The Jenks Planning Commission on Dec. 5 recommended approval of a major amendment to the Fraser Falls (also referred to in materials as Fraser Meadows) planned-unit development, subject to conditions that the subdivision remain open (not gated) and that only 15% of lots be allowed houses between 1,600 and 1,799 square feet while the remaining 85% must be 1,800 square feet or larger.

The matter before the commission was a major amendment to an approved PUD for the subdivision north of Fraser Meadows, described in staff materials as PUD 126 (earlier materials also referenced PUD 116 and 127). City planning staff said the case had been through a public hearing at the Planning Commission on Oct. 17 and was returned to the commission after the City Council asked the applicant to revise the proposal in response to public comments. "The public hearing portion takes place during the Planning Commission meeting," city planning staff member Marcy said while explaining the process.

The applicant, developer Charles Wilmerhauser, described changes made since earlier submissions, including removing private gating so that amenities could be shared, reintroducing a more "organic" street layout the developer favored, and revising the amenity package. "I'm indifferent to the gating," Wilmerhauser said, adding he preferred amenities to be shared among residents so more people could use them.

Multiple residents spoke in opposition or with concerns about the amendment. Speakers who said they had purchased or were building based on earlier plans said they expected larger houses (previous approvals had shown 2,200-square-foot homes) and worried smaller homes would depress property values or change neighborhood character. Jeff Smith, a Fraser Meadows resident, objected to proposed minimum sizes and said, "1600 square foot homes aren't built for a gated community." Aaron Furst and Laurie Anderson both said they feared a shift toward smaller, builder-driven products and said that amenities promised earlier to residents had not been delivered.

Applicant representatives provided details on lot counts and widths in the proposed layout. As presented in staff materials and the applicant's drawing, the amendment as drawn included 117 lots overall: 18 lots at 50-foot width, 25 at 55 feet, 30 at 60 feet and 44 at 63 feet. Staff and the applicant clarified how square-foot minimums relate to lot widths: only the smallest (50-foot) lots would be eligible for the 1,600–1,799 band; the larger lots would be constrained to 1,800 square feet and up.

After commissioners questioned how the new proposal compared with earlier approvals and raised concerns voiced by residents about a perceived change from previously advertised house sizes, the commission debated conditions to address those concerns. The motion that passed asked staff to reflect in the PUD amendment that the streets would not be gated, amenities could be shared across phases, and that 15% of the lots be limited to houses in the 1,600–1,799 range while 85% be 1,800 square feet or larger. The commission recorded the vote as passing by a 4–1 margin.

The commission's recommendation now returns to the City Council for final action. If the council approves the amendment as recommended, the change will allow the developer to market smaller-lot, lower-square-foot product on a limited share of the subdivision while preserving larger minimums for most lots.

Notes: The record and public comments show continuing concerns among nearby residents about how amendments to approved PUDs affect expectations for home sizes and amenity delivery. Planning staff said they are preparing a written report summarizing public comments and clarifying the relationship between earlier approvals, plats and the amended PUD language. The applicant noted market changes since the original approval, including higher construction costs, as reasons for revising the plan.