Jenks council declines PUD approval for Row 40 subdivision after residents raise drainage, traffic and lot-size concerns

The Jenks City Council on Aug. 19 did not approve the Row 40 planned unit development (JZ-25 PUD-154), a roughly 40-acre residential project proposed for property surrounded by existing subdivisions east of A Hundred and 30th Street. Councilors heard extended public comment raising drainage, traffic and design concerns and voted down a motion to approve the developer’s amended plan.

The revised motion before council would have approved the PUD with a requirement that amenity space equal at least two lots (16,000 square feet). That motion failed on a roll call of 2–3: Mayor Short voted yes; Councilor Abel voted yes; Councilor Emmons voted no; Councilor Murray voted no; Vice Mayor Brown voted no.

The project team, represented by Eric Enyard of Tanner Consulting, said the development would build at a lower density than the city’s comprehensive‑plan range and include walking trails, a pool and playground. “We are meeting — and not only meeting — the intent of the comprehensive plan,” Enyard told council, adding the concept showed about 3.4 dwelling units per acre versus the plan’s 4–6 units per acre.

Neighbors from multiple nearby associations urged the council to demand more detail. Kyle Johnson, president of the Torrey Lakes Property Owners Association, asked the council to require at least three lots dedicated to community amenities, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and warned that construction traffic and higher impervious coverage could worsen flooding in adjacent neighborhoods.

Residents from Pecan Creek, Snow Tree and Providence Hills described recurring runoff and localized flooding tied to earlier nearby development and said past drainage problems had required homeowners to spend tens of thousands of dollars on remediation. “We have personally had to spend over $40,000 of our money to mitigate the drainage issues that now come off of Torrey Lakes,” Andrea Pinkston said, asking the council to delay action so neighbors and the developer could work through hydrology concerns.

City planning staff outlined the Planning Commission conditions: a minimum lot size increase from a developer proposal of about 7,100 square feet to 8,000 square feet; minimum dwelling size volunteered by the developer at 2,200 square feet; and codified landscaping/tree requirements. Staff also noted the unified development ordinance (UDO) now requires a planned unit development for residential subdivisions larger than 20 acres.

On impervious‑surface coverage — the share of a lot covered by nonpermeable surfaces such as driveways, patios and pools — staff said the city had only recently begun regulating that metric and that many developers have sought exceptions during the PUD process. The applicant acknowledged the developer had proposed higher-than‑typical impervious coverage to allow for large homes, pools and three‑car driveways and said the engineering and hydrology work would address runoff.

After the failed approval motion, Council discussion focused on whether the matter should be tabled to allow engineering and drainage studies and additional design options that would reduce impacts on neighboring streets. A councilor moved to table and the body discussed next steps; council members encouraged the developer to consult further with neighborhood associations and planning staff and consider alternate site plans. The transcript does not record a final roll call for the tabling motion.

Developer Rick Dodson and consultant Enyard told council they expected to provide a final plat and more detailed civil engineering, including hydrology studies, if the council or Planning Commission asked for revisions. Enyard said the applicant proposed dedicating roughly two lots (about 16,000 square feet) for amenities on the southern part of the site but that Planning Commission had recommended three lots; he said the developer would prefer two because the area would exceed the size of a comparable amenity in nearby Torrey Lakes.

Councilors and residents repeatedly raised questions about connectivity and emergency access. Staff pointed out three stub streets were included to avoid landlocking and to provide multiple outlets for traffic and emergency vehicles. Multiple residents said the proposed connections would route additional traffic through existing neighborhoods that already report speeding and stop‑sign violations, and asked for traffic‑calming alternatives that would not penalize existing residents.

Next steps: Council members asked the developer to return with revised plans addressing drainage, the amenity size and the number and placement of access points; Planning Commission and staff will be involved if the developer submits an alternative proposal. The record shows the council did not approve the PUD during the Aug. 19 meeting.