IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING

LAW, THE AGENDA WAS POSTED JANUARY 16, 1998, IN THE

MUNICIPAL BUILDING AT 723 SOUTH LEWIS

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

1. Continue consideration of a request from Peter Thomas and Kendall Grindstaff for approval of a FINAL PLAT for Country Club Village, a residential subdivision to be located on the east side of the 1600 block of South Country Club. (FP-158) (To be tabled indefinitely)

City Planner Bryan Brown announced the off site easement is currently under negotiation and suggested the commission may desire to table this indefinitely.

2. Consider a request from Jon Stallings of Power Equipment and Engineering for approval of a SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR SITE PLAN for an office/warehouse to be located at 3324 North Perkins Road. (SP-194)

City Planner Brown provided the physical description, location, zoning, and surrounding uses of this request. This property has frontage on Perkins Road - a one-way, driveway loop is proposed around the building with the exit onto Perkins Road. Brown explained the layout of the 3,920 square foot building for the site - angled parking spaces are planned for the site due to the one-way nature of the driveway system. Brown noted the applicant has agreed to place a 16-foot, handicap parking space on the site. With regards to the sidewalk, Brown revisited the site plan and explained the location. There will be an area to the back of the site which does qualify for a loading dock for large vehicles. Brown commented the commission may desire to ask about the detention which is indicated along the south side of the site. The plan does still need to have an agreement for the entrance driveway radius which encroaches on the adjacent property to the north, noted Brown. A conceptual landscaping plan has been submitted - a final landscaping plan will be needed prior to a building permit. Brown stated the plan indicates six, small trees scattered around the site - he noted staff does encourage applicants to utilize medium-or-large size trees which can provide twice the benefit.

Commissioner Miller asked how many of the trees are in front of the property? Brown said he believed there were two in front and two on each side. Miller asked if this is the minimum required on the Sensitive Development Corridor? Brown said this is correct and noted he had not added the total landscaping points to City staff’s report, but they have offered a proposal which will meet the ordinance.

With regards to a pole or ground sign, Brown stated City staff encourages this be decided during the site plan review process (location) to avoid miscommunication in the future.

Miller referred to the designation and screening of a dumpster site as well as the location of a transformer pad and questioned if these are issues which are still important? Brown indicated the location of the transformer pad was discussed at the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting - at that time, a location had not been decided on. The usual location is to the front of the site - Brown indicated most likely it will be in one of the two, green islands. Brown said he did not recall that the dumpster site was noted at the DRC stage, so it has been noted at this time in City staff’s report.

Gose & Associate’s Roger W. Gose spoke in favor of this request and referred to the "required ordinance modifications" in City staff’s January 21 report. With regards to item #1 (signed driveway radius consent form), Gose noted this is complete. Addressing the issue of detention, Gose indicated there will be no pond on this site - the plan has been approved by the City Engineer subject to the owner signing the owner’s certificate. In consideration of item #3 (sidewalks), Gose indicated the sidewalks are shown out in front - the intent is provided the slope will be able to accommodate this. Items #2 and #4 (items #2 and #4 were inadvertently repeated by staff) (landscaping - final plan) is being handled. With regards to the screening (Optional Conditions/Modifications #1), Gose noted the report states if the dumpster is located such that it is visible from Perkins Road, it shall be screened. He added he is planning for the dumpster to be on the back portion of the lot, and he noted this item will be added prior to the City Commission stage. Gose referred to Optional Conditions/Modifications #2 (designation of the electric transformer pad location) and added they are waiting for the City to decide where this will go - he explained how the adjacent property is served and noted he expects there to have to be some rebuild in order to accommodate this site. Mr. Gose indicated he expects the transformer will be setting south of the building (in the midpoint of the south wall). Gose noted the last optional conditions/modifications (#3 - designation of any proposed pole or ground signage) and stated the applicant has not asked for this, but he would like to have it placed in the grass area in the center of the lot. Mr. Gose asked for other preferences for this item? He noted this area would be out of the sight triangle.

Brown provided the alternatives from staff’s report.

3. Consider a request from Mike Ebert for approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION of a tract of land located on the south side of the 2900 block of East Sixth Avenue. (MS-302)

City Planner Brown stated this minor subdivision request is based upon a request which was previously approved by the Planning Commission at their January 7, 1998, meeting. At that point, the request was to subdivide a tract of which the property under discussion this evening is a part of. Brown said the conditions of approval of the previous minor subdivision have not yet been satisfied. A deed has not been filed in the courthouse to create the subject tract yet, so there is the question of whether or not we should actually be looking at a further splitting a tract which does not yet exist.

Assistant City Attorney Cliff Shilling stated after review he finds the conditions listed with the approval of the tract on January 7 must be met before the tract itself can be created. He believed what is proposed this evening is premature.

Brown explained this request actually began as a plat and then through discussions related to the road and how it would serve the lots proposed, it was decided a minor subdivision request could also achieve the desired results. Brown further explained the applicant was proposing a public street without a turnaround on the end. When staff suggested this needed a cul-de-sac, then thoughts led to use of a private road without a turnaround. Brown added eventually, then, fewer lots were discussed with the idea the lots could be further subdivided if someone didn’t want to purchase the entire tract, since the one year time frame between minor subdivisions does not apply to commercial property. Brown noted at that point in the discussions the applicant opted to select four lots which does not meet the definition of a minor subdivision. Staff then directed that there would need to be two, different minor subdivision applications in order to make the desired plan workable. Brown commented the time frame is not really critical if the conditions have been met.

Commissioner Miller asked what is the purpose of platting? Brown said the end result is so that someone can sell lots. This can be accomplished through platting or the minor subdivision procedures. He noted the platting process is preferable in that it provides a graphic representation of how the property is being divided whereby a minor subdivision process does not. Brown explained this is a definite advantage to the platting process over minor subdivisions; but, it should be noted the platting process is generally more expensive and time consuming as the requirements are more stringent.

Commissioner Patton sought clarification as to whether or not we can make a decision regarding this item this evening? Shilling replied it is his opinion there is nothing to divide. Patton encouraged we not go too far into discussion if we are not able to act on this item.

Vice-Chair Bertenshaw asked if the applicant is aware of this situation? Brown said he is not sure, but said it is noted in City staff’s report which was sent to the applicant prior to the meeting.

Miller wished to know if there is value to the City in requiring platting, then why are we avoiding it? Brown explained the applicant preferred to avoid the platting process probably due to time considerations. He added City staff always prefers the platting process, however. Brown noted the additional expense associated with the platting process and noted the applicant’s desire to utilize the method which is least expensive, but still gain the same end result. Brown added the platting process is simpler, has much less room for error, but often does cost more for the applicant.

Community Development Director John Wesley referred to commercial development and noted one doesn’t really know what size lots they may need in the initial stages - often times, for commercial development, the minor subdivision process is the better way to go.

With regards to the advantages of platting, Brown explained one of the most simplistic one is simply in transferring ownership by a lot, block, and subdivision name instead of a long legal description is a real advantage of platting.

Miller read from the Code "The Planning Commission may vary or modify such requirements of design, but not of procedures or improvements." Brown responded the procedures which are being referred to are primarily the notification requirements and the submittal requirements.

Gose & Associate’s Roger W. Gose spoke in favor of this request and explained that the argument regarding one procedure being more economical than another is not valid in his opinion - he explained how computerization has changed this situation. Gose shared his disappointment that nothing was said until this point regarding having all the other conditions of the prior approved minor subdivision met. He noted they originally started in the platting process. Gose said he is glad they don’t have a commercial entity ready to go on the south end as this would really cause a concern.

Commissioner Vaught indicated his belief that it would have been easier to have a plat of the entire development to review. Gose agreed with this and noted he believes City staff directed them in this way because a minor subdivision allowed the Planning Commission to allow variances.

Miller asked why we have two lots for this request? Gose replied the owner desired it this way and noted the area the owner may build or sell.

Gose agreed a plat can be nice for the visualization aspect.

Vaught asked why the applicant does not just propose the site at this time that they wish to build on instead of two sites? Gose replied he does not know.

Responding to questions from the commission, Shilling clarified the application is "premature", but not improper. He added the conditions need to be met first, then the application is appropriate.

Vice-Chair Bertenshaw announced there will be an Opening Meeting Law/Records Workshop at Meridian Technology from 1-4 p.m. on January 22. The public is invited. This event is sponsored by the Stillwater NewsPress.

6. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FROM STAFF.

Wesley announced the consultant hired by the City to update the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Al Raby, and members of his staff will be in the community working with local citizens on February 5 & 6 and February 26 & 27, 1998.

Wesley referred to a memorandum provided in the packet which refers to the Comprehensive Plan update. He noted the land use map included in the Comprehensive Plan and reviewed items with reference to existing land marks such as the university, downtown, industries, etc. Wesley noted in considering our growth patterns one needs to consider the flood plain - he added most development is in the northeast or southwest area. Wesley spent time assisting the group by pointing out the different factors which are considered when preparing for development for the future.

Wesley referred also to various concepts such as the Sensitive Development Corridor Concept, Residential-Density Concept, and the Neighborhood Unit Concept - he explained the ideas of these for those present.

Wesley noted the growth/projections and what might be needed in the future and where items might be placed.

Wesley directed the group to page 22 of the Comprehensive Plan and noted the policies are divided into four components: land use, transportation, public facilities, and community development. Under the "Land Use" section (page 23) this is broken down further into various segments - residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed uses.

Mr. Wesley shared how competing items we desire can be hard to accomplish sometimes such as flexibility, but still retain strength.

Commissioner Patton reminded the viewing audience the Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated.

This regularly scheduled meeting of the Stillwater Planning Commission was called for adjournment by Vice-Chair Bertenshaw at approximately 6:37 p.m. with all members in agreement -- the next regularly scheduled meeting will be held Wednesday, February 4, 1998, 5:30 p.m., City Commissioners’ Hearing Room, Municipal Building, 723 South Lewis.