Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting No. 2303

Wednesday, March 20, 2002, 1:30 p.m.

Francis Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center

Members Present	Members Absent	Staff Present	Others Present
Carnes	Bayles	Beach	Romig, Legal
Harmon	Dick	Fernandez
Hill	Ledford	Huntsinger
Horner	Midget	Matthews
Jackson		Stump
Pace
Westervelt

The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, March 18, 2002 at 10:40 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 Harmon called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

Minutes:

Approval of the minutes of February 27, 2002, Meeting No. 2301

On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 6-0-1 (Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; Hill “abstaining”; Bayles, Dick, Ledford, Midget “absent”) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of February 27, 2002, Meeting No. 2301.

Minutes:

Approval of the minutes of March 6, 2002, Meeting No. 2302

* * * * * * * * * * * *

REPORTS:

Mr. Stump reported that the TMAPC receipts for January 2002 are slightly below previous years, which seems to be the current trend.

Mr. Stump reported that there are two items on the City Council meeting for March 21, 2002.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR STRICKEN:

Mr. Harmon stated that TMAPC received a request for a continuance from an interested party for PUD-441-2.

APPLICATION NO.: PUD-441-2		MINOR AMENDMENT
Applicant: Michael Demest		(PD-11) (CD-1)
Location:	Northeast corner of West Pine Street and North Union Avenue

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon stated that a continuance was granted to the applicant previously and now an interested party has requested a continuance for one week.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

* * * * * * * * * * * *

APPLICATION NO.: PUD-405-K/Z-6722-SP-15		MAJOR AMENDMENT AND CORRIDOR SITE PLAN
Applicant: Roy Johnsen		(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location:	South and west of southwest corner of East 92^nd Street and South 78^th East Avenue

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon stated that Mr. Johnsen has requested a continuance to April 3, 2002.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Dick, Ledford, Midget "absent") to CONTINUE the major amendment and corridor site plan for PUD-405-K/Z-6722-SP-15 to April 3, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

APPLICATION NO.: PUD-362-3		MINOR AMENDMENT
Applicant: Danny Brumble		(PD-18) (CD-2)
Location:	7108 South Columbia Place

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon stated that this application needs to be amended and therefore it is stricken from this agenda.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

Staff Recommendation:

Mr. Stump stated that this application would be renoticed.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

APPLICATION NO.: PUD-559-A-3		MINOR AMENDMENT
Applicant: Eric Sack		(PD-18) (CD-8)
Location:	East of northeast corner of East 91^st Street and South Mingo

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon stated that the applicant submitted an incorrect legal description and it cannot be heard today. He indicated that this application is stricken from this agenda.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

SUBDIVISIONS:

Lot-Splits for Waiver of Subdivision Regulations:

L-19337 – Patrick Kingsley (1192)		(PD-7) (CD-2)
Location:	1224 South Indian

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant’s dwelling has encroached the common boundary line. In order to retain the dwelling on one property, the applicant has applied to split a small parcel from the neighboring property and tie it to his lot. The Tulsa Board of Adjustment has approved the variances necessary to approve this lot-split, and the applicant has applied for a License Agreement with the City of Tulsa to allow the garage in a public right-of-way. Both resulting tracts will have more than three side lot lines, requiring a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a waiver of Subdivision Regulations that each tract have no more than three side lot lines.

The Technical Advisory Committee had no objections to this application. 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, subject to the City of Tulsa approving the License Agreement application.

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Dick, Ledford, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the lot-split for waiver of Subdivision Regulations and of the lot-split, subject to the City of Tulsa approving the License Agreement application as recommended by staff.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

L-19354 – Randall Vaughn (2613)		(PD-15) (County)
Location:	7901 North Sheridan

Staff Recommendation:

An application has been filed to split one acre off a four-acre tract. Both resulting tracts meet the RE bulk and area requirements; however, Tract B will have more than three side lot lines, requiring a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a waiver of Subdivision Regulations that each tract have no more than three side lot lines.

Also, the property runs along North Sheridan, which is designated as a secondary arterial (100’ right-of-way). The applicant is willing to give a 30’ easement to Tulsa County, but is asking for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations for the additional 20’ right-of-way. The applicant has agreed to give an additional five-foot easement along East 80^th Street to provide the full 30’ right-of-way needed. The Tulsa County Engineer has requested the full 50’ right-of-way along Sheridan.

The Technical Advisory Committee expressed concerns with the 30’ right-of-way along North Sheridan, and requested the 50’ right-of-way. 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 for the number of side lot lines and of the lot-split, with the condition that the 50’ right-of-way easement along North Sheridan and a five-foot right-of-way easement along East 80^th Street North be given to Tulsa County.

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

Interested Parties Comments:

Mike Maxwell, 6622 East 80^th Street North, Owasso, Oklahoma 74055, stated that he opposes the lot-split because all of the surrounding areas are acreages. He indicated that there are neighborhood covenants that restricted more than one house on the property. He commented that the smallest acreage is 2 ½ acres and he opposes this lot-split because he doesn’t know what the applicant intends to do with the new parcel.

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Carnes asked Mr. Maxwell if all of the surrounding lots are 2 ½ acres or more. In response, Mr. Maxwell stated that he lives on 4 ½ acres and the smallest is 2 ½ acres.

Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Maxwell if there were any existing covenants that require lots to be 2 ½ acres. In response, Mr. Maxwell stated that the only covenant is that there can only be one house per single property. Mr. Harmon asked if the covenant stated what size the lot would have to be. In response, Mr. Maxwell stated that when the original acreage was divided, each abstract had the size of the acreage and the one-house-permitted clause.

Mr. Westervelt stated that covenants are private matters and questioned if the covenants had expired. In response, Mr. Maxwell stated that the covenants are close to expiring or they may have already expired. In response, Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Maxwell if he understood that the Planning Commission could not enforce covenants because it is a civil matter. In response, Mr. Maxwell stated that he understands that the Planning Commission cannot enforce covenants.

Interested Parties Comments:

Loretta Adams, 6619 East 80^th Street North, Owasso, Oklahoma 74055, stated that she opposes the lot-split. She explained that she moved to the area because she didn’t want to be in a housing addition.

Steve Montee, 6705 East 80^th Street North, Owasso, Oklahoma 74055, stated the he opposes the lot-split. He moved to his home to get away from being directly adjacent to someone. He requested that this application be denied and keep the lots 2 ½ acres or more.

Scott Winn, 7900 North Sheridan, Owasso, Oklahoma 74055, stated that he opposes the lot-split because he doesn’t know what the applicant intends to do with the lot.

Applicant’s Rebuttal:

Randall Vaughn, 1713 South 1^st Place, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012, stated that he is splitting the land in order to build a home for his family to live closer to his parents. He explained that his parents are elderly and need help with the property.

Mr. Harmon recognized Ms. Adams.

Ms. Adams stated that her mother (81 years old) lives next door to her and she is not going to subdivide her land for somebody to care of her. She explained that she hired a nurse to take care of her mother.

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Jackson asked Ms. Adams if she is opposed to the one-acre lot versus 2 ½ acres. In response, Ms. Adams stated that she opposes the lot-split regardless of size. Ms. Adams further stated that no one should get special treatment because she is not asking for any. In response, Mr. Jackson stated that there are 4.25 acres, and he asked if the applicant requested to split off two acres, that would make her feel better. In response, Ms. Adams stated that she would like the subject property to remain as it is. In response, Mr. Jackson asked Ms. Adams if she had any leeway. In response, Ms. Adams answered negatively.

Ms. Pace asked staff if the proposed lot-split would meet the RE zoning requirements, the Planning Commission would be obligated to allow the lot-split. In response, Mr. Beach stated that a lot-split could not be denied if it meets the zoning requirements, but there may be other factors for a denial. Mr. Stump reminded Ms. Pace that the lot-split would have to meet the zoning and the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Beach stated that if the subject property is zoned RE and the resulting tract meets the bulk and area requirements of RE, then it is a valid request on its merits and should be approved. Mr. Beach explained that there are Subdivision Regulations that control three side lot lines or various other things and the Planning Commission is being asked to consider those. Ms. Pace stated that the only aspect of the RE zoning that this application does not meet is the number of sides of the lot. Mr. Beach stated that today the application to request that the Subdivision Regulations be waived. Ms. Pace stated that if the lot-split created a four-sided lot, then the Planning Commission would not be hearing this at all. Mr. Beach answered affirmatively.

Mr. Carnes stated that if the line went straight across, where the Planning Commission would have to hear it, he would vote in favor of it. He further stated that he would hate to split up a neighborhood without a better reason than what we have here

Mr. Westervelt requested the applicant to return to the podium.

Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Vaughn if he understood Mr. Carnes’s comments regarding the lot line. In response, Mr. Vaughn answered affirmatively. Mr. Westervelt stated that the Planning Commission does not deal with covenants, but it is a civil matter and the neighbors are indicating that there may be covenants in place, which means the neighbors could take him to court. Mr. Westervelt further stated that Mr. Carnes is suggesting that the proposed lot is smaller than the balance of those in the neighborhood, and he would be more supportive of this application if the lot line continued farther and created a larger lot. Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Vaughn if there is a particular reason for shaping the lot as he requested. In response, Mr. Vaughn stated that the lot size was decided by the size of the house he plans to build. Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Vaughn if he could build the house on a larger lot. In response, Mr. Vaughn stated that it wouldn’t bother him to build the house on a larger lot, but it would be more land to fence. Mr. Vaughn explained that he would have to do another abstract and it would cost him more money to change the proposal. Mr. Westervelt stated that the applicant would have to do another survey to get the lot lines set up. Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Vaughn if he has looked into the civil matter. In response, Mr. Vaughn stated that his attorney has checked the covenants and they have expired.

Mr. Beach stated that the RE requirements require that the lot have a minimum width of 150 feet and the applicant could run his lot line straight across to the east or possibly make it narrower than what is shown. Mr. Beach commented that there are several configurations that the applicant could do, but what he has proposed meets the RE requirements.

Mr. Westervelt stated that he doesn’t know how the Planning Commission could deny this because they are approved with regularity. He commented that he would like Mr. Carnes to be more comfortable and it be more consistent with the neighborhood. He stated that there seems to be no physical reason why the lot couldn’t be split off larger than the proposal. It would nice if the applicant would offer to make the lot larger, but he hasn’t heard that come forward.

Mr. Carnes asked the applicant to come up to the podium once more.

Mr. Carnes asked the applicant if he would be willing to reconfigure the proposal so there wouldn’t be three lot lines and the shape would not be irregular. Mr. Carnes stated that he is unable to support the proposal. In response, Mr. Vaughn stated that if he is denied then he could make the lot larger, but it would cost him more money to do so.

In response to Mr. Harmon, Mr. Stump stated that if the applicant made a lot that was 150 feet wide north to south and the east and west boundaries were all the way across the property, then the applicant wouldn’t have to come back to the Planning Commission because it would comply with the RE zoning and Subdivision Regulations.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of WESTERVELT, TMAPC voted 6-1-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; Jackson "nay"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Dick, Ledford, Midget "absent") to DENY the lot-split for waiver of Subdivision Regulation and lot-split for L-19354.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

L-19360 – Robert Pritchett (1091)		(PD-23) (County)
Location:	402 Ridge Drive

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant has applied to split a 0.672-acre tract into an 0.31 and a 0.35-acre tract. Both tracts meet the RS bulk and area and right-of-way requirements. There are two dwellings on the property, each having its own septic system. However, the Subdivision Regulations require a minimum 0.5 acre for a septic system. The applicant is asking the Planning Commission to waive the minimum lot size requirements of Appendix A for a septic system. However, Subdivision Regulations 4.11(1)(c) states that jurisdiction over the lot size standards is given only by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality as the on-site sewage disposal permitting agency. Therefore, the TMAPC has no jurisdiction.

Therefore, staff recommends this item be stricken from the agenda. When the applicant produces a written waiver from ODEQ, staff will put the item back on the TMAPC agenda if needed.

Mr. Beach indicated that he discussed this issue with the attorney representing the applicant and he understands the reason for striking this application.

TMAPC Comments:

Ms. Pace stated that she couldn’t tell by the address where the subject property was located. She requested the staff to indicate where in the County the subject property is located. In response, Mr. Beach answered affirmatively.

Mr. Westervelt asked staff to supply an aerial photo with the lot-splits for waiver of Subdivision Regulations in the future. In response, Mr. Beach agreed to supply aerial photos for the lot-splits.

Applicant was not present.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

STRICKEN.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Lot-Splits for Ratification of Prior Approval:

L-19036 – Kenney Russell (3392)	(PD-8) (CD-2)
5140 South 34^th West Avenue
L-19203 – Tim Lyons (1483)	(PD-18) (CD-8)
8217 South 76^th East Avenue
L-19353 – John H. Gambling (614)	(PD-15) (County)
10724 East 126^th Street North
L-19356 – Scott Hargis (3073)	(PD-21) (County)
1630 East 163^rd Place South
L-19357 – Hammond Engineering Co. (3004)	(PD-16) (CD-6)
11213 East Pine
L-19358 – Johnny Smith (3492)	(PD-8) (CD-2)
6052 South 30^th West Avenue
L –19359 – Steven Metheny (2593)	(PD-17) (CD-5)
9200 Block of East 41^st Street
L-19361 – City of Tulsa (2703)	(PD-16) (CD-3)
2206 North Darlington Place
L-19366 – Jeff Steen (274)	(PD-19) (CD-2)
16448 East 128^th Street

Staff Recommendation:

Mr. Beach stated that all these lot-splits are in order and staff recommends APPROVAL.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Dick, Ledford, Midget "absent") to RATIFY these lot-splits given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Accelerated Building Permits:

Montereau in Warren Woods (PUD-641) (383)		(PD-18-B) (CD-7)
Location:	North of East 71^st Street, East of Granite Avenue, 56.6 acres

Staff Recommendation:

This request is for an accelerated release of building permits for foundation permits for the proposed Montereau project. Three permits are requested and these are proposed for the underground parking garage (which received approval for an accelerated permit for piers, only, on February 27, 2002), for independent living units, and for an activity center. Uses proposed for the project include a continuing care retirement community and an office park.

Review of this application must focus on the extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that serve as a basis for the request and must comply in all respects with the requirements of the approved Preliminary Plat per Section 2.5 of the updated Subdivision Regulations.

TMAPC approved the Preliminary Plat for Montereau in Warren Woods on April 18, 2001. A revised Preliminary Plat was reviewed by the TAC on February 7, 2002 and is to be reviewed by TMAPC as an item on the March 20, 2002 agenda. A draft final plat for the project was received on March 7, 2002.

The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the request for the three foundation permits at their March 7, 2002 meeting. The TAC members did not object to specific building permits granted for foundation permits, only, for the three permits requested. Staff can recommend APPROVAL of the request for Authorization for an Accelerated Release of the three building permits with the condition that the permits be granted only for foundation permits specific to the three proposed structures, and that the permit be in accordance with the site plan approved by TMAPC on February 27, 2002.

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt asked staff if this is the first authorization for an accelerated release on the subject property. In response, Mrs. Fernandez stated that this is the second. Mr. Stump stated that it is on the same site. Mr. Stump stated that all of the foundation permits are compatible with either the adopted preliminary plat or the proposed preliminary plat. Mr. Stump explained that the ability to make sure that the applicant completes the final plat is still there because a foundation without a building is not of much use. Mr. Stump commented that this request is not for an approval to build the entire building, but only the foundations.

Mr. Westervelt stated that this is what the Planning Commission contemplated when the accelerated release was created.

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of CARNES, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Carnes, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Jackson, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Dick, Ledford, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the authorization for an accelerated release of the three building permits with the condition that the permits be granted only for foundation permits specific to the three proposed structures, and that the permit be in accordance with the site plan approved by TMAPC on February 27, 2002 as recommended by staff.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Z-4729/Rainbow Concrete (494)		(PD-17) (CD-8)
Location:	13521 East 11^th Street

Staff Recommendation:

History of Property: The property was rezoned to IL and OL in 1974 and has been subject to plat since then. The concrete company currently occupies the area being platted as well as the abutting property to the southwest zoned IM and some property to the north zoned RS-2. It began in the IM portion and has been expanded over the years to its present extent. In early 2000 Neighborhood Inspections issued a Zoning Violation Notice that this use is not permitted in the RS-2 district and that there must be an all-weather surface for all of the parking areas, and that screening must be provided. The Board of Adjustment upheld the Inspector’s decision. The BOA decision was appealed to the District Court. The Court heard the case and remanded it back to the Board of Adjustment for consideration of several questions raised during the trial. That hearing will be March 12, 2002. A preliminary plat was approved June 28, 2000 and a draft final plat is currently under review. The applicant will ask the TMAPC to reinstate the preliminary plat, which expired a year after it was approved, and in the meantime seeks approval of this accelerated release of the building permit. Purpose: The purpose of the request is to allow issuance of permits for: 1. Construction/resurfacing of parking areas; 2. Installation/construction of reclaimer facility; 3. Installation/construction of screening wall; 4. Construction of detention/retention ponds.

Extraordinary and Exceptional Circumstances:

The applicant stated that the current owner is trying to bring the property into compliance as quickly as possible after many years of non-compliance. In order to do so, certain permits must be issued. Those permits may not be issued until the plat is finished. He offers these are the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances that serve as the basis for this request.

He further stated that the risk that the plat might not be finished and filed is eliminated because the District Court will mandate that the plat be completed.

The Technical Advisory Committee:

The TAC discussed this request in its meeting March 7, 2002. The applicant was present, along with the property owner and the engineer. The applicant described the case history and explained the purpose of the request. There was considerable discussion on the merits of this application, as well as the procedure to be followed on future applications.

The primary concerns of the TAC were that the property has been subject to plat since 1974, yet it remains unplatted; there has been considerable expansion on the property over the years without meeting the platting requirement; the expansion has been into adjacent lots that are not zoned for the use; there has been ample opportunity to come into compliance many times since 1974; the preliminary plat was approved nearly two years ago but it has not been completed; and as of this meeting there are no building permits on file that are being delayed because of the plat.

The applicant stated that all the permits they want have been applied for, and if there are any that haven’t, they will be immediately. He stated that the City realigned the creek that affects this property, which changed the characteristics of the floodplain, but a Letter of Map Revision was never processed. This was an obstacle to finishing the plat. The TAC asserted that the applicant had the right and opportunity to submit the Letter of Map Revision but didn’t. There was no reason for this to have been an obstacle to finishing the plat.

Staff Recommendation: Staff acknowledges and gives all due consideration to the facts that many of the problems on this site were created by the former owner, that the current owner purchased the property and the going concern about two years ago and is spending considerable time and money toward improving it, and that the current efforts are intended to bring about compliance with the zoning violations and improve the “neighborliness” of the operation. However, based on the fact that there has been ample opportunity to comply long before now and there appear to have been unnecessary delays even in the last two years, staff would not see approval of another delay as providing any benefit. Further, we would not see denial as causing any undue hardship to the applicant. The final plat is imminent, and once filed, will not delay the pending permits. Staff recommends denial of the request for accelerated release of the building permit. If the Planning Commission were persuaded to approve, staff recommends a condition that the cost of any changes on this site that might result from adjustments to the floodplain would be borne by the landowner.

TMAPC Comments:

Ms. Pace asked staff where the IL zoning is located on the subject property. In response, Mr. Beach stated that it is located in the panhandle of the subject property.

Mr. Harmon stated that there are zoning, land use, floodplain problems and the applicant is still requesting an accelerated permit. Mr. Stump stated that the applicant has also allowed his preliminary plat to lapse rather than proceeding with it.

Applicant’s Comments:

Roy Johnsen, 201 West 5^th Street, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing APAC Oklahoma, Inc., Mr. Johnsen submitted maps and site plans (Exhibit A-1) and cited the history of the zoning changes for the subject property.

Mr. Johnsen stated that there are extenuating circumstances regarding the subject property. He explained that his client purchased the property in 1999 and virtually all of the violations presently existing were in place when he purchased the property, with one exception. He stated that his client has been dealing with the DEQ on what the requirements would be. The DEQ suggested that his client needed more storage capacity in their holding pond and his client built the second pond without a permit. He believes that this is the only expansion of area that has occurred since APAC’s ownership of the property. Mr. Johnsen explained that he is here today in order to get permits issued that would help the situation.

Mr. Johnsen stated that his client is proposing to install a reclaimer, which separates the rock and sand for reclaiming. This is considered environmentally friendly and it is total retention in a large-capacity tank. APAC is proposing to close a pond and build a reclaimer facility and the tanks in the IL-zoned area. He explained that his client couldn’t obtain a permit for the reclaimer until the plat is filed of record. This facility would benefit everybody concerned to materially improve the wastewater situation at the plant. He commented that there has been a lot of criticism about his client being too slow or not doing enough, and this is a facility that could be done now if the permit were issued.

Mr. Johnsen stated that recently APAC installed a petroleum binder on the parking lot as a maintenance matter. This was to be an interim solution and permitting has decided that this meets the definition of an all-weather surface. He explained that his client would like to rebuild the parking lot with concrete or asphalt and meet the Landscaping Ordinance. He stated that his client would have to have a permit to do these things, and in order to obtain a permit the plat has to be filed of record.

Mr. Johnsen stated that several things have held his client up from meeting the requirements. He explained that the largest issue that has held up his client is the drainage. He stated that the City redirected a creek flow and his engineers are convinced that this has moved the floodplain eastwardly. APAC wanted to expand their office to the east and it would require an extensive amount of fill, which requires solving all of the drainage issues. The FEMA map needs to be amended and it would require that the City of Tulsa enact this step. He stated that his client has been waiting for the amended 100-year floodplain elevations, as they presently exist and after the improvements were made to the creek. His client is required to show an overland drainage easement that coincides with the floodplain on the draft final plat. All release letters have been received except from Public Works, which is necessary to complete the final plat. He indicated that his client has decided not to extend his office to the east and there would be no substantial fill, which held his client up for a long time.

Mr. Johnsen stated that currently his client needs the accelerated building permits in order to immediately proceed with the construction to get the reclaimer in operation and close the pond, immediately proceed to rebuild the parking lot and meet the Landscaping Ordinance. He indicated that his client has applied for a permit for the new pond, which already exists. He stated that there was a screening wall constructed without a permit and there is some confusion regarding whether it required a permit. He commented that there has been criticism for absence of permits, and Mr. Sack has been instructed to file all required permits and pursue them as diligently as possible. He indicated that all of the following permits have been submitted: