HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990.03.22_Planning Commission AgendaPUBLIC NOTICE OF THE MEETING OF THE
OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION
TYPE OF MEETING: Regular
DATE: March 22, 1990
TIME: 7.00 p.m.
PLACE: Owasso Community Center
NOTICE FILED BY: Steve Compton
TITLE: Assistant City Manager for Community Development
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE OWASSO CITY CLERK AT 4:00 pm on March
14, 1990.
Steve Compton
Assistant City Manager for
Community Development
OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, March 22, 1990, 7:00 p.m.
Owasso Community Center, 301 South Cedar
AGENDA
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Consider Approval of the Minutes of February 15, 1989
ZONING PUBLIC HEARING
3. OZ -80 - Owasso Properties One Inc (2014) - A requesT to Rezone a Tract of
Land from AG (Agricultural)+ir OL (Office Low -Density)to CG Commercial General) Generally located at theNortheast and Northwest Corners of 123rd East Avenue and 86th Street North, City
of Owasso, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
PROCEDURE /POLICY REVIEW
4. Consider Amending the Procedures for Annexation to Reduce the Notification
Requirement in Certain Cases.
5. Consider Waiving the Notification Requirements for the Mingo Valley
Expressway Right -of -Way and Church of the Nazarene Cases.
ANNEXATION REVIEW
6. State of Oklahoma (19- 21 -14) (20- 21 -14) (29- 21 -14) (20- 21 -14) - The Mingo
Valley Expressway (US Highway 169) Right -of -Way Between 76th Street North and
96th Street North.
7. Owasso Church of the Nazarene (21- 21 -14) - A Tract of Land Located North
of the Northwest Corner of 86th Street North and 145th East Avenue.
8. Discussion of Development In and Near Owasso.
9. Adjournment
OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, February 15, 1990, 7:00 PM
Owasso Community Center
301 S Cedar, Owasso, Oklahoma
MEMBERS PRESENT 24E1EER5 ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Ray Haynes Steve Compton
Pat Imbriano Marcia Boutwell
Gary Wells
Charles Willey
Rick Johnson
The agenda for the meeting was posted in the Owasso City Hall,
207 S Cedar, on February 9, 1990.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - Chairman Ray Haynes called the
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1989 - The
Commission reviewed the minutes of November 16, 1989. Charles
Willey moved, seconded by Gary Wells, to approve the minutes as
written. A vote on the motion was recorded as follows:
Charles Willey - Yes
Gary Wells - Yes
Pat Imbriano - Yes
Rick Johnson - Yes
Ray Haynes - Yes
The motion carried 5-0.
Since Henry Hawker was the only applicant present, staff requested
that agenda item #6 be heard at this time.
6. Site Plan Review - Budget Industries. Inc (3014) - A request
for a review of the site plan for the expansion of an existing
industrial business_ Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 20, Original Town
of Owasso and Lot 1, Block 12, Greenlee's Addition, and Addition to
the City of Owasso, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
Chairman Haynes introduced the case. Steve Compton gave the
case background_ Since the last time he was before the Planning
Commission, Mr Harker has submitted a plan to place the proposed
building closer to the North property line and not move the
existing sewer line adjacent to his existing building.
Pat Imbriano moved, seconded by Rick Johnson, that the site
plan be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The addition of one handicapped parking space;
Owasso Planning Commission
Minutes of February 15, 1990
Page 2
2. The two entry drives off Atlanta be increased in width
from 30' to 40', the existing graveled areas between the
drives and property lines be elevated and paved by using an
extruded asphalt curb, a metal pipe bumper rail be placed
along the East property line except at the entry drives, and
the entry drive off Broadway be 20' in width;
3. The proposed building be moved an additional 8' North to
the property line;
4. All materials and product storage and all fabrication
activity occur only within enclosed buildings;
5. All exterior lighting be aimed away from any residential
structures;
6. Stormwater drainage on the North side be directed into
the ditch along Broadway and stormwater drainage on the East
side be directed to new drainage structures located in the
access drives off Atlanta Street. Stormwater drainage on the
South be directed either East or West, with care taken to
prevent the drainage from both the proposed and existing
structures from ponding. Stormwater drainage on the West be
directed into the existing ditch along the railroad;
7. A 6' chain link screen fence be installed along the North
property line on each side and connected to the North side of
the proposed building, including along the North line of Lot
1, Block 12, Greenlee's Addition. Some type of webbing the
same color as the proposed building should be used with the
chain link fence;
8. The building be a maximum height of 35';
9. The pole sign be moved West toward the existing building
so no part be in or overhang the public street right -of -way.
A vote on the motion was recorded as follows:
Pat Imbriano - Yes
Rick Johnson - Yes
Gary Wells - Yes
Charles Willey - Yes
Ray Haynes - Yes
The motion carried 5-0.
3. OLS -71 Daniel Denny Construction (2814) - A request for a Lot -
Split on Lots 19 and 20, Block 2 of Copper Meadows, an Addition to
the City of Owasso, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
Chairman Haynes introduced the case and opened the floor for
questions. Steve Compton presented the case background and
Owasso Planning Commission
Minutes of February 15, 1990
Page 3
explained the reason for the lot split request. The dwelling on
Lot 19 was incorrectly located too close to the side lot line
between Lots 19 and 20. The applicant is requesting that a 5'
strip of land be taken from Lot 19 and added to Lot 20.
Commission members reviewed the case extensively and expressed
some very strong feelings about the accuracy of the placement of
buildings on lots without encroachment into easements and setbacks.
Rick Johnson moved, seconded by Charles Willey, that the
Planning Commission deny the request for a lot split. A vote on
the motion was recorded as follows:
Rick Johnson - Yes
Charles Willey - Yes
Pat Imbriano - Yes
Gary Wells - No
Ray Haynes - Yes
The motion carried 4-1.
4.A. OLS -72 - Owasso Development Co /Liberty Bank (2014) - A request
for a Lot -Split on Lot 1, Block 1 of Liberty Banking Center, an
Addition to the City of Owasso, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
The case was introduced by Ray Haynes and explained by Steve
Compton. The request consists of splitting a .2115 acre tract from
the North end of Lot 1, Block 1, Liberty Banking Center and
attaching it to the unplatted vacant land abutting it on the East
and North. This tract would become a part of a second South entry
to the Wal -Mart development, provide new access to an undeveloped
commercial tract, and provide additional access to Liberty Bank.
Rick Johnson moved, seconded by Pat Imbriano, to approve the
lot split subject to the final approval of the Liberty Bank
Building Ltd partnership. A vote on the motion was recorded as
follows:
Rick Johnson - Yes
Pat Imbriano - Yes
Gary Wells - Yes
Charles Willey - Yes
Ray Haynes - Yes
The motion carried 5-0.
4.B. Change of Access - Owasso Development Co /Liberty Bank (2014) -
A request to move the northerly most 40' Limits-of-Access an
additional 60' to the North; Lot 1, Block 1 of Liberty Banking
Center, an Addition to the City of Owasso, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
Chairman Haynes introduced the case, with background being
given by Steve Compton. The applicant is requesting that the
Owasso Planning Commission
Minutes of February 15, 1990
Page 4
northerly most 40' Limits -of- Access be moved an additional 60'
north of its existing location to become the location of a second
south entrance to the Wal -Mart site and to provide a second access
drive for Liberty Bank.
Charles Willey moved to approve the request as submitted,
subject to final approval of the Liberty Bank Building Ltd
partnership; seconded by Gary Wells. A vote on the motion was
recorded as follows:
Charles Willey - Yes
Gary Wells - Yes
Pat Imbriano - Yes
Rick Johnson - Yes
Ray Haynes - Yes
The motion carried 5 -0.
5.A Easement Vacation - Firat United Methodist Church (3014) - A
request to vacate a utility easement generally located between Lot
3 and Lot 6, Block 7, Original Town of Owasso.
The case was introduced by Chairman Haynes and explained by
Steve Compton. The applicant is requesting closing an existing
utility easement generally located between Lots 3 and 6, Block 7,
Original Town of Owasso to allow the church building to be expanded
onto Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Block 7. The easement contains a sanitary
sewer line which serves only the church.
Pat Imbriano moved, seconded by Rick Johnson, to approve the
request with the understanding that the applicant carry out legal
action to foreclose on the city's right to reopen the easement and
that the applicant also understand that they will be responsible
for any necessary maintenance to the line. A vote on the motion
was recorded as follows:
Pat Imbriano - Yes
Rick Johnson - Yes
Gary Wells - Yes
Charles Willey - Yes
Ray Haynes - Yes
The motion carried 5-0.
5.B Site plan Review - First ni d Methodist Church (3014) - A
request for a review of the site plan for the expansion of the
existing church building; Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 7, Original
Town of Owasso.
Chairman Haynes introduced the case, with background being
given by Steve Compton. Following a review and questions by the
Planning Commission, Pat Imbriano moved to approve the site plan as
submitted, subject to the following conditions:
Owasso Planning Commission
Minutes of February 15, 1990
Page 5
1. That two handicapped parking spaces be added to the plan
either adjacent to the one shown on the plan or in the
existing parking lot near the entrance to the sanctuary;
2. That use of the existing playground for parking is not
necessary until Phase III is completed and only then if
parking is not available in adjacent parking lots;
3. That the applicant work with the City to establish the
most reasonable method of solving stormwater drainage
questions.
Rick Johnson seconded the motion, and a vote was recorded as
follows:
Pat Imbriano - Yes
Rick Johnson - Yes
Gary Wells - Yes
Charles Willey - Yes
Ray Haynes - Yes
The motion carried 5-0.
7. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AND NEAR OWASSO - Steve Compton
discussed current building activity and some proposed activity.
8_ ADJOURN - Ray Haynes moved, Pat Imbriano seconded, to adjourn
the meeting. A vote on the motion was recorded as follows:
Ray Haynes - Yes
Pat Imbriano - Yes
Gary Wells - Yes
Charles Willey - Yes
Rick Johnson - Yes
The motion carried 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p-m.
Chairman
Secretary
Date
TO: Chairman Haynes and Planning Commission
City of Owasso
FROM: Steve Compton
Assistant City Manager for Community Development
SUBJECT: Staff Case Report for OZ-80 (20-21-14)
DATE: March 6, 1990
The subject tract is located Northeast and Northwest of the
intersection of 123rd East Avenue and 86th Street North. It is
approximately 1\3 acre in size and zoned a combination of AG
(Agriculture) and OL (Office Low Intensity) Districts. The tract
is vacant and has not been platted. It fronts onto the newly
improved 86th street which has a 120 foot right-of-way dedication.
The applicant is requesting CG (Commercial General) District for a
Proposed car wash use.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for the West portion of the tract to
be Low Intensity Residential and the East portion to be Medium
Intensity Commercial- Office. The requested CG District would not
be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan on that portion of the
tract designated for residential and may be found in accordance for
that portion designated commercial- office.
The subject tract is abutted on the North by a newly channelize
drainage ditch (part of the 86th Street improvement project) zoned
AG and the back yards of a developed single - family subdivision
zoned RS -3 (Lakeridge). On the East it is abutted by vacant land
zoned OL and further to the East is a 20 acre vacant tract zoned a
combination of CS and PUD. South of the subject tract, across 86th
Street, is a commercial shopping center (Cornerstone) and a vacant
tract of land zoned CG. Abutting the subject tract on the West is
vacant drainage and floodplain land zoned AG.
Owasso Planning Commission
Case No OZ-80
Page 2
ZONING BACKGROUND:
There are two zoning cases that have set zoning patterns in the
area of the subject tract, OZ -43 and OZ -55. Case OZ -43 set the
existing zoning pattern on the North side of 86th Street North. It
established commercial (CS) zoning at the intersection of 86th
Street and 129th East Avenue, then as you move West away from 129th
East Avenue it transitions down in intensity to office (OL) zoning
and finally down to agricultural (AG) and residential (RS-3)
zoning. Establishing this type of transitional zoning pattern is
identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being the desired method
for influencing development along arterial streets as it moves away
from an intersection.
A similar pattern existed along the South side of 86th Street prior
to case OZ -55. This pattern started at the intersection with
commercial (CG) zoning. It transitioned to a church use in a
residential (RS -3) district, generally across the street from the
office use area on the North side and then continued down in
intensity with a proposed residential use (RS -3) across the street
from the proposed residential use on the North side of 86th Street.
Approval of case OZ -55 in
of the frontage land West
of 123th East Avenue and
area.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
1980, however, granted CG zoning on all
of the church to the drainage ditch West
established a new zoning pattern for the
This is an excellent example of how a zoning decision made years in
the past can have a long term "domino" impact on growth and
development in the community. It also shows the need for the
Planning Commission and City Council to weight each zoning case
carefully for both its short and long term impacts. In this case
a decision was made to allow commercial zoning to jump over the
buffering use (the church) on the South side of the street and
extend well beyond the intersection. It should be expected that
given this initial decision, future requests for equitable
treatment will occur. Case OZ -80 is such a request.
The applicant is requesting a Commercial General (CG) zoning
classification for a tract of land located on the North side of
86th Street and beyond existing office zoning that would normally
be considered the buffer use between commercial zoning at the
intersection and residential zoning further to the West. However,
given the fact that this tract is directly across the street from
the commercial zoning granted under OZ -55, consideration for this
request is justified.
Owasso Planning Commission
Case No OZ-80
Page 3
It is important to note that even though consideration for this
request is justified, zoning patterns are not the only factors to
review when making a zoning decision. The physical factors on and
around the tract should be considered, as well as sound planning
principles. The fact that the Comprehensive Plan was disregarded
in one case doesn't negate that document or the community's right
to regulate its growth and development according to this plan.
There does appears to be some differences between this request and
the request granted under OZ -55. First, when the CG request was
granted on the South side of 86th Street little or no developed
land existed abutting the tract. This means that when the land
developed around the tract, the types of development that might
occur on this tract were known and the developers, planning staff,
and planning commissioners could consider this factor when making
decisions. In fact, multi - family and duplex zoning was allowed
South of this tract as a buffer for the single - family further to
the South. For the subject case (OZ -80), single- family already
exists North of the tract and those families buying in this
subdivision knew only that the subject tract was zoned OL and would
most likely be develop as a light office use. Also, the uses
occurring on the tract zoned CG under OZ -55 are actually CS type
uses not the more intense uses allowed under CG zoning. Any zoning
decision made for the subject tract should consider the physical
fact that the tract has existing residential development North and
West of i t and existing CR nnmmprnial d v .l npm .n . on the South_
A second factor to consider since development has occurred around
the subject tract is the intensity of the uses allowed by the
proposed request. The requested CG classification allows many uses
by right that staff believes are inappropriate at this location.
For example, trade establishments including fabricating and
processing uses, wholesale bakery, lumber yard, kennel, and
automotive and allied uses including vehicle repair shop and mini
storage. Also, warehousing, wholesaling and light manufacturing
could be allowed as Special Exception uses through the Board of
Adjustment. Any zoning decision should also consider all types of
uses that are allowed by a specific zoning classification and the
Iona term consequences of those uses on the area surroundine the
sub.lect tract.
A third factor to consider is the drainage ditch abutting the tract
on the North. This ditch was rechanneled as a part of the 86th
Street Improvement Project. When this was done, that portion of
the tract zoned AG was filled and raised out of the ditch. It is
important to note that this action did not remove it from being
designated as a flood hazard area by the FEMA maps. This can only
be done by providing FEMA officials with engineering proof that it
will no longer be flooded by the run -off from a 100 -year storm.
Owasso Planning Commission
Case No OZ-80
Page 4
This proof is provided by the owner or developer. However, the
city's codes would allow development to occur on the tract as long
as the building or structure elevations are one foot above the 100 -
year flood elevation, but it would not be desirable to zone any
portion of the ra that physically remains in the drainage ditch
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Given the fact that the traditional zoning pattern has been broken
in this area it is staff's opinion that commercial zoning on the
tract has to be considered, but the existing physical conditions on
and surrounding the tract do not support the intensity of the uses
allowed by CG zoning. Therefore, I recommend denial of requested
CG zoning.
on 1530-2 - Notice Reguired allows the Planning Commission to
consider a lesser zoning classification than that given notice for,
if it is appropriate. Staff believes that a complete denial of
commercial zoning on the tract is not equitable treatment since
commercial zoning was granted across the street. Therefore, I
recommend approval of CS zoning on that portion of the tract South
of the existing ditch. The applicant should be required to submit
a registered survey and legal description of the approved zoning
for ordinance publication.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Owasso Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Compton
Assistant City Manager for Community Development
SUBJECT: Procedures for Annexation Amendment
DATE: March 12, 1990
BACKGROUND:
In March of 1988 the City Council adopted Procedures for Annexation
which outlined the steps they wanted staff to follow when
processing annexation requests. This policy is divided into two
sections - City Council Sponsored Annexation and Citizen Sponsored
Annexation (see Procedures for Annexation attached).
Under the Citizen Sponsored Annexation section there are
requirements for a total of three notice publications - once before
a hearing at the Planning Commission and twice before a hearing at
the City Council. However, neither local ordinance or state
statute (O.S. 11, Section 21 -103 - CITIES - ANNEXATION BY GOVERNING
BODY ACTION - CONSENT OF OWNERS) require this type of lengthy and
time consuming process when there are consenting parties. I
estimate that the proposed expressway annexation could take as much
as four to six weeks to process and cost the City almost $1200.00
for publications.
I understand and totally agree with the City Council's concern for
notifying the public about property being considered for
annexation, but I would note that when such an application is by
request or consent, it is basically the same as a rezoning
application (most often an annexation case is less controversial
than a rezoning case). Rezoning applications are publicized one
time and written notice is sent to property owners within 300 feet
of the subject tract prior to a hearing before the Planning
Commission. It seems logical to me that if this is appropriate
notice for a rezoning case, it could serve as a guide for giving
notice on an annexation by consent application.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the City Council amend their Procedures for
Annexation by adding a note that states the following:
NOTE: Annexation applications that are by request or
consent (not Petition) shall give notice by publishing
the description and map of the proposed annexation in the
Owasso Reporter and sending written notice to all
property owners within 300 feet of the annexation seven
calendar days prior to a hearing before the Planning
Commission.
CITY COUNCIL SPONSORED ANNEXATION:
1. City Council direction to study the annexation of property.
2. Notice published two consecutive weeks in the Owasso Reporter of a
Planning Commission Hearing which will include a map and text of the
proposed annexation.
3. Review by a Standing Annexation Committee and recommendation to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
4. Planning Commission Hearing on the proposal and recommendation to
the City Council.
5. Notice published two consecutive weeks in the Owasso Reporter of a
City Council Hearing which will include a map and text of the
proposed annexation.
6. City Council hearing and action on the proposal.
7. If the proposal is approved by the City Council, an Ordinance will
be prepared, approved, published, and filed of record with the
office of the County Clerk, with a map of the property annexed.
CITIZEN SPONSORED ANNEXATION:
1. Submission to the City Planner of an application and petition and an
administrative fee as prescribed by Ordinance.
2. Review by a Standing Annexation Committee and recommendation to the
Planning Commission and City Council_
3. Notice published once in the Owasso Reporter at the applicant's
expense of a Planning Commission Hearing which will include a map
and text of the proposed annexation_
4. Planning Commission Hearing on the proposal and recommendation to
the City Council.
5. Notice published two consecutive weeks in the Owasso Reporter at the
applicant -s expense of a City Council Hearing which will include a
map and text of the proposed annexation.
6. City Council Hearing and action on the proposal.
7. If the proposal is approved by the City Council, an Ordinance will
be prepared, approved,/ published, and filed of record with the
office of the County Clerk, with a map of the property annexed.
Adopted by City Council on March 1, 1988.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Owasso Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Compton Assistant City Manager for Community Development
SUBJECT: Waiving Procedures for Annexation DATE: March 12, 1990
Background:
It appears that in a few specific cases it might be appropriate for
the City Council to waive their Procedures for Annexation. The
cases presently under review may be such cases.
First, the proposed expressway annexation is a case where the only
property affected is under single ownership (State of Oklahoma).
The State has consented to the annexation and no private land will
be annexed as a part of this action. Given State Statutes, local
ordinances, and the City Council's policies, adjacent private land
is still protected from annexation without notification. It seems
that in this case the notification procedure would serve little
purpose and be very costly.
In the second case, the subject tract is under single ownership
(Owasso Church of the Nazarene), small in size (5 acres),
surrounded on three sides by the City, and the owner has requested
to be annexed. As to the size, the City Council's adopted policy
is that they would prefer to handle tracts larger than 20 acres;
however, tract size was not made a strict condition so a waiver is
not required. Notice is this case will serve no real purpose and
can be costly to the applicant.
Recommendation:
After reviewing the State statutes, zoning code and adopted polices
and comparing them to the two annexation applications, it appears
that the additional notices required by the adopted Procedures for
Annexation are not needed. Because of this, I would recommend that
the City Council waive these requirements.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Owasso Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Compton
Assistant City Manager for Community Development
SUBJECT: The Proposed Annexation of the Right -Of -Way of the
Mingo Valley Expressway (US 169 Highway) Between 76th
Street North and 96th Street North
DATE: March 12, 1990
BACKGROUND: The Annexation Committee at their March 30, 1989
meeting recommended that the City annex the Mingo Valley Expressway
right -of -way between 76th Street North and 86th Street North.
Richard Hall, in his review and recommendation of the proposed
annexation, noted that the City administration had an agreement
with Tulsa County to annex and maintain the service roads along the
highway if the County would repave those service roads. The County
completed the repaving project last Fall. Richard also noted that
the City will incur the responsibility to maintain the service
roads in the future, but since they are newly surfaced they should
not need repair for seven years. The Expressway pavement and
shoulders will continue to be maintained by the State Department of
Transportation. The City, however, will have to pay maintenance
and electricity cost of liahts placed by the State alono the
Expressway within the City Limits. Electricity costs will be about
$10,000 per year at current rates.
Since then, I have reviewed the proposed annexation and have
extended the annexation proposal to include those parts of the
Expressway between 86th Street North and 96th Street North that
have yet to be annexed. At this time, approximately one -third of
the 86th Street and US Highway 169 interchange is within the City's
corporate limits. Also, the South half of the 96th Street
interchange and approximately one- quarter mile of the Expressway
are within the corporate limits (see map).
Adding the Expressway right-of-way land between 86th Street and
96th Street will necessitate a change in the annexation process.
The land between 76th Street and 86th Street is surrounded by
existing corporate limits, which allows the City to give notice of
its intent to annex the property and go through a public hearing
process. That land between 86th Street and 96th Street is not
abutted by corporate limits on at least three sides, which requires
the property owner (State of Oklahoma) to request or consent to be
annexed. They have consented to this annexation (see also
Memorandum on Procedures for Annexation).
Memorandum
Mingo Valley Expressway Annexation
Page 2
I have discussed the new proposal with Ray Jordon, Tulsa County
Engineer; Frank Chiles, ODOT Division Engineer; the INCOG
Transportation TAC; Mr. Ray; Chief Motto; Kirby Crowe; Ron Cates;
and some members of the City Council. The general consensus has
been favorable. Questions that have been asked have centered
around the following concerns:
Mowing - The Expressway is now mowed maybe once or twice
a summer by ODOT, the remainder of the time the
City mows the area. If the land is annexed,
the City will loose this one -time mowing by the
State. This is not a significant loss given
the fact that we want to start presenting
Owasso to the public in a more favorable
manner.
Lighting - This concern has not changed from Richard's
analysis. The City would (at a minimum) have
to pay for maintenance and electricity cost.
This would most likely be the same whether the
Expressway was in the City or County. The City
can purchase the lights or have ODOT purchase
them. If ODOT purchases them, we would have to
wait until our need meets a State formula.
Drainage - The City will be responsible for drainage
problems and maintenance; however, all of the
facilities between 86th Street and 96th Street
are new and the area between 76th Street and
86th Street is mostly flat with little or no
drainage problems foreseen. The drainage ditch
South of Rayola park will need future
maintenance, but would most likely be handled
by the City regardless of City boundaries.
Fencing - The fencing between the service roads and the
Expressway paving is required for safety
reasons (controls access to the Expressway
lanes for animals, children, vehicles, etc.).
It is questionable how well the existing fence
accomplishes this concern; however, Frank
Chiles of ODOT has stated that because of money
constraints and the fact that fencing has a low
priority, he would see the State doing only
minimal repairs of the existing fence in the
future. If we want a new fence, it will have
to be purchased by the City and whether or not
the right -of -way is within the corporate limits
will not matter. If the State is responsible
Memorandum
Mingo Valley Expressway Annexation
Page 3
for the fence, it will remain as a Hog -wire
fence for some time.
Pavement - The State will remain responsible for the
maintenance and snow removal of the Expressway
pavement and shoulders. As noted by Richard,
the City, will take over maintenance of the
service roads from the County.
Police Services - At this time, since it is impossible for the
police to physically identify what areas are
within the City and because of the moral
obligation, they answer all emergency calls on
the Expressway. These actions often result in
our officers sitting at the scene 15 to 30
minutes waiting for State backup. We want
officers there, but at this point they are
loosing a significant amount of time on each
call. Also, officers are ticketing violators
on the service roads, which is questionable,
but can't be avoided.
Visual Image - There has been much discussion about
concentrating a significant effort into
improving the visual impression of Owasso and
that this effort could center around the
Expressway and the land use along both sides of
the Expressway between 76th Street and 86th
Street. In order for the City to accomplish
this goal, it will be necessary to have
regulatory control of this land.
RECOMMENDATION: Given the above analysis, I would recommend
approval of the proposed annexation. This annexation will include
only public held land.
TRACT A
A strip, piece or parcel of land lying in the EY4 of Section 19,
T21N, R14E in Tulsa County, Oklahoma; containing 8.20 acres, more
or less, and the original 16.5 foot section line right-of-way.
Said parcel of land being described by metes and bounds as follows:
Beginning at a point on the East line of said E½ SE¼ a distance of
330 feet North of the SE corner of said E½ SE¼, thence West on a
line parallel to and 330 feet North of the South line of said Ek
SE¼ a distance of 330 feet, thence South on a line parallel to and
330 feet West of the East line of said E½ SE¼ a distance of 330
feet to a point on the South line of said E½ SE¼, thence West along
the South line of said E½ SE¼ a distance of 575.7 feet, thence N
0°01'E a distance of 50 feet, thence S 89°59'E a distance of 63.8
feet, thence N 42°41'E a distance of 265.4 feet, thence N 82°11'E
a distance of 294.7 feet, thence N 24°15'E a distance of 608.5
feet, thence N 0°04'E a distance of 503.4 feet to a point on the
North line of the E½ SE¼ SE¼, thence East along said North line a
distance of 115 feet to the NE corner of said E½ SE¼ SE¼, thence
South along the East line of said Eta SEY4 a distance of 1319.1 feet
to point of beginning;
and
The SE¼ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼ of said Section 29, T21N, R14E.
TRACT B
A strip, piece or parcel of land lying in the W½ of Section 20,
T21N, R14E in Tulsa County, Oklahoma; containing 44.04 acres, more
or less, and the original 16.5 foot section line right-of-way.
Said parcel of land being described by metes and bounds as follows:
Beginning at the NW corner of said SW¼ SW¼, thence East along the
North line of said SWh SWk a distance of 185 feet, thence S 0°04'W
a distance of 379.4 feet, thence S 19°13'E a distance of 666.1
feet, thence S 78°54'E a distance of 334.3 feet, thence S 47°46'E
a distance of 263.4 feet, thence N 89°54'E a distance of 94 feet,
thence South a distance of 50 feet to a point on the South line of
said SW¼ SW¼, thence West along said South line a distance of 1004
feet to the SW corner of said SW¼ SW¼, thence North along the West
line of said SW¼ SW¼ a distance of 1319.1 feet to point of
beginning;
and
Beginning at the NW corner of said E½ SW¼, thence along the North
line of said E½ SW¼, a distance of 184.42 feet, thence
Southwesterly on a curve to the left having a radius of 4805.51
feet a distance of 289.61 feet to a point on the West line of said
E½ SW¼, thence North along said West line a distance of 222.95 feet
to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the NE corner of said NW¼ SW¼, thence South along the
East line of said NWR4 SWR4 a distance of 222.95 feet, thence
Southwesterly on a curve to the left having a radius of 4,805.51
feet a distance of 1,273.46 feet to a point on the South line of
said NW¼ SW¼, thence West along said South line a distance of
502.20 feet to a point on the present East right-of-way line of
U.S. Highway No. 169, thence North along said right-of-way line a
distance of 320.14 feet, thence N 88°47'33" E a distance of 131.89
feet, thence Northeasterly on a curve to the right having a radius
of 5,230.51 feet a distance of 379.08 feet, thence East a distance
of 179.05 feet, thence North a distance of 306.86 feet, thence
Northeasterly on a curve to the right having a radius of 5,230.51
feet a distance of 428.59 feet to a point on the North line of said
NW¼ sw¼, thence East along said North line a distance of 420.34
feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at a point on the South line of said NW¼ a distance of
1299.35 feet West of the SE corner of said NWY4, thence West along
said South line a distance of 447.39 feet, thence Northeasterly on
a curve to the right having a radius of 5320.51 feet a distance of
1208.58 feet, thence N 48°54'03" E a distance of 1193.92 feet to a
point on the East line of said NW¼ a distance of 998.20 feet South
of the NE corner of said NW¼, thence South along said East line a
distance of 455.99 feet, thence S 48°54'03" W a distance of 901.64
feet, thence Southwesterly on a curve to the left having a radius
of 4880.51 feet a distance of 858.49 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the SE corner of said S½ S½ NW¼ NW¼ SW¼, thence West
along the South line of said S4½ S½ NW¼ NW¼ SW¼ a distance of 179.05
feet, thence Northeasterly on a curve to the right having a radius
of 5230.51 feet a distance of 189.31 feet to a point on the North
line of said S½ S½ NW¼ NW¼ SW¼, thence East along said North line
a distance of 86.34 feet to the NE corner of said S½ S½ NW¼ NW¼
SA, thence South along the East line of said S½ S½ NW¼ NW¼ SW¼ a
distance of 164.86 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the SE corner of said N½ S½ NW¼ NW¼ SW¼, thence West
along the South line of said N½ S½ NW¼ NW¼ SW¼ a distance of 86.34
feet, thence Northeasterly on a curve to the right having a radius
of 5230.51 feet a distance of 166.34 feet to a point on the East
line of said N½ S½ NW¼ NW¼4 SW¼, thence South along said East line
a distance of 142.01 feet to point of beginning.
TRACT C
A strip, piece or parcel of land lying in the W¼ of Section 29,
T21N, R14E in Tulsa County, Oklahoma; containing 28.84 acres, more
or less, and the original 16.5 foot section line right-of-way.
Said parcel of land being described by metes and bounds as follows:
Beginning at the NW corner of said SW¼ SW¼ SW¼, thence East along
the North line of said SW¼ SW¼ SW¼ a distance of 295.7 feet, thence
S 15°52'E a distance of 213.4 feet, thence S 36°59'E a distance of
322 feet, thence S 0°05'W a distance of 125 feet, thence S 85°09'E
a distance of 98.8 feet to a point on the East line of said SW¼ SW¼
SW¼, thence South along said East line a distance of 69.3 feet to
the SE corner of said SW¼ SW¼ SW¼, thence West along the South line
of said SW¼ SW3¼ SW¼ a distance of 663.5 feet to the SW corner of
said SW-1/4 SW;4 SW34, thence North along the West line of said SW¼ SW¼
SW¼ a distance of 660.1 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the NW corner of said S½ NW¼ SW¼, thence East along
the North line of said S½ NW¼ SW¼ a distance of 180 feet, thence S
0°04'W a distance of 135.6 feet, thence S 4°06'E a distance of
794.6 feet, thence S 9°11'E a distance of 231.3 feet, thence S
15°52'E a distance of 166.2 feet to a point on the South line of
said N½ SW¼ SW¼, thence West along said South line a distance of
295.7 feet to the SW corner of said N½ SW¼ SW¼, thence North along
the West line of said Section 29 a distance of 1320.3 feet to point
of beginning;
and
Beginning at the SW corner of said SE¼ SW¼ SW¼, thence North along
the West line of said SE¼ SW¼ SW¼, a distance of 69.3 feet, thence
S 85°09'E a distance of 202.3 feet, thence S 0°05'W a distance of
52.4 feet to a point on the South line of said SE¼ SW¼ SW¼, thence
West along said South line a distance of 201.6 feet to point of
beginning;
and
Beginning at the NW corner of said N½ NW¼, thence East along the
North line of said N½ NW¼ a distance of 1004 feet, thence S 0°06'E
a distance of 50 feet, thence S 89°54'W a distance of 144 feet,
thence S 36°20'W a distance of 218 feet, thence S 89°54'W a
distance of 438.7 feet, thence S 47°46'W a distance of 134.6 feet,
thence S 0°04'W a distance of 2073.8 feet, thence S 11°15'E a
distance of 178.5 feet, thence S 0°04'W a distance of 80.3 feet to
a point on the South line of said SW34 NW34 a distance of 218 feet
East of the SW corner of said SW34 NW34, thence continuing S 0°04'W
a distance of 370.7 feet, thence S 11°23'W a distance of 178.5
feet, thence S 0°04'W a distance of 114.4 feet to a point on the
South line of said N½ NW¼ SW¼, thence West along said South line a
distance of 180 feet to the SW corner of said N½ NW¼ SW¼, thence
North along the West line of said Section 29 a distance of 3300.7
feet to point of beginning.
TRACT D
A strip, piece or parcel of land lying in the E¼ of Section 30,
T21N, R14E in Tulsa County, Oklahoma; containing 23.80 acres, more
or less, and the original 16.5 foot section line right-of-way.
Said parcel of land being described by metes and bounds as follows:
Beginning at the SE corner of said W½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence North
along the East line of said W½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 45.1 feet,
thence N 89°55'W a distance of 330.3 feet to a point on the West
line of said W½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence South along said West line a
distance 46.9 feet to the SW corner of said W½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence
East along the South line of said W½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of
330.3 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the SE corner of said W½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence North
along the East line of said W½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 81.7
feet, thence N 89°55'W a distance of 165.2 feet to a point on the
West line of said W½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence South along said West
line a distance of 82.6 feet to the SW corner of said W½ E½ SW¼ SE¼
SE¼, thence East along the South line of said W½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼ a
distance of 165.2 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the SE corner of said W½ E½ E SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence
North along the East line of said W½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance
of 81.3 feet, thence N 89°55'W a distance of 82.6 feet to a point
on the West line of said W½ E½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence South along
said West line a distance of 81.7 feet to the SW corner of said W½
E½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence East along the South line of said W½ E½
E½ S¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 82.6 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the SE corner of said E½ E½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence
North along the East line of said E½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance
of 195.8 feet, thence N 89°55'W a distance of 82.6 feet, to a point
on the West line of said E½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence South along
said West line a distance of 196.3 feet to the SW corner of said E½
E½ E½ SW¼ SE¼ SEY¼, thence East along the South line of said E½ E½
E½ SW¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 82.6 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the SE corner of E½ SE¼ S¼ SE¼, thence North along
the East line of said E½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 660.1 feet to
the NE corner of said E½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence West along the North
line of said E½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 330.3 feet to the NW
corner of said E½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence South along the West line of
said E½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 660.1 feet to the SW corner of
said E½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence East along the South line of said E½
SE¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 330.3 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the SE corner of said W½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence West
along the South line of said W½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of 330.3
feet to the SW corner of said W½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence North along
the West line of said W½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼, a distance of 195.8 feet,
thence S 89°55'E a distance of 125.7 feet, thence N 60°48'E a
distance of 159.1 feet, thence N 16°29'E a distance of 235.4 feet
to a point on the East line of said W½ SE¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence South
along said East line a distance of 498.7 feet to point of
beginning;
and
Beginning at the NE corner of said NE¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence West along
the North line of said NEk SEY4 SEA a distance of 133 feet, thence
S 0°04'W a distance of 75.5 feet, thence S 13°10'W a distance of
372.2 feet, thence S 16°29'W a distance of 231.8 feet to a point on
the South line of said NE¼ SE¼ SE¼, thence East along said South
line a distance of 285.9 feet to the SE corner of said NE¼ SE¼ SE¼,
thence North along the East line of said NE¼ SE¼ SE¼ a distance of
660.1 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at a point on the East line of said SE¼ NE¼ SE¼ a
distance of 450.1 feet South of the NE corner of said SE¼4 NE¼ SE¼,
thence South along said East line a distance of 210 feet to the SE
corner of said SE¼ NE¼ SE¼, thence West along the South line of
said SE¼ NE¼ SE¼ a distance of 133 feet, thence N 0°04'E a distance
of 210 feet, thence East on a line parallel to and 450.1 feet South
of the North line of said SE¼ NE¼ SE¼ a distance of 132.1 feet to
point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the NE corner of said NE¼ SE¼, thence South along the
East line of said NE¼ SE¼ a distance of 1110.3 feet to a point 210
feet North of the SE corner of said NE¼ SE¼, thence West a distance
of 132.1 feet, thence N 0°04'E a distance of 124.5 feet, thence N
11°14'W a distance of 255 feet, thence N 0°04'E a distance of 735.7
feet to a point on the North line of said NE¼ SE¼, thence East
along said North line a distance of 177 feet to point of beginning;
and
Beginning at the NE corner of said SE¼ NE¼, thence West along the
North line of said SE¼ NE¼ a distance of 121 feet, thence S 0°04'W
a distance of 940 feet, thence S 11°23 "W a distance of 255 feet,
thence S 0°04'W a distance of 130.3 feet to a point on the South
line of said SE¼ NE¼, thence East along said South line a distance
of 177 feet to the SE corner of said SE¼ NE¼, thence North along
the East line of said SE¼ NE¼ a distance 1320.3 feet to point of
beginning;
and
Beginning at the SE corner of said NE¼ NE¼, thence West along the
South line of said NE¼ NE¼ a distance of 121 feet, thence N 0°04'E
a distance of 1008.5 feet, thence N 47°49'W a distance of 148.8
feet, thence N 89°59'W a distance of 184.8 feet to a point 409.5
feet West of the East line of said NE¼ NE¼, thence North a distance
of 212 feet to a point on the North line of said NE¼ NE¼, thence
East along said North line a distance of 409.5 feet to the NE
corner of said NE¼ NE¼, thence South along the East line of said
NE¼ NE¼a distance of 1320.3 feet to a point of beginning;
and
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of Smithview Addition to the original
townsite of Owasso in Tulsa County, Oklahoma;
and
Lots 32, 33 and 34, Block 2 and the North 10 feet of Lot 1 of said
Block 2 of Smithview Addition to the original townsite of Owasso in
Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Division Office
P. 0. Box 660
Tulsa, OK 74101
December 19, 1989
City of Owasso
Attn: Steve Compton
207 S. Cedar
Owasso, OK 74055
Re: Owasso Annexation of the Expressway Right -of -Way
Dear Mr. Compton:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation in which the
Oklahoma Department of Transportation has consented for the City
of Owasso to annex the US -169 expressway right -of -way between
76th and 96th Streets North in Tulsa County.
Please find enclosed, copies of our legal description for the
right- of -wav purchased for this expressway. If. I can be of any
further assistance, please call,
Sincerely,
Frank F. Chiles, P. E.
Division Engineer
Sip
Enclosure
C: File
STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN - TRAVIS FREEMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN - SAMUEL J. VEAZEY, SECRETARY - BARBARA BERRY,
MEMBERS - BOB R. BERRY, ROBERT L HARRIS, GORDON MASTERS, JOHN M. GUAM, JOHN O. SPARKS,
DIRECTOR - NEAL A. McCALEB
Proposed Annexation
MEMORANDUM
TO: Owasso Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Compton
Assistant City Manager for Community Development
SUBJECT: The Proposed Annexation of the
Owasso Church of the Nazarene
DATE: March 12, 1990
BACKGROUND:
The Subject tract is approximately five (5) acres in size and
located approximately 1/4 miles North of the Northwest corner of
145th East Avenue and 86th Street North. It is vacant and proposed
to be the location for the new Owasso Church of the Nazarene. It
is surrounded on three sides by the City of Owasso and the owners
have requested to be annexed. Upon annexation, the tract will be
zoned Agriculture (AG) District per Section 110.3 b., Annexed
Territory of the Owasso Zoning Code. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit the applicant would be required to file an
application and receive approval from the Board of Adjustment for
a Special Exception to allow a church in an AG District.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the property be annexed as requested. It is
advisable to annex vacant tracts so that the City may have a direct
influence on how the properties are developed. The land in
question is now vacant and surrounded on three sides by city
limits.
WOODY McGLATHERY, Pastor
2104 N. Cedar
Owasso, Oklahoma 74055
918- 272 -7454
Steve Compton
City of Owasso
Owasso, OK 74055
To Whom It May Concern:
Nam
Chuhch o f the japhefte
CORNER OF 1ST AVE. ST. AND BIRCH, P.O. BOX 208, OWASSO, OKLAHOMA 74055 O 918- 272 -1642
December 5, 1989
We, the Owasso Church of the Nazarene do hereby give consent to the city of
Owasso to request annexation of our property which is located on 145th E. Ave.
The legal description being:
WM /md
The N/2 SE/4 NE/4 SE/4 Section 21, Township 21 North,
Range 14 East containing five (5) acres more or less
according to the U.S. Government Survey thereon.
Sincerely,
Rev. Woody McGlathery, pastor
GROWING TO SERVE