Anyway, I took the liberty to review the FAA report and the section chart for Oklahoma City, I can't find any approach in the Oklahoma City airspace that goes over downtown, hence why I think there's no height restrictions in the OKC CBD. The FAA report indicated that the tower at the intended location would encroach EXISTING patterns (likely due to factor of safety, not directly). The closest pattern I could find with my unscientific eye, was the 17L approach from the south that circles around downtown. This pattern is still more than a mile from the CBD at any given path and at that time it is 3500', this building would be 3101', so basically giving 400' of vertical clearance if there were overflight.

https://airwaymap.com/preview/KOKC/36773

At 2932 AMSL, 4D,
MURAH THREE ARRIVAL, increase MOCA from MOVIE to IMAGE from 2900 to 4000, NEH 1900 AMSL. (Procedure serves: KOKC). Exceeds by 1,032 feet. ###
TSDEL THREE ARRIVAL, increase MOCA from PALMR to ISAKE from 3000 to 4000, NEH 2000 AMSL. (Procedure serves: KOKC). Exceeds by 932 feet. ###
WAYMN ONE ARRIVAL, increase MEA and MOCA from PALMR to ISAKE from 3100 to 4000, NEH 2100 AMSL. (Procedure serves: KOUN, KTIK, KPWA). Exceeds by 832 feet.

you can see, from the FAA report that the three approach patterns primarily impacted (mainly 17L WRIA) indicate TODAY the pattern would be a risk, therefore THEY recomend increase to 4000'. The report actually indicates might be relatively easy to modify since all three are recommended to a consistent height of 4000 vs the current inconsistency 2900 for one, 3000 for one, and 3100 for the other as they exist today. Might actually be in the best interest for everyone to just bump them all up to 4000'.

If the developer and city could agree, this could be done.

Just to ensure I wasn't senile as Ive been called on this forum, I quickly ran this by my son (a First Officer at United) to see what he thought. He doesn't fly KOKC but he indicated the airspace in Oklahoma City is NOT complicated (hence the FAA airspace rating) and there isn't anything really preventing such a tower to be built based on the current patterns; but he did indicate they would need to be modified as they appear to be established for Devon Tower and the antenna farm (which tops at 2046' and 2758 respectfully). I didn't ask him nor did he have time for anything more technical - but that quick analysis by 'not an armchair pilot' indicated what I was saying all along, the FAA report is motivated primarily by local authorities who IMO are not necessarily agains the tower but are bringing up landing patterns would need to be changed; which can happen. It's up to the city, developer, and FAA whether they will modify them for this tower at this location.