Broken Arrow Planning Commission
05-22-2025
To: Chairman and Commission Members
From: Community Development Department
Title:
title
Public hearing, consideration, and possible action regarding COMP-002093-2025(Comprehensive Plan Change), Aequitas Tucson Development, 11.72 acres, Levels 2 & 3 to Levels 3 6, & Greenway/Floodplain, located approximately one-eighth mile south of Tucson Street (121st Street) and one-half mile west of Elm Place (161st East Avenue)
End
Background:
Applicant: Wallace Design Collective
Owner: Aequitas Holdings, LLC
Developer: N/A
Engineer: Wallace Design Collective
Location: Approximately one-eighth mile south of Tucson Street (121st Street) and
one-half mile west of Elm Place (161st East Avenue)
Size of Tract 11.72 acres
Number of Lots: 1
Present Zoning: A-1 (Agricultural)
Comp Plan: Levels 2 & 3 to Levels 3 6, & Greenway/Floodplain,
COMP-002093-2025 is a request to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Levels 2 (Urban Residential) & 3 (Transition Area) to Levels 3 (Transition Area), 6 (Regional Employment/Commercial), & Greenway/Floodplain on approximately 11.72 acres which is currently unplatted. The property is located approximately one-eighth mile south of Tucson Street (121st Street) and one-half mile west of Elm Place (161st East Avenue).
The eastern portion of this property was approved by the City Council on July 19, 2022 for RM zoning with PUD-340. PUD-340 and BAZ-2113 were approved subject to the property being platted. At this time there have been no plats filed on the property. If this comprehensive plan amendment is approved and a PUD and rezoning applied for on this parcel, the previous zoning case and PUD would be abrogated.
The applicant is requesting this change to the comprehensive plan for the purpose of developing the property for three separate uses, divided by an area of floodplain. Pending approval of this amendment to the comprehensive plan, the applicant intends to submit a rezoning request to change the zoning to RM (Residential Multi-Family) on the west, IL (Industrial Light) towards the center of the property and CH (Commercial Heavy) on the east, along with a PUD. The applicant has provided a draft PUD document showing conceptual plans/regulations for this development. More details can be found in the attached draft PUD document. Please note that the PUD is a draft only and not being reviewed for approval.
|
|
Development Area A Proposed CH Standards |
Development Area B Proposed IL Standards |
Development Area C Proposed RM Standards |
|
Permitted Uses |
See PUD, specified uses that would normally be permitted in CH zoning |
See PUD, specified uses that would normally be permitted in IL zoning |
Duplex and Multi-Family dwellings, age restricted to 55 and older |
|
Number of Units |
N/A |
N/A Executive Garage/storage maximum of 32,000 square feet No maximum for all other uses |
Maximum of 55 units |
|
Lot Frontage |
100 feet for the development area, internal lots within the development do not have a minimum lot frontage |
100 feet for the development area, internal lots within the development do not have a minimum lot frontage |
100 feet for the development area, internal lots within the development do not have a minimum lot frontage |
|
Building Height |
4 stories or 50 Feet NOT abutting residential uses 2 stories or 35 Feet abutting residential uses |
4 stories or 50 Feet NOT abutting residential uses 2 stories or 35 Feet abutting residential uses |
2 stories or 35 Feet |
|
Building Setbacks |
Tucson: 50’ South Boundary of A: 0’ West Boundary of A: 0’ South Boundary of A: 15’ |
Tucson: 20’ South Boundary of A: 20’ East Boundary of A: 15’ South Boundary of A: 0’ |
Tucson: 20’ South Boundary of B: 20’ East Boundary of B: 0’ South Boundary of B: 20’ |
|
Landscape Buffer |
No Landscape buffer required |
A 20’ landscape buffer shall be provided along the southern boundary of Development Area B |
A 20’ landscape buffer shall be provided along the southern boundary of Development Area B |
The density of multi-family units meets what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance within a PUD.
• The RM district requires a minimum gross land area per dwelling of 2,200 square feet.
• Development Area C contains approximately 150,000 square feet dedicated to residential development.
• This allows approximately 68 units in the area shown to be developed as multi-family.
The proposed driveways shown in the exhibits do not meet the minimum separation requirements of the zoning ordinance. The separation requirements may limit the total number of driveways onto Tucson Street and will be addressed with the future PUD and rezoning applications.
Amending the Comprehensive Plan to Levels 3, 6, & Greenway/Floodplain, could potentially support a future rezoning to any zoning district identified as possible or allowed within the Comprehensive Plan level. Table 4-1: Land Use Intensity System Zoning District Table, of the Comprehensive Plan identifies these potential districts.
SURROUNDING LAND USES/ZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The surrounding properties contain the following uses, along with the following development guide and zoning designations:
|
Location |
Comprehensive Plan |
Zoning |
Land Use |
|
North |
Levels 6, 3, and Greenway/Floodplain |
CH & RM |
Undeveloped commercial and apartments |
|
East |
Level 4 |
A-1 |
Large Lot Single-Family Residential |
|
South |
Levels 2, 3, and Greenway/Floodplain |
A-1 |
Large Lot Single-Family Residential |
|
West |
Level 2 |
R-2 |
Single-Family Residential |
According to FEMA Maps, the center portion of this property is located within the 100-year floodplain. Future surveys done during the engineering and platting phases will ensure none of this property is located within the 100-year floodplain or require that any such area to be placed in a reserve area. Water and Sanitary Sewer are available from the City of Broken Arrow.
Attachments: Case Map
Aerial Photo
Current Comprehensive Plan Map
Aequitas Tucson Development Draft PUD
Recommendation:
Based on the location of the property and surrounding land uses, Staff recommends COMP-002093-2025 be approved, subject to the approval of a PUD similar in context being approved on the property and the property being platted.
Reviewed by: Amanda Yamaguchi
Approved by: Rocky Henkel
ALY