All right, it's 5 30.

We'll go ahead and get started.

Can we get a roll call, please?

Mindy Payne, here.

Robert Gorenson.

Here.

Jalee Klempa.

Here.

Jonathan Townsend.

Jason Cohen.

Here.

All right.

Old business.

We have none.

Item four, consideration of the consent agenda.

Is there any items that anybody wants pulled from the consent agenda?

I have none.

I have no okay.

Do I have a motion?

I make a motion.

We approve all items on the consent agenda per staff recommendation.

I'll second the motion.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Mindy Payne, yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

J.

Lee Clempa.

Yes, Jason Cohen.

Yes.

Next item.

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

There are none.

And I'm sorry, item D 26-834.

Uh will go to City Council on July 14th.

My apologies.

It will be June 15th since there was no oppositions to item 4D.

Good job.

Thank you.

Number five, items could remove from the consent agenda.

We have none.

Item 6A.

If staff can go over that, please.

See here we go.

Public hearing consideration and possible action regarding BAZ dash zero zero two eight two six-2026 rezoning.

Tanner Consulting, approximately 39.18 acres, A1 agriculture to RSP, single family residential preservation, located approximately one quarter mile north of the Creek Turnpike and just west of 23rd Street, also known as County Line 193rd East Avenue.

This is a rezoning request proposal to change the zoning on this property from A1 to RSP for the purpose of a single family residential subdivision.

The comprehensive plan reflects approximately 2.07 of the 39.18 acres of the parcel designated for level six regional employment commercial with the remaining 37.11 acres designated for level two urban residential.

Under the implementation policies of the comprehensive plan, policy 17 states a 10% variance or adjustment in the gross area of this specific land use information systems level designation, however, shall be allowed to accommodate errors in surveying or computerization of the INCOG parcel base mapping upon which the future land development guide was created.

Adjustments of the overall gross area by more than 10% shall only be made after receipt of an amendment to the future development guide is outlined here in.

Based on this provision, the 2.07 acres represent 5.28%, which is under the 10% threshold of 3.92 acres.

The application aligns with the comprehensive plan, which is slated as level two urban residential.

Shall be dedicated to the city during the plotting process.

Um that's annexed uh single family residential.

The land use is single family to the east is level one.

That's also annexed R1 and RS one, which is single family uh for the zoning and land use, and then to the south is level six.

Um the zoning is A1 agricultural and PUD 286A, which is vacant land and new fire station number three to the west is level two, which is A1 agricultural, and the land use the single family.

Based upon the comprehensive plan, the location of the property and the surrounding land use says staff recommends that BAZ-002826-2026 be approved subject to the property being plotted.

Thank you, ma'am.

Does anybody have any questions for staff?

No.

Okay, well, they're gonna open the public hearing.

We is the applicant here.

Can you come up, please state your name?

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Megan Pascoe with Tanner Consulting 5323 South Lewis Avenue.

Tanner Consulting is representing this case on behalf of the current landowner and the potential developer, the Claire Group.

Um I am in agreement um with staff's recommendation.

Um and can answer any questions you guys may have.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

Does the pond go all the way through the property?

That tree line there.

There's a there's the pond and there's a a drainage way that kind of stretches across the whole um that whole property, but it's not the pond itself.

But yeah, there's a drainage path through the center of that property.

Like a creek, yeah, correct.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Okay, we do have some people that want to speak, we'll give you an opportunity to uh come back up after they're done.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh we have a Charles Sanders.

Thank you, sir.

If you don't mind, state your name and you'll have three minutes.

Yes, I'm Charles Sanders.

I live directly across the street from the property.

I have the 40 just south of it, so I've got the whole south side of the property also.

Uh development's coming.

I've been a builder and developer for 50 years in here in Broken Arrow.

So I know development's coming.

But they told me these gonna have 40 foot lots, which that's what I'm opposed to.

That high density of 40 foot lots.

Okay.

Uh would I miss with another developer that said that he would step in and purchase the land and purchase my land and do the addition with 60 foot lots.

So that's the reason I'm opposed to it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And if you'd please state your name, you'll have three minutes.

Yes, good evening.

My name is Rick Bates.

I want to thank the commission for the opportunity to speak this evening.

I live right across the street as well, right next to Charles on the other side of uh 114th.

I'm not in opposition to rezoning per se.

That's progress, or so they call it.

What I'm in opposition to is uh what they want to rezone and as all of the homes on the uh Wagner County side are one to two acre lots.

And if they put postage stamp lots in there, and little litty, I call them shotgun homes double stack.

It's it's gonna really reduce our property values in there.

And uh also I'm curious uh we've got a pond, it's known as Rusty's Pond back behind there, and it's fed by the drainage over there.

If they change the lay of that land, uh we'll no longer get water in our pond.

It the uh when they widen county line road, they put a great big culvert under there.

I guess it's probably six foot wide, four foot tall, so the water could come under there and fill our pond.

And if they change any of the uh the hydraulics in there, it's it's not going to get water in our pond anymore.

So where would it go?

Where would the water go then?

Well, that's up to them.

I mean, if they if they put big storm sewers in and divert it, I don't know.

Uh, it would go into the city of Broken Arrow storm sewers.

Uh, if I had a little red, I could show you, right?

Yeah, no, if you could see that pond very well.

Not that one.

Come across county line.

Across on the uh east side.

All right, come a little bit.

There's a pond.

Whoop, come further south, further south.

Okay, right between those two houses.

There you go.

You see, there's a pond in there.

At the time, nope, go up a little bit, right in there.

Well, that trees are there's a pond, and you as you go further to the right or further to the east, you see it opens up.

It's a one-acre pond.

Most of the water comes through that draw that you see on the west side of county line, and then it goes under the road, and it that's what replenishes the water in our pond.

See, and that's why I don't know why they would alter the honor the water course right there along the road itself.

I've seen developers do a lot of strange things.

Okay, in my okay.

Uh, if they just decided that, well, we're gonna divert that and go through the storm sewers and run it off to who knows where.

So, where did you get the information on on decreasing your property values?

Where did where did you get that from?

Where do I get that?

Okay, if my understanding is they're going to put very small lots, okay, because of the the uh designation, and they have to put a green belt in in order to get the smallest lots that they possibly can.

Okay, and you put 240 homes in there that are 200,000 or whatever, as opposed to these homes over on the east side that have one and two-acre lots, that's gonna change our comps.

We're gonna have 200 plus homes that are valued at X, as opposed to our little 23 homes over there.

Right, it's really gonna water down the value of our homes.

Well, see, and that was my question is where did what was your source?

Where did you get that from that actually showed that your property values would go down based on that?

I haven't seen anything like that since I've been back back on planning computer.

I was just curious where you got that from.

Is it just what you're thinking is gonna happen?

Or have you actually seen something?

No, that that's always the case.

Whenever you have homes built in an area that are lower in value, okay, they go the real estate goes by comps in the area of homes sold.

Well, when you dump a bunch of comps at homes, those comps are based upon homes that are similar size, zoning, and location.

So those houses being marketedly different in age wouldn't necessarily affect the value of the comparable sales of your home.

So I think what he's asking is have you seen any actual evidence from like a real market at report?

That's my point.

I don't think you provide a study that actually shows that's gonna happen.

Because I understand what you're saying.

Okay.

Well, our our own independent research, we haven't seen any home values of broken arrow that have actually gone down in the last several years.

Everyone's values have gone up.

So but that's why he's asking is and we've seen that that's coming before the planning commission many times through the years, and actually, I don't know if it's ever really happened.

Now it might be different if they would come in there and put a dump or something like that in there.

But just to actually build another homes that are brand new that's taken care of, everything's built to city codes and standards.

I'm not sure how that's gonna take away or be injurious to your property itself.

Yeah, the drainage I can understand.

Uh I'm not referring to the value of the home per se.

I'm I'm referring to when you go to sell it and the realtors do comps on it, they pull up everything in the area, and they're comparing it to 240 homes over here.

But they won't have 23 homes over here.

Sir, if you if you don't mind, I'm just gonna say my wife's a realtor, she's been doing it for about 20 years.

And as Mr.

Parker was saying, when they do comps, they are looking at lot sizes, they are looking at square footage, year built, and what those homes sold for in that area of the same size, same size property, same size home.

When let's just say your house went up for sale, the listing price would be based on the comps based on your home compared to other homes of similar size, similar lot size, similar location as in zip code.

Those are how they determine what the value of your home is.

If you had homes that sold that are smaller lots, maybe 1,800 square foot homes, and they're selling for 200,000, but your size home is selling for 450,000, you're still gonna get that 450,000 comparative.

You'll have no impact on your home based on those smaller homes, if that makes sense.

That remains to be seen.

And when I bring that up to for discussion for I'm not trying to scare you off on or anything like that.

I don't know if it's going to be approved or not.

I have no idea yet.

But what I'm trying to do is kind of uh help maybe you rest on this a little bit because it I don't think you should be worried that much about it.

The drainage could I can understand that it's it's going to hurt.

Property values out of it.

I don't buy that.

My home where it is right now, it's right underneath the four and 114th Street there.

And yes, that's my home.

And if you put 240 homes over here, the likelihood that somebody's gonna pay what they would now for it when there's 240 homes over there that are 1,800 square feet or whatever is goes down.

But then it could work the opposite too, because how big a lot do you have?

Do you have half acre or acre?

I've got an acre.

You got an acre.

See, there's also people that might be living there saying when that house goes up for sale, I want to move over there, and they're gonna pay a lot more money to get that acre property to move out of what their small lot.

That could happen too.

So that's a different scenario.

I'm not saying it's gonna happen.

I'm just saying it could happen.

Uh I can only hope.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Appreciate it.

Uh, we have another person, Aaron Staffel.

And if I said your name wrong, I apologize.

I will mess up the name Anderson.

Okay.

Well, probably not Anderson, but I'd say Andersine.

It was close, it was close.

The pen was uh smudgy.

If you don't mind, just take your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Yeah, Aaron Stoffel.

And I live uh on the property to the west, so with the horse property and the acreage there.

So uh our issue is uh a couple of well have three questions.

One, um, I didn't get a chance to see if any of that was related to any floodplain, because I know floodplain is a big issue on the east side of county line, uh, some of the property that we own over there, but I don't know how much it goes into on the west side of county line into that property.

Um, then I guess I'm protesting us would be the lot size.

You know, it would be nice to have some nicer homes.

Obviously, broken area was growing.

We own a lot of acreage inside the turnpike, and we understand that it's gonna be developed, right?

That's what we want property in Broken Arrow for future, you know, sale and all that stuff down the road.

But the it would be nice to have bigger lots to improve what comes into Broken Arrow because you know, obviously, taxes and all that stuff, it would be nice with what the what the city gets.

So bigger houses, you know, one acre, two-acre, you know, five-acre lots, bigger houses, million-dollar houses would be really nice.

Because I know on the corner there of 114th and uh county line, the second house in uh he spent a lot of money on that house, and he's that those houses are gonna be built right up against his property line.

And so uh my third part is are they gonna do anything?

Would they do anything with fencing on the property line on the north boundary or the the west boundary going north and south?

Because we have we have horses on that pasture there that is on their west boundary, or it would be on the east side of their property, or the west, the western side of their property, east side of ours.

So to keep people from going and wandering onto our property, because we own property on the other side off of 101st, the development that came through, and people wander onto our property all the time.

They're bigger, nicer houses, unless you put up a high fence, people just kids, kids wander on onto the property, and then they become your liability.

So you can put all the signs up you want, doesn't stop them from going on your property.

So uh what would they do to prevent people from from doing that?

Because we have a lot of horses things going on there with the different equine stuff, and we don't want kids walking in with the liability.

Staff can help me with this.

And sorry to jump in.

No, you're you're fine, sir.

They're requesting RSP zoning, which is the uh what's the name?

I always preservation, whatever.

So that requires the 60-foot boundary, does it not?

Would that be on the north side?

Um let me check on the buffer.

It does trade the smaller lots for that 25 percent open space.

So you're kind of trading it from the individual lots.

Um there is no floodplain on this property.

There is to the west, and then also to the east, but not on this parcel.

But with our new zoning ordinance, didn't we create with a preservation that's next to the neighborhood like that?

They on the north side would be a 60-foot buffer, uh, like a green space of 60 foot, which is not gonna help you on the fence because the fence we can talk about that, and I think that's gonna meet the city requirements.

It's gonna be like whatever the developer, if he wants to put in a chain link fence or a rail fence, things like that, right?

If I understand that, if I remember right.

There is a buffer.

Uh let me check to see uh specifically how much um of a buffer that is required.

But I believe there is a buffer.

So on the north side running east and west.

And this is not a PUD, which is PUD.

I don't know if you're familiar with that, but it's it's more where where we could put more requirements different than the zoning ordinance.

That's kind of a win-win thing.

But with the good them going straight zoning, which is what this is tonight, we can only require so much because it's got to be in accordance with what's written in the book, the zoning ordinance, which may be the 60-foot buffer and whatever the chain link fence, whatever, opaque fence or something like that.

And while Rebecca is looking that up, if I can just interject, I pulled up the floodplain map.

There is no floodplain on the property.

There is a little bit to the east of county line, but not on this side of the road.

Uh we'll go ahead and uh allow the applicant to come back and uh respond to some of those uh while staff is looking up that information.

Well, you know, I will say this, and maybe I should jumping into this, but if this if they do have horses like I thought I understood on the north side, is that correct?

And you are going to put this residential right there, it does make sense to make sure you're getting that buffer in there that's 60 foot, so you're not hopefully have not having people just jumping the fence and going on where the horses are.

At least you got another green belt in between the two, if that's what the requirement is.

I don't remember.

Uh thank you.

Um thank you to the neighbors that showed up.

Um I appreciate the discussion you guys had.

I think you all answered a lot of the questions that some of the neighbors had.

Um on the drainage that Mr.

Bakes, Mr.

Bates brought up, um, approximately the west half-ish of the property kind of drains to that middle pond and stream that Ms.

Payne brought up that you can see on the property.

Approximately the east half does drain east towards the resties pond that he was talking about.

So per the broken arrow drainage criteria manual and your stormwater regulations, we'll be putting in a detention pond that drains east, and so we can regulate the water that leaves the site.

It cannot be at, it can be at or below existing conditions, but we will have water draining east like it doesn't work.

That's correct.

I mean it's gonna drain off like it has been if nothing was out there.

Correct.

Okay.

Um other than that, um, Ms.

Weirich answered the question about the floodplain.

Um in general, we what we have before you we believe is appropriate for this location in city limits, meet your comprehensive plan, great access to the turnpike.

Um broken arrow is growing, um, and we believe that this is appropriate and meets your comprehensive plan.

Um request you approve this, and I can answer any other specific questions to the right.

So have you looked far enough ahead on the zoning for the RSP, which is what we're looking at.

Sorry.

Yeah, I I spoke wrong, it wasn't 60 foot buffer, it's 50-foot buffer, correct?

50.

So I guess you're also looking at putting that 50-foot buffer.

So we will adhere to all of the development standards required in the zoning code.

There are some different um criteria for when you're against a platted residential subdivision versus unplatted agriculture culture.

In this case, we'll have to look at the code to the west and to the south.

And and the north is unplatted agriculture.

We'll work with staff and make sure we adhere to the development standards.

So since it's agriculture on the north side, if we go in there and read the ordinance for the RSP right now, it does not require the 50-foot clearance.

That is my understanding, but I will make sure that I mean our requirement to work with staff, make sure we understood make sure I understand the code correctly.

Um if this was approved and if we were to come back with a preliminary plot, we would make sure to work with staff before this before we came back before you all and make sure it was appropriate.

And make sure it was appropriate.

And we appreciate that.

But I just want to make sure that I I thought that this 50 foot was required, but apparently up next on the north side, next to agriculture, it may not be.

So the houses could actually, their fencing could be right up to the adjacent properties, correct?

That's what I believe, but I'll defer to make sure I don't I don't want to I will make sure that we discuss with staff as well if this was to move forward.

I know it's just a zoning hearing tonight, but they've they have those questions.

So I understand.

Yeah, thank you.

I don't have the answer immediately available.

Did you look that up, Rebecca?

So the language and the code for that part says single family residential subdivision and said you insinuating that the plot has been done and the property's been subdivided, everything to the north is unplatted.

Which is gonna mean the buffer would not be required.

Okay, that's what I was thinking.

Okay.

Now if it's a PUD, we could require the buffer.

That's right.

And I guess if the count if the planning commission decided they could always deny this, recommend coming back on a PUD.

Can you do that?

We're here on a rezoning application.

Okay.

So all right.

So it's either yes or no or whatever.

And I did take notes regarding the concerns of the neighbors.

We're still working on a site plan, so we will do our best to take into consideration the things we heard here tonight.

Um, like we've talked about the site does require a minimum of 25 percent open space, which is just under 10 acres, and that is required by code, period.

We have to have 10 acres of open space on this site.

Okay.

And I'm not trying to hijack this application, but when whether it's an RSP or RS2 or anything like that, it's gonna allow the fencing to be up along the north boundary anyway.

Because RSP is gonna was it would have been the most restrictive in the way of the boundary on the north side, correct?

Instead of having the 50 foot.

So if that's not in there, no matter what we put in there, other than agriculture, there's no the fencing go right up, even the agriculture of the fence.

So the only thing that would add a buffer in there would have been a PUD, I believe.

So just out of curiosity, is this um is fencing something that you have discussed with your client?

So fencing will be installed for the broken arrow regulations along the arterial.

We have not discussed um fencing around the perimeter typically that's left up to the home builder.

Um different home buyers have different fence preferences.

Now it will be restricted of what kind they can have in the covenants that will be required by the HOA, but it is not, I do not expect the developer to go out and build um fencing along the perimeter.

It's also somewhat we don't want this is not something that happens overnight.

Um the first house goes up, we don't want there to be fencing that becomes dilapidated if no one's living on the east half of this site yet.

It doesn't really make sense sometimes to go fence it.

But I will have that discussion with them, but I would say overall residential development such as this, it's not typical that the perimeter fits.

So the fencing can only be in accordance with the code, so which is usually what we see as standard residential, right?

Right.

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Okay.

Under normal circumstances, we would not allow people to speak again once they've spoken.

But sir, I I will give you an opportunity to ask a question.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

What's your question?

You had your hand raised.

Yes, she said uh I want to make sure I understood this correctly, that the existing pond on the west side of the property, the water will flow to it, and then on the east side of the property, they're going to put in a retention pond.

Did I understand that?

Okay.

Sir, I'm I'm very sorry to ask you, but you need to come up so we have your comments on the record.

Sorry.

I should have known better, sorry.

But you are correct.

Get it on the record.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you all again.

I just wanted to make sure that I understood correctly that she said that the existing pond on the west side of the property was going to collect the water flow on that side.

On the east side, they were going to build a retention pond.

Did I understand that correctly?

Well, probably detention.

That's exactly what I don't want.

That retention pond is going to catch the water that normally flows into our pond.

Sure.

Totally understand, sir.

And we we will be talking to FEMA.

But why but I mean it's not like they're going to hold the water.

Is that what you're thinking?

They're going to hold the water and not let it drop it.

But as retention ponds work the way I've seen them around Broken.

They didn't say retention.

I think she said a detention pond, which works different, right?

I'm sorry?

You said a retention fund, right?

And you said the way they work.

Well, they work different than a detention.

And if I heard right, the applicant said a detention fund, which is different than a retention fund, right?

The detention fund is going to hold back a little bit of water and let it release back to going to where your property is at.

Correct.

That's going to control the runoff so you don't get flooded out from their property.

That's the purpose of it.

But they are going to hold a certain amount.

And then they once they get over certain amount, they let it out.

It's just to slow down the flow, and the amount that it holds is going to be our pond goes dry.

Probably 60% dry July, August.

We're fighting for water.

Well, it depends on what their engineering comes up with and what they work with the staff because they may decide they want trickles to keep on going, that they don't want to hold that much back.

You know, not surcharged like five feet or something like that to give you the water so your party can have.

If they hold anything back, it's going to affect the water level of our pond.

Okay.

And I understand.

That will be a that will be a FEMA issue.

But anything built out there could happen like that.

So thank you.

All right.

So I'm just going to say before we uh I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing.

Uh before we speak, I'm just gonna say that if they don't have some type of retention detention, and you start putting all that concrete asphalt roof surface with all that water rushing, there is a high chance that you would end up getting flooded out.

There has to be a way to slow that down.

But with that said, regardless of how that's done, the applicant's gonna have to do it based on code requirements and what the city requires.

And this is just a zoning uh meeting.

So as far as any requirements of fencing or drainage or things like that, the only thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms.

Parker, it the only thing we can hold them to is what the city requirements currently are.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

So sometimes that results in things that we don't want, but in fairness, that is how the code is written.

So uh any other comments, questions, or motions from the commission.

Any recommendations?

Well, I would like to remind that we if it is approval, we are a recommending body that would go to the city council, and they would have an opportunity to speak there too if they wouldn't bring up that kind of stuff.

And I know city staff will have their engineer stuff there to talk about too.

So thank you.

That's a good point.

Yes.

If it's approved, or if they were to appeal it to the city council either way.

Well, based on staff's recommendation and what I've seen, I I recommend approval.

Recommend sending it to the city council.

I'll make it uh you tell me one time it didn't matter, so I'm gonna make a motion for approval then it on the city council.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

No second.

Okay.

I make a motion that we do not approve this item per staff recommendation.

I'll second that motion.

We have a motion and a second to deny this request.

Mindy Payne?

Yes, Robert Gorenson.

Well, I will vote no, but I would I am curious as why you would not vote, but that's okay for yes for it.

But I'll vote no.

J.

Clempa.

Um yes, and my reasoning is I do not believe that RSP is correct in this location.

Even though it shows it in comprehensive plan.

My thoughts.

Even though it showed it in the comprehensive plan.

Yep, it's just yep.

Jason Cohen.

Uh yes, for the denial, and the same reason I've shared before that we shouldn't have very small neighborhoods right next to very large property lots.

I don't think that's what the intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning is.

Okay.

And now this does they can appeal this, right?

And go before city council.

Would the date still be the same, or that depends on whether or not they file for an appeal?

Okay.

Jill it only showed that three people voted.

There are four votes.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Any anything else?

No.

All right.

The applicant will have the opportunity to appeal to city council.

If that happens, uh, will the people in the surrounding area receive any type of notification.

Uh would they it know it gets published on the city council agenda?

So it's not a specialized notice like this.

So folks out there, you'll just have to keep an eye on the city council agenda to see if there's any type of appeal that goes before it.

So and ma'am, I I see you're raising your hand in the back.

Unfortunately, if you haven't signed up to speak, it can't allow you to speak.

So moving on to item 6B.

If uh staff can go over that, please.

This is a public hearing consideration and possible action regarding SP-002852-2026, a specific use permit for storm accessory structure, uh 13.19 acres, RS uh single family residential uh located north of East New Orleans and west of South 9th Street.

SP-002852 uh dash 2026 is a request for a conditional use permit for an accessory structure to exceed the 5,000 square foot maximum floor area on a lot equal to or greater than two acres in size.

The property is located northeast of New Orleans and west of South Ninth Street.

Section 2-4-1C dot two B specifies that lots that are equal to or greater than two acres can have accessory buildings with a floor area up to 5,000 square feet by permit.

Structures with the floor area greater than 5,000 square feet may be approved by a conditional use permit.

The floor area for the structure is planned to be 60 feet by 120 feet for a floor area of 7,200 square feet.

All setbacks for this coney for the current zoning are met in the exhibit.

The lot is 13.19 acres in size and was created via a lot consolidated a lot combination, BAL-2154 to allow for the development of this single family home and a uh single family on the um adjacent property.

A single family home is planned to be constructed on the lot in the future.

However, it's constructed its construction is not required before the construction of a of the accessory structure as the parcel is larger than two acres.

The use of the accessory structure will be limited to personal uses and those home occupation uses allowed under current zoning ordinance.

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

To the north, the comprehensive plan is level one, it is currently zoned agricultural, and the land use is vacant.

To the east, it is level two, the zero the zoning is agricultural and single family residential, and the land use is vacant.

To the south, it is level two and it is currently zoned single family residential, and there is a single family home on that property.

To the west it is level two, it is zoned single family residential, and there is a uh single family neighborhood to the west of the property.

According to FEMA's national flood hazard layer sections of sections of the property are located in the 100-year floodplain.

The structure will have all stormwater and flood plan related permits approved before the accessory structure permit can be approved.

Based on the current lot size, the location of the property and the surrounding lats surrounding land uses, excuse me.

Staff recommends that SP-002852-2026 be approved, granting a conditional use permit for the construction of an accessory structure with a maximum floor area of 7,200 square feet at the subject property.

And then I believe the applicant is not here.

Um and they did not reach back to us uh back out to us in time, uh, whether they were in agreement or not, um, but I would assume they are okay.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Is this property that had the sidewalk issue?

It was a different one right beside it.

I noticed that in the packet, I'm not I don't want to make a big deal of those, but uh uh in the packet it says conceptual site plan.

I didn't see a site plan at all.

I said, This is a bunch of lines, yeah.

Yeah, it's not yeah, it's very hard to see.

So I didn't know if the site plan it didn't come up when you printed it out or was there supposed to be uh anything to see a structure out there at all?

Yeah, yeah, I might I might have mistakenly um forgotten to include that.

Um I don't see a if you go to the next drawing or two down, whatever.

We don't, yeah.

That's the keep going.

Or the next set of drawings.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, there I said I don't want to make a big deal, but I didn't see any structure layout or anything for a conceptual site plan.

So this yeah, and this and this drawing isn't um the greatest.

I think it was more of a survey that they did and they added to us.

Um but if you see that kind of that green uh rectangle on the on the north park, um that's kind of the uh the location of the structure.

And I'm I mean, uh he the applicant is not here, but I'm just kind of curious.

That's a very large building out in the middle of nowhere.

I mean, they say a storm structure, I believe.

It's just the their last name is storm.

It won't be uh sorry, I probably shouldn't have named it that I think.

That's right, Jay.

The first time I looked at that storm, what's it?

Well, that's why I was like, what are we doing?

Okay, well then.

I was looking at that going, is this a FEMA storm shelter?

It's huge.

Yeah, that's what I was like.

My god, they're gonna spend millions.

But that explains a lot.

And the use of the structure of that was something that did come up in the pre-development meeting with the applicant.

Um, and we were sure to um detail to them that um the use of this structure could only be well part of the um difficulty is that or not difficulty, but um uniqueness with this is that normally we're required to have the primary structure built first before the accessory structure can be built because it's accessory right.

Um but the way the zoning ordinance is written for this case for those that are bigger those lots that are um bigger than two acres, they don't have that same requirement.

Um so he but we have mentioned to the property owner that um all the uses will be those that are personal uses and then those that are allowed by um the home occupation um section of the zoning ordinance.

So there's a section in there that says that you know you can have a home business and you can have you know this kinds of businesses, this much space, this much noise, um that kind of stuff.

Cool.

I'm I'm guessing maybe they're gonna build like a barn medium for the two of them while their other houses are being built.

That would be my next guess.

He does have, I think, currently um he's working through the stormwater development process for I think both the home and the primary structure.

Um but I think what he discussed with us, and part of the reason why he wanted to move forward with this before the home was because I guess he's currently paying to rent a storage building somewhere.

Um, yeah, bringing up well Joseph if this gets approved, go to the city council.

You might want to call it like the storm family something instead.

Yes, yeah.

He said storm water a second ago again, so like that or whatever you said.

So I saw storm a couple times in there, and I'm like, yeah.

Well, we had the uh I don't know if you'll remember we had the Pope accessory structure a couple times ago, so I might have to change the name.

Yeah, pick the names a little bit, you know.

Mr.

Jay, but I I thought, what the heck?

Thank you though.

I was like, someone's pulling a storm shelter for the whole rest of people out there.

What yeah?

It's like well, I don't know where I'm going when the tornadoes hit.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Any other comments or questions?

There is nobody to speak and no applicants, so anything else?

Well, all I will say is not much of a site plan, but it's uh at least it shows a location, it's a good location map, I guess.

So I don't know if we approve any.

I I'm not saying we'll approve of any conceptual layout or anything.

So just yeah, it would I guess be more of an approval of them to be able to have a structure up to that size.

Yeah, we could maybe submit something a bit different.

You would still have to meet setback requirements.

Um but I guess the approval is just for structure up to permit anyway, right?

So we won't see anything else on this.

Yeah, yeah, we wouldn't see.

Yeah, um, yeah, nothing else.

Once he gets this, you would then go and just to the permitting department and apply for accessory structure.

Once he's got all this stormwater, I guess my point is we're not approving any site plan layout or anything.

We're just approving the the specific use permit.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

I'll make a motion to approve item six B per staff recommendations.

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Mindy Payne, yes.

Robert Gorinson?

Yes.

Jaley Clempa?

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

And that will go before City Council on June 15th.

Good job.

Since there was no opposition.

Uh moving on to item seven appeals.

There are none.

Eight general commission business.

Any uh nine remarks, inquiries, comments from the planning commission and staff.

Good job, Jason.

You did good.

You did good.

I fumbled.

But thanks to the case.

Thanks to Miss Klumpus.

She recovered the football for me and gave it back to me.

This is a new thing.

We had to ask about it.

Yes.

We asked before you showed up.

So we were ready for you.

Well, I'm glad I disappointed.

Thank you.

I appreciate the support from all of you.

Mr.

Gornson, I do appreciate you asking those questions.

Well, that's what I've asked for, right?

I want to be clear.

You asked more questions, so you must be getting paid more.

So I wanted to for the record, nobody gets paid.

Yeah, let's have a look at the case.

I wanted to be clear on the dates.

Okay.

So typically our standard is if there is no opposition, we try to move it up to the next city council meeting if there's time.

And particularly for this week, the next council meeting after Monday night is until July 14th.

So any applicant would have to wait an extra two weeks.

So this is a way to expedite the process because of the time constraints between meetings.

So we'll always want to do this is just expedite for the applicants then.

Yeah, if there is no we practice this throughout the year that if there is no opposition, then we expedite it.

If there's opposition, then we go to the referred uh council meeting.

Well, should we expect to see this for all future meetings?

Yes, we can okay.

That'd be great.

Just don't highlight it in green.

That's hard to read up here.

Yeah, maybe change color.

Oh, yeah.

I didn't even know there was I didn't even know there was text in there until you said something.

I thought I had a look at it.

I thought it was just a green.

One minute is how to bring up the speaker request forms.

Now it's colors.

What else you got next?

For the record, he's not chair anymore, so you don't have to appease him.

Wow.

I'm so kidding.

I'm so kidding.

That's all I got.

But now we know what it says.

It's not gonna say the 15th of July every time.

I know, but that's his thank you all for the for the support.

Wait for the record, that green is July 14th, I believe.

Is that Tuesday?

Not the 15th.

It says June 15th.

June 15th.

Oh, sorry, you're right.

Yeah, in the green.

And July 14th for if there was any oppositions.

Right.

Okay.

I do have something that I want to bring up.

And you don't know anyway as well.

So with the and I know Graham's look at me.

Oh, here we go again.

So I I got a quick question.

So with the data center stuff, everybody saw that what was on the, you know, maybe going on Facebook everywhere on the news every five minutes and stuff like that about something.

You know, I know the city wasn't involved in that.

It was the economic development and whatever, and the applicant and whoever the developer.

But is the city uh position their style their sales for stuff coming in in the future that might come into the planning commission for data centers that I don't know how to say that.

I mean, I I've done a lot of research.

I know when this lady, I know she's on planning commission coeta, and we did a lot of talking about it, and she did research and I've done stuff.

Is the city doing that and you know to prep themselves for when this stuff comes in?

Do we know?

I'll go ahead and answer that.

Yes, our staff.

I think uh Jane and Rebecca both attended virtual seminars to try to learn more information on data centers.

We've also are in the process of trying to acquire information, all kinds of information when it comes to the development of data centers from uh noise pollution to uh to lighting pollution to water restraints to electricity demands, uh anything and everything that there is.

So I know we we're reaching out to other municipalities to get some of their um experiences from those types of developments, so we are constantly or continuing to uh to look into what uh is all required of a data center development.

Well, you know, it's the same stuff if you keep up with it, which I'm retired, so I can do a little bit of reading on that.

But you know, it's the same stuff, the use of electricity, use of the wax power, who's gonna who's gonna get paid who's paying for it.

Uh is the charge is gonna be increased for the utility users.

Uh uh, the noise itself, uh the vibration, the water, the heat putting it out, uh, all kinds of stuff like that.

And I just want to make sure that you guys are aware of it too.

Yes, and I know you probably will be.

Well, but part of the problem is there's so much negative comments out there.

Well, and I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but there's so many negative comments out there.

You don't see all the positive, all maybe there's three positive comments out there.

I don't know.

But you don't see those to go back and talk about too.

So we know the public's gonna come in here with all the negatory comments.

Well, we know there's some positive stuff too.

The problem is is that the recent city councils that have taken this issue up choke made the very appalling decision to enter into NDAs with these developers, which I still can't believe anyone would be dumb enough to do that.

They're public officials, they're not supposed to be keeping anything confidential from the public.

So I thought the city, particularly Michael Spurgeon did a very good job of getting ahead of that, and so I do too.

I agree.

So it's not necessarily just the data centers themselves, it's the process that some have gone through to try to get approval.

So if one does come before this way, it will be open and transparent and public city management has made that very clear, but they've also made sure that we will follow the process like we did for everything else.

We got it a big shout out for OML for the way the city handled the mosque, moving it to NSUBA to handle the bigger crowds, things like that.

So and I agree with what you're saying, Graham, and you know, I I know you get tired of this, but 15 years ago when I was on this before for while I was on it 30 years or whatever it was.

Uh I was on it for fifty planning commission 15 years, going back 30 years, okay.

So we would have actually joint meetings with the city council, and this would be something that was coming up that we would have a joint meeting with city council.

I don't know if they'd be interested in that, but after you do a lot of research, you know, not only share the stuff with the city council, but just like we did our zoning ordinance stuff, have round table discussions about the data centers too.

So we're sharing the information.

So we're kind of saying thinking on the same wavelength, if that makes sense.

And I'm not saying they have to do that.

I mean, well, I mean, that's an idea, it's just the problem is logistically, if a data center comes before this commission for consideration.

No, this could be done way before that ever happens.

But I think when that time comes, I think the turnout's gonna be more than the mosque.

Because I think that will be universally either reviled or celebrated by regardless of political leaning.

So I think we'll have a lot more people for that.

Oh, I I totally agree.

That's why I think we need not only just get our ducks in roll, but by age or something, you know.

Yeah, and I so we need to have our ducks in roll and actually maybe make sure that we're all talking the same stuff, because we're gonna hear the same stuff that all the other municipalities are hearing too, and it's the same old stuff over and over.

And and I would just advise you that if one does make it this far, be prepared to have this meeting in a bigger room, too.

Yeah, yeah.

I agree.

And it'll be on the media on on social media, it'll be on TV and everything like that.

And we'll get back to the city.

Yeah, and I I think the bigger problem with the data centers too is none of them have really figured out their own power source issues.

They're relying on public infrastructure, and I think that's the huge objection.

They're not providing their own water, electricity, anything like that.

Well, that they have to now re uh house bill.

Yeah, and see, and that's the other thing.

That's the reason why if you you know, I know you guys are looking at you get paid.

That's your job too.

But to look into that stuff and present it to us, hey, this is the latest on the data center doing this and that.

Uh the stuff about the noise level, the decibels, you know, so and so uh whether it's 50 or 60, 300 feet away, stuff like that.

Just stuff that we could make sure.

I know we probably all do our own research on it, but anything that y'all could share with us that will help too to make it better.

Yeah, oh yeah.

I just I've yet to see one that's had all these answers before go before an actual any border commission and be able to explain these things.

We're broken arrow.

Well, we've had three very bad examples of what not to do.

To our to our fortune, yeah.

Yeah.

So between Sand Springs, Clairmore, and I think you're right.

I think we've got three examples of what not to do.

So there's lessons learned from Coeta, you're right, all those other places too.

So I mean co eita got kind of like got lucky, kind of kind of faded away.

Well, and we found out recently that uh there's a city councilor for UConn that signed an NDA a year ago, and nobody knew about it to discuss data centers.

So my goodness.

But yeah, and let me ask you this, and you don't have to answer this.

Is it is and I agree with you that like city council stuff shouldn't and planning committee any should not sign any NDA.

First of all, we shouldn't be talking to them anyway.

But is it is it okay for the city staff to sign NDAs?

No.

No.

Everything that we do is subject to the open records act.

Uh I I'm not entirely sure that those NDAs they sign are even enforceable.

They're not.

They're public records, so I know you don't want to be transparent.

Well, and there might be some limited circumstances, but public infrastructure and public development certainly is not a reason for anyone to sign an NDA.

So I I just I don't see how that document would be remotely enforceable.

Well, you know, if you if you go to like the there's a couple data center maps out there, I don't know if y'all been there, one of them that Aaron Brokovich has had, but you know, she's on one side only, we know that.

But there's some that are fair and they they give you a list of them, and even the one that was kind of talked about in BA, it was actually shown on that map too.

So I can understand why people are concerned.

But the sooner and the more postured we are on answering those when they come in, the better.

Even if technology changes, which is changing all the time.

Yeah.

Well, I I think adding to this too is a lot of these show up anonymously.

We don't know who the actual company is.

They show up as some newly formed LLC wanting to do business.

It's like, okay, who are you really representing?

So you know, they're not helping themselves by not being transparent up front.

So um anyway.

We'll see what happens moving forward.

But that I it just seems to me that there's like five different items that that are everybody's hammering and you know, you ought to jump on those as soon as no know it left and right.

The the noise, uh the water, the electric or uh electrical, whether it's air cooled, whether it's you know, well, even people that aren't adjacent or property owners, you know, we'll see increased rates from the wear and tear to the infrastructure that has to be repaired.

See something's already changed right now, is that house building passed or whatever?

That's already made a change right there.

I think that was a a step in the right direction.

But yeah, we're looking at all those things.

Even we're looking at the zoning and whether or not industrializes the correct zoning district for it and the uses at light manufacturing.

So we're looking at everything from the ground up and since you brought sorry to interrupt.

Sorry, since you brought that up.

See, that's what I was thinking when when we talked about uh comp plan.

I think there ought to be more requirements for a comp plan coming in for a request for a change.

And for a data center, we ought to from day one.

I know you guys will be looking at it, but we ought to request more stuff up front than waiting till the last thing.

Like if they come in for a comp plan, you know, maybe the maybe the city of Broken Air already wants to take a look at it and say, no, we're gonna have a different category for certain things like a day, like just like we have uh places of worship, you know, we had that pulled out separate, same thing with data centers, whatever you want to call those a category where they just can't fit under industrial or whatever, if that makes sense.

Well there's a different category for them.

Well, that's it's gotta be specific use permit.

That's what this the planning commission has discretion to demand additional information.

You need all the information to make a decision.

But we gotta do it legally, so well, there's nothing illegal about requesting additional information about their proposed business plan and how it's going to affect the actual community.

Even at a comp plan change, even at a comp plan change, good.

I mean it's the city you're changing, so absolutely.

Okay, and if you're not satisfied, you're well within your rights to either deny it or ask for more information to table it, whatever.

So there's absolutely nothing that says you have to approve these just because everyone else is.

So let me ask this, and I know you guys probably aren't in a hurry to get home and watch something on TV, but can we require some of us aren't retired?

I guess we can require an applicant to get something in writing, sign whatever from a utility company or something like that, like PSO or something like that, right?

That says that I don't know where I'm going with this, other than that they're gonna back the the data center up saying we will provide them this, the utility rates will only go up for them, not the municipality, etc.

etc.

Can that be done?

Can you actually request them to I believe you can we were in the process with this with this proposed application that could have came forward?

We were already taking that step and have those conversations with PSO.

Yeah.

But can I guess the planning commission can ask for something like that too?

Absolutely.

Okay.

But that's something that we want in the future, once we gather all the facts on data center developments, we will bring you all that information of beforehand when we present the item so you have all that information.

Yeah, and then we'll address any other questions.

Yeah, Thursday meeting.

But the planning remember well I'm playing pickle all in the morning for the morning.

No, the planning staff will do their best to get whatever information they think you'll need to do that.

Yeah, we're gonna do our due diligence.

We do need to have plenty of time to look at it too.

Even the even the moss thing, I don't think we had enough time to look at it to be honest with you when that came through.

Well, it was more time than was I think it was the week before, was it not?

It was, yeah.

I thought we had an idea for that.

Yeah, we had yeah, yeah, it was like that Friday.

Maybe like the moss.

There was something that came up to us that didn't have like the day before or something.

Yeah, because BA buzz put the whole thing on blast, and I think that's what caused the huge uproar over it.

So but anyway, when that comes about, we'll have a plan and planning commission or planning staff's already done their due diligence of kind of had what I would consider a dry run.

So um so I think they'll have it ready.

So good.

Yeah, if anything, if you have anything that you give us updates on, you know once every other month or something like that, just let us know what's going on.

I'm usually like the fifth or sixth person to find out about those things, so that's above my pay grade.

I just think there'll be a lot of tough questions when it comes up for that.

And like you said, there's gonna be a lot of people, it's gonna be in a bigger building that helps the meeting.

Well, everyone's a tough year for us in the planning department, we'll be able to handle it.

Yeah, well, and every proposal has its you know challenges.

I I mean, like when they discuss putting a municipal airport in, that was that would be a very challenging it's puts the city at exposure, but it also has the chance to make the city a lot of money, too.

So sorry.

No, it's fine.

Anything else?

No.

All right, item ten.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Could you have said that any faster?

Yeah.

Can I get a roll call vote, please?

Mindy Payne.

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Robert.

Bob.

Yes.

Jaley Clempa.

He interrupted me on purpose, I think.

Yes.

Thank you all.

Have a wonderful evening.

I'm not used to being four calls.

Good job.