Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, August 15, 2001, 1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center
|
Members Present |
Members Absent |
Staff Present |
Others Present |
|
Bayles |
Ledford |
Beach |
Romig, Legal |
|
Carnes |
Midget |
Bruce |
|
|
Harmon |
Selph |
Dunlap |
|
|
Hill |
Westervelt |
Huntsinger |
|
|
Horner |
|
Matthews |
|
|
Jackson |
|
Stump |
|
|
Pace |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, August 13, 2001 at 11:00 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 Harmon called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Minutes:
On MOTION of HORNER the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles,
Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace “aye”; no “nays”; none
“abstaining”; Ledford, Midget, Selph, Westervelt “absent”) to APPROVE
the minutes of the meeting of July 25, 2001, Meeting No. 2281.
Minutes:
On MOTION of
HORNER the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner,
Jackson, Pace “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Ledford, Midget, Selph,
Westervelt “absent”) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of August 1,
2001, Meeting No. 2282.
REPORTS:
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are several items on the City Council agenda for Thursday, August 16, 2001. He indicated that Mr. Dunlap would be attending the City Council meeting.
* * * * * * * * *
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Application No.:
Z-6827/PUD-654 rs-1 to ol/pud
Applicant: Roy D. Johnsen (PD-18)
(CD-9)
Location: Southwest corner of East 71st
Street and South Harvard
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon reported that the applicant has requested a continuance to September 5, 2001 and the request was a timely request. He explained to the interested parties that the Planning Commission is only considering the continuance request.
Interested Parties Opposing the Continuance Request:
Gene Kaefer, 4214 East 74th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136; Don Davis, 3523 East 74th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136; E. B. and Mona Miller, 7211 S. Gary Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136; Dr. Glenn Visher, 7149 South Indianapolis, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136; Peggy Enlow, 7308 South Gary Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136; Frank Munn, 7125 Sleepy Hollow Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136; Will Sanditen, 7217 South Gary, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136.
Opposing Interested Parties’ Comments:
Continuing the application would not help because the neighborhood is against rezoning except for residential; continuing the application several times makes it difficult to attend every meeting due to work and finding babysitters; regardless how the plan is changed, it would not change the minds of the homeowners who are against this application, and therefore it would be foolish to grant the continuance.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon stated that it is his understanding that there is ongoing communication between the applicant and some of the interested parties.
Mona Miller stated that she informed as many of the interested parties that she could that there had been a continuance to September 5, 2001; however, it was not possible to let everyone know that a continuance was requested. She indicated that if she had told everyone she talked with that the case would be heard today, the meeting room would be standing-room-only. She commented that even though there are a lot of people absent, the application should be heard today.
Applicant’s Comments:
Roy D. Johnsen, 201 West 5th
Street, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing F & M Bank, stated
that he did file a request for a continuance to September 5, 2001. He indicated that there is ongoing
communication between his client and the neighborhood associations. He stated that there have been several
meetings prior to today’s hearing and the Planning Commission has always
encouraged dialogue between the applicant and interested parties.
Mr. Johnsen stated that there have been several issues and concerns
raised by the interested parties and it would require additional study to
address those issues. He explained that
one of the concerns was the traffic and he is undertaking additional traffic
study and additional drainage studies.
He expects some significant revisions to the site plan and he expects to
go back to the Guierwood Association to review the revised site plan. He reminded that this type of dialogue has
been encouraged by the Planning Commission for many years, particularly on
difficult applications.
Mr. Johnsen stated that this application has been continued once before
today’s request, but it was at the request of the Guierwood Association and he
did not object to that continuance. The
Planning Commission’s practice in the past has been that when a continuance has
been requested in a timely manner, a continuance would be granted once to each
side. He indicated that when he made
the request for a continuance, he contacted the leadership, the Board of
Director’s of the Guierwood Association, and were advised that they did not
object to the request for a continuance.
He stated that he mailed the letter requesting the continuance to people
who attended the last neighborhood meeting (who spoke at the meeting or were
attorneys, which are indicated on the letter).
It would seem strange that most people did not know that a continuance
was being requested.
Mr. Johnsen concluded that in his opinion his request is inconsistent
with the Planning Commission’s objectives, which is to have good dialogue,
discussion and modifications, where appropriate, on complicated issues. He requested the Planning Commission to
follow their past practice and grant the continuance.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Johnsen if there is still meaningful dialogue to be
had. In response, Mr. Johnsen answered
affirmatively.
Ms. Hill stated that she understands the
inconvenience that this creates for the citizens; however, it has always been
the policy of the Planning Commission that if one side is granted a
continuance, then it should be fair to grant a continuance for the other
side. There are always to two sides to
an application and it would not be fair to not grant a continuance for the
applicant after granting a continuance for the interested parties.
Ms. Pace stated that she read the TMAPC Policies and Procedures and understands that the timely request would be from other than the applicant for continuance of proposed zoning map amendments. The applicant can’t request the continuance unless he changes the original application.
Mr. Stump stated that he believes that the Planning Commission has a policy on timely requests from other than the applicant, but it doesn’t mean that the Planning Commission can’t grant an applicant’s request for a continuance and many have been granted in the past.
Ms. Pace stated that she has a lot of problems with other things that the Planning Commission has been doing and the Planning Commission should tighten up a little and adhere to the policies. It is important that people know what to expect from this body. Unless the applicant has changed his original application, then a continuance should not be granted.
Mr. Horner recognized Mr. Johnsen.
Mr. Johnsen
stated that if the Planning Commission desires to tighten up the policies on
continuances that is fine; however, the people rely on the past practices of
the Planning Commission and the understanding has been that on a timely request
for a continuance the Planning Commission would grant each side a
continuance. That is what the Planning
Commission has been doing in the past and the Policies and Procedures document
is actually silent regarding the applicant’s request. There are many people who think that this application will be
continued and the interested parties’ attorney is not present because of
this. If the Planning Commission is
going to change their past practices, then it should be done with some public
recognition and some posted date (as of a certain date this would be the new
policy). He indicated that his
application would be changed significantly.
In response, Ms. Pace asked if it should be up to the staff whether this
should be continued if the application significantly changes. Ms. Pace commented that she feels for Mr.
Johnsen’s position, but the Planning Commission needs to know what they are
supposed to do.
Mr. Stump informed Ms. Pace that the staff does not have the power to continue an application.
Mr. Harmon stated that the Planning Commission does have the power and it is within the Planning Commission’s scope of authority to grant a continuance if it is elected to do so.
Mr. Carnes stated that the attorney for the interested parties is not present and many of the interested parties are not present because they assumed this case would be continued, as has been the practice of the Planning Commission in the past. The Planning Commission has read the letters of opposition. If the Planning Commission offers to grant a continuance, it doesn’t mean that they are leaning toward the applicant. He stated that because granting continuances has been done in the past, he feels that this continuance should be granted and it would not make any difference about how the members feel.
Ms. Pace recognized an interested party (no name given).
The interested party wanted to know how Mr. Johnsen could come before the Planning Commission for an approval of a change in plans when the interested parties have not seen a plan. Why would Mr. Johnsen come before this board for a continuance if he were going to change his plans. In response, Ms. Pace stated that the applicant would have to readvertise. In response, Mr. Stump stated that if the Planning Commission feels that if the modifications are significant enough to warrant a new advertisement, then they should direct the applicant to do so, but if it is a natural outcome of working with surrounding areas to achieve a more compatible development, then traditionally a new notice has not been published. Mr. Stump explained that the reason for not making a new notice is because the applicant is working with the people who received notice on the first proposal and would be cognizant of the changes.
Mr. Jackson asked if the request for the continuance was a timely request. In response, Mr. Stump stated that, for the applicants, the Planning Commission doesn’t have a definition for a time limit, but it would be considered timely if it were not an applicant. In response, Mr. Jackson stated that the Planning Commission has always encouraged rapport between the applicants and the homeowners. He indicated that he would support and make a motion to continue this application.
Ms. Pace stated that it is not without precedent that the Planning Commission has denied a continuance if the Planning Commission believes that it is such a small change that it could be considered. This appears to be procrastination and there have been times that the Planning Commission has voted to not grant a continuance, but not often. In response, Mr. Harmon stated that the applicant has indicated that there is a chance for meaningful dialogue.
Ms. Hill stated that she wants the residents to know that all of their correspondence would still be a part of the record and she has read all of the correspondence. She assured the interested parties that their letters would not go unnoticed.
Mr. Carnes stated that a continuance does not mean that the Planning Commission is voting, in any way, in favor of this application. He indicated that he would support a continuance and it is important that the public know that the Planning Commission stays on the same playing field throughout the City and County.
Ms. Bayles stated that she received a packet of information and clearly the Policies and Procedures and Code of Ethics that are determined by this Board should be adhered to. If there is no written policy regarding an applicant’s request, there should be. As a member of this Board and as a resident of this community, she would be going to the Policies and Procedures to establish what criteria would be used.
TMAPC Action; 7
members present:
On MOTION of JACKSON, the
TMAPC voted 5-1-1 (Carnes, Harmon,
Hill, Horner, Jackson "aye"; Pace "nay"; Bayles
”abstaining"; Ledford, Midget, Selph, Westervelt "absent") to CONTINUE Z-6827/PUD-654 to September 5, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
Five-Minute Recess.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon announced that there are two more items requesting a continuance, which were timely requests.
Application No.: Z-6830 rm-1 to CS
Applicant: Roy D. Johnsen
(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location: South and southeast corner of East 81st
Street and South Memorial
Related Item:
Application No.:
PUD-523-B major amendment
Applicant: Roy D. Johnsen
(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location: South and southeast corner of East 81st Street and South Memorial
Interested
Parties’ Comments:
D. R. Dunning, 8315 East 84th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133, stated that he would not be able to attend the meeting next week. He opposes the access points because it would be entering and existing private streets (Honey Creek). He stated that the proposal shows entrances and exits onto his neighborhood’s private streets and that couldn’t happen. He indicated that he does not want any access off of the Honey Creek private streets.
TMAPC Action; 7 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the
TMAPC voted 6-0-1 (Bayles, Carnes,
Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson "aye"; no "nays"; Pace
”abstaining"; Ledford, Midget, Selph, Westervelt "absent") to CONTINUE Z-6830/PUD-523-B to August 22, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
FINAL PLAT:
Ledco Addition (PUD 634) (294) (PD-17) (CD-6)
Staff Recommendation:
The plat includes is 2.5 acres in size and includes
one lot in one block. The proposed use
is a racecar building and storage.
The preliminary plat for this addition was approved
in October of 2000.
Releases are 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 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Ledford, Midget,
Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE
the final plat for Ledco Addition
as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Commerce Center (599-A) (684) (PD 18) (CD 8)
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of three lots in one block on 5.8
acres. The lots will be accessed via 61st Street to the north and
104th East Avenue to the east. The PUD
allows office and hotel use as well as the existing used car sales.
The Commission previously approved this plat on June
27. Subsequent to that approval there were changes that affected the
configuration of lots 1 and 2 and that impacted the PUD. Those changes were
addressed in Major Amendment PUD 599-C. Rather than filing a plat and
immediately amending it, the applicant elected to hold the plat, revise it and
again present it to the Commission for final approval.
Release has been received and the plat is
substantially in order. Staff recommends approval of the final plat
subject to the following:
Revision to Deeds of Dedication per City of Tulsa Legal Department and to reflect changes in the PUD standards per PUD 599-C.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Ledford, Midget, Selph, Westervelt "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Commerce Center, subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
PLAT WAIVER:
Location: 6621 East Latimer Place North, east of the
northeast corner of North 66th East Avenue and North Latimer
Trigger: Special Exception to allow church-related daycare use in the
RM/1district; 8/14/01.
The following information was provided at the TAC meeting of 08/02/01.
The site is located east of the northeast corner of North 66th East Avenue and Latimer Place. It is bounded on the south by Latimer and surrounded by residential uses of varying densities.
The site is previously platted and is described as Lot 9 and the west ½ of lot 8 of block 3 of the Aviation View Addition.
The purpose of the request is to make changes appropriate to a change of use within an existing structure. The change would place a church-related daycare facility in the building that was previously used for worship services.
The site and area to the
west and south are zoned RM-1. The areas to the north and east are zoned RS-3.
The site plan shows access onto Latimer, no changes are planned.
SEWER
Sewer
is present.
Water is present.
No new construction is proposed.
No new construction
is proposed.
Staff provides the following
information from TAC.
STREETS:
Somdecerff, Traffic: no comment.
French: Streets: requested five feet of
additional right-of-way.
SEWER:
Bolding, Public Works: no comment.
WATER:
Holdman, Public Works: no comment.
STORMWATER DRAINAGE:
McCormick, Public Works: no comment.
FIRE:
Calkins, Fire: none.
UTILITIES:
No comment.
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 plat waiver with the
following conditions:
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.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the
TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes,
Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace "aye"; no "nays"; none
”abstaining"; Ledford, Midget, Selph, Westervelt "absent") to
recommend APPROVAL of the plat waiver for BOA-19158 subject to
conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Z-4582 (583) (PD-18) (CD-9)
The following information
was provided at the TAC meeting of 02/01/01.
The site is located north of the northeast corner of 67th Street and South Lewis just south of the Southern Hills Country Club. The Arizona restaurant is located in the eastern portion of the property. The proposed limousine parking and file storage facility will be between it and the eastern property boundary.
The site is previously platted, being the north 135’ of the west 350’ of Tract A of the Muzingo Hill Addition
The purpose of the request is to allow construction of a structure that the will include office area and covered parking. The area of the proposed structure is a part of the existing parking lot.
The site is zoned OM. RM-2 is present to the south and east. OM is farther to the south with RS-1 to the north.
The site plan shows access onto South Lewis. No changes are planned.
SEWER
Sewer is present.
WATER
Water is present.
STORMWATER DRAINAGE
No new impervious area is proposed. The new structure will be placed in the southeast corner of the site in an area that is part of the existing parking lot.
Staff provides the following
information from TAC.
STREETS:
French: Streets: no comment.
SEWER:
Bolding, Public Works: no comment.
WATER:
Holdman, Public Works: no
comment.
STORM DRAIN:
McCormick, Public Works: no
comment.
FIRE:
Calkins. Fire: no comment.
UTILITIES:
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 plat waiver with the following conditions:
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 |
|
||