Tulsa County approves 29.4-acre CZ569/PUD873 for gated single-family subdivision

The Tulsa County Board of County Commissioners voted Oct. 13 to approve zoning application CZ569 and planned-unit development PUD873, a 29.4-acre proposal for single-family residential development south of Highway 64, just west of the Leonard community. The board’s recorded vote was unanimous: Chief Deputy Craddock, Commissioner Dunkerley and Commissioner Sims all voted yes.

Planning staff told the commission the application is for a single-family development that would be served by on-site septic systems and rural water and would allow private streets inside a gated community. Planning staff said the PUD gives flexibility on lot width to preserve larger rear yards and open space. “The essence of the zoning and the PUD is for a single family residential development,” planning staff said, adding the PUD “gives an opportunity to build private streets in a gated community.”

Kevin Mavers, director of development services for the Robson Companies and the applicant, described the project as an upscale, rural-style subdivision. “You’ll notice we have about 25% open space,” Mavers said, and told commissioners the smaller frontage widths were requested to preserve rear-yard private open space while keeping lot sizes greater than a half-acre.

Staff noted the project is consistent with the Bixby comprehensive plan and said the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously. The application packet shows lot sizes greater than a half-acre (22,500 square feet minimum) and a minimum-lot-width flexibility compared with straight zoning; staff cited a 125-foot minimum lot width under straight zoning as a contrast to the PUD’s proposed configurations.

The applicant acknowledged there is no public sanitary sewer on the site and confirmed the development would use septic systems and rural water. Commissioners recorded no public opposition on the sign-up sheet and moved to approve the application after the public-hearing portion of the meeting.

The county did not state a construction timetable in the hearing. The board’s action was limited to the land-use approvals on Oct. 13; additional permits, engineering approvals and any required city or state clearances were not described in the meeting record.