Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, October 24,
2001, 1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City
Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic
Center
|
Members Present |
Members Absent |
Staff Present |
Others Present |
|
Bayles |
Hill |
Beach |
Swiney, Legal |
|
Carnes |
Midget |
Bruce |
|
|
Harmon |
Selph |
Dunlap |
|
|
Horner |
|
Huntsinger |
|
|
Jackson |
|
Stump |
|
|
Ledford |
|
|
|
|
Pace |
|
|
|
|
Westervelt |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of
said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday,
October 22, 2001 at 8:45 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 1:37 p.m.
REPORTS:
Worksession Reports:
Mr.
Westervelt reported that there were several items on the worksession today and
each item will be discussed later in the agenda.
Request
that TMAPC initiate a rezoning of Countryside Estates Subdivision from RE to
AG-R.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr.
Westervelt stated that the committee decided to send this item to the Planning
Commission with the recommendation to call for a public hearing on December 19,
2001.
There were no interested parties
wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 7 members present:
On
MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 7-0-0
(Bayles, Carnes, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no
"nays"; none ”abstaining"; Harmon, Hill, Midget, Selph
"absent") to APPROVE the TMAPC initiating a rezoning application
for Countryside Estates from RE (Residential Estate District) to AG-R
(Agriculture–Residential Single-Family, Rural Development) and call for a
public hearing regarding this issue.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr.
Harmon in at 1:35 p.m.
Director’s
Report:
Mr.
Stump reported that Z-6814/PUD-650 (Children’s Medical Center property) is
scheduled for hearing at the City Council, October 25, 2001.
* * * * * * * * *
Lot-Splits for Waiver of
the Platting Requirement and Subdivision Regulations:
L-19243 – Donald Walker (3483) (PD-26) (CD-8)
Location: East of southeast corner East 121st Street and South Yale
RELATED ITEM:
Application No.: pud-527-B-1 Minor amendment
Applicant: J. Don Walker (PD-26) (CD-8)
Location: East of southeast corner East 121st Street and South
Yale
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Dunlap stated that the applicant has requested a
continuance for these two items.
TMAPC Action; 8 members present:
On
MOTION of HARMON, the TMAPC voted 8-0-0
(Bayles, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Westervelt
"aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill, Midget,
Selph "absent") to CONTINUE L-19243 and PUD-527-B-1 to November 7, 2001
at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC HEARING
Application No.: z-6840/pud-656
co to il/pud
Applicant: R. L. Reynolds (PD-18) (CD-8)
Location: South of southeast corner of East 61st Street and
South Mingo Road
Staff Recommendation:
RELEVANT ZONING HISTORY:
Z-5773-SP-3 October 1999: Approval was granted for the use of the
subject property and existing building from the development of prototype
aeronautic simulators and related products as a Scientific Research and
Development use to Use Unit 15, Other Trades and Services, for the design,
development and fabrication of components of aeronautic simulators. No exterior change to the building was
approved.
Z-5773-SP-2 June 1997: A detail
corridor site plan was approved for the subject property that changed the
existing indoor soccer and recreational facility to a facility for the
development of prototype aeronautic simulators and related products. No exterior change was proposed or approved
for the building.
(See
Z-5773-SP-1 – 1983)
Z-6254/Z-6254-SP-1 September 1989: All concurred in approval of
rezoning a .4-acre lot located on the northeast corner of East 63rd
Street South and South Mingo Road from RS-3 to CO and approval was also granted
on a detail corridor site plan, Z-6254-SP-1 on the property for a small
appliance business in the existing building.
Z-6122 October 1986: All
concurred in approval of a request to rezone a .3-acre tract located on the
northeast corner of East 62nd Street South and South Mingo Road from
RS-3 to CS.
Z-6086 December 1985: A request to rezone the small .3-acre tract
adjoining the subject property on the south, from RS-3 to OL to allow a
multi-line insurance sales office was approved.
Z-5908 March 1984: A request
to rezone a 3.1-acre tract located on the southeast corner of East 62nd
Street South and South Mingo Road and abutting the subject tract on the north,
from RS-3 to CO. Staff felt that the
requested CO zoning was premature and inappropriate due to the existing
single-family dwelling abutting the property and recommended denial. The adjoining property owner advised the
Planning Commission that he would be requesting CO zoning. Planning Commission recommended approval of
CO zoning and the City Commission concurred in approval.
Z-5903 February 1984: All concurred in approval of a request to rezone an 8.3-acre
tract located south of the southeast corner of East 63rd Street and
South Mingo Road from RS-3 to CO.
Z-5773/Z-5773-SP-1 January 1983: A request to
rezone the subject tract from RS-3 to CO.
The City Commission, per staff and Planning Commission’s recommendation,
approved the request for CO zoning.
Approval was also granted for a detail corridor site plan for a
28,672-square foot building for an indoor soccer playfield and accessory recreational
uses.
SITE ANALYSIS: The
subject property is approximately 2.37 acres in size. The property is flat, non-wooded; contains a manufacturing
facility, and is zoned CO.
STREETS:
|
Exist. Access |
MSHP R/W
|
Exist. No. Lanes |
|
South Mingo Road |
100˘ |
2 lanes |
The Major Street Plan designates South Mingo Road as
a secondary arterial street. The
City of Tulsa Traffic Counts 1998 – 1999 indicates 20,700 trips per day on
South Mingo Road at East 61st Street South.
UTILITIES: Water and
sewer are available to the subject property.
SURROUNDING AREA: The
subject tract is abutted north by vacant land, zoned CO; to the southwest by an
office and small appliance retail store, zoned OL and CO; to the east and
southeast by single-family dwellings, zoned RS-3; and to the west by a vacant
land, zoned AG.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN:
The
District 18 Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Tulsa Metropolitan
Area, designates the subject tract as Low Intensity – Corridor.
According
to the Zoning Matrix the requested IL is not in accordance with the
Plan.
Based
on the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding uses and zoning patterns, staff cannot
support the requested rezoning and therefore recommends DENIAL of IL
zoning for Z-6840.
RELATED ITEM:
PUD-656 Standards:
The subject tract is zoned CO and
consists of approximately 2.27 acres located south of the southeast corner of
East 62nd Street and South Mingo Road. A corridor site plan (Z-5773-SP-1) was approved by the City
Council in 1983. The permitted uses
were an indoor soccer playfield and accessory recreational uses. A second corridor plan (Z-5773-SP-2) was approved
on the subject tract in 1997. This plan
changed the use of the existing building to allow for the development of
prototype aeronautic simulators and related products as included within Use
Unit 22. A third corridor site plan was
approved on the subject tract in 1999.
This plan again changed the permitted use to allow for the design,
development and fabrication of components of aeronautic simulators as included
within Use Unit 15. There was no
exterior change to the building and products shipped by semi-trailer truck were
limited to 15 trips per month.
As stated above, the subject tract is
zoned CO. The tract is abutted on the
north by vacant CO-zoned property; on the east by residential uses zoned RS-3;
and on the south by office uses zoned OL and residential uses zoned RS-3. There is a vacant AG-zoned property to the
west of the tracts, across South Mingo Road.
Rezoning application Z-6840 has been
filed requesting the subject tract be rezoned from CO to IL. The PUD proposes to allow uses permitted by
right and exception in an IL district, excluding Use Unit 12 A. No changes to the exterior of the building
are proposed.
The District 18 Plan, a part of the
Comprehensive Plan designates the subject tract as Low Intensity/Corridor. The requested zoning and PUD are not in
accordance with the plan map.
The Planning Commission at
their October 17, 2001 meeting, directed staff to prepare the following
standards:
|
1. |
The
applicant's Outline Development Plan and Text be made a condition of
approval, unless modified herein. |
|||||||||||||
|
2. |
Development Standards: |
|||||||||||||
|
Land Area: |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Net |
2.273
Acres |
98,991.81
SF |
|||||||||||
|
Gross: |
2.448
Acres |
106,618.20
SF |
|||||||||||
|
Permitted Uses: |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Only
fabricating and assemblage of gauges, valves, packers, plugs and related down
hole oil well service tools as would be included within Use Unit 25. Casting or forging is prohibited. All fabricating and assemblage shall be
conducted inside the existing building. |
|
|||||||||||
|
Maximum Building Floor Area: |
30,000
SF |
|
|||||||||||
|
(Existing
building only, no new buildings are permitted) |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Maximum Building Height: |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
(Existing
building only, no new buildings are permitted) |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sidewall |
25
FT |
|
|||||||||||
|
Peak of the roof |
37
FT |
|
|||||||||||
|
Maximum Number of Buildings: |
1 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Minimum Lot Frontage Per Lot: |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
On South Mingo Road |
150 FT |
|
|||||||||||
|
Minimum Building Setbacks: |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
(For
existing building only, no new buildings are permitted.) |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
From
the north boundary |
33
FT |
|
|||||||||||
|
From
the south boundary |
33
FT |
|
|||||||||||
|
From
the centerline of South Mingo Road |
230
FT |
|
|||||||||||
|
From
the east boundary: |
120
FT |
|
|||||||||||
|
From
the west boundary |
182
FT |
|
|||||||||||
|
Off-Street Parking: |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
As
required by the applicable Use Unit of the Tulsa Zoning Code. |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Signs: |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
One
(1) identification ground sign shall be permitted at the entrances on South
Mingo Road with a maximum of 20 square feet of display surface area and six
feet in height. |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Wall
signs shall be permitted not to exceed one square foot of display surface are
per lineal foot of building wall to which attach. The length of a wall sign shall not exceed seventy five percent
(75%) of the frontage of the building.
No wall signs shall be permitted on the east- or south-facing walls. |
|
||||||||||||
|
Landscaping and Screening: |
|
||||||||||||
|
A
minimum of fifteen percent (15%) of the net land area shall be improved as
internal landscaped open space in accordance with the provisions of the
Landscape Chapter of the Tulsa Zoning Code and in accord with the Detailed
Landscape and Screening Plan as shown on Exhibit B. |
|
||||||||||||
|
There
shall be a six-foot high or higher screening wall or fence along the east and
south boundaries of the PUD abutting the residential district. There shall be a ten-foot wide landscaped
strip along the east and south boundaries of the PUD abutting the residential
district. |
|
||||||||||||
|
Access and Circulation: |
|
||||||||||||
|
There
shall be a maximum of one access point onto South Mingo Road. All access shall be approved by Traffic
Engineering. |
|
||||||||||||
|
Color of Building: |
|
||||||||||||
|
The
color of the building shall be earth tones. |
|
||||||||||||
|
3. |
All
activities and storage of materials shall be within the existing building. |
|||||||||||||
|
4. |
Product
shipping or receiving by semi-trailer truck shall be limited to the hours of
6:00 a.m. to |
|||||||||||||
|
5. |
No
zoning clearance permit shall be issued for a lot within the PUD until a
detail site plan for the lot, which includes all buildings, parking and
landscaping areas, has been submitted to the TMAPC and approved as being in
compliance with the approved PUD development standards. |
|||||||||||||
|
6. |
A
detail landscape plan for each lot shall be approved by the TMAPC prior to
issuance of a building permit. A
landscape architect registered in the State of Oklahoma shall certify to the
zoning officer that all required landscaping and screening fences have been
installed in accordance with the approved landscape plan for the lot, prior
to issuance of an occupancy permit.
The landscaping materials required under the approved plan shall be
maintained and replaced as needed, as a continuing condition of the granting
of an occupancy permit. |
|||||||||||||
|
7. |
No
sign permits shall be issued for erection of a sign on a lot within the PUD
until a detail sign plan for that lot has been submitted to the TMAPC and
approved as being in compliance with the approved PUD development standards. |
|||||||||||||
|
8. |
All
trash, mechanical and equipment areas, including building-mounted, shall be
screened from public view in such a manner that the areas cannot be seen by
persons standing at ground level.
There shall be no bulk trash receptacles south of the north building
wall or east of the east building wall. |
|||||||||||||
|
9. |
Outdoor
lighting used to illuminate the subject tract shall be so arranged as to
shield and direct the light away from properties within the residential
district abutting the PUD. Shielding
of such light shall be designed so as to prevent the light-producing element
of the light fixture from being visible to a person standing in the
residential district abutting the PUD or street right-of-way. No light standard nor building-mounted
light shall exceed 20 feet in height. |
|||||||||||||
|
10. |
The
Department Public Works or a professional engineer registered in the State of
Oklahoma shall certify to the appropriate City official that all required
stormwater drainage structures and detention areas serving a lot have been
installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit on that lot. |
|||||||||||||
|
11. |
No
building permit shall be issued until the requirements of Section 1107F of
the Zoning Code have been satisfied and approved by the TMAPC and filed of record
in the County Clerk's office, incorporating within the restrictive covenants
the PUD conditions of approval and making the City beneficiary to said
covenants that relate to PUD conditions. |
|||||||||||||
|
12. |
Subject
to conditions recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee during the
subdivision platting process which are approved by TMAPC. |
|||||||||||||
|
13. |
Approval
of the PUD is not an endorsement of the conceptual layout. This will be done during detail site plan
review or the subdivision platting process. |
|||||||||||||
|
14. |
There
shall be no outside storage of products, materials or equipment used on site,
nor recyclable material, trash or similar material outside, nor shall trucks
or truck trailers be parked in the PUD except while they are actively being
loaded or unloaded. Truck trailers or
outside metal containers shall not be used for storage. |
|||||||||||||
Applicant’s Comments:
Lou Reynolds, 2727 East 21st Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma
74114, stated that he would like to clarify some issues initially. He explained that he doesn’t want anyone to
think that he doesn’t fully support previous actions or uses of the subject
property in the past. Common sense went
into finding a way to utilize the subject property in accordance with both the
letter and the spirit of the Zoning Code.
He stated that staff and the Planning Commission is to be commended for
that. He explained that, being mindful
of the past use and the Comprehensive Plan designation, his client viewed this
application as more technical than in the past and believed he could work with
staff and the Planning Commission to find the right balance. Mr. Reynolds concluded that he is in
agreement with the standards staff was requested to develop by the Planning
Commission and requests this application be approved.
Mr. Reynolds informed the Planning Commission that
he intends to request a plat waiver in the near future because the subject
property is a single lot that is fully platted. He indicated that he has gone through the check list and
everything is in place except for the use restrictions decided today. He stated that he is willing to record and
file of record.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Reynolds if his client had
any difficulty with the stipulation that the doors remain closed. He reminded Mr. Reynolds that the building
is totally climate-controlled and there would be no need for the doors to be
opened. In response, Mr. Reynolds
stated that his client would like the ability to open the doors, weather
permitting. Mr. Reynolds explained that
his client does not expect a tremendous amount of noise during the
process. Mr. Reynolds indicated that
the doors are on the east side of the building and the neighbors are to the
south of the building.
Mr. Wester