of The Reserve at Sara. Mr. Sheppard addressed concerns that had

been raised and explained that the gate will be split and have a side to enter and to exit and

that he would prefer not to have a crash gate and it was only brought up as something that

the fire department may require. If the fire department did require a crash gate, it would have

a knox lock that only emergency services would have a key to.

Mr. Sheppard stated his intent is to bring a new style of living to Mustang. It provides people

with the opportunity to still own a private residence without the headaches and burden of

yard maintenance. The main focus is to provide an asset to the City of Mustang, the city has

a wide variety of housing options but it does not have a quality neighborhood with nice size

homes and amenities.

Mr. Sheppard stated that in the last 5 years there have been 13 of these communities built in

the Oklahoma City, Norman, and Edmond area and the homes have all sold within 18

months. It provides a quality living environment in a private community. The target

demographic for these homes are people aged 55 and older.

Donna Skidmore, 2113 SW 67th

St, spoke on behalf of her parents who live at 707 E Lea

Terrace. Ms. Skidmore’s parents have lived here almost 10 years and enjoy the calm,

peaceful, rural environment. Ms. Skidmore described the property and her concerns for the

impact this development could have. She explained to the east of the proposed area is the

subdivision Rollin Acres which has 1 ½ acre lots, to the south is Clear View that has

approximately 112 lots, each lot is a minimum of 1 acre. This north quarter section to

Highway 152 is a low density, rural setting. The Reserve is proposing 116 lots on 25 acres;

each lot would be an average of 0.13 acre.

Ms. Skidmore referenced the design statement for the PUD that states the design concept

mirrors successful developments in the central Oklahoma area. Ms. Skidmore described the

similar developments. Muirfield, completed in 1983, was originally platted with 64 lots and

average lot size was 54 feet by 60 feet. The developer only sold 12 of these lots, the

remaining lots were replatted into larger lots or made into multiple family housing.

Edinburgh, located west of May Avenue, south of 164th

, is another similar development.

There are approximately 92 lots, average lot size is 80 feet by 83 feet on a 25 acre property.

Edinburgh has a large, central common area, a club house, pool and other amenities. In

Muirfield and Edinburgh, the lots are in groups of 6, not in groups of 8. The surrounding

neighborhoods are comparable in size and density.

Ms. Skidmore provided extensive information and data regarding the drainage issues and

stormwater runoff. She referenced a map which illustrated the flow of water from

surrounding areas and detailed instances of flooding experienced by many home owners on

Lea Terrace. She calculated the area of impermeable surfaces including the homes (at 65%),

street, sidewalk, and common access drive and concluded that this development would add

13.3 acres of impermeable surface to undeveloped land.

Ms. Skidmore asked whether there would be dedicated easements, if there would be

streetlights, how and where the trash would be picked up and if the entrance would match up

with the entrance to Rolling Acres. Ms. Skidmore does not want there to be a crash gate on

Montebella and would prefer a solid wall, she requested that the height of the perimeter

fence be increased to 8-10 feet. Ms. Skidmore and her parents are opposed to the PUD for

The Reserve at Sara as submitted and request it be denied.

Mr. Brown asked if Ms. Helsel could define what is subject to approval or disapproval for

this meeting. Ms. Helsel stated that per Mr. Miller’s request, Sheppard and Sons have

stricken the section on drainage from the PUD document. The development will be required

to meet the city’s drainage ordinance; post development rates of runoff cannot be greater

than predevelopment conditions. The drainage subject is not appropriate for the rezoning

decision, which is not the intended use of the zoning docket. That will be part of the hearing

for the preliminary and final plat. Ms. Helsel stated that streetlights are required at

intersections and at the end of a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Brown asked if there was any time restriction that could be placed on open public

hearings to each person. Mr. Miller responded there can be time limits, but the Planning

Commission has not adopted any rules of such nature.

Robert Duke, 432 E. Magnolia Terrace, stated that he was very concerned about the impact

this would have on the city’s water and sewer resources and that this could lead to a bond or

tax increase to improve the water and sewer systems. He questioned whether the existing

sewer line is sufficient to support additional development. He is concerned over the traffic

issues, increased property taxes and the impact this could have on the school system. Mr.

Duke feels that the quality of life in Mustang has deteriorated and drug and crime activity

has increased. The neighborhood has existing flood and drainage problems and he believes

this development will increase the flooding issues. Mr. Duke requested that the

Commissioners deny the rezoning request.

Charles Matthews, 605 E. Lea Terrace, expressed a concern for the wildlife in the 25 acre

property. This includes scissor tail, hawk and other bird species that may be protected or

endangered as well as deer, armadillo and coyotes. He mentioned the runoff and flooding

problems as a concern, as well as increased traffic, children’s safety and an oily substance in

his yard. Mr. Matthews questioned how a fire truck, school bus or garbage truck would be

able to maneuver within the development. Mr. Matthews stated he is not for or against

development in Mustang but believes there needs to be additional review.

Don Klepper, 624 E. Plantation Terrace, voiced similar concerns over runoff and drainage.

He questioned what would happen if this development didn’t work, what the developers

would be allowed to do. Mr. McDaniel responded that the developers would have to come

back before the Planning Commission and City Council to make any changes. Ms. Helsel

added that this PUD is single family residential only.

Jose Viejo, 525 E. Lea Terrace, stated that he is opposed to the PUD. He mentioned the

drainage issues and the wildlife. He feels that the city is growing and we are the losing the

privacy and peace and quiet of the country.

Robert Duke, requested to make an additional comment. He stated that Mustang needs to

preserve green space and wildlife. He asked if the development could be moved somewhere

else. He is against the rezoning of the PUD.

Hearing no further comments, Mr. Homer made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms.

Yakish seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. McDaniel stated that the PUD rezoning does affect the residents and we owe them a

right to speak. He reiterated that the Commission in a recommending body whether it passes

or fails it will be on the City Council agenda next Tuesday night.

Mr. Homer stated that during his 10 years as a Commissioner he has heard from developers

about the odd shaped lots and the struggle they have to come up with a plan to develop those

lots. Mr. Homer expressed his understanding over the concerns for the loss of green space

and wildlife in Mustang as well as the traffic problem. He does not believe there will be an

impact on the schools and adamantly disagrees with the comments made about increased

drug and crime activity.

Mr. McDaniel stated it is shortsighted to think large tracts of undeveloped land will never

be developed in the future. To say we want this land left alone and never developed is

wishful thinking. Mr. McDaniel expressed that he liked green belts and wildlife. But if you

are the land owner, they have rights too. Within the 2 miles by 6 miles of Mustang there is

going to be very little property that is not developed. It is something that will happen

eventually and you have to make sure it doesn’t impact you too much.

Mr. Hix pointed out that during his time on the Commission there have been very few times

when he has seen this level of citizen involvement. He stated that he does not take the

public’s opinions and comments lightly. The important thing to consider is does it meet the

requirements and what can we build to make it beneficial for Mustang residents. Property

owners have a right to do what is best for their property, we may not agree but we will try to

make the best decision based on what we know and what we do here.

Ms. Yakish stated that her family moved to Mustang 10 years ago for the country feel and

she understands the concern from the residents. She wants Mustang to grow and to be a

better, stronger community but in its own design to where it doesn’t take away from our

homes. Ms. Yakish stated that her main concerns are the traffic and the safety of people

driving on Sara Road and the drainage issues in the area.

Mr. Homer made a motion to approve to approve the rezoning request. Mr. Hix seconded

the motion

A roll call vote was taken:

Jan Yakish Yes

Dan Hix Yes

Brad Homer Yes

Jerry Brown Yes

Darrell Johnson Yes

Billy McDaniel Yes

The motion was passed unanimously.

VIII. NEW BUSINESS: None

IX. COMMISSIONER, STAFF COMENTS:

X. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Homer made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Bratton seconded the motion. The motion was

approved unanimously; the meeting was adjourned at 8:40.

_____________________________ ___________________

CHAIRMAN DATE

___________________________

SECRETARY

Mustang Planning Commission

Staff Report

For Meeting of March 8, 2016

Applicant Information:

Applicant: Judy Padgett Owner: Jimmy Jack Herring, Jr.

9005 S. Frances Lane 409 Oak Manor

Mustang, OK 73064 Springdale, AR 72764

Acres:Approx. 0.9 acres Zoning: C-2, Comm. Neighborhood Streets: Public

Lots: 1 Comp Plan: Commercial Retail Water: Public

Flood Plain: Zone X Sewer: Public

Project Description: The applicant requests a special use permit for a Tattoo Shop in a C-2,

Commercial Neighborhood zoning district. A Tattoo Shop is not a use addressed in our code, so

the special use permit is the correct remedy. This property is 66 feet in width and is located

between HeartStrings Cards & Gifts and the Little Caesars Restaurant Plaza.

Notice was sent out to the 300-foot property owners list and no comments were received.

Please see attached site plan for a layout of the proposed development. Development must

abide with all commercial zoning requirements for the City of Mustang.

Public water is available to the north of this property and sanitary sewer also exists in that area.

The purpose of a special use permit is to process uses which have not been identified in the

zoning code. This use will be reviewed every two years by the City Council.

Character of Neighborhood: The general character of the area is commercial and low density

residential.

Zoning and Uses of Property Nearby: The property to the east is zoned C-5, to the north is

Agricultural (church use), to the west is zoned C-3 and to the south is R-1.

Conformance with Long-Range Plan: The long-range plan calls for commercial retail

development in this area, so the request conforms to the comprehensive plan.

Professional Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit.

No comments have been received against the application. Staff can think of no reason to deny

the application.