Tulsa
Metropolitan
Area
Planning Commission
Wednesday, May 23, 2001,
1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City
Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic
Center
|
Members Present |
Members Absent |
Staff Present |
Others Present |
|
Boyle |
Selph |
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Carnes |
Westervelt |
Bruce |
|
|
Harmon |
|
Dunlap |
|
|
Hill |
|
Huntsinger |
|
|
Horner |
|
Stump |
|
|
Jackson |
|
|
|
|
Ledford |
|
|
|
|
Midget |
|
|
|
|
Pace |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, May 21, 2001 at 9:00 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk, as well as in the Office of the County Clerk.
After declaring a quorum present, Vice Chair Boyle called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Minutes:
On MOTION of HARMON the TMAPC
voted 7-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace “aye”; no
“nays”; Hill “abstaining”; Midget, Selph, Westervelt “absent”) to APPROVE
the minutes of the meeting of May 2, 2001, Meeting No.
2273.
REPORTS:
Mr. Ledford reported that there was a Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting today and the first topic of discussion was to amend the District 26 Plan to remove low-medium intensity node at 111th and Sheridan. After lengthy discussion, the committee decided to take no action.
Mr. Ledford stated that the second item of discussion was to amend the Zoning Matrix to designate OL as a “may be found” category in the low-intensity residential land use category. He reported that it was approved and will be forthcoming to the full Planning Commission for a full vote. Mr. Ledford requests the staff to review adding PK zoning as “may be found” in that category as well.
Mr. Boyle asked staff to set up another Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting to consider the PK zoning and then bring the entire package to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Boyle reported that the Rules and Regulations Committee met today and reviewed the draft amendment for the Subdivision Regulations. He indicated that the committee would meet again on June 6th to further discuss the amendments.
* * * * * * * * *
Director’s
Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are two items on the City Council agenda for Thursday, May 24, 2001.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Midget in at 1:36
p.m.
Request for
Continuances:
Application
No.: PUD-357-A-6
minor amendment
Applicant: Roy D. Johnsen
(PD-18) (CD-2)
Location:
East and south of southeast corner of East 71st Street and
South Quincy
The applicant has requested a continuance to
June 6, 2001.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9
members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Selph, Westervelt "absent") to CONTINUE the minor amendment for PUD-357-A-6 to June
6, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
Application
No.: pud-405-16
minor amendment
Applicant: Glenda Nelson
(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location:
7320 East 91st Place
Staff
Recommendation:
Mr. Stump stated that the applicant has
requested a continuance in order to submit additional
information.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9
members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Selph, Westervelt "absent") to CONTINUE the minor amendment for PUD-405-16 to June
6, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
L-19192 - Kenneth Crase
(PD-12) (County)
9377 North Birmingham
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to split their 330’ X 1320’ ten-acre parcel into two tracts. Both tracts meet all the AG bulk and area requirements; however, the required right-of-way has not been given.
Birmingham is currently 50’ and dead-ends just south of the subject tract; and Delaware is only 40’ wide. Tulsa County Engineering has agreed that the additional ten-foot right-of-way is not necessary along Birmingham; however, they would like Delaware to meet the 60’ right-of-way standard.
The applicant has requested a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations that require the additional five-foot right-of-way along Birmingham and the additional ten-foot right-of-way along Delaware to meet the MSHP. Given the development of the area, staff would agree that the deeding of the additional right-of-way along Birmingham is not warranted for this application. Staff would recommend APPROVAL of the waiver of Subdivision Regulations on Birmingham and of the lot-split, with the condition that the full 30’ right-of-way from the center of the road be given to Tulsa County along Delaware.
TMAPC
Comments:
Mr. Ledford asked what type of mechanism is there to ensure that a building is beyond the building setback line based on the Major Street and Highway Plan right-of-way. In response, Mr. Beach stated that in all instances regarding setbacks from streets, the Zoning Code describes the required setback as being from the centerline of the right-of-way as required by the Major Street and Highway Plan. Mr. Beach explained that regardless of the actual right-of-way, the requirement for setback is a number of feet plus half of the right-of-way.
Applicant’s Comments:
Kenneth Crase, 9385 North Delaware, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74130, stated that he doesn’t want to comply with this recommendation. He explained that there has been a lot-split in the subject area that he doesn’t believe was held to this requirement. He indicated that there is a property south of the subject property and he doesn’t think the right-of-way has been given to the County, but it may have.
Mr. Crase stated that Birmingham is not a dedicated county road according to the resident on the corner of 96th and Birmingham. To hold him to the five-foot right-of-way along Birmingham is ridiculous because it is not a county road.
Mr. Stump stated that staff is not recommending the five-foot right-of-way on Birmingham.
Mr. Crase stated that the ten-foot right on Delaware would take some yards and there isn’t too much in front of the houses at this time. He commented that Delaware only goes from 96th to 86th and if it was a through road he could understand the 60-foot width.
Kenny Crase, 2313 North Elgin, Sperry, Oklahoma 74073, stated that the road his father is talking about is only one mile long. There is a floodplain to the north and south, which would be Bird Creek. Delaware would never be a through street in the subject area.
Mr. Stump stated that the 60-foot right-of-way is the standard minor street right-of-way and this is not right-of-way for future thoroughfare. This is the lowest classification of street in the county. Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Stump about the applicant’s argument that Delaware would not go anywhere. In response, Mr. Stump stated that the street serves the applicant’s lot, and any street serving a house should have a least 60 feet of right-of-way in the county. It is not intended to be a major route anywhere, one way or the other.
Mr. Crase asked how long this requirement had been in effect. In response, Mr. Stump stated that he believes it has been a requirement for the last twenty years. Mr. Crase stated that he has lived on the subject property for 21 years and does not believe that the property to the south, which split since he has lived there, was held to this requirement. Mr. Stump stated that until seven years ago this dedication was not required of properties 2 ½ acres or more, which could have made the property Mr. Crase is talking about exempt.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of CARNES, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the waiver of Subdivision Regulations on and the lot-split for L-19192, subject to the condition that the full 30 feet of right-of-way from the center of the road be given to Tulsa County along Delaware as recommended by staff.
TMAPC
Comments:
Mr. Carnes stated that if Delaware were never developed, then the ten feet would never be taken.
* * * * * * * * *
L-19215 - Joan Derby (PD-20)
(County)
17482 South 145th East
Avenue
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant has a 105’ strip that runs along 145th East Avenue that abuts a 63.63-acre tract. The applicant has applied to split one acre out of the 63.63-acre tract and attach it to a one-half acre tract being split out of the 105’ strip (6.36 acre tract).
Tulsa County Engineering has asked for the required 50’ right-of-way for a secondary arterial on 145th East Avenue, but would accept as little as 30’. East 171st Street South is designated as a primary arterial, requiring 60’ right-of-way. The applicant is asking for a waiver of the right-of-way dedication to Tulsa County. Staff considers this lot-split to qualify for reduced dedication of right-of-way considering Section 6.5.3.(c)(3) of the Subdivision Regulations. Where land to be split contains, within its boundaries, areas designated for street right-of-way on the Tulsa City-County Major Street and Highway Plan, the split shall not be approved where street rights-of-way fail to conform to said plan, except upon a finding that: development made possible by the split itself will not measurably increase the burden of traffic on an adjacent street to such an extent that it would adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
On May 15, 2001, the Tulsa County Board of Adjustment approved five variances of the AG Bulk and Area requirements for Tracts 3 and 4, including the variance of the front yard requirement of 85’ down to 50’ on Tract 3 and with the condition that no structures be allowed in the setback or right-of-way on Tract 4.
The applicant did not obtain a passing percolation test for Tracts 2 and 4 and is therefore seeking a waiver of the Subdivision Regulation 6.5.4.(e) requiring a passing soil percolation test on each parcel. Both tracts have at least 1 ½ acre, meeting the Department of Environmental Quality’s lot size standards of ½ acre for an alternative system.
Given the Tulsa County Board of Adjustment’s approvals, staff would recommend APPROVAL of the two waivers of Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split, with the condition that a minimum of 30’ right-of-way be dedicated to Tulsa County on 145th East Avenue and on East 171st Street South.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the waivers of Subdivision Regulations and
the lot-split, subject to the condition that a minimum of 30’ right-of-way be dedicated to Tulsa
County on 145th East Avenue and on East 171st Street South
as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Ledford stated that he
would be abstaining from the following item.
FINAL
PLAT:
The Tulsa Commons – PUD 601 (684) (PD-18) (CD-8)
Northeast corner of East 69th Street and South US
169
This plat consists of ten
lots in two blocks and one reserve on 38.67 acres. It will be developed for
commercial and office uses under PUD 601.
PUD 601 was approved in early 1999 and another subdivision plat by the same name was reviewed by TAC and approved by TMAPC. The PUD was amended in late 1999 to divide Development Area A into two parts (A-1 and A-2). The southerly part (A-1) was then platted as Eastside Market II. The remainder (Development Area A-2), along with Development Areas B, C, and E are included in this submittal. The Development Areas correspond with the lots as follows: Lot 1, Block 1 = Area A-2; Lot 2, Block 1 = Area B; Lot 1, Block 2 = Area C; Lots 2-8 and Reserve A = Area E.
The uses allowed on Lot
1, Block 1 include parking lots, offices, convenience goods and services,
retail, restaurants and other entertainment, and hotel, motel and recreation
uses. The uses allowed on Lot 2,
Block 1 include offices and multifamily dwellings. The uses allowed on Lot 1, Block 2
include parking lots, offices, nursing homes, assisted living facility and
elderly retirement housing. The
uses allowed on the remainder of the property include offices and a drive-in
bank on the east 225 feet, next to Garnett Road.
All releases are in and
the plat is in order. Staff
recommends approval of the final plat.
The applicant was not
present.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; Ledford ”abstaining"; Selph,
Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for The Tulsa Commons as
recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY
PLAT:
West of the intersection of 33rd Street and South Birmingham Avenue
Staff
Recommendation:
This plat consists of four lots in one block and two
reserves on 2.46 acres. It will be developed as single-family
residential.
The following were discussed April 19, 2001 at the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
Zoning:
The PUD was heard by the TMAPC 4/18/01 and
recommended for approval. The covenants must reflect the approved PUD
conditions. The required setbacks need to be adjusted slightly around the
cul-de-sac after its size and shape are resolved (see next paragraph). The PUD
calls for a 30’ building line along Birmingham Avenue; a 15’ building line is
shown.
Streets/access:
The PUD allows a private street with 26’
paving in a 30’ right-of-way. It requires the size of the cul-de-sac paving and
right-of-way to be determined during platting. This should be resolved at the
TAC meeting so that a proper recommendation can be made to the TMAPC with the
preliminary plat. No entry gate details were provided and no area set aside to
accommodate a gate. The applicant should address the plans for this entry and
there should be discussion about sight distances up and down
Birmingham.
There was discussion among the TAC members
and the applicant about the cul-de-sac. The conclusion was that the geometry is
acceptable as shown, provided the total length is shortened to less than 150
feet.
The applicant agreed to shorten the
cul-de-sac. He also stated that the entry gate details will be resolved during
the PUD detail plan review and may result in Reserve A being enlarged to
accommodate it.
Staff has a concern that the entry gate
needs to be decided now and the reserve area shaped to accommodate it so that
the true layout of the subdivision can be reviewed and approved. There is also
the issue of stacking distance with an entry gate and this needs to be
considered before a final recommendation can be made.
TAC requested that the covenants be changed
to separate the fence and the streets.
Payne, Wastewater, stated that the sewer
main needs to be extended to serve Lot 4. The existing manhole located in the
20’ drainage easement shown on the west side of Lot 2 needs to be elevated above
the 100-year flood elevation.
Holdman, Water, stated that the utility
easement along the private street needs to be clarified. Primary concern is
where it passes the cul-de-sac on its west end and runs through the proposed
Reserve B.
The applicant stated it is their intent to
make the entire Reserve A a general utility and access easement. They assumed
this would provide plenty of space for the water lines and other front-lot
utilities.
There was discussion among the TAC members
and the applicant. The conclusion was that the easement needs to be restricted
for waterline only. Staff is comfortable that a release from Public Works will
indicate satisfaction with the easements.
Add the word “install” along with the word “repair” in Section I, A.3.
Bryant, PSO, requested a 10’ utility
easement along the west property line, separate from the drainage
easement.
There were no other comments or
concerns.
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the special and standard conditions below.
|
Waivers of Subdivision
Regulations: |
| |
|
1. |
None
requested. | |
|
Special Conditions: |
| |
|
1. |
Sewer main
extension required with appropriate easements. | |
|
2. |
Separate
utility easements from drainage easements. | |
|
3. |
Add a 10’
utility easement along the west end of the property, separate from the
drainage easement | |
|
Standard Conditions: |
| |
|
1. |
All conditions of PUD-649 shall be met
prior to release of the final plat, including any applicable provisions in
the covenants or on the face of the plat. Include PUD approval date and
references to applicable sections of the Zoning Code in the
covenants. | |
|
2. |
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. | |
|
3. |
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.) | |
|
4. |
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). | |
|
5. |
Any request for creation of a Sewer
Improvement District shall be submitted to the Public Works Department
Engineer prior to release of final plat. | |
|
6. |
Paving and/or drainage plans (as
required) shall be approved by the Public Works
Department. | |
|
7. |
Any request for a Privately Financed
Public Improvement (PFPI) shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department. | |
|
8. |
A topo map shall be submitted for
review by TAC (Subdivision Regulations). (Submit with drainage plans as
directed.) | |
|
9. |
Street names shall be approved by the
Public Works Department and shown on plat. | |
|
10. |
All curve data, including corner
radii, shall be shown on final plat as
applicable. | |
|
11. |
Bearings, or true N/S, etc., shall be
shown on perimeter of land being platted or other bearings as directed by
the County Engineer. | |
|
12. |
All adjacent streets, intersections
and/or widths thereof shall be shown on plat. | |
|
13. |
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.) | |
|
14. |
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. | |
|
15. |
The method of sewage disposal and
plans therefore shall be approved by the City/County Health
Department. (Percolation
tests (if applicable) are required prior to preliminary approval of
plat.) | |
|
16. |
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
therefore 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. | |
TMAPC
Comments:
Mr. Ledford asked staff about the radius
return on the private street abutting South Birmingham. In response, Mr. Beach stated that since
it is a private street it is not required.
The applicant was not
present.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the preliminary plat for Birmingham Square
Addition subject to the special conditions and the standard conditions as
recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Northeast corner of West 71st Street South and Highway 75
The site sits on the north side of 71st Street, just east of Highway 75. The site is zoned CO and is bounded by AG zoning to the north, RS-3 to the east in the northern half of the property and AG on the south along the southern half. AG zoning is present across 71st Street to the south. The site is bounded by Highway 75 on the west.
The proposed use will be medical-and office-related.
This
plat includes one lot of the four potential lots represented by the corridor
site plan. The proposed platting
concept should be discussed in light of easements across unplatted property,
future development, etc.
STREETS
The plat shows one lot and four reserve areas. The lot in question will be the location of the Tulsa Spine Hospital. The plat also indicates one major backbone street running south to north from 71st Street. A mutual access easement runs north from 71st Street to the hospital site across the eastern portion of the property. This lot and the future lots will be served from the backbone street. A Limits of No Access is shown along 71st Street broken only by the north/south backbone and mutual access.
Atlas sheet 566 does not show sanitary sewer
in this area.
WATER
The atlas shows water along 71st
Street.
Easements are shown in the eastern portion of
the ownership. They are not
addressed in the western portion of the ownership, currently intended to be
platted at a later date.
The following information was provided at
the TAC meeting of 02/01/01.
STREETS:
Brown, Traffic/Streets: A temporary turnaround will be required when
the street is extended to the north boundary of the ownership. This area included in this plat does
not extend to the northern boundary.
Discussion: The applicant indicated that the topo in the
northern portion of the site and the southern portion of the adjacent property
supported the curvilinear alignment of the street. A perpendicular connection would
necessitate significant grading.
SEWER:
Payne, PW:
Easement for sewer from the east (67th street) would require
separate instrument.
WATER:
Holdman, PW:
No comment.
STORM DRAIN:
McCormick, PW:
Indicated that standard language and easements would be required.
Improvement to drainage areas as the project progressed was acceptable, language
should be included documenting the proposed improvement program.
Discussion:
The applicant
indicated that Areas A and D were to be dry facilities, Area B was to be
wet.
FIRE:
Calkins. Fire: The travel-way in the north/south mutual
access easement will have to be built to the City’s structural standard to be
able to support loaded fire trucks.
UTILITIES:
No
comment.
Staff recommends
APPROVAL of the preliminary plat subject to the
following:
Reduction of the right-of-way width of a
commercial/industrial collector from 80’ to 60’.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Standard language and easements for detention
should be included.
Language acceptable to the Public Works and
Legal Departments should be included that appropriately expresses the intent of
the owner to provide additional detention improvements as the development
progresses.
The travel-way in the north/south mutual
access easement will be built to City structural
standards.
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. |