Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, February 16,
2000 1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City
Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic
Center
Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Others
Present
Collins Boyle Beach Swiney, Legal
Carnes Midget Dunlap Counsel
Harmon Huntsinger
Hill Matthews
Horner Stump
Jackson
Ledford
Pace
Westervelt
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, February 14, 2000 at 9:20 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 9:09 a.m., as well as in the office of the County Clerk at 9:06 a.m.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair Westervelt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Minutes:
Approval of the minutes of January 19, 2000 Meeting No. 2227
On MOTION of HARMON the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Boyle, Midget “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of January 19, 2000 Meeting No. 2227.
Approval of the minutes of January 26, 2000 Meeting No. 2228
On MOTION of HORNER the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Boyle, Midget “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of January 26, 2000 Meeting No. 2228.
Approval of the minutes of February 2, 2000 Meeting No. 2229
On MOTION of HILL the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Boyle, Midget “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of February 2, 2000 Meeting No. 2229.
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt announced that he will be abstaining from Z-6744 and
Z-6745 Plat Waivers. He indicated that
Vice-Chair Jackson would chair during these two items.
Committee Reports:
Mr. Horner reported that the committee had a meeting today at 11:30 a.m. and the next time the Budget and Work Program is discussed, the findings will be brought to the Planning Commission for their support and then on to the Mayor’s office.
Mr. Ledford reported that the committee had a meeting today at 11:30 a.m. and the proposed amendments for the Kendall-Whittier Neighborhood Master Plan and the Major Street and Highway Plan will be on today’s agenda. He indicated that both items were approved. He stated that the CIP requests were also discussed today and were found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and will be brought to the Planning Commission February 23, 2000.
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Stump what date the public hearing should be set for the proposed Subdivision Regulations amendments. Mr. Stump stated that staff recommends the March 22nd meeting for the public hearing. Mr. Stump reminded the Planning Commission that the Rules and Regulations Committee met on these proposals two weeks ago.
Mr. Westervelt directed staff to set the Subdivision Regulations amendments to be on the March 22 TMAPC meeting agenda.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump stated that there is one item which is a zoning item on the City Council agenda.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.: z-6750 rs-3
to cs
Applicant: Kenneth McEver (PD-8)
(CD-2)
Location: Northwest corner of West 61st
Street and South 32nd West Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
RELEVANT ZONING HISTORY:
BOA-18559 January 2000: The Board of Adjustment denied a request for
a variance of the required parking spaces on property located on the northeast
corner of W. 61st Street S. and South 32nd West Avenue
and across 32nd West Avenue from the subject tract. This property was previously occupied by an
adult entertainment establishment (bar).
A Certificate of Occupancy has been denied and the business is presently
empty because the occupant cannot meet parking requirements.
Z-6543/CZ-226 August 1996: A request to
rezone a tract located south of the southwest corner of West 59th
Street S. and South 33rd West Avenue from residential to commercial. The tract included two 110¢ lots within
the city limits and additional 62¢ strip adjoining the lots on the west that are in the
County. The request was to rezone from RS-3
and RS to CS for a laundromat business.
All concurred in approval of the request.
Z-6298 April 1996: A request was filed to rezone three residential lots, abutting the subject tract on the northwest, from RS-3 to CG. Staff and TMAPC recommended denial of the requested CG zoning and all concurred in approval of CS zoning.
Z-6091 February 1986: All concurred in approval of a request to rezone the half-acre tract located in the northeast corner of West 61st Street South and South 33rd West Avenue and abutting the subject tract on the west, from RS-3 to CS.
SITE ANALYSIS: The subject property is approximately .87 acres in size and is located on the northwest corner of West 61st Street South and South 32nd West Avenue. The property is sloping, non- wooded, vacant, and zoned RS-3.
STREETS:
Existing Access MSHP Design. Exist. No. Lanes Surface Curbs
W. 61st Street South 100¢ 2 lanes Paved No
S. 32nd West Ave. 50¢ 2 lanes Paved No
The Major Street Plan designates West 61st Street South as a secondary arterial street. The City of Tulsa 1996 – 1997 traffic counts indicate 7,300 trips per day on South 33rd West Avenue at West 61st Street South.
UTILITIES: Water and sewer are available to the site.
SURROUNDING AREA: The subject tract is abutted on the north by vacant property, zoned RS-3; to the west by a strip shopping center, zoned CS; to the south by a shopping center, zoned CS; to the southeast by a vacant bar and parking lot, zoned CS; and to the northeast by newly-constructed single-family dwellings, zoned RS-3 and to the east by vacant property. It appears the properties immediately to the north have been cleared for development in conjunction with the single-family residential units to the northeast, as well.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The District 8 Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, designates the subject tract as Medium Intensity – No Specific Land Use.
According to the Zoning Matrix the requested CS zoning is in accordance with the Plan Map
New construction of single-family dwellings is taking place on both sides of South 32nd West Avenue north of the subject property and the existing single-family homes in this area represent a well-established and maintained neighborhood.
Staff can recommend APPROVAL of CS zoning on the south 118¢ fronting West 61st Street to a depth that would be in alignment with the existing CS zoning to the east, and recommends DENIAL of CS zoning on the remainder of the tract, finding that additional commercial zoning north of the 118’ depth would front single-family residential uses and represent a non-residential penetration into the neighborhood.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon asked staff if the 118’ recommended for CS zoning equate to one lot. In response, Ms. Matthews stated that the 118’ is the first lot, which fronts onto the arterial.
Applicant’s Comments:
Kenneth McEver, 6530 West 78th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74130, stated that he agrees with the staff recommendation.
Interested Parties Comments:
Councilor Darla Hall, Tulsa City Council District 2, stated that she is in agreement with the staff recommendation, which implies that the northernmost lots remain residential. She commented that the CS zoning on the 118’ does line up with the established commercial line and she does not object to the CS zoning on the 118’ of the lot fronting West 61st Street South.
Ms. Hall indicated that there is new development of homes in the subject area and she would like to see the northernmost lots remain residential. She stated that commercial encroachment on the northernmost two lots would be detrimental to the subject area.
Jeffrey Case, 5911 South 32nd West Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107, informed the Planning Commission that there are seven new homes in the subject area and he owns one of the new homes. He stated that he objects to the entire rezoning. He explained that the rezoning of the first 118’ will be detrimental to the area and new homes will not continue to be built.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Case if he was aware that there would be a screening requirement for the CS-zoned property. Mr. Case stated that if he had known that the subject lot was to be rezoned CS, he would not have purchased his home.
Interested Parties Comments:
Marvin McDonald, 3036 West 78th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107, stated that he is the property owner directly east of three lots with the proposed zoning change. He indicated that he is building new homes directly across from the lots with the proposed change. He stated that he does not have a problem with the southernmost lot being zoned commercially, but he does object to the northernmost two lots being rezoned.
Mr. McDonald concluded that he appreciates the staff recommendation and hopes that the Planning Commission follows through with the screening fence requirement. He indicated that the property next to the proposal did not have to install a screening fence.
Councilor Darla Hall asked why the request was not proposed as an OL district. She explained that she understands that the applicant wants to use the property for light office use.
Mr. Stump stated that because of the established zoning pattern it seemed to be more consistent to propose CS zoning in order to line up the CS zoning line. Councilor Hall commented that CS zoning is broader regarding allowed uses than OL zoning. Councilor Hall expressed concerns regarding the new homes north of the proposed rezoning. Councilor Hall stated that the current owner intends to sell the property for OL use, but it does not mean that the new owner will use it for OL if it is zoned CS.
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. McEver if he would consider accepting OL zoning rather than CS zoning.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Becky Hadley stated that the applicant is her father and she will represent him. She indicated that she would like to have the proposed property zoned OL because it is more restrictive.
Ms. Hadley stated that she would like to see light office space or a retail company use the proposed lot.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt informed Ms. Hadley that a retail company or boutique is not allowed in OL districts.
Mr. Stump informed Ms. Hadley that she would need commercial zoning in order to have a retail shop.
Mr. Westervelt stated that the applicant needs to articulate to the Planning Commission what zoning is preferred for the subject property. Ms. Hadley reiterated that she would prefer OL zoning.
Ms. Pace encouraged the neighborhood to call the Neighborhood Inspection Department regarding the existing CS property to the west that does not have a screening fence. Ms. Pace asked Ms. Hadley to point out which lot would be zoned OL. In response, Ms. Hadley stated that the proposal is for Lot 17, first 118’.
Mr. Horner asked Ms. Hadley if she was aware what OL zoning allowed and if it is truly what she would like the subject property rezoned. Ms. Hadley stated that the CS zoning is too broad and she would prefer OL zoning because it is more restrictive.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of JACKSON, the
TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Carnes, Collins,
Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no
"nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Midget "absent") to
recommend APPROVAL of OL zoning on the south 118’ fronting West
61st Street (Lot 17) to a depth that would be in
alignment with the existing CS zoning to the east, and recommends DENIAL of CS zoning on the remainder of the tract, finding that additional
commercial zoning north of the 118’ depth would front single-family residential
uses and represent a non-residential penetration into the neighborhood as
modified by TMAPC.
Legal Description for Z-6750:
Lot 17, less the South 10¢,
Block 1, Summit Parks Additions to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat thereof, from RS-3 (Residential Single-family High Density District) to OL (Office
Light District).
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
L-19017 – Steven D. Hardenbrook (363) (PD-20) (County)
18621 South 62nd East Avenue
The applicant has applied for a lot-split to take the south 70’ from Tract 1 and add it to Tract 2, and to split the south 25’ off Tract 2 and tie it to Tract 3. All three tracts meet the zoning requirements for AG-R zoning; however Tract 1 will not perc and the applicant will need to install an alternative system, requiring a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a waiver of Subdivision Regulation 6.5.4.(e) requiring a passing soil percolation test.
Proposed Tract 1 will have approximately 2.5 acres, exceeding the Department of Environmental Quality’s lot size standards of ½ acre for an alternative system. With the proposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations regarding alternative sewage systems, staff believes this lot-split would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties and would therefore recommend APPROVAL of the waiver of Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split.
The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of CARNES, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the waiver of the Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split for L-19017.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
RESCIND LOT-SPLIT TIE AGREMENT:
L-19019 – John Muselmann (1193) (PD-5) (CD-5)
1266 South Memorial
Staff Recommendation:
In 1991 the staff approved a lot-split (#17376) that split a 415.5’ X 30’ strip (Tract 2) from Tract 1. With the approval, Tract 2 was required to be tied to Tract 3.
The applicant desires to re-purchase Tract 2 and tie it back to the original Tract 1. Tract 1 and Tract 3 meet all the zoning requirements; however, the tie-agreement does not allow Tract 2 to be sold separately from Tract 3. The applicant is requesting that the tie-agreement from Lot-Split #17376 be rescinded and that Tract 2 be tied back to the original Tract 1.
The proposed split would revert the properties to their original tracts. Staff believes this lot-split would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties and would therefore recommend APPROVAL of the request to rescind the 17376 tie-agreement and of the lot-split, with the condition that Tract 2 be tied to Tract 1.
The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the request to rescind the 17376 tie-agreement and of the lot-split, with the condition that Tract 2 be tied to Tract 1 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:
L-18975 – Executive Title (1282)
7171 South Elwood
L-18998 – Bryan H. Herman (2092)
5302 West 39th
Street
L-19220 – Bob Buss (1292)
Northeast corner
East 16th Street & Pittsburgh
L-19011 – White Surveying Company (283)
South of southwest corner East 61st Street & Garnett
L-19012 – John H. Jones (1792)
6240 West 22nd Street
L-19015 – Tulsa Development Authority (2502)
2232 North Owasso
L-19018 – Kelly Legnon (1582)
8102 South Yukon
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Beach stated that these lot-splits are all in order and staff recommends approval.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Carnes "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAT WAIVER:
Reconsider Z-6734
(393) (PD-3) (CD-3)
63 North Yale
Staff Recommendation:
Staff Comments and Recommendation:
Considering that the purposes of the Subdivision Regulations would not be compromised and the City would have nothing to gain by requiring the property be platted, staff recommends APPROVAL of the plat waiver.
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? * √2
6) Infrastructure requirements
a) Water
i) Is a main line water extension required? * √
ii) Is an internal system or fire line required? * √
iii) Are additional easements required? * √
b) Sanitary Sewer
i) Is a main line extension required? * √
ii) Is an internal system required? * √
iii) Are additional easements required? * √
c) Storm Sewer
i) Is a P.F.P.I. required? * √
ii) Is an Overland Drainage Easement required? * √
iii) Is on-site detention required? * √
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 east of the centerline of Yale Avenue.
The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On
MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0
(Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Midget
"absent") to APPROVE the
plat waiver for Z-6734 subject to the full dedication being required to a total width of 50 feet east of the
centerline of Yale Avenue as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Z-6744 (294) (PD 17) (CD 6)
Staff Recommendation:
Staff Comments and Recommendation:
Considering the size of this property, the significance of this development, the growth in the area, and the requirements detailed in the accompanying checklist, staff recommends DENIAL of the plat waiver. The purposes of the Subdivision Regulations would be better served by platting this property.
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? NA
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? √2 *
6) Infrastructure requirements
a. Water
i. Is a main line water extension required? * √
ii. Is an internal system or fire line required? * √
iii. Are additional easements required? * √
b. Sanitary Sewer
i. Is a main line extension required? * √
ii. Is an internal system required? * √
iii. Are additional easements required? * √
c. Storm Sewer
i. Is a P.F.P.I. required? * √
ii. Is an Overland Drainage Easement required? * √
iii. Is on-site detention required? √ *
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? √3 *
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 of
ten feet is required on Admiral Place.
Applicant’s Comments:
Steve Schuller, 100 West 5th
Street, Suite 500, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, stated that he is representing the
QuikTrip Corporation. He indicated that
the proposal is for an expansion of a convenience store.
Mr. Schuller stated that the proposal would basically be a parking area
with some driveway access lanes to gasoline pumps on the adjoining
property. The only real improvement on
the subject property, other than the paving of the parking area, is a portion
of some truck scales.
Mr. Schuller commented that if there are additional street rights-of-way
needed to be dedicated, then it can be done by separate instrument describing
the dedication. He reiterated that the
proposal is a very simple development with open space and paving. He indicated that if there are any
infrastructure improvements required, the applicant can construct it and any
easements required could be granted.
Mr. Schuller stated that the proposal is not located in any regulatory
floodplain and his client is not changing the access location. He explained that currently there is a
church on the subject property and it has an access point and an additional
access point that QuikTrip will be eliminating. He stated that his client will be reducing the number of access
points to one, and if during the permitting process it is determined that it is
necessary to have an access limitation document, it can be easily drafted.
Mr. Schuller reiterated that the subject property would basically be a
parking lot. He indicated that there
would be no separate uses for which one would want to have a subdivision plat. He commented that the proposal is similar to
other instances in which the Planning Commission has waived the platting
requirement for a simple one-use development.
Issues that would be addressed by a subdivision plat are already covered
by existing ordinances and by the permitting process. He commented that requiring the subject property to be platted
would be a redundant-repetitive exercise and an unjustifiable cost. He urged the Planning Commission to waive
the platting requirement for the subject property.
TMAPC Comments:
In response to Ms. Pace, Mr. Schuller informed her that the subject
property was rezoned to IL and that is what triggered the platting requirement.
In response to Ms. Pace, Mr. Schuller stated that his client would comply
with the landscaping ordinance.
Mr. Ledford stated that he agrees with the staff recommendation. The subject property was rezoned in order to
meet the requirements of a lot and block.
He explained that this will require a sewer extension and if QuikTrip
doesn’t do this, then someone else will have to do this. He commented that he disagrees with the fact
that QuikTrip is developing a parking lot only. He stated that the subject property will be totally impervious
and will create runoff, which means the stormwater issues will have to be
addressed. Mr. Ledford concluded that
the Planning Commission should accept the staff’s recommendation of denial.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Schuller stated that requiring the platting of the subject property
would be repetitive. He explained that
easements can be covered by instruments of record and the permitting process
will address the stormwater issues. He
commented that he doesn’t know if a subdivision plat would add to the process.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon stated that the Planning Commission has looked at situations
where several separate instruments would be required to accomplish what is
needed. The Planning Commission has
determined in the past that a plat serves better in order to have all of the
information in one place.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of HARMON, the TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; Westervelt ”abstaining"; Boyle, Midget "absent") to DENY the plat waiver for Z-6744 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Z-6745 (693) (PD 3) (CD 3)
Staff Comments and Recommendation:
Considering the requirements detailed in the accompanying checklist, staff recommends DENIAL of the plat waiver. The purposes of the Subdivision Regulations would be better served by replatting this property.
A YES answer to the following 3
questions would generally be FAVORABLE to a plat waiver:
YES NO
1) Has property previously been platted? √ *