OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Broken Arrow, Oklahoma/Meeting Portal
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Broken Arrow City Council Meeting Summary, January 8, 2026

Meeting Portal — Thursday, January 8, 2026
BodyBroken Arrow, Oklahoma
SessionMeeting Portal
DateThursday, January 8, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:18:36

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
1:06

All right, it's at 5 30.

1:08

We'll go ahead and get started.

1:09

Have roll call.

1:13

Mindy Payne, here.

1:14

Jonathan Townsend?

1:15

Here.

1:16

Jalen Clempa.

1:17

Here.

1:17

Jason Cohen.

1:18

Here.

1:18

Robert Gorenson.

1:19

Here.

1:20

Item number three, whole business.

1:22

We have none.

1:23

Item number four consideration.

1:25

Consent agenda.

1:27

Before we have a motion, I do have a question for the staff or for our attorney.

1:34

About what?

1:35

Can I about the before I might because I might want to pull the minutes to ask a question about it?

1:39

Oh, if you have minutes, yeah, you can pull those.

1:41

But can I ask a question about that before I make motion?

1:45

A general question.

1:48

Let's hear your question.

1:49

Yeah.

1:49

You probably have to.

1:50

Why don't I just pull it first?

1:52

Yeah, pull it.

1:53

I'd rather be safe than sorry.

1:54

Yeah.

1:55

All right.

1:55

So we'll have a uh let's see.

1:58

I'd like to pull item number four A twenty-six dash one thirty-four.

2:02

It's the minutes from the last meeting.

2:04

Okay, anybody else have anything?

2:06

No.

2:07

Okay.

2:07

I make a motion that we pull item four A and approve uh item 4B per staff recommendation.

2:14

Second the motion.

2:19

Mindy Payne, yes.

2:20

Jonathan Townsend?

2:21

Yes.

2:21

Jalen Klempa.

2:22

Yes.

2:22

Jason Cohen.

2:23

Yes.

2:24

Robert Gorenson.

2:24

Yes.

2:25

Now the item four, item five consideration item removed.

2:28

So that takes me back to four A.

2:30

So on the minutes, it is kind of a general question, I guess.

2:33

Since we do this by video, also like if somebody want to go back and look, we have the minutes that we bless off on.

2:40

We send to the city council for their approval.

2:43

So does the video do the audio and video, I guess, from the meeting it actually has the same credence or more than the memorialized ones in writing?

2:54

The minutes are required by the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.

2:56

The video is something we do in addition to that.

2:59

So like if something went into well, like court or whatever, I guess they would use the written minutes then.

3:05

No, no, no if this went to a court, they would actually transcribe the video again.

3:10

Word by word.

3:10

Okay, good.

3:11

That's right.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████████████████████████████████45%
Procedural█████████████13%
Public Safety███████7%
Youth Programs███████7%
Animal Welfare███████7%
Transportation Safety███████7%
Education█████5%
Parks and Recreation████4%
Environmental Protection███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Broken Arrow Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2026

The Planning Commission of Broken Arrow convened to review several zoning changes, Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), and public comments. The meeting included discussions on agricultural rezonings, therapeutic farm proposals, and industrial storage yards. A key procedural clarification was provided regarding the distinction between zoning approvals and the mandatory plating process for development permits.

Consent Calendar

  • The Commission voted unanimously to pull Item 4A (Minutes from the December 18, 2025, meeting) to allow for a question regarding the legal standing of video recordings versus written minutes. Staff confirmed that while video exists, written minutes are required by the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, though video transcription can be used in court.
  • Following the clarification, the Commission voted unanimously to approve Item 4A (Minutes 26-134) and Item 4B (other routine items) per staff recommendation.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Lou Reynolds (Applicant Representative): Expressed full support for the proposed grocery store development, stating it represents the "highest and best use" for the property. He addressed public concerns by stating that stormwater impacts would be negligible, litter would be managed per ordinance, and lighting standards would be strictly adhered to to prevent light pollution. He argued the project would have a positive impact on property values and community quality of life, similar to previous downtown developments.
  • David Tapp (Applicant - Pediatrics Plus): Expressed enthusiastic support for the therapeutic farm project, presenting it as a vital community resource for children with autism. He detailed the facility's operations, emphasizing that animal interactions (donkeys, sheep, chickens) occur Monday through Friday only to manage noise, and that no roosters would be kept. He voiced strong commitment to safety, citing extensive surveillance (35-45 cameras), high staff-to-child ratios, and strict protocols for "runners" to ensure child protection. He expressed hope for an opening in May.
  • Rob Cody (Architect for D&B Processing): Stated intent to keep existing wetlands open and protect the blue-line stream. Regarding fencing concerns, he indicated willingness to relocate the existing fence to create required landscaping buffers but requested flexibility if vegetation is lost over time.

Discussion Items

  • Zoning Change (Item 6A - 26-133): The Commission discussed a request to rezone property from Agricultural to Commercial General for a grocery store. Staff addressed concerns regarding right-of-way acquisition, clarifying that if approved, the city would collect necessary rights-of-way during the plating process. A traffic impact study was voluntarily submitted by the applicant to pre-emptively address safety concerns.
  • Therapeutic Farm PUD (Item 6B - PUD-002514-2025): The Commission debated a split zoning request (Commercial/General and Agricultural) for a therapeutic farm. Discussion focused on the interior buffer requirements between the commercial and agricultural zones on the same property, confirming that the PUD conditions would tie the regulations to the land itself. Members expressed strong support for the project's contribution to the community, with specific inquiries made about the age range of participants, staff numbers (approx. 65), and animal safety protocols.
  • Industrial Storage PUD (Item 6C - PUD-002550-2025): The Commission deliberated on a request to abrogate a previous PUD and establish a new one for an industrial storage yard. Concerns were raised regarding the aesthetics of the property facing the new amphitheater, specifically involving an existing metal fence and the reliability of natural vegetation buffers. The Commission expressed concern that reliance on vegetation as a screen was insufficient, and requested a visual presentation of proposed fence and landscaping solutions.
  • Procedural Clarifications: The Commission and staff clarified that under the current code (post-2025), zoning approvals are not legally "conditional on plating" as they were previously, though plating remains a mandatory step before construction permits. It was noted that City Council can remand items back to the Planning Commission for further review, including hearing additional public comments if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is remanded.

Key Outcomes

  • Item 6A (Grocery Store Rezoning): Approve BAZ 002565-2025 subject to platting. Vote: 6-0 (Mindy Payne, Jonathan Townsend, Jalen Clempa, Jason Cohen, Robert Gorenson). The item will proceed to City Council on February 3, 2026.
  • Item 6B (Therapeutic Farm): Approve PUD-002514-2025 and BAZ-002575-2025 subject to platting. Vote: 6-0. The item will proceed to City Council on February 3, 2026.
  • Item 6C (Industrial Storage): Continue the public hearing to the January 22, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant must meet with staff to present a plan for the fencing and landscaping buffer to satisfy aesthetic concerns before the item returns to the agenda for City Council consideration on February 3, 2026. Vote: 6-0 to continue.

Meeting Transcript

All right, it's at 5 30. We'll go ahead and get started. Have roll call. Mindy Payne, here. Jonathan Townsend? Here. Jalen Clempa. Here. Jason Cohen. Here. Robert Gorenson. Here. Item number three, whole business. We have none. Item number four consideration. Consent agenda. Before we have a motion, I do have a question for the staff or for our attorney. About what? Can I about the before I might because I might want to pull the minutes to ask a question about it? Oh, if you have minutes, yeah, you can pull those. But can I ask a question about that before I make motion? A general question. Let's hear your question. Yeah. You probably have to. Why don't I just pull it first? Yeah, pull it. I'd rather be safe than sorry. Yeah. All right. So we'll have a uh let's see. I'd like to pull item number four A twenty-six dash one thirty-four. It's the minutes from the last meeting. Okay, anybody else have anything? No. Okay. I make a motion that we pull item four A and approve uh item 4B per staff recommendation. Second the motion. Mindy Payne, yes. Jonathan Townsend? Yes. Jalen Klempa. Yes. Jason Cohen. Yes. Robert Gorenson. Yes. Now the item four, item five consideration item removed. So that takes me back to four A. So on the minutes, it is kind of a general question, I guess.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com