Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984.02.06_Planning Commission MinutesOWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, February 169, 1984, 7 :30 perilg Owasso City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT M. Hinkle Po Larkin Cm Dickey R. Haynes Mm Day G. Phillips 1. Chairman, M. Hinkle called the meeting to order at 7:40 p= 20 roll was called and a quorum was declared presents 3s G. Phillips moved approval of the minutes of January 19, 1984 meeting as presented. RA Haynes seconded the motion. Aye: Hinkle, Haynes, Nay, and Phillips. Nay: None® Motion carried 4 -0-0. ANNEXATION REVIEW d„ Petition for Annexation - Elden Birk s Staff reviewed the case history and the strtf`I° evaluation: The applicant requests annexation of 20 acres of vacant land immediately west of the MeadC}wcrest. subdivision, Melt; of 1+9th Street i; nlor %d'i and Garnett. The property is surrounded by resi- dential subdivisions zoned RS-1 inside city limits on the north and east and by predominantly vacant agricultural land on the south and west. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the sub ject tract as suitable for rural residential Land use, the Fault} as Meadowcrest.. The property is not now served by the Owasso utilities or services. Direct access can be provided to the area by 110th :St.. N. The Plan shows one small area of develop- ment sensitive laird along a Creek that crosses the property, There do not appear to be any substantial characteristics of the land or its location that ,should keep the property from being annexed,, Gerald Snow, purchaser of the property, and Burt Steinberg, engineer, spoke in support of the application stating they proposed to develop the property into a 37 half-acre lot subdivision that would hook onto Owasso water and sewer service. Cdr. Snow said that he wished to develop the property to Owasso subdivision standards except for streets which he wished to develop Like the .:streets in Meadowcreste Commis-, sioners discussed the possibilities of the city council waiving the street standards For a new subdivision with Mr. Snow and the pros and cons of annexation - first versus developing then - annexation. Mr. Snow stated that he could not build the subdivision if the street standards were not waived. Commissioners stated they did not know if I the council would waive street standards and pointed out that the city might not extend water or sewer service to non - annexed areas and might choose not to annex developed areas that did not meet city standards. Mr® Snow indicated the he would pursue the annexation at leant to dis- cuss it with the city council. Commissioners indicated they had no concerns with annexation of the land into the city. G. Phillips moved approval of the annexation request. M. Hay seconded the motion. Aye: Phillips, Hay, Hinkle and Haynes, Nay: None. Motion carried 4-0-0e SUBDIVISION REVIEW 5, Elm Creek Commercial Corner Chairman Hinkle noted her intention to abstain from discussion and voting on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Cm Phillips, chaired this portion of the meeting. Staff reviewed the case history and staff comments: As you recall, the QPC continued action on the preliminary plat of [elm Creek Commercial Corner to allow the developer to redesign the plat. The amended plat is included uded with the agenda, The only amendments made to the plat are two accesses added to the arterial streets and mutual access easements sketched in linking the frontage lots. Also, included in a sketch of a pro- posed typical layout of the 50' commercial lot„, Staff members, have essentially the same comments regarding this form of the plat as they had last time. Planning s.tatl. feels that the amendments shown on the plat do not solve the problems ca. {_: the plat discussed at the last meeting. Addition- al comments regarding this plat are., The apartment S't.,reet. North the c;ommercia the .;jingle f'ai sub's.�i`ess log:, should be extended north to 86th to wrap the apartments and church ar•°ounc I trac?:;. thus creating a buffer between tail,y residential area and the commercial, 2 By squaring off t: he commercial tract a new street pan d lot system could be designed, possibly with commercial lots backing up to the church and moving the access street farther north., :fi. There are no commercial very trucks, trash pick to the buildings without lots? alleys shown. Horn will deli.- up and emergency services get blocking streets or parking 4. Nine lots 'facing the two arterial streets will set up the situation where the new owners could all pursue 2 individual access approval on their lots, just as two businesses did recently on another commercial corner. E The typical layout sketch of a 50' lot would limit the building structure to a terribly small 1400 sq. ft. (a 19% building coverage) which would correspond to a 37' x 38' building, approximately 112 the size of the pro- posed Braums building. This would leave a large amount of underutilized open space, 2800 sq. ft., not includ- ing the paved parking area. Two of the parking spaces shown would be difficult to maneuver into. Also, the 10' turn radius is really too small, especially with 15 of them side by side, V Again, alternative design approaches should be consider- ed. A PUD or a condominium development could allow individual ownership of buildings but could provide reasonable, controlled access to the site and coordinat.- ed, shared parking spaces and internal Traffic circulation system. Staff cannot recommend approval of The plat in the current forms 1'.L, l included comments receiv ed today from ONG that express their concern a.bout, the plat« The letter refers to the .l_AC< evaluation listed in the January 18 minutes, (The letter is attached to these minutes) Bob Pruitt, engineer for The applicants, discussed the changes he made on the plat; regarding mutual access for lots =acing 86th Street North and 29th Ease Avenue. He also discussed his sketch of the use of as typical 50' lot, paving of streets and turn Planes in to the proposed apartment lot location. Commissioners discussed specific points of the plat including dire ct access to the proposed apartments to 86th Street North, proposed streets, access points onto arterial streets, the lack of alleys shown, adequate on site parking for all lots and size of the small commercial lots. to answer to as question Pruitt said he anticipated parking on both sides to the mutual access easements for the lots fronting the arterial streets. 0. M. Sokoltosk,y, one of the applicants, spoke in favor of the proposed plat saying he wanted to provide small lots for small businesses in town; that there was no markets for another large shopping center like Lak.eridge and that he was trying to ti1abum a nice office or commercial complex. Mari( Ent:erline, owner o° tealerldge to the north, questioned the access points onto The arterials and asked how They compared to the access points approved for the Lakeridge Shopping Center. An extensive discussion of placement of access points followed along with discussion of all details of the plat and possible changes to the plat. R. Haynes summarized commissioners, concerns regarding frontage lots, and access, location of alleys and utility easements, access for apartments and parking on both skies of the mutual access easements. He stated that he had concerns regarding uniform setbacks for the 50' I lots dike to the extensive depth of the lots. He also made the comment to the applicant that their (applicants') concern was to plat and soli the lots; the applicants would then be free but the citizens of Owasso would be stuck with the lot configuration and the development that will occur® Sokolosky reiterated his desire to have small individual lots in the configuration shown. He indicated he did not see or understand why the plat would cause any problems After additional discussion, G. Phillips moved to deny the plat until the points in contention could be worked out and then to resubmit it later. M. Nay seconded the motion, Phillips stated that he thought something could be worked out on the plat but that he didn't feel good about it the way it was and didn't think the commission did either. Staff pointed out that if the commission denied the plat the applicants would have to pay the application -fee again to resubmit lt. Phillips and Nay then amended their motion to continue action on the plat to allow the applicant to revise and resubmit. its Aye: Phillips, Nay and Haynes. Nay: None. (Minutes corrected per Motion carried 3-0-1a (Hinkle abstained) April 19, 1984 meeting) `aokolosky and Pruitt asked for direction on redesigning the plat: and commissioners discussed several items with them. CtlDto REVIEW fl„ Owasso Zoning Code Commissioners discussed revisions and additions to the draft of the Zoning Code. They also discussed a proposers fee schedule including changes in 'fees to be charged for zoning, board of adjustment;, subdi- vision and annexation applications. They decided to continue discussion of the fee schedule until heir March meeting. G. Phillips moved approval of the amendments to the zoning code as noted in the text. R. Haynes seconded the motion. Aye Phillips, Haynes, Day and Hinkle Nay: None. Motion carried 4,,,0..0. NEW AND GENERAL BUSINESS 7. Metros for Commissioners' Information No action was taken on this ite, There bei The meeting was adjourned at 10:2 4 p.m. Date Approved x ChcairCian ATTEST a.