Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982.11.18_Planning Commission MinutesOWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, November 18, 1982, 7:30 p= Owasso City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT M. Hinkle M. Day R. Sadler P. Larkin G. Phillips C. Dickey 1. Chair, M. Hinkle called the meeting to order at 7:35 p,m, 2. Roll was called and a quorum was declared present, 3. R. Sadler moved approval of the minutes of the October 21, 1982 meeting with one change - on Item 4, page 1, an aye vote noted for, Sadler should be changed to read Hinkle. P. Larkin seconded the motion, LOT SPLIT REVIEW 4. OLS-36 Rick Mahar Staff reviewed the case history and the staff evaluation: The applicant requests a lot split an two Too, x 1401 lots located at the SE/c of 3s-t. Avenue and Birch in order, to create three lots of varying widths. Three homes were built on the lots several years ago and were sold separately, This application is made in order to clear the titles to the properties. The homes are served by all utilities currently, and the Technical Advisory Committee had no requirements for additional easements, The proposed lot split would create two size requirements For RS-3 lots; the middl substandard width (59.7' rather than 60). homes would not meet the side yard setback and 10'. lots that meet the 9 lot would have a Also, the existing requirements of 51 Ordinance No. 272 states in Section 4.0213(c) ..the Planning Commission after re approve or disapprove the requested on the approval criteria set forth If approved, the lot-split approval the Zoning Board of Adjustment if a requirement is involved. view shall either lot-split based in Section 4.021(b), may be subject to waiver of a zoning The applicant was not present. There were no persons present in support of or in opposition to the application. Commissioners discussed the lot split in detail. R. Sadler moved approval of the lot split subject to Board of Adjustment approval of the substandard lot width and side yard setbacks. P. Larkin seconded the motion. Aye: Sadler, Larkin, Hinkle and Phillips, Nay: None. Motion carried 4-0-0. Zoning Public Hearing T -U/ --- f6- —Fi n-d-I —ev- —En —Qi n- —ee r i n gL(p e The Chair discussed the case history and the staff evaluation. The applicant requests rezoning of 26 acres from AG 'to RMH Mobile Home on a tract of land at the SE/c of 86th Street North and Memorial. the vacant tract is surrounded on all sides by predominantly vacant land zoned AG. There is a single family home on the NW/c and other scattered single family homes -to the south and northwest,. One mobile home lies northeast of -the NE/c of the 'intersection, The subject tract 'lies at the crest of a ridge that falls from the intersection in all directions, The Comprehensive Plan indicates a -10 acre medium 'intensity office/commercial node on which each intersection corner is surrounded by rural residential intensity development, Mobile home use 'Is listed in the Plan as a high intensity use. The property lies within Washington County Rural Water District No. 3 area and currently does not have access to a sewer system. Commissioners should consider, whether mobile home zoning would have any detrimental effects on surrounding properties and whether the density and type of 'land use could be considered in conformance with -the Plan as presented or as i-ciodified such as by a PUD with a 'lesser intensity zoning. Jack Finley, engineer for, applicant, explained the application saying 'the applicant wished to develop the 26 acres for a mobile home park with commercial development (to be applied for later) on the corner. They planned -to construct a sewage 'lagoon approximately 1/4 mile SF of the tract to handle sewage generated from the park. The Chair explained the zoning referral process to the citizens present and opened the floor to questions. There were several persons present to protest the application or ask questions. Mr® Finley answered questions from the floor, Several persons spoke and expressed concerns regarding the development. These concerns included the undesirability of an open sewage lagoon near their homes and the negative effect it would have on their property values, the undesirability of a sewage lagoon located near a city park (McCarty), increased traffic problems, overloading the schools with children from mobile homes which would not contribute to the tax base, undesirable odors from a sewage lagoon, Mr. Findley stated that he planned to apply for a 4 or 5 AC commercial site on the corner and place 100 to 108 mobile homes on the remainder of the site. He stated a 1012 AC sewer lagoon would be needed. A general discussion followed in which several of the previous objections were repeated, Commissioners discussed alternative, lesser density zoning than RMH and proposed a PUD overlay to allow for mobile homes. G, Phillips moved -to recommend denial of the RMH zoning and approval of RS-3 zoning. R. Sadler seconded the motion, Aye: Phillips, Sadler and Larkin Nay.- Hinkle The motion carried 3-1-0. Ms. Hinkle commented -that she voted no because she wanted the motion to include a recommendation for a PUD overlay. 6. PUD-6 Rqmeshead Condominiums The applicants requested a continuance of this application until the December meeting. No action was -taken on this item,, 7. PUD --7 Three Lakes III "I"he Chair discussed the case history. Staff explained the applicatio'n and discussed the staff evaluation: The applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development, for a single fai-,iily development on 27 acres north of Three Lakes 11 sub- division. The applicant proposed to create lots of varied size, the majority of which would be smaller than the Owasso Zoning Code allows for RS-3 zoning, the highest intensity single family zoning. Owasso code sets 65' lot width, 5' and 10' sideyard setbacks and a minimum of 7000 sq. ft. 'lot size as requirements for RS-3 lots, This PUD requests waiving those three bulk and area requirements tc lot widths of' 50' (or less on some lots) , S' sideyard setbacks on both sides of the lot and a lot size of 5000 sq,. ft. (or slightly less in some cases). This same area received approval of a preliminary plat on June 6, 1979 and received two I year extensions of approval. The street alignment and lot layout of that plat are virtually identical to that of the PUD, Only the size of the 'lots has been reduced below code minimum. Section 810 states, in part, as 'the purpose of a PUD. The Planned Unit development section 'is designed to provide for small and large scale development incorporating a single type or a variety of residential and related uses, which are planned and developed as a unit. Such development may consist of individual lots or it may have common building sites. Common land must be an essential and major element of the plan, which is related -to and affects the long-term value of the homes and other development. A Planned Unit shall be a separate entity with a distinct character in harmony with surrounding develop- ment. As regards the PUD application the TAC members offered the following comments: 1. Narrative needs to be more specific and list what type of variances are proposed, how the park and recreation requirements will be met and how streets, utilities, drainages, landscaping and common spaces will be handled. 2. A description of the homeowners associations is needed. 3. Restrictive covenants should be submitted to be reviewed by the TAC. Commissioners should consider whether this application meets the intent and purposes of a PUD and whether this design and lot size are compatible with surrounding development. Bland Pittman, planner for the applicant, described the proposed development and explained the site plan saying they wished to develop affordable housing and to dedicate the pond to the City as a park. There were approximately 75 persons present to protest the application or to ask questions, The Chair opened the floor to questions from the audience., There was a lengthy discussion of the proposal. Many persons i The meeting reconvened at 10:10 pama SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW 8, Ok I Ihoma Baptist Retirement Center - Amendments to approved plat. Staff related the case history and the TAC evaluation: The applicants wish to amend the plat that was approved by the City Council on October. 5, 1982. That plat has not been filed. Basically the amendments include-, 1) Changing the wording in the covenants within No. I from single family and duplex use Inc:) multifamily use, 2) Adding a third lot to the northeast corner of the plat as in the original preliminary plat. 3) The TAC members have also recommended adding certain utility easements in five places. Several questions are raised by these amendments: A. Are the approved utility lines adequate to handle a potential increased density? B. Would the wording "...shall be utilized for multi- family..." prohibit the applicants from building single family units as they say they wish to? C. Lot 3, Block 1, as drawn, has several utility ease-- ments through the property, the applicants' architect says he cannot design a structure on the lot without crossing the easements. The applicants intend to vacate the easements on the southeast portion of the lot which would free the lot for most of the 90' x 91' area. Should the City approve the lot on a plat be-- fare the easements are vacated, thereby creating a lot which would be difficult if not impossible to build up- on? Commissioners discussed the amendments with Monroe Palmer, repr- senting the center. Commissioners recommended that the wording in the covenants no, I be amended by the applicants so as not to re- strict development only to multifamily units (the covenants now read "...shall be used for multifamily..."). They also discussed the proposal to vacate some of the existing easements in Lot 3, Block 1. G. Phillips moved approval of the amendments to the plat with the stipulation that Lot 3, Block I not receive a building permit until the utility easements within the southeast portion of the lot be vacated, R. Sadler seconded the motion, Aye: Phillips, Sadler, Larkin and Hinkle. Nay: None. Motion carried 4-0-0, 9. Elm Creek Estates First Addition - Blocks 7 8 9 16 and 31 - Con- ditional Vinci] 5 � A— Staff reviewed the case history and the TAC recommendations: t Correct minor errors in the deed of dedication. 2. Complete preliminary plat requirements, 3. Complete curve data on interior streets, 4. Specify the width o f the utility easement on the east boundary,, 5. Move the 10' U/E from the lot line between Lots 7 and 8, Blk, 7 to Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Commissioners discussed the plat and TAC recommendations with Bob Pruett, engineer for the applicant. R. Sadler moved to approve the plat subject to completion of the TAC requirements. G. Phillips seconded the motion, Aye: Sadler, Phillips and Hinkle Nay: None, Abstain: Larkin. Motion carried 3-0-1. 10. Elm Creek Estates First AddiLion Blocks 21-30 - Conditional Final Staff reviewed the case history and the TAC recommendations: 1. Correct minor errors in the deed of dedication. 2. Add utility easements specified by utility companies, 3. Add curve data an interior streets. 4. Label and dimension drainage easement an the west side of Block 21. 5. Add utility easement and dimensions an the rear of Block 27. 69 Add street dimensions. 7© Finish preliminary plat requirements. Commissioners discussed the plat with Bob Pruett, engineer for the applicant. R. Sadler moved to approve the plat subject to completion of the TAC requirements. G. Phillips seconded the motion. Aye: Sadler, Phillips and Hinkle. Nay: None. Abstain: Larkin. Motion carried 3-0-1. 11. Three Lakes III - PUD-7 Preliminary Plat Due to the denial of PUD-7 application, this plat was tabled until the applicant requested that it be placed back on the agenda. INFORMATION ITEMS 12. Buildinq Permit Review There were no building permits to review, There being no further business to consider, R. Sadler moved to adjourn the meeting with P. Larkin seconding the motion, Aye: Sadler, Hinkle, Larkin and Phillips, Nay: None, Motion carried 4-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Date Approved I�Mlmmz= ATFEST: ecretary