Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988.03.10_Planning Commission Agenda_Special MeetingPUBLIC NOTICE OF THE MEETING OF THE OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION TYPE OF MEETING: Special Meeting DATE: March 10, 1988 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Owasso City Hall, 207 S. Cedar, Owasso, Oklahoma NOTICE FILED BY: RICHARD HALL TITLE: OWASSO CITY PLANNER FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE OWASSO CITY CLERK AT 5:00 A.M. P. M. RICHARD HALL, CITY PLANNER OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SCHEDULED MEETING Thursday, March 10, 1988, 7:00 p.m. Owasso City Hall, 207 S. Cedar 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Consider approval of the Minutes of February 18, 1988 PROPOSED ANNEXATION REVIEW 4. Discussion of issues concerning the annexation of property into the Owasso City Limits and the recommendation of the Owasso Annexation Committee 5. Plat Waiver Consideration b. New Business 7. Adjourn 1 OWASSO FLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 18, 1988, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 S. CEDAR MEMBERS PRESENT Scott Butler Ray Haynes Elwood Henry Charles Willey MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Pat Imbriano Richard Hall The agenda for the meeting was posted in the Owasso City Hall, 207 S. Cedar, on February 8, 1988. 1. CALL TO ORDER - Chairman Ray Haynes called the order at 7:01 p. m. 2. ROLL CALL - Chairman Haynes noted that Pat absent. meeting to Imbriano was 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 1987 - The Commission reviewed the Minutes of November 19, 1987. Motion was made by Elwood Henry and seconded by Charles Willey to approve those Minutes as written. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Scott Butler - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Elwood Henry - Yes Charles Willey - Yes motion carried. EASEMENT CLOSURE 4. Gregory Sherman C2914) - A request to close an unplatted 30 feet wide easement on the north and east sides of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Twenty -nine C29), Township Twenty -One (21) North, Range Fourteen (14) East, containing ten C10) acres, more or less according to the Government Survey thereof. The property is also located in Lot 1, Block 1 of the Owasso Commercial Center which is north of 76th Street North and east of the Mingo Valley Expressway CU. S. 169 Hwy.) Chairman Haynes announced the first hearing item, read the legal description of the easement involved and explained the general location of the property. Richard Hall discussed the situation with the Commission. Motion was made by Scott Butler and seconded by Charles Willey to recommend closing the easement on lots one, two and three, except for the platted five foot wide easement on the northern boundary of the Owasso Commercial Center. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: motion carried. The notify the adjacent closing. Owasso Planning Commission Minutes of February 18, 1988, Page 2 Scott Butler - Yes Ray Haynes Yes Elwood Henry - Yes Charles Willey - Yes Commission directed the property owners of the City Planner to proposed easement SITE PLAN REVIEW 5. Bill Lattine (2914) - Request for a Site Plan Review for improvements to Lot 7 Block 1 of the Three Lakes Industrial Park, 8101 North Mingo Valley Expressway (the former Garrett /Johnson Furniture Store). Bill Latting, John Nolan and Chuck Pearson, were present to speak for the site plan proposal. Bill Latting submitted a revised site plan for Commission review. The Commission and the applicants discussed area easements, the location of a trash dumpster site, the parking lot layout, and the proposed uses. Motion was made by Elwood Henry and seconded by Scott Butler to approve the revised site plan with the following conditions: (1) that angled parking be provided on the south side of the building, that no additional parking be allowed on the north side of the building and that ten additional parking spaces 'be provided west of the building for a total of at least 27 parking spaces for the business, (2) that handicapped parking spaces be provided and designated, (3) that a trash dumpster pad be provided in the 'southeast corner of the property, (4) that no curbing be removed on the south side of the building except that for the dumpster, (5) that at least 60 percent of the building's use be for warehousing and office use (6) that no area be paved for parking that is on street right -of -way, C7) that driving lanes between parking spaces be 25 feet wide for perpendicular parking or somewhat less for angled parking, (8) that sign size conform to Owasso ordinances, C9) that the electric service line be placed in conduit if it is paved and that the grade over the line not be changed, (10) that drainage plans be submitted if the grades of the borrow or drainage ditches are altered by grading or pavement, (11) that water and sewer lines be inspected if altered. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Scott Butler - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Elwood Henry - Yes Charles Willey - Yes motion carried, Owasso Planning Commission Minutes of February 18, 1988, Page 3 6. New Business - Richard Hall gave the Commissioners copies of a 1988 area corporate limits map and a copy of a paper that discussed the two -lane left -turn lane concept. Richard also informed the Commission of a Zoning Code change that would be proposed to the Commission at its next meeting and briefed the Commission on the progress of the Annexation Committee. 7. ADJOURN - Motion was made by Charles Willey and seconded by Elwood Henry to adjourn the meeting. A vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Scott Butler - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Elwood Henry - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date MEMORANDUM TO: Owasso Planning Commission FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Annexation Briefing DATE: March 4, 1988 As we have discussed, I have scheduled a special Planning Commission for March 10, 1988 to discuss a proposed annexation of property into the Owasso City limits. The Owasso Annexation Committee appointed by the City Council has met four times to discuss various aspects of the annexation and I have included the minutes of those meetings and various memorandums that I have written to the committee. I will try to answer your questions about state law, the committee's work and the proposed area to be annexed at the March 10th Planning Commission meeting. I have scheduled a Planning Commission meeting at the Owasso Community Center on March 17, 1988, at 7:00 P.M. to hear comments from the public. I expect the March 17th meeting to be exciting because I have already received many phone calls on the annexation. The City Council will probably hear the proposal in April. 1 OWASSO ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 15, 1987, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 SOUTH CEDAR, OWASSO MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Ray Haynes Charles Willey Bob Allen Pat Imbriano (guest) Erick Baker Stacy Lamb Ralph Griffin Pat Marlar Richard Hall R. J. Ray Terry Thurman Richard Hall called the meeting to order at 7:07 p. m. Richard Hall called for the election of a chairperson. Motion was made by Chief Baker and seconded by Pat Marlar to nominate Richard Hall as chairman. Ray Haynes moved that nominations cease. The vote on the motion to elect Richard Hall as chairman was 8 -0 -1, Hall abstaining, the motion carried. The Committee discussed the charge of the City Council. R. J. Ray distributed a memorandum to the City Council from him outlining the recommended scope of services of the Committee. Pat Marlar said that she would like the Committee to recommend a policy statement that, if adopted by the City Council, may be given to land owners concerning the annexation of property. The statement could be used to determine if properties meet standards to be annexed. She said that the policy should be for a set time period, maybe five years. Richard Hall reviewed the status of existing and proposed state laws. The Committee discussed taxing properties that have been annexed without providing city services. The committee discussed the cost of providing city services per square mile, for the fenceline area and for a portion of the fenceline. The Committee discussed development standards in the city limits and in outlying areas. The need for inspections and "as built" construction plans was also discussed. The need for public hearings on proposed annexations was discussed. The concept of city extra- territorial jurisdiction and the need for the same development standards for Owasso and the surrounding counties was also discussed. The Committee discussed utility line standards outside of the city limits. Terry Thurman was given the task of making a map of water and sewer lines outside in the fenceline area. The Committee discussed Special Assessment District requirements to improve public facilities in an area before it is annexed to the city. Mr. Ray told the Committee that no city 1 taxes are allowed to be placed on a property if it is annexed to a city unless it is voted by the residents. He said that current city taxes amounted to one mill in 108 mills of Tulsa County taxes. Richard Hall was given the task of providing city limits maps to all of the Committee members. Chief Baker said that Owasso needed to square up city limits boundaries and annex those highway rights -of -way that are not in the corporate limits. The Committee discussed corridor zoning and the Owasso Comprehensive Plan. Richard Hall was given the task of researching corridor landuse policies in the Comprehensive Plan update. Stacy Lamb discussed the current status of fenceline development. He said that per acre costs were $4,000 to develop to rural standards and $25,000 to develop to city standards. He said that there were two types of home buyers in the area: first time owners and those wanting to buy acreages. There was discussion that the policy of annexing regular limits may be in contrast to the policy of annexing only those additions that meet city standards. The Committee discussed when it would meet next. It was generally agreed that the Committee should meet once a month until the first of 1988 and then twice a month until a recommendation is made to the City Council. The next meeting of the Committee was set for November 16, 1987. The Committee asked Richard Hall to invite planners from other cities to the next meeting to see how other cities manage annexation requests. The following assignments were given: Terry Thurman given the task to map existing water and sewer lines outside of the city limits. Chief Allen was given the task of locating fire hydrants in the fenceline area and proposing new fire stations there. Ralph Griffin was given the task of calculating the costs of bringing the fenceline streets up to city standards. Chief Baker was given the task of calculating the cost to provide police protection in the area, including the cost of a possible police substation. Richard Hall was given the task of providing current maps to the Committee members, providing Comprehensive plans to the Committee and obtaining a copy of the Oklahoma Municipal League proposal on state annexation law changes. There being no further business, the meeting was adiourned at 8:32 p. m. Chairman Date 2 OWASSO ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1987, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 SOUTH CEDAR, OWASSO MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Ray Haynes Stacy Lamb Bob Allen Pat Marlar Erick Baker John Phillips (guest) Ralph Griffin Charles Willey Richard Hall R. J. Ray Cin 7:10) Call to Order Richard Hall called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Minutes of October 15, 1987 Motion was made by Pat Marlar and seconded by Ray Haynes to approve the Minutes of October 15, 1987. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen,- Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Fat Marlar - Yes R. J. Ray - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The motion carried. Reports from Chief Allen, Chief Baker and Richard Hall Chief Allen gave a lengthy presentation about Fire Department needs if city limits boundaries are expanded. He discussed the need for a new fire station, more manpower, extension of water lines to fight fires, new rolling stock, encroachment into existing rural volunteer fire fighting districts and insurance ratings. He proposed that the city limits be set at 66th St. N. on the south, 126th St. N. on the north, 145th E. Ave. on the east and Memorial Dr. on the west. Chief Baker distributed a memo and gave a report on Police Department needs in three scenarios of city expansion. He explained what Police Department policy presently was in responding to assistance calls outside of the city limits. He said that city expansion to 145th E. Ave. was reasonable and that there was a need to establish regular boundaries to administer police protection in the city. Richard Hall distributed a memo and reported on street conditions east of the present city limits in Tulsa and Rogers Counties. He discussed with the Committee the costs of upgrading streets in those areas to city standards. The Committee examined maps of water and sewer lines both inside and outside of the present city limits. R. J. Ray briefed the Committee on the capacity of the sewer plant currently under construction. Other Business The Committee discussed boundaries proposed by the Fire and Police Chiefs in their reports. There was also discussion of drainage improvements in areas proposed to be annexed and changes in city government if large tracts are brought into the city limits. The Committee agreed that the next meeting would be on December 14 1987. adjourn Motion was made by Ray Haynes and seconded by Pat Marlar to adjourn the meeting. A vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen - Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Pat Marlar - Yes R. J. Ray - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The meeting was adjourned at 9:12. Chairman 1-11-88 Date 2 OWASSO ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1987, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 SOUTH CEDAR, OWASSO Due to inclement weather, the Annexation Committee meeting of December 14 was canceled and the following items on the agenda were continued to the next scheduled meeting on January 11, 1988: 1. Call to Order 2. Minutes of November 16, 1987 3. Continuation of the discussion of the locations of future fire stations - Fire Chief 4. Continuation of Discussion of Insurance Premium Rates of properties inside and outside of the city limits - Fire Chief 5. Report on the projected capital cost of fire stations - City Manager G. Report of City Attorney's opinion concerning private water and sewer payback to initial line developers - City Manager 7. Discussion of Oklahoma Municipal League Annexation Committee Recommendation - City Planner 8. Discussion of Procedures for Annexation 1. Application and Fee 2. Public Notice 3. Review by a Standing Annexation Committee 4. Public Hearings 9. Discussion of Policies for Annexation i. Annexation of Perimeter Street Rights -of -Way 2. Minimum Size of Tract 3. Zoning or Rezoning of properties 4. Other Policies 10. Discussion of petitions for annexation - City Planner 11. Other Business 12. Adjourn Chairman 1-11-88 Date OWASSO ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 SOUTH CEDAR, OWASSO MEMBERS PRESENT Ray Haynes Tom Kimball (guest) Stacy Lamb (in 8:51) Pat Marlar (in 7:32) John Phillips Cguest) Charles Willey MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Bob Allen Erick Baker Ralph Griffin Richard Hall R. J. Ray 1. Call to Order Richard Hall called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Minutes of November 16, 1987 and December 14, 1987 Motion was made by Ray Haynes and seconded by Erick Baker to approve the Minutes of November 16 and December 14, 1987 as written. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen - Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes R. J. Ray - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The motion carried. 3 & 4. Continuation of the discussion of the locations of future fire stations and insurance premium rates of broperties inside and outside of the city limits Chief Allen presented a map to the committee and recommended the eventual construction of a fire substation in the square mile bounded by 116th St. N., 106th St. N., Garnett Road and 129th E. Ave. and the addition of a mini - pumper, a fire engine and four firefighters at the new substation. He further recommended the construction of a satellite fire station in the vicinity of 96th St. N. and 161st E. Ave. to serve the growth area east of Owasso. He informed the committee that the ISO insurance rating of the City of Owasso was a six and those areas outside of the city limits had a rating that varied from six to ten. The committee discussed that the residents of the city would not gain a more favorable insurance rating if the substations were built but the areas are annexed, but those annexed areas would receive a substantial insurance rating improvement. Bob also informed the committee that four fire fighters and a truck costing $60,000 to $90,000 would be necessary to man the station. He said that a police sub station could be built in conjunction with the fire station. There was discussion about the neighboring fire - fighting districts and how any Owasso annexation would affect them. 1 Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of January 11, 1988, Page 2 5. Report on the projected capital cos of fire stations The City Manager gave a report on the cost of a 5,000 sq. ft., six -bay drive- through fire station. He said that preliminary construction estimates varied from $125,000 to $140,000 which is $25.00 to 28.00 per square foot. He said that the he hopes that the cost will be from $110,000 to $120,000 using competitive bids. He said that the costs reflect construction cost, and not equipment, incidental costs or interior finish work. 6, Report of City Attorney's opinion concerning private water and sewer payback to initial line developers The City Manager reported on an opinion of the City Attorney on a question about whether a developer could charge another developer to tie to a utility line. The City Manager reported that the original developer that laid the line could charge the second developer to tie to a line. He said that the first developer must maintain the line until it is dedicated to the public. The line cannot be built on street right -of -way or existing easements. The line must also be built to city standards if it is to be dedicated to the city. There was discussion of the liability for the operation of the line and if a developer could terminate utilities that were on a line not owned by the city. The City Manager said that the city would not accept maintenance bonds on any line until the city took possession of the line and the city would accrue any utility revenue on any line. 7. Discussion of Oklahoma Municipal League Annexation Committee Recommendation Richard Hall briefed the committee on the current work of the Oklahoma Municipal League in making recommendations to the state legislature on future annexation legislation. He distributed legislation proposed by the OML to the committee. The committee discussed aspects of the proposal. The committee discussed doing what was best of Owasso in relation to possible state law changes. There was discussion about extra - territorial Jurisdiction of cities allowed by the OML proposal. 8. Discussion of Procedures for Annexation The committee and Richard Hall discussed current and proposed procedures for annexation to Owasso: application and fee, public notice, review by a standing annexation committee and public hearings. There was specific discussion about the procedures of annexation of large tracts to make regular city limits. There was discussion about the establishment of a standing committee to review annexation applications in addition to the Technical Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. There was discussion of providing a map of property to be annexed in the newspaper legal notices. A procedure was established as follows: review by committee, public notice, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The notices would contain a map, text, and dates, locations and times of Planning Commission and City Council Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of January 11, 1988, Page 3 hearings. There would be notices for two consecutive weeks before the Planning Commission and two similar notices before the City Council. 10. Discussion of a Petition for Annexation Richard Hall informed the committee of a request by Bill Lewis to annex his client's property into Owasso. 9. Discussion of Policies for Annexation The committee discussed the annexation of street rights -of- way, minimum size of tract of property to be annexed, zoning or rezoning of annexed properties, and other policies. The committee agreed to not annex to the center of a street, but to the edge of the street, if possible. The committee agreed not to specify a minimum tract size for property to be annexed but agreed that a tract must be contiguous to existing city limits. The committee agreed to leave as is the Zoning Code provision that all property be zoned AG, agricultural, upon its annexation into the city. Finally, the committee agreed that substandard subdivision improvements be upgraded at the owners expense by the establishment of special assessment districts when subdivision land owners petition for annexation to the city limits. 11. Other Business There was no Other Business. 12. Adjourn Motion was made by Pat Marlar and seconded by Ray Haynes to adjourn the meeting. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen - Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Stacy Lamb - Yes Pat Marlar - Yes R. J. Ray - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Chairman Date OWASSO ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 1988, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 SOUTH CEDAR, OWASSO MEMBERS PRESENT Ray Haynes Stacy Lamb Pat Marlar John Phillips Cguest) Charles Willey MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT None Bob Allen Erick Baker Ralph Griffin Richard Hall R. J. Ray Cin 7:10) 1. Call to Order Richard Hall called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Minutes of January 11, 1987 Motion was made by Ray Haynes and seconded by Pat Marlar to approve the Minutes of January 11, 1988 as written. A vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen - Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Stacy Lamb - Yes Pat Marlar - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The motion carried. 3_ Consideration and Vote on Procedures for Annexation for City Petition and Private Party Petition The Committee discussed the following proposed procedures for annexation: 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. Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of February 15, 1988, Page 2 CITIZEN SPONSORED ANNEXATION: 1. Submission to the City Planner of an application and petition and a administrative fee as proscribed 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. The Committee discussed whether citizens petitioning for annexation of property should pay for city services and it discussed the assessment of ad valorem taxes on annexed properties. Motion was made by Pat Marlar and seconded by Stacy Lamb to adopt the procedures as presented. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen - Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Stacy Lamb - Yes Pat Marlar - Yes R. J. Ray - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The motion carried. 4. Consideration and Vote on Annexation Policies The Committee discussed following proposed Annexation Policies: 1, While there is no minimum tract size, properties of larger than 20 acres are preferable. 2. All properties should be contiguous to existing city limits. 3. All properties should be annexed into the city limits as the lowest zoning classification, that is, AG, agricultural. Land owners may then petition for rezoning if they desire further development of their property. All Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of February 15, 1988, Page 3 legal uses annexed into the city will be legal but non- conforming which means that they may continue but cannot be expanded without proper zoning. 4. All public facilities that do not meet city standards will not be improved by the city until brought to the city standard and accepted by the City Council. Such public facilities must be improved at owners expense by the establishment of a special assessment district or some other financing method. 5. Where a city limit boundary ends at a dedicated street, the boundary will not include the street right -of -way. This policy will establish consistency and allow city employees and citizens to know where the city boundaries are. 6. Properties that are rejected for annexation should not be considered for annexation for a six month period after rejection by the City Council. Motion was made by Pat Marlar and seconded by Ray Haynes to adopt the proposed policies as submitted. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen - Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Stacy Lamb - Yes Pat Marlar - Yes R. J. Ray - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The motion carried. 5. Discussion of the Estimated Cost of Streets in Areas Proposed to be Annexed Richard Hall presented a final report on the costs of upgrading streets in fair and poor condition. The Committee discussed those costs. He informed the Committee that the streets in Tulsa County would cost about $1,853,560 to bring to a good condition while the streets in Rogers County would cost about $7,020,708 to bring to a similar standard. 6. Discussion and Vote on the Area that the Committee Recommends be Annexed into Owasso The Committee examined the following advantages and disadvantages of annexing additional property into the city limits: The following problems and costs will have to be addressed if a large area is annexed into the City Limits: Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of February 15, 1988, Page 4 1. City trash service will need to be extended to the annexed area, 2. Those 291 city water customers now outside of the city limits and paying a higher water rate will receive the city rate if annexed. Those customers now pay $7,500.57 per month. Those customers will pay $3,775.29 per month if their property is annexed, 3. There will be increased costs for code and inspections and police enforcement, and fire protection services as well as the costs of a new fire substation, police squad room, fire fighting equipment and police cars and equipment, 4. There will increased street maintenance costs, 5. There may be costs to extend water and sewer utility trunk lines, 6. There will be increased costs to buy rural water district customers as specified by district court rulings, 7. There will be no revenue gain to cover the above increased costs. The city will see the following advantages if large nearby areas are annexed into the city limits: 1. It will more easily be able to regulate land use and set building standards and "clean up" nearby areas that are commonly thought to be Owasso, 2. There will be well defined city limits that will be easier to administer and serve than the present irregular shaped city limits area, 3. Much of the surrounding area is already receiving Owasso police, fire and utilities services for which considerable investments have already been made by the city of Owasso. The Committee also discussed the estimated population of the area near Owasso. The Committee discussed the loss of rural water customers and rural ambulance district fees. The Committee discussed its recommendation of the boundaries of the area to be annexed into the city limits. Motion was made by R. J. Ray and seconded by Erick Baker to recommend annexation of the area bounded on the north by 126th Street North, on the south by 69th Street North, on the west by Memorial Drive and on the east by 145th East Avenue plus one square mile bounded by Sheridan Road, Memorial Drive, 76th St. North and 86th St. North. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen - Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Stacy Lamb - Yes Pat Marlar - Yes R. J. Ray - Yes Charles 'Willey - Yes The motion carried. Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of February 15, 1988, Page 5 7. Other Business The Committee discussed presenting its recommendation at the next regular public hearing of the Planning Commission. 8. Adjourn Motion was made by Ray Haynes and seconded by Pat Marlar to adjourn the meeting. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Bob Allen - Yes Erick Baker - Yes Ralph Griffin - Yes Richard Hall - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Stacy Lamb - Yes Pat Marlar - Yes J. Ray - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Chairman February 19, 1988 Date MEMORANDUM TO: Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Organizational meeting of the Annexation Committee and information on annexation laws and procedures DATE: October 9, 1987 CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP The membership of the Annexation Committee has now been set: from the City Council Stacy Lamb Pat Marlar from the Planning Commission Ray Haynes Charles Willey from City Staff Bob Allen, Fire Chief Erick Baker, Police Chief Ralph Griffin, O. P. W. A. Manager Terry Thurman, Water and Sewer Superintendent Richard Hall, City Planner FIRST COMMITTEE MEETING I propose that we have an organizational meeting on October 15, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. to conduct the following business: 1. elect a chairperson, 2. set a meeting time and place for subsequent meetings, 3. discuss our mission, and 4. start a discussion about current state annexation laws. and local annexation procedures. THE OWASSO ANNEXATION SITUATION Owasso now has a fenceline area of about 57 square miles. Of that area only about four square miles is in the corporate limits. Since the land inside the fenceline is essentially reserved for the future annexation of Owasso, the city could conceivably expand to more than 14 times its current size. Utility limes will be particularly expensive to construct in the fenceline area because rock is very near the surface of the ground, as it is in many other places of the city. Street paving will also be necessary on most streets and roads in the fenceline area. It appears that only section line roads are paved in the Rogers County portion of the fenceline, and most of the section line roads could use some maintenance. Utility and street maintenance personnel would need to be hired. Concerning the protective services, manpower would also need to be increased, new police ears and fire trucks purchased, and police substations and fire stations built. More administrative personnel may also be necessary to regulate the unique land use situations now existing in the area. 1 PROPOSED STATE BILLS REGULATING ANNEXATION At least two state law bills have been proposed in the last legislative session to amend existing statutes. Under both of the bills a city is obligated to provide city services such as police and fire protection, water, sewer and trash collection if the city expands. Both bills prohibit the fenceline concept. One law, however recognizes that adjacent areas immediately outside of a city may have an affect on the city. It allows the city to regulate the development standards of adjacent areas without annexing the area. The larger cities in the state have had that authority and now it may be allowed to smaller cities. It seems to me that the proposal raises some interesting legal problems and the city will have some administrative costs in regulating building and utility construction outside of its boundaries. The Oklahoma Municipal League is opposed to both proposed state bills and has proposed a bill of its own. I have requested a copy of the OML proposal but it is still in a committee and it is not available yet. Until a new statute is adopted, we must work under the existing state law which I have outlined below. EXISTING STATE ANNEXATION LAWS The way the current annexation laws are structured, the Owasso City Council has the authority to annex in several different ways: 1. The City Council may annex on petition request of a majority of land owners. 2. The City Council may annex land without land owner consent that is already bounded on three sides by corporate limits. 3. The City Council may annex land without land owner consent that is adjacent to the city limits and is platted into lots of less than five acres size and if the subdivision has more than one house. 4. A city may be forced to annex land by district court if 3/4 of effected land owners present a petition to the City Council and are refused annexation by the Council. One tactic that is sometimes used by city councils to annex land is to first obtain consent of some large land owner to annex a tract of, say, 40 acres. Based on that consent, the city council may annex a narrow strip of land, commonly called a fenceline, around an area that it wants to preserve for eventual annexation. Another city may not then cross that fenceline to annex property. Since a fenceline must surround an area to be effective, the corporate limits surround an area on at least three sides. The city Council my therefore annex the whole area inside the fenceline, no matter how large, without any property owners consent because the state law allows a city to incorporate land that it surrounds on three sides (see method number 2 above). Those fenceline properties that are not wanted may then easily be detached by a following ordinance so that only specifically desired properties are permanently annexed into the city limits. 2 ANNEXATION POLICY OPTIONS UNDER EXISTING LAW Based on the above outlined authority granted by the existing state law, the following policy options are available to the City Council: 1. Annex only the vacant undeveloped land in the fenceline and require that future development there develop to Owasso standards. This approach is used by Broken Arrow. 2. Annex only large tracts into the city limits, developed or rot. This approach is used by Sapulpa, Jenks, Glenpool and Bixby. Our City Council may specify that only tracts of a minimum size of perhaps a quarter or half square mile are annexed at a time. This method is usually helpful to police and fire departments because it is easier to know if an emergency call is in or out of the corporate limits. A problem with this method is that a city may annex developed additions that are not constructed to city specifications. There is then at least a political obligation to bring those areas to city standards. 3. Annex on a case -by -case basis. This approach is used by Broken Arrow and, apparently, by Owasso. Since an owner must petition the City Council to have his land annexed, there are no citizens that are upset because their land was annexed without their consent. Corporate limits are very irregular though, and administration is more difficult and confusing because of the irregularity. 4, Annex no new land. I do not know of any nearby city, with the exception of Sperry, that follow this strategy. The advantages to this method is that city revenues are not spent to administer or bring newly annexed areas to city standards. Since Oklahoma cities are limited to sales taxes, grants and some property taxes in the raising of funds, there is little revenue advantage in the annexation of residential land. Since no resources are spent on administration or upgrading annexed areas, more attention may be dedicated to those areas of a city that have acute problems while those areas outside the city limits are left to solve their own development and protection problems. Enclosed for your reading pleasure is a copy of the current state law regarding annexation. Much of the law does not relate to our situation but you may find it interesting. I have also enclosed copies of the two proposed state house bills numbers 1051 and 1203 that, if adopted, may change the rules on annexation. Finally, I have enclosed a map showing the city limits of area communities. Note, if you will, the character of those other cities' boundaries. I hope to see you on October 15th at 7:00 p.m. If you cannot attend that first Annexation Committee meeting, please call me at 272-2251 and inform me where and when you would care to have future meetings. 3 Annexation An Overview (Title 11 of the Oklahoma Statutes Section 21 -101 and 53 (ii) mailing a copy to all owners of property in the area to be annexed. c. County Commissioners hold hearing on the peti- tion. d. County Commissioners issue an order declaring annexation upon a finding that the petition should be granted. e. The order is filed and recorded with the county clerk. f. A copy of the order is filed in the town's archives. 3. Town files with the county election board a revised map of the town immediately following annexation. 26 O.S.1981 Sec. 13 -107. Procedure For Cities: 1. CONSENT: Must obtain written consent or request of the owners of a majority of the acres to be annexed. (11 O.S. 1981, Section 21 -103) 2. WITHOUT CONSENT OR NOTICE: neither consent from nor notice to any person is required when: (11 O.S. 1981, Section 21 -103) a. The territory is subdivided into tracts of less than 5 acres and has more than one residence; or b. 3 sides of the territory are adjacent or con- tiguous to property already within the municipal limits. Note that the territory must be touching along the full length of each of the 3 sides. 3. STRIP OR FENCE LINE ANNEXATION: This is not a separate method but merely is a particular appli- cation of the procedure for annexation by consent often in combination with the procedure for annexa- tion of territory bounded by the city on three sides. Following is an example of how it works. A person owning 40 acres may petition the city council to annex his land. Additional land totalling not more than 39 acres is included in the proposed annexation ordinance either on the motion of the City or by amendment of the petition by property owner at the city's request. This additional land would be in the shape of a strip running parallel with existing city boundaries so that the city or some Portion of it is enclosed on all sides by the strip which may be as narrow as two feet. The city then accepts the annexation petition under the statutory Provision allowing annexation upon the consent of the owners of a majority of the acres. If the fur- thermost point where the strip annexation originated is one mile from the existing city limits, the city has surrounded by annexation all unin- corporated territory within one mile of its boundary. It is important to note that the surrounding unincor- porated territory is not part of the municipality and so is not subject to municipal regulation or taxation. following) Annexation is a legislative act of the municipal govern- ing body and must be accomplished by ordinance. Reaso : 1. Fringe areas. 2. Increase tax base. 3. Protect against encroachment. Territory Which May Be Annexed: 1. Must be adjacent or contiguous to the municipal boundaries: a, actually touching existing corporate limits (11 O.S. 1981, Section 21 -101) b. exception: may be separated by a railway right - of -way or intervening strip less than 4 rods (rod is 16.5 feet). (11 O.S. 1981, Section 21 -102) 2. May cross county lines. 3. Annexed territory does- not need to have a particular shape or be in a compact form nor must the municipality after annexation. 4. May include state and federal property but munici- pality may not interfere with those governments' t exercise of sovereignty. Procedure By Petition Of Owners: 1. Petition signed by at least 3/4 of registered voters and owners of at least 3/4 (in value) of the property in the territory to be annexed. 2. Appeal to district court if petition denied. Procedure For Towns: 11 O.S. 1981, Section 21 -104 1. Lots Platted and Recorded: a. Governing body may annex such adjacent lots as it deems desirable without a petition from pro- perty owners. b. It is not necessary to obtain consent of or give prior notice to the property owners or any other person or public body. 2. Lots not Platted and Recorded: a. Town petitions the board of county commis- sioners. b. Town gives 30 days prior notice by: (i) publication; and 53 (ii) mailing a copy to all owners of property in the area to be annexed. c. County Commissioners hold hearing on the peti- tion. d. County Commissioners issue an order declaring annexation upon a finding that the petition should be granted. e. The order is filed and recorded with the county clerk. f. A copy of the order is filed in the town's archives. 3. Town files with the county election board a revised map of the town immediately following annexation. 26 O.S.1981 Sec. 13 -107. Procedure For Cities: 1. CONSENT: Must obtain written consent or request of the owners of a majority of the acres to be annexed. (11 O.S. 1981, Section 21 -103) 2. WITHOUT CONSENT OR NOTICE: neither consent from nor notice to any person is required when: (11 O.S. 1981, Section 21 -103) a. The territory is subdivided into tracts of less than 5 acres and has more than one residence; or b. 3 sides of the territory are adjacent or con- tiguous to property already within the municipal limits. Note that the territory must be touching along the full length of each of the 3 sides. 3. STRIP OR FENCE LINE ANNEXATION: This is not a separate method but merely is a particular appli- cation of the procedure for annexation by consent often in combination with the procedure for annexa- tion of territory bounded by the city on three sides. Following is an example of how it works. A person owning 40 acres may petition the city council to annex his land. Additional land totalling not more than 39 acres is included in the proposed annexation ordinance either on the motion of the City or by amendment of the petition by property owner at the city's request. This additional land would be in the shape of a strip running parallel with existing city boundaries so that the city or some Portion of it is enclosed on all sides by the strip which may be as narrow as two feet. The city then accepts the annexation petition under the statutory Provision allowing annexation upon the consent of the owners of a majority of the acres. If the fur- thermost point where the strip annexation originated is one mile from the existing city limits, the city has surrounded by annexation all unin- corporated territory within one mile of its boundary. It is important to note that the surrounding unincor- porated territory is not part of the municipality and so is not subject to municipal regulation or taxation. However, it has been surrounded on three sides so as to fall within the provision which allows annexation without consent of the property owners when three sides of the territory to be annexed are adjacent or contiguous to property already in the municipal limits. This means that the governing body may annex the area at any time without notice to or consent of the property owners. This may be done at the same meeting at which the city annexed the strip. Also cities may create a strip to enclose a smaller area on three sides. 4. FILING OF ANNEXATION DOCUMENTS a. The mayor shall file the annexation ordinance with a map or plat of the annexed territory with the county clerk. b. The city shall file with the county election board a revised map of the city immediately following annexation. 26 O.S. 1981 Sec. 13 -107. CONSEQUENCES: I. The municipality assumes responsibility for county roads within annexed territory. 2. It must provide services in a nondiscriminatory manner to newly annexed areas: This does not require immediate provision of services other than police and fire protection. 3. Special districts (e.g. rural water or sewer district, electric cooperatives, fire protection districts) may continue to serve units which were customers at the time of annexation. Municipalities now are subject to antitrust liability unless the state has authorized a monopoly. 4. Municipal zoning and other ordinances, taxes and health and safety regulations apply immediately upon annexation. MEMORANDUM TO: The Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Advantages and Disadvantages of administratively annexing land in the fenceline in Tulsa County DATE: February 15, 1988 The following problems and costs will have to be addressed if a large area is annexed into the City Limits: 1. City trash service will need to be extended to the annexed area, 2. Those 291 city water customers now outside of the city limits and paying a higher water rate will receive the city rate if annexed. Those customers now pay $7,500.57 per month. Those customers will pay $3,775.29 per month if their property is annexed, 3. There will be increased costs for code and inspections and police enforcement, and fire protection services as well as the costs of a new fire substation, police squad room, fire fighting equipment and police cars and equipment, 4. There will increased street maintenance costs, 5. There may be costs to extend water and sewer utility trunk lines, 6. There will be increased costs to buy rural water district customers as specified by district court rulings, 7. There will be no revenue gain to cover the above increased costs. The city will see the following advantages if large nearby areas are annexed into the city limits: 1. It will more easily be able to regulate land use and set building standards and "clean up" nearby areas that are commonly thought to be Owasso, 2. There will be well defined city limits that will be easier to administer and serve than the present irregular shaped city limits area, 3. Much of the surrounding area is already receiving Owasso police, fire and utilities services for which considerable investments have already been made by the city of Owasso. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: The Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Households and Population in the Tulsa County Owasso fenceline DATE: February 15, 1988 The following table shows the approximate number of households and the approximate population in the square mile sections of the Owasso fenceline outside of the city limits but in Tulsa County. Population was calculated by multiplying the number of households by 2.92, the number of people per household according to the State of Oklahoma. The April, 1987 population of the City of Owasso was 9914 which includes 3275 households and 350 people in group quarters. Section Township Range Households Population 4 -21 -14 50 146 5 -21 -14 92 269 6 -21 -14 52 152 7 -21 -14 4 12 8 -21 -14 64 187 9 -21 -14 15 44 16 -21 -14 102 298 17 -21 -14 59 172 18 -21 -14 1 3 19 -21 -14 12 35 20 -21 -14 6 18 21 -21 -14 15 44 28 -21 -14 47 137 29 -21 -14 0 0 30 -21 -14 1 3 31 -21 -14 5 15 1 32 -21 -14 65 190 33 -21 -14 59 172 1 -21 -13 62 181 12 -21 -13 30 88 13 -21 -13 60 175 24 -21 -13 21 61 25 -21 -13 18 53 26 -21 -13 41 120 36 -21 -13 0 0 881 2575 2 MEMORANDUM TO: The Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Cost of Road Improvements in the Fenceline Area DATE: February 15, 1988 PROCEDURE The calculation of the attached road improvements costs involved several steps. First, street conditions were graded in tine feneeline area. The area examined was from 66th St. North to 126th St. North and from Sheridan Road to 241st East Avenue. About 36 square miles were in Rogers County and about 25 in Tulsa County. After the streets were examined, the second step was to make assumptions concerning the cost to bring them to a good condition. The third step of the study was to prepare a simple computer spreadsheet showing each square mile in the study area and the lengths of each grade of street -good fair and poor - in each square mile. The street lengths were then multiplied by a construction cost which would bring all streets to a good condition. All costs were determined by square mile and are listed and totaled after this discussion. ASSUMPTIONS General assumptions were made concerning street costs. First, to bring a street in poor condition to a good standard, it was assumed that it would cost $22.00 per running foot. This cost would allow for a 6 1/2" thick overlay of asphalt. The cost figure is conservative and includes some preparation work before the overlay. A $12.00 per foot cost was assumed for a 2" course of asphalt to improve a street from fair to good condition. Both above costs include material, labor and machinery. It was assumed that all streets would be 24 feet wide and that minimal work would be done to improve existing barrow ditch drainage conditions. There was also no attempt to bring streets in the study area to the width standard recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. That is, no four, five or six lane streets were included in these calculations. indeed, the plan only extends east to 177th East Avenue so there is no street plan for a large area of the fenr_.eline. No costs were calculated to improve streets already in good condition. It was further assumed that all section line streets calculations would be taken from the center of the street. No mention is made here to those who will pay for street improvements: Owasso, Rogers County, Tulsa County or the residents of the additions where street improvements are necessary. RESULTS: To improve the streets to a good condition in the 36 square miles of the Owasso feneeline in Rogers County it will cost approximately :57,000,000. To improve the streets to a similar standard in the 2.5 square miles of the Owasso feneeline in Tulsa County it will cost approximately $1,900,000. 1 STREET CONDITIONS AND COSTS TO BRING STREETS IN ROGERS COUNTY IN THE FENCELINE TO GOOD CONDITION SQUARE STREET TYPE MILE # STREET CONDITION STREET LENGTHS IN FEET (S -T -R) 1 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 2 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 3 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 10 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 11 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 12 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 13 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR Gi 0 2,640 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,260 3,640 7,920 5,280 0 9 0 A 9, 280 Lei no 26,500 5,000 0 6,600 10,400 3,700 13,980 6, 300 21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 15 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 22 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 23 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 24 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 25 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 26 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 27 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 10,560 7,920 7,920 10,560 5,280 2,640 0 2,640 7,920 7, 920 1,560 4,300 5,899 13,300 14,200 8,500 91000 6,100 24,200 3, 900 3,500 4,000 21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 35 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 36 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 4 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 5 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 6 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 7 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 3 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR VA90-YAW 4,620 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 1,320 2,640 2,640 5,280 0 3,960 2,320 2,640 6,300 3,600 10,720 5,280 20,680 12, 100 2,000 11 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 1,320 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 16 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 1,320 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 17 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 5,280 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 18 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 2,640 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 31 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR SECTION LINE FAIR POOR TOTAL FOOTAGE 120,780 56,480 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST $12.00 PER FOOT FOR GOOD $1,449,360 STREET CONDITION TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST $22.00 PER FOOT FOR GOOD STREET CONDITION RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 116,019 133,480 $1,392,228 $1,242,560 $2,936,560 GRAND TOTAL $7,020,708 COSTS TO BRING STREETS IN TULSA COUNTY IN THE FENCELINE TO GOOD CONDITION SQUARE STREET TYPE MILE # STREET CONDITION STREET LENGTHS IN FEET (S -T -R) 4 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,600 POOR 11000 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 2,500 5 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,600 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 6 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,000 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 7 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 8 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 2,600 POOR 0 9 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 4,300 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 16 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 1,500 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 5,500 POOR 2,000 21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 1,300 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 18 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,600 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 2,600 19 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 3,900 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 2,000 POOR 0 20 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 1,300 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 21 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 28 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 6,400 29 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 30 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 1,000 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 2,700 POOR 0 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 32 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 33 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 1 -21 -13 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 12 -21 -13 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 13 -21 -13 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 24 -21 -13 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 25 -21 -13 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 3,300 1, 300 0 2,600 2,600 2,600 1,950 2, 600 7,300 5,300 2,600 1,300 330 11600 2,000 5,800 4,500 21 -13 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 36 -21 -13 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR SECTION LINE TOTAL FOOTAGE TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST @ $12.00 PER FOOT FOR GOOD STREET CONDITION TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST @ $22.00 PER FOOT FOR GOOD STREET CONDITION 3,700 SECTION LINE FAIR POOR 52,350 5,700 $628,200 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 32,630 32,200 $391,560 $125,400 $708,400 GRAND TOTAL $1,853,560 MEMORANDUM TO: The Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Proposed Policies for the Annexation of Land to Owasso DATE: February 15, 1988 I have listed below the annexation policies that we discussed at our last meeting on January 11, 1988. 1. While there is no minimum tract size, properties of larger than 20 acres are preferable. 2. All properties should be contiguous to existing city limits. 3. All properties should be annexed into the city limits as the lowest zoning classification, that is, AG, agricultural. Land owners may then petition for rezoning if they desire further development of their property. All legal uses annexed into the city will be legal but non - conforming which means that they may continue but cannot be expanded without proper zoning. 4. All public facilities that do not meet city standards will not be improved by the city until brought to the city standard and accepted by the City Council. Such public facilities must be improved at owners expense by the establishment of a special assessment district or some other financing method. 5. Where a city limit boundary ends at a dedicated street, the boundary will not include the street right -of -way. This policy will establish consistency and allow city employees and citizens to know where the city boundaries are. 6. Properties that are rejected for annexation should not be considered for annexation for a six month period after rejection by the City Council. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: The Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Procedures for annexation DATE: February 15, 1988 I have outlined below two recommended procedures to annex property to Owasso. First, if the City Council directs an annexation of property, and second if a petition is submitted by land owners. It should be understood that the following scenarios will change if state laws change but both procedures meet or exceed present state law requirements. 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 a administrative fee as proscribed 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 recommiendation 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, 1 CITIZEN SPONSORED ANNEXATION, CONTINUED: 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. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Owasso Planning Commission FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Request to TMAPC to waive the platting requirement DATE: March 4, 1988 On March 3, 1988 I received a notice from the Tulsa Metropolitan Planning Commission that a company had requested that the requirement to plat a tract be waived on a property near Owasso. The Tulsa County Zoning Code, like the Owasso Zoning Code, requires that property be platted if it is rezoned. The property in question shown on the attached map has recently been zoned IL, light industrial, and the owner now wants to expand an existing building without going through the subdivision process. Since the tract is near Owasso, the TMAPC staff has asked our recommendation. I have sent the request to Ralph Griffin, the Owasso Public Works Director. I have not yet sent memos to our Technical Advisory Committee to ask their opinion.' I hope to bring more information on this matter to the March 10th meeting. WAIVER REQUEST: SECTION 260 TAC: 3/10/88 PC: 3/16/88 CZ -161 (Unplatted)(3214) N of NE/c E 69th St.N & Mingo Valley Expy. (IL) This is a request to waive plat on a tract of approximately 22 acres at the above location. Applicant is expanding the existing use to the south which was in place prior to zoning 1/24/75 (Z- 4737). This area is part of a special study approved by TMAPC 12/4/74, allowing industrial uses along the expressway in this location. Other zoning and Board of Adjustment cases have been processed since the special study. Only one plat was ever processed in this area, at the NE/c E 66th St. N & the expressway. That plat was never completed and expired. Owners of the property to the south of this application are also the applicant in this request. Board of Adjustment approval was granted on a setback variance 9/25/81 and a building permit issued. (Property was "subject to platting" at that time). (Case #1:15) No plat waiver application has ever been processed on this property even though permits have been issued. Since this tract only involves about 2z acres, and rights -of -way are already dedicated, the applicant may be able to meet the provisions of Section 260 if the following conditions are met: (a) Grading and drainge approval by the County Enqineer through the permit process. (Check minimum floor elevation if required.) (b) Health Department approval of septic system if required. (c) Grant utility easements if required by utilities. (Applicant should be made aware of screen fencing requirements through the building permit process.) TULSA AREA APPROVAL REQUESTED: SKETCH