Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984.01.19_Planning Commission MinutesOWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, January 19, 1984, 7:30 p= Owasso City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Ma Hinkle Co Dickey R. Haynes M. Day G. Phillips P. Larkin ede Chairman, Ms Hinkle called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., m roll was called and a quorum was declared present® L Me Day moved approval of the minutes of December 15, 1983 and January E, 1984 meetings as amended. R. Haynes seconded the motion. Aye: Hinkle, Baynes, Nay: None. Motion carried 5-0-0,, 4. OLS 43 John Se lb Day, Larkin and Phillips. LOT SPLIT REVIEW Staff related that this lot split was approved under they "prior approval" lot split ordinance and was })(''(`°i?re the Commission for ratifi- cation. The applicant was not present,, R. Haynes moved approval of Ot.,S. 113 . P. Larkin seconded the motion. Aye: (`Hynes Larkin, Phillips, Day and Hinkle, Nay: None Motion carried 5-0-0 ,, tt CZ 102 Don Purcell Staff related the case history and the staff evaluation', The applicant r4qests rezoning of a 6. 6 af:Y e vacant pofv_.ce of land from A G to IL light industrial trial 1Cic ated j mile south of the southeast corner of 126th S.tree.t North and Garnett Road. Land on all sides of the parcel (except due north) is zoned AG and is vacant or developed with t;,h hotly,` ='s. To the north, fronting Garnett, lies a 6.6 acre tract t, of (and zoned IL, zoned by the county commission in the summer of 1982 (CZ-54). Bob Miller is a record owner of both parcels. The Owasso Comprehensive Plan indicates this area is appro- priate for rural residential or agricultural types of land uses. The subject tract was included in a previous rezoning request that was denied (CZ-54). The area that is presently zoned IL was a second application (C % -54) that was a portion of the first request. INCQG staff wrote a special study of the area, and this second application was within the area recommended for ap- proval by staff® The current request lies outside the boundaries of the recommended industrial area and was pare of the request previously denied. Minutes from the meeting concerning CZ -45 are included for your review. The applicant explained his application saying that he requested the rezoning in order to start a distributorship for log homes such as the one on the property, to manufacture electronic panels and to put up an advertising sign. He stated that he would be limited to 2 or S employees. He stated that the model log home is used as his home. The shop would be located on the front of the lot and he wouldn't neces- sarily need the whole tract rezoned. The Chair read a letter= of protest; from John Creenstreet that is attached to these minutes. Mr. Creenstreet was present and stated that he didn't think the proposed uses would be detrimental but he didn't, want the entire length of the property rezoned, especially the eastern portion that borders their .land. He stated that the Braggs, who own the small parcel abutting the tract on the south, opposed the rezoning. Commissioners discussed the application and several alternatives includ- ing a possible BOA application for a special exception or a idol €ie occupation. Purcell stressed that he needed an advertising sign for the property. G. Phillips moved to recommend denial of the application and support of the special study but .i_l, the County Commission decided to rezone the property to ?`'(',GtlC(1fIlE'nd rezoning of only the western half of the 4sr ac:.t . P. Larkin seconded the motion, Aye: Phillips, Larkin, Day, Hinkle and Haynes, Nay: None. Motion carried EI..rz0-0.. SUBDIVISION REVIEW 6. Atcylpy,Ippyka & Santa Fe Railroad', Staff related the case history and the applicant's request: The o1- €,tiers of the property € iscovered some minor errors in the legal description and drawings ofe the plat after it was filed of record and are seeking to file an amended play;. The new plat i s included with this agenda for your review. The plat; will go to the City Council for formal approval of the amended plat. Since the plat does not require .,AC review or, amendments to any existing structures or facilities, staff recommends waiving the }.plat; filing .tee of $ 00. The applicant was not present. Commissioners asked several questions regarding the plate Ike Haynes moved approval of the amended plat. too Larkin seconded the motion. 2 Aye: Haynes, Larkin, Hinkle, Day and Phillips. Nays None. Motion carried S -D -Gm 7e Elm Creek Commercial Corner Staff related the case history and the TAC evaluation: The TAC had several comments regarding technical items and the design of the preliminary plat for Elm Creels Commercial Corner. 1. ,add a 15' ONG easement along the south 15' of the north 70' of the section. K Supply topography for the plat. L Name all streets to city specifications. 4m Provide enough width on each lot to accommodate the minimum required off street parking «nd adequate drive- way space Vl, Provide loot 5, Block r (proposed apartment site) with independent access to an arterial street, eet, preferably 86th Street North. 6. Redraw lots facing 86th `street North and 129th East. Avenue to show unified access, circulation system and .larking for all lots,, 7. Coordinate access points o nto 86th Street North with the approved Laker` dge Shopping Center site p loan to the north. 8. Coordinate electric service sop no streets or driveways will be blocked, The applicants on this plat; rash to have one access for each lot facing 86th Street North and 129th East Avenue. Due to the heavy traffic `1c this intersection now carries and the large in- crease in traffic volume (especially at (teak ",' €tiles) that wi 1 S come with the € to l i developments of Laker tdge, Elm Creek and star-, rounding subdivisions and the special nature of much of the o i high traffic, .e., high school students and commuters, staff feels that the design of this plat is inadequate and should be recon- sidered. A .limited number of mtp"'ttaa.l controlled access points should be considered for this site,......,,.to reduce the possibility of accidents, traffic congestion at the intersection and coor- dination with the controlled access to the Lakeridge Shopping Center on the north Staff cannon recommend approval of the preliminary plat in this form. I Chairman Hinkle stated her intention to abstain from the discussion and vote on this plat because of a possible conflict of interest due to family business reasons. Pat Larkin also stated his intentions to ab- stain for the same reasons. dice- Chairman Phillips conducted this portion of the meeting. Slob Pruitt, engineer for the applicant, explained the plat details and added that all buildings were to be 100% brick or masonry and would be zero lot line lots, G. Phillips discussed the right -of -way needed and said this location was a sensitive area® He opened the meeting to con-- ments from the audience. Mark P.nterline owner of several hundred acres of vacant land on the northwest and southeast corners of 86th Street Borth and 129th feast Avenue, adjacent to the subject tract stated he was opposed to the design of the plat and listed several of his reasons: 1m Access points - he said Lakeridge Shopping Center was limit- ed to three access points on 86th St. No. (including a public street) and they had to move a building on the site plan to comply. They were limited to two accesses in 1000' on 129th ER Ave. (I for loading only)® He said Elm Creek shouldn't be allowed more access points than they were allowed. Possible uses he said he was worried because of the loca-,. ion and size of the .lots as to what types of uses would be buil.tF on the site .like car washes or warehouses, He said that would affect; their place for high quality commercial corners,, , Benefit to Owasso he stated that Lakeridge operations over their 720 acres would contribute between $W9 and $J, million dollars in sales tax to Owasso in .three years He questioned the type of development to go in on the Elm Creek corner and said the proposed design was not the best use of the property. He said the proposed accesses should match up with those of Lakeridge and the lots should be maintained,, G. Phillips thanked {aim to his comments and said the commission was concerned about many of the same things., Susan Young a nearby resident, stated her opposition to the design of he plat. She said the corner of 86th Street or't h and 129th it already ..foamed up three or four times per day with h commut:er and school traffic. is She drives s through the corner to wf}1°k and to shop She stated that she was afraid of what would happen in the future i.p. a lot more driveways are permitted a.'r.: that corner. She stated tha`r,._ one or two additional accesses on each arterial street is all the traffic will bear and that the arterials probably would not be four laved in the near future Mr. Enterline spoke for Wayne Alberty, owner of a 1e0 acre parcel within the Lakeridge property, who could not attend the meeting. He stated that Mr. Alberty was opposed to the design of the plat and was very concerned with the number of proposed access points. 4 Staff made additional comments further explaining some of the items listed in the TAC evaluation. She stated that the 501 lot size on interior lots could be too small to accommodate full use of potential building space and adequate off - street parking and driveway space, since the city would have to assume that each lot would be owned by different persons who might not cooperate with each other on parking. She stated that on- street parking should be prohibited because of the possibility of spillover parking from potentially small lots® She stressed the unique traffic problems at this corner caused by commu- ters and by high school drivers traveling to and from the school® She stated that apartments should not be located at a dead-end corner be- hind commercial business with no access except by a commercial � collector street.. She suggested redesigning the apartments with ade- quate land abutting 86th Street forth so that the apartments would have at least one independent access. She suggested design alternatives for the plat might be utilizing a PULE process, which had been discussed previously with the applicant, or a condominium design where individuals would own their buildings or space within the buildings and the land, parking and driveways would be owned in common. in this way more flexible accesses and adequate parking could be designed for all owners of the property. Bob Pruitt stated in rebuttal that he thought the proposed apartment location was good. He stated that the 50' lots might be changed to 100' lots. Commissioners discussed in detail with the interested parties alter- nate access points from the plat onto the two arterial streetsw `young pointed out that there are no shoulders on 16th Street forth to handle traffic ic fsmergenc es. Commissioners discussed other details ls of the plat, R. Haynes stated that he wanted to move to deny the plat. Staff su {1.,. ge st.ed the commission consider continuing the plat to allow the appli- cant a chance to consider the statements made and to redesign the plat,, P. Haynes then moved to continue action on the preliminary plat and allow the applicant to redesign i"t showing a maximum of two access points on each arterial street and redesigning the interior lots base =d on the comments made during the public hearing. M. Day seconded the moition� Aye: Haynes, Day and Phillips Abstain: Hinkle and Larkin, Motion carried :1.,.. l - F 8. Owasso Commercial Center Staff related the case history and the AC evaluation: The developer of the Owasso Commercial Center, roger Hardesty, and two prospective purchasers of lots 3 and 4, Quick Trip and Praums, respectively, have applied for site plan review of the two lots and changes of access as shown I on the recorded plat, The applicant's request an additional two accesses on 16th Street North and a change in location of one access along the access road to the west. Members of the TAC committee had many technical questions and problems with the layouts of both site plans. These items have to do with providing adequate parking, adequate access for city vehicles, interference of driveways, buildings and parking spaces with utility lines, placement of signs, inadequate turn radii, location of handicapped parking spaces, etc. At the TAC meeting it was decided that the applicants engineer would meet with staff members again before the CPC meeting to work out a modified site plan to be presented to the Planning Commission. Bob Pruitt, engineer for the applicants, and plan Langley, applicants' agent, presented a revised combined site plan to commissioners. The revised site plan included changes requested by TAC members on both sites and amended the change of access request to show one additional 40' access on 76th Street north (Lot 1) and change the 40° mutual access between Lots I and 4 to a 24' access on Lot 4 (Braum &s site). The 40' mutual across between Lots 3 and 4 was retained and was marked with two ingress lanes and one egress lane as recommended by staff members. Commissioners discussed the combined site plan in det=ail and discussed alternatives to access and parking,, G. Phillips moved approval of the change of access points shown on 'r.:he revised site plan a s submitted. M. Day seconded the motion. Aye; Phillips, Day, Larkin, Haynes and Hinkle Nay: None. Motion carried 5-0-0. P. Larkin moved approval of the revised Quick trig site plan as submit- ted. M. [Jay seconded the motion, Aye: Larkin, Day, Hinkle, Phillips and Haynes. Nay: None. Motion carried -0 -0. M. Haynes moved approval (l'(° the revised Braums site e ��.���an s submitted. M. Day seconded the motion, Aye Haynes; Day, Phillips, Larkin and Hinkle Nay: done. Motion carried 5.,.,0..0, CODE REVIEW g. Owasso Icon 3 nq Code Commissioners reviewed chapters 4, 11, 16 and the appendices of the proposed revisions to the Owasso Zoning Code and discussed several amendments© I After a lengthy discussion commissioners decided 'to consider formal approval of all the recommended amendments at the February 16, 1984 meeting. They stated that they wanted time to review the corrected draft and have one last change to make comments. Members suggested also sending the corrected draft to the city a't'torney and to council members prior to the next meeting so they would have Plenty of tune to review the text. No formal action was taken on this matter. There being no further lousiness to consider, Pm Larkin moved to adjourn the meeting with Ma Clay seconding €;he motion. Aye, Larkin, Phillips, Finkle, I --laynes and Day. Nay. Bone. Motion carried 5--0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11-35 p.m 11T rEST u_ ae� `c ` pry 7