Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982.03.18_Planning Commission MinutesOWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, March 18, 1982, 7:30 p.m. Owasso City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT M. Hinkle Co Dickey R- Sadler V Phillips M. Day I„ Chairman, M. Hinkle called the meeting to order at 743 p.m, 2. Roll was called and a quorum was declared presents 3. R. Sadler noted a correction to the minutes to change a reference on page 4 from Mr. Bocklock to Mrs. Bocklock. G. Phillips moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 18, 1982, with the one correction, R. Sadler seconded the motion,, Aye: Hinkle, Sadler, Phillips and Day. Nay: None. Motion carried 4-0-0. LOT SPLIT REVIEW 4. OLS-30 Bill Lewis - Terry Davis Staff reviewed the case history and the staff evaluation: The applicant requests a lot split of a lot approximately 130'x 350' from Lot 14, Block 3, Three Lakes Addition, to be cal-, led Lot 14D. Three other lots have been split from the original. Lot 14, Members of the Technical Advisory Committee have expressed no need for additional easements or other requirements for this "lot® The lot would meet the bulk and area requirements of a CG district. The Commission should consider access point location when reviewing this lot split. Bill Lewis spoke in support of the application and explained the dimensions and proposed uses of the two lots. There were no persons present to oppose the application. Commissioners questioned him about the application. R. Sadler moved to approve the application, M. Day seconded the motion. Aye: Sadler, Day, Phillips and Hinkle, Nay: None, Motion carried 4-0-0. ZONING PUBLIC HEARING 5� TCZ-45 Referral - Bob Miller - AG to IL Staff reviewed the case history, Chair Hinkle read a letter from Mr, Miller stating his support of the application® The letter is attached to and made a part of these minutes. There were no persons present in support of the rezoning., Owasso Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 18, 1982 The Chair recognized John Wise who lives across the street. Mr. Wise stated his opposition to the rezoning, saying he preferred the property to stay as housing use as it is in the general area. He said that he understood that the TMAPC did not favor strip zoning by decisions they had made in the past, including a recent denial for strip zoning farther south on Garnett, Pat Law also spoke in opposition to the rezoning, stating that she represent- ed 15 homeowners in the area, She cited existing low water pressure problems within the rural water district judisdiction (including their Nolan Allen Addition), the probability of increased traffic congestion problems and cited three recent accidents in the area. She stated the homeowners opposed the rezoning. Kay Brewster stated the traffic problems were bad enough in the area without adding industrial uses. She also cited water pressure problems. The Chair requested staff to read the staff evaluation: The applicant requests rezoning of approximately 20 acres of vacant land SE of the intersection of Garnett and 126th Street Nor tt) from AG Agricultural to CG Commercial. The property is surrounded by predominantly vacant land zoned AG. The Comprehensive Plan for Owasso recommends rural residential and agricultural land uses for the subject property and agricultural land use for property across Garnett. The Collinsville Comprehensive Plan recommends rural residential land use and open space (for property in the floodplain) for the northeast corner and high intensity industrial use for the property abutting the railroad on the NW corner, Factors to consider in this rezoning request include: 1. The effect industrial zoning and uses would have on. the surrounding property, Would this contribute to a strip commercial condition along a very heavily Hwy, 169? 2. The effects of additional traffic on Garnett and the surrounding properties. 3® Would an industrial (or commercial use allowed under IL zoning) use have adverse effects on surrounding property from noise, debris, lighting or hours of operation, 4. An IL zoning can allow not only office and ware- house uses, but can also allow several types of commercial businesses as well as light manufacturing. 5. Upon a rezoning, there is a requirement to complete subdivision platting procedures. During this proce- dure questions of drainage, utilities, street circulation and access would be dealt with, Owasso Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 18, 1982 6, As with any rezoning case, the requested rezoning or a zoning of a lesser density can be recommended. Ageneral discussion followed concerning the types of land uses that could be allowed under IL zoning, the location of the property and the topogra-- phic features of the land, R. Sadler moved to recommend denial of the rezoning, M, Day seconded the motion. Aye: Sadler, Day and Hinkle,, Nay; Phillips, Motion carried 3-0-1. ZONING PUBLIC REHEARING 6. OZ-61 Lloyd Kennedv - IL to RMH Staff presented the case history and updated the Commissioners on the status of the case. Lloyd Larkin, representing the applicant Lloyd Kennedy, made a presentation in support of the application reviewing the standards and recommendations of Mr. Cline Mansur, City Engineer, in this letter of November 2, 19810 Mr. Larkin presented his own letter dated March 18, 1981 and requested that it be attached to and made a part of these minutes. This letter and one from Mr. Fred Guager, engineer for the appli- cant, dated January 22, 1982, are attached to these minutes. Due to the length and complexity of this case, a tape recording was made of this public bearing by city staff. Mr. Larkin traced the course of the creek along the subject property and presented three arguments in support of his position: 1. He proposed not to build the channel to the City's standards be- cause it would serve no useful purpose (his client would clean out and maintain the channel instead); he would install pumps and a retaining pond; he doesn't own enough land to widen the channel; and he would not pave the bottom of the channel, 20 The mobile home use was a pre-existing non-conforming use. 3. He brought up the recent Agins vs. Tiburon Supreme Court case. He said his client intended to build a first class mobile home park and mentioned a great demand for mobile home units. He stated it would be a 140+ family park, Ron Cates, City Attorney, questioned Mr. Larkin on several points of his presentation and of statements made at previous public hearings by the applicant and the former owner. Mr. Larkin related the history of the property. Mr. Cates questioned Mr. Kennedy, applicant, as to whether there were any representations made on the part of the City to Mr® Kennedy when he bought the land as to the property being zoned RMH or being a mobile home park. Tom Kimball, nearby property owner, asked questions of Mr. Kennedy concerning the engineering recommendations and the Owasso Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 18, 1982 condition of the utility systems. He stated he had spent: three nights pulling people out of the flood waters there. Chair Hinkle called a recess of the public hearing; at 8:34 p.m. in order to study the documents presented by Mr. Larkin and for the attorneys and engineer to confer. The meeting was reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Chair Hinkle asked John Edelman, City Engineer attending in Mr. Mansur''s behalf, for a :report on the applicant's documents, He replied that they W° were. not an a position to recommend any thing less chan the recommendations stated in the November 2, 1981 letter, which were based. on Owasso standards. Comrnissoners asked questions regarding the design of a channel, development or the park, effects of various improvements to tl.-s.e ch.Ea:nnel and dike system, A general discussion on the design of flood proofing improvements followed. Mr. Cates recommended continuing the public hearing to a future agenda to allow Mr. Kennedy's engineer to .figure the cost feasibility of finishing the four engineering recommendations. He said a favorable recommendation from the City Engineer c°oul.d, aid their case. Mr, Larkin requested a. c°on -- iminua sce to the next OPC meeting to confer with his engineer for further information, Mr. Cates stated it was understood by all parties that the continuance or meeting the engineering requirements did not constitute a. commitment to approve the rezoning request, After con.fering with staff, Chair Hinkle stated that Mr. Larkin would need to submit any new informa- tion by the 5th of April, 1982 to allow time for Commissioners and staff to review the data prior to the OPC meeting Apri_[. 15, 1982° Mr, Larkin indicated that he understood Ga Phillips moved to continue the public bearing to the April_ 1.7, 1982 OPC meeting. M, Day seconded the motion. Aye: Phillips, Day, Hinkle and Sadler, Nay: None, Motion. carried 4-0 - -0a Mare Larkin said they had ba.d a misunderstanding of what was :required in the City Engineer's letter and indicated they would try to comply with in COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING 7, Resi Owasso Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 18, 1..982 Commissioners discussed possible replacements to recommend to the City Council, Two previously recommended people were proposed: Pat Larkin. and Rich Mahar. Commissioners noted that Mr. Larkin had attended the City Council meeting to support his appointment and that, as a developer, he had always built high quality developments in Owasso, They noted that he would have a good knowledge of Owasso planning and zoning regulations as well as practical knowledge of how those regulations affect costs and methods of building. They said that with a realtor now on the commission, the replacement of an engineer with a developer would complete a good cross section of the community (housewife, doctor and utility company employee). Commissioners stated that Mr. Larkin appeared to represent no special in- terests and had always been an honest and fair person to deal with. R. Sadler moved to recommend that the Owasso City Council appoint Pal.-. Larkin to replace Leonard George on the Owasso Planning Commission. G. Phillips seconded the motion,,, Aye: Sadler, Phillips, Day and Hinkle. Nay: None. Motion carried 4-0-0. INFORMATION ITEMS 8. Review of Buildiny Permit Plans There were no non-single family residential permits to review. NEW AND GENERAL BUSINESS 9. APA Conference Chair Hinkle told the Commission of the upcoming American Planning Associa- tion State Conference on March 25 - 26 and to contact staff if members were interested in attending. No action was taken on this item. 10. Construction Bond for Non-Residential Developments Commissioners discussed with City Attorney Ron Cates the possibility of re- commending to the City Council that they consider requiring a bond from the contractor or developer to ensure that all improvements are constructed on non-residential developments prior to occupancy. M. Day moved to recommend to the City Council that they consider requiring a performance bond of con- tractors/developers to ensure that all required improvements are made on non-residential properties prior to occupancy. This would include a contract allowing the City to use the money to complete the work if the contractor/ developer does not. R. Sadler seconded the motion, Owasso Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 18, 1982 Aye: Day, Sadler, Hinkle and Phillips. Nay: None. Motion carried 4-0-0. There being no further business to consider for the evening, M. Hinkle moved to adjourn, R, Sadler seconded the motion. Ayeg Hinkle, Sadler, Phillips and Day,, Nay: None, Motion carried 4-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. ATTEST: Secretary Date Approved Chairman.