Tulsa
Metropolitan
Area
Planning Commission
Wednesday, August 22,
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 |
Bruce |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Carnes |
Selph |
Dunlap |
|
|
Harmon |
|
Huntsinger |
|
|
Hill |
|
Stump |
|
|
Horner |
|
|
|
|
Jackson |
|
|
|
|
Midget |
|
|
|
|
Pace |
|
|
|
|
Westervelt |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, August 20, 2001 at 8:20 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, Chair Westervelt called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m.
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt reported that item number five, L-19243, has been withdrawn from today’s agenda.
Mr. Westervelt announced that with Mr. Boyle’s resignation, new officers had to be appointed. The new officers are as follows: Wesley Harmon, 1st Vice Chair; Brandon Jackson, 2nd Vice Chair; Mary Hill, Secretary.
Mr. Westervelt stated that Item 19, AC-059, would be at the end of the agenda. Mr. Westervelt reported that items fourteen and fifteen would be at the end of the agenda as well.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Midget in at 1:35 p.m.
Director’s
Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are two items on the City Council agenda, Thursday, August 23, 2001.
* * * * * * * * *
SUBDIVISIONS
LOT-SPLITS FOR WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS:
L-19270 - Robert DuHaime (PD-19)
(County)
Location: 12220 East 13125 Street
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to split a 200’ X 247.5’ tract into two 100’ X 247.5’ tracts. Both tracts meet the RS bulk and area requirements and right-of-way requirements; however the applicant desires to use an alternative sewage system on both tracts, 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
Comments:
Mr. Harmon asked staff what the minimum sized lot is that can use the alternate sewer systems. In response, Mr. Bruce stated that there are a variety of systems and it would depend on what type of system is in use. Mr. Stump stated that if there is a public water supply, the lot could be a half-acre.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HARMON, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Ledford, Selph "absent") to APPROVE
the waiver of Subdivision
Regulations and of the lot-split for L-19270 as recommended by
staff.
* * * * * * * * *
L-19272 - Carl Westfall
(PD-23)
(County)
Location: 4310 South 73rd West
Avenue
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant has applied to split a five-acre tract into two 2.5-acre tracts. On August 21, 2001, the Tulsa County Board of Adjustment will consider a variance of the average lot width from 200’ to 165’ Tract B. All other AG bulk and area requirements and right-of-way requirements are met. The applicant desires to use an alternative sewage system on Tract B, 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, with the condition that the County Board of Adjustment approves a variance of the average lot width on Tract B.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Ledford, Selph "absent") to APPROVE
the waiver of Subdivision
Regulations and of the lot-split of L-19272 subject to conditions as recommended
by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:
L-19220 – John Alexander
(2502)
(PD-2)
(CD-1)
1621 North
Norfolk
L-19221 – Grace Wadley (2502)
(PD-2)
(CD-1)
1633 North
Norfolk
L-19273 – James L. Jarvis
(2702)
(PD-11)
(CD-1)
1711 North Gilcrease
Museum Road
L-19274 – Jack Allen (1793)
(PD-6)
(CD-9)
2716 East
26th Place
L-19280 – City of Tulsa
(1492)
(PD-9)
(CD-2)
Southwest corner West
22nd Place & Maybelle
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HARMON, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Ledford, Selph "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
FINAL
PLAT:
West Tulsa Service Center (382) (PD-8) (CD-2)
Staff
Recommendation:
The ONG service center will be located on Lot
2. The center provides a base for
field and related administrative personnel. Lots 1 and 3 will be developed in
the future. The subject property is
zoned CS.
Release letters are substantially in order. Staff recommends approval subject to revisions per City Legal Department.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Ledford, Selph "absent") to APPROVE
the final plat for West Tulsa
Service Center subject to conditions as recommended by
staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Gateway Plaza (3003) (PD-2) (CD-3)
Staff
Recommendation:
The site is located north of Pine, east of Peoria
and west of the Cherokee Expressway.
The primary user on the site will be retail grocery-related
(Albertson’s); the lot to the east would not be developed at this
time.
Release letters are substantially in order. Staff recommends approval subject to revisions per City Legal Department.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Ledford, Selph "absent") to APPROVE
the final plat for Gateway Plaza,
subject to revisions per City Legal Department as recommended by
staff.
* * * * * * * * *
CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC
HEARING
Application
No.: Z-6830
rm-1 to cs
Applicant: Roy D. Johnsen
(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location:
South of southeast corner of East 81st Street and South
Memorial
Staff
Recommendation:
RELEVANT
ZONING HISTORY:
PUD-571 February 1998: All concurred in approval, per modifications, of a request for a PUD on property located east of the northeast corner of East 81st Street and South Memorial Drive to allow a retail shopping center and mini-storage facility with underlying zoning of CS and RM-1.
PUD-574 November 1997: All concurred in approval, as modified, of a mixed use development on an 18-acre tract located north and east of the northeast corner of East 81st Street and South Memorial Drive for a 388-unit multifamily apartment in Development Area A and commercial uses on Development Areas B and C.
Z-6594/PUD-562 June 1997: All concurred in approval of a request to rezone an 8.7-acre tract located north of the northeast corner of East 81st Street and South Memorial Drive, from AG to RM-1 for a 168-unit multifamily development.
PUD-523-A January 1996: A request for a major amendment was approved to allow office uses on the west 300¢ of Development Area B, which had been originally approved for multifamily dwellings, and to increase the permitted floor area ratio for the office development. The subject property is within Development Area B.
PUD-456-A March
1995: A major amendment was approved, subject
to modifications to the standards, to change the permitted uses in the PUD from
offices to multifamily dwellings for a maximum number of dwelling units to be
360. Included in the amended
conditions and standards was the requirement for a solid 8¢ masonry-screening wall to be constructed on the
east, exterior of buildings to be 60% masonry, and building setback requirements
modified.
Z-6471/PUD-523 January 1995: A request to rezone a 66-acre tract located in the southeast corner of East 81st Street South and South Memorial Drive, and which included the subject, from AG to RS-3, RM-1 and CS for a mixed-use development. The request was approved for CS zoning on the north 660¢ of the west 660¢, a 300¢ RM-1 strip wrapping around the CS zoning area and RS-3 on the remainder.
Z-6264/PUD-456 December 1989: All concurred in approval of a request to rezone an 18-acre tract located north of the subject tract on the east side of Memorial Drive from RS-3 to OL/PUD.
Z-6101/PUD-412 May 1986: A request to rezone a sixty-acre tract located in the southeast corner of East 81st Street and South Memorial Drive and including the subject tract, from AG to CS, RM-1 and RS-3. TMAPC and staff were not supportive of the application as it was submitted and recommended the application be amended with ten acres of CS, twenty acres for RM-1 and the balance RS-3 zoning. The applicant, prior to a final hearing, withdrew the application.
SITE ANALYSIS: The subject property is approximately 1.3 acres in size and is located south of the southeast corner of East 81st Street South and South Memorial Drive. The property is sloping; non-wooded; vacant; and zoned RM-1/PUD-523.
STREETS:
|
Exist
Access |
MSHP Design |
Exist. No.
Lanes |
|
South Memorial
Drive |
120¢ |
4
lanes |
|
East
81st Street South |
100¢ |
2
lanes |
The Major Street Plan designates South Memorial Drive as a primary arterial street and East 81st Street South as a secondary arterial street. The City of Tulsa Traffic Counts 1998 – 1999 indicates 39,300 trips per day on South Memorial Drive at East 81st Street South.
UTILITIES: Water and sewer are available to the subject property.
SURROUNDING AREA: The subject tract abuts vacant land on the north and east and beyond the vacant tract to the north is a Walgreen’s Drug store, zoned CS/PUD-523; to the east are apartments and single-family homes, zoned RM-1 and RS-3; to the south is a single-family dwelling surrounded by vacant land, zoned RS-3/PUD-523; and to the west is a multi-story office building, zoned RM-1/PUD-270.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN:
The District 18 Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, designates the subject property as Low Intensity – Linear Development.
According to the Zoning Matrix the requested CS zoning is not in accordance with the Plan Map.
Based on the Comprehensive Plan and development in this area, staff recommends DENIAL of CS zoning for Z-6830.
Related item:
Application
No.: PUD-523-B rm-1/rs-3/pud
to rs-3/cs/pud
Applicant: Roy D. Johnsen
(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location:
South of southeast corner of East 81st Street and South
Memorial
Staff
Recommendation:
The major amendment proposes commercial uses on 2.396 net acres located approximately 771 feet south of the southeast corner of East 81st Street and South Memorial Drive. The subject tract is Development Area B-1 of PUD-523-A (approved in 1995). The tract has been approved for office uses. This major amendment proposes to allow uses that are permitted by right in a CS district.
The subject tract is zoned RM-1/RS-3/PUD-523-A. Concurrently an application (Z-6830) has been filed to rezone RM-1 portion of the tact to CS. The tract is abutted on the north by office uses zoned RM-1/PUD-523, on the east by residential uses zoned RM-1/RS-3/PUD-523-B and on the south by vacant property zoned AG. There are office uses zoned RM-1/PUD-270 to the west of the tract across South Memorial Drive.
The District 18 Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan designates the subject tract as Low Intensity Linear Development Area. The requested zoning and PUD are not in accordance with the plan map.
Staff finds the uses proposed to not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or in harmony with the existing and expected development of surrounding areas.
Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of PUD-523-B.
TMAPC
Comments:
Ms. Pace questioned if there would be a
convenience store allowed in the subject PUD or what it would require to include
a convenience store in the future.
In response, Mr. Stump stated that if the Planning Commission adopted a
PUD similar to the applicant’s proposed permitted uses that he submitted today,
then a convenience store or gas station would be prohibited uses and to add a
prohibited use would require a major amendment.
After a lengthy discussion it was determined that there were significant modifications. The Planning Commission recommended to continue Z-6830/PUD-523-B in order to allow staff to reconcile all the changes and present those changes with development standards at the September 5, 2001 TMAPC meeting.
The applicant
indicated his agreement to the continuance and staff reconciling the changes in
order to submit development standards.
TMAPC Action; 9
members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Ledford, Selph "absent") to CONTINUE Z-6830 and PUD-523-B to September 5, 2001 at
1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
ZONING PUBLIC
HEARING
Application
No.: PUD-652-1
minor amendment
Applicant: Robert Elliott
(PD-18)
(CD-9)
Location:
Northeast corner of East 55th Place and South Peoria
Avenue
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant is requesting minor amendments to Planned Unit Development standards for a new Family Dollar Store. The Planned Unit Development on the site was recently approved on June 20, 2001.
The requested amendments include changing the provision per staff recommendation # 3 that there be no access within 150 feet of the east boundary of the PUD. Staff can agree that there should be no access within 130 feet of the east boundary of the Planned Unit Development, per the submitted plot plan, with the approval of the Traffic Engineering Division.
An amendment is requested to the requirement that a six-foot high or higher masonry wall along the east boundary of the PUD be required. There are tall trees to the east of the site, which should remain in the area for screening and beauty. Staff supports the request to delete the masonry wall requirement and to permit a wood fence that could be set back from the east boundary of the PUD.
The location of the trash enclosure area within 20 feet of the east boundary of the PUD instead of the required 75-foot setback is proposed. Staff has reviewed the proposed location for the trash enclosure and recommends a minimum 40-foot setback from the east PUD boundary line.
An amendment to the requirement that the building include 50% masonry on all elevations is requested. The single-story office buildings near the site are brick or stone finish. The requirement of 50% masonry appears to be reasonable for the new retail store.
Staff can recommend APPROVAL of the requested amendment to allow access along 55th Place, with the condition that the access be approved through Traffic Engineering and not be permitted within 130 feet of the east PUD boundary.
Staff recommends APPROVAL
of the amendment to delete the masonry screening wall and to permit a wooden
fence of the same height that could be set back off the east boundary with the
condition that the exact location and design of the fence would be determined by
TMAPC at detail site plan review.
Staff recommends DENIAL of the request to allow the trash enclosure to be not within 20 feet of the east PUD boundary and APPROVAL of allowing the trash enclosure area to be not within 40 feet of the east PUD boundary.
Staff recommends DENIAL of the request that the 50% masonry requirement be amended.
TMAPC
Comments:
Mr. Carnes suggested that the applicant come
forward and indicate whether he understands the staff recommendation since there
are some approvals and some denials.
Mr. Harmon asked staff to explain the masonry
fence issue. In response, Mr.
Dunlap stated that the original standard was for a masonry screening fence, but
the applicant is requesting that it not be standard but have a six-foot high or
higher screening fence (not necessarily masonry) and allow it to be moved off of
the east boundary line in order to preserve existing trees. Mr. Dunlap further stated that the
applicant agrees to maintain the vegetation. Mr. Dunlap explained that the screening
fence does not necessarily need to be masonry. Mr. Dunlap indicated that prior to the
meeting, staff received additional information that shows the location of the
trees, and staff agrees that there are a number of trees that are on the
applicant’s property and it would a good idea to preserve the
trees.
Mr. Stump stated that staff agrees with the
applicant’s access within the east boundary of the PUD and allowing the
screening fence to be moved off of the property boundary line and preserve the
trees. Staff recommends that the
architectural design of the building will include 50% masonry on the north,
south, east and west elevations of the building. Staff recommends that there shall be no
outside trash areas with 75 feet of the east boundary of the
PUD.
Applicant’s Comments:
Robert Elliott, 1901 Magnolia Lane, Edmond, Oklahoma, 73083, stated that he understands and is in agreement with the staff recommendation.
TMAPC
Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked the applicant if he was in agreement with staff’s recommendation and he understands what is being recommended for approval and denial. In response, Mr. Elliott answered affirmatively.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members
present:
On MOTION of HARMON, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Ledford, Selph "absent") to APPROVE the minor amendment for PUD-652-1, subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
OTHER
BUSINESS:
Application
No.: AC-058 - alternative
Landscaping Compliance
Applicant: C. Dwayne Wilkerson (PD-18)
(CD-7)
Location:
North of northwest corner of East 71st Street and South Mingo
Road
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant is requesting an alternative compliance to landscaping requirements for Union Public Schools. The proposal is to use more than the required trees near the borders of the school property for landscaping purposes and to avoid placing trees in the school parking lot due to these trees being more susceptible to being damaged by students and their vehicles in the parking areas.
The plan submitted proposes many trees in compliance with the tree list adopted for landscaping through the Zoning Code. The trees will be located in the street yard and south of the parking lot. The number of trees and the landscape plan submitted is equivalent to and better than what is required per the landscape specifications.
Alternative Compliance allows the Planning Commission to review a proposed plan and determine that, although not meeting the technical requirements of the landscape chapter in the Zoning Code, the plan is equivalent to or better than the requirements.
Staff would like to see trees in the paved parking areas for the school site. There is a fear, based upon the experience of the school administration, that the trees would not survive in this environment.
Staff can agree that this particular site can provide a good landscape plan along the east and south sides of the parking area per the submitted plan and recommends APPROVAL of the alternative compliance requested.
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 HARMON, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Ledford, Selph "absent") to APPROVE
the alternative landscaping
compliance for AC-058 as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Horner out at 2:21
p.m.
Application
No.: PUD-613
detail site plan
Applicant: Ronald Spencer
(PD-18) (CD-9)
Location:
Southeast corner of East 53rd Street and South
Lewis
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant is requesting a detail site plan approval for a new office building. It is 6,498 square feet and will house the Tulsa County Medical Society. The use proposed is in conformance with the approved Planned Unit Development standards.
There is an existing office building and a dental office building under construction on the site. The addition of the new building meets with the size requirements for structures on the site. The detail site plan as submitted meets with the requirements as approved for the Planned Unit Development.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the detail site plan as submitted.
Note: Detail site plan
approval does not constitute landscape or sign plan approval.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
TMAPC Action; 8 members
present:
On MOTION of HARMON, TMAPC voted 8-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Hill,
Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Horner,
Ledford, Selph "absent") to APPROVE
the detail site plan for PUD-613 as
recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Horner in at 2:25
p.m.
TMAPC
Comments:
Mr. Westervelt
acknowledged and thanked the volunteers who worked on the Subdivision
Regulations amendments. He further
complimented staff and Mr. Ledford for their diligent work on this project. He commented that, hopefully, with the
new process it would save the City of Tulsa and Tulsa County some tax dollars by
streamlining the process.
Volunteers are as
follows:
Ted Sack, Charles E. Norman, and Roy
Johnsen.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR THE TULSA METROPOLITAN
AREA
Staff
Recommendation:
In the early
part of 2000, two specific issues regarding the subdivision process were brought
to the attention of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
(TMAPC). These were the increase in
the number of requests for “temporary plat waivers” and the evidence that the
subdivision review and approval process included procedures that had diverged
from the approved Tulsa Metropolitan Area Subdivision Regulations as adopted in
1978.
After discussion the Commission directed
staff to compare the process as approved with the process as practiced and to
assemble a review committee. The committee was to review the process, address
the issue of plat waivers and make recommendation to the Rules and Regulations
Committee of the Planning Commission.
The review committee included
representatives from the legal, consulting and development communities as well
as representatives from the City of Tulsa’s Public Works and Legal Departments
and from Tulsa County’s Engineering Department. Planning Commission staff
performed the role of coordination.
In February of 2001, the review committee
presented a progress report to the Rules and Regulations Committee. In May the
review committee began presentations of its findings and recommendations to that
Committee. In June 2001, the Committee accepted the recommendations of the
review committee and forwarded them to the Planning Commission, which, at their
regularly scheduled meeting of June 27, 2001, called for a public hearing to
review the recommendations. The
public hearing is to be held on August 22, 2001.
The proposed amendments impact the following
Sections:
|
Section 213 of the Zoning
Code |
Platting
Requirement |
|
Section 1.9 |
Waiver of
Subdivision |
|
Section 2 |
Application
Process |
|
Section 3 |
Specification For
Documents |
|
Section 4.11 |
Sewage Disposal and Water
Supply |
|
Appendix A |
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality Requirements For Subdivisions |
|
Section 6 |
Lot-Split Procedures and
Standards |
|
Section 7
(new) |
Change Of Access Procedures and
Standards |
|
Policies and Procedures of the
Commission (Section J) |
Subdivisions and
Lot-Splits |
A summary of the proposed changes is as
follows:
Section 213 of the Zoning Code -- Platting
Requirement
Changes to this section clarify the options
that are available to the Planning Commission when considering the potential
waiver of the platting requirement.
The Section has been amended to authorize the Commission to approve a
Minor Subdivision Plat or to recommend release of building permits prior to the
filing of a final plat (Accelerated Release). It provides direction regarding
the circumstances that should be present for an accelerated release and provides
authority for the Commission to require conditions.
Section 1.9 – Waiver of
Subdivision
This Section is the companion to Section 213
of the Zoning Code and discusses the options available to the Commission when
considering alternatives to the typical platting process.
Section 2 – Application
Process
Changes to this Section address procedures
for Sketch, Preliminary and Final Plats. The amended Section proposes that
Commission staff transmit comments from individual Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) members in their area of expertise rather than transmitting a
recommendation from the Committee as a whole. It gives direction as to the
information to be transmitted to the Commission in the staff report. It
clarifies the scope of Planning Commission review and addresses housekeeping
issues such as the current members of TAC, the number of copies of the plat
required and the types of submittals to be included with an
application.
The proposed amendment indicates that a
Conceptual Improvements Plan shall be included with a Preliminary Plat
submittal; this Plan takes the place of the Preliminary Construction Drawings
that are indicated by the current Regulations. The purpose of this change is
part of the on-going effort to provide TAC members with information sufficient
to give them the basis for a thorough review. The changes direct staff regarding
potential courses of action when submittals are incomplete.
Minor Subdivision Plats (Section
2.4)
The amendment introduces a new subsection
that describes an alternative approval process for less complex plats,
identifying them as “Minor Subdivision Plats”. The use of a Minor Subdivision
Plat may be appropriate when no new streets are being built and when little
infrastructure expansion is required. The new process would require one hearing
in front of the Commission to receive Final Plat approval. After receiving an
application staff would distribute the plat while the applicant would distribute
construction drawings (as needed) prior to TAC. At TAC the individual members
would either provide release letters or would identify those specific items
remaining to be addressed.
Staff would then present the final plat to
the Commission. If release letters were not available by the time staff prepared
the report, the plat would be recommended for preliminary
approval.
Recommendation For Accelerated Release of
Building Permits (Section 2.5)
Another new subsection addresses the
processing of projects where an accelerated release of a building permit may be
appropriate. This release may be appropriate when there are extraordinary
circumstances, such as the required amendment of an existing plat. The purpose
of this subsection is to provide a viable alternative to the request for a
“Temporary Plat Waiver”, which was not clearly defined by the regulations.
Recommendation by the Commission for early permit release will require
dedication of any needed arterial street right-of-way, along with the filing
of a statement acknowledging the requirement to plat. If granted this release it
would allow building permits to be issued prior to filing of the Final Plat. No
Occupancy Permit will be issued until the Final Plat is filed. The strongest
safeguard will be the filing of the platting requirement statement, alerting
title researchers of the unplatted status of the property.
Section 3 – Specification For
Documents
This Section addresses the required accuracy
for platted information as well as the information to be submitted with an
application for Sketch, Preliminary or Final Plat. As noted above, the
“Conceptual Improvements Plan” has been included in place of the former
“Preliminary Construction Drawings”. The Improvements Plan requires less profile
information and to some degree expands the scope of the horizontal information
required. This change is part of the ongoing effort to provide TAC members with
sufficient information to provide more substantial comments at the TAC
meeting.
This Section introduces a new subsection
(3.7) dealing with monumentation standards. While not specifically required for
accurate review, this subsection addresses construction issues related to
accurate location of subdivided land in the field.
Section 4.11 – Sewage Disposal and Water
Supply
The primary purpose of revision to this
Section is to address the changes initiated by the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), which include the various types of sewage disposal
systems that the Department will approve. It also incorporates policy changes of
the Public Works Department.
Appendix A – Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality Requirements For Subdivisions
This appendix addresses the current review
process through DEQ rather than through the Tulsa County Health Department and
provides details such as specific land area requirements for a variety of
acceptable water and wastewater disposal systems.
Section 6 – Lot-Split Procedures and
Standards
The amendment primarily addresses submittal
requirements and the impact of the changes initiated by the Oklahoma Department
of Environmental Quality.
Section 7 (new) – Change Of Access
Procedures and Standards
This new Section addresses submittals for
and reviews of requests for changes to an access point or points as indicated on
an approved plat.
Policies and Procedures of the Commission
(Section J) – Subdivisions
and Lot-Splits
The amendment to subsection J addresses
Commission policies regarding the review and approval of subdivisions and
lot-splits. The new subsections
(J.2. and J.3.) address Commission review criteria for Minor Subdivision Plats
and Recommendations for Accelerated Release of a Building Permit.
RELATED ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE
TULSA ZONING CODE TEXT, TITLE 42, TULSA REVISED ORDINANCES FOR CHAPTER
2:
Staff
Recommendation:
ZONING CODE –
SECTION 213:
Note:
The purpose of the changes to this section is to further clarify the
Commission’s authority when waiving or modifying the platting process. The Review Committee envisions four
possible platting scenarios – a typical plat, a Minor Subdivision Plat, a
Recommendation for Accelerated Release of A Building Permit and a Plat
Waiver.
For the purposes of
providing a proper arrangement of streets and assuring the adequacy of open
spaces for traffic, utilities, and access of emergency vehicles, commensurate
with the intensification of land use customarily incident to a change of zoning,
a platting requirement is established as follows:
For any
land which has been rezoned to a zoning classification other than AG upon
application of a private party or for any land which has been granted a special
exception by the Board of Adjustment as enumerated within Use Units 2, 4, 5, 8,
and 20, no building permit or zoning clearance permit shall be issued until that
portion of the tract on which the permit is sought has been included within a
subdivision plat or replat, as the case may be, submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission and filed of record in the office of the County Clerk where
the property is situated. Provided
that the Planning Commission, pursuant to their exclusive jurisdiction of
subdivision plats:, may remove
the platting requirement upon a determination that the above stated purposes
have been achieved by previous platting or could not be achieved by a plat or
replat.