Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners defer Lone Oak townhome PUD after neighbors raise traffic, privacy and open‑space concerns
Summary
The Planning Commission deferred consideration of PUD-20-61, a proposed townhome development in the Lone Oak area, to May 22 after lengthy public comment and commissioner discussion about setbacks, usable open space, stormwater and compatibility with neighboring single‑family yards.
The Oklahoma City Planning Commission on May 8 voted to defer PUD-20-61, a proposal to develop townhomes east of Lone Oak and north of Northwest 160th Street, after residents and commissioners raised traffic, privacy and open‑space concerns.
The applicant, represented by David Box and civil engineer Kendall Dillon, described a plan for attached townhome units intended to step down to adjacent single‑family neighborhoods. Opponents, including Galen Thorpe and multiple neighbors, said the development would increase traffic through quiet neighborhood streets, reduce privacy for backyards that face the site and lacked sufficient landscaping buffers.
Why it matters: The commission’s deferral preserves more time for the applicant to address neighborhood concerns about circulation and compatibility. The item will return so staff and the developer can refine landscape buffers, usable open space location and circulation connections.
Key discussion points Galen Thorpe, speaking for nearby Lone Oak East and Lone Oak North residents, asked the commission to deny rezoning away from R‑1 and argued the added units would send traffic through neighborhood streets. “Moving this additional traffic through this neighborhood is likely to create just problems,” he said.
The applicant said Aspenbrooke Lane was built to collector standards and that the road was intended to accommodate higher traffic volumes, and offered compromises including a 10‑foot south landscape buffer with shade trees on 20‑foot centers and a 60‑foot southern setback for buildings. The applicant also said the project could add central shared open space and revise building massing in a specific plan review.
Open space and form Commissioners and staff discussed whether the project met the city’s definition of usable open space and whether fenced private rear yards could be counted. The applicant said they would pursue a specific plan showing usable shared space and possible design changes to soften the massing and provide centralized amenities.
Decision and next steps After extended public comment and internal discussion, a commissioner moved to defer the item to May 22 so the applicant can revise the plan to address buffer width, usable open space location, and other concerns. The motion was seconded and the item was continued.
Ending: The applicant agreed to return with a more detailed specific plan that shows centralized usable open space, revised landscape buffering, and options to reduce perceived massing adjacent to existing backyards.
