Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TMAPC votes: rezoning approvals, continuance and two building‑permit accelerations — Aug. 20
Summary
At its Aug. 20 meeting the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approved multiple rezoning requests and two accelerated building‑permit releases, continued one rezoning at the applicant's request, and denied a modification to subdivision sewer requirements.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC) met Aug. 20 and took final actions on several rezoning and subdivision items. Major outcomes:
- Item 1 (Z7827): Rezoning from RS‑3 to RS‑5 for a 0.8‑acre consolidated tract at the northeast corner of E. 40th Street N and N. Iroquois Ave to permit a cottage‑house development — Approved (motion by Commissioner Bomash; second Commissioner Hood). The applicant indicated a conceptual target of small homes (applicant Lakeisha Smith said up to 18 units by raw density math, while staff’s calculation of 2,500 sq ft per cottage unit capped the site at 13; staff estimated 10–11 units after parking and open‑space requirements).
- Item 2 (Z7828): Rezoning from RS‑3 to RS‑5 to allow duplexes and lot splits in an existing subdivision — Approved (motion by Commissioner Humphrey; second Commissioner Chivel). Staff recommended approval as consistent with the land‑use plan and existing development pattern.
- Item 3 (Z7830): Rezoning from AG to RS‑4 (applicant requested continuance). Applicant Robson Companies requested a two‑week continuance to Sept. 3 for additional public outreach — Continued (motion by Commissioner Craddock; second Commissioner Schivel).
- Items 4 & 5 (CZ568 and another rezoning): Requests to permit single‑family subdivisions (one noted as Allen Acres, ~30.6 acres) — Both approved together per staff recommendation (motion by Commissioner Craddock; second Commissioner Schivel).
- Items 6 & 7 (CZ569 and related PUD overlay): RE (Residential Estate) PUD overlay to permit large‑lot, single‑family subdivision (Reserve on 64, ~29.4 acres) — Approved (motion by Commissioner Craddock; second by Commissioner Shill). Applicant described plans for roughly 34 RE lots (net density ~1.2 du/acre) and said a gated luxury subdivision partner/builder is lined up.
- Item 8 (MR25): Request to waive subdivision requirement to install dry sanitary sewer lines where lots would use on‑site septic temporarily — Denied (motion by Commissioner Bomash; second Commissioner Walker). Staff and utility planning staff opposed the waiver, citing the Spunky Creek interceptor and Rose Dew lift‑station plans and estimated future public costs when retrofits are required.
- Item 9 (Pawnee Industrial preliminary plat/building permit acceleration): Accelerated release of building permits before the plat filing for an industrial/warehouse site — Approved (motion by Commissioner Craddock; second Commissioner Schivel). Staff required performance guarantees (letter of credit or escrow) for outstanding infrastructure.
- Item 10 (Jack Wills): Accelerated release of building permit for a Jack Wills warehouse/showroom along the frontage road of US‑169 — Approved (motion by Commissioner Blomaster; second Commissioner Walker). Staff required performance guarantees as with other accelerated releases.
Votes and procedural notes in the meeting were taken by voice; the transcript records motion makers and seconders but does not include a roll‑call roll of individual yes/no votes for each commissioner. Several items prompted public comment: Item 1 drew applicant detail on unit count and veteran‑focused tiny homes; Item 8 drew the most public and technical discussion about sewer capacity, costs and annexation history; Items 6–7 and 4 generated moderate Q&A between staff and commissioners.
Decisions requiring follow‑up: staff and applicants will continue work on preliminary engineering and platting where approvals were conditional on infrastructure; the developer for the MR25 request must reconcile sewer capacity or financing if it pursues higher density.
