Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Compatibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends restricted office SPUD on S. Mustang Road despite neighbor objections
Summary
After heated public comment from neighbors citing long-standing rural covenants and traffic concerns, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SPD 1799 (5401 S. Mustang Road) for limited O1 office use with strict technical evaluations including single‑story residential‑style buildings, increased landscape buffers, masonry fencing at the west property line, limits on building size and no access to the private residential street.
The Oklahoma City Planning Commission recommended that city council approve a specific plan (SPD 1799) to allow a limited office development at 5401 South Mustang Road, but only after adding multiple technical evaluations intended to limit visual and traffic impacts.
David Box, representing the applicant, told commissioners the revised SPD narrows permitted uses to a limited O1 office designation, increases landscaping, requires residential-style single‑story architecture and a larger landscape buffer (20 feet) adjacent to single‑family homes. Box said the applicant was willing to limit building size and commit to pitched roofs and masonry elements to make small office buildings look like houses rather than a commercial strip.
Neighbors sharply opposed the rezoning. Colin Walk, representing Thoroughbred Acres residents, said the area has been agricultural for 37 years and argued covenants and the rural residential character prohibit office uses; he warned the proposal could prompt litigation. Other neighbors described private‑road access concerns, potential traffic hazards on Mustang Road, the presence of livestock on adjacent properties, and fears commercial buildings would lower property values. "This property has been in the family for 37 years...they're completely disregarding the covenants," Colin Walk said.
Commissioners negotiated a list of technical evaluations to address neighbor concerns. The package the commission read into the record included, among other conditions: a prohibition on access from Southwest 54th Street (the private residential road); a requirement that buildings be single‑story, residential‑style with a minimum roof pitch and composition shingles; a maximum of four buildings with a maximum of 7,500 square feet per building; increased landscape plantings (2½‑inch caliper canopy trees on 20‑foot centers in the buffer) and doubled parking-lot landscape points; an 8‑foot masonry wall on a continuous footing along the west property line (and along the south edge to the extent of existing single‑family lots); public water and sewer required; and a required specific plan exhibit reflecting those commitments.
Staff noted they had recommended denial; commissioners who supported the motion said the revised SPUD and the additional TEs would reduce the development's intensity and protect adjacent properties, while commissioners opposed said the proposal still did not fit the established rural pattern of five-acre lots. Commissioner Noble moved to recommend approval subject to the technical evaluations and Commissioner Powers seconded; the motion passed and the item will go to city council for final action.
Why it matters: the proposal pits a narrowly tailored commercial proposal against a long-standing rural residential community; the commission’s conditions show how planning bodies try to balance redevelopment pressure along major corridors with neighborhood preservation.
What happens next: The commission’s recommendation and the package of technical evaluations will go to city council for a final decision; if council approves, the specific plan and conditions will govern permitted uses and site design at the site.
