LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH CENTER
File #: 24-954    Name:
Type: General Business Status: Passed
File created: 7/10/2024 In control: Broken Arrow City Council
On agenda: 7/15/2024 Final action: 7/15/2024
Title: Consideration, discussion, and possible approval regarding PUD-001520-2024, Forest Ridge Tennis Facility, 19.9 acres, R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-1/PUD (Planned Unit Development)-001520-2024, located one half mile south of Kenosha Street (71st Street), west of Midway Road (South 257th East Avenue)
Sponsors: Planning Commission
Attachments: 1. 1- Published Staff Report, 2. 2- Case Map, 3. 3- Aerial, 4. 4-PUD-001520-2024 Design Statement, 5. 5- Ridge Club Expansion Community Meetings Summary

Broken Arrow City Council

Meeting of: 07-15-2024

 

Title:

title

Consideration, discussion, and possible approval regarding PUD-001520-2024, Forest Ridge Tennis Facility, 19.9 acres, R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-1/PUD (Planned Unit Development)-001520-2024, located one half mile south of Kenosha Street (71st Street), west of Midway Road (South 257th East Avenue)

End

 

Background:

PUD-001520-2024 is a proposed major amendment to PUD-66, Forest Ridge. PUD-66 was approved by City Council on August 1, 1988, and since its adoption, PUD-66 has been amended 7 times (PUD-66A-G). This property is generally located one half mile south of Kenosha Street and west of Midway Road. This property is currently not platted and vacant.

 

History

When PUD-66 was approved in 1988, the subject property was designated for a school. PUD-66A was a land transfer with the school property. PUD-66C was approved when the school district went under contract to sell the subject site. PUD-66C was a minor amendment to remove the access requirement from the neighborhood and the former school site.

 

PUD-66B and PUD-66D were both major amendments to expand PUD-66. PUD-66 E,F, and G were all amendments to PUD-66 to reduce setbacks on portions of PUD-66.

 

PUD-001520-2024 is a proposed major amendment to PUD-66, which proposes to bring the original school tract into PUD-66. The reason for this requested PUD-66 expansion is because the applicant is wanting to expand the Ridge Club in phases, which is proposed to include both indoor and outdoor tennis and racquetball courts as shown on the conceptual development plan. PUD-001520-2024 clarifies the definition of the use type “Community Playfields and Parks” to say:

 

“Community playfields and parks are allowed to be privately owned and operated.”

 

Additionally, PUD-001520-2024 requests that the building height be increased to 45’, which the applicant has stated would be necessary for the desired dome structures.

 

Platting

In addition to incorporating this land, PUD-1520-2024 is also requesting that Platting be waived for this development. PUD-66 states that:

 

“No building permit shall be issued prior to the property being included within a subdivision plat”.

 

Staff has worked with the applicant to put adequate safeguards into PUD-1520-2024, so that staff can support waiving the platting requirement. PUD-1520-2024 reads:

 

“All public rights-of-way for roads, ingress, and egress, have been previously dedicated. All required rights-of-way, all easements required for the maintenance of any required stormwater detention facility, and any easements required to provide services or access will be dedicated via separate instrument(s) prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy in compliance with City of Broken Arrow regulation.”

 

Landscape Buffering

Current code requires that all nonresidential uses that abut a residential use shall provide a 10’landscape buffer with a minimum of:

 

“One medium to large evergreen for every twenty linear feet (20’)”

 

In lieu of the fencing requirement, PUD-1520-2024 proposes to increase the landscape buffer to a 10’ landscape buffer with a minimum of:

 

“One medium to large evergreen tree for each fifteen (15) linear feet”

 

PUD-001520-2024 was heard by Planning Commission on June 13th, 2024, where it was approved by a 3-1 vote. Two residents came to the meeting to discuss concerns including lighting, building height, privacy, and screening.

 

After the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant scheduled two community engagement meetings. The first meeting was on 6-25 and had approximately 15 neighbors in attendance. The second neighborhood engagement meeting was held on 7-8. A summary of the meetings has been provided by the applicant and is attached.

 

Cost:                                                                $0

Funding Source:                     -

Requested By:                      Rocky Henkel, Community Development Director

Approved By:                      City Manager’s Office

Attachments:                                          text

Published Planning Commission Staff Report

Case map
Aerial photo

PUD-001520-2024 Design Statement

 

Recommendation:

recommend

Approve PUD-001520-2024 per Planning Commission and Staff recommendations.

end