Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting No. 2307

Wednesday, April 24, 2002, 1:30 p.m.

Francis Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center

 

 

Members Present

Members Absent

Staff Present

Others Present

Bayles

Jackson

Beach

Romig, Legal

Carnes

Pace

Dunlap

 

Dick

 

Fernandez

 

Harmon

 

Huntsinger

 

Hill

 

Stump

 

Horner

 

 

 

Ledford

 

 

 

Midget

 

 

 

Westervelt

 

 

 

 

The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, April 22, 2002 at 8:40 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 April 3, 2002, Meeting No. 2305

On MOTION of HORNER, the TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Bayles, Carnes, Dick, Harmon, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; Hill “abstaining”; Jackson, Pace “absent”) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of April 3, 2002, Meeting No. 2305.

 

Minutes:

Approval of the minutes of April 10, 2002, Meeting No. 2306

On MOTION of WESTERVELT, the TMAPC voted 8-0-1 (Bayles, Carnes, Dick, Harmon, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; Hill “abstaining”; Jackson, Pace “absent”) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2002, Meeting No. 2307.

 

REPORTS:

Worksession Report:

Mr. Harmon reported that there was a worksession at 11:30 a.m. prior to today’s meeting regarding budget and upcoming studies for the Work Program.

 

Director’s Report:

Mr. Stump reported that there are no Planning Commission items on the City Council agenda this week.

 

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

 

 

ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED:

Git-N-Go 101 Sheridan (PUD-431-B) (2783)

(PD-26) (CD-8)

Location:

South of 101st Street South, West of Sheridan Road

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant has requested a continuance to May 15, 2002.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 9 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Dick, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Pace "absent") to CONTINUE the preliminary plat for Git-N-Go 101 Sheridan to May 15, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.

 

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

 

 

APPLICATION NO.:  PUD-659

RS-3 to PUD

Applicant: Patrick Fox

(PD-6) (CD-9)

Location:

West of southwest corner of East 31st Street and South Utica Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant has requested a continuance to a date uncertain.  Staff recommends the application be continued to May 15, 2002.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Roy Johnsen, 201 West 5th Street, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, stated that his request for a continuance is because his client has been discussing this issue with neighborhood representatives.  He explained that Mr. Hardwick requested another continuance until his neighborhood could fully review the issues.

 

Interested Parties Comments:

J. David Henry, 3132 South Utica, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105, read from the Zoning Code regarding that after filing the application a public hearing shall be held within 60 days.  He questioned the continuance request since this application has been continued once before.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon stated that when there is ongoing dialogue between the two sides, then the Planning Commission does have the prerogative to extend the application further, especially if it would serve a purpose, and this seems to be the case.

 

TMAPC Action; 9 members present:

On MOTION of MIDGET, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Dick, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Pace "absent") to CONTINUE PUD-659 to May 15, 2002 at 1:30 p.m.

 

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

 

 

SUBDIVISIONS:

 

VACATION OF PLAT:

Blake Hills Addition

(PD-18) (CD-8)

Location:

South of East 81st Street and East of South Yale Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

The applicant is requesting approval from the Planning Commission and City Council of a vacation of plat for the Blake Hills Addition which was originally platted in 1983.  The Blake Hills Addition was resubdivided into The Vintage on Yale plat in 1999.

 

In order to vacate the original or underlying plat for Blake Hills Addition, the owners of the property and franchise utility services typically would need notification of the process.  The owners in this case are all the owners of the replat of The Vintage on Yale, and the utility services were included in the replatting process in 1999.

 

Staff recommends APPROVAL of the vacation of plat for the Blake Hills Addition.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

The applicant was not present.

 

TMAPC Action; 9 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Dick, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Pace "absent") to APPROVE the vacation of plat for Blake Hills Addition as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

FINAL PLAT:

Rainbow Concrete (494)

(PD-17) (CD-6)

Location:

13521 East 11th Street

 

Staff Recommendation:

The property was rezoned to IL and OL in 1974 and has been subject to plat since then.

 

This plat consists of one lot in one block on 2.87 acres.  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.  The activity began in the IM portion and has been expanded over the years to its present extent.

 

A preliminary plat was approved June 28, 2000 and expired a year later.  The applicant is now seeking to reinstate the preliminary plat and gain approval of the final plat.

 

Staff has no concern with reinstating the preliminary plat because there has been no significant development or changes to the infrastructure since the preliminary plat was approved.  All releases are in and the plat is in order.  Staff recommends approval of the final plat and reinstatement of the preliminary plat.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon stated that there is some litigation involved on this particular tract of land, but it does not impede the platting process.  Mr. Beach confirmed that the litigation does not impede the platting process.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

 

Interested Parties Opposing:

James Mautino, 14628 East 12th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74108, submitted photographs, aerials and minutes (Exhibit B-1); Al Nichols, East Tulsa Mingo Valley Association, 8525 East 16th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112.

 

Interested Parties Comments:

Cited concerns regarding the ponds and lagoon; flooding and redirection of flood water; diverted a creek; a changes being made on the subject property without a permit; plat should be held up until the judge makes his decision regarding the litigation; sewage concerns; fears that a final plat being granted would give the applicant an advantage in court.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Nichols if he is representing the East Tulsa/Mingo Valley Association or speaking as an individual and a member of the East Tulsa/Mingo Valley Association.  In response, Mr. Nichols stated that he is speaking as an individual who is a member of the East Tulsa/Mingo Valley Association.

 

Mr. Harmon asked staff about significant changes that were made to the subject property since the preliminary plat was filed.  In response, Mr. Beach stated that staff stated that there has been no significant developments in the subject area since the filing of the preliminary plat.  The conditions under which the preliminary plat was approved are not significantly different and there is no problem with reinstating the preliminary plat.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Roy Johnsen, 201 West 5th Street, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing APAC Oklahoma, Inc., stated that his client is the owner of Rainbow Concrete and has owned the property since 1999.  Mr. Johnsen cited the history of the previous owner up to today’s ownership and the changes that were made with or without permits.  He indicated that two years ago, his client received a notice of a zoning violation.  After going to the Board of Adjustment, there has been an appeal filed and is currently in court.  One of the violations was that the subject property has not been platted.  The platting requirement came into play when the OL and IL portions of the subject property were rezoned by a private party.  This is the only property that is under the platting requirement.  He explained that the platting requirement was not enforced for quite some time and there were permits issued over time.

 

Mr. Johnsen explained that his client’s objective is to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and it seems incredibly strange that there would be any question that the plat should not be approved.  One of the requirements is to plat, and the plat has gone through the normal processes and received release letters from all of the agencies that reviewed the details.  There is no reason not to approve this final plat.  The final plat would still have to go through the City Council and if it is approved, then it would allow the issuance of certain permits that are needed to correct other deficiencies.

 

Mr. Johnsen stated that there are two ponds; one has been there before the 1970’s and the second pond was built by APAC at the suggestion of DEQ.  He commented that some of Mr. Mautino’s statements are incorrect.  Mr. Johnsen indicated that Mr. Mautino was correct regarding the second pond being built in a floodplain and it would have to be removed.  He stated that the subject plat was scrutinized by the technical people closer than any plat he has filed before.  He commented that the plat is consistent with what the drainage people want.  The lagoon has been in place for several years and has Health Department approval.  The lagoon has no impact on the neighborhood and the reviewers had no problem with the lagoon.

 

Mr. Johnsen stated that the plat is before the Planning Commission meeting the normal standards that are applied.  If an applicant meets the regulations as they are normally applied, then the plat should be approved.  It makes no sense to be cited for not having a plat, then turning around and denying a plat after meeting all of the regulations.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon informed Mr. Mautino that he was out of order to speak from the audience without being recognized. Mr. Mautino continued to speak from his seat and he agreed that he was out of order, but said that Mr. Johnsen challenged him personally.  Mr. Harmon asked the Planning Commissioners if they would like to re-recognize Mr. Mautino to the podium.  There was no response.  Mr. Harmon announced that the Planning Commission would be in review.

 

Mr. Westervelt stated that the Planning Commission previously denied an accelerated building permit because it was improper.  The Planning Commission is very well aware of the litigation pending on the subject property.  He stated that he has publicly made statements to the applicant that he is displeased with the whole mess and the Planning Commission has clearly stated the same message.  With this property being in court, he is concerned about taking an action that might either diminish the City’s position or give the applicant some additional leverage to not comply with the request.  Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Romig if there is any way that the Planning Commission could create a problem for the City’s legal action by not taking the high road or giving the applicant any extra leverage.  In response, Mr. Romig stated that if all of the ordinance requirements and regulations are met, then the discretion is taken out of the decision whether to approve the plat or not.  Mr. Romig stated that the litigation side of this is being handled by Mr. Boulden for the City of Tulsa, and he has issued the opinion that approval of the plat would not injure his case.

 

Patrick Boulden, Tulsa City Attorney’s Office, 200 Civic Center, Suite 300, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74103, stated that he concurred with Mr. Romig, and he is not concerned with the litigation that is currently pending impacting this plat.  The Planning Commission should review the plat based on regulations and ordinances dealing with plats and the use issues would be dealt with in District Court.  It would put the City in an awkward position to have the Board of Adjustment (BOA) ordering a plat and then perhaps the Planning Commission denying the plat.

 

Mr. Harmon asked, to be absolutely clear on the record, if all release letters have been received and the plat is in order.  In response, Mr. Beach stated that all release letters are in and the plat is in order.  Mr. Beach stated that there is nothing else outstanding to be reviewed or to worry about.

 

TMAPC Action; 9 members present:

On MOTION of HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Dick, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Pace "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Rainbow Concrete and reinstatement of the preliminary plat as recommended by staff.

 

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

 

 

Jim Norton Center West (PUD-603) (2383)

(PD-26) (CD-8)

Location:

9900 South Memorial Drive

 

Staff Recommendation:

This is a subdivision of 2.5 acres into one lot, one block.  The site is a portion of PUD 603 and will be used for retail auto sales use.   Some 12,500 SF of floor area are allowed by the PUD.

 

All releases are in and the plat is in order.  Staff recommends approval of the final plat, subject to covenant changes required by the Legal Department.

 

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 HORNER, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Dick, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Pace "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Jim Norton Center West subject to covenant changes required by the Legal Department as recommended by staff.

 

 

CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC HEARING:

APPLICATION NO.:  PUD-405-K/Z-5722-SP-15

MAJOR AMENDMENT

Applicant: Roy Johnsen

/CORRIDOR SITE PLAN

 

(PD-18) (CD-8)

Location:

South and west of southwest corner of East 92nd Street and South 78th East Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

The subject tract consists of 42.6 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of South Memorial Drive and East 91st Street.  The tract comprises the balance (after turnpike right-of-way acquisition) of Development Area Four of PUD-405.  PUD-405 was approved by the City Council in 1985.  Development Area Four was approved for multifamily uses with a maximum of 866 dwelling units (19.6 dwelling units per acre).

 

This major amendment and corridor site plan is proposing a maximum of 150 detached single-family dwellings.  It is proposed that the interior streets be private and gated.

 

The conceptual site plan (Exhibit A) has the north boundary of the East 93rd Street South right-of-way abutting the rear lots of detached single-family homes to the north (South Springs Addition).  Staff does not endorse the conceptual layout.

 

Staff finds the uses and intensities of development proposed and as modified by staff to be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code.  Based on the following conditions, staff finds PUD-405-K/Z-5722-SP-15 as modified by staff, to be:  (1) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) in harmony with the existing and expected development of surrounding areas; (3) a unified treatment of the development possibilities of the site; and (4) consistent with the stated purposes and standards of the PUD Chapter of the Zoning Code.

 

Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of PUD-405-K/Z-5722-SP-15 subject to the following conditions:

 

 

1.

The applicant's Outline Development Plan and Text be made a condition of approval, unless modified herein.

2.

Development Standards:

 

 

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA

 

Gross Land Area:

30.94 Acres

Permitted Uses:

 

 

Uses included within Use Unit 6, Detached Single-Family Dwellings and customary accessory uses.

Maximum Number of Dwelling Units:

140

Minimum Lot Area:

6,900 SF*

Minimum Livability Space per Dwelling Unit Per Lot:

4,000 SF*

Maximum Building Height:

35 FT

Minimum Depth of Required Yards:

 

 

From the external boundaries of the PUD

20 FT

 

From private street right-of-way

20 FT**

 

From internal side lot line

 

 

One side yard

10 FT

 

Other side yard

5 FT

 

From internal rear lot lines

20 FT

Other Bulk and Area Requirements:*

 

 

As provided within an RS-3 district.

 

*One lot at the northwest corner of the PUD may be developed to RS-4 standards.

 

**Garages fronting a private street shall be set back 25 feet.

 

 

RESERVE AREAS

 

 

Gross Land Area:

11.66 Acres

 

Permitted Uses:

 

 

 

Reserve areas are limited to use for open space, recreation, landscaping, stormwater management, entry features including gates and related security features.  Recreational use in the north 125 feet of the PUD shall be limited to passive open space activities and shall be subject to detail site plan review.  If Reserve Area “D” is not needed for stormwater purposes it may be included in the Residential Development Area with a maximum of ten dwelling units.

3.

There shall be a minimum of two access points to the PUD.

4.

No street right-of-way in the PUD shall be within 60’ of the rear lot line of a lot located within or outside the PUD if such street right-of-way approximately parallels those rear lot lines.

5.

A homeowners association shall be created and vested with sufficient authority and financial resources to properly maintain all private streets and common areas, including any stormwater detention areas, security gates, guard houses or other commonly owned structures within the PUD.

6.

All private roadways shall have a minimum right-of-way of 30’ and be a minimum of 26’ in width for two-way roads and 18’ for one-way loop roads, measured face-to-face of curb.  All curbs, gutters, base and paving materials used shall be of a quality and thickness, which meets the City of Tulsa standards for a minor residential public street.  The maximum vertical grade of private streets shall be ten percent.  There shall be no  hammerhead turnarounds.

7.

The City shall inspect all private streets and certify that they meet City standards prior to any building permits being issued on lots accessed by those streets, or if the City will not inspect, then a registered professional engineer shall certify that the streets have been built to City standards.

8.

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.

9.

Subject to conditions recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee during the subdivision platting process, which are approved by TMAPC.

10.

Entry gates or guardhouses, if proposed, must receive detail site plan approval from Tulsa Traffic Engineering, Tulsa Fire Department and TMAPC staff, prior to issuance of a building permit for the gates or guard houses.

11.

Approval of the PUD is not an endorsement of the conceptual layout.  This will be done during the subdivision platting process.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Carnes asked staff if the hammerhead would be eliminated since the applicant may be able to utilize Reserve Area D.   In response, Mr. Dunlap stated that he doesn’t know the answer to that at this time.  Mr. Carnes asked Mr. Johnsen the same question regarding the hammerhead.  In response, Mr. Johnsen stated that he is not certain, but it would appear that it would be possible.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Roy Johnsen, 201 West 5th Street, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, cited the history of the subject property and the previous proposal.  He explained that there were some concerns regarding access, but it has been resolved.  He stated that the northernmost lot meeting RS-4 standards would give his client an opportunity to implement an agreement reached with the adjoining property owner.

 

Mr. Johnsen stated that the staff recommendation is acceptable except for one issue.  Mr. Johnsen submitted an amended conceptual site plan (Exhibit B-1).  He indicated that his clients would like to have two themes in this subdivision.  Lots 5 and 6 would be reserved for empty-nesters and it is proposed that there be two entry gates in order to provide security.  The east and west street, which staff believes would be creating a double-frontage lot to the north, would provide access to the west approximate half of the subdivision, which would also be private streets and gated.  If 93rd Street was brought to the south, then a row of lots could be created to the north, but they would then be taken out of the security concept that would be provided for the empty-nesters.  He agrees that normally double-fronted lots are not done, but occasionally it happens and it is not unprecedented.  He proposes to create an open-space area in Area C, having a minimum width of 20 feet, landscaping and a masonry wall.  Mr. Johnsen stated that at the narrowest point there is a 30’ private street right-of-way and 20’ green space, but if it were a normal street with 50’ of right-of-way, the 26’ of paving would centered and there would be 12’ to curb (grassed or non-paved).  In private streets the same 26’ of paving is located in the center of the 30’ right-of-way and 2’ to the curb, plus 20’ of grassed area (22’ from the paving lane).

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Johnsen about the lots that appear to be in the 100-year flood.  In response, Mr. Johnsen stated that the lots would be reclaimed.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 9 members present:

On MOTION of CARNES, TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Bayles, Carnes, Dick, Harmon, Hill, Horner, Ledford, Midget, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Jackson, Pace "absent") to recommend APPROVAL of the Major Amendment and Corridor Site Plan for PUD-405-K/Z-5722-SP-15 as amended and presented by applicant, subject to there being no hammerhead turnarounds.  (Words deleted by the TMAPC are shown as strikeout; words added or substituted by TMAPC are underlined.)

 <