Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984.02.16_Planning Commission MinutesMEMBERS PRESENT 3 OWASSO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, February 16, 1984, 7:30 p.m. Owasso City Hall MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT M. Hinkle P. Larkin C. Dickey R. Haynes M. Day G. Phillips 1. Chairman, M. Hinkle called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m., 2. roll was called and a quorum was declared present. 3. G. Phillips moved approval of the minutes of January 19, 1984 meeting as presented. R. Haynes seconded the motion. Aye: Hinkle, Haynes, Day, and Phillips. Nay: None. Motion carried 4 -0 -0. ANNEXATION REVIEW 4. Petition for Annexation - Elden Birks Staff reviewed the case history and the staff evaluation: The applicant requests annexation of 20 acres of vacant land immediately west of the Meadowcrest subdivision, west of 109th Street North and Garnett. The property is surrounded by resi- dential subdivisions zoned RS -1 inside the city limits on the north and east and by predominantly vacant agricultural land on the south and west. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the sub- ject tract as suitable for rural residential land use, the same as Meadowcrest. The property is not now served by the Owasso utilities or services. Direct access can be provided to the area by 110th St. N. The Plan shows one small area of develop- ment sensitive land along a creek that crosses the property. There do not appear to be any substantial characteristics of the land or its location that should keep the property from being annexed. Gerald Snow, purchaser of the property, and Burt Steinberg, engineer, spoke in support of the application stating they proposed to develop the property into a 37 half -acre lot subdivision that would hook onto Owasso water an ewer service. Mr. Snow said that he wished to develop the pro erty to Owasso subdivision standards except for streets which he wished to develop like the streets in Meadowcrest. Commis- sioners discussed the possibilities of the city council waiving the street standards for a new subdivision with Mr. Snow and the pros and cons of annexation - first versus developing - then - annexation. Mr. Snow stated that he could not build the subdivision if the street standards were not waived. Commissioners stated they did not know if 1 the council would waive street standards and pointed out that the city might not extend water or sewer service to non- annexed areas and might choose not to annex developed areas that did not meet city standards. Mr. Snow indicated the he would pursue the annexation at least to dis- cuss it with the city council. Commissioners indicated they had no concerns with annexation of the land into the city. G. Phillips moved approval of the annexation request. M. Day seconded the motion. Aye: Phillips, Day, Hinkle and Haynes. Nay: None. Motion carried 4 -0 -0. SUBDIVISION REVIEW 5. Elm Creek Commercial Corner Chairman Hinkle noted her intention to abstain from discussion and voting on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. G. Phillips, chaired this portion of the meeting. Staff reviewed the case history and staff comments: As you recall, the OPC continued action on the preliminary plat of Elm Creek Commercial Corner to allow the developer to redesign the plat. The amended plat is included with the agenda. The only amendments made to the plat are two accesses added to the arterial streets and mutual access easements sketched in linking the frontage lots. Also, included in a sketch of a pro- posed typical layout of the 50' commercial lot. Staff members have essentially the same comments regarding this form of the plat as they had last time. Planning staff feels that the amendments shown on the plat do not solve the problems of the plat discussed at the last meeting. Addition- al comments regarding this plat are: 1. The apartment lot should be extended north to 86th Street North to wrap the apartments and church around the commercial tract thus creating a buffer between the single family residential area and the commercial business. 2. By squaring off the commercial tract a new street and lot system could be designed, possibly with commercial lots backing up to the church and moving the access street farther north. 3. There are no commercial alleys shown. How will deli- very trucks, trash pick up and emergency services get to the buildings without blocking streets or parking lots? 4. Nine lots facing the two arterial streets will set up the situation where the new owners could all pursue 2 individual access approval on their lots, just as two businesses did recently on another commercial corner. 5. The typical layout sketch of a 50' lot would limit the building structure to a terribly small 1400 sq. ft. (a 19% building coverage) which would correspond to a 37' x 38' building, approximately 112 the size of the pro- posed Braums building. This would leave a large amount of underutilized open space, 2800 sq. ft., not includ- ing the paved parking area. Two of the parking spaces shown would be difficult to maneuver into. Also, the 10' turn radius is really too small, especially with 15 of them side by side. 6. Again, alternative design approaches should be consider- ed. A PUD or a condominium development could allow individual ownership of buildings but could provide reasonable, controlled access to the site and coordinat- ed, shared parking spaces and internal traffic circulation system. Staff cannot recommend approval of the plat in the current form. P.S., I included comments received today from ONG that express their concern about the plat. The letter refers to the TAC evaluation listed in the January 18 minutes. (The letter is attached to these minutes). Bob Pruitt, engineer for the applicants, discussed the changes he made on the plat regarding mutual access for lots facing 86th Street North and 129th East Avenue. He also discussed his sketch of the use of a typical 50' lot, paving of streets and turn lanes in to the proposed apartment lot location. Commissioners discussed specific points of the plat including direct access to the proposed apartments to 86th Street North, proposed streets, access points onto arterial streets, the lack of alleys shown, adequate on site parking for all lots and size of the small commercial lots. In answer to a question Pruitt said he anticipated parking on both sides to the mutual access easements for the lots fronting the arterial streets. D. M. Sokolosky, one of the applicants, spoke in favor of the proposed plat saying he wanted to provide small lots for small businesses in town, that there was no market for another large shopping center like Lakeridge, and that he was trying to make a nice office or commercial complex. Mark Enterline, owner of Lakeridge to the north, questioned the access points onto the arterials and asked how they compared to the access points approved for the Lakeridge Shopping Center. An extensive discussion of placement of access points followed along with discussion of all details of the plat and possible changes to the plat. R. Haynes summarized commissioners, concerns regarding frontage lots, and access, location of alleys and utility easements, access for apartments and parking on both sides of the mutual access easements. He stated that he had concerns regarding uniform setbacks for the 50' 3 lots due to the extensive depth of the lots. He also made the comment to the applicant that their (applicants') concern was to plat and sell the lots; the applicants would then be free but the citizens of Owasso would be stuck with the lot configuration and the development that will occur. Sokolosky reiterated his desire to have small individual lots in the configuration shown. He indicated he did not see or understand why the plat would cause any problems. After additional discussion, G. Phillips moved to deny the plat until the points in contention could be worked out and then to resubmit it later. M. Day seconded the motion. Phillips stated that he thought something could be worked out on the plat but that he didn't feel good about it the way it was and didn't think the commission did either. Staff pointed out that if the commission denied the plat the applicants would have to pay the application fee again to resubmit it. Phillips and Day then amended their motion to continue action on the plat to allow the applicant to revise and resubmit it. Aye: Phillips, Day and Haynes. Nay: None. (Minutes corrected per Motion carried 3 -0 -1. (Hinkle abstained) April 19, 1984 meeting) Sokolosky and Pruitt asked for direction on redesigning the plat and commissioners discussed several items with them. CODE REVIEW 6. Owasso Zonino Code Commissioners discussed revisions and additions to the draft of the Zoning Code. They also discussed a proposed fee schedule including changes in fees to be charged for zoning, board of adjustment, subdi- vision and annexation applications. They decided to continue discussion of the fee schedule until their March meeting. G. Phillips moved approval of the amendments to the zoning code as noted in the text. R. Haynes seconded the motion. Aye: Phillips, Haynes, Day and Hinkle. Nay: None. Motion carried 4 -0 -0. NEW AND GENERAL BUSINESS 7. Memos for Commissioners' Information No action was taken on this item. There being no further business to consider, M. Day moved to adjourn the meeting with G. Phillips seconding the motion. Aye: Phillips, Hinkle, Haynes and Day. Nay: None. Motion carried 4 -0 -0. 4 The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. Date Approved j /? 70� Chairman ATTEST: Se