Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, October 17, 2001, 1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center
|
Members Present |
Members Absent |
Staff Present |
Others Present |
|
Bayles |
Carnes |
Beach |
Romig, Legal |
|
Harmon |
Hill |
Bruce |
|
|
Horner |
Ledford |
Dunlap |
|
|
Jackson |
Selph |
Huntsinger |
|
|
Midget |
|
Matthews |
|
|
Pace |
|
Stump |
|
|
Westervelt |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, October 15, 2001 at 9:00 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk, as well as in the Office of the County Clerk.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair Westervelt called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m.
Minutes:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Bayles,
Harmon, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”;
Carnes, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Selph “absent”) to APPROVE the minutes
of the meeting of October 3, 2001, Meeting No 2288.
REPORTS:
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt reported that the Planning Commission received a letter from the City Council requesting the outdoor advertising amendments to be reviewed again. He requested staff to set this for a worksession as quickly as possible.
Mr. Westervelt reported that there are several changes regarding today’s agenda. The changes are as follows:
Mr. Jackson in at 1:38 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
Application No.: cz-288 ag to cg
Applicant: Paul Dean (PD-15)
(County)
Location: East of the southeast corner of East 115th
Street and North Garnett Road
The applicant has withdrawn this item.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Application No.:
pud-600-b major amendment
Applicant: Kevin Coutant
(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location: South of southwest corner of East 91st
Street and South Toledo
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Commission received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to November 7, 2001.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 7
members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Hill, Ledford, Selph "absent") to CONTINUE the major amendment for PUD-600-B to November 7, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Worksession Reports:
Mr. Stump stating that staff would be sending information out to the Planning Commission for the next worksession scheduled October 24, 2001.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are no Planning Commission items on the City Council agenda Thursday, October 18, 2001.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Review and possible endorsement of an ordinance revising Chapter 2
(Section 213) of Title 42 of Tulsa Revised Ordinances (Zoning Code). This amendment is a result of Commission
action related to subdivisions; public hearing (8/22/01).
(Published in the Tulsa Daily Commerce and Legal News,
, 2001)
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 42, TULSA REVISED ORDINANCES,
CHAPTER 2, SECTION 213, RELATED TO PLATTING REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR WAIVER
OR MODIFICATION OF THE PLATTING PROCESS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; PROVIDING
FOR THE ACCELERATED RELEASE OF BUILDING PERMITS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES;
REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF TULSA:
Section 1.
That Title 42, Chapter 2, Section 213, Tulsa Revised Ordinances, be and
the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
ASECTION 213. PLATTING REQUIREMENT B EXCEPTIONS
A. Requirement. 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. No building permit
or zoning clearance permit shall be issued until that portion of a tract on
which the permit is sought has been included within a subdivision plat or
replat, submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission and filed of
record in the office of the County Clerk where the property is situated. This platting requirement shall be
applicable to any land which has been as follows:
1. For any
land which has been rRezoned to a
zoning classification other than AG upon application of a private party; or
2. for any
land which has been gGranted 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.
B. Exceptions. 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.:
1. Waive the platting requirement upon a determination that the
purposes have been achieved by previous platting, have or will be achieved by
other actions, including any conditions prescribed by the Commission, or could
not be achieved by plat or replat;
2. Amend the plat review procedure and authorize the processing
of a minor subdivision plat upon the determination that no new streets will be
built and that minimal public improvements will be required; or
3. Recommend the accelerated release of a building permit upon
approval of a proposed preliminary plat, thereby enabling building permits to
be issued prior to the filing of the final plat. Such approval of an accelerated release shall require dedication
of public street right of way to conform with the requirements of the Major
Street and Highway Plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to such release the Commission shall
determine that extraordinary or exceptional circumstances warrant the release
and that compliance with the filing of the final plat is reasonably
assured. In the exercise of its
discretion to recommend any accelerated release of a building permit, the
Commission may:
a. Waive the requirement for street dedication as a condition
of approval of a building permit being released prior to filing of a final
plat. Such waiver may only occur upon a
determination that circumstances related to the particular project reasonably
preclude the future use/improvement of the area for which dedication would be
required;
b. Determine
that no final inspection of buildings or structures occur, that no occupancy
permit shall be issued and that no building should be occupied until the
platting requirement is fully complied with;
and
c. Prescribe conditions
for accelerated release of a building permit to ensure the filing of the final
plat.@
Section 2. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances
in conflict herewith be and the same are now expressly repealed.
Section 3. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. That an emergency is now declared to exist
for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, by reason whereof
this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage,
approval and publication.
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Bruce stated that on August 22, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes to Section 213 of the City of Tulsa Zoning Code and the Subdivision Regulations. Section 213 talks about the Planning Commission’s ability to waive the platting requirements. This section has been refined to allow minor subdivision plats and a recommendation for an accelerated release of a building permit.
Mr. Bruce stated that the ordinance prepared by the Legal
Department is before the Planning
Commission today. He explained that the
ordinance would change Section 213 of Tulsa City Zoning Code. He explained that if the City Council
approves the ordinance, then a resolution would be prepared to change the
Subdivision Regulations. He indicated
that Legal is asking for the Planning Commission’s endorsement. Mr. Bruce concluded that staff has reviewed
the proposed ordinance and recommends that the Planning Commission endorse this
ordinance.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt
stated that Dwain Midget is to be complimented for helping get this item
smoothed out with Public Works.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, TMAPC voted 7-0-0
(Bayles, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no
"nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Hill, Ledford, Selph
"absent") to ENDORSE the ordinance revising Chapter 2 (Section
213) of Title 42 of Tulsa Revised Ordinances (Zoning Code) as recommended by
staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Westervelt announced that
he would be abstaining from the following items.
SUBDIVISIONS
L-19206
– Sack & Associates, Inc. (2592) (PD-6) (CD-9)
4402 South Peoria
L-19286 – Dennis Hodo (614) (PD-15) (County)
12116 North 113th East Avenue
L-19289 – Tulsa Development Authority (2602) (PD-2) (CD-1)
1504 North Boston Avenue
L-19290 – Sack & Associates, Inc. (2683) (PD-26) (CD-8)
Northeast corner of East 111th Street and Sheridan
L-19291 – Tulsa Development Authority (3602) (PD-2) (CD-1)
715 North Cheyenne
L-19292 – Tulsa Development Authority (3602) (PD-2) (CD-1)
701 North Cheyenne
L-19294
– City of Tulsa (1633) (PD-18) (CD-8)
8820 South Yale
L-19298
– Carl Rose (1803) (PD-25) (CD-1)
West of southwest corner of East 46th
Street North and Lewis
L-19299
– Sack & Associates, Inc. (2592) (PD-6) (CD-9)
1123 East 45th Place
L-19302
– Sack & Associates, Inc. (3094) (PD-17) (CD-5)
Southwest corner of East 41st Street
and Garnett
L-19304
– QuikTrip Corporation (2083) (PD-18) (CD-2)
East 96th Street at Riverside
Parkway and Delaware
L-19305 – Land/Home Co., Inc. (1890) (PD-23) (County)
South Coyote Trail, north of West 31st
Street
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Beach stated that all the above lot-splits
are in order and staff recommends APPROVAL.
There were no interested
parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 6-0-1 (Bayles, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, "aye"; no "nays"; Westervelt ”abstaining"; Midget, Selph "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations, as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
FINAL PLAT:
Megami Addition – (PUD 498-B) (784) (PD-18) (CD-8)
Southwest corner of East 73rd Street South and 101st East Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
Location: This plat consists of one lot in one block on 1.25
acres. It will be developed with hotel
uses.
All releases are in and the plat
is in order with the exception of minor changes to the covenants required by
the Legal Department. Staff recommends approval of the final plat subject
to Legal Department requirements.
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, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Hill, Ledford,
Selph "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Megami Addition subject
to changes to the covenants required by Legal as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
Southern
Woods Park II – (PUD 355-C) (1683) (PD-18-B) (CD-8)
Location: West of the southwest corner of East 89th Street South and South Yale Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 0.53
acres. It is proposed for a maximum of
8,800 SF of office uses under the PUD.
All releases are in and the plat is
in order with the exception of changes to the covenants required by the Legal
Department. Staff recommends approval of the final plat subject
to Legal Department requirements.
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 MIDGET, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Hill,
Ledford, Selph "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Southern Woods Park II,
subject to changes to the covenants required by Legal as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
French Creek Patio Homes - PUD 643 - (1283) (PD-18) (CD-7)
Location: 74th and Memorial, south of the
southeast corner
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of 80 lots in 10 blocks and nine reserves on 11.6 acres. It will be developed as patio homes.
This item was continued from the last hearing so the applicant could
work out an arrangement with Traffic Engineering and an adjacent property owner
to construct the required cul-de-sac.
The following were
discussed September 20, 2001 at the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
|
1. |
Zoning: |
|
|
Staff: The property was rezoned to PUD 643 in
February of this year. This triggered a requirement to plat. The PUD allows
up to 80 townhouse dwellings, one story, up to 35 feet high. |
|
2. |
Streets/access: |
|
|
Staff: Private streets in 30’ right-of-way. Parking access is allowed only at the rear of the lots, not from any streets. Reserve areas are placed for this purpose. Several of these are only 20 feet wide. We question whether this is sufficient to allow convenient maneuvering in and out of driveways. Mark Brown recommended during the public hearing that East 74th Place should remain private with a cul-de-sac located near the west side of the subject tract. The PUD was approved with this condition. The cul-de-sac is not shown on this plat. Note that a
neighboring property owner is adamant in requesting the cul-de-sac be
required. |
|
|
Public Works
Traffic & Transportation:
Reiterated the requirement to provide a public cul-de-sac at the west end of
East 74th Place, connecting with the remainder of the street out
to Memorial Drive. |
|
|
Applicant: Stated he has approved PFPI plans that do
not have the cul-de-sac. It is his understanding that this requirement was
rescinded. Will likely ask the Planning Commission to waive this requirement. |
|
3. |
Sewer: |
|
|
Staff:
No additional information. |
|
|
Public Works Waste Water: No comments. |
|
|
Applicant: No comments. |
|
4. |
Water: |
|
|
Staff:
No additional information. |
|
|
Public Works Water: Wants the outer 10’ of the 15’ utility
easement along the streets to be restricted for water lines only. |
|
|
Applicant: No objection stated. |
|
5. |
Storm Drainage: |
|
|
Staff:
No additional information. |
|
|
Public Works Stormwater: No other utilities or easements permitted
in the detention reserve. |
|
|
Applicant: No objection stated. |
|
6. |
Utilities: |
|
|
Staff: No
additional information. |
|
|
Franchise Utilities: No comments. |
|
|
Applicant: No comments. |
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary
plat subject to the special and standard conditions below.
|
Waivers
of Subdivision Regulations: |
|
|
|
1. |
None
requested. |
|
|
Special Conditions: |
|
|
|
1. |
Construction and dedication of a public
cul-de-sac at the west end of the property to function with East 74th
Place, acceptable to Public Works.
Acceptance indicated by release of final plat. |
|
|
2. |
Dedicate ten-foot restricted water line
easement along the private streets, acceptable to Public Works. Acceptance indicated by release of final
plat. |
|
|
Standard Conditions: |
|
|
|
1. |
All conditions
of PUD-550 shall be met prior to release of final plat, including any
applicable provisions in the covenants or on the face of the plat. Include PUD approval date and references
to Section 1100-1107 of the Zoning Code in the covenants. |
|
|
2. |
Utility easements shall meet the approval
of the utilities. Coordinate with
Subsurface Committee if underground plant is planned. Show additional easements as
required. Existing easements shall be
tied to or related to property line and/or lot lines. |
|
|
3. |
Water and sanitary sewer plans shall be
approved by the Public Works Department prior to release of final plat. (Include language for W/S facilities in
covenants.) |
|
|
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 topography 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. |
|
Mr. Beach explained that staff is concerned about vehicles being too
close to the curb of the proposed cul-de-sac and destroying landscaping,
screening walls, mailboxes, etc. The right-of-way is too close to the cul-de-sac and staff
suggests that the right-of-way be expanded to at
least five feet beyond the face of the curb.
Mr. Beach indicated that prior to the meeting he spoke with the
developer and they are asking for approval of the preliminary plat with the right-of-way as shown (40 feet radius) with a condition that
there would be a requirement prohibiting structures placed within a certain
distance of the face of the curb. The
distance would be determined between Planning Commission staff and the Traffic Engineer.
He explained that he received the drawing on Tuesday prior to today’s
meeting and he hasn’t had time to respond in any detail. He indicated that he is comfortable with
this recommendation, unless Mr. Stump has anything to add.
Mr. Stump stated that if the Planning Commission approves this preliminary plat with the proposed cul-de-sac and
requirements mentioned, then he believes that the applicant would need a waiver
of the Subdivision Regulations since there is not an endorsement from TAC. Mr. Beach indicated that there is not an
endorsement from TAC. Mr. Stump stated
that if the Planning Commission would like
to approve the proposed layout, since Traffic Engineering has not endorsed this
reduced right-of-way, it would require a waiver of the Subdivision
Regulations.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Horner asked if the preliminary plat could be approved, subject to
Traffic Engineering’s approval as presented today. In response, Mr. Stump stated that it could, but if the applicant
does not concur with the 50-foot right-of-way,
then basically TAC would not approve this layout and the applicant would have
to come back for a waiver of Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Midget asked why the Planning Commission is considering this preliminary plat when all of the approvals have not
come in. In response, Mr. Stump stated
that he has the same question. Mr.
Midget stated that he is uncomfortable approving this application
conditionally. Mr. Stump commented that
staff has not received any feedback from the adjacent property owner nor
Traffic Engineering regarding the proposed cul-de-sac. Mr. Stump stated that the lack of feedback
doesn’t mean that the applicant hasn’t met with these people, but staff does
not have anything formal to present to the Planning Commission indicating their endorsement of the proposed layout.
Mr. Beach stated that staff’s recommendation would be for APPROVAL
of the preliminary plat, subject to approval of the cul-de-sac by Traffic
Engineering, TAC and Planning Commission staff;
subject to a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations allowing less than a 50-foot
radius right-of-way for the cul-de-sac; subject to the construction
of the cul-de-sac as a requirement and subject to a dedication of the ten-foot
restricted water line easement along the private streets acceptable to Public
Works.
Applicant’s Comments:
Dave Sanders, 11502 South
66th East Avenue, Bixby, Oklahoma 74008, stated that he is here
today because he agreed to all conditions of the PUD and worked with
Engineering staff regarding a turnaround, in lieu of a full radius
cul-de-sac. He explained that the sole
purpose of the cul-de-sac was to allow for the turning around and exiting of
the emergency vehicles and other vehicles.
He stated that he designed a turnaround and Traffic Engineering approved
it and it went through review (PFPI), which then was approved and signed. He indicated that all of the plans had been
signed and he thought he was approved to go forward with the project. He explained that at the TAC committee the
preliminary plat reverted to the PUD and it forced Mr. Beach into the position
of saying that the PUD requires a cul-de-sac, which means a circular
cul-de-sac. He stated that he knew that
it meant a circular cul-de-sac when they stated it, but he negotiated to the
point that he had a turnaround. He
explained that he is not fighting over this issue, but he doesn’t want to lose
the four lots. In an attempt to
coordinate the two efforts he proposes a ball cul-de-sac, but asks for
restrictive right-of-way. If he installs a 50-foot right-of-way as required, then with the setbacks from the right-of-way, he would lose the four lots. If he compromises and gives the standard
38-foot radius paving, but restricts the right-of-way, then with the setbacks he would not lose the four lots. In addition to the right-of-way, he realizes that he would have utility easements
around the outside and that can be easily made in the deed of dedication that
no structures, fences or other encumbrances may be constructed on or across the
easements.
Mr. Sanders indicated that he met with Mr. Brown and it was determined
that the paving radius should not be restricted and should be kept at the
standard. He commented that he informed
Mr. Brown that the cul-de-sac would be 40 foot in radius and Mr. Brown had no problem,
but he does not have that statement in writing. He assured the Planning Commission he could obtain the statement in writing if needed. He stated that Mr. Brown did indicate that
the 40-foot radius would have to be reviewed by Transportation, which has not
been done at this time.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked the applicant if he was requesting the Planning Commission to approve the preliminary plat out of sequence
and then have all of the approvals be subject to review by everyone who would
review during a normal process. Mr. Westervelt
further asked the applicant if there is some extraordinary circumstance that
this route would be beneficial to him versus continuing this application in
order to get the information back from all of the entities. Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Sanders how
approving this application subject to three more reviews would fast-track his
project. In response, Mr. Sanders
stated that he assumes that there would be a two-week continuance and during
that time he would be able to design his cul-de-sac.
Mr. Horner suggested that the application be approved with the conditions
stated, and if he passes all of the reviews, then he can move on without
returning to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Romig if there is any particular preferred route
or any problems with what is being requested today. In response, Mr. Romig stated that he has no problem with the
request.
Mr. Midget asked staff when the next TAC meeting would be held. In response, Mr. Beach stated that there is
a TAC meeting October 18, 2001. Mr.
Beach explained that the TAC members are unaware that this application would be
coming before them, but he can try to prevail on them to discuss this
application.
There were no interested
parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER, the
TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Harmon,
Horner, Jackson, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays";
none ”abstaining"; Carnes, Hill, Ledford, Selph "absent") to
recommend APPROVAL of the preliminary plat for French Creek
Patio Homes, subject to TAC, Traffic Engineering, and staff review; subject to
a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations to allow a 40-foot radius cul-de-sac;
subject to special conditions and standard conditions; subject to language to
prohibit material construction within the right-of-way of the cul-de-sac.
* * * * * * * * *
Heartland Venture II – (PUD 578-A) (2683) (PD-26) (CD-8)
Location: Northwest of East 111th Street
South and South Memorial Drive
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 1.1 acres. It will be developed with commercial uses under the PUD.
This plat was continued from the last hearing to give time to discuss the requirement to allocate floor area for this parcel.
The following were
discussed September 20, 2001 at the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting:
|
1. |
Zoning: |
|
|
Staff: A major amendment to the PUD was approved late in 2000, which triggered a requirement to plat. Because this plat only covers a portion of the
unplatted property in the PUD, an amendment must be processed to establish
development standards for this tract.
After that, the plat must reflect the PUD standards and may be
processed. |
|
2. |
Streets/access: |
|
|
Staff:
No new streets or dedications to existing.
There is a mutual access easement shown connecting properties to the
north and the south through this tract. |
|
|
Public Works
Traffic & Transportation:
Delete dedication language from covenants; Add “enforceable by City of Tulsa”
to LNA language in covenants. |
|
|
Applicant: No comments. |
|
3. |
Sewer: |
|
|
Staff:
No additional information. |
|
|
Public Works Wastewater: Sewer needs to be extended to subject
property at the southwest corner. |