We'll call this meeting of the Broken Arrow Board of Adjustment on the March the 9th to order.

Roll call, please.

There we go.

Michelle Bergwall.

Rebecca Hinkle here.

Kamara Washington.

Here.

George Jessquire?

Here.

Judd Hatch.

Here.

Okay.

Next item is consideration of consent agenda.

And approval of the board meeting.

Minutes from the 9th meeting on the 9th.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Rebecca Hinkle.

Yes.

Kamara Washington.

Yes.

George Jess Choir.

Yes.

Judd Hatch.

Yes.

Okay.

Our next item is our public hearing.

Um we have 4A and 4B.

Uh staff want to read us the information on the first.

Yes.

Item 4A is public hearing consideration and possible action regarding B VAR 002593 2025 Fort Worth Apartments.

Approximately 0.32 acres downtown Ridential Overlay District 5 requesting a variance from Section 5 of the Downtown Residential Overlay District regulations to modify driveway width, located approximately one fourth north, one fourth mile north of West Houston Street and one uh one half mile west of 9th Street.

This variance request is request to waive the downtown residential overlay district driveway with regulations located on the subject property as mentioned approximately one file one fourth mile north of West Houston Street and one half mile west of 9th Street.

The property is currently the property currently addressed as 202 East Forth Worth Street is in the process of being developed into a 15-unit multifamily flat.

This do this property is comprised of four lots of the original broken arrow town site.

Parking regulations would require that there be one parking space per one bedroom unit, meaning this development would need approximately fit would need 15 parking spaces.

For variance to be granted, there are four findings that must be found by the Board of Adjustment.

One, unnecessary hardship.

The application of the ordinance of the particular piece of property would create unnecessary hardship.

Analysis.

Excuse me, comprised of four original town site lots.

Nonetheless, the parcel is only 14,000 square feet in size, leading to a restricted amount of space for the requested housing units and required amount of parking.

Unusual conditions.

Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved.

The analysis.

A 20-foot driveway width at this parcel would not be any different.

Structures that are considered row houses are allowed a maximum of 20 feet for the driveway width.

The proposed development is a flat, and so its minimum is 26 feet and a maximum of 30 feet.

Aerial fire act aerial fire access can be achieved from an adjacent public street without overhead utilities or wires.

The fire marshal will ensure that fire codes are met during the site plan review process.

The variance, if granted, would be the minimum necessary to alleviate the unnecessary hardship.

Granting a variance to waive the DROD driveway width would allow for the parking and driveway to be built according to the developers' needs while also meeting parking requirements from the bro from the city of Broken Arrow.

No other variation from the DROD is being requested in this case.

Recommendation.

In staff's opinion, the request for variance to reduce the driveway with of the downtown residential overlay district meets the four findings for the board to grant the variance.

Therefore, staff recommends that VAR 002593-2025 be approved.

However, there staff did receive a letter for this item, and there is someone wishing to speak on the site as well.

Okay.

And are the two variances don't relate to the same subject property?

No, these are similar in their requests, but they're different properties and different developers.

Okay.

Do we do we have anybody here for the person requesting the variants that wants to speak?

Should be good afternoon.

Justin Abruin, Walls Design Collective, representing the applicant.

So the property is on the northeast corner of First and Fort Worth.

And essentially what we have is a three-story flats type building that would be on pretty small size lot overall, about 17,500 square feet total.

So what we are requesting has been through the process of working with staff to narrow it down to really a one-way drive that enters into the property with the appropriate amount of parking.

The standard by the DROD is to have a 26 foot wide driveway, but what we're looking at is a 20-foot, which would meet the standard anywhere else within the city.

I think part of the reason that we sought a variance is kind of twofold.

First, we went through the engineering variance process with city staff and the fire marshal, and it was determined that from their standpoint, it does meet the standard that they have.

They do have fire apparatus access to the site.

So I think what we are proposing meets the standard and the recommendations of the DROD, the comprehensive plan, and uh I think that's pretty well it, but it meets those two standards.

So we're seeking a little bit of relief that would again kind of meet the general standard of the area.

With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

No questions.

Correct.

Yes, sir.

What which what made you choose the direction of the one-way travel that you chose?

It's mainly for for the the purpose of ingress.

If we were to go off of make sure I say this right here.

South First really acts as the major roadway, so we wanted to avoid access on that particular road.

So Fort Worth became the main primary point of access for us to choose to kind of mitigate any traffic concerns that would happen for this area.

So that's why we chose that particular area.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We do uh on this one.

We have somebody that yes.

So uh Mr.

Horton.

Hello.

How's it there?

Uh first of all, let me say thank you for serving the city of Brooklyn Arrow.

It's important.

Okay.

If you would uh oblige me a minute, I'm gonna read so that my thoughts come out clear.

The argument is the same for both properties.

And then after we have the other property, I would like to speak again if that's okay.

I will make it very concise on the second one.

Okay.

My name is Frank Horton, and I am the property owner and live at 222 East Detroit Street.

I'm here to respectfully oppose the requested variants for the proposed development at 202 Fort Worth.

The variance standard exists to provide relief only when a property owner faces a genuine and unique hardship that makes compliance with the zoning code impossible or impractical.

A variance is not intended to provide convenience for a developer, nor should it be granted to simply maximize development potential or the number of units or reduce the construction costs.

In this case, the applicant is requesting permission to deviate from the established driveway with requirement within the downtown residential overlay district.

These standards were intentionally adopted by the city of Broken Arrow to promote neighborhood safety, maintain adequate accessibility, and preserve the established character and pedestrian oriented environment of the Rose District.

The request does not constitute a minimal or incidental deviation from the ordinance.

Rather, the deviation is being sought to accommodate a development pattern that includes additional dwelling units on the site.

The need for the requested deviation appears to be the result from the scale and configuration of the proposed development and the extent of the building coverage on the lot.

As a result, the circumstance giving rise to the request is largely self-created by the design and in and intensity of the proposal rather than a physical hardship or inherent problem with the property itself.

Furthermore, the request, I'm sorry.

Furthermore, the requested deviation cannot reasonably considered a minimum necessary to alleviate a hardship.

The need for the variance could be avoided if the lot coverage and building footprint of the proposed structures were reduced or otherwise reconfigured to comply with the established development standards.

For these reasons, the request represents a substantive departure from the adopted standards rather than a minimum relief typically contemplated under the variance criteria.

Granting this variance would undermine the objectives of the DROD for several reasons.

First, there has been no demonstration of a true hardship related to the land itself.

The lot at 202 Fort Worth is not uniquely constrained in any way.

That makes compliance with the ordinance impossible.

The developer purchased the property with full knowledge of the applicable zoning regulations and dimensional requirements.

Financial preference or design conveniences does not meet the legal standard for a hardship under the variance law.

Second, allowing a reduced driveway would with would create practical and safety concerns in dense downtown residential environment.

Third, granting this variance risks setting a precedent for further deviations from the carefully crafted development standards governing the Rose District.

And this is my point overall in one sentence.

Once exceptions begin to accumulate, the consistency and a predictability of the zoning code are eroded.

Finally, and most importantly, for the perspective from the perspective of those of us who live here, decisions like this have a direct impact on property values and neighborhood stability.

I recently invested in my home with the expectation that the city's zoning ordinances would be applied consistently, because I have no homeowners association, and that that nearby developments would meet the same design and safety standards required for everyone else.

When variances are granted without a clear hardship, it introduces uncertainty into the regulatory framework that homeowners rely upon when making significant financial investments.

A development that operates under reduced standards, particularly regarding access to the site design, can negatively affect the perception, safety, and desirability of nearby residential properties, and that risk alone warrants careful scrutiny.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the board deny the requested variance, the applicant has not demonstrated the type of unique hardship required under the law, and the requested deviation would undermine the intent of the zoning ordinance while potentially harming neighboring property owners who rely on these standards.

Thank you for your consideration and giving me that much time to read.

Thank you.

I think really the hardship comes down to uh when you read the DROD, it's a very straightforward 26-foot driveway width requirement, and I think that applies both to one-way and two-way type development.

So in our research, the reason we really came here was that if you look at the standards that are applied elsewhere within the community, you see that for one-way drives we're typically around a 20-foot driveway width.

So it's 26 foot, and especially with the variety between angled parking versus 90 degree parking.

What we're asking for, especially with the angle parking, which would typically be 20 foot or even less, considering the parallel parking on the the other side.

We felt like it was a fair compromise for this particular site that that uh the 26 foot is in excess for other areas of uh two-way drive, so with the reduction down to a one-way drive and being at 20 foot, it seemed once again appropriate but also comparable to other sites that have developed in the general area.

Thank you.

Do we have any additional pictures other than the aerial site plan that show any more detail?

Okay.

Did you add the profile?

Not on, I think I had it on the last one, but I think I forgot to include it in this one.

There are some um conceptual images uh of the area if you like that a minute or so to go up and uh grab it word.

I have a question for staff.

Okay.

Um what was the reasoning for that 26-foot width in the DROD when it was adopted in that manner?

Like what I mean obviously if there's other driveways in the area that are 20 foot, but then these are requiring 26, like what is what was the the reasoning behind that standard.

Yeah.

Yeah, I know that um I think one thing um as well to keep in mind with the DROD is it's um been around for quite some time.

Um I can't remember the exact date it was adopted, but if I remember correctly, it's around 2005, 2006 in that time frame.

So it's been around for some time.

Um particularly within that um within the DROD.

Um it follows kind of almost like what we call a form-based code.

So instead of having a something that says, you know, if you're zoned, you know, this, you know, you have this many um feet of you know, setbacks and this many square feet of this area.

Um instead it's more of a if you're this type of structure, you know, you follow these type of um requirements.

So in the DROD for um these kind of multi-family style developments, um, there's duplex, um two-family um housing, there's um row houses, and then there's flats.

Um and the the distinction between these, um the two-family of course is more of a duplex style.

Um the distinction between the row houses and the flats is that row houses are more of a multifamily um type development where um one unit for one um family or person extends from the ground level all the way to the roof.

Um so more of a row house style, right?

Flats are those where um it could be you know two units on the first floor, two unit second floor, or you know, something along those lines.

Um so within the DROD for those uh row houses developments, they can have a driver width of 20 feet, um regardless of it's you know one-way or two-way.

Um that's kind of what just what it requests or what it asks um is that 20 feet.

Um in this instance in this development, it's more of a flats, it's uh individual units per each floor.

So the DROD requires um 26 feet minimum width uh for that driveway.

Um but like the applicant mentioned, it doesn't uh specify whether it's for a you know one-way driveway or a two-way driveway.

Um my understanding of my assumption is is that when it was developed, it was with a two-way driveway in mind.

Um, you know, usually vehicle uh vehicle lane widths, you know, in parking lots or or small streets are you know eight to ten feet wide, it's about how much space you need for a vehicle.

Um so that's my assumption with how that came to be.

Um I think the 20 feet, 26 feet.

Um I think the thinking might be with you know a flat, you know, it's you know, more apartment style, so maybe they think you know um maybe need a bit more space or something like that.

Um as to exactly how they came to that determination between those two, um, I can't be too sure, but um, but I think considering those two differences um in the type of development, um I think is key to key to it.

Um but understanding that they're it's really just that difference in how the units are styled in the building.

Um you know, if this was a a 15 flat uh or 15 unit row house development, you know, they would have been allowed to do the 20-foot um driver width.

But since it's um you know the um flat style, they have to do 26 feet.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I I don't have the pages in front of me.

What who's the owner on this on this variance request?

Yeah, what we have as the owner um is Joel Coggins.

Thank you.

Oh no, since it's a good one.

Yeah, this is what okay.

Um no more questions.

Thank you both uh for comments.

Um do we have a motion on the floor?

My motion would be to deny the request.

I second Rebecca Hinkleck.

Yes.

Kamara Washington.

Yes.

George Jessquire.

Abstain.

Judd Hatch.

No.

So if there we go.

It's a two to one.

Uh-huh.

We got to get the rule book out.

Right.

It would be a two to one.

That's fine.

So I would say that it had two to one.

I mean it's denied.

If it was a two to one, because he have he backed out, so that puts it at three, so then it's a two to one.

But it was a failure to deny instead of the denial passed.

The denial passed.

So we deny the you're right.

You're right.

I'm thinking, is it two to one or is it two to two with an abstain?

With an abstain.

I believe it's two to one.

Two more with an upstair.

Okay.

Okay.

So it carries.

Okay.

Okay.

So and that was item B, I believe, on the agenda, correct?

Uh item 4A.

That was 4B 4B.

Oh, it I'm so sorry.

I did okay, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

So motion to deny was approved.

Okay.

So we're now ready for 4 A.

Thank you.

So this is uh public hearing consideration and possible action regarding VAR 002667 2025, 202 Elgin apartments, approximately 0.24 acres, downtown residential overlay district five.

Request of variance from section five of the downtown residential overlay district regulations to modify driveway with.

Located approximately one half mile north of West Houston Street and one half mile west of ninth street.

VAR 002593 2025 involves 0.32 acres within the DROD district in that area mentioned previously.

So staff recommends continuing this item until the next meeting of the Broken Arrow Board of Adjustment on April 13th, 2026.

A motion to approve that.

Second.

Rebecca Hinkle.

Yes.

Yes.

George Jessquire.

Yes.

Judd Hatch.

Yes.

Okay.

That will conclude the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Uh we will re-hear that at the next April meeting.

The gentleman wanted to speak again after.

Yeah.

I think it was.

Were you wanting to speak in regards to this?

I would love to.

Because I won't be out of town here.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Sure.

Thank you again for listening.

Um again, Frank Horton.

I live at 222 East Detroit.

I poured my life into that property over there.

I don't have a homeowners association.

When we built according to the DROD, spent thousands with architects.

To conform.

I love the development.

I love the pedestrian traffic.

Okay.

Here's why I speak in opposition to this.

A frog doesn't know he's being boiled until the water's boiling.

Right.

The DROD is a sanctuary for me.

Right.

It's going to expand.

There's gonna be variances.

I know that.

What is occurring in town is developers are looking for profit and rightfully so.

Love capitalism.

But they're doing it at the expense by buying properties that they know that their plan does not necessarily fit to the property, and they're expecting you to agree to their potential profit.

And I'm all for them making profit.

I own the house that I live in, and I live the ill own the house next door, and that's a uh uh an investment property for me and my wife.

So as you go forward and you think about what the DROD does, if you live in a homeowner's station, you have some you have some grounded trust.

I have no grounded trust if the city doesn't stand behind the DROD and say, we really need you to comply when you buy a piece of property rather than coming in here and trying to twist and spin a narrative to say please let us do what you have otherwise already told us we're not supposed to do.

Thank you again for listening to me.

And I really do mean thank you for serving our city, okay?

Thanks for speaking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any of the general board business?

No.

So we know we're gonna have a meeting next month already.

That's good.

Um remarks or comments uh by board or staff?

No.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Rebecca Hinkle, yes.

Kamara Washington, yes, George Jessquire, yes, Judd Hatch.

Yes.

All right, we're in turn.