Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, January 3,
2001, 1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City
Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic
Center
Members Present Members
Absent Staff Present Others Present
Boyle Horner Beach Boulden, Legal
Carnes Bruce Counsel
Harmon Dunlap
Hill Huntsinger
Jackson,
Secretary Matthews
Ledford Stump
Midget Brierre
Pace Armer
Selph
Westervelt, Chair
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Friday, December 29, 2000 at 2:00 p.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk, 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 29, 2000 Meeting No. 2258
On MOTION of BOYLE the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Ledford, Selph, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of November 29, 2000 Meeting No. 2258.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt stated that he would like to welcome County Commissioner
John Selph back to the Planning Commission.
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are several items on the City Council agenda for January 4, 2001.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
L-19164 – Tulsa Development Authority (3602) (PD-2) (CD-1)
601 – 617 North Cheyenne Avenue
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that he received a letter of support from Emily Warner of Brady Heights Neighborhood (Exhibit A-1).
Mr. Midget and Ms. Pace in at 1:31 p.m.
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to reconfigure numerous existing lots (Exhibit B) into four proposed tracts (Exhibit A). Tracts A and C will result with more than three side lot lines and the applicant is seeking a waiver of Subdivision Regulations that each tract have no more than three side lot lines.
Mr. Jackson in at 1:32 p.m.
The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed this lot-split on December 21, 2000, and Southwestern Bell requested that 11’ back-to-back easements be granted running north and south between Tracts A, B, C, and Tract D shown on Exhibit A. The Historic Preservation Commission has approved the three new dwellings that will be constructed on Tracts A, B, and C.
Staff believes this lot-split would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties and would therefore recommend APPROVAL of the waiver of the Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split with the condition that the 11’ back-to-back easements are given to Southwestern Bell.
Mr. Beach stated that the dedication easement between Tracts B, C and D has been revised since the TAC meeting. He indicated that the applicant is in agreement to dedicate a total of 20 feet of utility easement. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the Subdivision Regulations and the lot-split with the condition that a total of 20 feet of easement be dedicated as utility easement and to the satisfaction of Southwestern Bell.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Emily Warner, 1011 North Cheyenne, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74106 stated that she does support the lot-split. Ms. Warner thanked the Planning Commission for their support of the Brady Heights Historic Preservation zoning.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE TMAPC voted 9-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; Jackson ”abstaining"; Horner "absent") to APPROVE the waiver of Subdivision Regulations and the lot-split for L-19164 subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:
L-19061 – Jon Hoopert (1693) (PD-6) (CD-9)
3959 East 31st Street
L-19098 – Sisemore Weisz &
Associates, Inc. (PD-18) (CD-5)
12480 East 55th Street South
L-19165 – Jacki Sue Vanpelt
Adney (3623) (PD-14) (County)
13204 North 91st East Avenue
L-19170 – Tanner Consulting, LLC (1683) (PD-18)
(CD-8)
Northwest corner East 91st Street & Yale Avenue
Mr. Midget out at 1:34 p.m.
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Beach indicated that all these lot-splits are in order and staff
recommends APPROVAL.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Midget "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
FINAL PLAT:
4M Vocation School (1223) (PD-16)
(CD-6)
North of the northwest corner of Mingo Road and 46th Street
North
Mr. Midget in at 1:35 p.m.
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 7.08 acres. This is a replat of Lots 5, 6 and 7, Mingo
Addition. The property is currently vacant
and will be developed for use as a welding school and shop with dormitories for
students.
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 BOYLE TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget,
Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none
”abstaining"; Horner "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for 4M
Vocation School as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
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:
Mr. Beach stated that this plat is in order and all release letters are
in and staff recommends APPROVAL of this final plat subject to the final
Legal Department review.
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 MIDGET TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget,
Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none
”abstaining"; Horner "absent") to APPROVE of the final plat
for Shelter Place, subject to final Legal review.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Faith Assembly Church - (3224) (PD 14) (County)
13502 North 119th East Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 5.0 acres. It is the site of an existing church with immediate plans for expansion.
The following were discussed December 21, 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 church and accessory uses. This approval triggered the platting requirement. The attached plat shows the existing and proposed features of the site.
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.
Dedication of
additional right-of-way for a total of 50 feet south of the centerline
on 136th Street and additional right-of-way for a total of 50 feet
on 119th East Avenue.
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.
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 MIDGET TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget,
Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none
”abstaining"; Horner "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary
plat for Faith Assembly Church, subject to special conditions and standard conditions
as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
PLAT WAIVER:
Z-4100 - (1183) (PD-18) (CD-8)
Staff Recommendation:
Staff Comments and Recommendation:
The following checklist was completed at the TAC meeting on December 21. Based on the fact that the property has never been platted and at least three separate instruments would be need to satisfy requirements for this development, Staff recommends denial of the plat waiver.
A YES answer
to the following 3 questions would generally be FAVORABLE to a plat waiver:
YES NO
1) Has property previously been platted? * √
2) Are restrictive covenants contained in a previously filed plat? * √
3) Is property adequately described by surrounding platted
properties or street R/W? √ *
A YES answer
to the remaining questions would generally NOT be favorable to a plat waiver:
4) Is right-of-way dedication required to comply with major
street and highway plan? √1 *
5) Would restrictive covenants or deeds of dedication be
needed by separate instrument? √4 *
6) Infrastructure requirements
a) Water
i) Is a main line water extension required? * √
ii) Is an internal system or fire line required? √2 *
iii) Are additional easements required? √2 *
b) Sanitary Sewer
i) Is a main line extension required? * √
ii) Is an internal system required? * √
iii) Are additional easements required? * √
c) Storm Sewer
i) Is a P.F.P.I. required? * √
ii) Is an Overland Drainage Easement required? * √
iii) Is on-site detention required? * √
iv) Are additional easements required? * √
7) Floodplain
a) Does the property contain a City of Tulsa (Regulatory)
Floodplain? * √
b) Does the property contain a F.E.M.A. (Federal) Floodplain? * √
8) Change of Access
a) Are revisions to existing access locations necessary? √3 *
9) Is the property in a P.U.D.? * √
a) If yes, was plat recorded for the original P.U.D.? NA
10) Is this a Major Amendment to a P.U.D.? * √
a) If yes, does the amendment make changes to the
proposed physical development of the
P.U.D.? NA
Foot Notes:
1.
Public Works
Department is requesting 15’ additional right-of-way parallel to the diagonal
property line at the NE corner.
2.
If the Building
Codes require the building to be sprinkled, a separate fire line with easement
will be required.
3.
Access controls
should be required along both arterial streets.
4.
Separate
instruments would be needed for the right-of-way dedication, water line
easement, and access controls if the plat were waived.
Applicant’s Comments:
Jack Cox, 7935 East 57th, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145, stated that he agreed to meet the two requirements that were discussed during the TAC meeting. He indicated that everything else was favorable.
Mr. Cox stated that he discussed an easement with Mr. Somderceff in lieu of dedicating a corner. He explained that recently the City sold the subject property to his client for $14.00 per square foot. It would be a little hard for the City to now go back to the purchaser and say that part of the property has to be dedicated back to the City. He indicated that Mr. Somderceff agreed to easement in lieu of a dedication.
Mr. Cox commented that he doesn’t understand why staff recommends denial when during the TAC meeting it was recommended approval with the two conditions.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Carnes asked staff to address Mr. Cox’s statements. In response, Mr. Beach stated that he doesn’t have any information regarding a discussion between Mr. Cox and Mr. Somderceff. Mr. Beach commented that it was stated very clearly that as a matter of policy the Transportation Department wants the dedication of right-of-way. Mr. Beach stated that he was not part of the conversation between Mr. Cox and Mr. Somderceff.
Mr. Stump stated that staff feels that the record would be better served with a recorded plat rather than separate instruments.
Mr. Boyle stated that this application has a lot of problems and staff is correct to recommend denial of the plat waiver.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget,
Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none
”abstaining"; Horner "absent") to DENY the plat waiver for
Z-4100 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Z-6766 - (1183) (PD 18) (CD 8)
Staff Recommendation:
Staff Comments and Recommendation:
A YES answer to the following 3
questions would generally be FAVORABLE to a plat waiver:
YES NO
1) Has property previously been platted? √ *
2) Are restrictive covenants contained in a previously
filed plat? √ *
3) Is property adequately described by surrounding
platted properties or street R/W? √ *
A YES answer to the remaining questions
would generally NOT be favorable to a plat waiver:
4) Is right-of-way dedication required to comply with
major street and highway plan? * √
5) Would restrictive covenants or deeds of dedication be
needed by separate instrument? √ *
6) Infrastructure requirements
b) Water
i) Is a main line water extension required? * √
ii) Is an internal system or fire line required? * √
iii) Are additional easements required? * √
c) Sanitary Sewer
i) Is a main line extension required? * √
ii) Is an internal system required? * √
iii) Are additional easements required? * √
d) Storm Sewer
i) Is a P.F.P.I. required? * √
ii) Is an Overland Drainage Easement required? * √
iii) Is on-site detention required? * √
iv) Are additional easements required? * √
7) Floodplain
a) Does the property contain a City of Tulsa
(Regulatory) Floodplain? * √
b) Does the property contain a F.E.M.A. (Federal)
Floodplain? * √
8) Change of Access
a) Are revisions to existing access locations necessary? √1 *
9) Is the property in a P.U.D.? * √
a) If yes, was plat recorded for the original P.U.D.? NA
10) Is this a Major Amendment to a P.U.D.? * √
a) If yes, does the amendment make changes
to
the proposed physical development of the P.U.D.? NA
Foot Notes:
1.
Limits of
access would not normally be required along the non-arterial street. But the
previous plat established the access and they would need to be modified for
this development. This can be done by the routine Change-of-Access process.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget,
Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none
”abstaining"; Horner "absent") to APPROVE the plat waiver for
Z-6766 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Z-6785 - (1292) (PD-7) (CD-2)
Staff Recommendation:
Staff Comments and Recommendation:
A YES answer to the following 3
questions would generally be FAVORABLE to a plat waiver:
YES NO
1) Has property previously been platted? √ *
2) Are restrictive covenants contained in a previously
filed plat? √ *
3) Is property adequately described by surrounding platted
properties or street R/W? √ *