Francis Campbell City
Council Room
Plaza Level,
|
Members
Present |
Members
Absent |
Staff
Present |
Others
Present |
|
Bayles |
Dick |
Beach |
Romig,
Legal |
|
Carnes |
Hill |
Dunlap |
|
|
Harmon |
|
Fernandez |
|
|
Horner |
Ledford |
Huntsinger |
|
|
Midget |
|
Matthews |
|
|
Pace |
|
|
|
|
Westervelt |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of
said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on
After declaring a quorum
present, Chair Harmon called the meeting to order at
REPORTS:
Director’s Report:
Mr. Dunlap reported that the TMAPC receipts for the month of
February are on the agenda for review.
He further reported that there are two subdivision plats on the City
Council agenda for
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
Mr. Westervelt reported that Planning Commissioner Mary Hill
would be going into surgery
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED:
|
South Springs South – PUD-405-K
(2383) |
(PD-18)
(CD-8) | |
|
Location: |
East of 93rd Street and
South 76th East Avenue | |
Staff
Recommendation:
This plat consists of 142 lots in six blocks and five reserves on 42.66 acres.
The
plat was scheduled to be reviewed by the TAC on March 21 but because of
outstanding issues in the PUD, it was tabled. The PUD is on today’s TMAPC agenda. Depending on the outcome of that
hearing, the plat will be on the April 4, 2002 TAC agenda, or
later.
The plat appears on today’s
agenda because notice was given as required. Staff recommends continuing the plat to April
24, 2002.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
The applicant indicated his agreement with
staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Beach explained that
the continued date should be changed to May 1, 2002.
TMAPC Action; 7 members
present:
On MOTION of CARNES, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes,
Harmon, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Dick, Hill, Jackson, Ledford "absent") to CONTINUE the preliminary plat
for South Springs South to May 1, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
|
APPLICATION
NO.:
PUD-405-K/Z-6722-SP-15 |
Major
Amendment/Corridor Site Plan | |
|
Applicant: Roy Johnsen |
(PD-18)
(CD-8) | |
|
Location: |
South
and west of southwest corner of | |
Staff
Recommendation:
Mr. Dunlap stated that staff recommends a continuance
for this item. He explained that
staff received information late yesterday afternoon pertaining to a piece of
property west of the subject property, which may be landlocked. There are some concerns and staff would
like more time to analyze the new information in order to modify the
recommendation.
Applicant’s Comments:
Roy Johnsen, 201 West 5th Street, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, stated that he would like to continue this application one week if it is acceptable to the commission. He has no objection to the continuance because there are some background facts that need to be explored. He requested that the continuance be limited to one week.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Dunlap if staff would have enough time to analyze the new information in one week. In response, Mr. Dunlap stated that there would be time to analyze the new information and make a recommendation, but it would not be ready by the time the packets are mailed for the next meeting. He explained that the new recommendation would have to be presented at the meeting.
Mr. Dunlap explained that Mr. Stump (Manager of Land
Development Services) would not be back from vacation in time to review and
submit a new recommendation for the packets. He stated that he would like for Mr.
Stump to review this case and have his comments before developing a new
recommendation.
Mr. Carnes and Mr. Horner both stated that they would
not be present at the April 10th meeting.
In response to Mr. Westervelt, Mr. Dunlap stated that
it appears that this could be a complex issue and he would prefer that Mr. Stump
be involved with the recommendation.
Mr. Johnsen agreed to a continuance for
TMAPC Action; 7 members
present:
On MOTION of CARNES, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes,
Harmon, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Dick, Hill, Jackson, Ledford "absent") to CONTINUE the major amendment
and corridor site plan for PUD-405-K/Z-6722-SP-15 to April 24, 2002 at 1:30
p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
|
APPLICATION
NO.:
CZ-303 |
AG
to RM-0 | |
|
Applicant:
R. L. Reynolds |
(PD-12)
(County) | |
|
Location: |
South
of southeast corner of | |
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant has requested a continuance in order to
submit a PUD with this zoning application.
Interested Parties Comments:
Tom Baker,
The applicant indicated his agreement with
staff’s recommendation.
TMAPC Action; 7 members
present:
On MOTION of MIDGET, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes,
Harmon, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Dick, Hill, Jackson, Ledford "absent") to CONTINUE CZ-303 to May 15,
2002, at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
|
APPLICATION
NO.:
Z-6857 |
RS-3
to CH | |
|
Applicant:
Harry K. Myers |
(PD-5)
(CD-5) | |
|
Location: |
North
side of East 15th, between | |
Staff
Recommendation:
The applicant has requested a continuance in order to
submit a PUD with this zoning application.
There were no interested parties wishing to
speak.
TMAPC Action; 7 members
present:
On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes,
Harmon, Horner, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Dick, Hill, Jackson, Ledford "absent") to CONTINUE Z-6857 to May 15,
2002, at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
SUBDIVISIONS:
PLAT
WAIVER:
|
CBOA-1944 (592) |
(PD-11)
(County) | |
|
Location: |
155 North 65th
| |
Staff
Recommendation:
This church has
existed on this site since 1961. They now want to expand to include classroom
and gym space.
The following information was provided at
the TAC meeting
ZONING:
TMAPC Staff: This property was approved by the
STREETS:
SEWER:
No representative.
WATER:
No representative.
STORM DRAIN:
FIRE:
No
representative.
UTILITIES:
No concerns.
The
new “Minor Subdivision Plat” process was designed for this type of
situation. Since the property is
unplatted, an ALTA survey would be required if the plat waiver were
granted. The effort to produce the
ALTA survey may well be similar to the effort required to produce a minor
plat.
Based
on the fact the property is unplatted, not adequately described or surrounded by
platted properties that would constrain the property boundaries, and the
right-of-way dedication required, staff recommends denial
of the request for a plat waiver.
A
YES answer to the following 3 questions would generally be FAVORABLE to a plat
waiver:
|
|
|
Yes |
NO |
|
1. |
Has
Property previously been platted? |
|
x |
|
2. |
Are
there restrictive covenants contained in a previously filed
plat? |
|
x |
|
3. |
Is
property adequately described by surrounding platted properties or street
R/W? |
|
x |
A
YES answer to the remaining questions would generally NOT be favorable to a plat
waiver:
|
4. |
Is
right-of-way dedication
required to comply with major street and highway Plan? |
x |
| |
|
5. |
Would
restrictive covenants be required to be filed by separate instrument if
the plat were waived? |
x |
| |
|
6. |
Infrastructure
requirements: |
|
| |
|
|
a)
Water |
|
| |
|
|
i. Is a main line water extension required? |
|
x | |
|
|
ii.
Is an internal system or fire line required? |
|
x | |
|
|
iii.
Are additional easements required? |
|
x | |
|
|
b)
Sanitary Sewer |
|
| |
|
|
i. Is a main line extension required? |
|
x | |
|
|
ii.
Is an internal system required? |
|
x | |
|
|
iii Are additional easements required? |
|
x | |
|
|
c)
Storm Sewer |
|
| |
|
|
i. Is a P.F.P.I. required? |
|
x | |
|
|
ii.
Is an Overland Drainage Easement required? |
|
x | |
|
|
iii.
Is on site detention required? |
x |
| |
|
|
iv.
Are additional easements required? |
|
x | |
|
7. |
Floodplain |
|
| |
|
|
a)
Does the property contain a City of
|
|
x | |
|
|
b)
Does the property contain a F.E.M.A. (Federal)
Floodplain? |
|
x | |
|
8. |
Change
of Access |
|
| |
|
|
a)
Are revisions to existing access locations necessary? |
|
x | |
|
9. |
Is
the property in a P.U.D.? |
|
x | |
|
|
a)
If yes, was plat recorded for the original P.U.D. |
|
na | |
|
10. |
Is
this a Major Amendment to a P.U.D.? |
|
x | |
|
|
a)
If yes, does the amendment make changes to the proposed physical
development of the P.U.D.? |
|
na | |
If,
after consideration of the above criteria, a plat waiver is granted on unplatted
properties, a current ALTA/ACSM/NSPS Land Title Survey (and as subsequently
revised) shall be required. Said
survey shall be prepared in a recordable format and filed at the
Applicant’s Comments:
Darin Akerman,
Mr. Akerman indicated that there would be an expansion of the gym and classroom area to the east portion of the existing structure. He stated that the proposed expansion does not infringe or encroach on any setbacks, easements, etc. He commented that he believes that this is a well-defined site and it does not need to be platted. There are adjacent properties that are platted and there are property deeds and title work that is in good order for the subject site; therefore, the boundaries are adequately addressed.
Mr. Akerman stated that the
church would dedicate the additional ten feet of right-of-way needed to meet the
Mr. Akerman stated that the church has existed on the subject site for a long period of time without a platting requirement. This proposal is minor in nature and it would not encroach on easements or new mainline extensions to serve this site. There is no need for platting or an ALTA survey and a plat waiver would be in order.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that the plat waiver checklist indicates that the waiver is unfavorable. Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Akerman if he would file the restrictive covenants separately. In response, Mr. Akerman stated that he is not sure what would need to be filed regarding restrictive covenants because the County considers it a private property issue, and there are mechanisms in place if the property owner were to default. Mr. Akerman indicated that there would be a deed-of-dedication for the easement.
Mr. Beach stated that the restrictive covenants refer to the filing of separate instruments in general and not necessarily just restrictive covenants.
Mr. Carnes stated that if the
Planning Commission were to waive the plat, then they would have to waive every
plat for church properties within the County and City of
Mr. Carnes asked Mr. Akerman what his client had to gain by not platting the subject property. In response, Mr. Akerman stated that all the plans are approved and the architectural plans are finalized. Mr. Akerman explained that the church was hoping to have a building permit by next week and start work immediately. Mr. Akerman stated that he is not sure what the church would gain by having the property platted because the boundaries are set per deed and title work.
Mr. Beach stated that the property boundary would be taken care of with an ALTA survey. Mr. Beach commented that he is not clear of the time length it would take to prepare an ALTA survey, but it is the alternative to platting.
Mr. Westervelt asked staff what the timing would be if the applicant filed a minor subdivision plat. In response, Mr. Beach stated that it would be approximately 60 days. Mr. Westervelt stated that an ALTA survey could be prepared within three weeks if all the property data is available. Mr. Akerman stated that abstracting work is being taken care of through an attorney and an ALTA survey will be done within one month. Mr. Westervelt stated that the applicant may save about