Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, September 6, 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 Boulden, Legal
Carnes Butler Counsel
Harmon Dunlap
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 Friday, September 1, 2000 at 11:00 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 10:52 a.m., as well as in the office of the County Clerk at 10:44 a.m.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair Westervelt called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
Minutes:
Approval of the minutes of August 16, 2000 Meeting No. 2248
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 APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of August 16, 2000 Meeting No. 2248.
Minutes:
Approval of the minutes of August 23, 2000 Meeting No. 2249
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 23, 2000 Meeting No. 2249.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt reported that there are a few continuances requested.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Ashton Creek Office Park (PUD 600) PRELIMINARY PLAT
South side of East 91st Street at South Toledo Avenue (PD 18) (CD 8)
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Westervelt announced that there is a request for a continuance to September 20, 2000. He indicated that the applicant was in agreement with this continuance.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Having 10 Members Present:
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 CONTINUE the preliminary plat for Ashton Creek Office Park to September 20, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Burgundy Place (PUD 346-A)(1783) PRELIMINARY PLAT
Southwest corner of East 88th Street South and South Lewis (PD 18) (CD 2)
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Westervelt announced that the zoning has not been approved for the subject property and therefore there is a request for a continuance.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
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, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Collins “absent“) to CONTINUE the preliminary plat for Burgundy Place to September 20, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
QuikTrip Corporate Campus (PUD 635)(2894) PRELIMINARY PLAT
4800 South 1129th East Avenue (PD 17) (CD 6)
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Westervelt announced that the zoning has not been approved for the subject property and therefore there is a request for a continuance.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE the TMAPC voted 9-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace “aye”; no “nays”; Westervelt “abstaining”; Collins “absent“) to CONTINUE the preliminary plat for QuikTrip Corporate Campus to September 27, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Application No.:
pud-559-2 minor
amendment
Applicant: Mark Reentz (PD-18) (CD-8)
Location: North and east of northeast corner of East 91st Street and South Mingo Road
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Westervelt indicated that staff is recommending a continuance due to lack of information.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of CARNES the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Collins “absent“) to CONTINUE the minor amendment for PUD-599-2 to September 20, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Application No.: PUD-639 om/ol/rm-2
to PUD
Applicant: Roy Johnsen (PD-6) (CD-9)
Location: Southeast corner of East 21st Street and South Main
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt indicated that there has been a continuance requested by the interested parties. He stated that the TMAPC would consider the continuance issue at this time only, not the merits of the application.
Applicant's Presentation:
Roy D. Johnsen, 201 West Fifth, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing Mr. Paul Coury, stated that Mr. Coury has been in contact with the various property owners in the vicinity of the subject property and has sought out their input, comments and responses on the subject project. He explained that a formal meeting was held with the neighborhood representatives on August 22, 2000. At the time of the meeting questions were asked and a presentation was made. He indicated that a traffic engineer and architect were present to answer questions. He stated that at the meeting there were interested parties who were opposed and some who were in favor of the subject application.
Mr. Johnsen stated that one of the issues of concern was the traffic on Boston and access points. He explained that in response to these concerns he amended his site plan and mailed the amended site plan to the interested parties. Throughout the time since the first meeting, people have contacted Mr. Coury for information. He indicated that at any time his client stood ready to meet with any organized group that cared to meet or discuss information requested. He stated that neither he nor his client heard anything from the more vocal opposition, except that they passed out flyers in the neighborhood and have distributed information to others that was intended to be inflammatory and misstatements of fact. Mr. Johnsen listed several items that were inflammatory: Crime will increase; PUD's do not offer protection, etc. Mr. Johnsen concluded that he does not feel that it will be productive with those particular persons to continue the matter further.
Mr. Johnsen stated that his client has directed him to object to the continuance, as it is outside of the spirit of what one usually tries to accomplish in the PUD process for meaningful dialogue between opposing factions. This seems to be have been lost in this instance.
Interested Parties Comments:
Janice Nicklas, 122 East 25th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114, Co-Chair of the Portofino on the Park Study Committee, stated that her neighborhood is along 21st Street to 26th Place, Cincinnati to Riverside Drive, an area with approximately 150 single-family homes and an equal number of condo units. She indicated that the subject area is the Riverside Addition of Maple Ridge, the area impacted by proposed PUD-639.
Ms. Nicklas stated that the committee respectfully requests a continuance of two weeks for the subject application in order to allow the neighborhood to be informed about the proposed PUD. She explained that many neighbors are concerned with the developer’s announcement to build a high-rise building. She stated that there is a lot of confusion on the interested parties’ part. She indicated that the confusion and lack of information is due to the fact that only a few residents had the opportunity to meet with the developer.
Ms. Nicklas stated the neighbors need to time to hire their own consultants for a traffic study and time to interview an attorney to represent the neighborhood.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Boyle asked Ms. Nicklas if there is something in particular that she is trying to find out and have not been able to find out. In response, Ms. Nicklas stated that she needs more time because it has been a short time since the neighborhood has been aware of this massive change that is proposed for the subject area. Ms. Nicklas further stated that there are many people who would like more information about this application and have not had the chance to speak with the developer.
Mr. Boyle asked Ms. Nicklas if the neighbors would like to meet with Mr. Coury and his advisors. In response, Ms. Nicklas stated that there are many unanswered questions.
Mr. Boyle stated that since all of the parties are present today it would make sense that all the parties involved go out of the room to discuss this and then take this matter up at the end of the agenda.
Ms. Nicklas stated that she is unprepared to meet with Mr. Coury and his attorney today and would not have a consultant and attorney to represent the neighborhood.
Mr. Harmon asked Ms. Nicklas why she has not tried to meet with the developer when he has indicated that he made himself available to everyone. In response, Ms. Nicklas stated that Mr. Coury had a small meeting with a few of the condo owners directly across the street from the subject property. Ms. Nicklas explained that there was no publication regarding the meeting and there were many people who did not have the opportunity to hear his presentation.
Mr. Westervelt asked staff to give the date the application was made and when the property was posted. In response, Mr. Stump stated that the property was posted approximately August 15, 2000 and notice of a public hearing was sent out at the same time to the property owners within 300 feet.
Ms. Nicklas stated that she has had an opportunity to walk the streets and many people have been out of town because of the extreme heat, and many of the families have been on vacation.
Mr. Westervelt stated that there is a large group of people present today and continuances, if indeed there is something very constructive that will come from one, are often helpful. He commented that the Planning Commission usually encourages the homeowners to spend time with developers so that questions and issues are worked out before the public hearing. It is unusual to grant a continuance, particularly when there is a large group of people present who would be inconvenienced by having to come back if it is indeed continued.
Mr. Midget asked Ms. Nicklas if she attempted to meet with Mr. Coury. In response, Ms. Nicklas stated that she is not prepared to meet with Mr. Coury and that she has not met with him. She indicated that the neighborhood would love to meet with the developer, promote quality of life in the neighborhood, and design something that would fit and be compatible with the existing land use. Ms. Nicklas stated that she is very open to working with the developer and designing something that will be suitable for the neighborhood.
Mr. Boyle asked Ms. Nicklas if she would have a problem meeting with Mr. Coury right now. In response, Ms. Nicklas reiterated that she is not prepared to meet with Mr. Coury today. Mr. Boyle stated that he has a problem with the interested parties not wanting to meet with the developer today when everyone is present. Mr. Boyle further stated that after meeting with Mr. Coury, if the neighborhood still has not reached a solution or still have questions, then the continuance request could be decided. Ms. Nicklas stated that she represents a very large neighborhood and it would not be fair to many of the neighbors for her to work things out individually with Mr. Coury. Mr. Westervelt informed Ms. Nicklas that the Planning Commission is not asking her to work everything out, but simply to meet with Mr. Coury and see if he can answer some of the questions.
Mr. Westervelt indicated that the Planning Commission has received a large amount of correspondence and it has additional attachments (Exhibit A-2). He stated that there are 13 letters of support and one letter from Ms. Nicklas requesting the continuance. He commented that there is not an overwhelming sentiment against the project in the entire neighborhood included.
Ms. Nicklas stated that she does have a petition that has been circulated within the Riverside Addition of Maple Ridge and it has well over 300 names of individuals who oppose the PUD-639.
Mr. Westervelt stated that the Planning Commission would like to get the technical information for those cumulative reasons for the opposition to the project in order to make a technical decision. He recommended that all parties meet outside today while the Planning Commission continues with the agenda to see where they are regarding issues and questions. After that time if there are still unsolved issues, then the continuance could be decided. However, at least there would have been some sort of dialogue and it would be well-spent time.
Councilor Brady Pringle, 3636 South Trenton, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, Councilor for District 9, stated that he has an easy solution for this item. He indicated that no one is going to change his/her mind one way or the other on this project, but there has been a public impression created that the skids have been greased and this is going to go through anyway. What is happening today only reinforces that feeling, and therefore, he would almost insist that the interested parties’ continuance be granted. He commented that if the continuance were not granted, then everyone would lose in this process. He stated that the Portofino, if approved, would be present for 100 years plus. It would seem that a couple more weeks could be taken to let things be worked out. He concluded that this is not to say that he is against the project, but simply that in difference to all of the people who came to the meeting today, this would be the right thing to do.
Mr. Boyle stated that Councilor Pringle opened his remarks by saying that no one is going to change his/her mind. Mr. Boyle asked Councilor Pringle if the same would be true in two weeks. In response, Councilor Pringle stated that he does not know if the minds would be changed in two weeks or not. Mr. Boyle asked why Mr. Coury should be made to pay two extra weeks of interest. Councilor Pringle stated that he feels it would be in everybody's best interest to continue this project for two weeks. Mr. Boyle requested Councilor Pringle to mediate a meeting with the interested parties and the developers today. In response, Councilor Pringle stated that he would not feel comfortable with a meeting today and in his opinion nothing would be accomplished by that.
Ms. Pace stated that she agrees with Councilor Pringle, and it would be a highly unusual departure from the Planning Commission's normal course of events to not grant a timely request for a continuance. This is a large project with a great impact on the community and it would not be fair to send these people and Mr. Coury outside to discuss this matter. If it were not an ordinary habit of this commission to grant a timely continuance, she might agree with Mr. Westervelt. Ms. Pace concluded that it is very important for these two groups of people to get together and discuss their issues.
Mr. Westervelt stated that it appears maybe the Planning Commission should go ahead and vote on the continuance. Mr. Boyle stated that the Planning Commission should see if there is anyone else who would like to address the continuance issue.
The following Interested Parties expressed similar reasons for a continuance of PUD-639:
William Mitchell, 125 East 24th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114; John Thompson, 138 East 24th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114; John Strong, 2504 South Boston Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114; Carolyn Boatman, 114 East 24th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Robert Steen Smith, 129 East 26th Court, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114.
The above listed Interested Parties expressed the following opinions
regarding the continuance:
Large project and would have a large impact on the neighborhood; notice was for three weeks before the meeting and now the interested parties are requesting two more weeks in order to obtain counsel and have a valid viewpoint to present, as well as a decorum of communication with Mr. Coury; the pressure would be more on the interested parties than Mr. Coury to have a presentation ready in two weeks; were informed that this was a done deal and that Mr. Coury had greased all of the skids; need impartial body to help with this process; subject area is getting filled up.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that Mr. Boyle's suggestion of going outside to meet was simply a suggestion to see if there was some common ground that could be gained and a dialogue started. It was not meant that the Planning Commission was going to move this forward and not consider the continuance, but simply make the decision easier.
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Thompson if the past three weeks’ notice was not used effectively, what guarantee does the Planning Commission have that the next two weeks would be used effectively. In response, Mr. Thompson stated that the neighborhood has used the past three weeks effectively. Mr. Thompson commented that it is a crime that the City only gives the citizens three weeks to respond to this type of huge project within a residential area. Mr. Thompson assured the Planning Commission that the additional two weeks would not be wasted.
Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Strong who the source is regarding that the skids are greased and it is a done deal. In response, Mr. Strong stated that there were at least a half dozen people and mostly the legal fraternity who advised the interested parties that this was a done deal and not to waste their time. Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Strong if anyone on the Commission or from the City informed him that it was a done deal. In response, Mr. Strong stated that no one from the Commission informed him of that.
Applicant's Comments:
Paul Coury, 2222 S. Madison, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114, stated that normally he would also be in favor of a continuance and see the productivity, but this has been a very a typical situation. He commented that the PUD process is a good process, and the standards that are set up and the notification are good.
Mr. Coury stated that the meetings that he has had were very interesting because they were dominated by a few outspoken people, and their comments opposing the project were really more directed at the concept that he is proposing, which is a high-rise. He explained that there were really no questions regarding the project, but comments about why the interested parties did not want it. There have been two sets of flyers passed through the neighborhood that were not factual, but really derogatory against the project and why people should oppose it. Therefore, he has not seen the benefit of dividing the neighbors further. He explained that he tried to call and talk with several people who are adamantly against this project and they hung up when they heard his name. He stated that he was calling these people to try to sit down and explain the changes made to the garage and the traffic study. He commented that normally Councilor Pringle is right that due process and so forth is the way to go, but he feels that many constituents for and against this project have blitzed Councilor Pringle. The only thing accomplished by extending this project two weeks is to allow more complaining and being divisive.
Mr. Coury stated that he has a contract on the subject property and the Akdars have a contract on another property, which has a time line that will expire. The Akdars will have to go back before the Board of Regents to request an extension on the contract and that is very complicated. He concluded that he finds himself in a dilemma. He does not feel that the interested parties are out to negotiate with him, but to further their reasons against the project and to build more support. He stated that if he could be convinced otherwise, he would support an extension. He indicated that no one has contacted him to know what their issues are and how they would like to meet to resolve the issues.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Midget stated that he appreciates Mr. Coury's comments and he sympathizes with the interested parties to a certain extent. Mr. Midget acknowledged that he did see some of the flyers and they were inaccurate. Mr. Midget asked Mr. Coury if he sees any value in at least meeting with the willing residents in order to clear up the misinformation. Mr. Midget indicated that this may dwindle some of the opposition to the project. Mr. Coury expressed his concern with the possibility of conveying his perspective to the interested parties within the next two weeks. Mr. Coury commented that he thought the PUD process was developed to work through issues regarding protecting neighborhoods and surrounding areas.
Ms. Pace asked Mr. Coury if he was aware that if he had been the one to have timely requested a continuance, the Planning Commission would be inclined to continue this application if it appeared that things were not totally worked out. In response, Mr. Coury stated that his legal counsel has informed him of this practice.
Mr. Horner asked Ms. Boatman if Mr. Coury has ever refused to meet with anyone from the subject area. In response, Ms. Boatman stated that as far as she knows, Mr. Coury has never refused a meeting. Ms. Boatman further stated that Mr. Coury has refused to answer their questions.
Mr. Boyle asked Ms. Boatman if she expected to communicate with Mr. Coury and his representatives during the two-week continuance. In response, Ms. Boatman answered affirmatively. Mr. Boyle asked Ms. Boatman if two weeks is a realistic time to hire counsel, conduct a traffic study and meet with Mr. Coury. In response, Ms. Boatman stated that she felt a two-weeks continuance would be enough and doubted that she will be requesting another continuance later.
Mr. Harmon stated that the interested parties have indicated that they would like to conduct their own studies, which would be duplicating Mr. Coury's studies. Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Steen Smith if their studies come back with the same results as Mr. Coury's they would be open-minded enough to support the project. Mr. Steen Smith said that if it happens that way they would, but he does not feel that it will happen.
The following Interested Parties expressed support of PUD-639 and disagree with a continuance:
Devin Gilpin, 123 East 26th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114; Charlie Thornton, 2300 Riverside, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114; Robert Oliver, no address given; Paul Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Akdar Shrine Temple.
After a lengthy discussion it was determined to open the floor for a
motion regarding the interested parties' two-week continuance.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE the TMAPC voted 7-3-0 (Boyle, Harmon, Hill, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; Carnes, Horner, Jackson “nays”; none “abstaining”; Collins “absent“) to CONTINUE PUD-639 to September 27, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Chair called a five-minute break at 2:42
Reconvened at 2:48
Committee Reports:
Rules and Regulations Committee:
Mr. Boyle reported that the Rules and Regulations Committee reviewed the City Council Resolution 2911 and recommended a public hearing for October 18, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are several items on the City Council agenda for Thursday, September 7, 2000.
Mr. Westervelt announced that he would be attending the City Council meeting to represent the Planning Commission.
Mr. Stump further reported that the TMAPC Receipts for July were average.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
L-19106 - Roy Johnsen (2683) (PD-26)
(CD-8)
Southwest corner of East 101st Place & 78th East Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to split a 2.5’ X 15’ strip off the Reserve A area and attach it to Lot 1, Block 2, The Village. The proposed configuration will result in both resulting tracts having more than three side lot lines. The applicant is seeking a Waiver of Subdivision Regulations that each tract have no more than three side lot lines.
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.
Mr. Stump informed the Planning Commission that this item is related to Item No. 22, PUD-378-A-2, which would allow the division of the Reserve Area by minor amendment.
Application No.: PUD-378-A-2 minor
amendment
Applicant: Roy D. Johnsen (PD-26) (CD-8)
Location: West of southwest corner of East 101st Street and South Memorial
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant is requesting amendments to the building envelopes for Lot 1, Block 2, and Lot 11, Block 1, of The Village Addition. The request is to add small parcels of Reserve A to each of these lots. Reserve A is dedicated for private streets, utility easements, parking, landscaping and entry features.
Lot 1, Block 2, would include an additional 2.5 foot by 15 foot part of Reserve A along the corner of East 101st Place South. The proposed additional property would not interfere with visibility for this corner lot.
Lot 11, Block 1, would include an additional two feet by ten feet along the south lot line. There is an existing drainage and utility easement, which would buffer the proposed larger lot from the lots to the south.
Staff has reviewed the Planned Unit Development standards for this area and finds the proposed changes to Lot 1, Block 2, and Lot 11, Block 1 to be in conformance with the intent of the PUD. Staff can recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to the building envelopes with the condition that
the action be approved by the Homeowners’ Association relinquishing their rights to these particular Reserve A parcels, or that the property owners submit individual releases relinquishing their rights to the Reserve A tracts in question.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
The applicant indicated his agreement with the staff recommendation.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of CARNES 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 lot-split for waiver of subdivision regulations for L-19106 and to APPROVE the minor amendment for PUD-378-A-2, subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:
L-19037 - Jerry Foutch (464) (PD-20) (County)
13713 East 191st Street
L-19058 - Mike Marrara (292) (PD-10) (CD-1)
3620 West 5th Street
L-19087 - Nolan Gross (283) (PD-18) (CD-7)
6501 East 71st Street
L-19097 - Town & Country Realty (3592) (PD-8) (CD-2)
West 51st Street & South Maybelle
L-19103 - Sisemore Weisz & Associates (3293) (PD-18) (CD-9)
5211 South Lewis Avenue
L-19105 - Roger K. Eldredge (1993) (PD-6) (CD-9)
4033 South Yorktown Place
L-19109 - Charles J. Hendricks (874) (PD-19) (County)
12650 East 132nd Street
L-19114 - Frank Denham (2672) (PD-21) (County)
16804 South Elwood
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
FINAL PLAT:
Ranch Creek Addition (1313) (PD 15) (County)
East of the Southeast corner East 196th Street and North Memorial Drive
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of 48 lots in five blocks on 36.9 acres. It will be developed for single-family residential uses.
All releases are in and the plat is in order. Staff recommends approval of the final plat.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER 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 final plat for Ranch Creek Additions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Garnett North (3204) (PD 16) (CD 6)
East side of North Garnett Road, ¼ mile south of East Pine Street
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 8.27 acres. The property has had several development plans over the past few years. It appears it will be developed as mini-storage.
The following were
discussed August 17, 2000 at the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
Zoning:
·
The property was rezoned to IL in 1989. This rezoning
triggered the platting requirement. A plat waiver request was denied by the
TMAPC in June 1985. There have been a couple of Board of Adjustment actions on
the property related to setbacks. One was approved and one denied.
Streets/access:
Fifty feet of right-of-way is being dedicated to Garnett Road. One 50’ access location is being shown; 40’ is standard. A 20’ road easement is shown along the east end of the property.
· Somdecerff, Transportation, stated
that the right-of-way labels on the plat are inconsistent with what exists.
Right-of-way dedication must be made for a total of 50 feet from centerline of
Garnett along the entire western boundary of the property and 25 feet along the
eastern boundary.
· Price, Traffic, stated that the
access needs to be reduced to 40 feet.
Sewer:
· A new sewer is being built along the east side of Garnett. There were no concerns or special requirements for this plat.
Water:
· There were no concerns or special requirements for this plat.
Storm Drainage:
·
McCormick,
Stormwater, stated that there needs to be a detention pond in an easement and
an overland drainage easement to the pond with standard language in the
covenants.
Utilities:
· There were no
utility comments.
Other:
There were no
other comments.
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions below.
Waivers
of Subdivision Regulations:
1. None requested.
Special
Conditions:
1. Dedication of additional right-of-way as required, making a total of 50’ from centerline of Garnett and 25’ on the east boundary of the property.
2. Reduce the access width to 40 feet.
3. Provide all detention with easements as required by the City.
Standard Conditions:
1. Utility easements shall meet the approval of the utilities. Coordinate with Subsurface Committee if underground plant is planned. Show additional easements as required. Existing easements shall be tied to or related to property line and/or lot lines.
2. Water and sanitary sewer plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to release of final plat. (Include language for W/S facilities in covenants.)
3. Pavement or landscape repair within restricted water line, sewer line, or utility easements as a result of water or sewer line or other utility repairs due to breaks and failures, shall be borne by the owner(s) of the lot(s).
4. Any request for creation of a Sewer Improvement District shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Engineer prior to release of final plat.
5. Paving and/or drainage plans (as required) shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
6. Any request for a Privately Financed Public Improvement (PFPI) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
7. Topo map shall be submitted for review by TAC (Subdivision Regulations). (Submit with drainage plans as directed.)
8. Street names shall be approved by the Public Works Department and shown on plat.
9. All curve data, including corner radii, shall be shown on final plat as applicable.
10. Bearings, or true N/S, etc., shall be shown on perimeter of land being platted or other bearings as directed by the County Engineer.
11. All adjacent streets, intersections and/or widths thereof shall be shown on plat.
12. It is recommended that the developer coordinate with the Public Works Department during the early stages of street construction concerning the ordering, purchase and installation of street marker signs. (Advisory, not a condition for plat release.)
13. It is recommended that the applicant and/or his engineer or developer coordinate with the Tulsa City/County Health Department for solid waste disposal, particularly during the construction phase and/or clearing of the project. Burning of solid waste is prohibited.
14. The method of sewage disposal and plans therefor shall be approved by the City/County Health Department. [Percolation tests (if applicable) are required prior to preliminary approval of plat.]
15. The owner(s) shall provide the following information on sewage disposal system if it is to be privately operated on each lot: type, size and general location. (This information to be included in restrictive covenants on plat.)
17. The method of water supply and plans therefor 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.
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, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Collins “absent“) to recommend APPROVAL of the preliminary plat for Garnett North, subject to special conditions and standard conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
TSS Adult Day Care Services - Pine (3602) (PD 2) (CD 1)
¼ mile west of North Peoria Avenue, south side of East Pine Street
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 1.312 acres. It will be developed for an adult day care facility.
The
following were discussed August 17, 2000
at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
1. Zoning:
·
The property is zoned CS and CH. The use is categorized
under Use Unit 5, which is a use by right in both zoning districts. The plat is
voluntary.
2. Streets/access:
· The property fronts on East Pine Street and North Lansing Avenue. 20 feet of additional right-of-way is being dedicated to Pine Street. One 40-foot access location from Pine is being shown near the east end of the property.
· There were no concerns or special
requirements for this plat.
3. Sewer:
· There were no concerns or special
requirements for this plat.
4. Water:
· Murphree, Water, stated that the
service tap should be made from the 10” line on Lansing, not the 16” line on
Pine. She also stated that a hydrant would be needed near the entrance drive.
5. Storm
Drainage:
· There were no concerns or special
requirements for this plat.
6. Utilities:
· There were no concerns or special
requirements for this plat.
7. Other:
There were no other comments.
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions below.
Waivers of
Subdivision Regulations:
1. None requested.
Special Conditions:
1. None.
Standard Conditions:
1. Utility easements shall meet the approval of the utilities. Coordinate with Subsurface Committee if underground plant is planned. Show additional easements as required. Existing easements shall be tied to or related to property line and/or lot lines.
2. Water and sanitary sewer plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to release of final plat. (Include language for W/S facilities in covenants.)
3. Pavement or landscape repair within restricted water line, sewer line, or utility easements as a result of water or sewer line or other utility repairs due to breaks and failures, shall be borne by the owner(s) of the lot(s).
4. Any request for creation of a Sewer Improvement District shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Engineer prior to release of final plat.
5. Paving and/or drainage plans (as required) shall be approved by the Public Works Department.
6. Any request for a Privately Financed Public Improvement (PFPI) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
7. A topo map shall be submitted for review by TAC (Subdivision Regulations). (Submit with drainage plans as directed.)
8. Street names shall be approved by the Public Works Department and shown on plat.
9. All curve data, including corner radii, shall be shown on final plat as applicable.
10. Bearings, or true N/S, etc., shall be shown on perimeter of land being platted or other bearings as directed by the County Engineer.
11. All adjacent streets, intersections and/or widths thereof shall be shown on plat.
12. It is recommended that the developer coordinate with the Public Works Department during the early stages of street construction concerning the ordering, purchase and installation of street marker signs. (Advisory, not a condition for plat release.)
13. It is recommended that the applicant and/or his engineer or developer coordinate with the Tulsa City/County Health Department for solid waste disposal, particularly during the construction phase and/or clearing of the project. Burning of solid waste is prohibited.
14. The method of sewage disposal and plans therefor shall be approved by the City/County Health Department. [Percolation tests (if applicable) are required prior to preliminary approval of plat.]
15. The owner(s) shall provide the following information on sewage disposal system if it is to be privately operated on each lot: type, size and general location. (This information to be included in restrictive covenants on plat.)
16. The method of water supply and plans therefor shall be approved by the City/County Health Department.
17. All lots, streets, building lines, easements, etc., shall be completely dimensioned.
18. The key or location map shall be complete.
19. A Corporation Commission letter, Certificate of Non-Development, or other records as may be on file, shall be provided concerning any oil and/or gas wells before plat is released. (A building line shall be shown on plat on any wells not officially plugged. If plugged, provide plugging records.)
20. A "Letter of Assurance" regarding installation of improvements shall be provided prior to release of final plat. (Including documents required under 3.6.5 Subdivision Regulations.)
21. Applicant is advised of his responsibility to contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act.
22. All other Subdivision Regulations shall be met prior to release of final plat.
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, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Collins “absent“) to recommend APPROVAL of the preliminary plat for TSS Adult Day Care Services - Pine, subject to standard conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
66th Street North Truck Stop (3313) (PD 15) (County)
Northeast corner of 66th Street and Highway 75.
Staff Recommendation:
The following information was provided at the TAC meeting of August 3, 2000.
The site is located on the east side of Highway 75, north of 66th Street north. The western boundary of the property abuts the highway. The aerial indicates the racetrack to the south, what appears to be a cemetery to the east and significant trees in the south.
The subject site is zoned AG but is the subject of a request for change to IM to be heard by the Commission on August 2nd. The surrounding area is AG with IM to the south across 66th street.
The 66th Street North bounds property on the south. A 60’ wide street (cul-de-sac) is proposed, having a 90’ turn around. The cul-de-sac is approximately 520’ long. The plat does not show limits of no access on any street.
Cul-de-sacs have a maximum 500’ in length; industrial streets require 80’ of right of way.
Sanitary sewer is not shown in the area.
A 24” line is present along the highway in the southeast portion of the property.
There is an existing pond on the site. Proposed facilities are not shown.
Easements have not been shown.
Note: The Preliminary Plat has been revised since the TAC meeting. This revision leaves an unplatted area in the northern portion of the ownership. The central street has been stubbed to the boundary of the unplatted area. The County Engineer has reviewed the revision and agrees to the changes.
Staff provides the following comments from the TAC meeting.
·
Streets/access:
· Raines, County: Limits of No Access should be shown along 66th Street. The length of the cul-de-sac was an issue; a waiver to allow the 520’ length would be supported. Book and page references for previous dedications along 66th should be shown. An 80’ right-of-way was not required; 60’ as shown was sufficient if the street was improved with curb and gutter.
·
Sewer:
· Raines, County: Indicated that sewer was to the east past the cemetery. (Since that time Mr. Raines has indicated that the applicant intends to install a force main to the east along the north side of 66th Street).
·
Water:
· Raines, County: A 24” line was available in the southwest portion of the site.