Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, July 5, 2000
1:30 p.m.
City Hall, Room 201
Tulsa Civic Center
Members Present Members
Absent Staff Present Others Present
Carnes Boyle Beach Jackere, Legal
Harmon Collins Dunlap Counsel
Hill Horner Huntsinger
Jackson Stump
Ledford
Midget
Pace
Westervelt
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, July 3, 2000 at 9:50 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 10:49 a.m.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair Westervelt called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
Minutes:
Approval of the
amendment to clarify minutes of April 26, 2000 Meeting No. 2237
Applicant’s Comments:
Roy Johnsen, 201 West 5th, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, explained that the amendment to the Warren Medical Center, PUD-435-D, is to clarify the small amount of land that was added to the development area and also subtracted some land from the development area. The minutes needed to be structured in a way that clarified the abandoned property and distinguished from the legal description for the land that is being added, which was the amendment to increase the size and a description of the resulting tract of land.
On MOTION of CARNES the TMAPC voted 8-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Boyle, Collins, Horner “absent“) to APPROVE the amendment to clarify minutes of April 26, 2000 Meeting No. 2237.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt stated that Z-6772, Item no. 9 would be stricken from the
agenda per applicant’s request.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Application No.: pud-346-A major
amendment
Applicant: Darin Akerman (PD-18)
(CD-2)
Location: Southeast corner of East 88th
Street and South Lewis Avenue
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt
stated that the applicant requests a continuance to August 16, 2000 in order to
prepare a new notice.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 8
members present:
On MOTION of CARNES, the TMAPC voted 8-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins, Horner "absent") to CONTINUE the major amendment for PUD-346-A to August 16, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are no TMAPC items on the City Council agenda for Thursday, July 6, 2000.
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:
L-18997 – Barbara Carson (193)
(PD-5) (CD-3)
902 South 83rd
East Avenue
L-19064 – Roy D. Johnsen (3093) (PD-6) (CD-9)
East of southeast corner
of East 43rd Court & Peoria
L-19066 – Curtis Evans (3073) (PD-21) (County)
16710 South Lewis
L-19075 – Paul Coury (1192) (PD-1) (CD-4)
1324 South Cheyenne
L-19077 – Leonard L. Busby (2674) (PD-19) (County)
16809 East Highway 64
L-19080 – City of Tulsa (494) (PD-17) (CD-6)
13502 East 11th
Street
L-19081 – City of Tulsa (594) (PD-17) (CD-6)
12515 East 11th
Street
L-19082 – Jerry W. Ledford, Jr. (3203) (PD-3) (CD-3)
2601 Dawson Road
L-19083 – Donna S. Pennich (3691) (PD-23) (County
5646 South 89th
West Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Beach stated
that these lot-splits are in order and staff recommends APPROVAL.
TMAPC Action; 8 members present:
On MOTION of CARNES, the
TMAPC voted 7-1-0 (Carnes, Harmon,
Hill, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays";
Ledford ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins, Horner "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior
approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as
recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Plainview Heights Addition Amended (PUD 618) (594) (PD 17) (CD 6)
422 South 129th East Avenue
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant asked that the preliminary plat be placed back on the agenda along with the final plat in order to ask the Planning Commission to waive the Subdivision Regulations requiring dedication of 25 feet of right-of-way along East 4th Place. He indicated that if this requirement is waived, the Planning Commission is asked to also approve the final plat as submitted. He stated that if the requirement is not waived, the entire item should be stricken from this agenda. The applicant will then modify the plat to make the dedication and will seek final plat approval at a future meeting. Mr. Beach concluded that the following is the balance of the preliminary plat report as presented on March 15, 2000 when it was approved:
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 2.49 acres. It will be developed under PUD 618, which is approved for selected light industrial uses.
The following were discussed February
17, 2000 at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
1. Zoning:
·
The property was
rezoned to IL and PUD 618 was approved in October 1999. The uses permitted are limited to uses in
Use Unit 23 except garbage trucks storage, truck stop, truck wash, truck
establishments, and building contract construction services. The PUD requires a 120’ setback from the
centerline of 129th East Avenue.
This should be shown on the plat.
2. Streets/access:
·
East 4th
Street (labeled “Place” on the plat) has the full width right-of-way west of
the tract but only half right-of-way along the north side of the tract. It connects with 127th East
Avenue and could provide access to 129th East Avenue for the
residential properties to the west and south.
·
Somdecerff,
Transportation, stated that the south half of the right-of-way needs to be
dedicated along with a 30-foot radius at the corner of 129th East
Avenue
·
Eshelman,
Traffic, stated that the access limits shown need to be reduced to 40 feet
each. He recommends the extra 36 feet
to be taken from the inside in order to make the drives as far apart as
possible (36’ from south side of the north drive and 36’ from north side of the
south drive).
·
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.
Indicate
required setback from 129th East Avenue.
2.
Dedicate
additional right-of-way to make a total of 50 feet on East 4th
Street and a 30-foot radius at its intersection with 129th East
Avenue.
3.
Reduce access limits to 40 feet wide maximum by taking
36 feet from the south side of the north drive and 36 feet from the north side
of the south drive.
Standard Conditions:
1. All conditions of PUD 618 shall be met prior to release of final plat, including any applicable provisions in the covenants or on the face of the plat. Include PUD approval date and references to Section 1100-1107 of the Zoning Code in the covenants.
2. 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.
3. 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. 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).
5. Any request for creation of a Sewer Improvement District shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Engineer prior to release of final plat.
6. Paving and/or drainage plans (as required) shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
7. Any request for a Privately Financed Public Improvement (PFPI) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
8. A topo map shall be submitted for review by TAC (Subdivision Regulations). (Submit with drainage plans as directed.)
9. Street names shall be approved by the Public Works Department and shown on plat.
10. All curve data, including corner radii, shall be shown on final plat as applicable.
11. Bearings, or true N/S, etc., shall be shown on perimeter of land being platted or other bearings as directed by the County Engineer.
12. All adjacent streets, intersections and/or widths thereof shall be shown on plat.
13. 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.)
14. 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.
15. The method of sewage disposal and plans therefore shall be approved by the City/County Health Department. [Percolation tests (if applicable) are required prior to preliminary approval of plat.]
16. 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.)
17. The method of water supply and plans therefore shall be approved by the City/County Health Department.
18. All lots, streets, building lines, easements, etc., shall be completely dimensioned.
19. The key or location map shall be complete.
20. 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.)
21. 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).
22. Applicant is advised of his responsibility to contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act.
23. All other Subdivision Regulations shall be met prior to release of final plat.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Carnes stated that Public Works automatically asks for this right-of-way every time. He indicated that the street would not widened because it leads to an expressway.
Mr. Beach stated that the reason the dedication is being requested is because of the residential area in the south and west of the subject property that potentially could be redeveloped in the future for industrial uses. If this were the case, this street is one of few, if not the only, access out to 129th.
Mr. Ledford stated that he has been working on 123rd Street, which is part of the original subdivision. He commented that trying to get additional right-of-way when it is needed to improve the streets is almost impossible in the subject area.
Mr. Carnes stated that he yields his earlier statement.
Mr. Beach stated that the requirement is contingent upon future changes of zoning and redevelopment of the area.
Applicant’s Comments:
Carl Cannizzaro, Horizon Engineering, 5350 East 46th Street, Suite 111, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135, stated that he is requesting a waiver of the dedication of the additional 25’. He explained that this issue is from a TAC meeting when Traffic Engineering requested the dedication, and then Transportation came in with their requirements for dedicating this additional 25’ of right-of-way. Since that time, Traffic Engineering has dropped their requirement and has approved the plat without the 25’ additional dedication. He explained that when he approached Transportation with this letter, they did not change their request.
Mr. Cannizzaro stated that he has a petition from the property owners west of the subject property indicating that they do not want the street developed. The District Plan indicates that the subject area is low intensity.
Mr. Cannizzaro commented that he does not believe that it is unreasonable to request the condition to be waived since the City’s own two departments cannot agree as to what is needed. In his opinion this is something that should be decided by Traffic Engineering and not Transportation. He concluded that he has met everything except for this one issue.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Ledford stated that on East 4th Street it appears that the dedication is 50’ and if the proper right-of-way was dedicated on the subject plat, then that would provide a full 50’ all the way to 129th.
Mr. Stump stated that staff does not believe this requirement will pull cut-through traffic through the residential neighborhood, but allow a second point of access.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 8 members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, the
TMAPC voted 7-1-0 (Harmon, Hill,
Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; Carnes
"nay"; none ”abstaining"; Hill "absent") to recommend DENIAL of this preliminary plat for Plainview Heights Addition Amended and the
original preliminary plat special conditions and standard conditions stay in
place as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
FINAL PLAT:
Tanglewood Estates (2183) (PD-18) (CD-8)
East side of South Harvard at East 94th Street South
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Beach stated that everything is in order for this final plat and staff recommends APPROVAL.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 8 members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, the
TMAPC voted 8-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon,
Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no
"nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins, Horner "absent")
to APPROVE the final plat for Tanglewood Estates as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.: Z-6757 RS-1
to RS-2
Applicant: John Sayre (PD-6)
(CD-9)
Location: South
of southwest corner of East 47th Street South and South Gary Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
RELEVANT
ZONING HISTORY:
Z-6645/PUD-591: A request to rezone the original PUD tract of the subject property, from RS-1 to RS-2/PUD. Staff and TMAPC recommended approval subject to the revised PUD standards and requirements that would allow three single-family lots with a private street rather than the proposed four single-family lots with approval of RS-2 underlying zoning. City Council concurred in approval subject to the revisions.
Z-5923 - February 1984: All concurred in approval of a request to rezone a tract located on the northeast corner of East 47th Street South and South Gary Avenue from RS-1 to RS-2.
Z-5442 - November 1980: A request to rezone a 320˘ x 126˘ tract located east of the northeast corner of East 47th Street South and South Gary Avenue from RS-1 to RM-0 was denied and RT zoning was approved in the alternative.
SITE ANALYSIS: The subject property is approximately 1.22 acres in size and is located south of the southwest corner of East 47th Street South and South Gary Avenue. The property is flat, partially wooded, contains a single-family dwelling, and is zoned RS-1.
Existing Access Exist. ROW Exist. No. Lanes Surface Curbs
South Gary Avenue 45˘ 2 lanes Paved No
East 47th Street South 50˘ 2 lanes Paved No
South Gary Avenue and East 47th Street South as residential streets and are not on the Major Street and Highway Plan.
UTILITIES: Water and sewer are available to the subject property.
SURROUNDING AREA: The subject tract is abutted on the north by single-family residential uses, zoned RS-1; on the west, by single-family residential uses, zoned RS-1; on the east by single-family residential uses, zoned RS-1; and on the south by a single-family dwelling, zoned PUD 591/RS-2, and beyond the PUD is a vacant lot, zoned RS-1, mixed office uses farther south, zoned OL, OM, PK and CO and largely fronting the expressway.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The District 6 Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, designates the subject property Low Intensity – Residential Land Use and Development Sensitive.
According to the Zoning Matrix the requested RS-2 zoning is in accordance with the Plan Map.
Based on existing conditions and development in the area, staff cannot support the requested RS-2 zoning on this property. That would allow lot sizes significantly smaller than the existing development in this area. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of RS-2 zoning for Z-6757.
Application No.: PUD-591-A - Rs-2/pud-591/rs-1
to rs-2/pud-591-A
Applicant: John Sayre (PD-6) (CD-9)
Location: South
of the southwest corner of East 47th Street South and South Gary
Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
RELEVANT
ZONING HISTORY:
Z-6645/PUD-591 December 1998: A request to rezone the original PUD tract of the subject property, from RS-1 to RS-2/PUD. Staff and TMAPC recommended approval subject to the revised PUD standards and requirements that would allow three single-family lots with a private street rather than the proposed four single-family lots with approval of RS-2 underlying zoning. City Council concurred in approval subject to the revisions.
Z-5923 February 1984: All concurred in approval of a request to rezone a tract located on the northeast corner of East 47th Street South and South Gary Avenue from RS-1 to RS-2.
Z-5442 November 1980: A request to rezone a 320˘ x 126˘ tract located east of the northeast corner of East 47th Street South and South Gary Avenue from RS-1 to RM-0 was denied and RT zoning was approved in the alternative.
SITE ANALYSIS: The subject property is approximately 2.03 acres in size and is located south of the southwest corner of East 47th Street South and South Gary Avenue. The property is flat, partially wooded, contains single-family dwellings, and is zoned RS-1 and RS-2.
STREETS:
Existing Access MSHP Design. Exist. No. Lanes Surface Curbs
South Gary Avenue 45˘ 2 lanes Paved No
East 47th Street South 50˘ 2 lanes Paved No
The Major Street Plan designates South Gary Avenue and East 47th Street South as residential streets.
UTILITIES: Water and sewer are available to the subject property.
SURROUNDING AREA: The subject
tract is abutted on the north and west by single-family residential uses, zoned
RS-1; to the east by single-family
residential uses, zoned RS-1 and multifamily residential uses and related
parking, zoned RM-2 and RS-1; and on the south by vacant land, zoned RS-1.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The District 6 Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, designates the subject tract as Low Intensity-Residential and Development Sensitive.
According to the Zoning Matrix the requested RS-2/PUD zoning is in accordance with the Plan Map.
The subject tract contains 2.23 (gross) acres and is located south of the southwest corner of East 47th Street South and Gary Avenue. The tract has 355’ of frontage on South Gary Avenue. The south 0.95 acres of the tract is currently zoned RS-2/PUD-591 and the north 1.28 acres is currently zoned RS-1. The applicant proposes to rezone the north 1.28 acres to RS-2 (Z-6757) and add this tract to the existing PUD. The major amendment proposes a maximum of eight (as modified by applicant) single-family detached dwellings. The proposed development would have private streets and access onto South Gary Avenue.
The subject tract contains two older homes, which the applicant proposes to remove. There are single-family homes zoned RS-1 to the north, south and west. To the east across Gary Avenue are apartments zoned RS-1 and RM-2 (across from the existing PUD) and single-family homes zoned RS-1 (across from the north 1.28 acres). Staff does not support the request to rezone the north 1.28 acres from RS-1 to RS-2 (see enclosed staff recommendation for Z-6757) and therefore does not support the requested density proposed by this major amendment.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff finds the uses and intensities of development proposed and as modified by staff to be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code. Based on the following conditions, staff finds PUD 591-A, 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 591-A subject to the following conditions:
Land Area (Gross) 2.2292 Acres 99,337 SF
(Net) 2.0301 Acres 90,462 SF
Permitted Uses: Use Unit 6, detached single-family residences.
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 7
Minimum Width
of Private Street Right-of-way: 30 FT
Maximum Building Height:
Within
west 80’ and north and south 25’ of PUD one story
Remainder
of PUD two stories
Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT
Minimum Width of
Required Yards:
From the
west, north & south boundaries of the PUD
15
FT
From the
Private Street right-of-way:
Residences 15
FT
Garages 20
FT
From the
centerline of South Gary Avenue
50
FT
From
internal side lot lines
5 FT
Minimum Parking Spaces
per lot:
Enclosed 2
Open
off-street
2
Minimum Livability
Space per Dwelling Unit Per Lot: 6000 SF
Minimum Livability
Space in entire PUD: 50,000 SF
Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 SF
Detached Accessory Buildings: There shall be none within the PUD.
Screening and Buffering:
A six-foot screening wall or fence shall be provided along the north, south and west boundaries of the PUD. A six-foot screening wall or fence may be provided along the east boundary of the PUD. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the applicant’s Outline Development Plan and Text.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon asked staff what the lot size requirements for RS-1 and RS-2. In response, Mr. Stump stated they are 9,000 SF for RS-2 and 13,500 SF for RS-1. He explained that RS-2 lot width minimum is 75 FT and RS-1 is 105 FT.
Mr. Westervelt stated that the TMAPC has received four correspondences. Two were in favor and two opposed this application. He indicated that the two correspondences in favor of this project had glowing accolades for the INCOG staff.
Applicant’s Comments:
John Sayre, 1244-B-1 South Memorial Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112, WE Builders, stated that he originally filed an application with INCOG, and with staff’s recommendation, filed a Major Amendment to an existing PUD. The tract to the south of the subject property, owned by John Boyd, decided to be included with the major amendment.
Mr. Sayre stated that originally he was trying to develop ten lots, six on his property and four on Mr. Boyd’s property. After speaking with INCOG it was determined that this could not be done because it did not meet the requirements for RS-2. He indicated that some of the neighbors feared the development would cause stormwater problems and privacy. He stated that he changed his request to nine lots and rezone the property to the north to RS-2.
Mr. Sayre indicated that there was a problem with the legal description and mailing for the public hearing. He explained that after reading INCOG’s report stating that seven lots should be approved, he determined that it would be better to request eight lots. He indicated that by reducing his request to eight lots he is able to meet every requirement in the staff recommendation except for the request of seven lots.
Mr. Sayre stated that he hired a hydrologist and used his recommendation to totally divert all of the stormwater off of this property.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt reminded Mr. Sayre that Public Works deals with the stormwater issues and it will be dealt with throughout the process.
Mr. Sayre stated that the reason for requesting eight lots is because of the hardship that is put upon the development to divert the stormwater. By using a large detention pond and an underground storm system it is possible to take all of the water on the subject property, take it all underground, and dump it into an underground box.
Mr. Sayre stated that the two issues that the neighbors were concerned with were stormwater and privacy. He explained that INCOG put in place some stipulations that address privacy issues.
Mr. Sayre explained that he would be happy with eight lots and leave the north property as RS-1. He stated that another choice would be to do an RS-1 buffer strip around the subject property so that all of the RS-1 properties that abut to this tract would have RS-1 buffering. He suggested that the RS-1 buffering be 15’ or 25’ and the tract within the buffer be RS-2.
Mr. Sayre stated that the property to the south of the subject property is zoned RS-2. He explained that when the property to the south was rezoned RS-2 it was completely surrounded by RS-1. Mr. Sayre described the surrounding properties and their zoning classifications. He commented that the subject property has the same situation as did the property to the south that was allowed to rezone to RS-2. He requested the additional zoning needed in order to allow the eight lots.
Mr. Midget out at 2:00 p.m.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt explained to Mr. Sayre that the Planning Commission does not design the applicant’s project in order to grant the zoning requested by the applicant. He informed Mr. Sayre that he would have to submit it himself to receive the appropriate zoning needed.
Applicant’s Comments:
Mark Swift, 305 East 29th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114, Hydrologist, stated that he was asked to do the hydrology for this project. He explained that the intent of the hydrology would be to capture all of the stormwater runoff from the subject property into a detention pond and divert the water that normally flows off to the west into a central area, which would capture approximately 2500 cubic feet of volume. The water would be released at a lower rate, which would go through a 24” RCP culvert 500’ to the west branch of Joe Creek. Mr. Swift stated that the important thing to remember is that the total discharge off of the subject site would be less than it is now and diverted through the storm sewer and not overland.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Swift how much the improvement of discharge would be. In response, Mr. Swift stated that it would be about two CFS (from 20 CFS to 18 CFS).
Mr. Westervelt asked how much difference would anyone see in a two cubic foot discharge per second. In response, Mr. Swift stated none. Mr. Swift further stated that the main issue is that the adjacent properties would not have stormwater running off the hill onto their property, because it would all be captured and diverted. Mr. Westervelt commented that the diversion is the real benefit.
Applicant’s Comments:
Interested Parties Comments:
Danette Gallatin, 3123 East 48th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that she lives west of the subject property and has some reservations and concerns regarding this application. Ms. Gallatin gave a history of past applications in the subject area and a precedent being set when Mr. Boyd’s property was allowed to be rezoned to RS-2.
Mr. Midget in at 2:12 p.m.
Ms. Gallatin expressed concerns with stormwater issues, high density, green space and spacing. She requested that the Planning Commission deny this application.
Charles Cook, 4820 South Florence Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that during the 1984 flood he had 30” of water in his home and received structural damage from the runoff. He expressed concerns with the proposal and stormwater runoff and requested that the Planning Commission deny this application.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Carnes stated that the staff recommendation is for seven houses, which is the maximum size. He asked Mr. Cook if he would rather have seven houses under a PUD than have the applicant develop seven houses without having to go before anyone. In response, Mr. Cook stated that he would prefer to have the PUD.
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Cook if he would change his opinion of eight houses versus seven houses if the applicant were able to divert the stormwater. In response, Mr. Cook stated that he would prefer to have the detention and only seven houses.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Frank Cox, 4815 South Florence Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 32 years. He commented that there are three interests being represented today, the City of Tulsa, the developer and the integrity of his neighborhood. He requested that the Planning Commission deny the requested eight lots and do not allow developers to cram more than is normal into the neighborhood.
Councilor Pringle stated that he became involved in this area of town in August of 1998 when Mr. Boyd wanted to rezone his property to an RS-3. He explained that he saw it as his role to be a facilitator of a compromise and proposed RS-2 zoning for Mr. Boyd’s property.
Councilor Pringle stated that today he would like to speak on behalf of the neighbors. He indicated that the neighbors were disappointed in him with the RS-2 zoning in 1998. He stated that what he thinks is happening now is probably what the neighbors feared, which is the two properties being tied in together and the greatest amount of density possible being advocated for the area.
Councilor Pringle stated that he does agree with the developers that the property values would be enhanced. He further stated that he recommends that the Planning Commission grant the application with the staff’s recommendation of seven lots and not eight lots. He commented that eight homes are too much and it does not allow any extra room for a detention facility if there are eight lots.
Mr. Stump stated that the applicant stated he could meet all of the requirements in the PUD with eight units, but looking at his conceptual plan it is not true. Mr. Stump stated that the applicant counted the lot area going to the center of the street and the City has always platted streets, even private streets, as a separate right-of-way that is not included as part of the lot.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Sayre said that he is trying to be sensitive to the neighbor’s issues. He commented that it is a considerable cost to divert the stormwater and he would need eight lots to cover that cost.
Mr. Sayre stated that he met with neighbors door-to-door and met with INCOG regarding this application. He commented that the issue basically comes down to one house. He reiterated that he is requesting the extra lot to help defray the cost of the stormwater detention.
Mr. Ledford recognized Mr. Swift.
Mr. Swift stated that the homes to the west are suffering from two kinds of flooding. The main flooding source is the west branch of Joe Creek and water that comes from the north. He indicated that the development is not impacting these two problems at all. He reiterated that all of the stormwater would be captured and diverted into the detention pond and then through the storm sewer.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Ledford asked Mr. Swift what the flow line of the detention facility would be with a 24” pipe. Mr. Ledford stated that according to Mr. Swift’s topography map along the southwest boundary of the RS-2 tract or the west boundary there is a 671’ elevation and the detention facility is at a 677’ elevation. Mr. Swift stated that the detention pond would be five feet deep. Mr. Sayre stated that he is not required to give elevations at this point, but included the information to show where the detention pond would be located. Mr. Sayre further stated that if the PUD is approved the elevations and location would have to be dealt with by the stormwater staff. Mr. Ledford stated that he understands that, but the information is there and it is hard to determine how all of the stormwater will flow to the detention facility when the west line is lower than the outlet elevation. Mr. Sayre stated that the engineers have stated that the best location for the detention pond would be the northwest corner. Mr. Sayre explained that at the Gallatins’ property, which is directly to the west of the subject property, there would be a dam built to hold the stormwater back. Mr. Sayre indicated that the dam would probably be three to four feet on the Gallatins’ side and then excavate on the other side. Mr. Ledford asked Mr. Sayre if he would be raising the west line. In response, Mr. Sayre answered affirmatively. Mr. Ledford stated that it appears that there is a 7 ˝ foot easement and the PFPI is five feet outside the pipe, which means that if there is a 24” pipe and the thickness of the pipe would approximately be three inches it would require six feet and three inches on each side of the centerline and the submitted drawing indicates that the whole easement is 7 ˝ feet.
Mr. Harmon questioned if seven lots i