Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Wednesday, May 3, 2000 1:30 p.m.

Francis Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center

Members Present Members Absent Staff Present Others Present

Boyle Collins Beach Jackere, Legal

Carnes Hill Bruce Counsel

Harmon Ledford Dunlap

Horner Midget Huntsinger

Jackson Matthews

Pace Stump

Westervelt

The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, May 1, 2000 at 9:05 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 8:57 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 1:35 p.m.

REPORTS:

Chairman’s Reports:

Mr. Westervelt announced that he would be moving items 26 and 27 to the beginning of the agenda. He explained that the time for interested parties would be limited to three minutes on Item 26.

Committee Reports:

Rules and Regulations Committee

Mr. Boyle announced that the Rules and Regulations Committee recommend setting a public hearing for the RE zoning request for Oakview Estates/Timberlane.

TMAPC Action; 6 members present:

On MOTION of HARMON, the TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget "absent") to set the Oakview Estates/Timberlane RE zoning request for public hearing on June 28, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.

Director’s Report:

Mr. Stump reported that a record has been set for the March TMAPC receipts taken.

Mr. Stump indicated that there are no City Council items on the Thursday agenda.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Mr. Jackson in at 1:37 p.m.

SUBDIVISIONS

LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:

L-18750 – City of Tulsa (983) (PD-18) (CD-8)

Southwest corner East 71^st Street & Pittsburg

L-19047 – White Surveying (193) (PD-5) (CD-3)

205 South 85^th East Avenue

L-19048 – Electronic Research & Development (494) (PD-17) (CD-6)

Northwest corner East 11^th Street & 141^st East Avenue

L-19050 – Chris Johnson (1792) (PD-9) (County)

4949 West 28^th Street

L-19051 – Jerry Burd (113) (PD-15) (County)

8718 East 116^th Street North

L-19052 – Stephen A. Schuller (1193) (PD-5) (CD-5)

1220 South Memorial

Staff Recommendation:

Mr. Beach stated that all of these lot-splits are in order and staff recommends APPROVAL.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; none "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

CHANGE OF ACCESS ON FINAL PLAT:

South Pond Estates (463) (PD-20) (County)

West side of South Yale Avenue at East 185^th Street South

Staff Recommendation:

The proposal is to change the platted access locations along Yale Avenue to include an additional 30’ location for the purpose of providing access to Yale from another of the residential lots. One exhibit, labeled “Platted Access Points”, shows the access locations as approved in the original plat. The other exhibit, labeled “New Access Points”, shows the proposed access locations.

The subdivision is located in an area of Tulsa County that is mostly rural residential. Most of the lots that have frontage on Yale have their primary access on Yale. The County Engineer has reviewed and approved these changes.

Staff recommends approval.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins, Hill, Ledford, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the change of access on recorded plat for South Pond Estates as recommended by staff.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

FINAL PLAT:

Restoration Church (PD-17) (CD-6)

North of northwest corner of 11^th Street South and 145^th East Avenue

Staff Recommendation:

Mr. Bruce stated that everything is in order and staff recommends approval of the final plat.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins, Hill, Ledford, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Restoration Church as recommended by staff.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

PRELIMINARY PLAT:

The Village at Centennial Park (192)(PUD 629) (PD-4) (CD-4)

North and west of northwest corner of Peoria Avenue and 8^th Street

Staff Recommendation:

NOTE: The following information was presented at the TMAPC meeting of April 26. At that time the discussion was continued until May 3. The requested additional information specifically related to parking will be presented at the meeting.

The following background information was provided at the April 4, 2000 TAC meeting.

GENERAL

The subject parcel is located north and west of the northwest corner of Peoria and 8^th. Several parcels at the corner are not a part of the project. Centennial Park, now Centennial Park, bounds the site on the north. The Cherokee Expressway is across Madison Avenue to the west. The cemetery is across 8^th Street to the south. The site was previously developed with single-family structures, which have since been removed.

ZONING

The project lies within PUD 629, which is divided into two development areas (A and B) and allows a mix of residential densities as well as commercial and office use.

STREETS

The project is bounded by Peoria on the east, 8^th Street on the south and Madison Avenue on the west. The project includes three access points into the residential area off of 8^th Street with one off of Madison. Access to the parking for the commercial/office area will be off of Peoria via a new entry through Centennial Park.

The plat indicates a proposed 16’ dedication along Peoria.

The proposed internal circulation system is a combination of 50’ public streets and 37’ wide public alleys.

WATER

Water is present from the previous development with a 6” line on the south side of 8^th Street.

SEWER

Sewer is present from the previous development.

STORM DRAIN

It appears that the project will use the existing detention facility in the west.

UTIILTIES

Staff does not have information regarding utility easements at this time.

Staff provides the following comments from the TAC meeting.

1. Streets/access:

· Somdecerff, Streets: indicated that the proposed dedication was to be 11’ to accommodate parallel parking, putting the ROW at 46’ from the centerline. Diagonal parking had been proposed and was not acceptable. He also indicated that the “Public Alley” behind the commercial structures would not be acceptable and that the area should be labeled Public Parking. A Limits of No Access should be placed along the Peoria right-of-way and the subdivision regulations should be waived regarding radii at intersections, on a site-specific basis.

· Staff questioned Tanner (engineer) regarding parking and the setbacks of garage doors from the right-of-way line. Tanner indicated that parking had been an item of discussion and that setbacks would vary; in most cases driveways would not be long enough to accommodate a vehicle on a lot in front of the garage.

2. Sewer:

· Bolding, PW/Engineering: indicated that the easterly run would be maintained and that the rest would need to be abandoned.

3. Water:

· Lee, PW/Water: no comments.

4. Storm Drainage:

· McCormick, Stormwater: indicated that an easement would be specifically required for the storm sewer, or it should be included in the Reserve. Language should be included to allow the use of the existing basin the park.

5. Utilities:

· Pierce, PSO: requested a 10’ easement along the Peoria right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding building setbacks, potential landscaping and paving, the parallel parking in the area and the need to serve future development. Tanner indicated that such an easement may not be possible and requested not to include it.

· Miller, ONG: requested easement outside the Norfolk and Owasso rights-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding franchise agreements and the utilities’ ability to locate in the ROW. Miller indicated that the requirement to relocate a line at the City’s request made location in the ROW unacceptable. Tanner indicated that the project was too tight to accommodate an easement outside the ROW. No agreement was reached.

Additional Staff Comments:

This project is fairly unique in the Tulsa area. Described as an infill project, it incorporates mixed uses (commercial/office/residential) along the Peoria frontage and small lots (typically 26’ x 75’) with a limited variety of housing types in the remainder. Side yard setbacks are zero. Pedestrian access to units is from one side (typically the public street); garages are on the opposite side (typically accessed from an alley). A purpose of this arrangement is to create an urban feel, oriented to the pedestrian rather than the vehicle.

Given the proposed setback of the garage from the property line (typically less than five feet), parking will primarily occur within garages. Some on-street parking is available, primarily on Norfolk, Owasso and abutting the development on 8^th Street. Additional parking is available in the City lot to the northwest and in the parking associated with the commercial area.

Vehicular access to the commercial area will be via a new parking area to the north, accessing through the park. Multi-use lots are also 25’ wide. The current intent is for retail use on the ground floor with offices and living space above. Garages will be located at the rear of each lot with doors facing to the west; access from the parking area to the commercial space will be via rear entries, grouped to serve two 25’ spaces at a time.

Regarding easements: PSO has voiced concern regarding the ability to obtain an easement along the eastern boundary of the site. Staff would note that this area is zoned CH which allows zero building setbacks. The PUD allows structures to the property line. ONG voiced a concern regarding obtaining easement along the interior public streets. The engineer indicated that dedicating this easement would adversely impact project density, creating issue as to viability. ONG indicated concern regarding using the public right-of-way, noting that the franchise agreement required lines to be moved at the City’s request at the utilities’ cost. Discussions with Bill Cyganovich of Public Works indicate additional agreements providing some protection to the utility would violate the franchise agreement. He also indicated that he believed the chances were small of the City asking for the line to be moved in a street such as Owasso or Norfolk, particularly when not used for driveway access.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following:

Waivers of Subdivision Regulations:

1. Waiver of the 25’ radius requirement for right-of-way at minor street intersections.

Special Conditions:

1. Resolution of the utility easement issues as noted above.

2. Sanitary sewer line abandonment through written request.

3. Access from Peoria will be prohibited.

4. Street dedications should be clearly noted/referenced.

5. Storm drain easement to the satisfaction of Public Works.

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 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 Public Works Department.

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. All lots, streets, building lines, easements, etc., shall be completely dimensioned.

17. The key or location map shall be complete.

18. 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.)

19. 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.)

20. Applicant is advised to of his responsibility to contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act.

21. If the owner is a Limited Liability Corporation (L.L.C.), a letter from an attorney stating that the L.L.C. is properly organized to do business in Oklahoma is required.

22. All other Subdivision Regulations shall be met prior to release of final plat.

Applicant’s Comments:

Ricky Jones, Tanner Consulting, 2202 East 49^th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that the plat meets the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Code for off-street parking requirements and the PUD requirements. He explained that he has designed an exhibit, which indicates the visitor parking availability (exhibit was not submitted to the Planning Commission).

Mr. Jones explained that in Block 2 there is a large vacant area and it is for off-street parking (57 parking spaces). There is a curved circular area that is owned by the City and is in agreement with the subject development to provide off-street parking. There is parking available off-site in the park at the Senior Citizens Center as well.

Mr. Jones stated that within the Subdivision Plat there is on-site parallel parking on the street and public parking available along 8^th Street, plus along Peoria. These streets are constructed to be 30 feet in width, which will provide parking on the street and could possibly allow parking on both sides of the street; however that is not the desire.

Mr. Jones indicated that the greatest distance anyone would have to walk is approximately 185’, which would be from the west end of the project. He stated that there are 103 residential lots and each have two parking spaces that are enclosed. There are approximately 12,000 SF of commercial uses that are permitted by the PUD in Block 2, and there will be over 32 parking spaces allowed for visitor parking. The parking shown today exceeds what is required by the Zoning Code.

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt asked how many parking spaces are in each highlighted place on his exhibit. Mr. Jones stated that there are approximately 143 parking spaces available for visitors, not counting the Senior Citizen Center, which has 90 spaces.

Ms. Pace asked if Madison Avenue is currently wide enough for parking on one side. In response, Mr. Jones stated that it is not currently wide enough for parking on one side; however, it will be brought up to the 30-foot standard. Mr. Jones explained that parking along Madison Avenue is not desired because the detention area will be an esthetic feature, which the cars would block if they were allowed to park along Madison Avenue. Ms. Pace asked Mr. Jones if he would be requesting posted no parking on either side of Madison Avenue. In response, Mr. Jones stated that to his knowledge there would not be a request for no parking along Madison Avenue. Mr. Jones stated that if parking becomes a problem along Madison Avenue, the homeowners or the developer could go to the City and request a no parking zone. Mr. Jones indicated that seven parking spaces would be available on one side along Madison Avenue.

Interested Parties Comments:

Michael Bates, 4727 East 23^rd, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114, representing Midtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations, stated that he is in support of this application.

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Boyle stated that Mr. Jones has made a compelling presentation that there is parking available at various locations. This is a unique proposal and it causes some concerns regarding parking, but it is a good development and the parking is addressed.

Mr. Carnes stated that he would be abstaining from voting on this issue.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 6-0-1 (Boyle, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; Carnes ”abstaining"; Collins, Hill, Ledford, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary Plat for the Village at Centennial Park, subject to waiver of Subdivision Regulations and subject to special conditions and standard conditions as recommended by staff.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Asbury United Methodist Church - (684) (PD-18) (CD-8)

Southeast corner of East 66^th Street South and Mingo Road

Staff Recommendation:

This plat consists of one lot in one block on 34.97 acres. It will be developed as a church and church accessory uses.

The following were discussed April 20, 2000 at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:

1. Zoning:

· The property was rezoned from CO to AG in November 1999 and the City Board of Adjustment approved church use on this property in December 1999. The BOA approval triggered the platting requirement.

2. Streets/access:

The plat dedicates 30 feet of right-of-way for 66^th Street and establishes limits of access along Mingo Road. Are the access limits ok? What is the purpose of the configuration of right-of-way at the northwest corner of the property?

French, Traffic, asked that the location of the school drives across Mingo be verified. The access limits are fine. He also asked if 66^th Street would be a collector, and if so, it would require sidewalks.
Sack, applicant, stated that the odd configuration in the northwest corner is to allow alignment with the existing drive across Mingo. He also stated that 66^th Street would be a collector.
Beach, staff, stated that sidewalks would be required on both sides of the collector street according to the Subdivision Regulations.
French, Traffic, stated that the improvements to 66^th street would need to be included in a PFPI.
Somdecerff, Transportation, stated that the book and page numbers for the notch in the northwest corner of the property need to be shown on the plat.

3. Sewer:

· Our atlas doesn’t show any sewer adjacent to the property. Where will service come from? Are easements needed to extend the sewer to other adjacent properties? Where?

· Bolding, Wastewater, stated that the sewer would be extended along Mingo from about 500’ north as part of the intersection improvement project at 66^th and Mingo. Additional easements probably won’t be needed within this project.

4. Water:

· Our atlas shows an 8” water line off-site along the south property line and a 48” water line along the east side of Mingo. Where will service come from? Are additional easements needed? Where? What provisions need to be made for fire service?

· Murphree, Water, stated that water mains are available on all sides of the property. There may be a requirement for additional easements and an extension, depending what the Fire Marshal will require. No one was in attendance from the Fire Marshal’s office.

5. Storm Drainage:

· No grading plans or site plans were submitted. The natural drainage is from southwest to northeast. Are there drainage issues or detention requirements? PFPI’s?

· McCormick, Stormwater, stated that fees in lieu of detention would be permissible on this project. All drainage should be toward Mingo and a PFPI would be required if the on-site drainage system is tied to the public storm sewer.

6. Other:

· Are the perimeter easements acceptable as shown? Are there any other issues?

· Pierce, PSO requested that the 11-foot easements shown be enlarged to 17.5’. There were no other issues mentioned.

TAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the preliminary plat.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the standard and special conditions listed below.

Waivers of Subdivision Regulations:

1. None requested.

Special Conditions:

1. None needed.

Standard Conditions:

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.)

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.

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.]

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.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins, Hill, Ledford, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary plat for Asbury United Methodist Church, subject to standard conditions as recommended by staff.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Oak Point - (2093) (PD-6) CD-9)

West side of South Birmingham Avenue at East 33^rd Street

Staff Recommendation:

This plat consists of five lots and one reserve in one block on 1.92 acres. It will be developed as single-family residential lots under RS-1 zoning.

The following were discussed April 20, 2000 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 appear to meet these requirements, so no Board of Adjustment action would be required to create these lots. There is no PUD or zoning change anticipated. The building lines shown are consistent with Zoning Code requirements except along Birmingham. If garages are accessed from this side, they will be required to set back 20 feet.

2. Streets/access:

All lots have frontage on a proposed public cul-de-sac to be called East 33^rd Street South. The street would be accessed from South Birmingham Avenue and is approximately 150 feet long.

Somdecerff, Transportation, asked that the book and page number for the Birmingham Avenue right-of-way be shown on the face of the plat.

3. Sewer:

· Our atlas page 94 shows sanitary sewer along the west end of the north property line and along the west property line through the existing easement in Reserve A. Staff is not aware of any sewer issues.

· Bolding, Wastewater, stated that the sewer will need to be extended to serve Lots 4 and 5.

4. Water:

· Our atlas page 94 shows an existing 6” water line in Birmingham Avenue along the east property line. Staff is not aware of any water issues.

· Murphree, Water, stated that the water main would need to be extended from Birmingham Ave.

5. Storm Drainage:

· No grading plans or site plans were submitted. The natural drainage is from east to west. The Reserve "A" shown between Lots 2 and 3 is for stormwater detention.

· There were no concerns related to storm drainage.

6. Other:

· Deed of Dedication language should be changed to say “….dedicate to the public…”, rather than, “….for public use…”, per recent Legal Department comments. Are the perimeter easements acceptable as shown? Are there any other issues?

· Pierce, PSO requested two 5’ U/E’s along the side lot line between Lots 3 and 4.

There were no other issues mentioned.

TAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the preliminary plat.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the standard and special conditions listed below.