Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, August 16, 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 Bruce Boulden, Legal
Carnes Dunlap Counsel
Harmon Huntsinger
Hill Matthews
Horner 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, August 14, 2000 at 3:50 p.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 11:00 a.m., as well as in the office of the County Clerk at 10:55 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 August 2, 2000 Meeting No. 2247
On MOTION of BOYLE the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Collins “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of August 2, 2000 Meeting No. 2247.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt
stated that the grand opening for the One Stop Permit Center is August 23, 2000
at 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Westervelt
stated that because of the complexity of dealing with the District Court action
that requires the Planning Commission to take some action and the added
complication of the directive from the City Council, the Planning Commission is
referring item 18, City Council Resolution No. 2911, promptly to
Rules and Regulations
Committee meeting on August 23, 2000 at 11:30 a.m., Room 1102, City Hall.
Interested Parties
Comments:
James Mautino, 14628 East
12th, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74108, stated that he has no problem with the
resolution going to a committee meeting, but he would like to request that the
public hearing be held in the evening.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that he does not believe that it would be necessary
to move the meeting to the evening. He
explained that the Planning Commission would not like to meet in the evening
and any type of written communication or a representative speaking for all is
as effective as packing the chambers.
He informed Mr. Mautino that if he is interested in Resolution No. 2911,
he may attend the Rules and Regulations Meeting next Wednesday.
Mr. Boyle requested that the Legal Department be ready to brief the
Planning Commission on this issue next Wednesday.
Mr. Westervelt announced that on Items No. 12
and 13, he will abstain and Mr. Boyle will chair the meeting during these two
items.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Committee Reports:
Mr. Boyle stated that there will be a meeting on August 23, 2000 at 11:30 a.m. regarding the City Council Resolution No. 2911 regarding the property located at or near south of the northeast corner of Admiral and 145th East Avenue.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are two final plats on the City Council agenda. He invited everyone to the opening of the One Stop Permit Center.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
L-19076 – Stephen K. Mendenhall (2993) (PD-6) (CD-9)
4545 South Lewis
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to split a 165’ X 305’ tract into two parcels. The proposed configuration will result with Tract A having four side-lot lines. All zoning requirements will be met. The applicant is seeking a waiver of Subdivision Regulations that each tract have no more than three side-lot lines.
Issues to be considered include:
Staff believes that while bringing sewer service to the east side of Lewis Avenue would benefit other property owners in the area, this lot-split may have an adverse effect on the abutting properties because they would face into the rear of the new tract.
Due to the configuration of the existing homes in the immediate area, staff would recommend DENIAL of the waiver of Subdivision Regulations.
Applicant’s Comments:
Warren G. Morris, 2532 East 46th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that the subject area has had a remarkable history. He indicated that throughout the years there have been many lot-splits.
Mr. Morris stated that the City has encouraged growth within the inner part of the City and this is a way to do that. He indicated that the sewer line issue can be solved by his client installing a sewer line across Lewis and he will dedicate an extra 25’ for right-of-way. He commented that there are houses along the street that are only 15’ off of the right-of-way.
Stephen K. Mendenhall, 4545 South Lewis Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that his home was built in 1950 and originally there were 32 lots in this subdivision. Now there are 110 lots. He indicated that from 41st Street to 51st Street and from Lewis to Harvard there have been over 32 lots that have been subdivided with at least four-side lot lines. There are twelve lots with panhandles, which is what he is proposing to do with the subject property.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that Tract A meets all of the guidelines, but Tract B will have the panhandle. Mr. Mendenhall submitted a letter of support from his neighbor to the north (Exhibit A-1).
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Mendenhall if he occupies the home on Tract A. In response, Mr. Mendenhall answered affirmatively. Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Mendenhall if it would bother him to look out the front of his house and see the back of another property. In response, Mr. Mendenhall answered negatively.
Mr. Ledford asked Mr. Mendenhall if he would be willing to extend the public sewer. In response, Mr. Mendenhall answered affirmatively.
Mr. Ledford stated that a dedicated easement is needed so that the sewer can be extended in the future either to the north or south. In response, Mr. Mendenhall stated that he would dedicate the easement with the City of Tulsa and he will have to dedicate easement across the total frontage of his lot in order for the neighbors north or south to connect. Mr. Mendenhall indicated that he would be dedicating an easement along his north line so that the neighbor along the north line can service his property as well.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Robert Doebler, 2224 East 46th, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that he objects to the lot-split. He expressed concerns with a two-story home being built adjacent to his property because he would be seeing it from his kitchen window. He commented that the proposal would be out of place.
Paul Peterson, 4559 South Lewis, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, stated that he objects to the lot-split because it will block his view. He expressed concerns that his property value will decrease due to the lot-split.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Morris stated that there are several lot-splits in the subject area. He explained that with the past lot-splits there have been no decrease in property value and there is no question that this house will be an addition and asset to the community.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 9-1-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; Boyle "nay"; none ”abstaining"; Collins "absent") to recommend APPROVAL of the lot-split for L-19076 and waiver of the Subdivision Regulations, subject to the dedication of the required sanitary sewer easements along the west and north boundary of the subject property as recommended by TMAPC.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:
L-19065 – John
Leatherwood (3073) (PD-21)
(County)
2146 East 161st
Street
L-19089 – Norma Kraft (883) (PD-18)
(CD-2)
Northwest corner East 72nd
Street & Evanston
L-19090 – James C. Doyle (3591) (PD-23)
(County)
9919 West 57th
Street
L-19091 – Gale Plummer (3693)
(PD-18)
(CD-7)
5129 South 95th East Avenue
L-19093 – Bryan Blount (1302) (PD-25)
(CD-1)
East 38th Street North west of Lansing
L-19094 – City of Tulsa (594) (PD-17)
(CD-6)
12701 East 11th Street
L-19095 – City of Tulsa (2003) (PD-2)
(CD-3)
3139 North Lewis
L-19096 – City of Tulsa (2003) (PD-2)
(CD-3)
3237 North Lewis
L-19099 – Tulsa Development
Authority (192) (PD-4) (CD-4)
700 South Peoria
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Redeemer Covenant
Church (PD-26)
(CD-8)
East of the northeast corner of East 101st Street South and Yale Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
The following
background information was provided at the August
3, 2000 TAC meeting.
The site is currently located in the AG district with AG to the east. RS-1 is present to the north with RS-2 to the west and south. An AG “island” is present across the street to the southwest with higher intensity residential and commercial uses present further to the west along Yale.
STREETS
The site is bounded on the south by 101st Street; the photo indicates two existing access points onto the street. Limits of No Access are not shown.
Darlington Avenue stubs into the property from the north.
There is an existing detention basin on site. Discussions with the applicant indicate that the basin will be moved.
The plat proposes 10’ easements along the east, north and west perimeters, existing easements are shown to the south along 101st.
Staff provides the following comments from
the TAC meeting.
1.
Streets/access:
·
French,
Traffic, indicated that the requested relocation of the western access
(approximately 105’ to the east) would be acceptable.
·
Somdecerff,
Streets, requested book and page references for dedications along 101st
Street. Requested construction and dedication of a link between Darlington and
99th in the northwest corner of the site.
The
applicant’s engineer indicated that the construction of this street would
interfere with the construction of the lift station for the storm drain system.
He requested a hearing by the Commission to discuss the requirement.
2.
Sewer:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following:
Waivers of
Subdivision Regulations:
Special Conditions:
1. Label references for street dedications along 101st Street.
3. Easements for access to and maintenance of the proposed detention basin.
4. Decision by the Planning Commission regarding a connection between Darlington and 99th.
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 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.)
15. All lots, streets, building lines, easements, etc., shall be completely dimensioned.
16. The key or location map shall be complete.
17. 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.)
18. 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.)
19. Applicant is advised to of his responsibility to contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act.
20. 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.
21. All other Subdivision Regulations shall be met prior to release of final plat.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt announced that the TMAPC has received 57 letters and 14 signatures on a petition (Exhibit B-1) for the total of 69 individuals from the neighborhood requesting that the streets not be connected from the neighborhood through the church to 101st Street.
Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Bruce what the staff’s position on the issue regarding the street connections. In response, Mr. Bruce stated that from a planning prospective, staff likes to see through connections within the interior sections. Mr. Bruce further stated that the City Traffic Engineering Department is strongly in support of the street connections. Mr. Bruce explained that staff would be in support of the street connection because it would take some of the pressure off of the east/west connector and it would make another connection possible in the event of an emergency. Mr. Bruce stated that staff would support the street connections, but staff would not have a problem if the streets were to be stubbed-out.
Mr. Ledford stated that in past the TMAPC has not allowed a higher density project move their traffic through a lower density project. Mr. Ledford indicated that requiring this connection is something that the TMAPC has been trying to get away from. Mr. Ledford stated that the TMAPC could require the developer to put in a cul-de-sac at the end of 99th Street on the side of the Redeemer Covenant Church. Mr. Bruce stated that when the Sun Meadow Addition was
platted it may have been worthwhile to require additional connections out to the arterials. Mr. Bruce explained that the requirement would probably be taking traffic from a higher density addition into a lower density addition. Mr. Bruce informed the Planning Commission that this case will be going back before the Board of Adjustment and there is a possibility that the BOA would look favorably on restricting access onto any sort of a stub street.
Applicant’s Comments:
Stephen Schuller, 100 West 5th, Suite 500, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, stated that the streets that stub into the subject site were required several years ago when the subdivisions were platted in order to connect to streets that would have been placed on the subject property and the property to the east if they had been developed for residential subdivisions. However, the subject property is being developed as a church and the entire site is owned by Redeemer Covenant Church. He indicated that he has a site plan scheduled for hearing before the BOA next week to use the entire site for the expansion of the church. There is no room in the site plan for additional residential development on the subject site and the streets would not be serving and connecting with an additional residential development.
Mr. Schuller stated that there is sufficient frontage on 101st Street for the church to access to its property. It is not consistent with the church’s development plans to have a street connecting at 99th because the church does not intend to access these streets. He commented that the BOA would reject an attempt by the church to access the residential subdivision.
Mr. Schuller requested that the stubbed-out streets not be connected to this site. He indicated his agreement with the neighborhood that the streets should not be connected.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Schuller if his client would be willing to cul-de-sac 99th Street. In response, Mr. Schuller stated that he has not discussed this issue with his client because this is the first time he has heard of this proposal. Mr. Schuller commented that a cul-de-sac would be more satisfactory to his client because it addresses and resolves a lot of his client’s concerns. Mr. Schuller stated that with a cul-de-sac the church could better block access than with an entire street going through. Mr. Schuller commented that this will be an expense and burden on the church to build a cul-de-sac, but it is much less than building a street.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Robert Watson, 5125 East 99th, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74137, stated that if the street were connected it would bring additional traffic in his front yard. He expressed concerns with traffic increasing if the street is connected.
Cynthia Woodson, 9811 South Granite, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74137, President of Sun Meadows Civic Association, stated that her home abuts the subject site. She indicated that the Association met with the church in February, and in March the association voted that they did not want the streets connected. She stated that the neighborhood currently is having traffic problems and the City has installed additional stop signs.
Ms. Woodson stated that the association requests that the street not be connected and increase the traffic problems already existing.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Schuller reiterated that it may have seemed like a good idea to have the stub streets many years ago, but the subject property is for church use. He stated that connecting the streets will not solve any problems with the traffic and there is not reason for imposing this type of burden on the neighborhood and church. No one wants the streets connected and requests that this requirement be waived.
On MOTION of Boyle to recommend APPROVAL of the preliminary plat for Redeemer Covenant Church and waive the Subdivision Regulations, subject to the special conditions (excluding the requirement of connecting Darlington and 99th Street), and subject to the standard conditions as recommended by staff.
Mr. Ledford asked Mr. Boyle if he wanted to include the cul-de-sac. In response, Mr. Boyle stated that it has been like this for over 25 years and there is no reason to make a turnaround. Mr. Harmon stated that he agreed with Mr. Boyle’s statement.
Ms. Pace stated that she is concerned about separating neighborhoods within a square mile. There is no reason to keep the street closed. It was designed that way, and the developers and the owners knew when they looked at the plat that it was scheduled to be opened. This is an orderly method of getting through within neighborhoods. Ms. Pace stated that she couldn’t vote for this proposal for these reasons.
Mr. Westervelt reminded Ms. Pace that the applicant and 69 residents do not want this street opened.
Mr. Ledford stated that he could support the motion if there was a turnaround. He commented that he disagrees with whether the stub has existed for five, ten or fifteen years. He expressed concerns that the Planning Commission is setting a precedent for over more than one lot depth. Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Ledford if a hammerhead would be sufficient. In response, Mr. Ledford stated that some type of turnaround is needed.
Mr. Boyle stated that the turnaround is unnecessary in this situation and he does not intend to set a precedent by it. He indicated that he would continue to look at generally having cul-de-sacs at the end of three-lot-deep streets. However, in this case the residents have proven they can function without the street being connected and without a turnaround.
Mr. Horner stated that the stub has been in existence for 25 years or more. If there were a subdivision adjacent to the neighborhood it would be a different land use from that of a church. It is not necessary to connect the street nor have a turnaround.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of Boyle, the TMAPC voted 8-2-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; Ledford, Pace "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Collins "absent") to recommend APPROVAL of the preliminary plat for Redeemer Covenant Church and waive the Subdivision Regulations, subject to the special conditions (excluding the requirement of connecting Darlington and 99th Street), and subject to the standard conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAT WAIVER:
CBOA-1748 (PD-15)
(County)
Northeast corner of 76th Street North and Sheridan Road
Staff Recommendation:
The following information
was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee at their regular meeting of
August 3, 2000.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the request is to allow the construction of a church and related uses.
GENERAL:
The site is currently vacant and approximately six acres in size, bounded by 76th Street North on the south and Sheridan Road on the west. It is in the Owasso fence line. It is zoned AG and is abutted by AG zoning to the north, east and to the west across Sheridan Road. IL zoning lies to the south across 76th Street with IM zoning beyond. Single-family residences on large lots abut the site on the north, east and south across 76th Street.
STREETS:
The site plan indicates two access points onto 76th Street. No access is shown onto Sheridan Road. It is not clear from the plan as to the width of the existing right-of-way along the two streets. Both are secondary arterials on the Major
Street and Highway Plan. It appears that the utility easement is located along the east side of Sheridan and the North side of 76th.
SEWER:
WATER:
Staff does not have information on water service in the area.
STORM DRAIN:
Staff does not have information regarding drainage/detention.
UTILITIES:
A high-pressure gas line runs from west to east and has previously had leaks in the area although not on this site.
Staff does not have information regarding utility easements.
Staff provides the following comments from
the TAC meeting.
1.
Streets:
·
Raines,
Engineering: indicated dedication of right-of-way to secondary arterial
standards (50’) would be required. He also requested a 30’ radius return at the
intersection of Sheridan and 76th Street and an access control
agreement along both streets.
2.
Sewer:
·
A septic
system will be used.
3.
Water:
·
Washington
County Number 3 is the provider. An existing line is available.
4.
Storm Drain:
·
None required.
5.
Utilities
·
The existing
line on the property is private.
·
ONG and PSO
requested 17.5’ easements along both streets.
Conclusions:
At the TAC meeting the applicant indicated that the site plan as submitted
indicated contemplated improvements for the foreseeable future. The plan
indicates one building and paved parking.
If the Commission is inclined to approve the waiver of street
right-of-way dedication, utility easement and limits of access will have to be
filed by separate instrument.
The County Engineer’s Office and the utility providers indicated that
separate instruments would be acceptable.
Staff can support a waiver of the platting requirement to allow
construction of the improvements as indicated by the site plan. Additional
construction should trigger the platting requirement.
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? q ü
2) Are there restrictive covenants contained in a previously
filed plat? q ü
3) Is property adequately described by surrounding platted
properties or street R/W? ü q
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? ü q
5) Will restrictive covenants be filed by separate instrument? q ü
6) Infrastructure requirements
a) Water
i) Is a main line water extension required? q ü
ii) Is an internal system or fire line required? q ü
iii) Are additional easements required? q ü
b) Sanitary Sewer
i) Is a main line extension required? q ü
ii) Is an internal system required? q ü
iii) Are additional easements required? q ü
c) Storm Sewer
i) Is a P.F.P.I. required? q ü
ii) Is an Overland Drainage Easement required? q ü
iii) Are additional easements required? q ü
7) Floodplain
a) Does the property contain a City of Tulsa (Regulatory)
Floodplain? q ü
b) Does the property contain a F.E.M.A. (Federal)
Floodplain? q ü
8) Change of Access
a) Are revisions to existing access locations necessary? q ü
9) Is the property in a P.U.D.? q ü
a) If yes, was plat recorded for the original P.U.D.? q ü
10) Is this a Major Amendment to a P.U.D.? q ü
a) If yes, does the amendment make changes to the
proposed physical development of the
P.U.D.? q ü
If, after consideration of the above criteria, a plat waiver is granted on unplatted properties, a current ALTA/ACSM/NSPS Land Title Survey (and as subsequently revised) shall be required. Said survey shall be prepared in a recordable format and filed at the County Clerk’s office.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Ledford stated that the plat waiver process was not intended for new areas. He explained that there would still have to be an Alta survey, which is very expensive. Since it involves only one lot and one block, the Planning Commission has allowed construction prior to the filing of the final plat if timing is an issue.
Mr. Boyle stated that there are several events that would have to happen by separate instrument. He commented that it appears that there are too many documents needed by separate instrument.
Mr. Carnes stated that this is a new area and a plat should be required. He commented that the restrictions are in place and should be enforced. He stated that the church could go ahead with building and file a final plat before occupancy.
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Carnes if he is talking about some sort of temporary plat waiver. In response, Mr. Carnes answered affirmatively.
Applicant’s Comments:
Harry Henderson, 313
Meadow Creek Lane, Dewey, Oklahoma 74029-3042, stated that the church does not
mind filing a plat, but they need to start building. He indicated that dedicating rights-of-way is not a problem.
He reiterated the need to get started with the building.
MOTION of HARMON to recommend DENIAL of the plat waiver for CBOA-1748.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Boyle stated that he feels this is dangerous to waive the plat for this application and under these circumstances.
Mr. Carnes stated that the church could proceed with the building, but they need to file a final plat before occupancy.
Mr. Boyle stated that he does not believe that the Planning Commission has the power to grant a temporary plat waiver. He commented that the Planning Commission does not have the power to issue building permits.