Commission approves rezoning to C-5 with PUD after debate over prohibitions on auto-related uses

The Bartlesville Planning Commission voted to rezone approximately 0.75 acres at 125–136 Southeast DeBell Avenue from split RM-3/C-2 to C-5 general commercial with an associated PUD and site development plan.

Micah Snyder, senior planner, explained the property’s split zoning history and the applicant’s goal of resolving that split to make the property more marketable. He described the site as Lots 30–38, Block 6 of the Highland Park Addition and said the parcel is roughly one block south of Tuxedo Street and two blocks west of Washington Boulevard (U.S. 75). Snyder said the applicant provided a PUD design statement and a conceptual office‑warehouse site plan and that staff recommended approval as presented.

Dan Kelleher, representing the property owner, told commissioners the rezoning is intended to help the owner sell the site because split zoning discourages buyers; he said the process timeline can deter prospective purchasers. "It's just a long timeline," Kelleher said.

The proposed PUD includes a list of uses to be prohibited in order to protect nearby multifamily and single‑family residential areas; those prohibitions included several auto‑related uses typically allowed in C-5. One commissioner moved to amend the PUD to remove the prohibitions on auto/automotive uses; that amendment was seconded. Commissioners then debated whether the restrictions would simply preserve an exclusionary zone or whether they were needed to avoid further encroachment of outdoor vehicle storage and repair closer to multifamily residences. The proposed amendment failed on a roll-call vote (Cola: no; Munkers: no; Kirkpatrick: no; Hibdon: no; Freeman: no; Dawson: no).

After the amendment failed, a motion to approve the rezoning and PUD as recommended by staff was made and seconded. Roll-call votes were recorded in favor by Commissioners Kolaw, Munkers, Kirkpatrick, Hibdon, Freeman and Dawson; the rezoning and PUD were approved as presented (case RZ042511 / PUD0425005152).

The PUD as approved modifies some C-5 bulk and area regulations, adds screening requirements (including a six‑foot privacy fence on the north side), prohibits specified uses (listed in the PUD design statement), and allows RM-3 residential uses as allowed alternatives. The PUD also included limits on outdoor storage, requirements that outdoor storage be enclosed behind a six‑foot visual barrier and that materials not be stacked above that barrier. Staff reported that property owners within 300 feet were notified and that the applicant hosted a citizen participation meeting; staff had received no written support or opposition prior to the hearing.

The commission’s vote preserves the PUD’s list of prohibited auto‑related uses; commissioners discussed possible marketability impacts of the prohibitions and whether restrictions would lock in limits that could not be changed without a major PUD amendment in the future.