Roll call, please.

Michelle Bergwall.

Here.

Rebecca Hinkle.

Kamara Washington.

George Jesquire.

Here.

Judd Hatch.

Here.

Our first item for consideration is the review and approval of our minutes from the June 8th meeting.

Is there any questions?

No.

Motion to approve.

Call second.

Michelle Bergwall.

Yes.

George Jessquire.

Yes.

Judd Hatch.

Yes.

All right.

We have three items for public hearing.

Item 4A.

Is a request for a variance.

And can we get staff to uh go over this with us, please?

Yes, sir.

This is uh public hearing consideration and possible action regarding uh VAR-002919-2025.

202 Elgin apartments, approximately 0.24 acres, downtown residential overlay district five.

Requested variants from section five of the downtown residential overlay district regulations to modify driveway width.

Located approximately one half mile north of West Houston, also known as 81st and one half mile west of 9th Street, also known as 177th East Avenue.

VAR-002919-2025 involves 0.24 acres within DROD area 5.

It is a request to waive the downtown residential overlay district driveway with regulations located approximately one half mile north of uh West Houston, one half mile uh west of 9th Street.

Uh the applicant has resolved the legal matters around the property and has reapplied for a variance on the property.

Uh the previous application was under case number VAR-002667-2026.

Um that application was withdrawn before a vote or decision was made.

Um for a variance to be granted, there are four conditions that must be found by the Board of Adjustment.

Uh one is unnecessary hardship.

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

Uh the staff analysis is that lots within Broken Arrow's original town site are narrow and long, which was normal for development at the time.

However, these normal lots present challenges and obstacles when developing to modern standards.

It only specifies a minimum of 26 feet for the build type.

The minimum width of 26 feet shown within the DROD does align with a two-way drive that does not have alleyway access as seen in the ordinance.

However, there are no specific requirements for those developments with a one-way access drive with egress using a public alleyway.

Two, unusual conditions, such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved.

Three, public good relief if granted would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the ordinance or the comprehensive plan.

The staff analysis is that the variance, if granted, would allow for more dense housing to be constructed in the DROD.

That itself is the goal of the DROD.

There are other existing driveways throughout the district that are variants widths, uh including some one-way drives with widths as low as 15 feet.

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

If a two-way drive needs to be a minimum of 26 foot in width, then a one-way drive could be considered to need a minimum of 13 foot in width.

The applicant in this case is requesting to reduce the width of the one-way driveway to be 13 feet.

One thing I'd like to note as well is that this applicant is different from a previous uh application that we had come before the board.

It's very similar in a lot of ways.

It's a very similar request, almost has the same uh address as well.

Um, but I do want to note that this is different from that um application.

That one was for a project on 202 Fort Worth.

This is 202 Elgin.

So I just wanted to uh state that as well.

Um staff recommend um that VAR-002919-2026 be approved, granting a variance for a 13-foot one-way driveway for a proposed flat style development on the subject property.

Thank you.

I want to note for the record too that board member Kamara Washington is now present.

Is the applicant here?

Would you like to speak?

If you'll state your name, uh you've got 10 minutes.

Okay, my name is Tamara Lawan.

I am with 66 ENG group.

We are the civil engineer on the project.

Um this flat build will be a two-story six-unit building.

We have laid out 45 degree parking with the 13-foot drive lane that we are requesting.

The spaces required for these units will be nine, and we have nine provided.

The alley access behind is a 20-foot alley that connects North First Street to North Second Street.

We have conducted a pre-development meeting.

Fire access was approved by the far fire marshal from North First Street, and we have maintained our 10-foot building setbacks.

Um it's just the driveway that the DROD does not specify for one way.

Okay.

Any questions for me?

Is the alley two-way?

It's graveled right now.

Okay.

It doesn't specify it is a 20-foot wide.

Okay.

Currently per plat.

And are these one bedroom units or two bedroom units?

I'm not sure on the bedroom count.

There are six units.

But nine that's required.

There are two code.

Okay.

Two.

I don't have any questions on it.

You have questions?

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

We also do have somebody that's here from the public that would like to speak.

Mr.

Frank Horton.

If you will state your name and you have three minutes, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

My name is Frank Corton.

Again, I just want to address the analysis here for a second.

Uh, under uh part two there, the analysis is says the geography of the parcel and the economics of the infill development and the requirements of the DROD necessitated a certain number of parking spaces per unit while maintaining setbacks and other required dimensional standards.

That's the city's statement or analysis, I understand.

That the fact that we're going to look at a variance based on the economics of the infill, I I find that to be wrong.

Uh you can buy more land or you can build less building.

But to approve a variance based on the ability to approve improve a developer's profitability is wrong.

I own a 4300 square foot home across the street.

You'll devalue my property when you put six apartments on a 10,000 square foot piece of land.

You can put four apartments on there, and the land value and the cost per square foot goes up, therefore keeping the value of the land up.

You can build less land, you can build less property or let less building on the same property and not need the variance.

Why are we asking for a 13-foot variance?

We could just build a narrower building by 13-foot.

What we're saying here is that the density and the ability to build higher density buildings is more important than following the ordinance that was accepted.

I would just like to oppose it because the city uh where I live here at second in Detroit.

I don't have an HOA, and I've stated that here before.

So I relied solely on the standard, the ordinance to protect the value of my property.

In fact, when I built in area five, which is the same area, I was told specifically on two occasions that I had to bring my driveway into the alley, which is a two-way alley, which by the way, are not 20 feet because the utility poles are in that alley also, and so are the other utilities.

Most of those alleys are not uh clear 20 feet.

So when we devalue the ordinance so that we can improve the profitability of a contractor, I just think that's wrong.

We got a $700,000 house across the street that we're gonna put a driveway in 13 feet wide so that the contractor can make more money on his return on investment.

And that's the analysis of the city that we're doing this for the economics of the in fill.

I'm sorry you paid too much land money for your land.

If you didn't pay that much, you would have to ask for the variance.

Maybe that's the case.

Or maybe you built cheaper.

I don't know.

But I'd like some help.

All right, thanks for your time.

Appreciate it.

Other questions for applicant?

Oh applicant, if you should so choose, you have a five-minute rebuttal period.

So do I have to reintroduce myself?

Okay, I'm sorry.

Um the issue here is simply the width of the lot itself.

If we were to move to what to a 26 foot drive aisle, the building width would only be seven feet wide.

We cannot construct a home of any sort at only seven feet wide.

This may relate to the same question, but could the driveway width be wider than thirteen feet and still accommodate?

We have a required ten foot setback at the front as well as the side.

Okay.

So narrowing the driveway would let you keep the required setbacks correct.

And give you a deep enough building.

Correct.

That's why we chose the narrowing of the driveway over impeding on the setbacks.

Yes, ma'am.

I have a question.

Has the developer considered putting less apartments on the property?

We looked at many options in laying out this structure.

Um it really is just the narrow, I mean, we're pretty much as small as we can get on the depth of that building.

We did visit the idea of on-street parking on first street, and it really didn't do any better than the parking behind.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

He has.

Okay.

Any other questions?

No.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I recall from earlier meetings on this project that the fire marshal noted that he can provide access from the street.

So the equipment would not need to go into the driveway.

Okay.

Thank you.

I move approval.

Second.

Sorry, I'll suck it.

Michelle Bergwall, yes.

Nay.

George Jesswire.

Yes.

Judd Hatch.

Yes.

Okay.

Our next item is for B.

Uh number two six-1041.

Yes, this is a public hearing uh consideration and possible action regarding VAR-002917-2026 or 7 Brew Aspen.

1.06 acres, commercial heavy request a variance for drive.

Or yes, for drive-through stacking lane placement, excuse me.

Located approximately one half mile north of West Tucson Street, also known as 121st Street, and just west of South Aspen, also known as 145th East Avenue.

VAR-002917-2026 is a request to allow a variance on the location of drive-thru stacking lanes for a proposed quick serve beverage facility.

Section 4-2-5.2 dot D of or excuse me, let me repeat that.

Section 4-2-5.

D.2 of the broken arrow zoning ordinance specifies that stacking spaces shall not be located between the front facade of a building and the public street upon which the building fronts.

The proposed development is located on a parcel without direct vehicular access to Aspen Avenue.

Access is provided through a platted mutual access easement along the rear property line.

This provided access is on the western side of the property.

Due to the nature of available vehicular access and the high amount of vehicle traffic associated with the proposed development, the applicant has decided to apply for a variance to allow for the stacking spaces to be in front of the proposed development.

The applicant is proposing additional landscaping as seen in the conceptual landscaping plan provided.

This will help to screen some of the stacking space area from Aspen Avenue while also increase increasing the aesthetics of the site.

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

One, unnecessary hardship.

The staff analysis is that the proposed quick serve quick survey beverage facility has two other locations in broken area, broken, and broken arrow with high traffic amounts necessitating additional stacking lanes and space.

An application of the ordinance on this particular site would not allow for the stacking lanes to be on three sides as shown in the plan.

Particularly due to the configuration of the lot and the location of the mutual access east.

Two, unusual conditions.

This parcel was platted as part of the peak development.

Provides vehicular access to the businesses while meeting the driveway separation requirement along Aspen Avenue.

However, this arrangement also creates a challenge in creating a functional safe functional site layout for a drive-thru facility.

Excuse me.

Three, public good.

The staff analysis is that the requirement for stacking space location is a requirement to increase the visual compatibility of storefronts and developments along an arterial road.

The proposed quick serve beverage facility is a unique business type with additional stacking space needs.

The applicant is proposing additional landscaping with vertical height to reduce concerns surrounding visual compatibility.

For minimum variance.

Okay.

Thank you.

John Rogers, Crafton Toll, Civil Engineer of Record on this project.

Thank you.

As noted in the report, staff report, we've we've done a few of these seven brew here in town.

And we'll apply for a seven brew remodel there.

So that's in the works.

And then we've got a couple taco bells that we want to build as well.

They're in design.

So to my knowledge, this is the only variance that we've approached the city with.

And it's necessary on this site.

It is concurrent with the most of the development.

Immediately to the north is McDonald's.

It's a brand new McDonald's.

And their drive-thru does wrap around the front.

It's not marked with pavement markings.

Their drive-thru queue will not be as long as 7 brew.

But that's the vehicle traffic.

That's to the north to the east across aspen, directly across from us is Chick-fil-A, and their drive-thru canopy is right there.

It's right up front.

And so that you know that one's right at grade with aspen, and we're quite a bit below Aspen's.

Uh, those cars visually will be tucked, tucked in below aspen uh line of sight for the drivers, north and southbound.

Um, and then to the south, it's a new build I noticed today.

I don't know what facility or what's being built to the south immediately neighbor, but uh they're on a corner lot, so I think that they've had to ask for a variance.

But uh, but yeah, their drive-throughs uh very similar to ours.

Uh that that uh traffic pattern is uh passes between the frontage of the building and aspen.

So appreciate your support.

Um this is a vibrant business.

Um, and uh we're proud to be a part of it and proud to be in Broken Arrow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a query, or just a clarification.

So the issue is basically that the stacking lane, it's not supposed to be between the building and the main street.

And that and because it is, that's where the issue arises.

And the the reason for that basically is because instead of accessing from aspirin and wrapping around the back like you normally would, you have to come in from the back and wrap around the front.

Right.

We we've tried so many configurations.

Um we wanted to maintain the cross access with McDonald's, but exactly how you said it is the most optimum design is to have as it's projected here to have our access uh at grade with the easement to the west, um the common easement ingress egress, and then we we come in and we circulate around the building.

So that provides us the maximum cue, way more than we need, uh, so we don't back out into any streets and anything anywhere close to that situation.

So, yes, sir, we it places cars between the frontage of the building and Aspen Street, so that's the that's the catch.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so the trees are your um answer for the visibility of the cars.

Um is there irrigation to those trees so that they can be maintained?

Okay, yes, ma'am.

It's not seeing that in the planning detail.

Yes, ma'am.

We'll have detailed irrigation installed.

Um, and yeah, it's very robust landscaping to offset the request here.

Thank you.

First staff is this the plot just north of the bank.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

And we do not have anybody from the public signed up to speak in regard to this item on the agenda.

Uh our motion to approve.

Second.

Sorry.

All right, motion to approve.

Second.

Michelle Bergwall, yes.

Kamara Washington.

Yes.

George Jessquire.

Yes.

Judd Hatch.

Yes.

Okay.

Third item for scene is for 26-1064.

Good evening.

Uh VAR002932-2026 is a request to waive the minimum 2.5 acre lot size for vehicle sales and retail for a property located at the northwest corner of West Houston, East Houston Street, and Highway 51.

This property currently is currently addressed as 7903 South Old Highway 51.

Um, is a.45 acre site that has one access point off of old Highway 51 and Euston Street.

The lot has visibility from the west side of Highway 51, but no access.

Um the property does have a 169-foot setback due to the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority right-of-way along Highway 51 there.

Uh the lot was originally platted in 1999 as Don Wells Auto Sales.

Uh, the property is completely hard surface with a small office building on the property.

The vehicle sales land use has been dormant for more than a six-month period discussed in the zoning code.

Um, in order for a variance to be granted, four conditions must be met.

Uh, number one, unnecessary hardship.

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

Uh staff's analysis is that staff believes the parcel has geographic constraints that impact the economic viability of the property for commercial use.

Number two, unusual conditions.

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

Um the only access is off of old Highway 51 by Houston Street.

The 169-foot setback for the OTA right-away from the new Highway 51 creates limited frontage visibility.

The peculiarity of the lot presents unique challenges that impact the economic viability of the parcel.

Number three, the public good relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the ordinance or the comprehensive plan.

Staff's analysis is that the variance, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good, or impair the purposes and intent of the ordinance or the comprehensive plan.

This parcel is identified as level six regional employment and commercial in the comprehensive plan.

And number four, minimum variance.

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

Allowing the platted property, uh platted as Donwell's auto sales to go back to its original use would be the minimum necessary to alleviate the unnecessary hardship.

Um for vehicle sales and retail satisfies all four criteria, and therefore staff recommends that VAR 002932-2026 be approved.

And I believe the um applicants is here.

Okay.

Would you like to speak?

If you need to guys are approving on it.

So uh this had been in use as a vehicle sales spot in the past, but went dormant.

It went dormant.

Uh per the zoning code.

If somebody starts a new uh same type use within six months of a business closing, it's grandfathered in.

Okay.

Once the six months has passed, it's no longer grandfathered.

Um looking at the the shape and location of the property, it's really constrained and difficult to find many uses that could operate there.

So many.

Well, I'm trying, I'm trying to figure out like how parking spots I can even get.

How a plot like this gets created.

If you have questions, you can bring the applicant down.

Yeah.

Would you mind coming down and we can ask you some questions?

So George, I really appreciated just watching the wheels turn.

Yeah.

So many questions.

Well, I mean, the first question: how did you end up with this property?

Uh it was supposed to be the millionth pot shop for the city, which you know we needed.

Yeah.

Um, and the licensing had changed, and so they couldn't get a license, and at that point it just was sitting for sale.

Um, we have a real estate office that we've outgrown, and so I've grown up here, and as a kid, it's always been a car lot.

So I thought, you know, what we put it up for lease for somebody that makes the most sense for it to be a car lot, but of course we need a variance.

Um just not a whole lot other things that you could really do with it outside of just a retail space.

So that's why we applied.

We don't necessarily at this point we're really in a lot of limbo on what we're going to do.

So even if you approve our variance, I can't say for sure it would be.

Maybe I'm not supposed to say that.

But um that's why we're here.

Can you just tell us your name for the record?

Oh, yes, ma'am.

Jake Sallier.

Thank you so much.

About how many parking spaces are on the property?

Are you aware of that?

The way we've got it measured out.

I know you said it's 169 feet.

I would imagine you could fit 30 to 40 cars there lined up along the fence.

Um, when we have a full office meeting, we'll maybe have 12 to 15 cars with tons of space.

Okay.

You may not know the answer to this.

Was the property originally deeper before the OTA?

Uh I don't know the answer to that.

I do have just several pictures that I've dated from Google Earth back to 99, and I've counted.

I mean, you can see, I can show you if you'd like to pass it around, but please absolutely 20 something cars here, and then we'll see whatever they've got here.

So this is that's back to 02 all the way to 2019 when it probably changed over.

Okay.

It's literally a concrete triangle.

That's it.

Yeah.

And you asking like so many questions.

How did it end up that way?

I mean, I th and I think you guys would all agree, just things start to tighten up over the years.

And so it's been like that for forever.

I remember it being Henry's auto sales when I was in high school, which would have been 02 to 04.

I knew the the owner's son.

Um so that's all it had ever been until they tried to make it the other dispensary, and then it just sat.

Gotcha.

Jane, what zoning is this in?

I don't see where it says that.

Turn my microphone off.

While they're looking that up, uh you had said you're not sure if you're going with the car lot.

Yes, sir.

That's what this variance is here for today.

So if it's for something else, then you'd be in a non-corum use.

Just want you to be aware of that for the future.

I understand.

I would I not have the option to stay like we are.

We could always undo the variance, perhaps, but that's what the variance here today is for.

Okay, so just and we would like to proceed with that.

Okay, yes, that's just that's just the scope of what we're here for today.

Understood.

Okay.

But that does break the bring the question if we approve this today and they don't start a car lot within six months, then do they have to come back again, Jane?

We have several several inquiries.

Okay, but I couldn't proceed, obviously, until I have your blessing.

And so I let them all know, hey, you know, that's great, but until we go through this process, we're kind of in limbo.

So this is uh level six in the comprehensive plan, which is regional employment and commercial, and the zoning is CH commercial heavy.

Okay.

So I think the Miss Bergwal's question, if this was approved, you would have a car dealership up and running in six months.

I'm sure we could accommodate that, yes, sir.

Any other questions?

Not from you.

Thank you.

Just to my question, if we didn't have a car lot up and going in six months, I don't want to be a car dealer.

But that like I said, it just made the most sense for me to be a landlord for that.

But if that didn't happen, it would just revert back to heavy retail.

Is that accurate?

If I heard the zone just typically the variance expires if you don't use it for what it's for.

Okay.

So I just getting educated, it's always interesting to sit down.

Yeah, it doesn't change the actual zoning of it.

Okay.

Fair enough.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

Oh, I'll motion to approve.

Sorry.

Motion to approve.

Thank you, George.

Michelle Burball.

Yes.

George Desquire.

Yes.

Judd Hatch.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

That concludes the uh public hearing portion of our meeting.

Uh item number five, general board business.

Do we have any not that I'm aware of?

Nothing from staff.

Okay.

Uh any other inquiries, comments.

No.

There's a motion to adjourn.

A motion to adjourn.

Second.

Michelle Bergwall.

Yes.

Kamara Washington?

Yes.

George Jessquire?

Yes.

Judd Hatch.

Yes.

We are adjourned.

Jabbled out.