Committee begins review of 'Scenic Hills' land‑use, a proposal to preserve tree canopy and limit intense development

The Urban and Economic Development Committee discussed initiation of a proposal to add a Scenic Hills land‑use designation and a new Scenic Hills zoning district to the city’s comp plan and zoning code.

Planning staff, presenting on behalf of Councilor Hall Harper’s initiative, said the proposal is intended to preserve the visual and environmental character of a hilly, heavily treed area northwest of the Gilcrease Museum and north of Edison Street. “We’re calling it scenic hills land use and zoning,” the presenter said, describing the area as “very wooded” and noting the proposal would prioritize preserving natural habitats, promoting tree canopy, and accommodating low‑intensity uses.

Staff explained why a new base district was proposed instead of an overlay: most parcels in the boundary are currently zoned agriculture (AG), and creating a dedicated Scenic Hills base district would allow rules tailored to the area’s character. The draft district would retain large minimum lot sizes — staff said the minimum would remain 2 acres — add tree preservation and impervious‑surface standards, and prohibit several high‑impact uses (for example, airports, mining, gun clubs, and detention facilities) that can currently be allowed in AG by special exception. “Those things are limited more than they are, and so those are not allowed at all in Scenic Hills,” staff told the committee.

The committee’s discussion focused on trade‑offs between preservation and future infrastructure or development. Members asked whether the district would preclude multifamily or missing‑middle housing; staff answered that the district would retain AG‑style lot sizes and therefore would not enable multifamily development in most of the boundary. Committee members also raised questions about how the definition of parks and recreation would work in practice — for example, whether many baseball or soccer fields placed by right would defeat canopy preservation goals — and asked staff to refine impervious‑coverage language to avoid allowing large consolidated paved areas that would visually dominate a property.

Staff reported two public open houses had been held and that outreach materials were mailed to property owners; they said roughly half of property owners had participated in the process and reaction had been generally positive, with attendees concerned about tree clearing and potential future development. The item before the committee is initiation — the first procedural step to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning code text. Staff said a two‑step process would follow: text amendments first, then map changes (land‑use designation and rezones) after further public notice and a Planning Commission hearing.

Committee members asked staff to coordinate forthcoming work with existing city plans and the city‑owned Gilcrease right‑of‑way, and to include traffic, topography and infrastructure studies in follow‑up materials. Staff provided a tentative timetable that would bring text amendments forward in a few months and potential map changes later in the year, with broader owner notification at that stage.

No formal committee action was recorded in the transcript; the committee proceeded to other agenda items after the discussion.