Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting No. 2282

Wednesday, August 1, 2001, 1:30 p.m.

Francis Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center

 

Members Present

Members Absent

Staff Present

Others Present

Bayles

Selph

Bruce

Boulden, Legal

Carnes

 

Dunlap

 

Harmon

 

Huntsinger

 

Hill

 

Stump

 

Horner

 

 

 

Jackson

 

 

 

Ledford

 

 

 

Midget

 

 

 

Pace

 

 

 

Westervelt

 

 

 

 

 

The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, July 30, 2001 at 10:08 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 Harmon called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

 

Minutes:

Approval of the minutes of July 18, 2001, Meeting No. 2280

On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; Bayles “abstaining”; Midget, Selph “absent”) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of July 18, 2001, Meeting No. 2280.

 

Mr. Midget in at 1:35 p.m.

 

REPORTS:

Chairman’s Reports:

Mr. Harmon welcomed Planning Commission’s new member, Stacey Bayles.

 

Mr. Harmon reported that the Planning Commission received a timely request for a continuance for Z-6827/PUD-654 from an interested party.  The request is for August 15, 2001 and it is the Planning Commission’s understanding that the representative, Roy Johnsen, is agreeable to the continuance.

 

Interested Parties Comments:

Three interested parties indicated that they were in favor of the continuance to August 15, 2001.

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Selph "absent") to CONTINUE Z-6827/PUD-654 to August 15, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

Mr. Harmon announced that Item 14, Z-6826 has been withdrawn by the applicant and would not be heard.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

Committee Reports:

Rules and Regulations Committee

Mr. Westervelt reported that the Committee recommends that staff set a date for public hearing, regarding downzoning of Terrace Drive Neighborhood to Residential Single-Family (RS).

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of WESTERVELT, TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Selph "absent") to CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING to consider or take action regarding downzoning Terrace Drive Neighborhood to Residential Single-Family (RS).

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

Director’s Report:

Mr. Stump reported that there are two items on the City Council agenda for Thursday, August 2, 2001.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

SUBDIVISIONS

L-19261 - Mike Marrara                                    (PD-4) (CD-4)

Location: 1230 South Birmingham Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

An application has been filed to split a 65’ X 140’ tract (Proposed Tract 2) from an existing three-plus lot parcel.  Both resulting tracts meet the RS-3 bulk and area requirements.  Although the existing full tract has four side-lot lines, the proposed lot-split will create a new tract having four side-lot lines, requiring a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations.  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.

 

The applicant was not present.

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of WESTERVELT, TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Selph "absent") to APPROVE the waiver of Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split for L-19261 as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

L-19265 - Ruth Johnson                             (PD-15) (County)

Location: 8515 East 96th Street North

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant has applied to split a ten-acre tract into a 3.3 and 6.6-acre tracts.  Both tracts meet the AG bulk and area requirements and right-of-way requirements; however, the applicant desires to use an alternative sewage system on Tract 1, requiring a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations.  Therefore, the applicant is asking for a waiver of 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 therefore recommend APPROVAL of the waiver of Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split.

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of CARNES, TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Selph "absent") to APPROVE the waiver of Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split for L-19261 as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:

 

L-19242 – Sisemore Weisz & Associates, Inc. (1483)            (PD-18) (CD-8)

East 89th Street & 79th East Avenue (approximately)

L-19250 – Sam Gardner (2013)                                                 (PD-12) (County)

9201 North Delaware

L-19251 – Kathrine Allen (3623)                                              (PD-14) (County)

8301 East 132nd Street North

L-19253 – Tulsa Development Authority (3602)                    (PD-2) (CD-1)

1443 North Boston Avenue

L-19254 – Tulsa Development Authority (2502)                  (PD-2) (CD-1)

1503 North Cheyenne

L-19258 – Val Childers (1992)                                                (PD-23) (County)

7200 Block West 35th Street

L-19259 – Keith Boston (402)                                                 (PD-15) (County)

13821 East 60th Place North

L-19260 – City of Tulsa (2402)                                                 (PD-2) (CD-1)

1208 Mohawk Boulevard

L-19262 – City of Tulsa (1194)                                                 (PD-17) (CD-6)

17102 East 11th Street

L-19263 – Venus Monyhan (113)                                             (PD-15) (County)

8821 East 120th Street North

L-19267 – Wilma Matlock (3590)                                              (PD-23) (County)

5134 South 201st West Avenue

L-19268 – Perry Dunham (1694)                                               (PD-17) (CD-6)

Southeast corner East 21st Street & 129th East Avenue

L-19269 – James Hunter (3092)                                               (PD-23) (County)

6621 West Skyline Drive

L-19271 – Sack & Associates, Inc. (2603)                               (PD-16) (CD-3)

2107 North Sheridan Road

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of CARNES, the TMAPC voted 9-0-1 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; Westervelt ”abstaining"; Selph "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

FINAL PLAT:

Oil Capital Federal Credit Union (PUD-630) (3393)            (PD-18) (CD-7)

South side of east 51st Street between South Oswego and South Richmond.

 

Staff Recommendation:

The plat consists of three lots in two blocks on 1.7 acres.  The property would be bisected by 51st Place.  The Oil Capital Credit Union will be located on the lot to north; the two southern lots will be used for residential purposes.

 

Releases are in order.  Staff recommends approval of the final plat.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Ms. Pace asked staff if 51st Place would go through.  In response, Mr. Bruce answered affirmatively.

 

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 HORNER, TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Selph "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Oil Capital Federal Credit Union as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

PLAT WAIVER:

PUD-405-J (2084)                                        (PD-18) (CD-8)

Location:  South of the southwest corner of East 93rd Street and South Memorial Drive

 

Staff Recommendation:

A major amendment to the PUD was approved in June of this year.  The only significant change was to add an auto wash as included within Use Unit 17.  The major amendment triggered the platting requirement.  The tract has already been platted under the requirements of the PUD.  The applicant has submitted amendment to plat and certificate of dedication (attached).  Staff has reviewed the amendments and finds they concur with the standards of the PUD.  Staff recommends APPROVAL of the plat waiver and amendment to plat and certificate of dedication.

 

It shall be the policy of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission that all requests for plat waivers shall be evaluated by the staff and by the Technical Advisory Committee based on the following list. After such evaluation, TMAPC Staff shall make a recommendation to the TMAPC as to the merits of the plat waiver request accompanied by the answers to these questions:

 

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.

X

 

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.?

 

X

 

If, after consideration of the above criteria, a plat waiver is granted on unplatted properties, a current ALTA/ACSM/NSPS Land Title Survey (and as subsequently revised) shall be required. Said survey shall be prepared in a recordable format and filed at the County Clerk’s office.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 10 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Selph "absent") to APPROVE the plat waiver for PUD-405-J, subject to conditions as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC HEARING

Application No.:  PUD-587-4                        minor amendment

Applicant:  Charles Norman                                            (PD-18) (CD-8)

Location:  Southwest corner of East 81st Street and South Yale

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant is requesting a minor amendment to allow a reallocation of floor area for commercial uses in Development Area A, to delete a required screening fence or wall along the south boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 (Development Area A), Village Park, to delete the prohibition of light standards within 50 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Village Park (Development Area B), and to amend the maximum building height of buildings to be one story not exceeding 25 feet in height, provided architectural elements may exceed the maximum building height with detail site plan review.

 

Development Area A allows a maximum of 53,000 square feet of building floor area.  The applicant proposes to split Development Area A, per the pending replat of the property, into Lot 1 with 18,000 square feet of maximum floor area and into Lot 2 with 35,000 square feet of maximum floor area, both in Village Park of Tulsa II (pending replat).

 

The applicant also proposes that no screening fence or wall be required between Development Areas A and B.  The existing development standards require “a six-foot high, or greater, screening wall or fence shall be provided along the southern boundary of Development Area A” to screen the commercial area from the residential area.

 

The third amendment proposed requests that the requirement that “there shall be no light standards within 50 feet of Development Area B” be deleted.  “Light standards or building mounted lights within 150 feet of Development Area B, which are on the south side of buildings in Area A, shall not exceed 24 feet in height.”

 

The fourth amendment proposes that the maximum height of buildings be one story not exceeding 25 feet, provided architectural elements may exceed the maximum building height with detail site plan approval by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.

 

Staff can agree with the proposed reallocation of maximum floor area for Development Area A as long as all other existing Planned Unit Development standards remain as approved.  Staff finds a screening fence is still needed between residential and commercial development areas.

 

Since new standards for protecting residential areas from light in parking lots have recently been adopted (Section 1303.C.), staff finds that if the light fixtures comply with this new requirement there is no need for the setback standards in this PUD.

 

Staff can recommend APPROVAL of the requested amendment to reallocate maximum floor area per a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Village Park of Tulsa with all existing PUD development standards remaining as approved.  Staff recommends DENIAL of the requests to delete screening fence or wall requirements between Development Areas A and B and APPROVAL of deleting the 50-foot setback requirement from Development Area B for light standards.  Staff recommends APPROVAL of the one-story, 25-foot maximum height with the condition that architectural elements not exceed 33 feet in height with detail site plan approval of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.

 

Related Item:

 

Application No.:  PUD-587                                      detail site plan

Applicant:  Charles Norman                                               (PD-18) (CD-9)

Location:  Southwest corner of East 81st Street and South Yale

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant is requesting detail site plan approval for a new 14,490 square foot Walgreen’s store.  There is a request for minor amendments related to this site plan under PUD-587-4 on this Planning Commission agenda.

 

The applicant is also processing a replat for this site which will be known as Village Park of Tulsa II.  The site plan as submitted meets the standards for the approved PUD if the minor amendment for PUD-587-4 is approved.

 

Trash enclosure elevations and a detail lighting plan need to be submitted to assure compliance with all PUD standards.

 

Staff can recommend APPROVAL of the detail site plan submitted per the requirements of the minor amendments for PUD-587-4, with the condition that the trash enclosure details and lighting plans meet code and PUD standards.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon asked where the screening fence would be located.  In response, Mr. Stump stated that the fence would be located along the southern boundary and should be adjusted to follow the roadway, since the roadway doesn’t follow the boundaries exactly between Areas A and B.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Bill LaFortune, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing the contract purchaser of Walgreen’s, which would be located on the corner.  He indicated that he is in agreement with the staff recommendation except for the screening wall issue.  Mr. LaFortune submitted photographs (Exhibit A-1).  Mr. LaFortune cited the various locations and views of the photographs.

 

Mr. LaFortune stated that there is a senior citizen living center to the south of the subject property and Walgreen’s would be providing services for the occupants of the living center.  He commented that the owners of the living center agree with the concept of deleting the screening fence in order to allow better pedestrian traffic for their occupants.  He explained that with the detail landscape plan that he has submitted, the significant trees would achieve the same purpose of a screening fence and be more attractive.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon asked what would be done with the land north of the proposed screening fence area.  In response, Mr. LaFortune stated that it would be developed and would be a similar type of use such as Walgreen’s.

 

Bruce Bolzle, 5550 S. Lewis, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, developer of the proposed project, stated that Cypress Realty is the owner of both the senior housing project and the subject tract.  He explained that the senior housing project sits 125 or 150 feet back from the circle road because there is parking in front of the senior housing.  He further explained that the first residence is easily 200 feet-plus back from the property line of the subject commercial development.

 

Mr. Westervelt asked about the orientation for the future buildings.  In response, Mr. Bolzle stated that it is currently planned to divide the four and half acres into four parcels.  Mr. Bolzle explained that the users with whom he is working may need more parking than otherwise one would normally find with a typical fast-food restaurant.  Mr. Bolzle indicated that currently, he is talking to good sit-down quality restaurants and banks.  Mr. Bolzle stated that he has only platted two lots and then he may possibly do lot-splits at the appropriate place.  Mr. Bolzle indicated that there might be a remainder piece of property in the southwest corner and it is planned to be a medical office site that would face the ring-road.  The other two uses would either face 81st Street or South Yale.

 

Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Bolzle whether, if the Planning Commission would consider waiving the screening fence requirement, he would be willing to state that the two tracts to the south, that may be split, would be oriented to the south and not have service and rear entrance onto the ring-road in front of the housing.  In response, Mr. Bolzle stated that orientation would be to the street, 81st Street or Yale.  Mr. Bolzle stated that each parcel would have to come back to the Planning Commission for consideration under a detail PUD site plan.  Mr. Bolzle explained that he is requiring that each property owner provide detailed buffering and screening of obnoxious types of uses (storage buildings, dumpsters, etc.).  Mr. Bolzle stated that Cypress would continue to own the senior housing for the long term and they are very sensitive to what their residents would see across the drive.  Mr. Bolzle commented that while developing the subject PUD, he was very sensitive to these issues and he has required that Walgreen’s submit a substantial landscape screening requirement along their south property line.

 

Mr. Carnes stated that senior citizens do not want screening fences.  He further commented that screening fences are the most fearful thing for the residents to have, because they are concerned of what could be lurking on the other side of the fence.

 

Mr. Stump stated that staff’s concern is the orientation of the buildings as well.  It is not favorable to have offices facing into the rear of a commercial property or vice versa.  Staff did not want to eliminate the screening requirement if there would be a need for it.  Staff could compromise by supporting eliminating the mandatory requirement, but keeping the possibility that at detail site plan approval the screening or buffering may be required.

 

M