Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jenks council approves PUD 154 rezoning despite resident concerns about drainage and traffic
Summary
The Jenks City Council approved rezoning request PUD 154 (AG to RS‑2 with a PUD overlay). The decision drew sustained public comment and council questions about an increased impervious surface allowance, drainage, traffic and timing for promised amenities.
The Jenks City Council on Sept. 16 approved a rezoning request identified as PUD 154 to rezone property from AG to RS‑2 with a planned unit development overlay, allowing higher density and developer‑provided amenities.
City planner Marcela Hilton said the proposal calls for minimum 8,000‑square‑foot lots and a minimum dwelling size of 2,400 square feet, with an exception allowing up to 20% of lots to have 2,200‑square‑foot single‑story homes to accommodate a senior‑oriented product. Hilton said the developer agreed to set aside lots for a pool, playground and amenities and committed that pool construction “shall be initiated within 24 months after the first building permit.”
The proposal requests an in‑service impervious surface coverage of about 69 percent, well above the city’s Unified Development Ordinance standard cited in the staff report (about 45 percent). That increase and local drainage history drew public criticism at the meeting.
Snow Tree resident and neighbor Brian Bowler told the council heavy rains already push runoff across nearby lots, and he urged careful review of drainage plans. “The water runoff is unbelievable off that track land,” Bowler said. Another nearby resident, Jason Clymer, identified himself as an engineer and said raising the allowable impervious coverage in an area with known drainage issues was problematic: “I am an engineer… I struggle to see why that’s acceptable.”
Planner Hilton responded to questions about engineering review by saying the zoning decision is about whether the density is appropriate. She told the council that detailed hydrology and stormwater designs must be submitted and stamped by an outside engineer and that the city engineer reviews those submissions during the permitting phase: “The decision to be made this evening is whether or not houses should be built at this location and whether or not the density is applicable and appropriate for this location,” she said.
Council members discussed traffic calming, possible speed‑limit adjustments, and the need to consider collector streets that run through the area. Council member Murray voiced concern about existing drainage problems and whether amenities (such as a pool near the detention area) could exacerbate those problems.
After debate and public comment, the council voted to approve the rezoning. The roll call recorded five yes votes, one no vote and no abstentions; the council indicated the item will return to planning for final platting, engineering, hydrology review and development permits required before construction.
