Broken Arrow planners preview zoning ordinance rewrite; staff to publish for public hearing

City planning staff reviewed a proposed update to Broken Arrow’s zoning ordinance that would consolidate multiple single‑family districts into three new residential districts, add smaller‑lot options to support duplexes and row houses, and standardize buffering and design requirements; the Planning Commission and council discussed changes but took no formal action.

Amanda Yamaguchi, planning and development manager, said the rewrite focuses on housing, consolidating the existing six single‑family districts into three: RS (traditional single family, 60‑foot lot frontage), RSC (smaller single family, 50‑foot frontage) and RSP (single‑family preservation, smaller lots designed to allow duplexes, row houses and vertically stacked units with design controls). The proposed draft also uses standards to control perceived density by requiring amenity and open space and a 50‑foot buffer between new small‑lot neighborhoods and adjacent existing neighborhoods.

“This zoning district really allows for that,” Yamaguchi said when describing RSP and downtown‑scale row houses.

Staff described several text clarifications since the previous draft, including removing language that asked staff to “conserve the value of buildings and land” because it was too subjective, and updating wording to clarify that the comprehensive plan is a guiding, not binding, document.

Commissioners and councilmembers asked detailed questions about how the code would govern massing, setbacks, facades and transitions to existing neighborhoods. Several members asked whether the city can require specific facade materials such as masonry on single‑family homes; staff said state law and case law limit the city’s authority to mandate materials for single‑family residences and that such requirements historically have been implemented through negotiated Planned Unit Development agreements rather than as a mandatory citywide standard.

“We didn’t feel like it’s something that we can legally require on single family residential,” a staff member said regarding mandatory masonry percentages; the meeting record notes PUD commitments remain an available tool.

Staff said the draft includes a maximum building height standard (commonly 35 feet in single‑family districts) and clarified rules such as limiting the jog between front setbacks to five feet so new infill does not look visually jarring next to older homes. Downtown areas remain subject to a separate DROD standard that allows smaller front setbacks appropriate for main‑street development.

No formal zoning vote was taken. Staff requested permission to publish the revised ordinance for public notice; they said publication must occur at least 20 days before a public hearing. If published as planned, staff proposed taking the draft to the Planning Commission for recommendation on April 10, holding a City Council preview on May 15, and scheduling ordinance adoption on May 6 (dates provided by staff in the meeting).

Commissioners and councilmembers also discussed next steps for implementation, public engagement and coordination with the school district; staff said they have met with the schools and formed task groups with community partners to assess potential enrollment impacts and to explore incentives for teacher and public‑safety housing.

Why it matters: the zoning rewrite is the primary regulatory step that will implement the housing study’s findings; the proposed changes would broaden housing types allowed by right, change lot‑size norms for infill, and build in design controls intended to manage transitions and preserve neighborhood character.

What’s next: staff will publish the ordinance for public notice, schedule a public hearing and return to the Planning Commission and City Council with a recommended ordinance and map updates.