Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988.03.17_Planning Commission AgendaNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING OF THE OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION TYPE OF MEETING: Regular Scheduled Meetina DATE: March 17, 1988 TIME: 7:00 -p.m. PLACE: Owasso Community Center, 301 S. Cedar, Owasso. Oklahoma NOTICE FILED BY: RICHARD HALL TITLE: OWASSO CITY PLANNER FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE OWASSO CITY CLERK AT 1:00 p.m. ON March 11, 1988. JANE BUCHANAN, CITY CLERK OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING Thursday, March 17, 1988, 7:00 p.m. Owasso Community Center Hail, 301 S. Cedar, Owasso, Oklahoma 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Consider approval of the Minutes of March 10, 1988 SITE PLAN REVIEW 4. Kimball's Hardware (2914) - 8301 N. Mingo Valley Expressway, Lot 14 of Block 3 of the Three Lakes Addition to Owasso. ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING 5. Discussion of issues concerning the annexation of land bounded by 69th Street North, 126th Street North, 145th East Avenue and Sheridan Road into the Owasso City Limits, and vote on a recommendation to the City Council concerning that annexation. G. New Business 7. Adjourn 1 OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 10, 1988, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 S. CEDAR MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Scott Butler Ray Haynes Richard Hall Elwood Henry Charles Willey R. J. Ray Pat Imbriano The agenda for the meeting was posted in the Owasso City Hall, 207 S. Cedar, on March 8, 1988. 1. CALL TO ORDER - Action Chairman Elwood Henry called the meeting to order at 7:05 p. m. 2. ROLL CALL - Richard Hall called the roll. 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 1988 - The Commission reviewed the Minutes of February 18, 1988. Motion was made by Scott Butler and seconded by Pat Imbriano to approve those Minutes as written. A roll call vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Scott Butler - Yes Elwood Henry - Yes Pat Imbriano - Yes motion carried. 4. PROPOSED ANNEXATION REVIEW - The staff and the Planning Commission discussed the issues concerning the annexation of property bounded by 69th St. North, 126th St. North, 145th East Ave. and Sheridan Road into the Owasso City Limits and the recommendation of the Owasso Annexation Committee. No action or vote was taken by the Commission on the matter. 5. PLAT WAIVER CONSIDERATION - Richard Hall briefed the Commission about a request to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission to waive the platting requirement on an IL zoned 2 1/2 acre property located north of the northeast corner of 69th St. North and the Mingo Valley Valley Expressway. The Commission discussed the proposal. Motion was made by Scott Butler and seconded by Pat Imbriano to recommend that the land owner dedicate the standard 17.5 feet wide perimeter utility easement on the property in addition to the requirements of TMAPC and the County Engineer if the plat requirement is waived. A vote on the motion was recorded as follows: Scott Butler - Yes Elwood Henry - Yes Pat Imbriano - Yes motion carried. Owasso Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 1988, Page 2 6. NEW BUSINESS - Richard Hall informed the Commission that there would be a site plan review at the March 17, 1988 Commission meeting in addition to the annexation public hearing. He also told the Commission of two zoning cases on the April Planning Commission agenda. 7. ADJOURN - Motion was made by Scott Imbriano to adjourn the meeting. A recorded as follows: Scott Butler Elwood Henry Pat Imbriano The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Butler and seconded by Pat vote on the motion was - Yes - Yes - Yes Chairman Secretary Date MEMORANDUM TO: Owasso Planning Commission FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Site Plan for Kimball's Hardware, 8301 N. Mingo Valley Expressway, the west 230' of the south 230' of Lot 14, Block 3 of the Three Lakes Addition to Owasso DATE: March l5, 1988 Harold Brumley of Brumley Construction Company has submitted a site plan to construct a 25'x 150' addition to the east side of the existing metal building on the subject tract. The addition will be used for the warehousing of merchandise. Lot split OL-6 was approved by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1977 to split the property from the remainder of Lot 14. No additional easements were required as a condition of approval of the lot split but there is a 10' wide easement on the west end of the tract along the expressway service road. I have sent memos to the members of the Technical Advisory Committee on the site plan and I have received a phone call from Lee Miller of ONG. He asked that all easements be respected. Mr. Brumley shows an easement on the north 10 feet of the tract of which I have no record. If the easement is valid, a survey of the exact location of the building should be done so that the addition will not encroach into that easement. The structure does not now meet Zoning Code standards regarding parking. I consider the business to be non - conforming in that regard. There should be an additional 8 spaces, one for each 500 square feet for the proposed warehouse, however. 1 O.S.P.# PLAN DATE FEOS G ZONING CITY OF OWASSO $25 FEE PD. SITE PLAN APPLICATION_ TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT Retail Commercial Multi - Family Office Planned Unit Development Industrial Othern NAME OF DEVELOPMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND ADDRESS OF SITE 40 DEVELOPER Harold Brumley ENGINEER/ARCHITECH same(Design Bulider) ADDRESS 15515 E. Winding Creek Drive PNONE Collinsville 371-5287 or 371-4920 ENGINEER /ARCHITECT LOT INFORMATION Frontage Averoge depth Lot area Land area 30 feet 3v lees sq. ft. ft. SETBACK FROM NEAREST STRUCTURE Frontjfrom center of str eetl SITE INFORMATION Totol floor area (non- residentiali Total standard parking Handicapped parking spaces Loading berths F/PDAU r' No. of signs Total sign area sq. ft. RESIDENTIAL No. of single family No. of duplex dwellings Multi - family dwellings Total live.ab ility space INFORMATION dwellings 14,.units 20r morebr.units Please submit 18 copies of your site which should show the location, and dimensions of the following: lot boundaries, all easements and r.o.w.'s, sidewalks, parking and driveway areas, signs, ingresses and egresses to the public streets, buffer strips, landscaping, and trees. Please submit 2 copies of drainage plans, and any required utility construction plop;. FOR INTERNAL OFFICE USE TAC MEETING DATE: I OPC MEETING DATE: ACTION: ACTION: MEMORANDUM TO: Owasso Planning Commission FROM: Richard Hall, Owasso City Planner 9- l4 , SUBJECT: Annexation Public Hearing on March 17, 1988 DATE: March 15, 1988 The following memos and Annexation Committee Minutes is the same material that I gave you for the March 10, 1988 Planning Commission briefing. I am working on a statement to give to the public before we take citizen comments at the March 17th Public Hearing. I am including comments from the March 10th briefing in that statement but I have no new material now for this agenda. CWASSC ANNE.KAT ION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 15, 1987, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 SOUTH CEDAR, OWA.SSO 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 sevler lines outside in the fenceline area. The Commlittee discussed Srecial Assessment District requirements to improve public facilities in an area before it is anne:<ed to the city. Mr. Ray told the Committee that no city l 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. Rickard 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 Leagi_ie proposal on state annexation law changes. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p. m. Chairman Date OWASSO ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1987, 7:00 P. M. OWASSO CITY HALL, 207 SOUTH CEDAR, OWASSO ME.IfBERS 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 Pat Marlar - Yes R. J. Ray - Yes Charles Willey - Yes Tire notion carried. Reaorts 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. Adiourn 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 Datb 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 o: 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 6. 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 1. 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, 1933, 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 (guest) 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 gronerties 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 sip: and those areas outside of the city limits had a rating that varied from sit 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 V250, 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 Cation. There was discussion about the neighboring fire- fighting districts and how any Owasso annexation would affect them. Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of January 11, 1990, Page 2 5. Report on the projected Capital cost 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 If City Attornev's opinion concernine 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 lire 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 lire 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 Fullows: review by committee, public notice, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The notices would contain a map, teat, and dates, locations and times of Planning Commission and City Council Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of January 11, 1988, Page 3 hear4 S. 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. Ad.1ourn 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 Hail - Yes Ray Haynes - Yes Stacy Lamb - Yes Pat Narlar - 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 (guest) Charles Willey MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Dion-- Bob Allen Erick Baker Ralph Griffin Richard Hall R. J. Ray (in 7:10) I. 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 Prop_ --lures 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 Inap and text of 11L proposed annexation, f3. City Council hearing and action On the proposal, 7 If the proposal is a pproved by the City Council, all ordinance will he nr Ear:d, approved, published, and filed of reCOrd wild the off "ice of the County Clerk, with a map of the property annexed. Owasso Annexation Committee Minutes of February 15, 1988, Page 2 CITI %EN SPONSORED AAiN=E - A.TION: 1. Submission to t:`:e City Planner of an application and petition and a administrative fee as proscribed by ordinance, 2. P.evie.v by 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, 5. 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. Pay - Yes Charles Willey - Yes The motion carried. 4. COnSideratiOn. and Vote on Annexation Policies The Committee discussed following proposed Annexation Policies: 1. While thre 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 reoning 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 lard 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 LMarla- - Yes 1. J. Fray - Yes Ch:srles Willey - Yes The motion r_..arriera. 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 Date I MEMORANDUM TO: Cwasso Annexation Committee FROM: 3ichard 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 Alien, 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 lines 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 polli e cars and fire trucks purchased, and police substations and firs stations built. More administrative personnel may also be neces ary t,D the unique land use situations now existing in the area. 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 bit'ls 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 LAMS 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 ea3lly be detached by a following ordinance so that only specifically desired properties are permanently annexed into the city limits. 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 zhe 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 not. This approach is used by Sapulpa, Jenks, Glen-cool 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 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: I. 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 uriginn U:d is one mile from the. existing city limits, the city has surrounded by annexation all unin- corpurated 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. (Title 11 of the Oklahoma Statutes Section 21 -101 and following) Annexation is a legislative act of the municipal govern- ing body and must be accomplished by ordinance. Reasons: 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) j 2. May cross county lines. 3. Annexed territory doeTnot need to have a particular shape or be in a compact form nor must the f municipality after annexation. 4. May include state and federal property but munici- pality may not interfere with those governments' exercise of sovereignty. Procedure By Petition Of Ownem 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. rota not Plattud and Recorded: U. lawn petitions the board of county commis - _. wrineri. b. town gives 30 days prior notice hy: (i) publication; and t 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: I. 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 uriginn U:d is one mile from the. existing city limits, the city has surrounded by annexation all unin- corpurated 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 sines 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. 54 MEMORANDUM TO: The Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard Fall, Owasso City Planner SUBJECT: Advantages and Disadvantages of administratively annexing land in the fenceline in Tulsa County DATE: February 15, 1G88 The following problems and costs will have to be addressed if a large area is annexed into the City Limits: I. 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 ins_rections 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 area, 3 I zl o the ;e surrounding !rdin, area is already receiving Owasso police, fire and titities services for which considerable investments have :already been made by the city of Owasso. 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 R.ar. e 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 i8 21 -21 -14 15 44 28 -21 -14 47 137 2 1 -14 0 0 30- 21 -14 L 3 31 -21 -14 5 15 L 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 MEMORANDUM TO The Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard 'nail, Owasso City Planner DATE: 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 the fenceline 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 fenceline. 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 fenceline in Rogers County it will cost approximately $7,000,000. To improve the streets to a similar standard in the 25 square miles of the Owasso Fenceline 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 m 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 P,--,OR 1.3 -21 -L4 SECTION LINE FAIR J POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR C7 2,640 7,920 7,920 7,920 7,260 3,640 7,920 5,280 26,500 5,000 0 10,400 0 3,700 13,980 61300 1 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 10,560 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 8,000 POOR 0 15 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 7,920 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 11560 POOR 4,300 22 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 7,920 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 5,899 POOR 13,300 23 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 10,560 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 14,200 POOR 8,500 24 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 5,280 POOR 2,640 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 9,000 POOR 61100 25 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 2,640 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 0 POOR 0 26 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 7,920 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR 24,200 POOR 3,900 27 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 7,920 J POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR 3,500 POOR 4,000 4 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 4,620 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 35 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 2,640 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 36 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 0 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 4 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 1,320 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 5 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 3,960 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 6 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,640 POOR 2,320 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 7 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 5,280 POOR 2,640 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 8 -21 -15 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR 6,300 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 3,600 10,720 5,280 20,680 0 12, 100 0 2,000 9 -21 -15 SECTION LINE 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 :G 1, 242, 560 $2,936,560 GRAND TOTAL $7,020,708 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 $1,392,228 242, 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, 11500 POOR 0 J RESIDENTIAL FAIR 5,500 POOR 2,000 17 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 1,300 POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 18 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 2,600 POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 19 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 3,900 POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 20 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 1,300 POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 21 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 28 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 29 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 0 POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 30 -21 -14 SECTION LINE FAIR 1,000 POOR RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 31 -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 POOP. 3,300 1, 300 2,600 2,600 1,950 2,600 400 7,300 5,300 2, 600 1,300 330 1,600 0 2,000 5,800 4,500 26 -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 $125,400 2,000 11800 51 RESIDENTIAL FAIR POOR 32,630 32,200 $391,560 $708,400 GRAND TOTAL $1,853,560 MEMORANDUM TO: The Owasso Annexation Committee FROM: Richard Hail, 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. 11 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: I. 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. 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