Oh Lord.

All right, we're ready.

All right.

So at 5 30, we'll go ahead and get started and have roll call.

Mindy Payne.

Jonathan Townsend.

Here.

JLie Klempa.

Here.

Jason Cohen.

Here.

Robert Gorenson.

Here.

I don't know.

Three old business we have done.

Item four consent agenda.

Do we have any items need to be pulled?

Not ready for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda items for staff recommendations.

I'll second.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

JLie Klempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes, and neither one of those will go to the city council, right?

Correct.

Actually, I guess that one does go to the city council and planning commission minutes, but I'm number five items removed from the consent agenda.

We have none.

Item six, public hearing six A twenty-six-497.

Public hearing considered.

Okay.

Uh public hearing consideration and possible action regarding SP-002762-2026 public safety communications tower, 10.58 acres, CN commercial neighborhood, southwest corner of West Jasper Street, 131st Street, and South Aspen Avenue, 145th East Avenue.

Um staff would ask that this be continued to the June 25th meeting.

Uh we found out in the radius report mailers that the 300 foot radius was taken from the lease space instead of the entire parcel.

So we are renotising this item.

Okay, sounds good.

What's your pleasure?

So don't we need to motion that we table it?

I'll make a motion table it continue it to June 25th.

Yeah, the 25th, just because we have to meet that 20-day notice.

Yeah.

Okay.

All righty, because I was just reading your recommendation, sorry.

Um second.

Jonathan Townsend.

Yes.

Jaley Clempa.

Yes, Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

Item number six B 26-653.

Public hearing consideration and possible action regarding BAZ-002789-2026 rezoning.

Matthew Thompson, approximately 0.24 acres.

R3 residential single family to DM downtown mixed use core, located approximately one-third mile east of Elm Place, 161st East Avenue, and just north of Houston Street, 81st Street.

Uh we found that this property had previously been rezoned in 2023.

And due to a scrivener's error in the legal description, the um ordinance adopted and the map left off these three historic um lots, which equal one lot today.

Um and so this has already been completed.

Uh we are doing a corrective ordinance that will go to city council next Tuesday that will take care um and update that legal and the map.

So what's the planning commission to do on this then?

Nothing.

No action taken.

Okay, do we need so we'll just we'll just tear it and go on to the next one, right?

All right.

Is that in discussion?

Nope.

All right.

Well have fun with that.

Now call the next item.

Okay.

All right, next item on the agenda item number six C26-679.

Yes, this is public hearing consideration and possible action regarding PUD-002802-2026.

Planned unit development advanced alarm.

0.52 acres industrial light located south of Houston and west of 9th Street.

PUD-002802-2026 is a proposed plan unit development to alter sub to alter setback lines on an industrial lot located at 809 East Jackson Place.

Staff is still needing an updated development outline from the applicant and is requesting that this item be continued to the next planning commission meeting on May 28th, 2026.

So the recommendation is based upon the need for an updated development outline document.

Staff recommends that PUD-28028 2802-2026.

Sorry.

So Jose, you want you want to set a date for it to be continued to, or do you want to table it till you're happy with what they're supposed to bring to you?

Yeah, we can we can set that date.

Um the applicant actually this afternoon was able to submit um that updated document, but of course we still need some time to um you know review it and get it prepared.

And so May 28th is good for you.

Yes, okay.

All right.

Any questions discussion?

No, I'll make a motion to uh table item six Cill May 28th planning commission meeting per staff recommendations.

Second.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes, J Lee Klempa.

Yes, Jason Cohen.

Yes, Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

All right.

Item number seven appeals.

We have none items eight, general commission business, item eight a 26-673.

Yes, this item is a consideration discussion and possible approval of building elevations for site uh SITE-002713-2026, BAPS Aquatic Center, 6.6 acres zoned single family residential and down or single family residential preservation and downtown residential overlay district area seven, located one third mile north of Houston Street, one quarter mile west of 9th Street.

Uh a site plan was submitted on February 25th, 2026 for a proposed indoor swimming facility for broken arrow public schools located at 637 East College Street.

Uh the as I said, the property is zoned RSP and DRD area seven.

According to section five of the downtown residential overlay district, mixed use B slash commercial buildings in area seven are required to have a minimum 60% ground floor transparency, which can include windows and glass doors.

This section also gives planning commission the right to grant modifications to building form and building activation requirements.

Transparency requirements are a building activation feature.

The applicant is proposing to reduce the transparency requirement for this facility since it does not function as a mixed use or commercial retail space.

The applicant has also expressed security concerns with additional glazing in a student focused facility.

The proposed transparency percentages are 50% on the street-facing north facade and 30% 36% on the west facade.

Staff recommends that the reduction in transparency requirements be approved.

All right, thanks, McKenzie.

Any questions?

Staff.

So I do have one question, McKenzie.

Since that sits back ways off county line or Lin Lane, I guess.

So would would we re we would uh would staff go with the waiver the request and if it was up against Lin Lane itself, or would we does that make sense what I'm saying?

So it sits back right now across the field and stuff back there, where it's not really seeing quite a bit, I guess.

But if it was up on Lynn Lane, would we still go with the waiver?

Would they still ask for the waiver?

I think yes, I think we would consider it because one of the biggest sticking points was the safety.

All right, thank the applicant present.

You have anything you wish to add?

No, I think you guys can hear okay.

Um see in the packet is it looks like there's uh quite a few wall panels, metal wall panels and facility and um can you come speak to the profile of this for me real quick just specifically about the we'll need your name for the record panel?

Oh sorry, Nicole Shea, GHG architects.

Um so the panels that are kind of on the second higher portion is a V groove system, so it kind of makes a V shape in a corrugated type fashion.

And then the majority of it though on that ground level is CMU block and brick.

Okay, so when you say corrugated, it's not the rolling corrugated, right?

No, it makes an actual V shape.

V shape.

Yes.

And then we do have some other ribbed panels above.

Um it's kind of hard to see in this elevation, but there are also ribbed panels, but it it doesn't necessarily make that R panel look, if that makes sense.

Yeah.

Yeah, we're not wanting the R panel or the um the corrugated, the round, you know.

Yeah.

Right.

We have neither of those.

Yeah.

Okay.

Perfect.

Yeah.

If you all when you do um when you submit things like this, if you can just like put a profile or just send the cut sheets or whatever.

Yeah.

That's very helpful to us.

Yes.

No problem.

Okay.

So I do have a question about security.

Yeah, I'm I'm just curious.

I I'm not against it when put it that way, but so the glazing you want to eliminate a lot of the glazing based on security, right?

What why is that?

Well, um, there's different kind of philosophies about it, whether glazing you know, can protect students because people can automatically see them from the street and then that becomes a safety hazard.

But then there's uh the opposite thought of having as much glazing as possible in the lobby side so that if there's an attendant there they can actually see out into the parking lot.

So that's kind of the thought for the most of the glazing being at the entrance location, um, so that there's vis visibility out, but in the student locations, we didn't want it to be too much.

So on that front facade where you see that, that's actually a corridor back to the locker room area.

Okay.

So we didn't want to expose that any more than it was.

Well that makes sense.

I kind of figured I just want to make sure that I'm trying to educate myself on that because it was outside pool, you wouldn't have it, right?

Right.

That's true.

Yeah.

So is that sorry?

Is that what what this is all about?

The reduced percentages, is it really just about that, or is it are there any other factors or reasons for making this request?

Um or is it really just about the protection of the the kids?

Protection of the kids would be the main aspect to it.

Um because honestly, you want the daylight into the pool space so that you don't have to use as much um fluorescent or LED lights in a pool competition area.

Um so it's a safety factor, and we've actually got daylight coming into the space with um a cow wall system, which is a polycarbonate panel that's a little opaque, but it's still it's daylight in.

So we're still trying to give some more transparency to the facility as best we can with keeping that safety factor in mind.

And we're just focusing on the the safety aspect of it.

Um that was enough to have to gain staff support for the most part.

Yes.

Just sticking with that, okay.

Yes.

Well, it's big reason for us.

I mean, it's every application is based on its own merit, right?

And are you setting a precedent?

Some people say you're not.

So what we need to have a good reason to actually waive that.

So in case another application comes up and they say, Well, we saw what they did over there.

Right.

Just want to make sure we have clarification what the reasoning was.

Yes.

So you have no glass where the actual pool is, then, right?

Correct.

It's well, we have glass around a warm-up area of the pool, but not I mean exterior windows.

Yeah.

Not for the competition pool.

Okay.

So I could see how that could be an issue with somebody breaking the glass getting in, and then there's liability issues, so that's why I I fully support the idea of limiting the the amount of glass that's there in windows for both the visual.

Right and the accessibility.

Yes, and then the accessibility.

So unfortunately, some people do bad things.

Yeah, right.

We also want to avoid that.

Yeah.

Any other discussion?

No.

Thanks, Nicole.

Yeah, no problem.

Thanks for that.

All right, thanks.

I guess closed public hearing.

I guess I have one open.

Yeah, see if did anybody.

So any discussion?

Did we have anybody signed up?

Okay.

So I guess ready for money.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve item 8A per staff recommendations.

I'll second.

Our motion second, a rule call vote.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

Jaley Clempa.

Yes.

Jason Cohen?

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

All right.

Next item on the agenda is item number nine, remarks, inquiries, planning commission.

Anybody have anything?

I did have something real quick.

Um, although Miss Mindy is not here.

Um, usually about this time of year, we figure out what we're gonna do with our rotation.

So I don't know.

It might be, I don't know.

So I don't know if you all are aware.

Is it gonna be on the next agenda?

Okay, cool.

That's all.

I would like to see us continue the rotation.

Yeah, exactly.

The rest of you do.

You might you look good over here.

Bob, I look good everywhere.

Oh no.

Oh no.

So we'll see that at the next planning commission then offices.

And I better see that in the minutes.

I don't know about that.

I told my husband that my first time I met him, so you know.

Yes, I did.

Yeah, we're gonna so used to be I guess we brought in the the bylaws every time too, yearly.

Do we still do that?

I know I know when I got back on there, we actually had to come back up with them and stuff like that.

So do we still push for those to come to just not usually, but we can bring them back if that's something you'd like to review.

I mean, I don't know of any changes, but it used to be a long time ago when I was on this before that we would bring up every year to discuss if there was any changes.

But if you don't have any changes, not tomorrow.

Then I would leave them be, I guess if you want.

Yeah, I think the last major change we did was change the seating.

And now maybe we ought to change the seating back.

Since that's what city council did.

But no.

I'll just update you.

Uh yesterday we had our first uh downtown master plan advisory committee with J.

Lee and Mindy were present.

Uh today we held the focus group meeting with the consultant as well today.

So just want to update you and let you know that process is is moving down the road.

Sounds good.

So let me ask you a question.

I kind of mentioned this with Jane before we started the meeting on the New Orleans Square.

Uh is there any projects that want to go in there that's on hold because we're looking at changing or updating the New Orleans Square overlay or whatever?

Is that nothing that nothing that's on hold there is well the McDonald's there wants to uh rebuild, so that's kind of in limbo right now.

Um but I know Farhat is looking through the overlay district now, and he should have recommendations to me on what he thinks would be best to spark some interest in that area.

So the one that where the coffee shop wanted to come in or tea shop, whatever it was, that totally is gone.

T shop?

I don't remember the tea shop.

I moved by the coffee.

It was a coffee shop.

It was a coffee.

That was gonna be by the McDonald's.

It was just gonna be one.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

So that yeah, well, that deterred it, but yeah, based on our current overlay district, yeah.

Yeah, but that's that's dead, right?

Yes, and there was another restaurant about a year and a half or so ago that wanted to relocate expand their yeah.

But there's nobody, I mean just that you know that's waiting for something to happen to other than the McDonald's.

So was it um did you all ever get together as a committee and they recommended stuff that you all are looking at now, or so it's it's kind of confusing since some of those committee members are no longer present, or um, for example, uh Senator Gillespie was on that committee.

Yeah, so she's no longer uh able to serve on that committee.

Right.

Um so we did sit down with the counselors on a two two one um situation and explain the challenges and uh that we have to overcome with the overlay district, and so they gave us some feedback on what they'd like to see in it to help spur some growth in that area.

So that's what Farha's working on.

He's taking that information that he received from the counselors and trying to find a way to incorporate it that into the overlay district or and to amend it.

Okay, well, thanks.

Anything else?

I will say that we are also working on an overlay district for Arrow Forge right now, too, that will come before you once we get that all finalized as well.

Is that a committee too, or is that just city handle it?

And city's handle it with the chamber.

Anything else?

I don't have any questions.

Just ready for a motion.

I make a motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

I have most second roll call vote.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes, Jlempa.

I guess I can't say no, huh?

You can, but we don't want to.

Jason Cohen.

Yes, Robert Gorenson.

Oh, I thought you were gonna say no, you're gonna say yes, but okay.

Okay, yes.