Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Consolidation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves consolidation of Lot 20542025 near Aspen Avenue
Summary
The Broken Arrow Planning Commission approved a lot consolidation (Lot 20542025) for two parcels east of Aspen Avenue, subject to a stamped warranty deed prior to recording; staff noted the consolidated lot lies in the 100-year floodplain but meets zoning dimensions.
Get email alerts on the Lot Consolidation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Broken Arrow Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a lot consolidation identified as Lot 20542025, combining two parcels east of Aspen Avenue into a proposed approximately 28.36-acre lot.
Joel, planning staff for the City of Broken Arrow, told commissioners the zoning is commercial-heavy (CG) with no minimum lot area and a 200-foot frontage requirement and that "this lot created by this lot change meets the dimensional requirements of the zoning district." He also noted that, "according to FEMA maps, the property is located within the 100 year flood plain," and that water and sanitary sewer service are available from the city. Staff recommended approval subject to a new warranty deed for the consolidated parcels being brought to the planning and development division to be stamped prior to recording in Tulsa County.
Commissioners asked about the plat name, which remains "Outlet Mall" from a 1984 filing despite current use as a church; Joel said the owner is Battle Creek Church and the plat title remains until a replat is filed. After discussion, Commissioner (Speaker 3) moved to approve item 4(e) per staff recommendations; the motion was seconded and passed by roll call with affirmative votes recorded for Mindy Payne, Jonathan Townsend, Jason Cohen and Robert Goranson.
The approval requires the applicant to deliver the stamped warranty deed before recording in Tulsa County as a condition of finalization. The commission provided no additional conditions on development, and the item did not require City Council review because it was acted on within the commission's authority.
