All right, it's after 5 30.

We'll go ahead and get started.

Have roll call.

Mindy Payne.

Jonathan Townsend.

Here.

Jalee Clempa.

Here.

Jason Cohen.

Here.

Robert Gorenson.

Here.

Item number three on the agenda is old business.

We have none.

Item number four, consent agenda.

Do we have any items we wish to pull from the consent agenda?

Four.

Is it for A?

B.

Four B, please.

All right.

Staff wants to pull four B from the consent agenda.

Is that the only one?

Yes.

Any other?

I don't have any.

Okay.

I make a motion to approve the items 4A and 4C of consent agenda and remove item 4B.

I'll second.

I have a motion second I have roll call vote.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

JLie Klempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

Okay.

Item 4C, 25-1644 will go before the city council right here, December 16th.

All right.

Item number five, items removed from the consent consent agenda.

That's item 4B.

Staff want to cover that.

Sure.

And this is case COA-002492 2025.

And it's to amend the platted limits of no access on 37th Street for a proposed bank.

The property has been platted as part of lot two, block two, Northeast Crossroads, and is zoned PUD 175.

It's located on the northeast corner of Kenosha Street, 71st and 37th Street, 29th East Avenue.

The recorded plat for the Northeast Crossroads has a limit of no access along the 37th Street frontage, lot two, block two, except for a 40-foot access as shown on the original exhibit in front of you are um the new exhibit.

Um for the total limit there on 37th Street.

Okay, thanks.

Rebecca, so is so we have one that's in our packet electronically, and then they have the one that's so the one you're referring to now with the radio radio and stuff is off this one here.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So just wanting to slow some traffic down from the 20-foot curb radius to the 15, and then the actual driveway is going to stay the same.

That's going to be the 24 feet.

So they're just reducing the radii.

Yes.

So was did that come from staff or did that come from the applicant?

Um that came from staff.

Just trying to slow traffic down around those corners.

Okay.

All right.

Nope.

So is the applicant here?

Did they wish to speak on this?

Do you have anything you wish to add?

Okay, you're good with what staff presented.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

I guess I guess we're ready for a motion then.

Okay, I make a motion that we approve.

Um item five, which is 4B.

Per staff recommendation.

Um adopting the new plan that is in front of us.

Dated 11 20 2025.

I'll second.

I have a most second I have roll call vote.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

J.

Lee Flempa?

Yes.

Jason Cohen?

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

All right.

Next item on the gend is item number six public hearings, item 6A 25-1577.

Yes, this item is SP public hearing consideration and possible action regarding SP002481, 2025 specific use permit, Pope accessory structure, 1.82 acres, uh single family residential located just south of Florence and approximately one quarter mile west of Aspen.

This request is for a conditional use permit for an accessory structure to exceed the 1,200 square foot maximum floor area for lots less than two acres in size.

The property is located just south of Florence and approximately one quarter mile west of aspen.

Section 2-4-1 C dot two B of the broken air zoning ordinance specifies that lots that are greater than two acres can have accessory buildings with the floor area up to 5,000 square feet by permit.

Additionally, this section also allows accessory structures to exceed the 1,200 square foot square feet floor area for lots under two acres by approval of a conditional use permit.

The attached exhibit shows the planned location and dimensions of the accessory structure.

The floor area for the structure is planned to be 40 feet by approximately 80 feet for a floor area of excuse me, 40 feet by 80 feet for a floor area of approximately 3,200 square feet.

All setbacks for the current zoning ordinance are met in the exhibit.

The lot is currently 1.2 acres in size and was created via a lot split to allow for the development of two single family homes.

Prior to that lot split, the um the law also or as a part of that lot split, the law also had to designate a portion of the road or portion of the property as uh right of way for frontage.

Um and with that designation of right of way, it also brought the the split-off portion, this 1.8 um parcel, it brought it down to less than two acres.

So before it was two acres, um even with the the lot split, but because of the dedication of um frontage and right-of-way, it also brought it down to that 1.82.

Um a single family home is currently being constructed on the lot, and a permit for the accessory structure has been applied for and is pending the status of this request.

Um the surrounding land uses are mostly single family residential and um vacant land use to the north.

Um according to the FLEMA FEMA um national flood hazard layer, another property is located on the hundred-year floodplain.

Um and another thing I'd like to add as well is previously under the um old zoning ordinance, this property was zoned RE.

Um, so it didn't actually have those restrictions on the size of the um accessory structure.

So whenever um the broken aerosoning ordinance, the new one came into effect, it essentially created it as recreated it as an RS zone, so they weren't allowed to build that structure as they were before under the old one.

So this request is basically just to be able to um build that structure up to 3,200 square feet of this property.

So their application was turned in after we adopted the ordinance, is what you're saying that's Jose.

Any questions, staff?

Yeah, Jose, can you just tell me again the intended use of the structure?

What exactly what what type of accessory structure are we talking about?

Yeah, so we have uh we do have a distinction really just between our accessory and our dwelling accessory units.

The dwelling, of course, is you know, one where people will be living in, and we consider it dwelling if it's got you know a um a bathroom and a cooking area.

This one is just storage, you know, either for their vehicles or you know, whatever items they might have in their house.

Um we didn't require we didn't really ask too much of the um applicant what what the all they'd be storing in there.

I think you mentioned just mostly you know your regular household.

That answers those storage, so nothing that will like uh increase traffic or noise or anything like that.

Just storage, okay.

Yeah, not nothing um nothing commercial or anything uh nothing of that matter.

That answers, thank you.

So does a specific use permit actually detail it out on how on what that can use it for them on that?

Not on the specific use uh permit itself, but other portions of the zoning regulation will specify you know what you can have in you know certain zoned areas and what uses uh can be allowed with it, regardless of the accessory structure or the primary structure.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that if we were to prove it that we're not putting an undue burden on them, something that we didn't realize if that makes sense.

Well, that and the fact that I mean it's it's it's a shop, but as a large shop.

Um I certainly wouldn't want them to be.

I mean, it's fine if they're using it for personal use, but I certainly won't want them to start running a garage out of it.

So certainly, yeah.

Yeah, and that's one thing as well.

Um, within the zoning ordinance, it does have um regulations on home occupation for businesses.

So if you know, say if you wanted to have uh you know a uh small business running out of there, you would have to uh meet those regulations as well.

And those regulations also specify what kinds of in-home occupations you can have.

Okay.

What is the height?

I might have missed that, but how high what's the I'll be honest?

I do not remember off the top of my head.

Um the applicant is here though, however, he I think he'd be able to answer.

Okay, I just want to make sure that there wasn't any issue with the height of the building or yeah, there is um in the zoning ordinance under just the general um development standards for um for that zone, there are height standards, so it would be usually actually I think sorry, actually, I think the maximum height of the accessory structure has to be uh equal to the primary structure.

Right, equal or less.

Yeah, equal to this, yes, right.

Okay.

And are there any restrictions regarding the uh siding material?

Like I know for commercial properties, we have issues with corrugated metal, that type of thing.

So just curious if there's any restrictions, because I don't recall off the top of my head, but I just want to make sure.

Yes.

Yeah, there wouldn't um for for this one being accessory structure.

Um there are some facade requirements for like commercial structures and all that, but with his property being under the RS zoning, um it do we don't have any specific facade requirements for this building.

Okay.

Um but that could be something that you know that can be added as a condition of the um conditional use permit.

No, I was just asking for my own clarification.

So thank you.

Of course.

All right, thanks.

Is the applicant present?

You have anything you wish to add?

I think that may Jason may have had some a question or two for you did you do you still want you wanted to talk about the height of your well I was curious about the height, but we can always think of some questions asking.

I'll think of some answers to get we'll need your name for the record, please.

J Pope.

Thank you, sir.

I was just curious about the height that's intended for the shop.

So the the plate of the shop where it's the just the walls before the ceiling goes is 16 feet.

Okay, the intent is I've got a few trailers, a motorcycle, a side-by-side.

I have dreams of a motor home someday.

So I'm gonna put a 14-foot door on it, so I can put a motor home in there.

And I I figure it's better to put it under cover than sitting outside.

So well, I'd be doing the same thing if I was if I was in your boat.

So uh that's retirement, I hope.

Yeah, I wish I had it.

I just wanted to make sure because uh based on the the the layout I had anticipated was probably gonna be a shop and place to park an RV and stuff, and wanted to make sure that we're compliance with the height regarding the main structure on the property and not exceeding that.

So that's really all.

Okay.

No, that's a good question, because I was thinking 35 foot may have been the highest it could be anyway, but then when Jose said equal to the other facility, the main the primary still in lower that's not a good thing.

Yeah, because if the the primary is two story, then it could be a little bit taller.

That's yeah, the primary is a two-story.

Yeah, it'll so you know it'll have a higher pitch on a roof, so I I don't see that being a problem.

Okay, yeah.

Just I've seen uh ranch style single floors with uh you know 30 foot shed right next to it.

So that's why I was just curious.

Yeah, fair.

All right, fair.

That's all I had.

All right.

Any other questions, African?

All right, thanks.

Thank you.

I'd open this public hearing.

Do we have anybody to speak on this matter?

Any of my nobody else?

I guess we'll close public hearing.

Any discussion?

No, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve item six A per staff recommendations.

Second, have most second have roll call vote.

Jonathan Townman?

Yes, Jlempa?

Yes, Jason Cullen, yes, Robert Gorin's.

Yes, now that'll go before the city council December 16th, right here.

All right, next item on the agenda is item number six B 25-1639.

Okay.

Yes, this is public hearing consideration and possible action regarding BAZ 002485 2025, uh Snyder rezone, approximately 21.81 acres, RMF and PUD 340 to RSP, located one eighth of a mile south of Tucson and west of Elm Place.

BAZ 00248 2485 2025 is a request to rezone approximately 21 21.81 acres from residential multifamily and PUD 340 to single family residential preservation.

This request includes the abrogation of PUD 340 and will be a straight zoning change.

The property is 21.81 acres in size and is located in one eighth miles south of Tucson and west of Elm Place.

This rezoning request is in is in anticipation of a single family development under the new RSP zoning.

This zoning, which was created under the broken arrow zoning ordinance that came into effect over the summer, allows for lot smaller lot sizes and frontages in exchange for an increase in dedicated open space.

The attached conceptual plan outlines what developments could potentially look like.

The surrounding properties contain the following uses along with the following development guide and zoning designations.

To the north, it is level two levels two and four, and the zonings are commercial general and a PUD.

And the land uses are vacant, a restaurant with the drive-thru and general retail.

To the east, it is level six and three with the zoning of commercial general and single family residential, and there is general retail and single family residential.

To the south, it is level two and agricultural, and there's single family residential and vacant land.

So the west it is level two and agricultural and also single family residential.

According to FEMA maps, portion of the property are located within the 100 year floodplain.

Water and sanitary sewer are available from the city of Broken Arrow.

Per table 4-1 comprehensive plan RS4 zoning is considered to be in accordance with the comprehensive plan and level three.

Under current zoning ordinance, RS4 is equal to RSP zoning.

So this request is in line with the comprehensive plan.

Based upon the comprehensive plan, the location of the property and the surrounding less surrounding land uses, staff recommends that BAZ 002485 2025 be subject to the property being pledged.

All right, thanks.

Any questions, staff?

I do have one question for Graham.

Is just curious, I'm just curious.

Used to, we would make like two major two motions.

One would be the abrogation for the I guess the existing PUD, but we no longer do that because if we make the one motion, that's included in that, I guess, based on staff's recommendations.

Is that how that happens?

Yes, it's part of the recommendation.

So we need one motion.

All right, just curious about that.

Is the applicant present?

You have anything you want it.

Thank you, Chair.

Planning commissioners, I am Eric Enyard with Tanner Consulting at 5323 South Lewis Avenue in Tulsa.

Uh we're here with the owner of the property.

Uh, in case you have any questions that I can't answer.

We are in agreement with the staff recommendation for approval.

Uh we do have a layout.

Is it possible to put pull that up on the screen?

That shows our our first uh concept of what we believe we could do with the development under the RSP zoning designation.

You know, you'll notice that there is a large amount of uh open space uh far in excess of what the uh zoning code would require under the RSP zoning.

Uh we are excited about the project.

If you have any questions for me, I will do my best to answer.

But your open area right there, that reserve basically is is due to the drainage going to the display.

And the river and right now.

Yeah, there is a lot of drainage that goes through.

There is a a little bit of FEMA floodplain for Elm Creek and its tributary.

The RSP zoning district requires that you have 25% open space uh set aside.

We are well above that, and of that the floodplain cannot be more than 50 percent, and we are below that uh requirement.

So I'm curious, are you planning on doing any upgrades to that area to make it a like you know, walking trails or anything to make it accessible for residents to actually use as I believe the the zoning was intended?

We will have a neighborhood perimeter fence that will give a nice presence along Elm Place uh and entryways that are an amenity to the development as well.

There will be on-site stormwater detention facilities, any areas that uh are available and not occupied by detention can be used for amenities.

We aren't showing any at this time, it's a little a little early in the design process.

Yeah, that's why I asked there.

Yeah, I didn't see much, so I thought I'd ask.

I do expect that there will be neighborhood amenities.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, I think it's a better layout than the the multifamily.

Mike I will point out if correct me if I'm wrong, Jose, but we're going from a PUD to straight zoning, right?

So what we're seeing here, it's just a zoning change.

What we see up on the overhead, you said your first iteration or whatever.

Yes.

It may change quite a bit compared to what's going to actually come in for the final.

So in case there's anybody watching for this, it may change than what you actually see out there right now.

So I don't know if I mean, like you have the three curb cuts right now or the three dead-end streets right now, stub streets.

That might we not we might not see three of them coming in at the end.

So yeah, there therefore certainly be um later on with you know the plating review process, all that, there will probably be changes to the overall layout and all that, and we'll of course work with um the folks over at Tinder to get the.

I mean, I like the layout, don't get me wrong.

I just want to make sure that anybody's watching or not think that we're locked into what we see on there right now.

So it's just a straight zoning.

Yeah, especially with it being straight zoning, yeah.

It's not a PUD anymore if we choose to approve this.

Any discussion with the applicant, Mr.

Anderson.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

I'd open this up public hearing.

Would we have anybody signed up to speak on this?

I did have one um email letter sent to be uh read into the record.

This is letters from Melody uh Benintendi.

Sorry if I mispronounced your last name.

Um to the members of the broken arrow uh planning commission board and developer representatives.

I, Melody uh Benintendi reside along with my brother and sister at 15303 East 122nd Street South, uh, which is on which is on the tract of land southwest of the tract of land currently undergoing rezoning to RSP.

I respectfully request the implementation of a screen, as specifically a fence, preferably a privacy fence along the property line shared with our property.

This would eliminate any confusion for the new residents as to the fact that our pri that our property is private property.

Additionally, it will look very nice for both the new homes and for our property as well.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

All right, thanks, Jose.

Now, since this is going straight zoning, there's only we we can't really talk much about the fencing because there's already a zoning requirement for the fencing.

Now if they were to come back through for a PUD, we could talk about that then.

Useless.

And that's up to the commission whether they want to deny this and come back as a PUD, etc.

Or to just let it go straight zoning.

So there is without those stub streets, would we consider the the unplatted areas to be landlocked themselves?

There I guess there's one that is um somewhat landlocked.

There is a small substreet stub street coming off of Albuquerque Street.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

That's where it's pointing to it.

Yeah, yeah.

And um and I know that one that's I guess with this one, it wouldn't necessarily create those as being landlocked uh alone.

I guess the one that's furthest to the west is what I'm talking about.

Yeah.

Um and that one, yeah, that one is a bit landlocked.

I my understanding is that the um the folks those are the people who sent in the letter.

My understanding is that they uh go up Albuquerque and I don't know if you can kind of see that um gravel drive right there.

Um that's my understanding when I spoke to them um about this issue.

Um I'm not I'm not sure if this will change any of their access or anything like that.

Well, I know we can't approve anything to be like creating some that's gonna be landlocked, right?

And so I guess with it being the PUD like it was anyway, it was not that way, set up that way, and with us just approving a zoning change, we're still not gonna create a landlocked area, correct?

I guess the city would make them put a substreet going into that area to keep it from being landlocked, right?

There are certain um regulations in the subdivision regulation about um stub streets, and I think part of that is about um if there is a property similar to that one that is kind of um you know has a potential of being kind of landlocked, adding in that stub street.

Um depending on the the property owners there, whether or not they want another street to go into their property or whether they'd prefer to continue accessing um you know the access that they're doing now.

I might you know I wouldn't be able to say um in my conversations with that property owner there, I'm not sure if they're here in attendance, but um in my conversations with them, they didn't seem too concerned about the overall development.

Um they were just mostly concerned about the fence and making sure that um no one was trespassing onto their property.

I understand any other discussion.

Um so with our current zoning for this area, would there be a fence uh to the north of that particular person's property along the property line?

I don't think there would, would there?

We wouldn't we wouldn't necessarily require it uh with this one because with this being a residential um zoned area, but in the agricultural property, it wouldn't necessarily require those um those buffers or screw screened areas.

Right.

Um so they may just have to put up their own fence if that's what they want.

And I just want to kind of make that clear.

So yeah, and with a lot of this um the fencing stuff as well, it will come into with um in the plating process if they if you know the applicant or you know whoever wishes to put fences along there.

Um I don't think we force them to put a fence.

No, we can't force them to put a fence, but must yeah, and and the individual individual homeowners may want to put fences up as well, and so therefore they put fences up in their yards, and they may not, you know.

So, Mr.

Anyhart, did you hear want to talk about any I guess rebut?

Did you want to reboot anything we said?

Sure.

Uh yes, I did hear everything, and uh that does ring true with my understanding of the code, it's not a requirement.

Uh if the adjoining owner wanted to put up a fence, then they certainly have the right to do so as long as it complies with the regulations for fence under the broken arizon ordinance.

Uh speaking with the owner prior to the meeting, we do expect that homeowners will probably want a neighborhood fence, or not a neighborhood fence, but a privacy fence.

Right at their properties, yeah.

That will be a case by case.

Was talking about read the email.

That's who you talked to, is that what you're saying?

Oh no, I spoke with the owner just prior to the meeting.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, we expect that the homeowners will probably want to put up privacy fences.

Uh but that will be in the individual discussion.

Right, exactly.

Just like in any other neighborhood.

It also depends on what's right up in the homeowner association, the covenants and restrictions.

So yeah, I could see those homes on the the far west wanting to just do a chain link fence so they could see you know the greenscape and stuff like that.

So keep their animal in.

As you said, Ms.

Clumpy.

They could the owner of the property of the Southwest could put up their own privacy fence.

Correct.

If that was an issue for them.

Yep.

So this is a big deal going from the multifamily to this too.

That's uh to me, it's positive thing for them.

I remember we had a number of people wanting not wanting the multi-family, so I'm sure they're probably pretty pleased that it would be a single family now.

Yep.

Thank you.

Anything else?

I'm uh satisfied as if you are.

Okay.

All right, thanks.

Thank you all for your time.

All right, I'll close the public hearing.

Any discussion.

I guess we're ready for a motion.

Okay.

I make a motion to approve item four.

We're at B, right?

4B item 251639 per staff recommendation.

I'll second.

Yes, that was.

Oh, sorry, 6B.

251639.

There you go.

Have a motion second I have roll call vote.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

J Lee Clempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen?

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

That'll go before the city council on December 16th, right here.

All right.

Next item on the agenda is item 6C25-1640.

Yes.

This is public hearing consideration and possible action regarding BAZ 002505 2025, Arrow Forge, 99.52 acres, agricultural to AG, agricultural to I.

BAZ00252505 2025 is a request to change the zoning designation on 99.52 acres from AG to I.O.

This property is located south of Florence Street and one quarter mile east of Olive.

The applicant is requesting this change to the zoning zoning designation for the purpose of the development of an innovation district.

This investment by broken arrow voters who approve the initial infrastructure needed to create innovation district in the 2018 general obligation bond exemplifies the city's dedication to economic growth and innovation.

The Aero Forages Innovation District mission is to create various job opportunities from advanced manufacturing to technology.

These jobs will offer competitive wages and the opportunity for career development and skills building, strengthening our workforce and preparing industries for the future.

The surrounding properties contain the following land uses along with the following development guide and zoning designations.

So the north it is levels three, six flood uh floodplain, floodway, and public with the zoning of agricultural and the land use of single family residential, vacant and public institutional uh a school.

East is level one agricultural with the land use of agriculture agriculture.

To the south, it is level six and three, commercial heavy and and agricultural and it is vacant.

Um that to the south is on the other side of the Creek Turnpike as a reminder.

Um to the west it was level six and it is agricultural and it is vacant.

According to FEMA maps, a portion of the property is located within the 100-year floodplain, water and sanitary sewer are available from the city of Broken Arrow.

Based upon the approval of comp 002424 to 2025, the location of the property and 2018 approval of bond funds for a broken arrow innovation district.

Staff recommends that BAZ 002505 2025 be approved subject to the property being flooded.

Thanks, Jose.

Any discussion with staff?

Questions?

Is the applicant present?

We've got some folks from the city who can speak on it, but I can also speak on the item.

All right.

Do you have anything you wish to add for as an applicant?

I mean, I guess I mean it's mostly just for uh the development of the that innovation district.

Right now, the um the whole parcel is going to be rezoned to I.O.

Um, but it's not, of course, the intention for all of it to be I.

Um, that is just for now for um my understanding is that there's a potential development uh in progress and they'll be under that IELT designation.

So for now, I think they're going to be rezoning the kind of entire area and later coming in and um fixing it for developments as they come in.

Didn't we have something that changed in an ordinance on the signage that that's gonna affect this property?

Or I guess it wouldn't matter if it did.

Because I think that was closer to events part.

Oh, is that what it was?

Okay, I couldn't remember.

All right.

All right, thanks.

I'll close public hearing.

I obviously want to have a question for Jose as well.

Okay, is there is there a way to uh kind of quantify the economic impact or maybe talk a little bit about the expected job creation or um private investment that might be happening?

Yeah, I wouldn't myself be able to speak too much to that.

I don't know if um anyone from the economic development authority um is able to come on here.

Should we perfectly good evening, commissioners?

Uh Amber Miller, Vice President of Economic Development at the Broken Arrow Economic Development Corporation.

Um so we have secured um a potential anchor tenant for um the Aero Forge Innovation District.

Uh it is an existing broken arrow business that is expanding.

So we are retaining 110 high wage jobs with uh an additional 50 jobs at the at or above the Tulsa County average wage being added in addition to building a 50,000 square foot light industrial um facility in the aerospace components.

So again uh innovation um advanced manufacturing, not heavy traffic, clean.

You'd never know that it manufacturing would be happening in that facility.

Um a minimum of 50,000 square feet, but they are already talking about that could potentially be doubled in the coming years.

So uh we're looking at about a 10 million dollar um capital investment on the on the low end.

Um you know, of course, building um costs increase.

Uh we could be we could anticipate that um increasing as well.

Great.

Well, thank you.

I yeah, I wanted to kind of hear the whole commercial, so I appreciate that.

Yeah, absolutely.

Happy to answer any other questions.

Lots of be excited about.

Yeah, absolutely.

You know, driving um those quality jobs.

Uh we've worked uh very hard to narrow the focus of attraction efforts to be in the aerospace um sector to continue to grow that our aerospace base here in Broken Arrow with a uh with a focus on aerospace components, so very specific and narrowed focus.

Very cool.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, you bet.

Thank you.

Good question, a good response.

Great person to come down.

Anybody else A2?

Thank you.

Was anybody else signed up or anything?

No one's on that.

Not that I know of no other discussion.

So I guess closed public hearing ready for motion.

I'll make I'll make a motion for this one.

Um motion to approve item six C.

Pair staff recommendation.

Second.

I have a motion second I have roll call vote.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

Jempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorin said.

Yes.

Now that'll go before the city council December 16th, right here at 630, I believe it is.

Next item on the agenda is item 6D 25-1642.

B Z 002491-2025 is a request to change the zoning designation on 8.01 acres from AG agricultural to ON Office Neighborhood.

The property is located at the southwest corner of Florence Street, 11th Street, and Aspen Avenue, also known as 145th East Avenue.

And office neighborhood zoning is allowed in level four.

Surrounding uses include uh level four and floodplain to the north.

Um with agricultural zoning and that property is currently vacant.

To the east is level four and floodplain with ag zoning and it is vacant.

To the south are levels four and six as well as floodplain.

The zoning is agricultural and that property is vacant.

To the west is level six in the comprehensive plan with RE zoning, and uh single family residences are currently on that site.

According to FEMA maps, a portion of the southeast corner of the property is located within the 100-year floodplain, water, and sanitary sewer are available from the city of Broken Arrow.

Uh based upon the location of the property, staff recommends that BAZ 002491-2025 be approved subject to the property being platted.

Um the applicant is mostly in agreement except for the part about um the property being flatted.

Okay.

Okay.

And I think you said uh property to the west was level six and it's level two, but that's okay.

I think it was just in this.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

I just want to correct it for the for the record.

Thank you.

No worries.

Discussion question of staff.

Is the applicant present?

Yes.

You have anything you wish to add?

I would like to know what the question is.

You might have to come up if you're in disagreement or something.

Yes.

Do I have a question?

I think Ms.

Clumpa also has a question for the applicant.

You want for the applicant?

Oh, okay.

Uh my name is David Furling.

I'm with GHN Architects Engineers out of Missouri.

Um, and I'm just here to answer any questions.

I did I've had talks with the owner who was also here, project manager for the church.

Uh we will be plating the property.

So that's objections to the letter things.

Okay, that was my question.

Exactly.

That was where I was.

That is a good question.

So you're in agreement to plant the property.

Yes.

There was some confusion at the pre-development meeting where plating was discussed and was determined that it wasn't required, but we'll be the owner would like to plant the property.

Okay.

Okay.

I it's my understanding that it's really the only opportunity the city has to identify easements and other things is during that plotting process.

So that's kind of important.

Raised the concern when I saw that when we saw that right away.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So well, no, we're good.

I don't have anything to do with that.

Thank you.

No problem.

So do we have my anybody sign to speak on this?

No, no.

All right, open public hearing and uh close public hearing.

Any other discussion?

No, I'll make a motion to approve item six D per staff recommendations.

I'll second.

I have most second roll call vote.

Jonathan Townsend, yes.

Jaley Klempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

That'll go before the city council, December 16th, right here at 6 30.

All right.

Next item on the agenda is item number seven appeals.

We have none.

Eight general business.

No.

Nine remarks, inquiries.

Any discussion, anything?

I did have an um update for um Jalee on the wireless tower for the landscaping requirements.

I looked a bit more deeper.

Um it's a bit unique because of the way they the property is it's kind of or the not even property, but the the development, you know, it's a weird piece in the parking lot.

Yeah.

Um and so it doesn't necessarily require any landscaping itself other than just the normal um screening requirements for you know mechanical stuff, and I think they were gonna just do a fence or something.

Okay.

As long as it looks good and city's fine with it, I'm fine with it.

So thank you.

Thank you, though.

So one of the things I brought up last time was the landscape, uh, like on the landscape at Court Trip on East Kenosha.

And I I was provided some stuff from Rebecca, and I guess that's regarding what I brought up last time.

Yeah, you should have a um in there's um uh site plans for the quadruping.

So it looks good.

I saw did we see this at the city at the planning commission meeting?

Do you recall?

No, okay.

That one was before I was here if I'm being honest, but um with the site plan, it probably didn't come before planning commission, it probably was just through um stuff.

So one of my questions is when do we say, okay, we're gonna take the site, the landscape plan to the city or the planning commission, and when we're not, if that makes sense.

PUDs we automatically bring the landscape ordinance or landscape plan into the planning commission, correct?

On some of them, I think my understanding is if I've seen some of the PUDs where it's um written within there, the site plan will come before will be approved by you know a planning commission first or or the landscape plan or um things like that.

I haven't seen some BUDs if they don't have that written in there.

I don't don't I don't think we necessarily require them to come before you all with the site plan.

Right.

I think it's when we ask for the PUD for the landscaping to come in front of us.

It's kind of or other things such as facades that you know, etc.

etc.

As they develop it, then we kind of ask for it, you know, because sometimes we apply things not complete.

Right.

Or on certain things, and I guess there's certain things that staff has a certain amount of authority to make the changes to, right?

Yeah.

And when do you decide no, we need to go to the planning commission to because I I have seen where where I've driven by it and oh that looks different than what I remember.

And so I guess it's coming from staff where the where they were gonna have, and I don't want to ride this too long, but where we've had so many trees, and all of a sudden we allow them to cluster, which we do allow that to happen in the landscape ordinance where we allow them to cluster the trees up.

But sometimes I've seen where the trees aren't there, and I'm wondering what's going on, if that makes sense.

I mean, if I know that with and I I keep looking at you, Jose, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot or anything.

But keep saying, hey, that would happen before I got here, because that works.

Yeah, no, but it it was uh at least I know now that on our um all of our inspectors have been, I think, doing a more thorough job on the landscape portion of their inspection, especially on the final one.

Um before there was some where I'm and I don't want to throw our our inspectors under the bus.

And I don't want to either.

And I don't want to do that to staff too.

I don't know if if we're missing something, if that makes sense too.

So yeah.

Yeah, and there is, and to your other question too, about um there is sometimes the opportunity for what we call um administrative adjustments.

And so there's like certain um and there it's very um specific list about different things that they can request an administrative adjustment.

Like sidewalks that are going around hydrants, things like that.

I I've seen that happen.

Yeah, and then and if it's and I think it it's very specific in there too.

It says if it's something that's not listed within your, then it has to come uh before you all as a waiver or you know, PUD amendment or whatever it might be.

And there are some who want for liability purposes to say this was approved by the city, so you can't come after us.

Yeah.

I wouldn't target anybody.

I was wondering I just want to know if I've dropped the ball on something, you know, on something coming through us that we supposed to have caught, though we didn't catch it.

I promise we'll tell you if you ever dropped the ball.

Or city council will I I was just thinking when you had brought that up before though.

Um I know I've caught myself thinking that um you know I thought we've seen the landscape plans before, and then I realized that in some cases I might be getting mixed up with some concepts that have been laid out that are very detailed that the concept kind of makes me think that oh well that's what was was designed.

So I think as a commission we should probably if we uh are concerned or there's comments from the community about the landscape that maybe we just say, okay, for st the specific one we want to see the final layout uh when the community has concerns that might be something that that we need to make sure we're we're bringing up in the future.

Oh yeah.

Yeah, and I and I think as well with this um quitcher, but I think there's still I I don't think they've reached their final inspection stage just yet.

Um so all that landscaping should be caught, you know, in that.

And if it isn't, then you know we'll make sure that you know I'll make sure to um reach out to the building inspection folks and say, hey, you know, our planning commission is specifically interested in you know, make sure that you know these landscape requirements are met.

Um, well they're putting up the shrubs and they're putting the sod down, so you know they can always come and dig and put the trees in after.

So that's why I was curious.

I just couldn't remember.

I remember we saw the quick trip site plan.

I just couldn't remember the landscape plan coming through us, and and I guess it doesn't always have to come to us.

There is there is a option to submit the um landscape plan separately from the site plan for separate review.

Um but even then it uh usually that landscape plan has to be approved um before you know any final um you know building permits or anything like that can be um completed approved at all to well you know we're we're at we're one of the 23 cities in Oklahoma that's tree city USA and there's a good reason for it because we we make it put the trees up and when they die off we just make a comment in the app to hey there's an issue up here.

Sometimes you don't know if there should have been a tree there or not.

A lot of people don't know that, but we know that when we've seen it.

So yeah, and and that's one thing too.

I think um, I know a lot of other communities sometimes will have a um like a certified landscape architect or a certified uh like arborist on staff.

Um I've seen uh a lot of times it's bigger cities, you know, of course, with much more capacity and funding for that kind of um staff member, but um that is something I have seen implemented in other places, and so um you know me and myself, I I my my father has a landscaping business, and I worked with him uh for years doing that, so I have a bit of information and knowledge on um you know landscaping and all that good stuff, but landscape architect would be someone who would be for sure, you know, much more um in tune and able to you know keep up or keep our city in line with those readings.

Well, I don't want to get Chris O'Lear mad at me.

They're doing a great job.

I mean, I'm not saying the city's not doing it, it's the I want to make sure the applicants are doing their stuff, and if they put up the tree and it dies off, you're supposed to replace the tree.

And I know that we get a hold of code enforcement, so anyway.

I don't know where I was headed with all this, but I think you're just gonna submit the landscape plans to us if you think we ought to see them.

Okay.

Or if you ask for it.

Yeah.

So I did.

Thanks, Jane.

Or Rebecca.

Any other discussion items?

All right, happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

Thank you.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Thank you.

All right, we're ready for a motion.

Move to adjourn.

Second.

You should pause that.

You all do that.

Yes.

Jempa.

Yes, Jason Cohen.

Yes, Robert Gorzon.

Yes.