All right, it's 5 30.

We're gonna go ahead and get started just as a reminder.

If anybody did want to speak, they need to fill out one of these forms and give it to staff.

All right, if we can get uh roll call, please.

Mindy Payne, here.

Robert Gorenson?

Jay Lee Clempa here.

Jonathan Townsend?

Here.

Jason Cohen.

Here.

Old business, we have none.

Moving on to item four consideration of consent agenda.

Is there anything uh commission would like poll or staff?

No?

No.

Okay, sorry.

Do we have a motion?

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

Second.

Oh, sorry.

No, no.

All right.

We have a motion in two seconds.

There you go.

One and a half.

If we can get a roll call vote, please.

Mindy Payne, yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

Jaley Clempa.

Yes.

Jonathan Townsend.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

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

We have none.

Uh item six six A, if staff could review that, please.

Yes, this is a public hearing consideration and possible action regarding PUD-002916-2025, Villa Square Minor Amendment 1.37 acres, commercial heavy, located just south of East Albany Street, also known as 61st, and one quarter mile west of North Ninth Street, also known as 177 East Avenue.

The applicant Wilkins Group LLC is working with city staff on site plan approval for a commercial development on the subject property.

The development is proposed as a multi-tenant commercial space with differing uses.

The current PUD, PUD-132A was approved by the Broken Air Planning Commission on July 21st, 2003.

Current development practices conflict with those requirements which were in place in 2003.

So the west, and that is um it it shows vacant, and that's because the parcel directly to the west of the development is vacant.

There is of course west of that parcel itself, some homes and um in a neighborhood.

But the parcel directly west of the property uh is vacant.

Um and the zoning is commercial heavy, um, and the complaint shows it's level six.

According to FEMA maps, no portion of the property is located in the 100 year floodplain.

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

Uh so based upon the location of the property, the surrounding land uses staff recommends that PUD-002916-2026 be approved.

Uh the staff uh the applicant uh should be here and is in the agreement.

Um and we did receive three emails uh to be read into the public record.

And then would you like me to read those emails uh now or after um uh just a moment, Jose?

Um did anybody on the commission have any comments for staff?

I I had a question.

I guess I suppose it could have been for the applicant too, but uh what what study or what was done to determine that the one stacking space was sufficient that that was enough?

Yeah.

The um the ordinance is really written for kind of drive-through um drive-through type places where uh where of course you pull up, you know, has the menu board and the speaker, um, you know, and you put you place your order and then you pull up to the window and pay and get your food.

Sure.

Um the applicant is um intending it as more of a pickup window.

So instead of you know you arriving, placing your order on a menu board and then pulling up to the window to get your food, yeah.

Uh more of a maybe you already placed your order, you know, via an app or called in or something like that, and you're arriving there just to pick up at the window.

Um they might also have that ability to you know place the order at the window.

Um, but the intent is for it to be mostly a pickup window for the uh restaurant or business that will go there.

Okay, yeah, that's that was my my thought.

I was like, what if you know things are busy and the need for more space?

Limit that I would think.

But see, that kind of confuses me, Jose, because uh they're all pickup windows pretty much.

So some a lot of them have two windows, and one of them is the ordering window.

So the stacking to me doesn't matter whether it's ordering or pickup, but when you say pickup, whether it's a restaurant or pick it up laundry or whatever, I don't understand why do we always know that there's only going to be one car in the stacking or in the queue.

That will there never be two cars?

Is it one pickup a day, or what is I it's hard to tell.

I know the PUD is kind of generic what they're asking for.

Uh so I'm not sure really what that matters.

Yeah, no, that and that's and that's certainly a um a fair question.

Um I think in the in the PUD um development document there is a um a conceptual site plan for the development.

Um they that and that kind of this is just kind of some of the information we've gotten from the applicant on uh the type of business that will go in there that it's that that's what the um the pros use is more along the lines of of people coming in and just picking up the food.

Um in terms of you know how the city can come in and you know later on and say, oh, you know, now there's two cars or three cars there, right?

Um that's a good point.

Maybe we don't have that much in terms of how we can enforce that.

I don't know if stacking is the right word to use in in for this project here.

That may be the wrong term to use.

In other words, you're not gonna have a queue, you're not gonna have stacking.

I don't know.

But the other thing is you said a conceptual site plan.

I was wondering why we didn't see one anyway.

I that I there's not one in the package that I'm looking at.

Uh-uh.

And the other thing, Jose, you mentioned one tree per 35 linear feet.

In the in the documents, I see one, it says one per 30.

So either there's a discrepancy here, or you just said 35 instead of 30.

So I might have made a mistake on that 35 lineal fee.

It might be 30 feet.

30 is everything I've seen.

Yeah, that's that's what I that's what I'm saying.

But you had said 35, so I didn't know if there was a change or not.

Okay, I I think I might have made a mistake.

And I think um the site plan I think was included um in that document with the overall um development outline.

I think it was the um towards the end of the document.

Oh, okay.

No, my that's my apologies.

So I guess I missed up there.

Yeah, yeah.

Um so yeah, so there was supposed to be a site plan that I failed to have included in there.

Um but that showed kind of the the layout of the um of that drive-thru or that pickup window, I mean, um, and kind of going uh kind of working ahead and getting ahead of myself with some of the um comments and emails that we received.

Um part of the concern is with noise and light and stuff like that on the site plan on the conceptual site plan that they have and the site plan that we're working with them currently, um, they show the pickup window on the um east side of the building.

So it would be facing more towards um the main road more towards uh 9th street as opposed to um you know the homes that are to the west.

So which way would the headlights be shine shining to then?

I guess to the uh north to the north side, okay.

So no site plan, we didn't see the site plan.

You said there was a conceptual site plan, so we didn't have that, and then also you were talking about the parking and the trees and stuff.

So what I was wondering if there was did y'all do like a crosswalk or anything or a table or anything that could be it's probably for the applicant anyway here, but to show I know they want to go from the PUD which was approved from what 2003 to PUD now that they're asking for.

What I could see that maybe some of that may have been old back in 2003, but when they're changing like the landscaping, what was asking for in the uh what was provided in the original PUD versus now, are they asking for some relief on something other than that 75 feet distance?

Yeah, the um that makes sense.

The parking is another one.

I mean, I'm I'm wondering what kind of relief what we're doing different, to be honest with you.

Yeah, the um I mean really the what kind of started the entire um PUD minor amendment discussion with the applicant was um originally I think um there was a a pretty stringent parking requirement as a part of that original PUD, the original PUD.

And they yeah, and they uh and it it made them need I think almost double the amount of parking they were proposing.

Um and of course the parking requirements, you know, in 2003 are you know were much more stringent than they are now.

Um so they were wanting to, you know, just develop the property more in line with the current ordinance.

Um that makes sense is it's just that when it's you know, I guess whatever, if it's approved on this PUD, it's gonna be use specific anyway.

So whatever is approved, it's gonna be whatever that window is being used.

If anything changes later, they would have to come back before the planning commission for a change of the PUD, correct?

Yeah, that'd be quite a bit of a good idea.

If they want to do some other use.

Yeah, problem is I can't tell what kind of use they're wanting, it still leaves it wide open without seeing a conceptual site plan or any details on what the use of the building is gonna be.

And my concern is since we cannot see where that windows being placed, you say it's on the east side part of the plan that you have provided, but I'm just concerned that that if there happens to be come any stacking that we don't go out in the street with the stacking.

That's when it becomes a danger.

Yeah, and that and that's a that's a good um point on that end as well.

And um and kind of the way they have the the stacking space in the the pickup window oriented, um, since it's on the the east side of the building, um the vehicles will you know they have to kind of drive around and face to the north, um, you know, for the driver's window to be on the same side as the the pickup window.

Right.

Um so that will kind of restrict it to you know being in that direction.

Yeah.

Um in terms of you know, and you make a a good question in terms of if other vehicles, you know, arrive and start, you know, taking up more space.

Um in that case it would be somewhat of a violation of the PUD, you know, a zoning violation.

Um and if it was an issue with say maybe the other tenants in the multi-use um in the multi-tenant building, um, you know, they could come to the city and say, hey, you know, this is only supposed to be one vehicle here at a time, you know, another about three or four, um, you know, zoning violation, and uh, and then you know, we'd work with code enforcement to you know figure that out.

Well, you know, and I'm not trying to steal the chair of the rest of the commission's thunder, but I would think that for me I it would it it's kind of wide open.

I would rather see a conceptual site plan on what we're gonna look at in the way of the pickup window if it's there's no queue, no stacking but for one car.

I have to it leaves it kind of wide open to me.

And if and the applicant can address it.

No, you don't want to go through code and all this and cause problems.

I would rather see the plan.

Fair enough.

Okay.

If anything, I mean we can um certainly you know, come back or something next week with that uploaded, or not next week, but next plan commission.

I would recommend that the applicant come up come up and you can address some of the questions and maybe they can tell you about their business model while they're doing that.

Can you find the site plan on the portal where they're digging that up?

Yeah, I'm gonna do that.

I was gonna say maybe put it up there.

So if you want to call the applicant up now and address any questions to them, could the applicant come up, please?

And if you would please state your name, you'll have 10 minutes.

Yes, my name is uh Gazmond Ginosmone, I'm the general constructor, and also could you talk into the mics with the Yes?

My name is Gazmond Gino Smoney, and uh I'm a general contractor, and also I will be the owner of the property.

Okay.

And my name is Kurt Wilkins, I'm the engineer.

All right.

And what could you tell us about your sound thinking with the single car stacking is that um the concern is it you know you could stack cars into the street.

So if you parked and then you had cars that were um all parking behind one another, they would come into the street.

And the concern is that it would cost traffic.

And originally it's for eight cars, correct?

So the thinking is if a fire truck is coming in, the the cars will get out of the way of the fire truck.

And I think it would be of no concern because also if you call in, correct, you would have people go and park.

They wouldn't be sitting at the window.

So if you do have, I'm just throwing this out there.

So if you do have a stacking of one.

Yes, and so you're saying that you're not gonna have any spot other than if they pull in the parking stall, right?

Yes, sir, they would pull up to the windows.

So if they choose not to do that, and like you were kind of referring to, they're gonna park on uh 61st Street, Albany Street, right?

And we don't want that to happen either.

We don't want to encourage that, and I don't want I would think that if we're not approving any on-site parking, we don't want to encourage them to park off street either.

Correct.

No, sir.

So uh my thinking is they would be parking in the parking spaces, like they would have the parking lot.

Yes, the bottom line is there's just not enough room to get the development, the building you want to put in there and have enough queue or stacking.

Uh yes, sir, and uh also the concern of uh you know utilizing the space for the building in an appropriate way then.

We understand it.

And that's why you're wanting to kind of relieve a little bit on the way of the trees and stuff like that, the islands and things like that.

Um yeah, so the thinking with the trees was that you get more visibility and therefore more business and kind of a tight fit for what you're putting what you want to put in there, right?

A little bit, yes, and so we finally have a side plan up there on this.

Right.

Now, because that was the correction I I wanted to bring up.

The idea was that hopefully, if you all agree with it, that we could um have two pickup windows because they would not be like McDonald's, they would be you know, call ahead, you pull up to the window and then be directed to a parking spot.

And that's the thinking at least, and at least maybe we could get some rule behind what he would be required to do to allow for something like that.

So, like if you go to Popeyes or something and you wait, you order some chicken, it's gonna take a while, they put you in a stall over there and you wait.

So, like you're in Bay one stall one, stall two, etc.

Yes, that's kind of what y'all would do.

Yes, sir.

Is it are we talking about and maybe I can't ask this, but are we talking about food type window or is it something else?

One of them is gonna be a pizza place and the other units gonna be a coffee shop.

Okay, so like uh what's that pizza place?

Uh Caesars, little little Caesar's.

Yeah, little foods.

They have the window, a single window like that, I think on theirs.

And they don't have a long queue behind them either that I was seeing.

So on some.

So we had a family on them, and I'm not expecting it's gonna be crazy crazy pizza like pizza hotel like solderbox hope, you know, like that's a family-owned pizza business.

Oh, well, that's good news.

Yes.

Yes.

So do you have you said two pickup windows, so do you have them on one on each side, one on each end?

Yes.

So one on the north or one on the east side and one on the west side of the case.

Yes, yes, yes, ma'am.

And yeah, like I said, I from studying the rules of the eight uh eight car stacking, the original purpose was to make sure it does not lead into the road.

And um the other concern would be getting out of the fire lane.

Right.

So if you had the fire truck come through, everybody's gonna move because they're in their cars.

Yeah, you would hope so.

Yeah, no, that they'll they'll make you move.

Right.

I was gonna say, they will move you for you.

We want you to get what you want, but we also can't bend the rules in the way the ordinances and things like that.

We can't we can't do that.

But by PUD, there are some things you can do different.

But are we putting the burden on anybody that's gonna go there or people that are driving by or the city itself?

That's just what we got to be careful with on approving that.

And I would think that city engineering and uh the uh Chiefs department would be able to determine yes, that's works or no it doesn't.

I agree, and if you did want to that process.

And if you did want to throw some things on there, and I don't know if Graham would say anything about this or not, but I guess you could always make sure you get the city engineer to bust off on all this, and we know the PUDs for this specific use only, correct?

I mean the PUD would be right now, the way the PUD the way I see it, it's not written up for the pizza place or anything like that.

That is just one pickup window.

So that opens up for anything.

Yeah, well, and now they're asking for two pickup windows instead of just one.

So they say that again.

They're asking for two pickup windows, not just one.

There's one on the north or one on the west side and one on the east side.

I mean at uh Q.

The stacking one stacking, yeah.

Yes.

So I guess I understand the concerns on all of it.

I I do think logically it the concern if the concern is that the cars are in the road and blocking traffic, yeah.

That's number one.

Right.

And I think even when I did analyze if there are eight cars that correct they don't get near the road up there.

They still stay within the parking lot.

And then your people can say, can you pull up into whatever stall?

Yes, ma'am.

Oh.

Yeah, I don't I know the pizza places.

I mean, I don't I don't know, I've not seen the drive-through pizza places, but I know some of the coffee shops get pretty stacked up.

Right.

And that's where we were hoping they would, you know, be directed or some sort of rule would be acted enacted in place to allow for only one car.

Well, if we put in the PUD that it's only one car, then that's I mean that's all it can be.

If we're allowing you all to do that, then y'all have to place yourselves and only do that.

And everybody else has to take a parking stall.

I just don't know how that's going to be enforced easily.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Was there any discussion about the the media?

Right now, Rocky brought this up to me and I understand where he's coming from.

These the median right there that we see on the very top of the drawing.

So if you're heading east, if you're on one of those two lines, you're heading east.

It's not a not a problem to pull in to your development.

But if you're coming west, I don't see a mutual access.

So the median's gonna be in your way if you're heading west off 61st Street, correct?

Yes, sir.

What have you all thought about that?

You'd like people will go around, turn around and come back.

Yes, sir.

I mean about all you can do unless you are cut and head directly head on into traffic and then turn in.

Right, which I think obviously logically people will go try to do something like that.

Somebody will somebody will smart, not advisable.

I agree.

Right.

I mean, indeed, you know, the drive can only be in that location per the plaid.

So that's the limits of access right there is what's shown.

Yes.

There's not a window in there.

So yeah, no matter what development you put in there, you're gonna have to live with that.

Correct.

From this distance.

Sorry, Jason.

No, you're alright, sir.

Any other questions?

Any additional comments?

No, sir.

Okay, we do have some people that wanted to speak on this, so we'll let them speak, and then you'll have an opportunity to come back up.

Okay, okay.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh Brenda Christie.

If you would state your name, you'll have three minutes to speak.

My name's Brenda Christie.

Um counsel, I'm not sure.

Commission.

Uh my name's Brenda Christie, and I am the president of the HOA of Stonewood Hills, which is the uh complex of 282 homes that will partially back up on the I'm really bad with directions.

On the west side of this, one of our homeowners is here.

She is also listening.

Her home will be directly affected by what your decisions are.

So we wanted to share that we have concerns about different things.

Um my husband and I were here years ago when the planning commission allowed a vet clinic to be built along Lynn Lane, and that is our backyard.

So we have personal experience with things that happen when large lighting goes in and when you take away trees and you remove certain barriers.

So we want to bring all of those things to the attention of the planning commission.

We would like to maintain as much as possible.

All of the trees that are there, we do not agree with allowing seven randomly placed trees.

We are very concerned that we will have people pulling into this business in the early morning, possibly late at night, and that people who are going around the far side of the uh business to park in the back where there's 21 or 22 parking spaces, that those lights will be headed into the windows of our homeowners.

We're also concerned about the uh drive-through window, because as we know what something is decided, it doesn't stay that way forever.

And we came in on a vet clinic asking for a smaller amount of parking places because they would always be able to control what was coming in.

We came back two or three years later with them asking for more parking places, and we ended up having to buy blackout curtains in order to live in our house.

So we have people in our neighborhood would like if there are going to be lights that there have to be lights that are turned only towards the building.

We would like to have some type of requirements that people not be allowed to sit in the parking lots and play their music at all hours of the day.

We have people who show up for work at 6 30, but they're there at 6 a.m.

And we get to listen to their music for 30 minutes every morning.

We would like to know where the dumpster is going to be and what the dumpster pickup schedule would be because my husband and I are awakened every Friday, sometime between 3:30 and 6 a.m.

when the dumpsters pick up.

What we haven't brought up as a neighborhood through each other was what happens when there's snow and these things the parking lot gets snow plowed because that noise makes you think the building is coming down around you.

So those are also our concerns.

We um we understand that you can grant all of these things, but we ask you to take that into account because this home, our home has been there for 25 years, and part of this neighborhood has been there 27 years.

So people who bought this, we understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now let me ask you a question if I could, Jason.

So you are you in the houses that directly west of this?

Is that is that your house where you're coming on 7th Street?

I think I think she's in the house off of 9th Street, right?

North side.

Where are you located in regards to the state?

South of the Bank.

I am on the south side of this.

Yeah, just south of the south of the storage buildings in.

Yes.

Yeah, well, they're not going to be able to do 7th to get in there.

Uh I do come off seventh, and it if I have another 20 seconds, that was one of the main concerns you had brought up is the access point.

We know that there's a bank across the street, you cannot turn until you get to a certain place that was allowed for that.

We are terrified that people are going to end up doing U-turns to get to the turn in here because we've already had to replace part of the fence for our HOA three times because people who have now come across the street from the apartment complex race to get across four lanes of traffic.

And when the roads are bad or when the traffic is too busy, people are getting hit, cars are coming into our neighborhood, and they're taking out our side fence.

But you also realize that there is a PUD that's existing right there, planned unit development for something to go in there right now.

And I don't remember the I don't I don't know the details exactly whether it was CNN or CH.

I don't know what was in there right now, but there is a PUD right there.

Yes existing.

It was in 2005.

And currently, if you look up there, and Jose correct me if I'm not looking at this correctly, but it's just the little bit of track that's in there.

So those trees that are up against the houses to the west should stay there.

That is not part of this property.

Correct.

Okay.

So that concern helps it it will become part of the next PUD.

Yes, it yes.

And that that will also be the thing, right?

Another concern.

So we just wanted to raise those concerns to the commission.

And we have there are ordinances on the noise ordinance of their ordinance on the uh the lighting itself, directing them not to have spillage going on to the neighbor's properties, things like that, as the shielded lights and or low lights, things like that.

There are things that could be done like that.

And and lastly, we would just bring up that you have another facility on Hillside Drive directly behind the quick trip that has a small pickup window on the edge, and I don't know what a stacking rule is, but when you try to go into that facility, the jumba juice or Tropicana, um, you can't get in during certain hours because there are six cars backed up from that window all the way to the entrance of that actual place.

We don't want to see that happen around our own.

And that's what they're asking for is one spot.

They don't want they don't want a row of cars of two or three or four or five, they won't want to is what they're asking for right now.

And I understand that's what they're asking for in the reality of the situation.

If they're a homeowned pizza business, they want to make money.

Well, and I understand that, and I got a feeling that it's not just gonna be one car sometimes.

There may be two cars one in there.

Three and hopefully it'll be good pizza in our neighborhood will be able to go eat there.

So not trying to just keep you up here, but I do have a question for our attorney here.

So the zoning ordinance, I guess, related to the lighting and noise, no matter what was happening in the PUD 2003, the whatever's been changed in the noise and lighting stuff like that is applicable now, right?

So all that would be taken into consideration for the new development, not in regards just to the old PUD, but if it was approved tonight, it would still be the latest ordinances relay regarding that.

Correct.

Which is for the good.

So Ma'am, I just do want to say to you as well as others in the audience, this is a commercial heavy uh location, and as long as somebody was meeting all the requirements of the pre-established PUD, they could build something without even coming before the planning commission.

That's true.

As long as they met everything.

So just wanted to let you know there are some limitations to what the planning commission can do as long as the applicant is meeting all the requirements that the city has established.

Right.

And our FOIA had indicated some of the things that they were asking to change, which was including part of this landscaping issue, which was the reason that we wanted to come in.

I didn't know if the PUD from 2003 was more extensive on requiring that type of sound barrier and site barrier.

But if it was, we'd ask the commission to keep that because we do have homes that are increasing in value, and people don't want to lose that value just because they chose part of the neighborhood that is near a heavy industry put.

And Jason made a good point.

Chair made a good point because I don't know what was in the original PUD.

This new PUD that they're requesting with the Pete's and all that may be actually a better fit for what your concerns are than what is approved right now.

I just don't know what was approved in 2003.

Right.

That makes sense.

And yeah, I'm not sure either.

Um Jose, do we thank you, ma'am?

Thank you.

Jose, do you remember what was in the 2003 PUD?

Right off hand.

It's uh it is a very um extensive PUD.

Um so it was as it was part of that uh mini storage development to the south of there.

Um there's a pr it's pretty extensive PUD in terms of the requirements and uh how well they crafted it to their specific development.

Okay.

Um for example, in there in the PUD it says that the buildings have to have a I think it said uh um Chesak Silakian type look or Bavarian look to the facade.

Which yeah, so there was a lot of weird stuff in that PUD is from 2003, and and so that's why when we were working um with the applicants, at first, you know, they were just going to develop it under that PUD and you know just go through the regular site plan process.

Um but the main thing that they ran into was in that old PUD it required I think nearly double or uh almost triple the amount of parking that is kind of required under the normal ordinance.

Um and if you remember from the site plan that we showed, um you can see they were kind of maxing out their space, you know, in terms of um square footage for retail uses and for parking.

Um so that's kind of why we came up to the idea of you know let's kind of get rid of most of that old PUD.

Right and then just worry about uh and so we were bringing it into to the newer ordinance, um, and then they just wanted to amend some of the landscaping uh to once again, you know, to better fit the site.

Um but I did want to kind of clear up one thing as well with the landscaping that they're the requirement that they're requesting to modify.

Um it's for the landscape edge, um, and the landscape edge is that landscaping which is required for the property that buffers the right-of-way.

So only that that's on the north part of the property.

Long albany.

Yes, sir, yeah.

And so there it that doesn't necessarily amend any requirement for landscape buffers, right?

Which would be required for that property to the uh to the west.

If someone came in and developed that property, um they would have to follow the landscape buffer requirements, which necessitate a certain amount of screening and trees and bushes and um and all that good stuff.

And so um so regardless, in this for this parcel, they wouldn't have to have a landscape buffer because they're not directly abutting um a residentially zone property.

There's a rounded but the next one west of them would use it.

Yes, for sure.

So with this PUD then actually, after since you've seen the details of both PUDs, this would actually restrict it a lot more, tie it down more to a certain limited use compared to what was done before the other PUD.

I guess not necessarily other than the Czechoslovakia and look and all that other stuff.

Yeah, it was um I thought that's what he said.

It's Bavarian, but yeah, I think it was I'd have to go and look again, but it was it was something along those lines.

It was it was just something that was weird when I read it and anyway, but yeah.

Um and that's that was just kind of the difficulties that it was written in 2003.

So if you think about you know how much the zoning ordinance has changed since then.

Um it wasn't even just the parking, it was a bunch of other stuff that you know that they wanted to kind of bring into you know the the newer zoning ordinance.

Um in terms of the 75-foot um requirement, part of that's for the um parking lot landscaping.

So normally any parking areas um any parking spots have to be within 75 feet of a landscaped area on the south side of the property, or sorry, yeah, the south side of the property with all the parking down there.

Um the ordinance normally requires 50 feet, um and they kind of ran into an issue with that.

Um so they wanted to increase that to 75 um and then with that met with that direct uh with that distance, sorry, um they met that requirement with the landscaping that's on the on the bottom of the property.

Um so a lot of it, uh those two lands primarily the 75 foot, a lot of that is just to help them with um you know making the site work.

Um but the um the landscape edge, um most of that, you know, it's just a it was a it was minor.

I think on the original PUD, I think it was I'd have to look, and I think originally it was um I think it was near that amount, it was 30 uh one tree per every 30 lineal feet or so.

Um so the original PUD's landscaping requirements were also kind of stringent, but um, but in this case, you know, they're requesting to follow most of this the ordinance landscape and requirements other than the edge and then the parking lot distance.

Okay, uh Jose, I believe you had some emails for this one as well.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Yes, and so this letter is um from Becky Phillips and and it is as follows to the Broken Arrow Planning Commission.

My name is Rebecca L.

Phillips, and I own the property at 2209 North 7th Street, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, 74012.

300 feet from the proposed Villa Square Development.

I received notice of case number PUD-002916-2026.

I am not opposed to the property being developed commercially, which I understand it is already zoned for.

However, I ask that any approval be conditioned on protecting the adjacent houses or homes.

Specifically, I am concerned that removing the landscape easement tree requirement of only seven flexibly placed trees would reduce the screening buffer between the center and our homes.

I respectfully ask the commission to require as conditions of approval for one preserved tree and landscape screening along residential boundary, two, the trash enclosure located and screened away from homes.

Three, full cutoff downward directed site lighting.

Four, the pickup window limited to low volume, pre-ordered delivery use with adequate stacking.

Five, drainage measures that do not increase runoff onto neighboring lots.

My bedroom face my bedroom window faces the lot, and I am concerned that the lights from the parking lot on this commercial property will shine in my windows at night.

Seven, my property extends five feet past my fence, and I have some trees there.

I ask that if they are allowed to cut down any trees, that they would be made aware to not touch mine.

Thank you for considering the concerns of the surrounding residents on 7th Street that will be directly affected by this commercial development.

Sincerely, Rebecca L.

Phillips, 22 2209 North 7th Street, Broken Arrow OK 74012.

The next letter is as follows.

Dear Planning Commission, my name is Cindy Fortney, and I reside at 812 East of Vancouver Street, and I have some concerns about the above proposal.

If this is approved, I would like to see requirement for the trash enclosure to be screened from view from the Albany Roadway as well as screen from the fine neighbors on 7th Street.

Also would like for it to be set back from the residential property line.

The lighting to be blocked from pointing into or towards the houses, uh excuse me, let me read that one again.

The lighting to be blocked from pointing into or towards the houses in our neighborhood.

A guarantee that stormwater drainage will not add any additional runoff into our neighborhood and/or ponds.

Four, specify the boundary must be in place with appropriate amount of blockage, not just naming a few trees that have to be in place, and that the trees must be properly maintained and replaced if they die.

I am hesitant, I am hesitant about another business going in and how they will be held accountable.

How excuse me, how they will be held accountable for what is supposed to be done.

You see the broken arrow self-storage, KO storage that sits between my backyard and the new proposed business has only a six-foot fence that is eaten up with termites and is dilapidated and needs to be replaced.

The city calls for an eight-foot fence, and how does a person go about seeing that they comply?

Sincerely, Sydney Fortney, 812 East Vancouver Street, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.

The final letter is as follows, and it's from Thomas Johnson to the Broken Arrow Planning Commission.

My name is Thomas Johnson.

I own the property at 2217 North 7th Street, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, located near this proposed development.

I am unable to attend tonight's hearing in person, and I ask that this comment be read into the record.

I am not a propos, I am not a proposed excuse me.

I am not opposed to this property being developed commercially.

It is already zoned for that use, and I understand the development will go in there.

My concern is narrow, and I want to make sure the surrounding neighborhood is not adversely affected by the site's operation, and I want that protection to be enforceable, not just stated intention.

I understand from city staff that the landscape and tree requirements at issue in this amendment apply to the street frontage of the property rather than the side nearest to the neighborhood, and that a separate parcel lies between the site and the homes on North 7th Street.

Given that my concern is less about a shared property line and more about effects that can still reach the neighborhood regardless of that distance.

Namely lighting, drainage, and delivery or pickup traffic.

If this amendment is approved, I respectfully request that the commission attach the following as binding commission's approval of approval incorporated into the approved PUD document and site plan.

Not as general recommendations, but as requirements a developer must satisfy to receive permits and a certificate of occupancy.

One, a requirement that all site and building lighting be fully shielded, full cutoff fixtures directed downward and away from the surrounding neighborhood to prevent light spillover.

A condition limiting the pickup window to low volume pre-order and delivery use only with stacking sufficient to prevent vehicles from queuing into adjacent streets.

A requirement that stormwater drainage from the site not increase runoff or flooding onto surrounding properties.

And a requirement that the trash enclosure be fully gated and screened as part of the approved site design.

Consistent with standard commercial screening requirements.

I ask that these be written into the record as expressed conditions of approval so that they are enforceable by the city if not met rather than left to informal understanding.

With these conditions in place, I have no objection to this project moving forward.

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood.

Sincerely, Thomas Johnson, 227, 2217 North 7th Street, Broken Air, Oklahoma.

And those are the three letters.

Thank you, Jose.

Could any of the staff members let me know?

Is there currently a requirement for trash screening?

Yes, yes.

So that is already in there, as well as our lighting that's already established.

So okay.

I just wanted to make sure in the water runoff, right?

That's already just part of standard engineering review from the city, right?

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Yeah, there's a um there's an ordinance that um the sound for ordering boards or menu boards.

Um I think it's can't exceed five decibels as measured from the property line if it's adjacent to a residential property.

Um this one it's not adjacent, so that line doesn't necessarily apply.

Um, but five decibels is a relatively low uh sound amount.

Um, but that is in the ordinance that that's required for menu boards and speaker boards.

Um for lighting, all lighting has to have um has to meet the luminaire requirement in the ordinance, which states that the angle of the fixture has to be 90 degrees if you draw a line from the ground up 90 degrees to that, um, and that helps cover most of the lighting preventing it from having the uh spillover effects.

Um and then additionally, the city also requires um what we call a photometric or lighting plan for the property, um, and that will show us kind of the location of the fixtures and the type of fixtures that they have and included in those plans.

Um, sometimes they include um depictions or diagrams of the number of lumens or foot candles that are measured at the property line, um, and that also helps us account for you know lighting at the property line.

And I think for those properties that are commercial adjacent to residential, I think it's zero, I think it's a half uh foot candle that is allowed at the property line.

But of course, this one doesn't have it's not adjacent directly, so it wouldn't be required to meet that half uh foot candle.

I think it's three foot candles or five uh for commercial to commercial um so but there are requirements you know that relate to a lot of the concerns that folks um have have emailed about or are uh uh discussing in terms of the runoff.

Um, of course, you know, our engineering staff always ensures that um all developments uh you know meet the requirements of the stormwater um group here in the city.

Um the property actually directly to the east is a um is a little retention pond for those three parcels actually.

Um so that's kind of where though that storm water should be flowing is into that retention pond.

Um so I think a lot of the a lot of the concerns should be met by the zoning ordinance, um but I think folks are fair to come to you know come to us and have these concerns.

I I completely understand them.

Um but a lot of them will be met by the zoning ordinance if we go to you know if we amend the PUD to be following mostly the zoning ordinance, um they would fall under those requirements.

Well, one thing you gotta remember is you got the storage buildings in between this lot and the south and then the next residential.

And there's actually a vacant lot that's gonna be west of this one next to the residential there too.

So you still have things you could do with the lot that's not developed yet in the way of lighting there too.

But I guess if you go back to the site plan, my question, I know we're not approving a site plan tonight, we're looking at the PUD, but was there going to be like a access from this lot to the lot west of there also, or was it gonna have an access?

Yes, I believe um, and I'll have to double check the plat if I remember correctly.

I think there is a mutual access easement, and it does kind of show if you look on the um I was looking at the northwest corner.

I can't tell if it's showing there's kind of I think uh it says shared drive and it's along the um the western property line kind of in the middle.

Um, make that larger, please.

There would still be a curb cut in the next lot on the on the north side, but they're on Albany Street, but there would also be a mutual drive.

Oh now I see now it's it, yeah.

Okay, good.

So the to answer my question is yes.

I see it now, Jose.

Thanks.

City teamwork, good job.

Yeah, and and that does bring a good point.

If anything, um we might have to go back and ask them to include that kind of curb cut on that area so that way when the next person comes in, um, you know, they don't have to come in and tear up their parking lot and all that, and so um but and so it's it's a good thing you bring that up.

And and of course, we're still in um site plan review process with um the development group, so there might still be other changes um and things that happen to you know change the ultimate cycling.

So I do have one concern, and that's with the email that you just read about the property to the south, their fence dilapidating.

If we could get that someone to someone there, either their information to someone in city or you know, bridge that so they can get put in touch with the right people that can have that taken care of for them.

Yeah, I can I can get what the that was.

That was probably spelled out in the PUD back in 2020 also.

I'll have code enforcement look into it.

Yeah, thank you.

Thanks.

Can I speak on that just really quickly?

No, ma'am.

All right.

Um we'll give the applicant an opportunity to come back up and uh speak on these items.

And Dad's gonna come up.

And sir, if we can get your name since you didn't yes come up before.

I'm Anthony Wilkins.

That might go up.

And I was um you can raise that mic up if you need to.

There you go.

There we go.

So if you want to uh I know we pretty well talked about the trees, the lighting, and all the other issues that were there, the dumpster, and again, that's part of your that's part of your code enforcement here.

And so I don't know.

Is there anything in particular you want us to address the even the queuing at the uh the pickup or anything that we need to address at this point?

We are willing to deal with the curb cut or anything that we that's already in the design.

Yeah, that's why we brought it into the design to show that we were my main concern is just simply the queuing.

How how that is gonna be taken care of when you get that second car, and you know, you need to have someone move up to whatever drive lane or whatever.

And I don't know how we can write that in the PD that it's interesting because I'm glad I asked about what this building was gonna be because if you go to the little Caesars, like at uh 11th and Highway 51 right there, whatever, they have the window right.

I think it's a little Caesar.

That you never see but one car or no cars there.

I would have gone by there many a times.

Right.

But it's not like it's a Chick-fil-A or anything like that where you got hundreds of cars.

That's not the pizza that I'm concerned about, it's the coffee shop.

Ah, okay.

So if we just leave the one window, like they're asking and not approve the second window, then that'll take care of that.

I don't know.

So you're also having stacking for one car for the coffee shop too?

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Okay, I agree with the concern on that.

Most of your call.

I know the intent was to, you know, once the most of the call ends, you pay for them up front.

So there's no waiting around for a changing of you know, um money or anything.

So will there be a wall in between the pizza place and the coffee place?

Um you can see the the pizza place is on the where if the coffee place they could go like order and go in.

Well, the coffee's it.

Or dot with could they order out of the same window?

The coffee place is on the east side, the pizza place is on the west side.

Okay.

So the windows you can see it there it is delivery window and delivery window, and I'm sorry, it's not bold in the print.

But just the only one window, right?

No, there's two.

There's two.

There's one on each side.

Right there.

Uh-huh.

And one right there.

And then there's one at the other side on the east side.

Then I see your concern.

And like we said, most of the uh people who are coming, they will be a prepaid.

So they'll drive up, pick up their and just pick up their order and have away.

Is there any way that we can limit them to not have a menu out front that they can't I mean that's the thing.

No.

Because there is no menu.

It's not going to be no menu.

Okay.

So the people who are in a parking spot so were they people who weren't able to get to the window first.

Was that how that was you have some parking parking is there but again if in case the order, let's say the pizza took longer than what was anticipated.

They can we'd ask them to go just parking parking spaces and then come back.

So window first and then go to spot one or two or three.

Yes.

To wait for your food to be brought to you.

Yes sir.

Yeah see my concern is the person that's going to go by and want coffee.

It's after yeah and you don't call order you just usually coffee places you go up you order it and go when there's going to be about ten people wanting to do that.

7 a.m in the morning.

Okay.

And we are not sure there's going to be a coffee place or not.

More likely yes.

Well 95% yes maybe it's a who the person who's going to lease that property they might change the mind but more likely it's a family member.

I know them and it's going to be a coffee place.

Right.

The family owned coffee place.

Right.

Not a franchise just going to share something real quick.

Let let's just assume for a minute that things go well for you guys.

You make millions of dollars and you decide to retire and sell the property you've just limited who can move in there.

Correct.

Because there's only one window for each side that also has a restriction on the number of cars that can drive in.

So that could have a long term impact and would we end up having a building that's shut down and closed for a long time waiting for the right business to move in there.

That's a concern that I have.

Okay.

But they would come back they could come back in as a new PUD and get that changed.

Sure.

Break up the window and put something else in there.

Okay.

We can see with what you're saying.

By us approving this if we were to approve it does not mean we're approving cars to be queued or stacked on the street too.

If if they're in violation of city code city ordinances so be it they're the ones getting fired.

Yeah we're not encouraging that we're not going to be able to stand but I don't like to put the burden on the city but I don't know if we are it whether a local shop local coffee shop or tea shop whatever versus the Starbucks or something.

There's a difference between the two.

There is I also have one other question a lot of comments were made about the lights as somebody's driving in their headlights might shine into the window now you're not required to have a fence there because there's another commercial lot next to you would you be opposed to putting a fence there until that next lot is developed no okay something we could write in put that in part of the mic so you know this he is a property owner here and a business owner here and that development that was Bruno's restaurant.

And the issue with that one was the lighting for the adjacent neighbors and Mr Gino here has changed the lights we made sure the lights aimed down got consensus from the neighbors about what they were concerned about and you know it was an ongoing issue and it we worked it out.

Staff in Broken Arrow work with us on that to get in touch with the homeowners in the area.

Do you own the property west of this lot right here too?

No.

Okay.

Just the east site.

And the the trash according to the you know again according to the city of broken arrows or nice all trash is trash air conditioner.

Everything is well you could see the trash dams are in the southwest corner it's got the trash corral down there out of the way so it's not along the street what somebody was concerned about.

Yeah.

Right but my concern excuse me as well as some of the the citizens if you get a trash truck pulling in there at 5 a.m to get that trash you've got those headlights shining to the west right to those neighbors that's where my concern that that's why I was bringing it up if you'd be opposed to that.

Well most of them back in you know with the trash pickers in doors.

If you did it would drive in come in from either side from the west side or come in from that uh southern district and then back into that spot.

So his headlights should be pointing at Albany.

When he's getting the trash but either way to get to that point he's going to be driving towards this buffer of trees that are sitting back.

On the West property hopefully yeah you know if it is it's a it's a turn it's a momentary light flash that comes through here if anything else.

But no matter what development you go in there you're going to have something like that and you're going to have to address it.

Yes, I I don't know if we want to specify where the dumpster needs to be, but it's something that the city's got to work out because we're not looking looking at a site plan tonight, even though we see it, we're not approving of a site plan tonight, correct?

Correct, right?

Because we we don't officially have it.

And I think if you were to approve of the one car stacking, whether it be for the pizza window or the coffee, it's still something that staff is a minor amendment, so it would not go to city council, but the burden's gonna be on the city to make sure that they meet all their requirements on that stacking.

Yeah, whether it's one car or two cars or whatever.

And if we deny it or approve either one, and you tell them, say city staff, see what y'all can do about maybe figuring out a way to get two cars stacked in there.

I mean, I do like the idea of the parking stalls.

If you're gonna say, well, you gotta wait for your drink, go out there and park and we'll bring it out to you.

I see that happening, but there's no guarantees that people are gonna do that either.

That's right.

Which is my concern, but well, you know, customers are if they are having to wait, they won't.

So you know it's gonna have to work with the customers.

Well, and it doesn't it doesn't take all that long to get drinks, tea or coffee ready compared to like waiting for your pizza.

So I mean a lot of the concerns it was by the email, like you're saying, that that's addressed with our zoning ordinances and stuff.

Yes.

Any other questions for the applicants?

No.

No.

Any additional comments, gentlemen?

No, no.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

We'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

Any uh comments or recommendations from the commission.

I'd like to hear staff's recommendations one more time, if you don't mind, Chair.

Sure.

Uh staff, if you can review the recommendations one more time, please.

Yes, sir.

Yep.

Staff uh recommends based upon the location of the property and the surrounding land uses staff recommends that uh PUD-002916 uh-2026 be approved.

Well, originally when I first was listening to this, I had a concern about it, but the more I hear about it and I think the old PUD you're gonna find the same situation you're in, whether you're gonna approve of this or deny it.

Yeah.

The old one without knowing the details, I think that uh you it could be worse.

And I think with all the upgrade ordinances and all that, it's gonna take care of the lighting with the lighting maps and all that, the noise.

This is a lot that's separated by another lot from the housing edition.

The queue, I don't think we're I don't I don't know if we want to wave or take it down to a stacking of one.

Can we do should we do that in the PUD?

That's what they're asking.

I mean, if they if they want to put something in there and they can't meet our our zoning ordinance, then they can't put it in.

But so you recommend minus the one car stacking.

Well, I I'm trying to I'm thinking out loud, really.

And I I don't know.

I know.

I mean, I don't know if we really want to take it down to stack into one.

If they can't make it meet the zoning current zoning ordinance, then don't put it in.

But if you want to reduce it to one, they have the parking stalls they can bring the coffee out.

And I agree, they're not gonna be wanting to wait for a long time to get their drink.

Right.

If they have to wait, they won't come back.

And if you go to some of those window pickup like little Caesars on the pizzas and stuff, you never see cars out there.

No.

I mean it's one car and that's it.

So I'm not concerned about the pizza.

Yeah.

But when you brought up the tea or coffee, whatever it is.

Concerns me.

But I think you got room to actually have overflow parking, not on the street.

And if they were to park on the street, then the city's gonna come shut them down and say you can't do this business out here and get cars on the street.

Right.

So I'm not sure if uh I kind of like that they don't have a ordering.

Yeah, an order menu, whatever.

Yeah, order board, yeah.

They don't have an ordering board.

Yeah, you know.

That cuts down on the sound.

The noise.

Yeah, you won't hear all the and it cuts down on those people pulling up and wanting to order right there.

They may think, oh, I guess I can't order, I have to walk in if I'm gonna go order or do it on the app.

And I assume that staff is pretty confident they've looked at this and they think that we're okay with what we got like that with the one stacking of one car.

Yep.

Or or a queue, whatever you want to call it.

So I guess we're okay with so I'll make a motion to approve for staff recommendations.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Mindy Payne?

Yes.

Robert Garenson?

Yes.

J.

Lee Clempa?

Yes.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

No.

No, I will mention that this is a minor amendment, so it does not go to the city council.

Correct.

This does not go before city council.

We'll move on to item 6B.

If staff could review that, please.

Yes, this is uh public hearing consideration and possible action regarding BAZ-002903-2026.

Rezoning, spicer rezoning, 6.2 acres, AG agricultural to RS single family residential, located approximately one quarter mile north of East Kenosha Street, also known as 71st and one quarter mile east of ONETA Road, also known as 41st East Avenue.

BAZ-002903-2026 is a request to change the zoning designation on 6.2 acres from AG agricultural to RS single family residential.

The property is uh located approximately one quarter mile north of Kenosha, one quarter mile east of ONEDA.

The property owner is interested in splitting the approximately six point two acre parcel into two lots to allow for the development of a single family home on the proposed new lot at the northeast portion of the overall site.

Right of way has not previously been dedicated along South 245th East Avenue.

So both a 30-foot right-of-way and a 17.5 foot wide utility easement uh will be needed to be added as part of the anticipated uh lot split plot uh process that um that the applicant will apply for uh once the rezoning is completed.

Um the property and surrounding land uh excuse me, the property and surrounding area parcels are zoned AG agricultural, which necessitate a frontage of at least 330 foot and a lot size of at least five acres.

Due to the limitations of the current size of the property, no lot would be able to meet those requirements.

Thus a rezoning of the property from AG to RS is required to leave uh to achieve the lot split requested by the applicant.

The surrounding land uses uh are as follows.

To the north, the comprehensive plan shows level one rural uh residential, and the zoning shows is agricultural.

The land use is currently single family residential.

To the east, it is level two urban residential, it is zoning is uh AG agricultural and the land use is single family residential.

To the south, it is level one rural residential, and it is currently um zoned as AG and the land use it is undeveloped land or vacant.

Um to the west, it is level two urban residential, and the zoning is agricultural and it is also single family residential.

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

Any future development shall abide by City of Brokenaro, FEMA, and you uh U.S.

Army Corps of Engineer requirements based upon the comprehensive plan, the location of the property, and the surrounding land uses.

Staff recommends that BAZ-002903-2026 be approved.

Uh and the applicant is here um and in agreement.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

I do have one question, I guess.

On it, so if this is if this was approved tonight, would this be the end and we would see it, or would it they come back with the the lot split itself or the site planning or anything like that?

That would this be it right here?

And this would they'd come back with the lot split, sir.

Okay, so we would see the lot split next.

Okay, that's what I thought.

But it would be on on the consent agenda, of course.

Um, but of course that would it can be something we've you know, remind you, hey, you know, this was that one that I was just curious how they were gonna slice it.

So I mean, because you're gonna have the def for the front each period.

Yeah.

And and if I they kind of I don't know if you see to the north where it looks like a like almost like a property was already cut out of it once, and basically kind of copying that one uh to the south.

Um and so it would be just you know splitting out a property there along the frontage um on that already dedicated public road.

Um, and then the rest of the six-acre parcel will stay with the existing house.

So the only it would come back for us as a lot split on the consent agenda unless we asked it not to be in the consent agenda, correct?

Yes, yeah.

Okay.

You know that.

I'm good.

Just curious.

All right.

Uh would the applicant come up, please?

If you would state your name, sir.

Sure.

Todd Spicer.

Okay.

Was there anything you wanted to add regarding this?

Um, I think we submitted originally we we kind of put the cart before the horse and we applied for the um lot split.

Um and we submitted a very uh rudimentary uh rough sketch of a site plan.

And since then we've we uh which would have included just over an acre, leaving uh the 6.2 remaining uh the original 6.2 with remaining with 5.2 acres.

Since then that's evolved to be more about a 2.2 split, which would take the property further back towards the west towards the creek.

And I wanted to make sure that was not going to cause an issue with the with the commission's consideration or approval.

Okay.

I think uh the file jose has uh has that original site plan in there.

I've just not updated you because this is fairly recent that we've changed the plan, but yeah, the the the that updated one.

Um I haven't seen it yet myself, but um but the changes kind of that you're mentioning in terms of um elongating the lots, making it longer than shouldn't be any issue as long as it meets um that frontage requirement um in the minimum size requirement for RS, uh which I think is um 50 foot frontage and I believe six thousand or six thousand five hundred square feet, um, which if he's at an acre or two acres, he's he's well within um within meeting those requirements.

My original um site plan included the frontage distance, and I don't recall what it is offhand, but uh with the split what's the requirement?

50 feet?

Yes, yeah.

So it should it the remaining lot and the new lot should uh both exceed that frontage requirement.

And then and actually sorry, it was it's uh 60 feet Rebecca here correctly.

Okay, still with room to spare.

You're adding up, you want two lots.

We're gonna end up with two lots.

So you're not gonna come back in and try to get another lot split later.

No.

No.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Is that it?

Uh unless you had anything else you wanted to add.

I mean from anyone else.

No.

No, you look at me like that.

Thank you for I had a pizza chalk up what made it start.

I got to do that.

I still don't know why you don't know the one from 2003 because you were on the planning committee 25 years ago.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you very much, sir.

Uh, we did not have anybody to speak on this.

Did you have any emails on this?

No, we didn't receive any uh emails or from customers.

Okay.

So uh no additional comments.

Commission, any comments or recommendations?

I make a motion we approve item uh six B 20.

Yes, 26 10 14 per staff recommendation.

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Mindy Payne, yes, Robert Gorenson, yes.

J Ly Klempa.

Yes, Jonathan Townsend, yes, Jason Cohen.

Yes, and that will go before city council on July 14th at 6 30 p.m.

Right here in these chambers.

All right, we'll move on to item six C if staff could review that please.

Public hearing.

There you go.

Okay, public hearing consideration and possible action regarding SP-0027, 62-2026, public safety telecommunications tower on 10.58 acres, CN Neighborhood Commercial, Southwest Corner of West Jasper Street, also 131st Street and South Aspen Avenue, 141st East Avenue.

Um go with the staff report.

Uh the background on this item is in 2014 the citizens of Broken Arrow voted to approve a bond project to improve first responder radio telecommunications in South Broken Arrow.

SP 002762-2026 is a request for a specific use permit for a free standing telecommunications tower on city-owned property that zoned a commercial neighborhood located on the southwest corner of West Jasper Street and South Aspen Avenue.

It is an undeveloped 10.58 acre tract of land already owned by the city.

Section 2-7-2 telecommunication towers section outlines certain factors that the city council can approve.

Two factors are requested for this specific application.

One, the height.

Proposed communications tower will be approximately 180 feet in height by ordinance up to 120 is allowable by right and commercial districts, while up to 200 feet is allowable by right in industrial districts.

The height necessity comes from the low-line topography and the need to fill geographic coverage gaps in this particular area.

The second item is co-location.

Proposed communication tower would have the ability for co-location in the future.

This minimizes the quantity of towers and increases project via ability.

This is a public safety project to boost communication coverage for first responders in South Broken Arrow.

The project is one of the last projects of the 2014 GoPond package.

Broken Arrow participates in a mutual aid coverage network with surrounding communities that make up the third largest radio network in the state of Oklahoma.

City Council approved the consultant agreement for the engineering and design of this tower on April 15th, 2025.

Project 191793.

It is undeveloped land.

To the east is level four, which is a commercial employment node, uh is currently zoned uh neighborhood commercial and it is used for commercial.

I believe it's a fueling station.

To the west is floodplain property.

It is zoned in the comp plan for floodplain and it is undeveloped.

According to the FEMA maps, a portion of the property is located within the 100-year floodplain, zone AE.

However, the drive access and the pad site uh will be outside of the floodplain and zone X.

Um the staff recommendation is to approve SP-002762-2026.

Um and the funding and support of this project was through the 2014 Go Bond package.

And then also included is the notice from engineering and construction that went out um with the radius mailers, um, just to give people a little background on the specific project.

Um I do believe we have someone here from ENC as well as communications if you guys have technical questions.

Um, but I'm happy to answer anything that's planning related.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Rebecca, can you remind me?

So the city owns the property.

And the way it's zoned right now.

Can you remind like they could rent it out?

The property.

And somebody could do put something on there the way it's zoned, different than this tower, correct?

That's correct.

Um so some of the uses that are allowable in neighborhood commercial um would be uh liquor store, uh medical marijuana dispensary, a bus station, um, a convenience store, a restaurant, a financial institution, medical or other offices.

Okay.

I just had seen some stuff on social media that I wanted to answer that question.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

If we could have the applicant come up, please.

Please state your names and you'll have 10 minutes.

Uh Andrew Ocuzo.

Hi, I'm Jennifer Tilson.

Okay.

Any additional comments you'd like to add?

Uh, just that there is a need for uh signal in that area.

We have a tower on Tiger Hill, and we have one at the Citiplex Tower and one at Leonard for public safety communications network.

Uh we have found gaps in this area going all the way from here to Garnet where first responders inside buildings themselves could not communicate effectively on their two-way radios.

So the need for this tower will not only help us but any kind of um location or crossover between Bigsby jinx and things like that in those areas that they could help citizens and things like that.

Did we approve one just like two months ago also?

Or do you think that's the one?

I slept since then.

Did I dream it?

Didn't we not approve it?

Not to my knowledge.

This is uh the first tower I've been a part of.

I'm not talking about the tower.

I thought we approved another one too.

That I just remember I just wanted to.

Oh, that was a cell tower.

And that wasn't for the city, I don't think.

I think that was a private company cell phone tower.

No, I'm yeah, I'm not talking about the one at Kenosha that furniture gallery is.

I'm talking I thought we approved of a different one, so did we not?

No, but I mean I think this was on the last the last has been on the agenda before.

Oh, so it's back.

Yeah, I think that's a good thing.

I was I was happy to see about the public safety aspect that you all um conveyed and as far as the need goes.

Uh I I did have a question, I guess a technical question.

Uh the height, the the 180.

Is it is it just the higher it goes, the better the quality it is based on the land.

As far as the topography over there has some dips along the shadowing from the turnpike to the north there that presents some areas that you see there in the if you pull up that last map and the darker red areas and the brown areas where portable coverage is diminished.

So this at the height would propagate the signal to hit those areas more efficiently.

So anything lower height wise, you just would have reduced correct desirable results.

There.

Okay.

And then another um just question uh it talked about what was it, what was the term use co-habitation, co-location.

Co-location, yes.

I was just wondering if you can share any details about that.

Is that like uh a certain number of carriers or uh potentially in the area we were thinking about instead of having cell sites there, if there was a co-location possibility to bring in a cell provider, but that's nothing that we were going to do hardcore to to get this thing in there, but I didn't want to have cell sites in the area as well.

Okay.

And that and is that uh forgive me for my ignorance.

Does that mean that we don't have to have any other similar towers anywhere close?

Correct because of that.

If you had the one structure there on that's the idea.

Yeah.

Okay.

You you co-habitate it so you don't have to keep different.

Okay.

Because the cost of like having a one carrier versus multi-level makes more sense.

Makes sense.

Yeah, I was curious why we were doing a lattice type structure instead of a pole.

Uh for radio communications, we did a class four structure.

Is that what it is?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So this just be for radio?

Uh for right now, yes.

Okay.

So what's the future?

What are you looking at?

Um if a possibility comes where a cell provider were to make an offer with us, there could be negotiations with that.

But I am not looking at really putting anybody on that tower besides radio communications.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

That's all that I had.

I do have one question.

You think you can get it done by the time Aspen's done?

Yeah, because I live right over there, that's why.

I feel sorry for those people.

Not sure if we can get it constructed before then, but we'll try our best.

Okay, that's all I can ask.

All right.

We did have some people that wanted to speak on it, so we'll give you an opportunity to come back up.

Intersection all the time.

Uh do we have a Cheryl Lynn uh Murphy?

They finally opened it up.

Do we charge it?

So now it's can you can go all four ways.

If you would please state your names, you'll have three minutes.

I'm Sheryl and Murfrey.

I'm Pat Murfrey.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I'm speaking to oppose the proposed 180 foot radio tower to be built beside the creek, just behind our home.

As a resident, we have lived there for 28 years, and my family has first hand experience with the erosion and vul environmental vulnerabilities of the site, and we urge the council to carefully consider the health, safety, and environmental costs of this project.

First, the health concerns are real.

Radio frequency radiation from both radio towers and cell towers have been studied for decades, and multiple scientific reviews have linked living near these structures with more headaches, sleep problems, dizziness, and memory issues.

One large review found that people living within roughly 500 meters of antennas reported increased adverse health effects compared with those living far away.

Second, the environmental impact is unacceptable.

Our backyard already suffers from significant erosion along the creek after years of living here.

Building a large industrial tower right next to that same creek will only accelerate soil loss, increase runoff into the water, and worsen sedimentation and water quality problems downstream.

Over time, this could also threaten the stability of the tower foundation and nearby properties, especially during heavy rains or storms.

Finally, there are clear impacts on quality of life and property values.

Studies show that homes near visible radio towers installations often lose value because buyers naturally prefer not to live so close to such infrastructures.

This proposal would permanently change the character of our quiet residential neighborhood and reduce the quality of life for everyone living here.

We asked the council to require that any tower, if approved at all, be placed far enough from our homes and natural waterways to protect public health and the environment instead of being allowed beside a creek and directly across from our yards.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No emails.

No other comments.

Okay.

Thank you, folks.

All right.

Did the applicant want to uh respond to any of those statements?

Like to respond to the health risk and concerns for building this tower.

Um the frequency that we're building here is 800 megahertz, which is non-ionized with the frequency, which is not to have any kind of DNA altering things to people by using utilizing the the radio frequencies.

Uh the FCC, they tightly monitor how much output you can put on these things, and at ground level, um there are studies where it's a thousand times less than the FCC limits up for safe exposure.

Um we can talk about that the specific absorption rate through the FCC does not cause any harm to people, and the American Cancer Society has never have they don't have a position on if it causes anything with cancer with people.

As far as they are concerned, there is no effect.

And I would say if you're high in the air, close to the antenna, there may be something, but you're talking 50 watts, 800 megahertz.

Yeah, I've been in the field 25 plus years.

I've never had a problem with RF radiation hurting anything at all.

If anything, you may feel a little warm on your skin if you're right next to the antenna.

Any questions for the applicant?

Uh further fluorescent tube up underneath it, it's not going to light it up.

It would not hear about that.

All right, there's probably more RF radiation from coming from your cell phone.

Microwave and microwave signals and tell every cell phone conversation, every F FM radio, every television station is shooting through your body as we speak.

So there's more radiation from the sun than there would be from this tower.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any additional comments or recommendations from the commission?

I'll make a recommendation that we approve item um 6C 26-495 per staff recommendation.

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Mindy Payne.

Yes.

Robert Garenson?

Yes.

Jaley Clempa.

Yes.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes.

And that will go before City Council on August 3rd at 6:30 p.m.

in these chambers.

All right.

We'll move it on to item 7 appeals.

We have none.

Uh item 8, General Commission business.

We have none.

Uh nine remarks, inquiries, and comments by the client planning commission and staff.

We have none.

Item 10.

Oh, that's me.

I make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Can we get a roll call vote, please?

What does she say?

Mindy Payne.

Yes.

Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

Jaley Clempa.

Yes.

Jonathan Townsend.

Yes.

Jason Cohen.

No.

I didn't do it.

I didn't do it.

Don't you just love us?