CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES of Meeting No. 830

Tuesday, November 13, 2001, 1:00 p.m.

Francis F. Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level of City Hall

Tulsa Civic Center

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT  MEMBERS ABSENT   STAFF PRESENT   OTHERS PRESENT

 

Dunham, Vice Chair

Turnbo

Beach

Boulden, Legal

Cooper

Perkins

 

Butler

 

 

White, Chair

 

 

 

 

The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 12:06 p.m., as well as at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall.

 

After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19232

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception of the required 110% setback from an O zoned district from 110’ to 7’6” on the north and 35’0” on the east for a monopole cell tower 100’ in height, located NE/c E. 21st St. & S. Columbia. 

 

      Presentation:

         Mr. Beach announced that the applicant, Dan Sullivan, requested a continuance. 

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to CONTINUE Case No. 19232 to the meeting on November 27, 2001.

 

Case No. 19240

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception to permit cellular telephone antennae and supporting structure to be affixed to an existing electrical utility monopole 75’ in height extending the height of the supporting structure to 82’ with antennae extending 3’ above the supporting structure; a Special Exception to delete the requirement of security fencing of the cellular telephone tower; and a Special Exception to modify the setback of the cellular telephone tower from residentially zoned lots from 91.5’ to 42’.  

 

      Presentation:

         Mr. Beach announced that the notice was flawed and a notice on Case No. 19240 for November 27, 2001 has been sent out and the case could be stricken from the agenda. 

 

Case No. 19229

      Action Requested:

         Approval of an amended site plan to relocate manufactured home in an AG zoned district. 

 

      Presentation:

         Mr. Beach announced that Case No. 19229 was withdrawn.

 

      MINUTES:

         On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of October 9, 2001 (No.828).

 

         On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of October 23, 2001 (No.829).

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Case No. 19216

      Action Requested:

         Request for refund. 

 

      Presentation:

         Mr. Beach stated that staff recommends a $175.00 refund based on the fact that time and resources had been spent, between the time the case was filed and the withdrawal request. 

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a partial refund of $175.00.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

NEW APPLICATIONS

 

Case No. 19223

      Action Requested:

    Variance of minimum required front yard setback of 35’ down to 25’.  SECTION 403.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS;  a Variance of rear yard setback of 25’ down to 22’.  SECTION 403.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; a Special Exception to permit a 6’ wall in the required front yard.  SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, located 3406 S. Delaware.

 

      Presentation:

         Juliana Hakman, 2230 E. 37th, stated they propose to build additions to their home and to switch the front and back yards.  They are trying to avoid cutting down large trees in the yard.  She explained there has been an extenuating delay in the building plans.  She pointed out the setback variance requested to build a wall, and the corner of the garage that encroaches on the setback line.  They also desire to build a wall in the front yard of six feet in height instead of 4 feet. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked if Ms. Hakman had spoken with any of the neighbors about this application.  She replied that she has spoken with several people.  She indicated that the opposition was to the delay in the project rather than the project itself.  Ms. Perkins asked for a projected timetable.  She responded it should take about six months.

 

      Interested Parties:

         Jane Jergins, 3303 S. Delaware, stated her opposition to this application.  She pointed out that a four to six-foot wall would obstruct the view of a three-way intersection at 34th St. and Delaware.  She stated there has never been a car accident at this intersection and she believes it is because of the good visibility.  She indicated the wall would not be in keeping with the neighborhood with large lots and no walls.  She mentioned that the applicant plans to put in a pool in the front yard and there is not enough room for it.  She stated that all of the neighbors within 300’ of the subject property are opposed to the wall with concern for safety at the intersection. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         There was much discussion with the Board regarding which yards are front or back and the setback measurements. 

 

      Interested Parties:

         Rod Baker, 3424 S. Delaware, stated that the applicant has to show hardships and she has only shown self-imposed hardships.

 

         Steve Bradshaw, 2675 E. 33rd Pl., submitted petitions with signatures (Exhibits A-5).  He stated that the subject lot is about three feet above the street level.  He repeated objection to a wall that would obstruct the view for traffic.

 

         Philip Teeter, 3450 S. Delaware, stated this application is not allowed by the covenants.  Mr. White informed him that the Board does not deal with matters of covenant, that is a civil matter for court.

 

         Tim Nelson, 2735 E. 34th, stated he is opposed to a pool in the front yard.  He spoke his objection to the wall for privacy at a pool. 

 

      Applicant’s Rebuttal:

         Ms. Hakman responded that this is the first time she has heard any objection to the proposed wall, even though she has talked with Ms. Jergins and others before.  She stated that they have taken the neighborhood into consideration and they rejected the original plans for the wall because it would have been too far out and obstruct the view for traffic.  The way the house was built does not give a clear front or back yard.   She stated that the hardships are caused by the situation of the existing structure on the property. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White tried to determine the placement of the wall, the location of the proposed pool, the space around the pool.  Ms. Hakman could not answer specifically.  Mr. Beach reminded the Board that pools are not allowed in the front yard, and she is not advertised for relief from that requirement.    The Board discussed the options and requirements for front yard, rear yard and side yard per the Zoning Code.   Mr. Beach informed the Board that the case was advertised properly.  He added that the only thing missing was the pool and he was not informed of the pool. 

 

         Councilor Brady Pringle asked to speak.   He indicated that Interested Parties want a continuance.  He mentioned that he has received numerous calls regarding this property because of the delay in construction.  He added that he used to live in the neighborhood.  He stated that common sense indicates 34th Street is the front of the house.  He realized that the address has been changed. 

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of minimum required front yard setback of 35’ down to 25’ from the property line; a Variance of rear yard setback of 25’ down to 22’, strictly for the corner of the garage, per plan as submitted today, finding the hardship to be the existing structure and the shape of the lot; and to DENY a Special Exception to permit a 6’ wall in the required front yard, finding it would not be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described property:

 

            Lot 1, Block 7, Timberland, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19224

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception for church and church accessory uses.  SECTION 401.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located SW/c W. 39th St. & 28th W. Ave.

 

 

      Presentation:

         Byron Salsman, 2618 W. 45th St., stated he was representing the Redfork Baptist Church as the architect and as a member.  He stated that the church owns the south forty feet of Lot 2, and recently purchased the balance of Lot 2 and Lot 1.  They propose to build a bus barn.  They plan to use the existing house on the property for temporary storage during construction.  They are removing some smaller existing structures.  They plan to keep the 12’ x 12’ existing storage building and the structure in the southwest corner.  A site plan (Exhibit B-1) was submitted to the Board.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Cooper asked if any of the property would be used for parking.  Mr. Salsman replied that it would not be used for parking as they already have adequate paved parking.  Mr. Beach informed the Board that a tie-agreement would be recommended to prevent a bus barn from being a separate principle use.  Mr. Salsman stated they would be in favor of the tie-agreement.                      

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception for church and church accessory uses, per plan, conditioned upon a tie-agreement between the subject property and the church property, on the following described property:

 

            Lot 1 - 2, Block 39, Red Fork, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19225

      Action Requested:

         Variance of side yard setback from 15’ down to 5’ in an RE district.  SECTION 403.A. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RT and RM Districts – Use Unit 6, located 2232 E. 26th St.

 

      Presentation:

         Bob Winchester, 2232 E. 26th St., stated the original garage was converted to a living space.  They proposed to build a garage on the east.  They have discussed it with their neighbors.  The site plan was submitted (Exhibit I-1).

 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Dunham noted the staff have asked for an explanation of he could not move the location south and east to connect to the house and meet the required yard.  Mr. Winchester responded that could not be accomplished because of Crow Creek.  Mr. Cooper verified what the applicant stated about the topography.  

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of side yard setback from 15’ down to 5’ in an RE district, per plan, finding the hardship to be the existing setbacks of this nature are common in this neighborhood, and the topography of the lot would prevent locating the garage elsewhere, on the following described property:

 

            Lot 3 and E 30.00’ of Lot 4, Block 2, Forest Hills Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19226

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception to permit a manufactured home in an RS-3 district.  SECTION 401.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9; and a Variance of the one-year time limit to permit on a permanent basis.  SECTION 404.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located approx. 2300 Block of N. Canton Ave. 

 

      Presentation:

         Gary Linder, 12473 E. 13th St., stated they propose to move a manufactured home on the subject property.  He submitted an amended site plan and photographs (Exhibits C-1,2) of other manufactured homes in the neighborhood.  He has plans for a permanent foundation, and an asbestos roof. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked if it is a new structure, to which he replied in the affirmative.   

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to permit a manufactured home in an RS-3 district finding it will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and a Special Exception of the one-year time limit to permit a 100-year time limit, per the amended plan submitted today, finding it will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or Comprehensive Plan, on the following described property:

 

            Lot 3 - 4, Block 1, S. R. Lewis Addition to the Town of Dawson, now a part of the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19227

      Action Requested:

         Variance of required yard abutting a public street from 35’ to 27’ on East 41st Street.   SECTION 403.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; and a Variance of required yard abutting a public street from 35’ to 20’ on Evanston Avenue.   SECTION 403.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 3944 S. Evanston Ave.

 

      Presentation:

         David Short, 3944 S. Evanston, stated he is the owner of the home.  The permit office told him that the property is legal non-conforming.  He proposes to build a porch onto the front of the house on both sides.  He stated that the neighbors are in support of the improvement.   He plans to move the driveway also.  A site plan (Exhibit D-1) was submitted.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White verified with the applicant where he plans to add the porch and driveway. 

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of required yard abutting a public street from 35’ to 27’ on East 41st Street; and a Variance of required yard abutting a public street from 35’ to 20’ on Evanston Avenue, per plan, finding the hardship to be the existing condition and is improving a non-conforming situation, on the following described property:

 

            Lot 7, Block 25, of Blocks 19-26 of the Ranch Acres Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19228

      Action Requested:

         Variance of lot width from required 200’ to 135’ on Tract A and 100’ on Tract B.  SECTION 303.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 6; a Variance of lot area from 2 acres to 1.89 acres on Tract A.  SECTION 303.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT; and a Variance of land area per dwelling unit from 2.2 acres to 2.0 acres on Tract A to permit a lot split.  SECTION 303.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, located 7507 S. Elwood Pl.

 

      Presentation:

         Ruby Prince, 7507 S. Elwood, stated she has five acres and would like to sell the back two and one-half acres and  build a roadway. 

 

      Interested Parties:

         Jack Heath, 7505 S. Elwood Ave., stated he did not object to the application.  He did want to contest the accuracy of the new survey (Exhibit J-1).  He was concerned that it infringes on his property. 

 

      Applicant’s Rebuttal:

         Ms. Prince acknowledged that the survey was not totally accurate. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White commented that the Board makes a decision on the legal description.  Mr. Beach provided information regarding division of land for a lot-split.  

 

      Board Action:

         On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE Variance of lot width from required 200’ to 135’ on Tract A and 100’ on Tract B; a Variance of lot area from 2 acres to 1.89 acres on Tract A; and a Variance of land area per dwelling unit from 2.2 acres to 2.0 acres on Tract A to permit a lot split, per survey submitted, finding the hardship to be the configuration of the lot, on the following described property:

 

The S/2 S/2 N/2 SW/4 NW/4 of Section 12, T-18-N, R-12-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19230

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception to allow Use Unit 15 (to test fishing rods and reels for Zebco) in a CS zoned district.  SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15, located 9810 E. 42nd St. S.

 

      Presentation:

         Victor Johnson, 9726 E. 42nd St., Ste. 100, stated he asked the marketing director to present the case.  A brochure of Tech-Ridge Park (Exhibit E-1) was submitted to the Board.

 

         Patrick Coates, 2808 E. 27th Pl., stated he is the Marketing Director at the park where the subject property is located.  He stated they were discussing the possibility of Zebco moving into one of their office buildings in Tech-Ridge Park.   Zebco would be the only tenant in the Seminole building, which backs up to the Broken Arrow Expressway.  He stated the work would include testing rods and reels, research and development, paint booth, and 95% general office use. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White questioned Mr. Beach about the paint booth regarding Code requirements.  Mr. Beach replied that prohibition to paint booths is for automobiles in a use unit 17.  Mr. Cooper asked if all of the 5% of the use unit 15 is indoors.  Mr. Coates informed the Board that plan to build a casting pond about four feet deep, and 20 by 40 yards for testing the rods and reels, that would be fenced and lighted.  He stated that they would need an overhead door

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to allow Use Unit 15 (to test fishing rods and reels for Zebco) in a CS zoned district, on the conditions indoor testing will not exceed more than 20% of the building, and testing permitted on the pond to be constructed outdoors, on the following described property:

 

            A part of Lot 1, Block 2, Koger Executive Center, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at the mutual property corner of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Koger Executive Center; thence S 62°05’00” E along the Sly right-of-way line of East 42nd Street South, a distance of 138.46’; thence along a curve to the left, with a central angle at 31°49’00” and a radius of 225.00’ a distance of 124.94’; to a point; thence S 08°54’00” E a distance of 83.05’; thence S 39°50’00” E a distance of 244.93’; thence S 52°33’00” W a distance of 67.98’; thence S 22°55’00” W a distance of 57.00’ to a point on the Sly line of Koger Executive Center; thence N 67°05’00” W, along the Sly line of Lot 1, Block 2, Koger Executive Center, said Sly line being the Nly right-of-way line of the Broken Arrow Expressway, to the mutual rear property corner of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Koger Executive Center; thence N 22°55’00” E a distance of 265.00’ to the POB.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

 

Case No. 19231

      Action Requested:

         Variance of required 200’ setback from an R district to 139’.  SECTION 1221.C.2.c. USE UNIT 21.  BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use Unit 14, located 7712 E. 71st St.

 

      Presentation:

         Regina Amini, 7106 E. 76th, stated she owns Amini’s Galleria and they were seeking to obtain a new sign.

 

         Mir Khezri, 1801 N. Willow Ave., Broken Arrow, stated there is an existing sign on the property that does not look good. 

 

         Mr. White out at 2:50 p.m.

 

         The owner wants to replace it with a sign (Exhibit F-1) as submitted to the Board.  There is an electronic variable message board included on the sign.  He mentioned that the residential neighborhood would not be able to see the message board.

 

         Mr. White returned at 2:52 p.m.

        

         During last winter the sign requiring manually placed letters could not be changed because the letters were frozen to the sign. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Dunham asked for the height of the sign.  Mr. Khezri replied 28’ tall.  Mr. Dunham stated the maximum height allowed is 25’.  Mr. Khezri responded that there is an exception, stating Title 42, Section 1221.E.1, permits a height of 25’, …unless the sign is setback one foot for each foot of height exceeding 25’.  He added that they plan to setback the sign for the added height.  He provided a copy of a letter (Exhibit F-2) from the sign inspector to the Board.  Mr. Cooper asked for the hardship.  Mr. Khezri stated that the sign is located in the largest commercial district and unfortunately has residential zoning right across the street.   He felt that the new sign would be a great improvement over the old sign.  Mr. Beach asked for the height of the wall around the residential area.  Mr. Khezri estimated the wall to be eight feet in height. 

 

         Mr. Cooper out at 3:01 p.m. and returned at 3:03 p.m.

 

         Mr. Khezri explained that the electronic sign is three feet by ten feet.  Ms. Perkins asked if the electronic sign would just have two lines or more for messages.  Mr. Khezri responded that the only thing that would scroll is within the three by ten foot electronic sign, and everything else is stationary. 

 

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties who wished to speak.    

     

      Board Action:

         On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 3-1-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper "aye", Perkins "nay", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of required 200’ setback from an R district to 139’, per plan, on the conditions of the sign inspector’s specifications, namely that it not exceed 202 square feet, a 66’ setback from the property line, that the area for variable message sign not exceed three feet by ten feet, 70° horizontal and 30° vertical, finding the hardship to be that 71st St. is a unique commercial street and the only residential property affected by this is the property to the north with an eight foot fence around it, and the variable message board is less square footage than the existing sign, on the following described property:

 

            Lot 1, Block 1, Home Improvement Center Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19233

      Action Requested:

         Variance of Section 403A as to the height of a portion only of four of the eleven buildings comprising the Palazzo-Tulsa Apartment Complex.  SECTION 403.A. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RT and RM Districts – Use Unit 8, located 660’ W of NW/c E. 51st St. & 145th E. Ave.

 

      Presentation:

         William B. Jones, 15 E. 5th St., Suite 300, stated he is the attorney for the applicant.  His client bought the subject property, planned and built the apartment complex after review and approval of the plans by the City of Tulsa.  He stated that certificates of occupancy were issued after City of Tulsa agreed that it met requirements of the zoning code.  In September this year the permanent lender required a zoning endorsement to the title policy.  It was discovered that the three-story buildings exceeded the 35’ height limitation for a straight RM-1 building.  The underwriter for the title insurance company required that an application be made for a variance to this code.  Mr. Jones noted that the other three-story apartment buildings in the city were located in a planned unit development where the height limit is higher.  He indicated that this case would not set a precedent because there are other three-story complexes in the city that exceed 35’ in height.  He noted there are no single-family homes around this property and it would not be injurious to the neighborhood.  A site plan (Exhibit K-1) was submitted to the Board.

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of Section 403A as to the height of a portion only of four of the eleven buildings comprising the Palazzo-Tulsa Apartment Complex, per plan, finding it is the same plan approved by the City of Tulsa, and this is a typical development for this type of project, and if there was an error made it was probably made by the City inspection staff, on the following described property:

 

            Lot 1, Block 1, Palazzo-Tulsa Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*

 

Case No. 19234

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception to allow a Use Unit 17 (automobile rental service) in a CS zoned district.  SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17; and a Variance of the total required parking spaces for center to use community parking during hours not utilized by the comedy club.  SECTION 1217.D. USE UNIT 17.  AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, located SW/c E. 69th St. S. & S. Lewis.

 

      Presentation:

         Sherry Johnson, 3301B S. Meridian, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, stated she was representing Av