Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies county rezoning and PUD after resident objections on drainage, traffic and density
Summary
The TMAPC voted 10-0 to deny a rezoning (CZ-555) and a related PUD (PUD-868) for a proposed 10‑lot subdivision east of Memorial Drive after nearby residents raised concerns about drainage, road capacity and lot density; staff said the applicant did not provide updates after a previous continuance.
The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a county rezoning request (CZ-555) and its companion planned unit development (PUD-868) that would have allowed a 10‑lot subdivision with 0.5‑acre minimum lots east of Memorial Drive.
Neighbors told the Commission the proposal would be too dense for the rural area and raised infrastructure concerns. Stephen Gund, who said he owns 160 acres nearby, said the proposal for half‑acre lots “would be too dense for the area” and that 191st Street South is not equipped for added traffic. Angela Wilson, representing the Henderson Stockmeyer family and petition signers, said the site “does not perk” and “they will need retaining ponds for sewage,” and that the area is not in Bixby’s 30‑year plan for services. Ron King also reiterated concerns about road width, sewage and potential effects on property values.
Commissioner Craddock said he was dissatisfied the applicant had not engaged neighbors or staff after the earlier continuance and flagged drainage as “a huge issue.” Staff advised that because the case had been continued previously with no changes, the continuance served as notice under state statute, and that no new applicant correspondence had been received for the Oct. 16 meeting. Craddock then moved to deny the rezoning and the related PUD; the Commission voted 10-0 to deny both items.
The PUD application materials described a public‑road cross section, driving surface width of 22 feet with bar ditches and detention ponds, and a maximum of 10 dwelling units, each proposed at a minimum of 0.5 acres. Final roadway design was to be approved by Tulsa County engineering and the State Fire Marshal, but commissioners said the absence of the applicant and unresolved drainage/percolation questions weighed against approval. The Commission’s action was a denial; no conditions or follow‑up direction to staff were recorded in the minutes.
