Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting No. 2253

Wednesday, October 4, 2000 1:30 p.m.

Francis Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center

 

Members Present        Members Absent         Staff Present       Others Present

Carnes                                Boyle                                  Beach                       Boulden, Legal

Harmon                               Collins                                Dunlap                                  Counsel

Hill                                        Ledford                              Huntsinger    

Horner                                 Westervelt                          Matthews

Jackson                                                                          Stump

Midget

Pace

 

The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, October 2, 2000 at 10:00 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 9:51 a.m., as well as in the office of the County Clerk at 9:46 a.m. 

After declaring a quorum present, 2^nd Vice Chair Jackson called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

 

Minutes:

Approval of the minutes of September 6, 2000 Meeting No. 2250

On MOTION of CARNES the TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Boyle, Collins, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of September 6, 2000 Meeting No. 2250.

 

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

 

REPORTS:

Committee Reports:

Community Participation Committee

Mr. Harmon stated that he would be attending a meeting of the Brookside Pilot Project on October 5, 2000.

 

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

CONTINUED ITEMS:

GreenHill (PUD-637) (2993)                                     PRELIMINARY PLAT

Northeast corner of 45^th and Lewis                                          (PD-6) (CD-9)

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Jackson stated that PUD-637 has not been before the City Council and therefore, the preliminary plat for GreenHill should be continued to October 18, 2000.

 

TMAPC Action; 6 members present:

On MOTION of PACE, the TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "absent") to CONTINUE the preliminary plat for GreenHill to October 18, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.

 

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

 

 

R and J Property 2 (2392)                                     PRELIMINARY PLAT

Southwest corner of West 37^th Place South and South Elwood Avenue

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant has requested a continuance to October 18, 2000.

 

TMAPC Action; 6 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "absent") to CONTINUE the preliminary plat for R and J Property 2 to October 18, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.

 

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

 

PUD-432-E (793)                                                               PLAT WAIVER

East side of South Utica Avenue between East 11^th Street and East 12^th Street

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Jackson announced that this item has been stricken from the agenda.

 

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

 

PUD-638 (2193)                                                             PLAT WAIVER

Northwest corner of East 33^rd Street South and South Jamestown Avenue

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Jackson announced that this item has been stricken from the agenda.

 

Application No.:  CZ-271                                   AG to rs

Applicant:  Pat Garner                  (PD-23) (County)

Location:            West of West 61^st Street and South 170^th West Avenue

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Jackson announced that staff has requested a continuance due to the application fees not being paid.

 

Staff Recommendation:

Mr. Stump explained that the applicant’s check was insufficient and the applicant has been contacted twice; however, he has never taken care of the problem.

 

Mr. Garner stated that he would take care of the insufficient check.  In response, Mr. Stump informed the Planning Commission to continue the case to the October 18^th TMAPC meeting.

 

TMAPC Action; 6 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "absent") to CONTINUE zoning case CZ-271 to October 18, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.

 

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

 

Director’s Report:

Mr. Stump reported that the TMAPC does not have any items on the City Council agenda for October 5^th.

 

Mr. Stump stated that the TMAPC receipts for the month of August are down slightly.

 

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

 

SUBDIVISIONS

LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:

 

L-19088 – Jeffrey D. Lower (RS-3/PUD-182-7)                     (PD-18) (CD-2)

7415 South Atlanta Avenue

 

Mr. Midget in at 1:40 p.m.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Roy Johnsen, 201 West 5^th, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, requested a continuance to October 18, 2000 since it requires a two-thirds vote of the members of the Planning Commission present and voting.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins Ledford, Westervelt "absent") to CONTINUE the lot-splits for waiver of Subdivision Regulations L-19088 to October 18, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.

 

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

 

 

LOT-SPLITS FOR DISCUSSION:

L-19108 – Mark Reentz (1884)                                                 (PD-18) (CD-8)

East 91^st Street and west of Highway 169

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant has applied to split the Southcrest Medical Campus into two tracts, splitting off the office complex from the hospital.  A lot-split is required because the property has been platted.

 

With proper access easements and maintenance agreements for each individual lot to be created, along with the PUD minor amendment, staff recommends APPROVAL of this lot-split, with the condition that the access easements and maintenance agreements be filed of record at the county courthouse.

 

and

 

Application No.:  PUD-559-A-2                        minor amendment

Applicant:  Mark Reentz                  (PD-18) (CD-8)

Location:      North and east of northeast corner of East 91^st Street and South Mingo

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant is requesting a minor amendment to split Development Area A in the Southcrest Hospital Campus. The proposal is to separate the hospital and medical office building on the platted Lot 1, Block 1, of the Southcrest Medical Campus. The Tract 1 hospital parcel will contain 19.9 acres, and the Tract 2 office parcel will contain 8.9 acres. A remainder Tract 3 is not platted at this time and will contain all property in Development Area A that is not currently platted.

 

The minor amendment proposes development standards in accordance with the original PUD. The uses proposed will be per the original PUD. The parking standards will meet or exceed the zoning code requirements. Mutual access easements between the lots are detailed for the proposal. Specific allotments for each parcel as proposed meet the overall density development standards for this PUD.

The overall original standards for the development area included 635,000 square feet of building area. This is proposed to be split with 400,000 square feet for hospital and office types of uses for the platted area and 235,000 square feet for the remainder of the Development Area for these types of uses. The retail sales uses originally allocated as 25,000 square feet will be split to the platted hospital area with 5,000 square feet, and the unplatted remaining area with 20,000 square feet. The allocated space for eating establishments will be split from 20,000 square feet as approved to 5,000 square feet in the hospital platted area and 15,000 square feet in the unplatted area. Signs will adhere to the standards as approved in the original PUD.

 

Staff finds that the minor amendment is in keeping with the intent of the adopted Planned Unit Development, and can therefore recommend APPROVAL of the split of Development Area A as proposed with the conditions as follow:

 

1.                  That the proposed mutual access easements be dedicated;

2.                  That the maintenance of the mutual access easements be defined and assured by each of the individual lot owners;

3.                  That the landscaping area for each tract meet the approved PUD requirements and be maintained by the individual owners of each tract;

4.                  That the DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS be specified as follows:

 

All existing requirements of PUD-559 shall continue unless modified below:

 

DEVELOPMENT AREA A

 

Tract 1 – Hospital Tract 275,000 square feet Permitted Uses per PUD

 

5,000 square feet Retail Sales Use

 

5,000 square feet Eating Establishments Use

 

Tract 2 – Office Tract 125,000 square feet Permitted Uses per PUD

 

Tract 3 – Unplatted Area 235,000 square feet Permitted Uses per PUD

 

20,000 square feet Retail Sales Use

 

15,000 square feet Eating Establishments Use

Applicant’s Comments:

Mark Reentz, no address given, stated that he has filed a proposed declaration of easement with his lot-split and minor amendment.  He commented that he assumes that the declaration satisfies the requirements of the Planning Commission and staff with regard to providing the easement, maintenance, etc.

 

Mr. Dunlap stated that staff is recommending approval of the minor amendment; however, if the applicant would like the minor amendment continued until the declaration is reviewed, staff has no problem with a continuance.  Staff is recommending approval of the minor amendment and the lot-split.

 

Mr. Reentz explained that he would like to have the lot-split and minor amendment approved, but he wanted to make sure that the proposed language is satisfactory.  In response, Mr. Stump stated that staff has not reviewed the proposed language at this time.

 

Mr. Reentz stated that he would like to have the lot-split and minor amendment heard today.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of CARNES, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins, Ledford, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE of the lot-split for L-19108 and APPROVE the minor amendment for PUD-559-A-2 subject to the conditions as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

FINAL PLAT:

Sheridan Center – (PUD-206) (2283)                                     (PD-18) (CD-8)

Southwest corner of 93^rd and South Sheridan

 

Staff Recommendation:

This plat consists of one lot in one block.  The land area is not shown but staff estimates it to be about 2.2 acres.  It will be developed under PUD-206 with office 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.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

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

 

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

 

 

Southern Woods Park – (PUD-355-B) (1683)                               (PD-18) (CD-8)

Northwest corner of East 91^st Street and South Yale Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

This plat consists of nine lots in one block and two reserves on 9.05 acres.  It will be developed for office and commercial uses under PUD-355-B.

 

All releases are in and the plat is in order.  Staff recommends APPROVAL of the final plat, subject to inclusion of easements detailed in the release letter from PSO.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

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

 

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

 

 

PRELIMINARY PLAT:

Woodland Animal Hospital East – (3693)                         (PD-18) (CD-7)

9509 East 61^st Street

 

Ms. Hill announced that she would be abstaining on this item.

 

Staff Recommendation:

This plat consists of one lot in one block on 1.197 acres. The property currently contains a veterinary clinic, which is being expanded. TAC reviewed this as a sketch plat on August 17, 2000.

 

The following were discussed September 21, 2000 at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:

 

1.      Zoning:

·        This property was rezoned to CS in 1982 and has been subject to plat since then. Apparently there have been building permits issued as recently as 1995 without requiring the plat. A recent application for a permit to build a new building flagged the platting requirement. A plat waiver request was approved with the condition that a plat be filed prior to occupancy.

2.      Streets/access:

• The property fronts on East 61^st Street. Access limits corresponding to the existing drives have been shown on this plat.

• Price, Traffic, stated that these limits are acceptable.

3.      Sewer:

• The plat waiver review said connection to the 18” sanitary sewer on the north is not permitted and an 8” main extension would be required to serve both buildings. Sanitary sewer is shown on this plat along the west side of the property connecting with a manhole off-site near the northwest corner. There were no concerns or special requirements during the sketch plat review.
• There were no concerns or special requirements for this preliminary plat.

4.      Water:

• The plat shows a 48” waterline along the north side of 61^st Street. There were no concerns or special requirements during the sketch plat review.
• Holdman, Water, stated that the service tap should be made from the 12” line along south side of 61^st Street. A tap will not be permitted from the 48” line.

5.      Storm Drainage:

• The property appears to be in or near the floodplain. There were no concerns or special requirements during the plat waiver review and the only comment during sketch plat review was that the floodplain needs to be placed in a reserve. An overland drainage easement has been shown around the FEMA floodplain.
• McCormick, Stormwater, stated that the requirement is still that the floodplain area be placed in a dedicated reserve and the covenants need to include standard language for the reserve.

6.      Utilities:

• During plat waiver review, PSO asked for additional easements to serve the property. This plat shows a 17.5’ perimeter easement along the north and east sides.
• There were no representatives from the franchise utility companies and it was assumed that the easements shown would suffice.

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.       Place floodplain in a dedicated reserve area.

 

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 therefore shall be approved by the City/County Health Department.

 

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

 

18. The key or location map shall be complete.

 

19. A Corporation Commission letter, Certificate of Non-Development, or other records as may be on file, shall be provided concerning any oil and/or gas wells before plat is released.  (A building line shall be shown on plat on any wells not officially plugged.  If plugged, provide plugging records.)

 

20. A "Letter of Assurance" regarding installation of improvements shall be provided prior to release of final plat.  (Including documents required under 3.6.5 Subdivision Regulations.)

 

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

 

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

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon stated that the subject property has an existing building.  In response, Mr. Beach explained that the Planning Commission extended the time to file a plat in order to allow construction, with the condition that the applicant file a subdivision plat prior to occupancy.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 6-0-1 (Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; Hill ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins, Ledford, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary plat for Woodland Animal Hospital East, subject to special conditions and standard conditions as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

4M Vocational School – (1223)                                                 (PD-16) (CD-6)

North of northwest corner of Mingo Road and 46^th Street North

 

Staff Recommendation:

This plat consists of one lot in one block on 7.08 acres. This is a replat of Lots 5, 6, & 7, Mingo Addition.  The property is currently vacant and will be developed for use as a welding school and shop with dormitories for students.

 

The following were discussed September 21, 2000 at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:

 

1.   Zoning:

·        This property was rezoned to IL in February 1998 and has been subject to plat since then.  The setback requirement is 100 feet from the centerline of Mingo Road and 50 feet from the centerline of 95^th East Avenue.  In addition, there is a setback requirement of 75 feet from the abutting AG zoning to the west and north.  The zoning boundary is along the centerline of 95^th East Avenue and along the north property line of this tract.

2.       Streets/access:

• The property fronts on North Mingo Road on the east and North 95^th East Avenue on the west.  The Mingo Addition plat dedicated 40 feet to 95^th East Avenue but it has not been constructed adjacent to this property.  An additional five feet was dedicated by the Fulsom Addition plat abutting to the south.  This plat should also dedicate five feet.  This plat dedicates 15 feet to Mingo Road to complete the 50 feet required.  There are no internal streets.  Two 40-foot access locations are shown on Mingo at the northeast and southeast corners.

• Price, Traffic, stated that the southernmost access location should be moved north at least ten feet.


• Somdecerff, Transportation, concurred with the need for additional five feet along 95^th East Avenue and the proposed 15 feet additional to Mingo Road.  Dedications should be labeled “by this plat”.  Existing right-of-way should be labeled with the book and page numbers.

3.       Sewer:

• Atlas page 437 shows a ten-inch sewer about 700 feet west of the subject tract.
• The applicant stated that the property would be developed using an existing septic system.  ODEQ has stated the lot meets it’s requirements for a septic system.
• Bolding, Wastewater, stated that septic system would not be permitted and a sanitary sewer extension would be required.
• The applicant stated that his instructions were to proceed assuming a septic system and he would advise his client of the City policies.  The issue has not been resolved as of this writing.

4.       Water:

• Atlas page 437 shows a 24” and a twelve-inch water line on the west side of Mingo Road.
• Holdman, Water, stated that the service tap should be made from the twelve-inch line and looped through the site if a fire line is needed.  A tap will not be permitted from the 24” line.

5.       Storm Drainage:

• The stormwater review in the zoning file indicates that a fee-in-lieu of detention would be allowed.
• McCormick, Stormwater, concurred and had no concerns with storm drainage.

6.       Utilities:

• The plat shows 17.5’ perimeter easements.
• There were no representatives from the franchise utility companies and it was assumed that the easements shown would suffice.

7.       Other:

• References to “Mingo Subdivision” on the plat should be changed to “Mingo Addition”.

 

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions below.

 

Waivers of Subdivision Regulations:

1.   None requested.

 

Special Conditions:

1.   Change the building setback line along Mingo Road to 100 feet from the centerline and delete the setback line along 95^th East Avenue.  The Zoning Code will control the setbacks from abutting AG, R, or O districts and may change if the zoning is changed on surrounding properties.

2.       Move southernmost access location north ten feet.

3.       Dedication of five feet of right-of-way to 95^th East Avenue and 15 feet to Mingo Road.

4.       Extension of a public sewer main to serve the property with easements acceptable to 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.       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.

 

Mr. Beach stated that the dormitories are no longer part of the project and therefore this will only be a welding school and shop.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Boyle, Collins, Ledford, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary plat for 4M Vocational School subject to special conditions and standard conditions as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC HEARING

*See modification by the City Council on 11/9/00.

Application No.:  Z-5620-SP-10                    Corridor Site Plan

Applicant:  Ted Sack                  (PD-18) (CD-8)

Location:            East of southeast corner of East 91^st Street and South Memorial

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant is requesting Corridor Site Plan approval for a one-story office building containing 10,548 square feet of floor area on a 2.5-acre tract.  The Plan proposes to connect its parking lot to the existing development to the west, but does not have access to a corridor collector street as required by the Corridor Chapter of the Zoning Code.  This tract contains the location where a corridor collector street should be provided, but this Site Plan does not propose one.  A corridor collector street is needed on this tract to serve the already developed tracts to the west and the 13.7 acres of undeveloped land zoned corridor to the interior of this tract.

 

Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of corridor site plan 5620-SP-10 as not being in conformance with the Corridor Chapter.

 

Note:  Detail site plan approval does not constitute landscape or sign plan approval.

 

Mr. Stump stated that the subject property is the last lot before abutting the stormwater detention area owned by the city.  The applicant is showing a loop-roadway going between 91^st Street and Memorial, but is a private drive that is built to the same standards as a single-family residential private street.  The subject property is not within a PUD and subdivision regulations require that all lots that are in PUD have frontage on a public street.  When the interior property is divided (Tract A), there will not be a public street to subdivide off of and there would be a low-capacity street in place.  There is no provision for ongoing maintenance of the private street.  If this is allowed to occur, there will be 30 feet left between the eastern boundary of the subject tract and the stormwater detention area.  There would not be enough right-of-way for any public street, much less a collector street.  The whole interior would have no public street access and the corridor district requires that all lots that are developed have their principal access off a corridor collector street.  The proposed private drive does not meet the requirements of a collector street.  The eastern portion of the tract needs to provide at least half of the right-of-way for the collector street and the collector street developed as a public street to the southern boundary of Tract B.  He indicated that because of the configuration, there would be excessive cut-through traffic trying to avoid the traffic light at 91^st Street and Memorial.  This would mean a lot of outside traffic that would wear out the private street and create an additional burden on whoever is in charge of maintaining the road.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Charles Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, submitted site plans (Exhibit A-1) representing the 1995 Land Company, stated that originally this application was to be heard on September 20^th and at that time the recommendation was for approval of the site plan.  He commented that he believes that staff is satisfied with the site plan itself for the use on Tract B and that the opposition is based upon the issue of the internal collector street.

 

Staff Comments:

Mr. Stump explained that the reason for the recommendation of approval on September 20^th is because there is a new employee reviewing the detail site plan and she did not realize that the bigger picture had to be considered regarding serving the interior lot.  In response, Mr. Norman stated that he is not bringing this up as an issue for the purpose of the previous recommendation for approval, but only to eliminate any questions about the site plan itself.  Mr. Stump stated that a critical part of the site plan is the eastern side that would have to devote some of the site plan to collector street right-of-way and if the site plan is approved, then the ability to have a public street is eliminated.  Mr. Norman asked if there is any issue regarding the land use or the layout that is shown on the detail site plan.  Mr. Stump stated that the revised detail site plan indicates a mutual access to a private drive and that solves one of the problems, but it doesn’t go to a collector street.  There are no problems with the detail site plan, except for the east 30 to 40 feet boundary of the subject property.

 

Mr. Norman stated that the building setbacks, land use and the internal circulation have been satisfied.  The only real issue is the matter of how the internal tracts will be served.  Mr. Norman read Section 804 of the Zoning Code pertaining to corridor site plans.

 

Mr. Norman stated that there is 18 acres of land and the east boundary of the subject property is 900 feet from Memorial and the south boundary of the subject property is 800 feet to 91^st Street.  He questioned if there is any need for a public street, internal collector street, to serve the 18 acres that  includes all of the parcels that front onto 91^st Street to the north.

 

Mr. Norman indicated that the subject property originated in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s.  He stated that typically there would have been an L-shaped collector street coming from 91^st Street and down to 93^rd and then back out to Memorial.  He indicated that 93^rd Street was constructed as a collector street and it serves the Sun Chase apartments and extends into the residential area to the north.  The next development was the dedication of the stormwater detention facility, which is immediately to the east of the proposed road.  He indicated that the State Farm Agency was developed later and fronts on South Memorial.  He stated that in 1985 the plat was approved without establishing a collector street, but internally the property owners agreed that there would be established a perimeter road that would connect to Memorial and 91^st Street and be maintained by his client.  He indicated that the easement was 30 feet in width and slightly wider at Memorial.  He stated that two-thirds of the roadway was constructed in 1985 to the city standards.  Mr. Norman submitted photographs (Exhibit A-2).  Mr. Norman commented that the road is in good condition and is obligated to be maintained by his client.

 

Mr. Norman stated that the Planning Commission has approved two prior site plans, the Sonic drive-in and O’Reilly’s Auto Parts on 91^st Street, with a requirement that there be established a mutual access easement.  He commented that the Shelter Insurance site plan did not include the mutual access easement; however, that has been added to the revised site plan submitted today.  He explained that now vehicles from the Sonic Drive-in, O’Reilly’s Auto Parts and the proposed Shelter Insurance site could access the proposed private internal collector street by the mutual access easement.

 

Mr. Norman indicated that his client proposes to construct the entire length of the street from the existing pavement onto the east and around to the north.  He stated that this has been presented to the city as a PFPI 570.  The street will have curbs, gutters and storm sewer collection, which will go into the stormwater facility.  PFPI 570 has been approved and construction is underway.  The location of the driveway onto 91^st Street has been approved by Traffic Engineering indicating that it meets the distance from South Memorial.

 

Mr. Norman stated that the lot-split for Tract B was approved in January 2000, with a provision that left the right-of-way between Tract B and the detention facility (30 feet in width) with a wider throat opening onto 91^st Street.  The specification for the internal collector street will be up to city standards and will be a street 26 feet in width with curbs and gutters.  He commented that a 26-foot wide street would be sufficient for the small number of acres that will be remaining on the interior (approximately 13 acres).  He concluded that the issue today is whether there is any need for a public street to go 900 feet from Memorial to the east and then 800 feet to the north.  He stated that his client is willing to install a private street and maintain it.  He indicated that his client is prepared to provide a mutual access easement all the way around.  He explained that the same thing was done for the State Farm road 15 years ago.

Mr. Norman stated that he believes that his proposal meets the spirit of the Zoning Code.  He commented that the Zoning Code does not use the word “public” nor the term of “internal collector street”.  He commented that he believes that as long as internal access is acceptable and adequate to serve the proposed land use, then it is left open to meet the standard for a corridor development by private street.

 

Mr. Norman concluded that with the provision of the private easement, mutual access and with the obligation for maintenance being imposed upon the remaining property, he feels that his client has satisfied staff’s concerns.  He stated that before Tract A can be developed it would require a corridor site plan and if there should be any further subdivision internally, then it would have to come before the Planning Commission and platted as well.  He stated that this situation is different because of its history and the establishment of a collector street at East 93^rd Street.

 

Mr. Norman informed the Planning Commission that vehicles are driving around construction barriers to cut through from Memorial to 91^st Street.  He proposes to change the curve to a right-angle turn where a stop sign could be in place to interrupt and make it less convenient to cut through to avoid the traffic signal.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Midget asked if there is any indication that his client anticipates the city to take over the proposed street at some point.  In response, Mr. Norman answered negatively.

 

Mr. Carnes asked why his client does not want to dedicate the street since it is being built to the city standards.  In response, Mr. Norman stated that his client’s point is that the traffic that will be created by this internal tract would not require a collector street 36 feet wide and does not require 60 feet of right-of-way.  Mr. Norman further stated that if this roadway could be established privately and to public standards, then he believes that he has met the intent of the Zoning Code.

 

Mr. Carnes asked staff if there is really any reason for a 36-foot wide street considering the room available for the proposed street.  In response, Mr. Stump stated that his biggest concern is that it be a public street.  Mr. Stump commented that he doubts if Mr. Norman’s client would be willing to commit to never subdividing Tract A (13.67 acres).  Mr. Stump stated that if the applicant does not provide adequate public street right-of-way going to 91^st Street, then it could never be a public street in the future.  Mr. Stump explained that staff is concerned with setting a precedent.  Mr. Stump stated that there have been other corridor districts with PUDs on top of them, which specified the intensity of the development in the undeveloped areas and the PUD would specify who would maintain the private road and there is some control, which the city is party to.  Mr. Stump further stated that the proposal does not have a PUD in place and therefore, it goes back to the corridor district.  Mr. Stump explained that if the applicant comes back with a high intensity use for Tract A and the zoning indicates that high intensity is permitted on Tract A, the Planning Commission would have to approve it.  Mr. Stump further explained Tract A would not have frontage to a public street because there would only be 30 feet of right-of-way going out to 91^st Street and the applicant cannot go back and retro-fit.  Mr. Stump stated that the solution is to make sure that a collector street system is in place, which could handle high intensity uses.

 

Mr. Stump stated that the corridor site plan showed a private access drive and there has been no corridor collector street approved.  He further stated that State Farm was the only proposed use in the whole area and the Planning Commission said that there is no use to start the collector street since the only thing State Farm needed was to direct vehicles from their parking lot out to Memorial.  The Planning Commission allowed State Farm to use a private access drive to get from their parking lot out to Memorial and this did not set a precedent to lower standards for collector streets, but simply stall the collector street until more development comes along.

 

Mr. Carnes asked staff if the north/south street or private drive was developed with the full right-of-way