CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
January 22, 2002, 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 |
|
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler
|
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Wednesday, January 16, 2002, at 3:45 a.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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception of the required 110% setback from an O zoned district
from 110’ to 13’8” on the north and 21’8” on the east for a monopole cell tower
100’ in height. SECTION 1204.C.3.
USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND
UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions – Use Unit 4, located NE/c E. 21st
St. & S. Columbia.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach informed the Board that the applicant has requested a continuance for an
indefinite period, as they have not resolved some issues. He recommended they withdraw the
application and re-file when they are prepared.
Audrey Blank, 522 Colcord Dr., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, stated she
represented AT&T Wireless. She
commented that the application has been continued several times, so that
AT&T could work out an agreement with 21st Property. AT&T is anticipating some new
technology and wants to continue the case indefinitely while they evaluate the
usefulness of the site for the new technology.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins asked about a time limit for continuing cases. Mr. Boulden responded that the time
limitation is 90 days. Mr. White
asked about denying the case without prejudice so new notice would be sent to
the neighborhood. Ms. Perkins asked
if that would convey a stigma on the application. Mr. Beach responded that is a matter of
perception. Mr. Beach reminded the
Board that they are technically out of time, as it was filed October 10,
2001. Mr. Boulden advised the Board
they could strike the case from the agenda.
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, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to STRIKE
Case No. 19232 from the agenda.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required off-street
parking. SECTION 1212a.D. USE UNIT
12a. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT
ESTABLISHMENTS, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Use Unit 12a,
located SW/c E. 69th St. & S. Lewis Ave.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach informed the Board that Mr. Johnsen requested a continuance to February
12, 2002.
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, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19274 to the meeting on February 12, 2002.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Cooper
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of January 8, 2002 (No. 833), as amended.
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Cooper
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of November 27, 2002 (No. 831).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for church use.
SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 5, located N of NE/c W.
91st St. & Union.
Presentation:
Shirley Abbott Thompson, 818 S. Woodlawn Ave., Okmulgee, Oklahoma,
stated her request for a special exception for Use Unit 5, church use. She informed the Board that the legal
description has been corrected since the previous hearing of this case. A lot split was filed and approved for
the 5.05-acre site. Utilities
are available at the location, except for sewage. They plan to put in a septic
system. The building will be an
11,900 square foot, metal structure, and will be finished with brick, stucco, or
other façade. The proposed
sanctuary will seat 480. The plans
provide for 163 parking spaces.
There will be a lot of green space around the property. A site plan (Exhibit E-1) was provided
to the Board.
Interested
Parties:
Betty
Hargrove,
1410 W. 91st, stated she lives near the property. She had questions about the application
regarding parking, driveways, types of structures and aesthetics. She had no objections after
hearing the details of the plan.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham commented that the plans exceed the parking requirements, and the parking surface would be asphalt. Mr. White noted the legal description reflects more of the property than is required for the application.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception
for church use, per plan, 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, on the following described
property:
The N 375’ of the SW/4 SW/4 of Section 14, T-18-N, R-12-E of the IBM,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance from the 50’ maximum
height for a ground sign along a designated freeway, to permit such a sign 60’
in height. SECTION 1221.E. USE UNIT
21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, CG, CH, CBD, IL, IM, and IH Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use
Unit 21, located 28 N. 193rd E. Ave.
Presentation:
Steve Schuller, 100 W. 5th St., Ste. 500, stated he
represented the Quik Trip Corporation.
Cooper arrived at 1:22 p.m.
They
are constructing a convenience store on the subject property. The location is at the northeast corner
of the corporate limits of the City of Tulsa. He noted that it is situated by I-44,
193rd E. Ave., and near U.S. 412 and State Hwy. 66. It is just south of the City of Catoosa
in Rogers County and on the east side of 193rd E. Ave. is part of the
City of Catoosa and Wagoner County.
He pointed out there are a number of signs in this area, that are subject
to less regulation than exists in the Tulsa zoning code. He also noted the speed of the traffic
and elevation of the topography as hindrances to visibility of signage on the
subject property. A site plan
(Exhibit F-1) was provided.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Variance from the 50’ maximum height for a ground sign along a designated freeway, to permit such a sign 60’ in height, per plan, finding the hardship that the location is on the border of another municipality with more lenient sign ordinances, and the topography would necessitate a sign of this height, on the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 1, Harrison Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a ground
pole-sign on a non-arterial street.
SECTION 1221.C.9.a. USE UNIT 21.
BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for
Business Signs – Use Unit 12a, located 1111 S. 124th E.
Ave.
Presentation:
Torchy Wolfe, 10 E. 32nd Pl., Sand Springs, submitted a
packet of information to the Board.
She stated the hardship is, Conoco owns the sign on the property, and
they will not allow her to collocate on the pole. The corner has no exposure on
11th Street and she needs a sign. She pointed out that the scoreboard on
the ball field to the west obstructs the view of her business. On the south is a large field and
creek. Ms. Wolfe explained that
when she purchased the property, there was a 9’ x 10’ sign that was struck by
lightning and burned. There is an
existing pole at the southwest corner of the building. She had a sign designed and then was
turned down for a sign permit.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White confirmed the location of an existing pole at the southwest corner of the
building. Ms. Wolfe added that it
would face 11th Street, and no light would come through the backside
of the sign. Mr. White also found
that it would be a one sided sign, facing directly north. He questioned the applicant regarding
existing signs. Mr. Cooper
asked when the sign burned. Ms.
Wolfe responded it burned about six to eight months before she purchased the
property.
Interested
Parties:
Wayne
Bohanon, 10617
E. 1st St., stated he is the president of the Wagon Wheel
Neighborhood Association. He
submitted eight letters (Exhibits A-4) to the Board opposing a pole sign for
Torchy’s by Briar Patch. The
opposition also includes Western Village Neighborhood Association, East Tulsa
Mingo Valley Association, Art Justis for District 6, Bobby Gray a member of
Tulsa Public School Board District 4, and others. He read the wording of an existing sign
for the business and informed the Board that the neighborhoods considered it
vulgar and offensive. He commented
that it is visible to the school, traffic and ball field.
Mr.
Beach responded to Mr. Bohanon that nothing of that nature is indicated in the
application for the new sign. Mr.
White informed Mr. Bohanon that a photograph of the sign is in the application
file. Mr. Cooper asked about the
length of time required for the damaged sign to exist there as a lawfully,
pre-existing, non-conforming sign.
Mr. Beach replied he would find the provision in the Code and answer the
question.
Tom
McVeigh,
1636 S. 117th E. Ave., pointed out that the subject property is at
the northeast corner of the East Central School campus. He submitted photographs to the Board
(Exhibit A-3). He read a letter
from the East Tulsa Mingo Valley Association in opposition to the application
because of the proximity to the school.
Alice
Belew,
1124 Sunset, stated she was representing the East Tulsa Prevention
Coalition. They are opposed to the
sale of liquor at this location. The students they have worked with have urged
the Coalition to take a hard stand against such problems as
this.
Larry
Leedy,
3141 E. 85th St., stated that he owns two duplexes about one and one
half blocks from the subject property.
They also have property for sale near East Central High School. They feel that the bars and signs impact
their ability to lease and sell property.
He asked the Board to deny this application.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked if the existing Conoco sign negates her right to put up another pole sign. Mr. Boulden replied that it does, and she would need to work something out with Conoco. Mr. Dunham commented that he has not heard a hardship.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Ms.
Wolfe indicated she would do something about the existing sign if it is
offensive to the neighborhood. She
added that she has taken measures to deal with the youth problems in this area
by calling police. She reminded the
Board that this location was a nightclub long before she opened her
business.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked for the ordinance regarding the burned sign to be read for the
record. Mr. Beach stated that in
Section 1403, the code states that a non-conforming sign such as the burned sign
must have been removed or made to conform on or before January 1, 1996. A sign damaged to more than 50% of the
replacement cost, must be made to conform or be removed. If the sign is not used for advertising
purposes for a period of 180 consecutive days, it has to be removed.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance to allow a ground pole-sign on a
non-arterial street, finding a lack of hardship, on the property described as
follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, East Central Plaza, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a Use Unit 11, computer recording/video photography; Internet training through computer; studio. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11; a Variance of the required nine parking spaces to eight. SECTION 1211.D. USE UNIT 11. OFFICES, STUDIOS, AND SUPPORT SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; and a Variance of parking standards from an aisle of 21’ to 19’. SECTION 1300. APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENTS, located 1412 S. St. Louis.
Presentation:
Harry Willis, 606 Oakridge Dr., Sand Springs, Oklahoma, stated he
owns the subject property and the adjacent property at 1410 S. St. Louis. He explained his business to the
Board. There are four employees in
a light office setting for a small business. They make videotapes, and do CD ROM
development. Mr. Willis stated that
they use five parking spaces at the most.
They have very few customers that come into the office. The videos are made at other sites.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked where the parking spaces are located. Mr. Willis replied the parking spaces
are in the back of the house. He
explained that they do not have drop-in customers. He stated that he would inform customers
that parking is off the alley in the back. Mr. White asked if they have truck
deliveries. Mr. Willis responded
they have a UPS delivery or pick up about twice per week, and he would instruct
them to park in the back. Mr. White
questioned whether a UPS truck could get down the alley. Mr. Willis suggested they could do their UPS business from another
location. Mr. Boulden questioned
Mr. Willis about the computer training and studio. Mr. Willis informed the Board that the
training is given via Internet to people at other locations, and there is no
classroom. The studio is only for
one person at a time, and 95% of the videos they make are at the customer’s
locations.
Interested
Parties:
Ray
Pfaff,
3942 E. 31st St., stated he owns a condo at 1424 S. St. Louis, and he
did not come to object. He wanted
to emphasize the busy traffic, and narrow alley. He stated that any additional use would
add to the problems that are already there.
Michelle
Martin,
1424 S. St. Louis, Apt. D, stated her concern about the traffic and parking as
mentioned previously.
Steve
Walter,
1428 S. Rockford, stated his objection that this OL use encroaches on an RM-2
neighborhood.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Willis stated he understands the interested parties’ concerns for the parking
situation. He stated that he has
been in this business for years and does not plan to make any changes that would
increase his parking needs. He has
invested in his property at this location and would like to do business
there. He is as interested as the
neighbors in improving and maintaining the area.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked if Mr. Willis has contacted the City of Tulsa to clean up the
alley. Mr. Willis had not contacted
them, but he stated his tenants have not complained. Mr. White stated that the alley needs to
be paved, is narrow and the entrance and exits are awkward at best. Mr. Cooper asked the applicant for a
hardship. Mr. Willis replied that
the code requires more parking space than is needed for this use. Mr. Beach indicated this relief would
not be adequate to meet the parking needs and allow for traffic in the
alley.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Special
Exception to
allow a Use Unit 11, computer recording/video photography; internet training
through computer; studio; a Variance of the required nine parking
spaces to eight; and a Variance of parking standards from an aisle
of 21’ to 19’, finding the lack of a hardship, there is not enough parking space
to meet the code requirement, on the property described as follows:
Lot
3, Block 11, Forest Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Use Unit 25, a bakery, in a CH zoned
district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 25, located SE/c E. 11th St. & S.
Sheridan.
Presentation:
Wallace O. Wozencraft, 1619 S. Boston, stated he is the architect
for the project on the subject property.
This application is for the expansion of the existing bakery. He discovered that the front of the
property is zoned CH. A site plan
(Exhibit B-2) was submitted.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow Use Unit 25, a
bakery, in a CH zoned district, per plan, 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, on the following described
property:
The NW/4 NW/4 NW/4 of Section 11, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, formerly described as Lot 3, Block 2, Wren Park Addition, less the S 30’ thereof.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 502.B.1 restricting identification signs in the P
district to 1 sign for each street frontage and limiting the display surface
area of signs within the P district to not more than two-tenths of a sq. ft. of
display surface area per lineal foot of street frontage. SECTION 502.B. ACCESSORY USES IN THE
PARKING DISTRICT, Accessory Use Conditions; a Variance of Section 602.B.4
restricting signs in O districts to not more than one sign for each street
frontage of a lot and limiting the display surface area of signs within O
districts to not more than two-tenths of a sq. ft. of display surface area per
lineal foot of street frontage.
SECTION 602.B. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, Accessory
Use Conditions; a Variance of the provisions of Section 1104.D requiring “every
structure” to be set back from the centerline of an abutting public street
designated on the Major Street and Highway Plan (MSHP) a horizontal distance of
not less than one-half of the right-of-way designated on the MSHP. SECTION 1104.D. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS, Building Height, Setbacks and Yards; a Variance of the provisions
of Section 1221.C.1.a which restricts signs, if visible from an R district, from
being located within 50’ of the R district. SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
General Use Conditions for Business Signs; a Variance of the provisions of
Section 1221.C.4.a which restrict the size of nameplates attached to the face of
a wall to not more than 4 sq. ft. in display surface area and to permit building
wall identification signs and building plaques to be a size and contain display
surface area approved by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC)
as a part of a detail sign plan.
SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT 21.
BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for
Business Signs; a Variance of the provisions of Section 1221.C.4.j to permit
directional, warning and building identification signs to exceed 3 sq. ft. of
display surface area subject to the approval of such signs by the TMAPC as part
of a detail sign plan under Planned Unit Development No. 417. SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
General Use Conditions for Business Signs; and a Variance of the provisions of
Section 1221.C which require that all signs and parts thereof will be set back
one-half of the right-of-way width designated on the MSHP or 25’ if the street
is not designated on the MSHP.
SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT 21.
BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for
Business Signs, located NE/c E. 21st St. & S. Utica
Ave.
Presentation:
Charles E. Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, submitted
photographs, maps, sketches and a site plan (Exhibits C-1, C-2, and C-3). This application is for relief for
identification and directional signs in PUD 417, St. John Medical Center. This is in an older neighborhood with
lot frontages of 40’ to 50’, allowing only one sign per lot.
Comments and
Questions:
The
staff recommended approval per the staff report.
Interested
Parties:
Paul
(Chip) Atkins,
1638 E. 17th Pl., stated he is the president of the Swan Lake
Neighborhood Association. They
would like to make a recommendation to the Board that the City of Tulsa set up a
guideline separate from other sign guidelines for medical corridors and
campuses. They suggest the signs
need to be bigger and easier to read for people dealing with emergency medical
situations.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance of Section 502.B.1 restricting
identification signs in the P district to 1 sign for each street frontage and
limiting the display surface area of signs within the P district to not more
than two-tenths of a sq. ft. of display surface area per lineal foot of street
frontage; a Variance of Section 602.B.4 restricting signs in O
districts to not more than one sign for each street frontage of a lot and
limiting the display surface area of signs within O districts to not more than
two-tenths of a sq. ft. of display surface area per lineal foot of street
frontage; a Variance of the provisions of Section 1104.D requiring
“every structure” to be set back from the centerline of an abutting public
street designated on the Major Street and Highway Plan (MSHP) a horizontal
distance of not less than one-half of the right-of-way designated on the MSHP; a
Variance of the provisions of Section 1221.C.1.a which restricts
signs, if visible from an R district, from being located within 50’ of the R
district; a Variance of the provisions of Section 1221.C.4.a which
restrict the size of nameplates attached to the face of a wall to not more than
4 sq. ft. in display surface area and to permit building wall identification
signs and building plaques to be a size and contain display surface area
approved by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC) as a part of
a detail sign plan; a Variance of the provisions of Section
1221.C.4.j to permit directional, warning and building identification signs to
exceed 3 sq. ft. of display surface area, subject to the approval of such signs
by the TMAPC as part of a detail
sign plan under Planned Unit Development No. 417; and a Variance
of the provisions of Section 1221.C, which require that all signs and parts
thereof will be set back one-half of the right-of-way width designated on the
MSHP or 25’ if the street is not designated on the MSHP, per plan, finding there
are unusual and unique characteristics to this development, to which the zoning
code cannot be made to apply and the public purpose that would be served
outweighs any harm to the area or to the purpose and intent of the code; subject
to the approval of the detail sign plans by the TMAPC under PUD 417, on the
following described property:
Area
A: SW/4 SW/4 SE/4, Section 7, T-19-N, R-13-E, and all of Block 1, Reddin Third
Addition; Area B: Lots 2 - 18, Block 3, Edgewood Place Addition; Area C: Lots 1
- 5, Block 2, and Lots 1 - 11, Block 3, and the N 4.57’ of Lot 12, Block 3, less
and except the W 9.00’ of Lots 7 - 12, Block 3, and the S 31.29’ of the W 9.00’
of Lot 6, Block 3, Reddin Third Addition; Area D: Lots 13 - 15, Block 2,
Edgewood Place Addition; Area E: Lots 12 - 15, and the W 35’ of Lots 8 - 11,
Block 4, Edgewood Place Addition; Area F: The S 21’ of the E 130.00’ of Lot 9, and the E 130.00’ of Lots 10 -
11, Block 4, Edgewood Place Addition; Area G: Lots 1 - 7, inclusive, the E
130.00’ of Lot 8, the N 28.00’ of the E 130.00’ of Lot 9, and Lot 17, Block 4,
Edgewood Place Addition; Area H: Lots 19 - 23, Block 3, Edgewood Place Addition;
Area I: Lots 4 - 8 and Lots 12 - 13, Block 17, Orcutt Addition; Area J: The W
40.00’ of Lots 1 - 2 and the E 10.00’ of vacated alley; the E 100.00’ of Lots 1
- 2; Lot 3, and 10.00’ vacated alley; Lot 14, and 10.00’ vacated alley; Lot 15,
and 10.00’ vacated alley; Lot 16, and 10.00’ vacated alley; all in Block 17,
Orcutt Addition; Area K: The S 40.00’ of Lot 22; the N 10.00’ of Lot 22; the S
28.00’ of Lot 21; the S 16.00’ of Lot 20; the N 22.00’ of Lot 21; the N 30.00’
of Lot 20; the S 8.00’ of Lot 19; the N 38.00’ of Lot 19; Lots 18 and 17; all in
Block 2, Weaver Addition; and Area L: Lots 6 - 12, Block 2; and the W 9.00’ of
Lots 7 - 12, Block 3, and the S 31.29’ of the W 9.00’ of Lot 6, Block 3, Reddin
Third Addition, and a parcel of land Beg. at a point at the SE/c of Lot 12,
Block 2, Reddin Third Addition, thence N along the E of Line of Lot 12, Block 2,
Reddin Third Addition 13.94’ to the SE/c of Lot 12, Block 3; thence E and
parallel to the S line of Lot 12, Block 3, a distance of 9.00’; thence S and
parallel to the E line of Lot 12, Block 2, a distance of 13.95’; thence W and
parallel to the S line of Lot 12, Block 3, a distance of 9.00’ to the POB, all
in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr.
Dunham suggested that the staff develop separate design standards for hospitals
and campus settings.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for manufactured home dwelling in AG. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 9, located 7507 S. Elwood Ave.
Presentation:
Mary Lou Camp, 2622 E. 88th St., #4, stated she made an
offer, which was accepted for the purchase of the subject property, contingent
on approval by this Board for a 2,700 square foot mobile home on the land.
Interested
Parties:
Rick Vaughn, 3509 N. Battle Creek Dr., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma,
stated he is the General Manager for Oak Creek Homes. He submitted photographs (Exhibit D-1)
of the land and a home like the one Ms. Camp would have. He commented that her home would not be
visible from Elwood, located 610’ back from the road. The home would be constructed to City
and County codes on a concrete foundation.
He added the home would be 2,673 square feet, with four bedrooms, two and
one-half baths, two living areas, and two dining rooms.