[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6751291,"mediaKeyId","2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011","parentId",2245665,"title","Planning commission approves PUD amendment to allow limited commercial, condos and entertainment uses near Elm Street","audioSeconds",7967,"startMs",127000,"endMs",8094000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011&start=127&end=8094","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011/thumbnail_127000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6751291/Jenks/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/Planning-commission-approves-PUD-amendment-to-allow-limited-commercial-condos-and-entertainment-uses-near-Elm-Street","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6751291-f1663240c268c25c3b8ce959322217a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775023618&Signature=WxQKZZ4~vJfH6fdIp-Tp3hNtxUdG9WQfQvMqgFVtnjy6XrjCUXGfJQ6xfr5BcSxXI9b1iE8pyhjluku8--RW90t5x6C8hIYe1gOF1iSw-6FgUbpAf2i1fDc5LuMEb6haY8TGZ~BzInUJcMLnkWZy60kVy-LRPzS6FcN7vF6kmfrQjnG4hHgt5BmFBcjNfLeLv3ApRZJHnbQ-qnT78TulLdC3x2buSxjHXagvFfJOQwHMgSaRP7ETi8L0Y8nMtHUd6cl4rStXUQjNm-4MlqWR7emn1YBzq0Fy3bo7XMoL7Gum7WvJAtcW8NdQv6PFZK3YQbgtgVmkNj8lJgA6DY5hiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Jenks","date","2025-02-07T03:08:54.23Z","article","The City of Jenks Planning Commission voted to approve a comprehensive land‑use map amendment (PA 25‑44) and a major amendment to Planned Unit Development 142 (JZ25 PUD142 MA1) that, together, would allow limited commercial and entertainment uses and a small multifamily component in a larger parcel near Elm Street and Polecat Creek.

Senior planner Marcee Hilton told commissioners the request centers on two roughly 5‑acre areas inside a larger 119.28‑acre PUD and that the application seeks to change a small portion of the plan from parks and open space to local commercial. “The comprehensive land use is most famous for their maps,” Hilton said in the presentation, and she detailed buffers, Corps of Engineers‑held mitigation areas and the differences between land‑use and zoning. She noted the original PUD authorized outdoor recreation uses (baseball fields) and that the amendment seeks to add retail, eating/drinking, multifamily (RM‑3 style condominiums in concept) and additional entertainment uses such as a miniature golf feature.

Developer representative Adam Doberspike described the change as a targeted shift to generate sales tax and diversify amenities while preserving large amounts of open space. “This will be one more piece in the puzzle of allowing this, Jenks to achieve the goal of attracting people to come and spend money within city limits,” Doberspike said. He and the project architect, Witt Todd of GH2 Architects, said the concept keeps much of the site as green space, hides most parking in below‑building or structured areas, and orients buildings so visual and noise impacts are reduced.

Materials submitted by the applicant showed the larger site as about 119.28 acres with 83.21% designated as green/open space; the immediate area being discussed for rezoning comprises roughly 19 acres, with about 10 acres proposed for rezoning to commercial shopping. The applicant presented a revenue estimate saying the condominium portion alone could add roughly $1,000,000 a year in county ad valorem revenue and that the entire buildout could generate about $2,300,000 a year in ad valorem; city sales tax from the retail/entertainment uses was estimated at roughly $1,200,000 annually based on comparables the developer provided.

Commissioners asked staff and the developer detailed questions about wetlands protections, vehicle access, phasing and operating limits. Staff reiterated that two mitigation areas—about 12 acres total—are controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and remain protected. Doberspike said the proposed phasing would start with the condominiums (24–30 months to build) followed by retail and the ballfields; he said the project’s planned access points primarily rely on the future 106th Street extension and that the Elm widening project is expected to take about 18 months.

Public comment was mixed. Longtime resident and former mayor Wayne Parker urged approval, citing prior planning and the need for revenue; other speakers, including developer supporters and neighbors, emphasized jobs, amenities and the developer’s local track record. Opponents and some residents raised concerns about traffic, lighting, noise, the adequacy of buffering for nearby houses, floodplain impacts and the status of a prior initiative petition and related litigation. At least one speaker noted a writ pending at the Court of Appeals; the applicant told commissioners the trial court and appellate court had previously found the petition’s ballot language misleading and the matter is awaiting Supreme Court consideration.

On motions from the floor, commissioners voted to approve both the land‑use amendment (PA 25‑44) and the major PUD amendment (JZ25 PUD142 MA1). The votes were recorded as unanimous. The approval is a recommendation from the Planning Commission and will proceed to the City Council for final action.

What remains explicit in the approval: the commission approved uses and map changes, not a final site plan. Staff and the applicant emphasized that the PUD amendment approves allowed uses and zoning—project‑specific design, lighting details and final engineering will be addressed in subsequent site plan and civil reviews. The staff report and PUD document will control specific dimensional and buffering requirements; Hilton noted she would correct a height figure in the staff report before the council packet to match the PUD document.

Provisions and conditions discussed at the hearing included preservation of Corps‑regulated mitigation areas, required buffering between entertainment uses and single‑family residential (staff cited a 15‑foot buffer, a 6‑foot wall and tree requirements as code examples), and limits on hotel/motel uses (applicant confirmed hotels/motels are not part of the proposed permitted uses).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025.02.06 Jenks Planning Commission Meeting 6PM","oneSentenceSummary","The City of Jenks Planning Commission voted to approve a comprehensive land‑use map amendment (PA 25‑44) and a major amendment to Planned Unit Development 142 (JZ25 PUD142 MA1) that, together, would allow limited commercial and entertainment uses and a small multifamily component in a larger parcel near Elm Street and Polecat Creek.","taxTitle","Jenks, Tulsa County, Oklahoma","taxId",68857,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6751281,"Commission tables broad UDO edits after discussion on rooftop art, parking and riverfront event uses",1581,9215000,10796000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011&start=9215&end=10796","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011/thumbnail_9215000.jpg","/articles/6751281/Jenks/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/Commission-tables-broad-UDO-edits-after-discussion-on-rooftop-art-parking-and-riverfront-event-uses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6751281-21880bc2668b34ecfc99df5ec6a1c4b4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775023618&Signature=jH347B6DBmkPmPVZZseox4BddqQFmQnwWgi6aKp-w~w9HYl0sxdq0DOqEmgD~IPyBIGGwm43ryOJ2Jj7CP-M24zoFq5NRwBCznfgVoxnVPNKvsR4H4r3ymDKVIt6Mp2nJv~I7w~XGC03NqUTguV-w8TfNzoYPZwSv~IgJfYP9cBVkLLTwc~19WjaQFz9ETCvn-SDst0-8bdK7RBpkAfRs9oGt4yn88fhB9srYDoabr0g4P48tul8NUnArElMbCuzEQbPbJmxyun5AzEhU8RC9EiFJmCixs88SjbtP-FpzZsKybN-MjjqobrL1EfPleb1TmzT~1Lbf9OyVXgHwRNtyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission heard an initial staff briefing on a package of proposed updates to Chapter 16 of the City of Jenks Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Staff described changes intended to clarify how existing nonconforming setbacks are treated, to add specific prohibitions and allowances for driveway and parking materials, and to create rules for limited rooftop art exhibits or installations.

Planner Marcee Hilton said one change would make clear that minimum setbacks in some older industrial parks continue to be governed by the original plat or PUD that created the lots (rather than imposing new setbacks on existing development). She also proposed expressly prohibiting parking on residential lawns in residential zoning districts and offering clearer material standards for parking pads and ribbon driveways. Another proposed change would allow the planning director or designee to approve site‑specific, approved three‑dimensional rooftop art installations if they meet building code and any other development standards.

A notable policy question raised during the discussion was whether the downtown/riverfront area should allow places of assembly or event venues beyond the ground floor — for example, an upper‑floor event hall atop another use. Hilton said the question required more thought: “If you wanted, a Second Floor or a Third Floor event venue on top of something else, is that an appropriate place for it?” she asked the commissioners. The staff package also proposed allowing limited surface parking between building and street for small retail or service uses (under specific landscape screening rules); two prospective applicants had expressed a desire for that flexibility.

Commissioners requested follow‑up work on several items — including clearer language on rooftop installations, screening requirements when parking is allowed between building and street, and specific material standards for older homes that might qualify for a different parking‑pad treatment. After discussion, the commission voted to table the UDO update package to allow staff to refine the proposals and return with revised language.

The vote to table was unanimous. Staff said they will return with revisions that address commissioner questions and will coordinate any policy items that cross into economic development or downtown design objectives before bringing the item back for public hearing and action.","Staff presented a broad package of Unified Development Ordinance edits covering nonconforming setbacks, driveway and parking‑pad materials, rooftop art, and limited circumstances for front‑yard parking in small retail districts.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6751286,"Planning commission approves gated RS‑2 PUD for single‑family subdivision near 130th and Harvard",1058,8130000,9188000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011&start=8130&end=9188","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011/thumbnail_8130000.jpg","/articles/6751286/Jenks/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/Planning-commission-approves-gated-RS2-PUD-for-singlefamily-subdivision-near-130th-and-Harvard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6751286-0e55cae8bbda3b82b48b6a61af082f42/orig.mp4?Expires=1775023618&Signature=jle5Du0~Bk3YTEzGyV0oRgaiHc6eYX1b3b9KWxY~ZKTDjJcqBEEu6ZK6RmebxjAIGu9Mg~beg8odglZm2wG7owoZ~vGXIYZn1TO0mIGZ9Y12pi42GvPr3hu2rPOyrbDTrz9bqF6sAO9~OhK6SAUUtvDBjPDYeTDnRcaw7uVSXb0ivHra30JOThUyloZu45~dnqbLqZJSiCXNlzKvDA12mfELtKHxpgqaTCaW50rthYaRGZBXvkBLCBc9xDCiw632jB-R66c3kTUEdnBA81bAaZrgvho8nuoqP3JlU1sUDMAlVMZv-Vd-judlqUQG~0qGoE2pS3eY-oRxL8nPkpxUsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission unanimously approved JZ25 PUD152, a request to rezone a parcel north of 130th Street and east of Harvard from its existing AG and LC designations to RS‑2 with a planned unit development overlay.

Senior planner Marcee Hilton summarized the request and noted the applicant is proposing large lots (the applicant’s exhibit showed an average lot area of about 14,520 square feet) and enhanced exterior materials. The proposed PUD calls for a single gated street, a landscape entry, passive recreational amenities (walking trails and a stocked pond/detention feature) and a masonry‑heavy exterior (the exhibit indicated at least 85% masonry on the primary elevations).

Ryan McCarty of Select Design, the applicant’s representative, told the commission the lots are intended to be roughly 70 feet wide by 150 feet deep and are targeted to buyers who prefer larger lots and low‑maintenance yards. “RS‑2 allows for 8,000 [square feet], so these lots are quite large,” McCarty said, and he confirmed the plan does not include a clubhouse or pool.

The subdivision design includes an all‑weather walking trail, a detention pond (with dock) and a 7‑foot screening wall along the arterial; the Fire Marshal reviewed the plan and determined the proposed layout met access requirements for the planned unit size and that a second access would not be required for the proposed number of lots. Commissioners did not receive requests to speak on this item from the public. On motion, the commission approved the PUD‑based rezoning; the vote was recorded as unanimous and the recommendation will move to the City Council for final approval and development review.","The commission approved JZ25 PUD152, rezoning a parcel near 130th and Harvard to RS‑2 with a PUD overlay to allow a private, gated single‑street subdivision with larger lots and passive recreation. Applicant said lots would be about 70 by 150 feet and the project expects no clubhouse or pool; the commission recorded a unanimous vote.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":46,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6751277,"Votes at a glance: Jenks Planning Commission (meeting actions)",8059,35000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011&start=35&end=8094","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2245665-cdac35db6cc2fd88fb7fe2c6be7a4011/thumbnail_35000.jpg","/articles/6751277/Jenks/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/Votes-at-a-glance-Jenks-Planning-Commission-meeting-actions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6751277-bbfa25c75b9fa0bc788aa3f57d4ecda3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775023618&Signature=TSPUvcqaW7CBtCQHJi0hhXcBQgw2CtnBENfpk8a8QW8w~LFkw~vex-KDbXs5kOeGY9GQ5pRNN-Y3jae0queVfxKQ21sLuhCkLn1g~pOhKoBON5TrVfeBvhybohVmWTQo1d3lhbraYmdop~5z52Mc9FZopbzHarWQWodUmPylqewR0LGXM4VZ9trnc9WMsl0FjWQ0GlUFVyt7zToi6MO5NcmOQq6y053wWHcMfoeo5rZNZKikNRZ2NjOaNA~EO62iV003v0d5CHJdWH4zpLMTlanfqLiKo0-5MgYYlW0v7wDsWcjVR-b83tGAr73ozJUlu2aJA8tyYaEtKNY3u9fsxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Votes recorded at the meeting:

• Consent agenda (items A–D): Approved by voice vote (unanimous) — clerk recorded individual yes votes.

• PA 25‑44 (Comprehensive Plan map amendment): Motion to approve passed (recorded roll call: Wilson Yes; Boers Yes; Bowman Yes; Nixon Yes; Stevens Yes; Chair West Yes). Outcome: Recommended for approval to City Council.

• JZ25 PUD142 MA1 (Major amendment to PUD 142 / rezoning component): Motion to approve passed (recorded roll call: Wilson Yes; Boers Yes; Bowman Yes; Nixon Yes; Stevens Yes; Chair West Yes). Outcome: Recommended for approval to City Council; subsequent site plan, engineering and federal permits remain required.

• JZ25 PUD152 (RS‑2 with PUD overlay, 130th & Harvard): Motion to approve passed (recorded roll call: Wilson Yes; Boers Yes; Bowman Yes; Nixon Yes; Stevens Yes; Chair West Yes). Outcome: Recommended for approval to City Council.

• UDO Chapter 16 updates package: Motion to table passed (recorded roll call: Wilson Yes; Boers Yes; Bowman Yes; Nixon Yes; Stevens Yes; Chair West Yes). Outcome: Staff to refine proposed ordinance text and return to Planning Commission for further review.

All votes listed above were recorded on the public record and reflected unanimous support by the commission at the meeting. The Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity; final decisions for rezones and PUD approvals rest with the City Council unless otherwise noted in the UDO.","Key commission actions: unanimous approval of the consent agenda; unanimous recommendations to approve PA25‑44 and JZ25 PUD142 MA1 (land‑use and PUD amendment); unanimous approval of JZ25 PUD152 (RS‑2 gated subdivision); and unanimous tabling of a package of UDO changes for further refinement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission approves PUD amendment to allow limited commercial, condos and entertainment uses near Elm Street

Commission tables broad UDO edits after discussion on rooftop art, parking and riverfront event uses

Planning commission approves gated RS‑2 PUD for single‑family subdivision near 130th and Harvard

Votes at a glance: Jenks Planning Commission (meeting actions)