2025.02.06 Jenks Planning Commission Meeting 6PM

This meeting of the Jenks Planning Commission on February 6, 2025, covered several key agenda items, including a consent agenda, a comprehensive land use map amendment, and a rezoning request. The commission reviewed proposed changes to zoning and land use for various parcels, discussing potential impacts on the community, traffic, and local economy. Public comments were also heard on these proposals.

Key Takeaways

• Consent Agenda Approved: The commission moved to approve the consent agenda, with one item pulled for further discussion.
• Land Use Map Amendment (PA 25-44): A request to change approximately 5 acres from parks and open space to local commercial was discussed. This is related to PUD 142 and involves a general location at 106th and Elm Street.
• PUD 142 Major Amendment: This item also relates to PUD 142, seeking a major amendment for additional general entertainment, outdoor residential, multi-family, and commercial shopping uses. It also includes a partial rezoning of agricultural land to commercial shopping.
• Development Areas and Uses: The proposed development is on a 119-acre parcel. The amendment focuses on about 10 acres, with specific areas designated for retail, restaurants, mini-golf, and multi-family residential (condominiums).
• Revenue and Amenities: Proponents highlighted the potential for increased tax revenue for the city and county, as well as the addition of diverse amenities like mini-golf and multi-family housing, aiming to make Jenks a destination city.
• Traffic and Infrastructure: Concerns were raised about traffic impact, particularly with the ongoing widening of Elm Street. The development plans include access from 106th Street, which is also undergoing design and potential construction.
• PUDs as Private Covenants: It was clarified that Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are private, binding legal documents that outline specific rules for land use, often providing relief or additional restrictions beyond standard zoning.
• Public Input: Several residents spoke, offering support for the project, citing the developer's track record and the need for economic growth. Others expressed concerns about traffic, noise, and the potential impact on the community's character.
• Code Updates: The commission also reviewed proposed updates to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), including changes to setback requirements, allowing art exhibits on rooftops, and clarifying rules for parking and materials.
• Second Rezoning Request (JZ 25 PUD 152): A request to change zoning from agricultural and local commercial with a PUD overlay to residential single-family with a PUD overlay was discussed for a property at 131st and Harvard. This proposal includes a private, gated community with passive recreational areas.
• UDO Amendments: Several proposed amendments to the UDO were presented, aiming to make the code more workable and development-friendly. These included clarifications on setbacks, parking, materials, and public notice procedures.

Land Use and Zoning Discussions

The meeting focused heavily on a significant development proposal involving a large parcel of land. The core of the discussion revolved around a comprehensive land use map amendment and a major amendment to an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant sought to change the land use from parks and open space to local commercial and to allow for a mix of uses including retail, restaurants, multi-family residential (condominiums), and general entertainment, specifically mini-golf.

The existing PUD (PUD 142) originally permitted outdoor recreation, with conceptual plans for a baseball complex. The proposed amendments aimed to diversify the uses, with the developer emphasizing the potential for increased tax revenue and the creation of new community amenities. The project is envisioned as a multi-phase development, with the condominiums and retail/restaurant spaces being key components.

Concerns were raised by both the commission and the public regarding traffic flow, especially with the ongoing improvements to Elm Street and the planned extension of 106th Street. The developer addressed these by explaining the planned access points and the phased approach to construction, aiming to align with infrastructure improvements.

Public Comment and Community Impact

Public comments revealed a range of opinions. Supporters highlighted the developer's history of quality projects and the economic benefits the development could bring to Jenks, including job creation and increased sales tax revenue. They stressed the importance of growth for the city's financial health and its ability to provide essential services.

Conversely, some residents voiced concerns about potential negative impacts, such as increased traffic congestion, noise from entertainment venues, and changes to the community's character. There were also questions about the specifics of the development, including the intended market for the condominiums and the management of amenities like private lakes and pools.

One significant point of contention was the ongoing legal challenge related to a previous initiative petition concerning the property. The applicant's attorney clarified the legal status of the petition, stating it had been deemed misleading by the courts.

Proposed Code Updates

In addition to the development proposals, the commission reviewed several proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). These included:

• Setback Modifications: Adjustments to setback requirements, particularly for industrial areas, to provide relief for existing properties and avoid unnecessary variances.
• Rooftop Art Exhibits: A proposal to allow approved art exhibits on rooftops, potentially adding unique architectural features to the city.
• Event Venues: Discussion on whether to allow event venues in the Riverfront Commercial (RTC) district, with staff noting the potential impact on parking and the city's vision for the riverfront.
• Parking and Landscaping: Changes to regulations regarding parking between the street and buildings, particularly for retail and service uses, with proposals for enhanced screening and landscaping to improve aesthetics.
• Parking Pad Materials: Clarification on materials allowed for parking pads, with consideration for exceptions for older homes not in HOAs, potentially allowing gravel in certain circumstances.
• Public Notice Procedures: Minor clarifications to the chart detailing public notice methods for various development applications.

The commission decided to table the discussion on the UDO amendments to allow for further consideration of several key points, including the event venue proposal and the specifics of rooftop art installations.