Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, March 1, 2000
1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City
Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic
Center
Members Present Members
Absent Staff Present Others Present
Carnes Boyle Beach Jackere, Legal
Collins Dunlap Counsel
Harmon Huntsinger
Horner Matthews
Hill Stump
Jackson
Ledford
Midget
Pace
Westervelt
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, February 28, 2000 at 9:17 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 8:53 a.m., as well as in the office of the County Clerk at 8:45 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 February 16, 2000 Meeting No. 2230
On MOTION of CARNES the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Boyle, Collins, Harmon, Midget “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of February 16, 2000 Meeting No. 2230.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Application No.:
pud-368 DETAIL SITE PLAN
Applicant: Leo Williams (PD-18)
(CD-5)
Location: Northwest corner of East 61st
Street and 99th East Avenue
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that staff has discovered some irregularities in the detail site plan compared to the PUD and would like to continue this case to March 15, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
This item was continued to March 15, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Application No.: Z-6751 ag
to cs
Applicant: John W. Moody (PD-17)
(CD-6)
Location: North of northwest corner of East 11th
Street and South Lynn Lane
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt reported that the Planning Commission has received a letter from an interested party requesting a continuance and a timely request from John Moody requesting a continuance to March 15, 2000.
TMAPC Action; 7
members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins, Harmon, Midget "absent") to CONTINUE Z-6751 to March 15, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Harmon in at 1:35 p.m.
REPORTS:
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that the City Council considered the amendments that the TMAPC adopted for the District 17 Plan and decided that they needed further study and has recommended the amendments back to the TMAPC.
Mr. Stump announced that the first meeting with a small committee (10) on Subdivision Regulations Revisions. He indicated that staff is sending out notices today for a 2:00 p.m. meeting on March 9, 2000, 5th floor conference room at INCOG.
Mr. Stump stated that there are no TMAPC items on the City Council agenda for March 9th.
Mr. Ledford informed Mr. Stump that a March 9th meeting will conflict with a state convention and many of the attendees will be at the convention. He requested that the meeting be moved back another week. In response, Mr. Stump agreed to change the date of the Subdivision Regulations Revisions Committee.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
L-18991 – Lance Woolsey (2093) (PD-9) (CD-9)
2814 East 31st Street
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to split his 254’ X 289’ property into three tracts. All three tracts meet the RS-1 Bulk and Area Requirements. However, the proposed configuration results in one tract having six side lot lines. This requires a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations.
The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed this application on February 3, 2000. The City of Tulsa, Public Works, and staff expressed that a utility easement would be required. Otherwise, the TAC expressed no concerns regarding the proposed lot-split.
Staff would point out that on October 14, 1999, the City Council denied a PUD that proposed a similar lot arrangement. Staff believes that the unusual shape and orientation of the southernmost lot does not meet the spirit and intent of the Subdivision Regulations. It would produce the same undesirable configuration of the front of one dwelling facing the rear of two others as the earlier rejected PUD.
Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of the waiver of Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split.
Applicant’s Comments:
Louis Levy, 5314 South Yale, Tulsa, Oklahoma, representing Lance Woolsey, submitted a site plan (Exhibit A-1) and stated that the lot-split proposal meets approximately 60 conditions set forth in the Subdivision Regulations that are designed primarily for lot-splits of a piece of property that is already in a platted subdivision.
Mr. Levy stated that there is a precedent for lot-splits in this particular area of town and specifically on this piece of property. He indicated that the property immediately adjacent and on the east, which is approximately the same size, was split into four separate lots 30 years ago. There are four single-family homes on four separate lots immediately adjacent to the east. Immediately adjacent to the
west is the home of Mrs. Rebecca Hilborne and she has no objections to this project.
Mr. Levy indicated that his client is planning to enter into a restrictive covenant agreement with Mrs. Hilborne, subject to the approval of this application. He stated that the restrictive covenants would prevent fencing being constructed between the two pieces of property.
Mr. Levy stated that previously the subject property was approved for a PUD by the TMAPC and denied by the City Council. He reminded the Commission that under the existing regulations and zoning the subject property could have five single-family homes. He stated that it is his client’s intention to restrict the subject property to three single-family homes, which would be the existing home and two additional homes with a minimum of 2500 SF each. He added that the minimum square footage is another restrictive covenant that his client agreed to with Mrs. Hilborne.
Mr. Levy pointed out that there are six adjacent neighbors to the subject property and they are the only affected property owners. He indicated that the six property owners were notified and he has discussed the issues with five of the property owners. He stated that he knows that the five property owners he spoke with do not have any objections to this application. Mr. Levy indicated that he has not been able to speak with one of the property owners. He reiterated that he does not know of any objections from the property owners immediately adjacent to the subject property.
Mr. Levy stated that during the TAC meeting it was determined that a sanitary sewer needs to be in existence or under contract for construction to serve the two new homes. He indicated that his client has signed a contract with a sanitary sewer contractor to install a sanitary sewer within 30 days after the deeds are filed.
Mr. Levy stated that when the original PUD for the subject property went to the City Council there were questions regarding the orientation of the two new houses and whether they should be oriented to the existing home or not. For esthetic reasons it was recommended by TAC that the houses not be oriented to the existing house and under the existing configuration it would appear that the existing house would front to the rear the proposed homes. This configuration has been altered and now the existing house will front into a u-shape area and the new houses will face the same direction, looking into each other.
Mr. Levy reminded the TMAPC that his client is requesting a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations regarding six side lot lines. He indicated that this is the only issue before the Commission today and all other requirements have been satisfied. He stated that the proposal is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Midget in at 1:45 p.m.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that the subject property is the same PUD that was approved by the Planning Commission; however, it was denied by the City Council due to the orientation. Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Levy if he contemplated bringing a new PUD to the Commission that would deal with the orientation of the new homes. In response, Mr. Levy answered negatively. Mr. Levy explained that he did bring a PUD to the Commission once for the subject property and the City Council denied the proposal. Mr. Levy stated that he feels that it would be a wasted effort to submit another PUD. Mr. Levy assured the Commission that his client plans to implement the same covenants into existence with the same conditions. Mr. Levy stated that the only issue today is the configuration of the lots, and the other two issues were suggestions of the staff and the TAC Committee, which his client has exceeded and will agree to. Mr. Levy requested the Planning Commission to approve the waiver of Subdivision Regulations with the condition that the two new houses will face into the existing house.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Brady Pringle, District 9 Councilor, stated that he is speaking for the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. He reminded the Planning Commission that the City Council denied a PUD for the subject property on the grounds that it artificially and unacceptably increased the desired density of homes in the subject area and did not meet the minimum lot size requirements for the underlying zoning, which would set a bad precedent for the 41st Street corridor. He commented that this proposal would be adding homes to one’s front yard.
Councilor Pringle stated that the applicant is now before the Commission in an attempt to get around the zoning and the regulations. The applicant is proposing to build two homes in approximately the same undesirable location and thwart the will of the City Council and the will of the neighborhoods of Ranch Acres, Columbia Circle and those neighbors across 31st Street to the north. He reminded the Commission that there were more than 50 signatures of opposition of the PUD. He requested the Planning Commission to deny this request.
Councilor Pringle stated that he is aware that the existing home could be removed and three or four lots created on the subject tract. After speaking with the neighbors, he agrees that this would be preferable to the subject proposal. He requested the TMAPC to consider the desires of the neighborhood. Councilor Pringle concluded that no one wants to see the existing home destroyed because it is totally within keeping of the character of the neighborhood.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked Councilor Pringle if the neighborhood is less opposed to the existing home being destroyed and four new lots created than the new proposal with the homes facing into each other. In response, Councilor Pringle stated that he has discussed this issue with several neighbors and they did prefer four lots oriented properly rather than the proposal.
In response to Mr. Westervelt, Councilor Pringle stated that the orientation of the homes is an issue. He expressed his concerns with setting a precedent by creating gerrymandered lots. He explained that there are large lots throughout the subject neighborhood and he fears that this type of proposal may become routine. Councilor Pringle stated that the main issue is the fact that the new homes will be in the front yard of the existing home and it is not consistent with the neighborhood. Councilor Pringle read and submitted a letter of protest (Exhibit A-2).
Mr. Harmon indicated that he would be abstaining from this item.
Mr. Collins in at 1:57 p.m.
Interested Parties
for L-18991:
Dr. and Mrs. Robert Morton, 3107 South Delaware, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105; Dr. and Mrs. Wayne Neal, 3115 South Delaware, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105; Suzanne O’Brien, 2930 South Delaware, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114; Jeanne Brawner, 2939 South Delaware, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114; Susan Mase, 2919 South Delaware, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114; WynDee Baker, 3131 South Columbia Circle, 74105.
The above listed
Interested Parties voiced the following objections:
The proposal will change the character of the neighborhood; orientation of houses creates two new homes in the front yard of the existing home and is not consistent with the neighborhood; the proposal will set a precedent for six side lot lines and homes in the front yards of existing homes; the proposal would be odd and intrusive to the neighborhood; odd-figured lots; Subdivision Regulations should not be waived in this situation and should not be undermined; adjacent neighbors are not in agreement with the proposal; more than six property owners will be affected by this application.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Kevin Coutant, 320 South Boston, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing Rebecca Hilborne, stated that his client has reached an agreement with the applicant if the proposal is approved. He indicated that his client owns the property contiguous to the west of the subject property. Mr. Coutant concluded that with the agreement and the covenants, his client does not object to this proposal.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Levy stated that there have been a number of similar lot-splits throughout the City of Tulsa over the years. He questioned if there has ever been evidence before the Commission indicating that the property values or residential amenities were injured in a neighborhood due to a lot-split similar to the proposal. He stated that there is no hard evidence brought to the Commission that would indicate that the proposal would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Levy stated that he does not believe that he misrepresented anything to the City Council or to the Planning Commission. He clarified that he stated that everyone owning property within 300’ of the subject property was invited to a meeting regarding the previous PUD. He stated that 300’ is the required area of the affected property owners on a PUD; however, on a lot-split application those people adjacent to the property are the only ones listed in the ordinance as being affected property owners. He indicated that he has invited all of these people and have tried to reach all of the people.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Robert Flynn, 2814 East 31st Street, 74105, owner of the subject property, stated that he has spoken with Rebecca Hilborne, Nelson Rice, Jack McNulty, and Charlie Robinson regarding the subject proposal. He indicated that these people indicated that they had no objections to this application. He stated that he tried to reach Dr. Morton in the past week, but was unable to reach him.
Mr. Flynn stated that he does not understand what his neighbors want. He commented that he couldn’t believe that his neighbors would want him to destroy the existing home in order to allow five or six lots. He stated that he is asking the Commission to allow him to do the same thing that Dr. Morton and Dr. Neal did on their properties, which is to split his lot. He indicated that the lots Dr. Morton and Dr. Neal own have been split before.
Mr. Flynn commented that he sees one issue today, which is that everything should remain the same. He stated that the proposal is legal, progressive and ecological. He indicated that he researched this proposal for one year before purchasing the land. When the neighbors stated that they would prefer the lots be larger and the houses configured differently, he enlarged the lots. Mr. Flynn concluded that the issue seems to be whether he destroys the existing home in order to split the lots. He requested the Commission to approve the proposal in order to prevent the existing home from being destroyed in order to split the lot.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Midget asked Mr. Flynn if moving the existing home is a possibility and building additional homes. In response, Mr. Flynn stated that this is an option, but he really does not want to destroy his home. Mr. Flynn described the history of the existing home and its condition. Mr. Flynn commented that he plans to plant more than 100 trees on the subject property and develop his own property.
Mr. Flynn stated that the existing home appraised under one million dollars, but after the proposal is approved and developed he expects the property to be worth three million dollars.
Mr. Midget stated that he understands from Mr. Flynn’s description of the home and its worth that he is not planning to tear down the existing home. In response, Mr. Flynn stated that if he is pushed into that position he will have to tear down the existing home; however, it is not what he would like to do. Mr. Flynn commented that he would rather build in front of the existing home as planned.
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Flynn why he did not resubmit a PUD with the new orientation and covenants. In response, Mr. Flynn stated that he appeared before the City Council and Councilor Pringle made a motion to deny the PUD, and he assumes that if he submitted another PUD before the City Council again, the same would happen. Mr. Flynn commented that he feels that Councilor Pringle would deny anything proposed to be built on the subject property.
Mr. Westervelt recognized Mrs. Neal.
Mrs. Joanne Neal, 3115 South Delaware Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that she has lived in the subject area for 23 years and would like to see the neighborhood preserved. She indicated that her main reason for speaking is because she discussed this issue with Mrs. McNulty this morning and Mrs. McNulty expressed her objections. Mrs. Neal stated that Mrs. McNulty could not attend the meeting due to a serious eye infection.
Mr. Harmon out at 2:20 p.m.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Midget asked staff if the applicant could actually have four homes in the subject area. Mr. Stump stated that the applicant could build a cul-de-sac and have four lots, but that would require demolition of the existing home.
Mr. Carnes stated that the neighborhood did not get the RE zoning and by right the applicant could create four lots, but the lot-split proposes three lots.
On MOTION of CARNES to APPROVE the lot-split for L-18991 and waive the Subdivision Regulations.
No second and motion failed.
TMAPC Comments:
Ms. Pace stated that she felt comfortable with her vote when the PUD for the subject property was before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jackere stated that a PUD and a lot-split are separate processes. The considerations for a PUD has its own standards and the lot-split has its own regulations. Either the lot-split meets the Subdivision Regulations or it does not. If the lot-split requires a waiver, then there are standards upon which the Commission may grant or deny the waiver.
Mr. Midget asked staff if anyone from the subject neighborhood contacted the INCOG office regarding rezoning to RE. In response, Mr. Stump stated that he has not been contacted by anyone in the precise area. Mr. Stump indicated that ¼ mile north of the subject area there has been some interest in RE zoning, but he is not sure if it would include the subject area.
Ms. Pace asked if the subject lot were to be zoned RE, how many homes would be allowed. In response, Mr. Stump stated that with RE zoning the applicant could still have three lots if a new street were developed.
Mr. Jackson asked what the RS-1 front yard building line setback requirements are. In response, Mr. Stump stated that it would be a 35’ setback.
Mr. Horner stated that he felt that his vote was thoroughly thought out when the PUD came before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Westervelt stated that he is disappointed that a new PUD was not submitted, but understands the applicant’s reasons.
Ms. Pace asked if the neighbors have seen the new blueprint that was submitted today with the two proposed houses oriented facing each other. Mr. Westervelt informed Ms. Pace that there is no way that the Planning Commission can hold the applicant to the orientation of the houses with a lot-split application. In response, Ms. Pace stated that she understands that the Planning Commission cannot condition the lot-split with the orientation of the homes, but Mr. Levy indicated that he would place the orientations through the restrictive covenants.
Mr. Jackere informed the TMAPC that they have the power to impose conditions with the lot-split for waiver of Subdivision Regulations. He stated that a lot-split must meet the Subdivision Regulations and the regulations provide for modifications. Mr. Jackere read the Subdivision Regulations regarding modifications and conditions. The standards do speak to orientation and configuration and if that is important to the Commission, then conditions can be imposed.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of CARNES, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Carnes, Collins, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Harmon "absent") to APPROVE the lot-split for L-18991 and APPROVE the waiver of Subdivision Regulations subject to site plan review of the houses facing each other as indicated on Exhibit A as recommended by the TMAPC.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
GreenHill I - (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. It was approved by the TMAPC on January 5, 2000, but because of an error in the notice it must be heard again.
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.
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 County 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.