Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, July 18, 2001, 1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center
|
Members Present |
Members Absent |
Staff Present |
Others Present |
|
Boyle |
Carnes |
Beach |
Boulden, Legal |
|
Harmon |
Pace |
Dunlap |
|
|
Hill |
Selph |
Huntsinger |
|
|
Horner |
Westervelt |
Matthews |
|
|
Jackson |
|
Stump |
|
|
Ledford |
|
|
|
|
Midget |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, July 16, 2001 at 9:35 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 Chairman Boyle called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Minutes:
On MOTION of HARMON, the TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Boyle,
Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”;
Carnes, Midget, Pace, Selph, Westervelt “absent”) to APPROVE the minutes
of the meeting of June 27, 2001, Meeting No. 2278.
* * * * * * * * *
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Boyle
announced that several weeks ago his duties at his employment has changed
somewhat and have left him in the position where he no longer has the time to
devote to the TMAPC. He stated that he
would have to announce, with some regrets, that this would be his last meeting
as a Planning Commissioner. He
commented that he has enjoyed the relationships he has built up with each of
his colleagues, the staff and with many of the people who appear before the
Planning Commission from week to week.
He stated that he would remember his experiences and would always be
around. He concluded that he enjoyed
his time and he appreciates all of the support that he has had over the years.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Boyle
reported that the Planning Commission has a proposed response to the City
Council Consensus 01-2. The Committee
met and recommended this type of response.
TMAPC Action; 6 members present:
On MOTION of HARMON, TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Boyle, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Midget,
Pace, Selph, Westervelt "absent") to TRANSMIT the Planning
Commission’s response to the City Council for Consensus 01-2.
* * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there is one zoning item on the City Council
agenda for July 19, 2001. He indicated
that Ms. Matthews would be attending the meeting.
* * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATION:
L-19180 - Patricia Sullivan (PD-23)
(County)
Locations: 4136 South 78th West Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant is selling a 330’ X 640’ tract (Tract 1); however, it was determined that a lot-split from Tract 2 was never obtained. In order to obtain a clear title to sell the property, the owner has applied to split her tract from Tract 2. On June 19, 2001, the Tulsa County Board of Adjustment approved a variance of 30’ street frontage on a dedicated road, and all other AG bulk and area requirements have been met.
Because the property did not perc, the owner will be installing an alternative sewage system; therefore, the applicant is seeking a waiver of the Subdivision Regulation 6.5.4.(e) requiring a passing soil percolation test.
Staff believes this lot-split would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties and would give clear title on property currently owned by two separate individuals. Staff 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; 6 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Boyle, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Midget,
Pace, Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the waiver of
Subdivision Regulations and the lot-split for L-19810 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Midget in at 1:40 p.m.
FINAL PLAT:
The Orchard (PUD 431) (2783) (PD-26) (CD-8)
Staff Recommendation:
The plat includes is 1.2 acres in size and includes
one lot in one block. Office use is
proposed.
The preliminary plat for this addition was approved
in September of 1999; the first “draft final” plat was submitted in September
of that year. Several revisions have
been submitted since that time, the last of which is dated June 13, 2001. This final revision has received approval by
Public Works, addressing drainage issues related to the detention area and
easement south of the platted area.
Although the preliminary plat approval is over one
year old, it has been the Commission’s policy to approve final plats if good
progress has been shown during the intervening period with no significant
changes to the approved preliminary.
Changes to the preliminary have not been significant; those changes that
have been included are to the City’s benefit.
Good progress has been shown.
Staff recommends approval of the final plat
subject to minor revisions per the Legal Department.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Pace,
Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for The Orchard, subject to
minor revisions per the Legal Department as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Hillcrest Amended (693) (PD-4) (CD-4)
Staff Recommendation:
The plat includes portions of Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of
the Hillcrest Addition and of Blocks 1 and 2 of the Hillcrest Ridge
Addition. Eight lots are being created
in an area that previously included eight lots.
The preliminary plat for this addition was approved
in April of 2000, the first “draft final” plat was submitted in May of 2000. Although the preliminary plat approval is
over one year old it has been the Commission’s policy to approve final plats if
good progress has been shown during the intervening period with no significant
changes to the approved preliminary. No
significant changes have occurred since the submittal of the first draft final
and good progress has been shown.
Staff recommends approval of the final plat.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On MOTION of HARMON, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Pace,
Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Hillcrest Amended as
recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Union High School Addition - (0183) (PD-18) (CD-7)
Location: 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 Board of Adjustment approved a special exception
to permit expansion of the existing high school buildings and parking late last
year. 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.
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; 7 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Pace,
Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Union High School
Addition as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Booker T. Washington - (2030) (PD 2) (CD 3)
Trenton Avenue and Woodrow Place
This plat consists of one lot in one block and one reserve on 42.35 acres. The property is the site of the new Booker T. Washington High School campus.
The following were
discussed July 5, 2001 at the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
|
1. |
Zoning: |
|
|
Staff: The applicant has resubmitted the
preliminary plat because of a redesign of the site plan with corresponding
utilities and modification of property boundaries. The first TAC review was
July 20, 2000. The July 5 TAC was
given a copy of the staff report and recommendation that was presented to the
TMAPC August 2, 2000, which contained a summary of their previous comments. |
|
2. |
Streets/access: |
|
|
Staff:
No additional information. |
|
|
Public Works
Traffic & Transportation:
Require 25-foot radius at northeast corner Lot 1, Block 2; change dedication
to “right-of-way” instead of “streets”. |
|
|
Applicant: Consent. |
|
3. |
Sewer: |
|
|
Staff:
No additional information. |
|
|
Public Works Waste Water:
Sewer will be 8” private; they have no concerns. |
|
|
Applicant: Confirmed. |
|
4. |
Water: |
|
|
Staff:
No additional information. |
|
|
Public Works Water: No comment. |
|
|
Applicant: No comment. |
|
5. |
Storm Drainage: |
|
|
Staff:
No additional information. |
|
|
Public Works Stormwater: No comment. |
|
|
Applicant: No comment. |
|
6. |
Utilities: |
|
|
Staff: No
additional information. |
|
|
No comments
from any franchise utilities. |
Staff recommends approval of the waiver of
the subdivision regulations and of the preliminary plat subject to the special
and standard conditions below.
|
Waivers
of Subdivision Regulations: |
|
|
|
1. |
None
requested. |
|
|
Special Conditions: |
|
|
|
1. |
Add right-of-way
dedication to make 25’ corner radius at northeast corner Lot 1, Block 2. |
|
|
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
therefore 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. Midget stated that he would like to make
the motion because he is a graduate of Booker T. Washington.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, the
TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Boyle, Harmon,
Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget "aye"; no "nays";
none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Pace, Selph, Westervelt "absent") to
recommend APPROVAL of the preliminary plat for Booker T.
Washington, subject to special conditions and standard conditions as
recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Ledford announced that he would be abstaining from the following item.
ACCELERATED RELEASE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT:
BOA-18980 (3402) (PD-11) (CD-1)
Location: 926 North Osage Drive
Staff Recommendation:
The property was approved for a special exception to allow multifamily
residential uses. This triggered the platting requirement.
A preliminary plat was approved June 27, 2001 and the applicant wishes
for a temporary waiver to allow construction to begin prior to filing the final
plat. The underlying plat, streets and easements will be vacated.
The applicant was not present.
The following information was
provided at the TAC meeting of July 5, 2001.
STREETS:
Public Works, Transportation: No comments.
Public Works, Traffic: No comments.
SEWER:
Public Works, Waste Water: Would be ok with
separate instrument easements and vacation of underlying easements.
WATER:
Public Works, Water: No comments.
STORM DRAIN:
Public Works, Storm Water: No comments.
FIRE:
Public Works, Fire: No comments.
UTILITIES:
Franchise
Utilities: No comments.
Based on
discussion with the individuals who will review and approve the changes and the
following checklist, which reflects the policies of TMAPC, staff recommends approval of the request for temporary plat waiver
with the following conditions:
Staff would remind the Planning Commission
that the items identified in the checklist below are issues that are being
addressed in the subdivision plat and ultimately have little bearing on the
decision to approve or deny this temporary 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? |
x |
|
|
2. |
Are there restrictive
covenants contained in a previously filed plat? |
x |
|
|
3. |
Is property adequately
described by surrounding platted properties or street R/W? |
x |
|
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? |
x |
|
|||
|
5. |
Will restrictive covenants be filed by separate instrument? |
|
x |
|||
|
6. |
Infrastructure requirements: |
|
|
|||
|
|
a) Water |
|
|
|||
|
|
i. Is a main line water extension required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
ii. Is an internal system or fire line required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
iii. Are additional easements required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
b) Sanitary Sewer |
|
|
|||
|
|
i. Is a main line extension required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
ii. Is an internal system required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
iii Are additional easements required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
c) Storm Sewer |
|
|
|||
|
|
i. Is a P.F.P.I. required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
ii. Is an Overland Drainage Easement required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
iii. Is on site detention required? |
x |
|
|||
|
|
iv. Are additional easements required? |
x |
|
|||
|
7. |
Floodplain |
|
|
|||
|
|
a) Does the property contain a City of Tulsa (Regulatory) Floodplain? |
|
x |
|||
|
|
b) Does the property contain a F.E.M.A. (Federal) Floodplain? |
|
x |
|||
|
8. |
Change of Access |
|
|
|||
|
|
a) Are revisions to existing access locations necessary? |
|
x |
|||
|
9. |
Is the property in a P.U.D.? |
|
x |
|||
|
|
a) If yes, was plat recorded for the original P.U.D. |
|
na |
|||
|
10. |
Is this a Major Amendment to a P.U.D.? |
|
x |
|||
|
|
a) If yes, does the amendment make changes to the proposed physical development of the P.U.D.? |
|
na |
|||