Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff brief committee on requested abandonment of PUD 727 north of MLK Jr. Boulevard
Summary
Applicant asked to abandon a portion of PUD 727 covering multiple lots to allow development under Tulsa's Neighborhood Infill Overlay; planning staff said TMAPC recommended approval 9–0.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The committee reviewed a request to abandon part of Planned Unit Development (PUD) 727 for multiple lots north of the northwest corner of North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in East Latimer Place. Susan Miller of the City of Tulsa planning office presented the item and said the applicant, William Wilkins, requested the abandonment to allow development under the neighborhood infill overlay (NIO).
Miller said the site’s base zoning would remain RS-4 but that the PUD, originally approved in the early 2000s to permit smaller lot sizes, would be removed so the developer could instead use allowances in the NIO—specifically to pursue duplex development on vacant lots. She identified seven already-developed lots that sit outside the request boundary and said 26 vacant lots within the request remain subject to the zoning standards applied by the NIO.
Miller described the PUD’s history and said RS-4’s standard minimum lot size is 5,500 square feet whereas the PUD previously allowed lots as small as 4,250 square feet. She said the NIO does not currently allow smaller single-family lots, a feature planners have discussed revising; the applicant intends to develop at least duplexes on the vacant lots and noted alley access is available. The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC) recommended approval of the abandonment 9–0.
A small number of neighbors spoke in opposition, citing concerns that the proposed development would be out of character or depress property values. Miller told the committee those issues were typical for the case and that the request would permit the use of the neighborhood overlay standards rather than a PUD amendment. No committee vote was recorded during the meeting; the committee was shown plans and told the item will continue through the formal hearing and approval process.
