Docstoc

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING LAW_

Document Sample
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING LAW_ Powered By Docstoc
					S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 1
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING LAW,
THE AGENDA WAS POSTED MAY 28, 1998
IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AT 723 S. LEWIS


                                                      Study Session
                                                  June 1, 1998 6:30 p.m.

PRESENT: MAYOR MIKE HENSON, VICE MAYOR RAY SCARBROUGH, COMMISSIONERS KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM CLEVELAND
STAFF: CITY MANAGER CARL WEINAUG, ASST. CITY MANAGER MARY RUPP, CITY ATTORNEY MARY
ANN KARNS, GOLF PRO KEN STEIR, PARKS, EVENTS & RECREATION DIR. MARY NOLAN
GUESTS: NEWSPRESS REP. CRAIG FUQUA, CAROL MODER,

1. Presentation of recommendations for construction of housing for golf course superintendent on the grounds of Lakeside
Memorial Golf course.

MR. STEIR presented the drawings for this housing, and advised by making some cost savings, he believed this 1,370 ft.
frame house could be built for $69,000 or $47/sq. ft. (Sole bidder for the mobile home presented a bid of $64,500 for a
mobile home). He said he would be putting his own time into this home, using his experience from building 12 other
dwellings. His staff will also be assisting. The inclusion of a two car garage, insulation values, insulated windows, and
other features were reviewed. The advantages of a frame house v. those of a mobile home were discussed. It was stated this
dwelling’s value will increase within a few years while that of a mobile home will not. He said if, in the future, the
Commission determined they would prefer not to have the house be a part of the golf course superintendent’s package, the
building could be rented out for $700-$800/month.

After a brief question and answer period, the Mayor adjourned the Study Session at 7:00 p.m.
====================================================================

                                          STILLWATER CITY COMMISSION
                                                REGULAR MEETING
                                             STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA
                                                   JUNE 1, 1998

PRESENT: MAYOR MIKE HENSON, VICE MAYOR RAY SCARBROUGH, COMMISSIONERS KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM CLEVELAND

1.        MAYOR HENSON called the Regular meeting of the City Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. The Commissioners
stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.

3.       There were no proclamations or presentations.

4.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, SECOND BY TOM CLEVELAND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 18, 1998 AS WRITTEN.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, RAY SCARBROUGH, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH FIVE VOTES YES.

5.       CONSENT DOCKET
a. Claims of $141,648.83 and Special Claims totaling $169,632.01 were presented for approval.
b. The follow easements were presented for acceptance: A General Utility Easement granted by William and Janet Over
for property in the SE/4, Sec. 13, T19N, R2E, (Parkersville Addition); a Sanitary Sewer Easement granted by Hollie
Chappell for property in the E/2, NW/4, Sec. 30, T19N, R2E; and a corrected Sanitary Sewer Easement granted by Hollie
Chappell for property in the E/2 of the NE/4 of the NW/4 and the South ¾ of the W/2 of the NE/4, NW/4, Sec. 30, T19N,
R2E, I.M.
c. A budget revision was requested for I.A.F.F. Arbitration expenses (Fire Dept.),transferring $9,000 from Acct. 01-10-04-
6388 -(Commission Contingency) to Acct. 01-07-01-6385.
d. A budget revision was requested to transfer $3,600 from Acct. 01-10-04-6388 to Acct. 01-10-02-6403 for microphones in
the Commission Hearing Room.
e. A budget revision was requested to pay final “As built” quantities on the McElroy Repair project; transferring $12,045
from Acct. 35-96-08-6409 to Acct. 35-97-15-6409.
f. A budget revision was requested to transfer $1,250 from Acct. 90-20-20-6225 and $1,000 from Acct. 90-20-220-6234 to
Acct. 90-20-20-6408 to replace trailer used for portable disinfectant injection in the City’s water system.
g. A budget revision was requested to increase Fund 550-00-00-6385 in the amount of $35,000 to cover Workers
Compensation claims, which exceeded budgeted supplement to come from self-insured reserves.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 2
h. Public Works Dept. staff recommended approval of the bid from North Central Construction as low bidder for handicap
ramps and sidewalk installation as low bidder. CC-98-113
i. Authorization was sought for the Mayor to sign ODOC forms required for CDBG funds.CC-98-114
j. Approval of a replat for Park Meadows 2nd Section located in the 900-1200 blk. of So. Shumard Dr. was requested. CC-
98-115
k. The following ODEQ Permits were presented for acknowledgment: No. WL000060980322 to construct a 6” water line
and SL000060980323 to construct an 8” sewer line to serve Hoke Estates, Sec. 9; No. WL000060980332 to construct an 8”
water line to serve 13th Ave. between Fern and Perkins Road; No. WL000060980319 to construct a 6: water line to serve 15 th
Ave. between Perkins Road and Hartford; No. WL000060980333 to construct a 6” water line to serve Adams St. between
10th and 12th Avenue; No. WL000060980335 to construct a 6” water line and SL000060980336 to construct an 8” sewer line
to serve Woodlake Villas Addt. and No. WL000060980301 to construct a 6: water line and SL000060980302 to construct an
8” sewer line to serve Pecan Hill Addt.
l. Parks, Events & Recreation staff recommended awarding the bid for hydraulic turf equipment lift to Trion Lifts, Inc. as
low bidder for two lifts for a total of $11,847.50; one to be utilized by the Parks Dept. and one by Lakeside Golf Course.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
DOCKET, INCLUDING SPECIAL CLAIMS.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

6.        OPENING OF BIDS:
MAYOR HENSON opened and read the following bids for Waste Disposal Services:
                           Compacted    uncompacted solid
                           solid waste  solid waste   waste
HEW Waste Systems Inc.
2417 N. Marine Road
Stillwater, OK. 74075       $23.50/ton  $23.50/ton $23.50/ton*1/2 mile east of Perkins road/Yost Rd.
Waste Management
5600 NW 4th St.
Oklahoma City, OK. 73127     12.50/ton   12.50/ton   10.00/ton *64 miles -3201 Mosky Rd, Ok. City (64 miles)
                             12.50/ton   12.50/ton   12.50/ton *78 mi.- 4041 N.141 St. Tulsa, OK.
Northern Oklahoma Disposal
P.O. Box 40
Tonkawa, OK. 74653            13.50/ton  13.50/ton 13.50/ton *48 mi. Northern OK.site

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO REFER THE BIDS TO STAFF
FOR EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

7.        PUBLIC APPEARANCES, PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS
a. Miscellaneous items from the audience.
Industrial Foundation Pres. RON DEMAREE provided information relating to the new High Technology Center which is
proposed to be located in at the NE corner of Sangre Road and Highway 51. He explained this group signed a
confidentiality oath to not talk about any of the customers they represent to assure their privacy when they are considering
moving to the community. There has been no formal announcement about this technology park, however, they have been
working on various sites for approx. one year and to create an atmosphere conducive to providing a facility to meet the
needs of various out-of-state and in-state people who have contacted them with an interest in research and higher
development of various parts of their businesses. Those names must remain anonymous at present. He advised three sites
had been reviewed and this site was considered a good gateway to the city. The preliminary engineering and design has
been submitted for a major $3,000,000 federal grant to build the infrastructure for the Stillwater Technology Park and for
one research pod. July 15 is the deadline. Other grant funds can be obtained once it becomes on-line. A partnership for 4
groups will make this function work; the City of Stillwater, IVMT, OSU, and the Stillwater Industrial Foundation. MR.
DEMAREE said this center will keep some of our graduates here in Stillwater at a wage similar to that paid to those in
Silicon Valley, California and other locations. Another major factor is the opportunity we have to grow and transition the
technology that is being developed at OSU into privatization. He encouraged everyone to work together to build this park,
which will hold at least two lakes in the forefront with a beautiful drive up to the facilities on the hill above it.

BILL MILLER, 2903 N. Perkins Road, was supportive of the Industrial Foundation and the research technology park but
said he did not want to have it built in the flood plain.

8.       PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Public Hearing to receive input on the 1998-99 budget for the City of Stillwater, Stillwater Utilities Authority, Stillwater
Public Golf Authority, Stillwater Public Works Authority, and Stillwater Industrial Redevelopment Authority.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 3
MARY RUPP briefly spoke of the City’s $60 million budget, and advised we must approve this budget by the June 22
deadline. Budget meetings are scheduled beginning June 11, and public hearings are to be scheduled next Monday.

No one in the audience came forward to speak on this matter.

b. Consider a request from the OSU Board of Regents for a review of a closing of a portion of Mathews St. near the
intersection of Mathews Street near the intersection of Mathews Street and Knoblock Street to accommodate the Gallagher-
Iba Area Expansion. CC-98-116 Portions of the following statements were taken from Mr. Brown’s report, with
his permission on 6/3/98.

City Planner, BRYAN BROWN advised OSU is proposing to expand the Gallagher-Iba Arena and associated athletic center
facilities within the immediate area of the current facility which involves closing and vacating about 28 ft of the north
portion of the right of way, which has a total width of 60 ft. currently. There is an arena on one side and Scholar’s Inn
apartments on the other. OSU’s expansion plans are limited in terms of flexibility regarding the location of the overall new
larger arena building to envelope and surround the existing arena on all sides. Those who utilize parking by Scholar’s Inn
will be affected by this request as well as the street function. A portion of Mathews Avenue and right-of-way will need to be
closed and vacated in order to accommodate the expansion as planned. City staff reviewed this plan with OSU staff at their
physical plant office on May 6, 1998.

The north 27.80 ft. of the Mathews Street right-of-way would be closed, leaving the street one foot shy of our local useable
street driving surface standard of 26-ft.. In addition, one foot of additional right-of-way will be dedicated behind the face of
the northern curb to assist with access rights for future maintenance. This is a reduction from the 11.5 ft. of additional
right-of-way beyond the curb, the usual minimum provided on one side of a 50-foot local street right-of-way.

A subsequent application through District Court will be necessary to vacate the requested portion of the street right-of-way
to be closed. The City Commission heard this request in February, however, action was tabled to an uncertain future date
for OSU to research and determine traffic circulation for Mathews Avenue and to provide all parties a thorough
understanding of necessary utility relocations.

Upon completion of the construction two-way traffic will be provided. The on-street parking stalls will have 18-ft. of length.
Our normal standard within a parking lot with no overhang available is 19-ft. and additional space is usually available when
located on a through public street rather than within a parking lot. A few existing parallel parking spaces located along the
north side of Mathews Avenue within the vicinity of the current area will be lost with the expansion plans.

A portion of Mathews Avenue will be narrowed to a one-way westerly direction within a 15-ft. wide lane during the
construction period, (to last approx. two-years from mid Oct. 1998 to Oct. 2000). Temporary fencing will be erected in both
Mathews Avenue and Knoblock Street rights-of-way limiting access. Mathews Avenue is planned to be closed for approx. 4
months while two large 248-ft. long support box trusses are put in place. Staff encouraged OSU and consultants to seek any
possible alternative to complete temporary closing of the street but understood it will need to be closed to safety
considerations and the close proximity of the truss work to the street. The timeline indicates the temporary closing of
Mathews Avenue between April-1999 - August-1999. The south Hall of Fame Avenue lane near Gallagher-Iba arena will be
closed for the entire construction period.

By agreeing to close a portion of Mathews Avenue, the Commission will be enabling the expansion of the arena to encroach
approx. 22 ft. closer to the existing residential apartment uses than would otherwise be possible. The possible negative
impacts of this are not easily measured other than from the extreme hardship from the noise and dust during construction.

The other issue is the concern for utility services. OSU is preparing for the extension of an underground electric and
communications duckbank which will involve public street crossings north of Hall of Fame Avenue at Washington, Hester,
and Knoblock Streets. The City Engineer will be approving the crossing plans and monitoring the work at these public
street crossings. This duckbank is also now planned to be installed on private property parallel to the north side of the
remaining Mathews Avenue right-of-way. OSU has been informed the public right-of-way cannot be utilized other than for
a crossing for a private use such as proposed by OSU’s duckbank so the duckbank was relocated adjacent to, rather than
within, the remaining Mathews Avenue right-of-way.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 4
Staff did not expect the water line approx. 3 ft. south of the existing centerline of Mathews Avenue would be disturbed
during the proposed construction. OSU’s consulting engineer has indicated this places the waterline 15 to 16 ft. south of the
wall of the new building and 10 to 11 ft. south of the new curb for Mathews Avenue. This results in a close but workable
distance from the new structure when repair or replacement of this older waterline is needed. The utility relocation
blueprints indicate all necessary sanitary sewer lines will be relocated out from under the new athletic center with proper
connections made to the City’s sanitary sewer system. The City’s Electric service is handling minor necessary relocation’s
needed to accommodate the street closing and construction planned. Oklahoma Natural Gas has not found their lines
affected within the street closing area. The same holds true for Southwestern Bell Telephone.

The Development Review Committee noted the expanded area is already hardscape so no additional runoff is anticipated.
However, it is unclear as to where the current runoff might go as result. The intersection of Miller Avenue and Duck Street
already has a serious surface runoff problem. The drainage engineer has not received any information regarding this
potential concern at this time.

In response to questions and suggestions, MR. BROWN said when it is completed there will be a 25 ft. wide two lane road,
one foot less than current standards. It is possible the parking on the south side could be utilized as a part of the road, or
angled.

OSU’s JOHN HOUCK, 1105 S. Country Club Road sought approval of this request. He addressed the concerns of
Commissioner Lacy, saying they hoped to provide the loadings requested within a week. They plan to erect two fairly large
truss systems that will expand and form a roof over to Gallagher-Iba arena. Plans for the new arena were described. He
also agreed to work with city staff on considering alternatives for parking arrangements for Scholars Inn, possibly by
creating a permanent one way street.

LEO BLAKLEY, 2501 W. August, said there was some confusion about what was being closed. He did not think the whole
of Mathews Street was to be closed, just that section between the alley at Scholar’s Inn west so the two way traffic could still
continue on Mathews to West, and it could be circled around. He sought clarification. MR. HOUCK said it will remain as
it is up to the alleyway, and they could still utilize West Street. It will be one way during the construction phase.

MR. BROWN said staff is satisfied a workable right-of-way and traffic circulation plan will remain for Mathews Avenue
upon the closing and vacation of the right-of-way and the negative impact on the availability of on-street public parking
spaces used by the Scholar’s Inn residents will be short lived only during the period when the street is actually closed. The
expansion of the arena southward into the former Mathews right-of-way may increase the impact on the Scholars Inn as a
residential use but the overall benefit in taking this extra right-of-way to help in its construction. The waterline within
Mathews right-of-way should probably be considered for replacement at this time but it should not have to be disrupted by
the construction and there should still be sufficient room for staff to replace it at a future date. All other utilities have been
satisfactorily relocated. The City Engineer did request some loading data, but it has not been received at this point in time.
Staff recommended approval of this closing request subject to an agreement from OSU Board of Regents that we have help
on any water or sewer utility line capacity expansion that might be needed, and believed they were agreed.

COMMISSIONER SCARBROUGH said it was recognized there would be adverse problems that would have to be faced
and overcome in order to achieve the end result.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY TOM CLEVELAND TO APPROVE STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATION.

COMMISSIONER LACY asked if a written agreement or cost sharing agreement would be made with the OSU Board of
Regents. MR. BROWN said not necessarily, but JOHN HOUCK indicated there would be agreement.

In response to inquiries, MAYOR HENSON advised the owners of Scholars Inn have been contacted.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE said she would like to see this delayed until we see the information on the loading and
drainage and would be voting against this. MR. BROWN said the reason for the way the recommendation was given is that
there are so many issues involved here, and the primary focus tonight has been whether this portion of the right-of-way is
needed or not for public benefit or the benefit proposed - the others could be handled at subsequent time periods. They are
all related but it was not clear whether it is absolutely needed or not. City Attorney MARY ANN KARNS said she believed
we should anticipate that if you close the very north portion, OSU will go to District Court and have it vacated permanently.
The only temporary portion is that given for the construction area.

Public Works Dir. JEFF HOUGH asked if OSU can build out in the closed right-of-way without vacating it?

MS. KARNS advised she did not believe their lenders or attorneys would allow them to build until it has been vacated. The
vacation will be presented again to the City Commission to allow another opportunity for them to provide information to
stop it.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, BUD LACY, TOM CLEVELAND - YES. KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE - NO. MOTION CARRIED WITH FOUR VOTES YES.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 5

b. Consider a request from OSU Board of Regents for review of a closing of a portion of a platted street right-of-way
located east of the intersection of Melrose, Admiral, Redwood Streets.CC-98-117

MR. BROWN explained OSU has purchased several platted lots around this street right-of-way which they would like to
close and vacate with the intent to utilize this vacated right-of-way and surrounding lots to construct a parking lot. The
street right-of-way proposed to be closed and vacated has been abandoned and unused for access purposes. However,
utilities easements are needed to retain the east edge of this right-of-way in a north/south direction along the rear of the
platted lots, and to retain one-half of today’s standard easement width of 10-feet along the eastern edge of the portion of the
right-of-way to be closed.

The existing easement width to the north and south on this portion of the plat is only 5 ft. Our standards now call for a 20
ft. wide utility easement. The right-of-way as it exists provides full utility access. An old private sewer main exists in a
portion of the right-of-way. The City has no interest in this sewer line even though we may have helped to maintain it in the
past. An easement is needed to cover Oklahoma Natural Gas’ existing gas line which must be maintained upon closing of the
street right-of-way. The street right-of-way is no longer needed for public access purposes but two utility easements must be
reserved in portions of the right-of-way to accommodate existing utility uses.

JOHN HOUCK supported this request, stating it would be beneficial to the area and encouraged its’ vacation. He
recognized the easements were necessary to maintain the various utilities. He stated it was their intent to be a good neighbor
to the College Gardens area and said OSU proposed a gentle knoll berming that gives a green visual effect at the front of the
property, and to allow pedestrian access.

Staff recommended approval of this closing request subject to dedicating two utility easements to cover existing utility
services and execution of the necessary ordinance to assist in vacating this plat.

MOTION BY BUD LACY, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

d. Consider a request from West Oak Park Inc. for review of a closing for a platted addition located in the 900-1200 block
of South Shumard Dr. CC-98-118

MR. BROWN advised this portion of Park Meadows, Second Section was platted with 10-ft. side yard maintenance
easements to accommodate the zoning ordinance provisions for construction of zero lot-line housing planned for that area of
the plat. However, the developer has subsequently decided he would like to reduce that 10-ft. maintenance easement to five
ft. to accommodate the same larger house plans being built on the first section of the plat to the north which utilizes the 5-ft.
maintenance easement. This change is only possible through approval of a planned development final development plan and
rezoning to the PD overlay district. A replat to replace the existing plat is necessary to change the 10-foot maintenance
easement. The City Commission has already approved the PD final development plan. The re-plat is appearing as a
concurrent item on the agenda with this closing request. The re-plat cannot be filed of record prior to the closing and
vacation of the existing plat. Once this plat is closed and vacated, it will be replaced with the proposed concurrent re-plat.
No changes are proposed to that re-plat other than the change to the 10-foot side yard maintenance easement.

COMMISSIONER SCARBROUGH said it seemed there could have been less work for everyone if this had been asked for
when the applicant came before us the first time. MR. BROWN said with good planning, the applicant could have achieved
this, but what often happens is that the market changes and they may have not intended to do the zero lot homes with these
lots, or may not have realized the 5 ft. setback wasn’t a standard.

BILL MILLER asked where the drainage goes. MR. BROWN said he had not specifically looked at the drainage plan at
the time but it does have an approved drainage plan, and believed there was off-site detention directly to the east handling
most of the detention.

Staff has determined at this point in time, approval of this plat closing is merely a procedural requirement necessary to allow
the implementation of the recently approved planned development for a portion of this plat. Staff recommends approval of
this closing request and execution of the necessary ordinance to assist in vacating this plat.

MOTION BY TOM CLEVELAND, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 6
ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

e. Consider a request from Cowboy Real Estate for review of a Planned Development Final Development Plan for a zero lot-
line single-family residential development to be located on the south side of the 5600 blk. of west 19 th Avenue and a Map
Amendment to rezone from RS3, (Small Lot Single Family District) to RS3-PD (Small Lot Single Family District Planned
Development. CC-98-119

MR. BROWN explained the applicant desires to construct 22 detached zero-lot line, single-family residential homes on 22
existing platted lots within the final plat of The Woodlake Villas. In summary, a planned development is an overlay district.
This property was just annexed into the city with RS3 zoning, residential single family small lot. It was outside of the city at
the time the plat was approved by the Planning Commission and it was contemplated it would be annexed into the city.
When the annexation proceeded, a subsequent meeting was held with the developer and he indicated his plans to build
would cover more of the lot than normally allowed in the RS3 district. The building lot coverage should not exceed 35%,
therefore the standard RS3 district would not accommodate what he actually planned to do with this particular
development. It is unfortunate information was not shared when the Planning Commission reviewed this but since it was
outside of city limits then, it technically did not matter. Once annexed, we needed to have it conform.

When the Planning Commission reviewed the conditions surrounding preparation of the planned development, they
recognized they had not lent themselves to allowing this development to provide all the elements that might otherwise be
desirable in a planned development but acknowledged this will be a high quality development and an asset to the
community. The applicant’s representative agreed with the idea of a pedestrian connection to 19 th Avenue through a smaller
gate and would provide this with their design for the entry. The proposed design has the property lines going to the middle
of the private street which provides access to the individual lots. The street itself is proposed to be 24 feet wide. The
developer proposed a 35-ft. setback from the property line which results in a driveway depth from the back of the curb of 23
feet. This combination of short driveways and narrow street will leave little room for visitor parking.

The Planning Commission discussed the potential need for the parking and the visual effect internally of providing some
additional spaces. They found that given this was a private, gated community, the amount of traffic on the street would be
minimal, and the potential lack of adequate parking would be localized internally, that the effect of requiring additional
paved common parking spaces would be significant as currently platted. They also agreed an internal sidewalk would
provide little benefit and could actually end up going unused with cars parking on it due to the reduced set back from the
curb to the garage doors proposed in this PD. They agreed to allow the removal of the internal sidewalk from the Statement
of Intent.

In response to questions, MR. BROWN explained the future lot owners within this area will be responsible for paying their
proportionate share for sidewalks if other development occurs adjacent to it through a covenant agreement. These will be
large luxury type homes on these small lots so up to 50% of the lot coverage will be developed, as a part of that PD. There is
only 22 ft. from the curb to the garage and the street has been narrowed to 24 ft. so cars parked along the street will have a
dangerous life. Staff recognized this is an internal problem but after the homes are sold and occupied residents will wonder
who approved this without visitor parking because there isn’t going to be much room for that purpose. He suspected the
property owners will complain about this in the future, although there will be some homes with up to 3 car parking garages.
He recalled the Lakeside Village PD has a similar arrangement but on a public road, not private. MAYOR HENSON noted
this is the big house, small lawn concept.

The developer, RON DEMAREE sought approval. He said he lives in this type of development in Tulsa, which is one of the
hottest concepts in developing going on in the U.S. today, allowing larger homes with all the maintenance of the facilities is
provided enabling professional people, those who travel, etc. to be gone and have everything is maintained for you. He
agreed to the sidewalk as staff recommended and will provide a well maintained area outside of the development along 19 th
Street. He preferred to have the stamped concrete in the center areas because it is difficult for those with moving vans to
maneuver if there is a tree in the median however there will be trees on this property.

MR. BROWN referred to parking situation, stating the Planning Commission found that given this is a private gated
community, the amount of traffic along the streets would be minimal and the potential lack of adequate parking would be
localized internally and the effect of requiring additional paved common parking spaces would be significant as it is
currently platted. About the only alternative they could reasonably was a third visitor parking space next to the two outside
of each garage. The net effect is not that aesthetically appealing because with these narrow lots, it would end up with a solid
line of cars on each side of the private road. Staff and the Planning Commission’s recommendation was to approve this PD
and Final Development Plan and the associated map amendment which rezones from the RS3 to the RS3(PD) District,
subject to making the provisions of the Statement of Intent a part of the ordinance which can be amended through normal
procedures, providing a separate gated pedestrian entrance, and showing the exact location of any internal sidewalk if they
choose to use one. Their indication was that an internal sidewalk would not be done.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY TOM CLEVELAND TO APPROVE STAFF AND PLANNING
COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE TWO CONDITIONS.
ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 7

The Commissioners took a 15 minute break at 9:25 p.m.

9.       GENERAL ORDERS
a. Consider exception to Drainage Criteria Manual for a wetlands project on 19 th Avenue between Western Road and
Walnut Street. CC-98-120

Drainage Engineer, TOM CARTER advised this report is in reference to one exception to the Drainage Criteria Manual.
The developer of Teal Ridge, (26th and Walnut) has presented a unique request. He desires to construct an actual wetlands
to the north edge of the development. The Oklahoma Wildlife Department will be involved to get it going and what they
need to do for it. There will probably be walking trails where people can visit, and enjoy the wildlife. the developer wants to
perform construction resulting in a wetland rather than a buildable site. He stressed there would be no increase and there
will be no damage to upstream or downstream. The developer will not be allowed to show an increase in the flood elevation.
This would be an excellent use for the floodplain property because it takes it back to what it use to be. The proposed project
will have areas of standing water varying in depth from 2 inches to 18 inches with walking paths through the area.

Teal Ridge’s engineer contacted staff prior to the start of design with concern about the 1.5 ft. fill requirement in the flood
plain. This area is entirely located in the flood fringe. Considerable discussion has occurred between staff and the
Commission in the past month place regarding the requirements and limitations for development in the floodplain. This
request is only for the 1.5 foot rule. The development must still meet the zero increase requirement for discharge and the
zero increase in flood elevation requirement. These two requirements are justified for protection of health and property and
can be demonstrated through computer models. These two requirements are the backbone of the drainage ordinance.

The drainage criteria manual has a requirement that no fill be placed in the floodplain where the depth of water during the
100 year flood is 1.5 feet or greater. This restriction is coupled with a percentage of encroachment into the floodplain.
When the criteria manual was adopted in 1979, there was no availability to the computer models presently used in
floodplain management so the 1.5 foot fill requirement was an arbitrary number used as a tool to limit the increase in the
flood elevation due to unregulated fill being placed in the floodplain. When the drainage criteria manual was written, many
areas of the floodplain were being filled with off-site material resulting in the floodplain being squeezed down with no
regulatory control. Another aspect of the 1.5 foot rule not equitable to property owners along the floodplain is that there are
instances where property on one side of a creek could be developed even though the floodplain is relatively narrow on that
side while property on adjacent side of the creek cannot be developed even though the actual floodplain is wider because of a
low area that would require greater than 1.5 feet of fill. The percentage of encroachment is a more equitable approach for
allowing development on both sides.

Reasons for bringing this issue to the Commission at this time instead of the Board of Drainage Appeals is that (1) the
Drainage Board is for appeals to rulings as they pertain to drainage whether the appeal is made by a developer or a citizen.
At present, there have been no actual ruling made on this issue for this site, therefore, staff did not believe it would be
proper to involve the Drainage Board at this time; and (2) public perception. If this issue was dealt with at the
administrative level for this site, some people would believe no control is being maintained over floodplain development by
the City even though all technical based requirements are being enforced. One thing to keep in mind is that the drainage
criteria manual contains guidelines for allowing development as well as technical requirements. Since each site located in or
near the floodplain is unique in it’s physical characteristics and proposed use, the guidelines need to be examined on an
individual site basis.

The ordinances and drainage criteria manual were written to address development to create buildable areas, not restoring a
more natural function to the floodplain but because of the wording, any type of development or construction must meet the
requirements and guidelines. Staff believes this project should be allowed to occur since it will restore floodplain land to a
more natural state. Allowing an exception to the 1.5 foot limitation will not relieve the developer of any other requirements
from the criteria manual or the drainage ordinance. Calculations and all related information to show the development will
not result in an increase in the flood elevation will be required prior to the issuance of an earth change permit for the site.

Staff recommended the exception for the 1.5 foot fill requirement should be authorized with the condition all other
ordinance requirements be met.

In response to a question from Vice-Mayor Scarbrough, MR. CARTER stated there will be no buildings placed in this area,
just earthen dams to hold the water.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE wondered if it would not be advisable to create a new section to deal with restoration
of sites, rather than development as we have addressed it. She would prefer that, because once you issue a variance,
everyone will want one with the end result of having an ordinance filled with variances.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 8
COMMISSIONER LACY and MR. CARTER agreed.

MS. KARNS advised the purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the overall drainage in terms of discharge and other flood
elevation on offsite properties. That may include the 1.5 rule, or preservation of life and property. We have also talked
about eco-systems and the need to maintain the drainage ways just for the sake of drainage. She did not see this as either a
waiver, an exception or variance at all, but having the drainage engineer make an interpretation of the ordinance, the
criteria manual, and all of that as a whole to attain the purpose of the ordinance, which is a “zero” rise. This purpose
ordinance is not intended as a restriction on development. It is intended to guide development, and not to make the situation
any worse for anybody . There are places already within the ordinance where he has to decide and it is not so simple anyone
can do it, and then the Drainage Appeals Board may help him to change his mind. She did not see this as setting some huge
precedent. Every single plan Mr. Carter reviews is different than one he reviewed before.

MAYOR HENSON did not see having an ordinance for everything. MS. KARNS continued the 1.5 ft. rise is an arbitrary
standard and it is different than objective. If it were truly objective based on modeling and that sort of thing, she would
agree it would need to have a variance or to amend the ordinance. As discussed on earlier occasions, we do need to seek out
the conflicts and the refinements that are needed to be assured we attain the backbone of the ordinance but she did not see
this as being a variance or exception. Someone may appeal this to the Drainage Board and they may disagree. MR.
CARTER said he would still feel comfortable in maintaining the ordinance in which we do not fill the depth greater than the
1.5 ft. rise.

CAROL MODER, 1512 Wildwood Ct., representing Citizens To Protect Our Neighborhood, read from a prepared text
which challenged the drainage engineer’s ability to allow this exception. There was concern not about the two specific
projects presented tonight regarding drainage but the procedures by which the variance from the ordinance may be
granted. The ordinance does not explicitly give the Drainage Engineer the authority to not enforce portions of the
ordinance, or exceptions to the City Drainage Standard, to condone approvals, accept, or reject them as presented. The
authority to grant exceptions is explicitly given to the Board of Drainage Appeals where hydrologists can make those
determinations.

MS. KARNS said Mr. Carter will need to pull up all the potential conflicts for us and we will need to work with him and the
Drainage Board, or various people on that Task Force to put the language that will inflect what the actual practice is
becoming as we develop this.

COMMISSIONER LACY understood, but said sooner or later we will have to rely upon the professional judgment of the
person we have hired to make that decision. He recalled examining the new drainage ordinance in depth but said we really
never looked at the drainage manual, and it was just recently the 1.5 foot requirement was found and more vigorously
enforced. While he agreed with Commissioner Mullendore, maybe the determination on the part of the drainage engineer
should have been no, this does not meet the criteria and therefore the Drainage Board should consider for a variance. He
asked if Mr. Carter believed he had the authority to make that judgment. MR. CARTER was affirmative, and referred to
the section that read “a drainage study accepted by the City Engineer shall not relieve the developer, the land owner or the
developing engineer of any responsibility to meet all requirements of the drainage criteria manual, drainage standards that
are not explicitly addressed.” MAYOR HENSON believed we are following the process.

MS. KARNS said the section of the ordinance referred to regarding if the plan meets all specifications, the drainage
engineer shall approve it, is really there for the protection of the developer. If they come in and their plan meets everything
and the city just says no, that would allow the developer or interested party the ability to raise the issue that the city or
engineer had no discretion or circumstances. The reason this is before the Commission tonight is that it is a policy
consideration. Her concern was, no matter what you do, we’ll end up in District Court and whoever is dissatisfied will ask
questions of the Drainage Engineer, and will looking for an engineering reason why 1.5 shouldn’t be 2.0 or 4.0. Based on
her discussions with him today she did not think he has an answer to that. It’s up to the Commission to decide whether to
hold fast to that, whether it goes to the Board of Drainage Appeals or whether to accept his recommendation on how it
should work.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE recalled the many meetings in which the Task Force met with the public, the
developers, the engineers, and when it came before the Commission there were many public hearings regarding this subject.
What we ended up with was something that everyone said we can live with and not every group got everything they wanted
but that’s our starting point. We said at the time once we get our new drainage ordinances, we’re satisfied and we accept
them. We need to stick with them and let it go through the natural process. COMMISSIONER LACY remembered we
really never looked at the Drainage Manual and it was just recently we found the 1.5 requirement.

In response, MR. CARTER said in another paragraph of the ordinance it allows him to approve plans as long as they
address provisions. The plans will have to meet the overall intent of the city’s drainage ordinance which presents an
increase of stormwater runoff and damage upstream or downstream of the property. The members of the Drainage Board
did not wish to tie his hands completely and wanted to give him some latitude. MS. MODER stated if a case warrants a
variance from a regulation, it should go to the Appeals Board. If the regulation is outdated, it should be revised.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 9
BILL MILLER, 2903 N. Perkins Road, read from the 1979 study stating the manual represents the state of the art approach
to urban runoff management, and placed the city among the leaders in the nation in regards to managing this most difficult
urban service. He believed the Drainage Engineer can make the correct decision and that decision can be appealed within
10 days. As Chairman of the Use Tax Committee at OSU, he remembered OSU’s promise to do something to improve the
dam at Lake Carl Blackwell to help the flooding of the wetlands city wide. Nothing has been done thus far. He hoped they
could meet their obligation because this will help to regulate the length of time we stay at high water. He further asked why
we don’t approve funds to attack the root of the problem by cleaning up Stillwater Creek, and Cow Creek, where the water
backs up. COMMISSIONER LACY understood OSU is making efforts to obtain resources to improve Blackwell’s Dam.
MR. CARTER responded, he has made an initial step in getting another agency to apply for funding to work on cleaning out
Stillwater Creek.

Drainage Task Force member, TOM HAAN advised he was confused regarding the documents offered tonight, and
understood now there is no recommendation. MAYOR HENSON explained the procedures. She said all the Drainage
Engineer needs to do tonight is inform us and the public - and if the Commission accepts his recommendation, but the public
does not, they can appeal it through the Drainage Appeals Board. DR. HAAN urged them not to circumvent the Drainage
Appeal Board.

MAYOR HENSON spoke in favor. MR. CARTER said even though it is a wetlands, it will still need to be looked at because
they are re-arranging the dirt in the floodplains and it can affect the flow pattern.

SHELDON KATZ, 1609 Wildwood, sought confirmation of what he thought was being asked tonight. Even though we do
not have a complete drainage study - the Drainage Engineer has decided that no matter what the details show, he was
comfortable enough that he would not reject the proposed based on the 1.5 foot ruling? MS. KARNS said that is not
correct. MR. CARTER said regarding the wet-lands, he has not had anything submitted at all. He believed this wetland
project is beneficial enough that the 1.5 foot rule should not even apply. Regarding the high tech. park project itself, he did
not wish to reject it based on the 1.5 foot rule, if it can be justified. COMMISSIONER LACY asked if there would be a
subsequent ruling? MR. CARTER said he would look at a complete drainage plan including the HEC-1, HEC-2, Flood
plain impact, what it does to everyone on the wetlands - then I will make a ruling.

MS. MODER did not believe the appeal should have to be made by the public, it seems entirely backward. If some one
wants an exception to the ordinance, that should be the entity that should have to go before the Board of Drainage Appeals.

 MR. CARTER stated the purpose of this report to provide information to the public and to the Commission regarding
proposed staff action. If the Commission believes the current policy and ordinance should be modified, staff would
appreciate their input. If there is no change at this time staff will proceed with the current policy.

COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND said the key emphasis is for “zero tolerance” for affecting the flood plain. If we aren’t
affecting the upstream or downstream flows, that is the critical part to focus on and that was on track for what he would
expect from a drainage ordinance.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE said she had not heard anything tonight to suggest there should be modification at this
point in time. If no changes are needed at this time staff will proceed under the current policies and ordinances. This led
her to believe staff would continue under the parameters in the drainage ordinance, so she concluded, you will make your
decision and there is recourse for anyone who feels that decision is not correct? MR. CARTER said that is correct, that is
why I brought it before the Commission so they would know about it and it would also give the public an opportunity to be
informed. If he had done this administratively, which is permitted to do under the ordinance, the public would never have
known until it was too late.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE said it was great to take a portion of the flood plain and put it back to a natural state,
but she did not like the idea this early in working with the ordinance to just constantly talking about variances and
exceptions because that will set a precedent and create the possibility, (and in fact a statement was made last Thursday night
that if this is done “I’m going to request a variance to it too. Everybody will want to request variances. It will be difficult to
say no to the next person once this variance or exception is granted. COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND said he believed
each will be addressed on a case by case basis, and he did not believe this is setting a precedent. He liked allowing the
Drainage Engineer the latitude to evaluate each property and to encourage development, again with the focus on the zero
effect.

MAYOR HENSON said she had also heard our Attorney say this is not a variance. MS. KARNS said a variance can only be
granted by the Board of Appeals. She saw this as a matter of internal interpretation.

ALAN TREE, 2001 N. Glenwood, questioned what the drainage engineer was actually doing if he is not granting a variances
or exception, when he allows someone who is developing that is in violation of the drainage ordinance.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 10
MS. KARNS explained we’re really not talking about an exception or variance. What Mr. Carter is talking about is
compliance with the ordinance within the parameters of the entire ordinance rather than approval or disapproval of the
plan being driven or blocked by one arbitrary number. He is not granting anything - he is considering the criteria for
approval of a particular plan. The information he has provided now is to let the Commission know how he is working that
through so if it is a problem and they disagree with his interpretation, they can set him straight before the engineers, staff,
and the public spend more time and money arguing over it. MR. TREE said all the Drainage Engineer can do is determine
whether or not it meets the criteria of the ordinance. The right to grant an exception to a specific given direction is given to
the Drainage Appeals Board. He said we’re losing the integrity of the law. He believed if a drainage plan meets the code the
engineer must approve it - otherwise it should be denied and sent to the Drainage Appeals Board.

MAYOR HENSON asked if it were true that to go straight from Mr. Carter to the Appeals Board, he would have to deny
this. MS. KARNS said no, it could be approved and any aggrieved party could appeal. The MAYOR said it would appear
we’re wasting our money if we’re not able to use our Drainage Engineer to guide us through this and make some of these
decisions, and he won’t be making final decisions until he gets more information. MR. TREE argued the ordinance states
that appeals should be granted by the Appeals Board, not the Drainage Engineer.

As understood by Commissioner Lacy, the Drainage Engineer can balance the criteria in the Drainage Manual and if it is his
judgment that some of those are not met, but on balance it meets the ordinance requirements, then that’s okay. MS.
KARNS said at that point the drainage engineer can use that criteria to approve or reject a plan and anyone who is
aggrieved may appeal that to the Board of Drainage Appeals, and after that they may go to District Court.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE believed at this point we should stick with the ordinance. She said it may be arbitrary
but at some point in time it was put there, and it is still there. Until the ordinance is changed, it should be followed.

MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO DIRECT THE DRAINAGE ENGINEER TO ENFORCE THE 1.5
FOOT FILL RULE AS PROVIDED IN THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL, AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN
THE ORDINANCE.

COMMISSIONER LACY wondered where this was all leading. The Drainage Engineer looks at a document that is full of
technical requirements and balances all of those -

MS. KARNS said in her view, there is some internal conflict as previously discussed within the things that are adopted in
1979, the amendments, and the drainage rule. You look to what will accommodate the overall purpose of the ordinance. She
had no way of knowing whether this was the only arbitrary number or if it is one of many. If the ordinance were so
technically correct and perfect, that no discretion was required on the part of the Drainage Engineer at all, then any
engineer in town could bring a drainage plan here, and it could be stamped and certified that it meets everything - and we
would not need a drainage engineer at all. So it is clear that some discretion is allowed by the engineer, maybe not a lot, but
some so long as he continues to keep it within the ordinance.

MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

MAYOR HENSON said by hearing no other motion, the Commission was indicating the Drainage Engineer should follow
the ordinance as you interpret it, and if someone wants to appeal it they may do so to the Drainage Appeal Board. MS.
KARNS advised for those who are interested in the outcome of this should notify the City or the Drainage Engineer in
particular so that when he does make a decision they will be notified and if they are aggrieved, that can be made public.
COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND further noted Mr. Carter’s plans are not final as yet.

COMMISSIONER LACY asked if Mr. Carter would be bringing his recommendations back to the commission on how to
coordinate all that, including some type of consideration to make sure items like this end up in the public arena, at least for
informational purposes, while the technical things go the Board of Drainage Appeals. MR. CARTER agreed.

b. Consider exception to the Drainage Criteria Manual for the High Tech Park development at the southwest corner of 6 th
and Sangre Road. CC-98-121

MR. CARTER explained this issue is very similar to the one just addressed but the proposed use is different. The site is
unique in that the vast majority of it is backwater, meaning water that is not really flowing (it is backed up or flowing
upstream). Because it is all backwater, it is easier to do compensatory storage for it. The area is covered with water until
the stream recedes and then the water drains off. Flood water management has been described as a “time-space” problem.
At any given time there must be a certain amount of water storage (space) to keep the flood elevation from rising. When the
storage is backwater, the actual shape and configuration do not matter, only the volume and the ability to receive and
discharge the water as required. He said he had found out this evening there is money in the proposed budget for a soccer
field that the city can use. That is not in his area, but it is a good use for the floodplain. This site acts to some degree as a
dam across the floodplain because it is elevated. The only area that flows as part of Stillwater Creek is the north edge of the
site along the south ditch of Highway 51. This water flows under Sangre Road adjacent to the highway.

Mr. Carter was not entirely satisfied with the model as submitted and had informed the engineer that a different modeling
was needed with some detailed configurations. Mr. Carter was also building his own modeling to do some cross checking.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 11
What has been proposed is a large open area with one or two ponds along Highway 51. These ponds will be designed to hold
water at all times creating a park like area. The buildings sites are to be situated along the south edge of the site.

The engineer plans to reroute the water that flows in the ditch along Highway 51 through the ponds and then under Sangre
Road at a point further south. Depending on how the hydraulics finally work out - this could also help to a small degree
with flooding of Sangre Road during a smaller rain event. There is also a drainage path on the site that carries water off
that falls on the site. Preliminary plans and calculations presented show no increase in the flood elevation (they actually
show a slight decrease).

Staff supported allowing these sites to be developed, because they are backwater and there is very little actual flow moving
through the site. He recommended authorizing the exception for the 1.5 foot fill requirement with the condition that all
other ordinance requirements (including the percentage encroachment limitation) be met.

In response to questions, MR. CARTER advised the pond from Owen Thomas’ property to the west fills and runs north to
the ditch along the highway. The plans he has seen show that will probably be picked up and routed through the middle of
the area to get it away from the highway. It will not be a regional detention facility.

BILL MILLER stated there are problems because there will be a wetlands increase with pond storage, and every time the
river goes up, people are told to move their vehicles from Squires Landing (west of this site). Why don’t we get funds to
raise Sangre Road, clean up the creeks all the way to Highway 177, and get rid of the problem? He questioned whether we
should get another professional opinion such as we had to establish this ordinance and get another model made to see if that
agrees with what we have from Roger Gose or Tom Carter.

Industrial Foundation Pres. RON DEMAREE said his organization recognized they are not professional engineers capable
of determining the capacity or utilization of this flood plain land so their first move was to bring local engineer, Roger Gose,
to work with them. Hydrologist, Don Spurrier was then requested to advise if the upstream or downstream areas would be
impacted. Those models were presented and were pretty conclusive. He was disappointed to learn those models would need
to be redone, and was concerned about the deadline of July 15 in which the grant application must be provided. If that
deadline is missed, the park can be forgotten completely for this year, anyhow. They realized the problem to Owen Thomas’
problem in the west, and had taken that into consideration with their plans. He believed the water problem along Highway
51 can be eliminated. They also plan to provide detention areas on the facilities to provide amenities such as the soccer field.
They have worked with staff and recognize Mr. Carter is trying to stay within the laws of the ordinance, and supported his
abilities, and his power and authority to do that. It would be devastating if he is put in a situation where he cannot rule, not
just to this particular project.

MS. KARNS requested, if the Commission would agree, to refer to all those process comments made under the earlier item
under General Orders (item b), but not to ask the clerk to repeat them.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE asked if this would be considered a variance. MS. KARNS said this is the very same
thing as Item b. What it boils down to is, does the Drainage Engineer have any discretion and if so, how much. He believes
this is within his discretion. How much discretion he has is a factual issue, not a legal issue. Our legal opinion is that he has
some discretion. It is up to the Commission to decide whether he really does, and if he exercises that discretion improperly
then it can be appealed to the Drainage Board.

ROGER GOSE, 113 E. 8th, acknowledged there are modifications to the model that have to be met but it was his
understanding the Drainage Engineer has reviewed them, recognized they were on the right track and they can keep it
below the existing flood elevation. They will still be able to meet that “no rise.” The site would include 15-20 buildings, and
the city ordinance requires the finished floor to be 15” above the 100 year flood plan. We typically design the pad to be 15”-
18” above and the floor is on top of that for an extra factor of safety. They will also design the roadway to be higher than
Sangre Road so that transportation will not be impeded going back to Highway 51. They had looked and hoped to rebuild
Sangre Road but it is in the floodway, and there is a lot of red tape to go through on the federal level to bring that road up
out than to build a bypass.

MR. CARTER responded to a comment from Bill Miller. He said he had met with Larry Poindexter 2-3 weeks ago about
cleaning the creeks, who put together a request for funds to do this next year, as part of the Stillwater Work Plan. The city
will probably be asked for temporary right-of-ways to assist, and he believed there was a good chance this will happen.

MARTHA MAYNARD, 1301 West 4th, suggested we need to wait until 30 days are up with the EDA to learn what their
recommendation is before we take action on this. MAYOR HENSON said, actually we’re not taking any action.
SHELDON KATZ said for the sake of public perception and the sensitive nature of the floodplain, it would be better to go
through the Drainage Board of Appeals for this request.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 12
COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE referred to a May 26 memo from the City Manger, in which he stated “the Assistant
City Attorney and Tom Carter have met and reviewed the ordinances and procedures. Tom Carter has determined that a
variance from the 1.5 foot of fill in the floodway will not cause a problem. So, she asked, when is a variance not a variance?
MR. WEINAUG responded, this was taken from a memo of “breaking developments” he has been providing the
Commissioners as an item coming up of interest in the near future. To the best of his knowledge at that time this was the
direction in which they were headed. Subsequent to that, of course, Mr. Carter visited with the City Attorney, and further
information was developed and it went in a different direction. Mr. Weinaug recognized in providing that information there
is the risk that something he has been advised of might not necessarily pan out, but believed it is important they be advised
at the earliest possible date of something they might be hearing about.

COMMISSIONER SCARBROUGH said it would be wonderful if they can clean up the area at Sangre Road and Highway
51. He has seen the water up on the south side of the Highway but on the other hand, saw this as an opportunity to address
it. It would be a big benefit to those who cannot travel on Sangre when there is a water problem.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE said we’re heard this is very preliminary. Someone made the statement there were a
lot of studies that still need to be done? MR. GOSE explained there is a lot of “fine tuning” left to do - their initial plan was
crude. There are other things they have agreed to      do to make this happen, but they can meet the zero rise and zero
increase in discharge. COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE said in the past all of our problems have been as result of some
engineer’s recommendation to the City Commission, and it was proved. She believed we need to go very slowly, this is a
critical area - and you shouldn’t try to fool Mother Nature.

MAYOR HENSON said if she had heard correctly, this should lower the water, and she put her faith in Tom Carter. She
believed this would bring in millions of dollars in the future, and we should be able to keep some of our bright young people
here in Stillwater. COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND strongly supported the concept of the plan, and sought to bring this
project to public’s awareness as soon as they can. COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE said she was 100% in favor of the
hi-tech park but 100% opposed to the location.

No action was needed or taken.

c. Authorize approval of contract with Tischler & Assoc. for the Annexation Reconnaissance Study for the City of
Stillwater.

MR. WEINAUG advised the estimated cost of this project is $58,900, approx. $8,900 more than had been placed in the
estimated budget. Staff recommended proceeding with the study to help us deal with the whole issue of annexation, to
address what areas should be annexed, what will be most beneficial to the city in terms of equal benefits for equal costs, and
if there are other areas that do not fit that appropriate relationship, what other alternatives we may consider to make it
equitable so those in the city do not have to fund improvements for outside city limits, or new people brought into the city.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH TISCHLER &
ASSOCIATES.

COMMISSIONER LACY asked if electricity would also be addressed. MR. WEINAUG said yes, the intent is to look at the
entire revenue structure - whether it be property taxes, electricity, and maybe recommending a different structure.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

10.       ORDINANCES
.         (first reading)
a. Ordinance No. 2615 rezoning property from RS3 (Small Lot Single-Family Dist) to RS3-PD (Small Lot Single Family
District Planned Development) for property located on the west side of 900 blk. of Shumard Drive).

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY TOM CLEVELAND TO APPROVE FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE 2615, AND ADVANCE IT SECOND READING.
-
ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 13
b. Ordinance No. 2616 closing a portion of Mathews Street near the intersection of Mathews and Knoblock Street.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY TOM CLEVELAND TO APPROVE FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE 2616, AND ADVANCE IT TO SECOND READING.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

c. Ordinance No. 2617 closing a portion of a platted street right-of-way located east of the intersection of Melrose, Admiral,
and Redwood Streets.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO APPROVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
2617, AND ADVANCE IT TO SECOND READING.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

c. Ordinance No. 2618 closing a platted addition located in the 900-1200 blk. of So. Shumard Drive.

MOTION BY BUD LACY, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO APPROVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2618
AND ADVANCE IT TO SECOND READING.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

11.       REPORTS FROM OFFICERS AND BOARDS
a. Miscellaneous items from the City Attorney. MS. KARNS requested an Executive Session to consider possible action
relating to Labor Negotiations/Bargaining Agents.
b. Miscellaneous items from the City Manager. No items presented.
c. Miscellaneous items from the City Commission.
COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND reminded everyone of the annual Chamber meeting on Thursday to recognize the Hall of
Fame inductees. COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE advised the City Attorney had provided a draft policy for
improvement district participation and would like to request a ordinance to be considered during a public hearing so allow
public input. COMMISSIONER LACY requested to hold a study session before that is put on public. MR. WEINAUG
said to provide some guidelines by providing a map showing the 11 miles of unpaved streets, because while we cannot see the
sewers running under the ground but it will be helpful to consider that policy while looking at those streets. The lack of
sewers will be probably be in a similar area to those streets. The Commissioners agreed that would be good to have during a
study session while they consider the whole package. MAYOR HENSON thanked Colonial Florist for the very nice summer
arrangement of flowers presented this evening.

12.     APPOINTMENTS
a. Appointments to the Parks, Events & Recreation Advisory Board.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY TOM CLEVELAND TO RE-APPOINT TERRY MILLER, WINFREY
HOUSTON, AND KATHY BALLENGER TO THE PARKS, EVENTS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

13.      NEW BUSINESS No items presented.
14.      ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, QUESTIONS No items presented.
15.      RECESS TO SPGA& SUA

MAYOR HENSON recessed the SCC meeting at 10:55 p.m. to convene the SPGA meeting. The SPGA meeting was
adjourned at 10:57 p.m. and the SUA meeting was called to order. The SUA meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. The City
Commission meeting reconvened to consider an Executive Session.

16.      EXECUTIVE SESSION

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO CONVENE FOR EXECUTIVE
SESSION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

17.      RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ACTION, IF ANY No action taken.
S.C.C. 6/1/98 Page 14

18.     ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: MIKE HENSON, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY, TOM
CLEVELAND - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

The Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.




______________________________       _________________________________
MAYOR MIKE HENSON                                SYLVIA S. MALLETT,
                                                 DEPUTY CITY CLERK

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:3/1/2011
language:English
pages:14