Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, December 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 Ledford Beach Boulden, Legal
Carnes Bruce Counsel
Harmon Dunlap
Hill Huntsinger
Collins
Matthews
Horner
Stump
Jackson
Midget
Pace
Westervelt
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the
Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, December 5, 2000 at 4:00 p.m.,
posted in the Office of the City Clerk at, as well as in the office of the
County Clerk.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair Westervelt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Minutes:
Approval of the minutes
of November 15, 2000 Meeting No. 2257
On MOTION of BOYLE the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Jackson, Ledford “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of November 15, 2000 Meeting No. 2257.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt announced that CZ-276 (Item No. 17) has been withdrawn and
the applicant is requesting a refund.
Mr. Westervelt directed staff to refund the appropriate amount of the
application fees to the applicant.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Application No.: PUD-527-A major amendment
Applicant: R.A. Ellison (PD-26) (CD-8)
Location: Northeast corner of East 121st
Street and South Yale Avenue
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt announced that the applicant has timely requested a
continuance for PUD-527-A (Item No. 19) to December 20, 2000.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE, the
TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes,
Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no
"nays"; none ”abstaining"; Ledford, Jackson, "absent")
to CONTINUE the major amendment for PUD-527-A to December 20, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Committee Reports:
Mr. Boyle stated that the committee had a meeting last week to discuss a recommendation regarding rezoning the Woody Crest neighborhood to RE zoning. He reported that the unanimous recommendation of the committee, after reviewing the request, is to not call for a public hearing primarily because so many of the lots in the proposal would not be in conformance with the RE zoning guidelines.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Horner reported that the Nominating Committee has chosen the following nominees for the 2001 election of officers: Joe Westervelt, Chair; Gary Boyle, 1st Vice Chair; Wesley Harmon, 2nd Vice Chair; Brandon Jackson, Secretary.
Mr. Horner stated that the election of officers would be held January 3, 2001.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there is one item on the City Council agenda Thursday, December 7, 2000.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
L-19079 - Margaret M. Jennings (374) (PD-19)
(County)
12951 East 152nd East Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to split a 327’ X 295’ tract into two parcels. Both tracts will meet all the bulk and area requirements, and will have the required street frontage; however, the Major Street and Highway Plan calls for a total of 100’ right-of-way on East 131st Street, of which 35’ of the 50’ is currently deeded. The proposed configuration will result with Tract B having four side lot lines; therefore, 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, with the condition that the additional 15’ of right-of-way on East 131st Street is deeded to Tulsa County.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of CARNES TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Ledford "absent") to APPROVE the lot-split for waiver of Subdivision Regulations for L-19079, subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
L-19141 - Wynona Dunbar (1792) (PD-9)
(County)
2360 South 61st West Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to split a 300’ X 125.5’ tract into two parcels. Both tracts will meet all the bulk and area requirements, and will have the required street frontage. The proposed configuration will result with Tract 1 having four side lot lines; therefore, 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.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Ledford "absent") to APPROVE the lot-split for waiver of Subdivision Regulations for L-19141 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
L-19145 - Betty Braithwait (983) (PD-18) (CD-8)
Staff Recommendation:
The subject property was originally split on April 15, 1981, having received approval for water and sewer service and a PUD minor amendment. However, the dwelling on Tract A was built over the common property line. In order to fix the encroachment, an application has been filed to rearrange the common boundary line, resulting in the two tracts swapping pieces of property. The proposed configuration will result with Tract A having six side lot lines, requiring a Waiver of Subdivision Regulations that each tract have no more than three side lot lines.
The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission heard and approved a minor amendment to PUD-136 on November 15, 2000, in conjunction with the current lot-split application. The property meets the RS-3 bulk and area requirements.
Given that this lot-split is necessary to clear up the encroachment on the common property line and all approvals related to utility service were given in 1981, staff would recommend APPROVAL of the waiver of Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Ledford "absent") to APPROVE the lot-split for waiver of Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
L-19149 – Murrel Wilmoth (1793) (PD-6) (CD-9)
2847 South Columbia Place
Mr. Westervelt announced that
this item has been stricken from the agenda per applicant.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:
Mr. Westervelt announced that
he would be abstaining.
L-19102 – QuikTrip Corporation
(2793) (PD-6) (CD-7)
4747 South Yale Avenue
L-19122
– Patty Shadrick (614) (PD-15)
(County)
9940 East 126th Street North
L-19124
– Judy Marrs (2422) (PD-13)
(County)
15110 North Peoria
L-19133
– Sack & Associates, Inc.
(PD-18) (CD-8)
10802 East 71st Street
L-19157
– Roger K. Eldredge (1793)
(PD-4) (CD-9)
South side of East 21st Street and South Atlanta Place
L-19158
– Roy Johnsen (383) (PD-18) (CD-7)
West of southwest corner of East 61st Street and Hudson
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Beach stated that all of these lot-splits are in order and staff recommends APPROVAL.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of CARNES, the TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; Westervelt ”abstaining"; Jackson, Ledford "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
CHANGE OF ACCESS ON RECORDED PLAT:
Lot 28, Block 1, Staiger
Addition (2793)
4747 South Yale Avenue
Mr. Westervelt announced that
he would be abstaining.
Staff Recommendation:
This application is made by QuikTrip Corporation to accommodate the
location of the northernmost of two access driveways from Yale Avenue.
The Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the request.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the change of access.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace, "aye"; no "nays"; Westervelt ”abstaining"; Jackson, Ledford "absent") to APPROVE the change of access for Lot 28, Block 1, Staiger Addition as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Lot 14 & 15, Block 2, 21 Garnett Place (894)
Northwest corner East 21st Street and South 116th East Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
This application is made by Clinic Properties, Inc. to accommodate the
location of the northernmost of two existing access driveways from South 116th
East Avenue.
The Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the request.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the change of access.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace,
Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Jackson, Ledford "absent") to APPROVE the change of access for Lots 14 and 15,
Block 2, 21 Garnett Place as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Lot 2, Block 1, Eastside
Market (684)
11021 East 71st Street
Staff Recommendation:
This application is made to accommodate the actual planned location of
the access driveway from East 71st Street. The user has been identified and the final project parcel has
been created.
Lot 2 is being split and this new access location will provide a common
drive for the two development parcels.
The Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the request.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the change of access.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace,
Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Jackson, Ledford "absent") to APPROVE the change of access for Lot 2, Block 1,
Eastside Market as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Union High School Addition (0183) (PD-18) (CD-7)
6636 South Mingo Road
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of one lot in one block and one reserve on 50.15 acres. It is the site of the existing Union High School and accessory uses.
The following were discussed November 16, 2000 at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
1.
Zoning:
· The Board of Adjustment recently approved a special exception to permit expansion of the existing high school buildings and parking. This approval triggered the platting requirement. The high school was established prior to the zoning code on this property and has never been subject to plat before now. The site plan included on the face of the plat shows the existing elements of the site. The separate site plan attached shows the new elements as approved by the Board of Adjustment.
2.
Streets/access:
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.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon asked staff why Traffic Engineering recommends reducing the size of the access point. In response, Mr. Beach stated that the access location shown is 70’ wide and Traffic Engineering prefer that the accesses be 40’ wide and would like 30’ separation from the corner in order to allow for curb returns and to make sure the driveway is fully within the subject property. Mr. Stump stated that immediately to the south is an access to Sam’s development and Traffic Engineering did not want two accesses be adjacent to each other because of the potential conflicts that could produce.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Applicant’s Comments:
Darin Akerman, 6111 East 32nd Place, Tulsa Oklahoma 74135, stated that the driveway is already in existence; however, it would eventually be expanded to four or five lanes in order to have a wider access. He indicated that he would respect the curbcut going into the property to the south and have sufficient limit of no access for proper curb returns. He requested that this issue be coordinated with Traffic Engineering during the development.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Akerman where he varies from the staff recommendation. In response, Mr. Akerman stated that the distance from the southeastern corner of the property would be approximately 20’ rather than the 30’, and he would widen the access from 40’ to approximately 60’ or 70’. Mr. Ackerman indicated that this has been proposed to Darrell French and it is understood now that the access on the plat is the existing drive leading out onto Mingo.
Mr. Carnes suggested approving the plat subject to the applicant and Traffic Engineering working out their access points.
Mr. Boyle asked why staff didn’t have this
as part of the special conditions or standard conditions. In response, Mr. Beach stated that staff
includes special conditions when they are dramatically different from what is
ordinarily required under the standard conditions. Mr. Beach further stated that in this case the request was made
by Traffic Engineering and ultimately they will have to be satisfied with
whatever the applicant provides for an access.
Mr. Beach commented that staff does not have any concern with a 50’ or
60’ wide access location if Traffic Engineering approves.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLES TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Ledford "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary plat for Union High School subject standard conditions; subject to Traffic Engineering approval regarding access points as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Jackson in at 1:55 p.m.
Shelter Place (CO-5620-SP-10) (2483) (PD-18) (CD-8)
East of southeast corner of East 91st Street South and South Memorial Drive
Staff Recommendation:
The site is located on the south side of 91st Street east of Memorial It is bounded on the east and south by vacant land and on the west by commercial uses. East 91st Street bounds it on the north with a shopping center beyond.
The site is zoned CO (corridor).
STREETS
The site will have access to 91st Street from a point in the western potion of the site and from a 30’ private drive to the east. A mutual access easement will allow traffic from the west to access 91st Street and the private drive through this parcel.
Access to the interior of the section is limited from the north by virtue of the existing development. One issue to whether this private drive constitutes sufficient access to the interior of the parcel.
Water is present along the north boundary.
Staff does not have
drainage/detention information.
A 17.5’ perimeter easement is shown along the north boundary; 11’ easements are shown to the east, south and north.
Staff provides the following comments from TAC.
1.
Streets and Access:
·
Somdecerff, Streets: Book and Page references should be
given for dedication along 91st Street.
Discussion ensued regarding future access to the south. It was noted that there was potential for significant floor area in the future for the 14 acres to the south, given the CO District. Mr. French indicated that servicing additional traffic would have to be addressed but that it could not be addressed at this time given lack of information regarding future plans on the 14 acres.
Significant discussion occurred regarding the 30’ easements for potential future access purposes (including a possible public collector street) to be laid along the east and west side of the Tract A/Tract B boundary.
Staff questioned the applicant’s
engineer (Sack) regarding the particular language that would ensure the City’s
future ability to utilize the easement area for access, including future public
collector street as intended. Mr. Sack indicated that the language was being
prepared and would be submitted for legal department review.
2.
Sewer:
·
Bolding, Wastewater: sanitary sewer would have to be
extended to the south. A 17.5’ easement would be required.
3.
Water:
· Holdman, Water: no comment.
4.
Storm Drainage:
· McCormick, Stormwater: no comment.
5.
Utilities:
· No comment.
Additional Staff Comments:
At the City Council meeting of November 9 the Council approved the Corridor Site Plan with one amendment to the Commission’s recommendation. This amendment was in regard to the north/south access in the eastern portion of the site. The Council indicated that the 60’ wide private roadway easement should become a public roadway easement. A limitation on time was not included in the Council action. Internal discussions and discussion with the Public Works Department interpret the intent as creating a perpetual easement. The easement could be vacated should the parcel to the south develop in such a way as to not require additional width of the access way.
Staff understands the proposed roadway configuration to be a 26’ paved travel way immediately east of the east property line. Future expansion of the travel way would be to the west onto Lot 1 of Shelter Place.
The current submittal indicates a “Special Easement” on the eastern portion of
Lot 1. This “Special Easement” is described in the covenants and cites conditions required for the easement condition to remain in force past 15 years.
The submittal also indicates a 17.5’ utility easement immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the site. If the utility companies were to utilize the easement and the area were to be paved, street repair due to utility relocation/repair would be at the expense of the utilities. Staff conversations with utility providers indicate that this arrangement not acceptable.
Given the above, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the preliminary plat subject to the following:
WAIVERS OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
1. None needed.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. Easement to satisfaction of Public Works for sanitary sewer extension to the south.
2. Labeling
of the 30’ easement in the eastern portion of Lot 1 as a “Public Roadway
Easement “. Right of use should be perpetual and vacation should be at the
discretion of TMAPC.
3. Filing of a 30’ “Public Roadway Easement” for the 30’ outside Lot 1.
4. Relocation of the easterly 17.5’ utility easement to the satisfaction of Public Works and the utility providers.
5. Dedications, restrictions and covenants in accordance with Section 805 E of the Zoning Code.
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 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.
Mr. Bruce stated that additional information was submitted prior to the beginning of the meeting, which indicates that there was additional written information that called for a special easement with a fifteen-year time limit on the easement. The language and the covenants are consistent with what was presented to the City Council. The discussion in the staff recommendation regarding the special easement and 15-year time limit issues has been resolved.
Mr. Bruce stated that the location 17.5’ utility easement on the east side of Lot 1 does need to be discussed. He indicated that there is discussion currently ensuing with the utility providers. The issue that would need to be clear to everyone involved is that if in fact the utilities are in the 17.5’ easement, there may be paved roadway in the subject area in the future. Staff wants to make sure that everyone involved knows that if the utilities are in this area that they will be responsible for repairing the street.
Mr. Bruce stated that the City Council made a requirement that the private easement to the east, on the outside of Lot 1, should have a 60’ public roadway easement. He indicated that it is not totally clear whether the subject plat has any effect on the area to the east.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked what precipitated the discussion of the 60’ easement at the City Council. In response, Mr. Bruce stated that originally it was 60’ of private easement and after discussion at the City Council it was changed to 60’ of public easement. Mr. Stump stated that the City Council action was to reflect the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Horner stated that he does not understand the 15-year time limit. In response, Mr. Bruce stated that prior to today’s meeting he received the written information that was presented to City Council. Mr. Stump stated that the attorney that was employed by the owners of the subject property, after it came before the Planning Commission, felt that it would be appropriate if the 30’ easement was never needed and there was never a need for a public street in the subject area that ultimately it would go back to the property owners so that they could utilize the 30’ easement. Mr. Stump indicated that staff felt that 15 years was a reasonable time limit.
Mr. Boulden stated that from a legal prospective he is disturbed by the 15-year limitation. It needs to be dedicated as a public street or not. In response, Mr. Stump stated that this is part of the City Council’s approval of the Corridor Site Plan. In response, Mr. Boulden stated that he is concerned with the language “public roadway easement” should be a dedicated public right-of-way. In response, Mr. Bruce stated he discussed this issue with Public Works and their interpretation is that it is fairly typical to have the easement rather than the full dedication and they are comfortable with the language.
Applicant’s Comments:
Ted Sack, 111 South Elgin Avenue, Tulsa Oklahoma 74120, Sack and Associates, stated that Bill Jones added the 15-year limitation regarding the 30’ easement. He explained that there is a caveat that if the property to the south were to develop prior to the 15-year limitation, then the potential public road would go away. He stated that the 30’ easement is being set aside in case there is a roadway needed of 36’ in width. He commented that this is a special easement.
Mr. Boulden stated that this is a preliminary plat and at this point it would not hurt to approve this subject to satisfaction to Legal and Public Works.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Collins, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Ledford "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary plat for Shelter Place subject to conditions as recommended by staff. (Language in the staff recommendation that was deleted by TMAPC is shown as strikeout; language added or substituted by TMAPC is underlined.)
* * * * * * * * * * * *
CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.: Z-6467-SP-4a/PUD-628-1 MINOR CORRIDOR SITE PLAN
Applicant: Gary Larson
(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location: 9343 South Mingo Road
Ms. Hill announced that she
would be abstaining from this item.
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant is requesting an amendment to allow a larger sign than currently permitted for the offices located in Lot 5, Block 1, of Cedar Ridge Park. The sign proposed will face Mingo Valley Road and will be 25 feet high and have surface area of 176 square feet. The existing Corridor Site Plan/Planned Unit Development allows one ground sign not exceeding 12 feet in height and 32 square feet in display surface area for each lot.
The Planned Unit Development to the southwest (PUD-597) allows no ground sign greater than 50 square feet and no taller than six feet in height for lots facing the Mingo Valley Expressway. Another PUD (PUD-298) to the west of the subject site allows ground signs no greater than 150 square feet with a 20-foot maximum height.
Staff has concern about the size of sign proposed and the precedence this would set for the other five lots in the PUD. The existing Planned Unit Development allows a single ground sign per lot of an appropriate size for the office uses permitted on site. Staff recommends