Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting No. 2245

Wednesday, July 19, 2000 1:30 p.m.

Francis Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center

 

Members Present      Members Absent     Staff Present      Others Present

Boyle                                Pace                              Bruce                       Jackere, Legal

Carnes                                                                    Dunlap                        Counsel

Collins                                                                     Huntsinger               Boulden, Legal

Harmon                                                                   Stump                            Counsel

Hill

Horner                                                                    

Jackson

Ledford

Midget

Westervelt

 

The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Friday, July 14, 2000 at 3:35 p.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 3:30 a.m., as well as in the office of the County Clerk at 3:24 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 June 21, 2000 Meeting No. 2242

On MOTION of BOYLE the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Midget, Pace “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of June 21, 2000 Meeting No. 2242 as amended by the TMAPC.

 

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

 

REPORTS:

Chairman’s Reports:

Mr. Westervelt announced that the applicant has withdrawn the preliminary plat for GreenHill II.

 

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

 


CONTINUED ITEMS:

The Meadows Second – (2992)                                                  (PD-9) (County)

East of South 61st West Avenue and West 42nd Place South

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt stated that there has been a timely request for a continuance to August 2, 2000.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 9 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Midget, Pace "absent") to CONTINUE the preliminary plat for the Meadows Second to August 2, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.

 

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

 

 

Application No.:  PUD-502-A                                     MAJOR AMENDMENT

Applicant:  Jeffrey Levinson                                                           (PD-18) (CD-8)

Location:      West of southwest corner of East 91st Street and South Yale Avenue

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt stated that the applicant would like a continuance in order to work out some details.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 9 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; Ledford ”abstaining"; Midget, Pace "absent") to CONTINUE the major amendment for PUD-501-A to August 2, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.

 

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

Committee Reports:

Rules and Regulations Committee

Mr. Boyle reported that the committee had a good meeting today on changes to enact some of the materials that the Infill Development Task Force recommended to the Planning Commission.  He stated that the committee would continue to study the proposed changes and have additional meetings.

 

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


Director’s Report:

Mr. Stump stated that there are several items on the City Council agenda for July 20, 2000.

 

Mr. Stump stated that a draft resolution prepared by the City Council/Public Works Committee would be considered next Tuesday, July 25, 2000 at the 8:00 a.m. meeting.  He indicated that the draft resolution concerns the Riverside Drive Studies and the Planning Commission might want to review the draft resolution in case there are any comments that would need to be forwarded to the committee.

 

Mr. Stump reported that the TMAPC receipts for the month of May are a little below average and staff is seeing a slight slow down from a very busy spring.

 

Mr. Boyle stated that he is glad that the City Council is finally confronting the Riverside Drive Studies issue.  Mr. Boyle further stated that staff should explain to the City Council that the Planning Commission would expect this to be an expeditious process.

 

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

 

Mr. Midget in at 1:35 p.m.

 

SUBDIVISIONS

LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:

L-19074 – Sack & Associates, Inc. (983)                                  (PD-18) (CD-8)

3830 East 76th Street South

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant has applied to split a single tract into three parcels, with each of the new parcels being tied to an adjacent tract.  The proposed configuration will result with Tract A having six side-lot lines; Tract B having seven side-lot lines; and Tract C having four side-lot lines.  The applicant is seeking a waiver of Subdivision Regulations that each tract has no more than three side-lot lines.

 

The Technical Advisory Committee expressed no concerns about the proposed lot-split at their July 6, 2000, meeting.  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.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Richard Blisset, 3830 East 76th Street South, stated that he owns the subject property, which is a heavily-wooded lot with limited access.  He explained that a driveway would be a 20% grade, which would be impossible to build in.

 


Mr. Blisset stated that he decided to share the subject property with his neighbors and keep the green space.  He indicated that all three neighbors have agreed to this lot-split.

 

Interested Parties Comments:

Barbara Mugge, 3818 East 76th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136, stated that she lives west of the subject lot and is in support of this application.

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Pace "absent") to APPROVE of the waiver of Subdivision Regulations and the lot-split as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:

L-18062 – Michael Marrara (983)                                                (PD-18) (CD-8)

404 East 76th Street

 

L-18069 – J. Anthony Miller (2283)                                             (PD-18) (CD-8)

9141 South Yale

 

L-19084 – Michael Marrara (3203)                                              (PD-3) (CD-3)

2921 Dawson Road

 

L-19085 – Toby Powell (2702)                                                     (PD-11) (CD-1)

1218 West Queen

 

Staff Recommendation:

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

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Pace "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 


FINAL PLAT:

Plainview Heights Addition Amended – (PUD 618) (594)    (PD-17) CD-6)

422 South 129th East Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

Mr. Stump stated that everything is order and all release letters have been received.  Staff recommends APPROVAL of the final plat for Plainview Height Addition Amended.

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Pace "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Plainview Heights Addition Amended as recommended by staff.

 

 

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

 

 

Tulsa Dream Center – (1402)                                                       (PD-25) (County)

South side of West 46th Street, west of North Cincinnati Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

Mr. Stump stated that everything is order and all release letters have been received.  Staff recommends APPROVAL of the final plat for Tulsa Dream Center as recommended by staff.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Pace "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Tulsa Dream Center as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

PLAT WAIVER:

BOA 18780 - (593)                                                                           (PD-4) (CD-4)

North of East 4th Place, east of South Florence Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

The Board of Adjustment approved a special exception to permit an accessory parking lot for the Tulsa University Law Clinic. Any approval of Use Unit 5 triggers the platting requirement.


Staff Comments and Recommendation:

The property is already platted and the checklist is “clean” except the required dedication of additional right-of-way. We can see no additional benefit to the public by requiring a re-plat. Staff recommends approval of the plat waiver subject to the required dedication of additional right-of-way.

 

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 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?                                                                         1        *

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

 

11) Are additional utility easements needed?                                            *        

 

NOTES:

1)     A 25’ radius curve is required at the southwest corner of the property and would be dedicated by separate instrument.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of CARNES, the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Pace "absent") to APPROVE the plat waiver for BOA-18780, subject to the required dedication of additional right-of-way as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

Z-4289 - (1694)                                                                     (PD-17) (CD-6)

Northwest corner East 31st Street and South 145th East Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

The zoning on this property was changed from AG to CS in 1972. A change of zoning to a classification other than AG always triggers the platting requirement.

 

Staff Comments and Recommendation:

 

The project consists of erection of a monopole tower for a wireless telephone antenna. There would be no other construction and no need for water, sanitary sewer, or streets. Because of the nature of the use, staff administratively waived formal TAC review and 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 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?                                                                                 *        

5)   Would restrictive covenants or deeds of dedication be

      needed by separate instrument?                                                          *        

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

 

11)      Are additional utility easements needed?                                      *        

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

 


TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Pace "absent") to APPROVE the plat waiver for Z-4289 as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

BOA 18798 - (293)                                                                           (PD-5) (CD-3)

280 South Memorial, northwest corner of South Memorial Drive and 4th Place South

 

Staff Recommendation:

PURPOSE:

The purpose of the request is to allow the change in use of a facility currently occupied by the East Tulsa Christian Church. The proposed use is a math, science and technology school. 

 

The church will vacate the premises on July 1; the school will start classes under a timeframe that coincides with Tulsa public schools.

 

No exterior construction will be required to facilitate the change in use.

 

GENERAL:

The site is approximately 6.2 acres in size, is zoned OL and includes church facilities. It abuts single-family homes on the west, OL zoning and uses to the north, CS and RM-2 zoning and uses across Memorial to the east, OL zoning and uses to the southeast across 4th Place and RM-2 and CS zoning and use, also across 4th Place to the south.

 

STREETS:

The site is bounded on the east by Memorial Drive and on the south by 4th Place.

Existing access is indicated off of Memorial and 4th Place.

 

Memorial Drive right-of-way is indicated at 60’ on the west side of the centerline; 4th Place is indicated at 50’. It also appears that existing dedications along Memorial bring it to 50’; 10’ remains to be dedicated. Dedications along 4th Place are not addressed by the plat.

 

SEWER:

Sewer currently serves the existing facility.

 

WATER:

Water currently serves the existing facility.

 


STORM DRAIN:

Staff does not have information regarding drainage/detention – no new construction is anticipated.

 

UTILITIES:

Staff does not have information regarding utility easements.

 

Staff provides the following comments from the TAC meeting.

 

1.      Streets:

·        Somdecerff, Streets, no comment

·        French, Traffic, indicated that a left turn bay on the northern driveway would be helpful – not a requirement.

 

2.      Sewer:

·        Bolding, Public Works, no comment

 

3.      Water:

·        Murphree, Public Works, no comment

 

4.      Storm Drain:

·        McCormick, Stormwater, no comment.

 

5.      Utilities

·        No comment.

 

Conclusions:

 

The proposed project is the change in use of an existing facility, triggered by Special Exception to allow the school use. The existing facility will be remodeled to accommodate school use.

 

Based on the TAC discussion, the lack of comment and the following checklist, which reflects the policies of TMAPC. Staff recommends approval of plat waiver.

 

It shall be the policy of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission that all requests for plat waivers shall be evaluated by the staff and by the Technical Advisory Committee based on the following list. After such evaluation, TMAPC Staff shall make a recommendation to the TMAPC as to the merits of the plat waiver request accompanied by the answers to these questions:

 


A YES answer to the following 3 questions would generally be FAVORABLE to a plat waiver:

                                                                                                                        Y          N

1)   Has property previously been platted?                                                 o          4

2)   Are there restrictive covenants contained in a previously

      filed plat?                                                                                                 o          4

3)   Is property adequately described by surrounding platted

      properties or street R/W?                                                                      4          o

 

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?                                                                       o          4

 

5)   Will restrictive covenants be filed by separate instrument?               o          4

 

6)   Infrastructure requirements

a)     Water

i)        Is a main line water extension required?                                  o          4

ii)         Is an internal system or fire line required?                          o          4

iv)        Are additional easements required?                                  o          4

 

b)     Sanitary Sewer

            i)          Is a main line extension required?                                       o          4

ii)         Is an internal system required?                                            o          4

            iii)        Are additional easements required?                                  o          4

 

c)      Storm Sewer

i)          Is a P.F.P.I. required?                                                           o          4

            ii)         Is an Overland Drainage Easement required?                  o          4

            iii)        Is on-site detention required?                                              o          4

iv)        Are additional easements required?                                  o