Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, January 5,
2000, 1:30 p.m.
Aaronson Auditorium, 400
Tulsa Civic Center
Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Others
Present
Boyle Beach Swiney, Legal
Carnes Bruce Counsel
Collins Dunlap
Harmon Huntsinger
Hill Matthews
Horner Stump
Jackson
Ledford
Midget
Pace
Westervelt
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Tuesday, January, 2000 at 8:30 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 10:42 a.m., as well as in the office of the County Clerk at 10:37 a.m.
After declaring a quorum present, Chairman Boyle called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Minutes:
Approval of the
minutes of December 1, 1999 Meeting No. 2224
On MOTION of HORNER the TMAPC voted 7-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; Ledford “abstaining”; Collins, Midget “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of December 1, 1999 Meeting No. 2224.
REPORTS:
Committee Reports:
Budget and Work
Program Committee:
Mr. Horner reported that there will be a work session on January 19, 2000 at 11:30 a.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that staff is preparing the Budget and Work Program draft for FY 2001 and it has to be submitted to the City of Tulsa in draft form by the end of January. He reiterated that there will be a Budget and Work Program Committee work session as Commissioner Horner stated.
Mr. Stump encouraged the Commissioners to submit ideas to the Committee within the next two weeks. He indicated that a memo will be sent to the neighborhood associations that are registered with the Mayor’s Office and the memo will be posted onto INCOG’s website.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
CONTINUED ITEMS:
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
THE ESTATES OF POSEY CREEK FARMS (1773) (PD-21) (County)
One-half mile west of South Harvard Avenue, north side of East 151st Street
Staff Recommendation:
Staff requests a continuance to January 19, 2000.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Mr. Ledford announced that he would be abstaining.
TMAPC Action; 9
members present:
On MOTION of CARNES, the TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; Ledford ”abstaining"; Collins, Midget "absent") to CONTINUE the preliminary plat for the Estates of Posey Creek Farms to January 19, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
FINAL PLAT:
TRINITY PARK (3304) (PD-16) (CD-6)
North of northeast corner of I-244 and 129th East Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Bruce stated that this final plat is in order and staff recommends approval.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9
members present:
On MOTION of WESTERVELT, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Trinity Park as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
THE ORCHARD (PUD-431) (2783) (PD-26) (CD-8)
6226 East 101st Street (west of southwest corner of 101st Street and South Sheridan)
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Bruce stated that this final plat is in order and staff recommends approval.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9
members present:
On MOTION of HILL, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for The Orchard as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
COVENTRY GARDENS AMENDED (PUD-469) (1814) (PD-15) (County)
East of East 96th Street North and North Mingo Road
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Beach stated that this final plat is in order and all release letters have been received. He indicated that staff recommends approval.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9
members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Coventry Gardens Amended as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
GREENHILL 1 (2993) (PD-6) (CD-9)
North of the northeast corner East 45th Street and South Lewis Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of 11 lots in one block on 3.82 acres. It’s a resubdivision of Lots 2,3,6, and 7, Block 2, 41st Street and Lewis Addition.
The following were discussed December 16, 1999 at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
1. Zoning:
· The property is zoned RS-1, which allows for minimum lot sizes of 13,500 square feet and minimum average lot width of 100 feet. All lots meet these requirements. No Board of Adjustment action would be required to create these lots. There is no PUD or zoning change anticipated.
2. Streets/access:
· All lots have frontage on a proposed public cul-de-sac to be called East 44th Place South. The street would be accessed from South Atlanta Avenue and is approximately 400 feet long. There would be limits of no access along the entire Lewis Avenue frontage.
· There were no specific comments.
· The utility easements shown were acceptable to the TAC members present.
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed below.
Waivers of
Subdivision Regulations:
1. None requested.
Special Conditions:
1. A
letter from the Stormwater Engineer stating that the proposed drainage plans
with the detention off-site are acceptable.
Standard Conditions:
1. Utility easements shall meet the approval of the utilities. Coordinate with Subsurface Committee if underground plant is planned. Show additional easements as required. Existing easements shall be tied to or related to property line and/or lot lines.
2. Water and sanitary sewer plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to release of final plat. (Include language for W/S facilities in covenants.)
3. Pavement or landscape repair within restricted water line, sewer line, or utility easements as a result of water or sewer line or other utility repairs due to breaks and failures, shall be borne by the owner(s) of the lot(s).
4. Any request for creation of a Sewer Improvement District shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Engineer prior to release of final plat.
5. Paving and/or drainage plans (as required) shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
6. Any request for a Privately Financed Public Improvement (PFPI) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
7. A topo map shall be submitted for review by TAC (Subdivision Regulations). (Submit with drainage plans as directed.)
8. Street names shall be approved by the Public Works Department and shown on plat.
9. All curve data, including corner radii, shall be shown on final plat as applicable.
10. Bearings, or true N/S, etc., shall be shown on perimeter of land being platted or other bearings as directed by the City Engineer.
11. All adjacent streets, intersections and/or widths thereof shall be shown on plat.
12. It is recommended that the developer coordinate with the Public Works Department during the early stages of street construction concerning the ordering, purchase and installation of street marker signs. (Advisory, not a condition for plat release.)
13. It is recommended that the applicant and/or his engineer or developer coordinate with the Tulsa City/County Health Department for solid waste disposal, particularly during the construction phase and/or clearing of the project. Burning of solid waste is prohibited.
14. The method of sewage disposal and plans therefor shall be approved by the City/County Health Department. [Percolation tests (if applicable) are required prior to preliminary approval of plat.]
15. The owner(s) shall provide the following information on sewage disposal system if it is to be privately operated on each lot: type, size and general location. (This information to be included in restrictive covenants on plat.)
16. The method of water supply and plans therefor shall be approved by the City/County Health Department.
17. All lots, streets, building lines, easements, etc., shall be completely dimensioned.
18. The key or location map shall be complete.
19. A Corporation Commission letter, Certificate of Non-Development, or other records as may be on file, shall be provided concerning any oil and/or gas wells before plat is released. (A building line shall be shown on plat on any wells not officially plugged. If plugged, provide plugging records.)
20. A "Letter of Assurance" regarding installation of improvements shall be provided prior to release of final plat. (Including documents required under 3.6.5 Subdivision Regulations.)
21. Applicant is advised of his responsibility to contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act.
22. All other Subdivision Regulations shall be met prior to release of final plat.
Applicant’s Comments:
Ted Sack, 111 South Elgin Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74120, stated that he agrees with the staff recommendation. Mr. Sack indicated that he would like to hear from the interested parties and then give his rebuttal.
Interested Parties Comments:
Donald and Virginia Bellows, 2415 East 45th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that their property abuts the subject property. Ms. Bellows indicated that she opposes the preliminary plat. She expressed concerns that the ground would be leveled and cause problems with an existing retaining wall, a 100-year old oak tree and drainage problems into her backyard.
Ms. Bellows stated she has lived in home for over 50 years and this proposal will change the whole nature of her neighborhood.
Tim Speicher, 4421 South Atlanta Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, expressed concerns with the entrance and exit to the subdivision. He stated he would prefer the entrance and exit be located onto Lewis and not Atlanta Avenue. He explained that the entrance and exit will be perpendicular to his home and the lights will be shining into his home. Mr. Speicher concluded that he is concerned with the integrity of his neighborhood if this subdivision is allowed.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Charles Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, stated that his client has met all of the technical requirements in the Subdivision Regulations. He indicated that his client would meet the conditions regarding the stormwater drainage.
Mr. Norman indicated that there would be a stormwater conveyance along the south boundary of the subject property running to the west. He explained that this would accurately handle the stormwater drainage along with the offsite detention facility.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Norman if it would be a better plan to have the stub street exit onto Lewis in order to not disturb the neighborhood. Mr. Boyle stated that the small number of lots will not cause a traffic problem, but all of the property owners will come out with their lights shining directly into Mr. Speicher’s home. In response, Mr. Norman stated that he can’t speak to the orientation of the interested parties’ home, but he understands that street is offset from Mr. Speicher’s driveway. Mr. Speicher stated that his home is south of his driveway, which would be in the path of the proposed street. Mr. Norman stated that there are eleven lots and the traffic will be minimal. In response, Mr. Boyle stated that he is not concerned with the additional traffic, but he is concerned with the disruption that the street causes the immediately-affected lot at the end of the subdivision.
After a lengthy discussion it was determined that the City of Tulsa Traffic Engineer would not approve access onto Lewis Avenue because of the high speed and the amount of traffic on Lewis.
Mr. Midget in at 1:43 p.m.
TMAPC Action; 10
members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 9-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; Midget ”abstaining"; Collins "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary plat for GreenHill I subject to special conditions and standard conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAT WAIVER:
CBOA-1669 (2813) (PD-15) (County)
North of northwest corner of East 76th Street and North Yale Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
Considering that the purposes of the Subdivision Regulations would not be served by waiving the plat on this property, staff recommends DENIAL of the plat waiver. The proper tool to accomplish the street dedication, additional easements, and restrictive covenants would be a subdivision plat.
A
YES answer to the following 3 questions would generally be FAVORABLE to a plat
waiver:
YES NO
1) Has property previously been platted? * √
2) Are there restrictive covenants contained in a previously filed plat? * √
3) Is property adequately described by surrounding platted properties or
street R/W? √ *
A
YES answer to the remaining questions would generally NOT be favorable to a
plat waiver:
4) Is right-of-way dedication required to comply with Major Street and
Highway Plan? √1 *
5) Would restrictive covenants or deeds of dedication be needed by separate instrument? √5 *
6) Infrastructure requirements
a) Water
i) Is a main line water extension required? √2 *
ii) Is an internal system or fire line required? √2 *
iii) Are additional easements required? √2 *
b) Sanitary Sewer
i) Is a main line extension required? * √3
ii) Is an internal system required? * √3
iii) Are additional easements required? * √3
c) Storm Sewer
i) Is a P.F.P.I. required? NA (PFPI’s are City only)
ii) Is an Overland Drainage Easement required? * √
iii) Is on-site detention required? √4 *
iv) Are additional easements required? * √
7) Floodplain
a) Does the property contain a City of Tulsa (Regulatory) Floodplain? * √
b) Does the property contain a F.E.M.A. (Federal) Floodplain? * √
8) Change of Access
a) Are revisions to existing access locations necessary? * √
9) Is the property in a P.U.D.? * √
a) If yes, was plat recorded for the original P.U.D.? N/A
10) Is this a Major Amendment to a P.U.D.? * √
a) If yes, does the amendment make changes to the proposed physical
development of the P.U.D.? N/A
1 Dedication
is required to a total width of 50 feet west of the centerline of Yale Avenue.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Beach if the reason for staff recommending denial is because it would take several deeds, which could be accomplished by separate instruments. Mr. Beach stated that all of the deeds could be accomplished by separate instrument; however, the principal reasons for requiring a plat is to consolidate the records into one sight vehicle so that future research on the subject property can be performed reasonably well. Mr. Beach explained that the research is easier when everything is on the plat.
Applicant’s Comments:
Joe Donnelson, 17440 South 89th East Avenue, Bixby, Oklahoma, stated that he represents the owner of the subject property. He indicated that he submitted a site plan to the County Engineer, which included an on site detention facility in order to obtain a grading permit.
Mr. Donnelson stated that he agrees with staff regarding the location and the dedications of easements, right-of-ways, etc. Under the present conditions there are utility easements along Yale, and by giving a 50’ easement it would consolidate these easements and he would be happy to do so. He indicated that all of the requirements have been met for the platting process.
Mr. Donnelson read a letter from Tom Raines, County Engineer, stating that his office does not have an objection to the plat waiver with conditions recommended by staff.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Ledford asked Mr. Donnelson if his schedule would be disrupted if his client continued the grading process in order to get the construction underway and still initiate the platting process. In response, Mr. Donnelson stated that he is in the process of grading the subject property today and he does not know what the church’s schedule is with respect to actually starting the construction of the church.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Steve Berry, 11710 North Harvard, Skiatook, Oklahoma 74070, indicated that there are people willing to do work for the church and he could use these people today. He commented that he understood at the TAC meeting that this plat waiver would be approved. He stated that he recently found out that INCOG was recommending denial.
Mr. Berry stated that the time and money are issues regarding this project. He indicated that the subject property would be developed for a church and nothing else.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Carnes asked if the 30 acres on the corner could be split off for commercial use. In response, Mr. Donnelson answered affirmatively. Mr. Donnelson indicated that, should the lot-split happen, then the 30 acres would be subject to platting.
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Donnelson how much time he would gain by waiving the platting process. In response, Mr. Donnelson stated that the only dedication or easement that would be necessary at this time, which would be required by plat as well, is the 50’ dedication west of the centerline of Yale Avenue.
Interested Parties
Comments:
No name given, stated that he understood that the plat waiver would be approved after meeting with TAC. He further stated that Mr. Raines was also under the same assumption. He commented that the plat waiver is necessary in order to save money. He explained that the church is doing all the requirements that they have been asked to do, but would like to save money by obtaining a plat waiver. He concluded that if and when the 30 acres on the corner is sold, then the owner could worry about the platting process.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Ledford stated that whether the development is a church or something else, it is still a subdivision and that is the reason for the platting process. The plat waiver was never set up to waive the requirements of platting on unplatted property and new development. The plat waiver process was to give some sort of relief for property that has already been through the platting process before and the owners are adding on.
Mr. Ledford stated that the plat waiver should be denied due to the intensity of the proposed development.
Commissioner Collins in at
2:00 p.m.
Mr. Westervelt stated that the Commission has found that many times by granting a plat waiver, it creates more problems for the City staff and for the applicant. Since time is not an issue and with the intensity of the development proposed, whether it is a church or commercial is irrelevant. The proposal is for a large subdivision of land and a plat would become a record for the future. Mr. Westervelt concluded that requiring a plat is the best way to handle this large subdivision.
Mr. Swiney stated that he is bothered that the applicant was under the impression that his plat waiver would be approved after meeting with the TAC Committee. He asked staff how the applicant arrived at this conclusion. In response, Mr. Beach stated that he apologizes if the applicant was under the impression that they would receive a plat waiver after the TAC meeting. Mr. Beach explained that the TAC meetings are a method used in order to gather information from various technical experts in the public sector. Mr. Beach stated that he remembers that there were a number of problems that should be addressed through the platting process. Mr. Beach commented that he does not recall anyone at the TAC meeting stating that staff would recommend that the plat be waived.
Mr. Berry stated that he attended the TAC meeting and assumed that if there were any problems it would come out during that meeting. He commented that there was some miscommunication.
Mr. Ledford stated that the different subcommittees spent a year on the plat waiver process in order to make it easier to understand and determine whether the property met the conditions that would allow a plat waiver. The plat waiver process has been of public record and in the hands of the consulting engineers. Mr. Ledford concluded that the owners could obtain a copy of the plat waiver checklist and answer the questions in order to determine whether the property meets the requirements for a plat waiver.
Mr. Boyle stated that the checklist is a tool that the Commission uses to make decision regarding plat waivers. He indicated that the checklist for CBOA-1669 does not meet the requirements for a plat waiver and there are reasons for not waiving the plat. Mr. Boyle stated that the TAC Committee understands that their job is to identify technical problems and the committee does not fill out the plat waiver form. Staff fills it out. Mr. Boyle commented that he does not believe that any of the checks are in the wrong place on the form. Mr. Boyle concluded that time does not seem to be an issue and the grading is underway; therefore, he would have to agree with staff’s recommendation and Mr. Ledford’s suggestion that the plat waiver be denied.
Mr. Westervelt stated that timing is not an issue and the church is well underway with their process. The difference between platting is that the church will have a picture to refer to as the site is further developed. If there is a plat waiver, the church will have nothing except a file full of legal documents. The plat is very valuable to the owner and the staff, because it will depict where easements are located.
Mr. Harmon stated that since the subject property will be a single use, he did not see how granting the plat waiver would be putting anyone at risk.
Mr. Carnes stated that in past experience, especially in the County with church properties, the process becomes entangled when trying to find out where the utility lines run, where streets are, etc. Mr. Carnes commented that he agrees that the church should plat the subject property and it will be up to the church in the future should they decide to expand.
TMAPC Action; 11
members present:
On MOTION of LEDFORD, the TMAPC voted 9-1-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; Harmon "nay"; Collins ”abstaining"; none "absent") to DENY the plat waiver for CBOA-1669 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Boyle welcomed
Commissioner Collins to the Planning Commission.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Application No.:
Z-6738/PUD-626 OL,
RS-3/HP TO CS/PUD
Applicant: Charles Miller (PD-6)
(CD-4)
Location: Southeast corner of East 15th and
South Owasso Avenue
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Boyle announced that this item has been withdrawn and it will be stricken from the agenda.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PARTIAL PLAT VACATION:
Oaklane Addition (PUD-617) (1793) (PD-5) (CD-4)
South side of East 21st Street at South Atlanta Place
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Bruce stated that this is a request for a partial vacation of the Oaklane Addition. He explained that the vacation of the plat is for the south side of East 21st and South Atlanta Place, which consists of three acres, (seven lots and all of Lots 1-6 and a portion of Lot 7). Mr. Bruce explained that the southern portion along the southern boundary of Lot 7 is being conveyed.
TMAPC Action; 11
members present:
On MOTION of HARMON, the TMAPC voted 10-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; Collins ”abstaining"; none "absent") to APPROVE the partial plat vacation for Oaklane Addition as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.: z-6721 rs-3
TO ol
Applicant: Susanne Thompson (PD-11)
(CD-1)
Location: 1440 North Quanah Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
Ms. Matthews
stated that this application was continued in order to give the applicant an
opportunity to file a PUD. She
explained that staff has not heard from the applicant and staff has not
received new information.
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: The District 11 Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, designates the subject tract as Low Intensity-No Specific Land Use.
According to the Zoning Matrix the requested OL zoning may be found in accordance with the Plan Map.
Staff Comments:
Site Analysis: The subject property is approximately 100¢ x 150¢ in size and is located on the southwest corner of West Pine Street and North Quanah Avenue. The property is flat, non-wooded, contains a single-family dwelling and is zoned RS-3.
Surrounding Area Analysis: The subject tract is abutted on the north by part of the Gilcrease Hills residential area, a large stormwater detention facility and to the northwest a vacant grocery store, zoned CS/RM-1/PUD-441; to the south by single-family residential uses; to the west by a smoke shop; and to the east by single-family residential uses, zoned RS-3.
Zoning and BOA Historical Summary: The most recent zoning activity in this area was in 1998 when a request was approved to amend PUD-232 located on the northwest corner of W. Pine Street and N. Union and west of the subject tract to reduce the number of dwelling units on the PUD, and changing the 198-unit condominium to 82 single-family homes.
Conclusion: Based on existing development, the provisions of the District 11 Plan and land use trends, staff cannot support the requested OL zoning on this site. The adjacent smoke shop has generated significant traffic at peak periods both on Pine Street and into the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood. The site is directly across the street from single-family residential uses that would face into the OL and probably would eventually transition into non-residential uses in the future. Staff therefore recommends DENIAL of the requested OL zoning.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Applicant was not present.
TMAPC Action; 11
members present:
On MOTION of HARMON, the TMAPC voted 10-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; Collins ”abstaining"; none "absent") to recommend DENIAL of the OL zoning for Z-6721 as recommended by staff.
Legal Description for Z-6721:
The North 100¢ of
the East 150¢ of
Lot 1, Block 1, Lombard Subdivision, an Addition to the City of Tulsa, Osage
County, State of Oklahoma, and located on the southwest corner of West Pine
Street and North Quanah Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma. From RS-3 (Residential
Single-family High Density District) to OL (Office Low Intensity District).
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Application No.: PUD-624
Applicant: Roy D. Johnsen (PD-11)
(CD-1)
Location: North of West
Apache Street, west of Osage Drive and south of proposed Gilcrease Expressway
Mr. Ledford announced that he
would be abstaining from this item.
Staff Recommendation:
The PUD contains 658 gross acres of land and proposes mixed uses including single-family, multifamily and commercial uses. The subject tract is located on the north side of Apache Street, west of Osage Drive and extending north to the proposed Gilcrease Expressway and extending west to 41st West Avenue. The subject tract was initially part of the proposed Gilcrease Hills development (approximately 1,600 acres) and was included within the initial zoning applications filed in 1970. The subject tract was zoned for single-family, multifamily and commercial purposes. No change in the underlying zoning is proposed. A summary of intensity permitted by the underlying zoning and proposed development is as follows:
Existing Zoning Proposed PUD
Nonresidential Floor Area 842,668 SF 820,387 SF
Dwelling Units 6862 D.U.s 4116 D.U.s
On July 23, 1997, TMAPC recommended approval of PUD-565 for the subject tract. PUD-565 proposed mixed uses including single-family residential, townhouses, apartments, a golf course and commercial development. At the request of the applicant, PUD-565 was never transmitted to the City Council.
Although PUD-565 and PUD-624 are similar in concept, there are some significant modifications. PUD-565 proposed a golf course and PUD-624 proposes a community center, additional residential, a senior care facility, a daycare center, a sports complex and a proposed school site. Alternative uses have been proposed for areas such as the school site and the sports facility site.
Most of the abutting property is undeveloped or sparsely developed with large rural style single-family homes. The exception is the area to the southeast, which is part of the Gilcrease Hills development. That area contains urban density single-family subdivision development on the south side of Apache Street.
Staff finds PUD-624, as modified by staff, to be: (1) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) in harmony with the existing and expected development of surrounding areas; (3) a unified treatment of the development possibilities of the site; and (4) consistent with the stated purposes and standards of the PUD Chapter of the Zoning Code.
Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of PUD-624 subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant’s Outline Development Plan and Text be made a condition of approval, unless modified herein.
2. Development Standards:
Single-Family Residential
Gross Area: 415.86 Acres
Permitted Uses: Detached single-family residences and customary accessory uses (Use Unit 6).
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 2,495
Bulk and Area Requirements: As provided within an RS-3 district.
Patio Homes (single-family detached)
Gross Area: 28.05 Acres
Permitted Uses: Detached single-family residences and customary accessory uses (Use Unit 6).
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 196
Bulk and Area Requirements: As provided within an RS-4 district.
Multifamily
Gross Area: 41.07 Acres
Permitted Uses: Multifamily dwellings and customary accessory uses (Use Unit 8).*
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 1,027
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Per Acre per Lot: 25
Maximum Building Height: 40 FT
Maximum Stories: 3
Other Bulk and Area Requirements:** As established within a RM-1 district.
*Use Unit 7a (townhouse dwellings) and Use Unit 6 (single-family dwellings) may be permitted by minor amendment.
** Additional setbacks and buffering may be required by TMAPC at the time of Detail Site plan review, depending upon surrounding use and physical features.