HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975.10.16_Planning Commission MinutesOWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES, Zoning & Subdivision Meeting
Thursday, October 16, 1975, 7:30 p m
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Anderson, Chairman Moore, Vice Chairman Bland Pittman,
Holt, Secretary Clayton Morris,
House,-, (Day, Davis & Poe, Inc.)'
Smith Terry L. Davis, Terry L.
Davis Companies
Elms, Staff jerrald Holt, Owasso Mayor
Bill Williams, Owasso Vice-
MAyor
V D. Dun&an, Owasso Councilman
Carrel joplin, Owasso Councilman
Boyd Spencer, Owasso Councilman
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m . mud declared a quorum
present,,
Minutes,
On Motion Q TOO, the Planning Commission voted to approve the Minutes or,
September 18, 1975. Seconded by Houser, vote was 4-0,
ZONING GASP,'
OZ-20 Terr,
..... . . . SE /c & NE/c of 86th St. N. & Mingo Valley Expressway
AG, CS, HS-3 & OP to RS-3, UK, CS, TL, RM-2 & RD
Mike Elms gave the presentation, which is attached and made a part of Phese minutes,
MK. Bland Pittnon and Clayton Morris Y Day, Davis & Poe, Inc. and Mi. Terry L.
Davis (applicant) were present and all is
for the application. The applicant
asked at this time that 1111: e be Ko amend his -,requ,�esi-, C"') move the
and office boundary line in Section 20, T-21-N, RJUE to the East to line up witill
the proposed commercial and office boundap, line in Section 29, 21. Leg R-14-E.,
The Commission agreed with his request to amend l s application. There were no
Protestants present-,
Mr. Elms gave the Stnff recounendation of APPROVAL and Modification, which 1s,
attached to and made a Part Of these minutes. The applicant and Mr. Pituman
spoke again and requested that the Commission not reduce the industrial zoning
as would be iio,.le by the Staff's recommendation, but allow the applicant to
rearrange the multifamily so that the industrial and multifamily would back into
each other and so that the multifamily has frontage on the Mingo Valley Express,
way Service Road. The applicant opposed the Staff's teconumendation to amend the
OM request to OP Office Park because he felt that it would take away his versatility
and options on whether or not to sell individual lots less than 2k acres apiece
MTNUTES - 10/16/0,
to a user. The applicant also opposed the Staff 's for extension 'nF
RD zoning to include Lots 1-13, Block 3, Lots 57-64, Block 2 and Lot 25, Block �1
all in Section 29, T-21-N, R-14-E. This would put duplex lots on both sides of the
proposed street and would have the duplexes on the west of the street backing Wto
commercial and multifamily and those on the east side of the street backing into
single-family lots. The applicant was willing to have his request amended to
include Lots 1-13, Block 3 as these would back into the commercial and multifamih
tracts and would provide a buffer to the single-family lots. However, he was
opposed to the Staff's proposal for duplex lots on the east side of the street,
There was much discussion among the Planning Commission, the applicant and the
Staff about the zoning request,
Motion was made by Smith, seconded by Houser, to make the following recommendation
to the City Council: (Vote was 4-0)
Commercial - recommended Approval of CS with Modification of moving the commercial
line in Section 20, T-21-N, R-14-E to the East to line up with the
commercial boundary in Section 29, T-21•N, R-14-E.
Offi-ce - recommended Approval of OM as requested with Modification of the boHndauV
line between office and commercial in Section 20 as per the commercial
zoning recommendation,
Industrial - recommended Approval of !L with Modification of rearrangement oJ
muNifamily so that multifamily and industrial back into each other-
and with multifamily having fromage on the service road. The
Planning Commission instructed the applicant to present a map at
the Gity Council meeting showing these changes,,
Mu"Y" "01— , recoamended Approval of RM-2 with reaarc ngemwnt of mulWamily
per the industrial zoning recommendation,
Duplex - recommended Approval of RD with a Modification to include Lots 1-13,
Block 3 in Section 29, T-21-N, R-14-K,
Single- famil`/ - recommended Approval of RS-3 with a Modification to delete LoLs
1-13, Block 3 in Section 29, T-21-N, POW,
SUBD FVTSTOW.,
SPECIAL ITEMS & DISCUSSION
Review—of Annexation Re.,pyl - request by Mr. jack E. Avant for annexation of a
5 acre tract fronting on 116th St. N., west of the
German Church. This request has been sent to the
Planning Commission by the City Council for your
review. (See attached letter and map.)
AI
py-10,
,- SEA
& We
of
86th
Street Nwh
and
Mingo
Valley
Expresswm'.1
After discussion
of the
plat,
a Notion was made
by Houser,
seconded
by
Holv, ro
approve the
Three
Lakes
plat,
subject to conditions
recommended
wiLh
the deletion
of 12(E).
Vote was
4-0.
(See
attached
conditions.)
SPECIAL ITEMS & DISCUSSION
Review—of Annexation Re.,pyl - request by Mr. jack E. Avant for annexation of a
5 acre tract fronting on 116th St. N., west of the
German Church. This request has been sent to the
Planning Commission by the City Council for your
review. (See attached letter and map.)
'IiN11`IES -- 10/16/7>
After presentation and discussion, za Motion was made by Smith, seconded by iIc)"se
not to recommend annexation to the City Council. Vote was 4-_.0
'i'he applicant then asked the Commission what their decision would be if Lhis ;
acre tract came before them as a referral for commercial. It was the general
concensus of the members that they would not support commercial at this l_CiCai &H,
No voLe or official action( was taken,
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & Cl_7.Y COUNCIL DISCUSSION
_,a Ij_Qr� p�an discussion cgoals,
objectives, standards,
_ and development
guidelines,
The Staff gave the presentation of the goals, objectives, standards and devel_tlpmen
guidelines concept. Most of the discussion centered around the proposed guidelines,
The Council- appeared to be i