CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
April 9, 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 |
|
White,
Chair |
|
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair Turnbo |
|
Butler
|
|
|
Cooper |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 11:10 a.m., as well as at the City Clerks office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Jim Beach read the rules and procedures
for the Board of Adjustment Public Hearing.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Cooper
arrived at 1:01 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
MINUTES:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board
voted 4-0-0 (White, Cooper, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions",
Dunham "absent") to APPROVE
the Minutes of March 26, 2002 (No.838).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to permit a home occupation, photography studio, in an RM-2
district. SECTION
402. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located 1437 S.
Carson.
Presentation:
Paul A. McKnight, Jr., 8800 N. 161st E. Ave., Owasso,
Oklahoma, stated the action requested.
Dunham arrived at 1:04 p.m.
Mr.
McKnight stated there would be a small sign by the door just to help clients
locate the house. He referred the
presentation to his tenant.
Wayne Parrish, 1437 S. Carson Ave., stated that the original
application did not fit their needs at the previous Board of Adjustment
meeting. They determined that a
home occupation was more appropriate for their needs. He stated that he attended a
community meeting and the neighbors were concerned that he would use a large
sign close to the street. He
assured them that he planned for a discreet sign by the front door.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked Mr. Parrish if he was aware of the home occupation guidelines. Mr. Parrish replied that he received a
copy. Mr. White asked if he would
be able to conduct business in the manner, which he intended following those
guidelines. Mr. Parrish assured him
that he would.
Ms.
Turnbo asked about parking for customers that come to the house. Mr. Parrish stated there would be only
one client at a time, and the paved driveway is large enough for three cars at a
time. He explained there is room
for two cars to park behind him and it would not even interfere with the
sidewalk. In response to her
questions he hopes to have three or four clients per day, with appointments of
one hour or less, and 50 to 60% of his shoots are on location not at the
house. He added that his
appointments would be planned with at least one hour between them. He responded that he would be willing to
accept the condition of no more than five clients per day at the house
studio. He expected to work 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday.
Interested
Parties:
Tracy
Horner-Shears,
1522 S. Carson Ave., stated she represented Riverview Neighborhood Association
in the previous hearing. They
opposed the application at that time.
After Mr. Parrish met with the neighborhood, they support the application
with conditions. They were under
the impression that the relief would be for the tenant only. Mr. White informed her that the relief
goes with the land. She asked that
the record reflect the relief be limited to this use. She stated they also understood that the
sign had to be a part of the application, but they were ok with the sign. The neighborhood was concerned that the
parking be limited to the driveway.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Parrish responded that he could only have one client at a time and no clients
waiting because that is not good for business.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special
Exception
to permit a home occupation, photography studio, in an RM-2 district, with
conditions of no more than five clients per day at the studio, time allotted
between each client, hours and days of operation 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Tuesday through Saturday, the home occupation being a photography studio, a sign
size of 7 x 3 ½ on the porch, all parking on driveway, and meet all home
occupation requirements, 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:
Lot 34, Block 2, Carlton Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception under Section 701 of the Tulsa Zoning Code to permit
the building located on Tract One in a CH Zoning district to be used for light
manufacturing as permitted under Use Unit 25. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 25; and a Special Exception under Section 1301.D. to permit
part of the off-street parking required for the Use Unit 25 uses to be located
on Tract Two. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located SW/c E.
9th St. & RR ROW & NE/c E. 11th St. & RR
ROW.
Mr.
White stated he would recuse himself from Case No.
19313.
Presentation:
Charles Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated he represented
Oklahoma Installation Company. He
added that since the last hearing there are some changes to the
application. He submitted
letters from himself and the Oklahoma Installation Company (Exhibits B-1 and
B-2) and samples of the product (Exhibit B-6) the company plans to make. He referred to the environmental
assessment obtained by the company (Exhibit B-4). Site plans were provided with an aerial
photo (Exhibit B-3) to the Board. A
copy of the City of Tulsa Industrial District Provisions (Exhibit B-5) was
provided to the Board. He cited the
history and the changes in the plans as provided in the exhibits to the
Board. The plans were changed to
benefit the neighborhood, to reduce noise and air pollution, including odors,
and to cause no adverse effects on the neighborhood. He stated that the City could
evaluate samples of air quality in a lab, but the human nose could detect odors
much faster. He informed the Board
that the company would make phone numbers available to the neighborhood for
24-hour access to the company if there were any
complaints.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked if the applicant provided the newest list of conditions to the
neighborhood association. Mr.
Norman replied that they did provide the list.
Interested
Parties:
Steve
McCullough,
725 S. Erie, stated that he has researched the project. The only problem he found was the odor
if in the right proportions. He
talked with Purdue University to see if any changes have been made regarding
styrene in the last six-weeks; and they informed him there were no changes. The monitors cannot pick up the
increased odor until it is 400 times higher than the human nose can detect. It is heavier than air and sinks to the
lowest levels. If there was any
adverse effect on animal life it would be to the reproductive system and there
is plenty of proof that it is not affecting the ducks in the park. He has found that the company is very
responsive if they present any complaints.
He noted that no one has complained about the fumes or fire danger at the
gasoline station nearby or the air dryer on the carwash being too
noisy.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked if Mr. McCullough has any ownership in the building or proposed business. He replied that he was not related in any way and does not and never has worked for the company, and is not on the board.
Interested
Parties:
Donald Farris, 5515 E. 9th St., submitted a copy of the NFPD Rating System (Exhibit B-9), and Health and Safety, with MSDS information (Exhibit B-10) to the Board. He stated he has lived there since 1948. He informed the Board that prior to the existing manufacturing of hard surface material, the plant did not exhaust odorous vapors into the air. He mentioned the large fan on the outside of the building that produces a loud volume of noise that they can hear inside their home until midnight each night. Mr. Farris submitted photographs (Exhibit B-8) to show the proximity of the building for the new process to homes. He informed the Board that a neighbor, Melvin Swain, a resident at this location since the early 1950s, could not be at this meeting for health reasons, but he is very concerned about this application. He referred to the exhibits provided and informed the Board that the fumes from styrene are heavier than air. He added that one time when the fumes were blown toward his house that the basement filled up with the fumes and they could not even go down there. He concluded if the wind is stagnant then it would come down around the area, no matter if they move the exhaust-stack. He pointed out that the NFPD rating sign on the building reveals there are health hazards and fire hazards involved. He contended that the manufacturing was moderate if not heavy rather than light manufacturing. He believes it to be injurious to the neighborhood and is not in the spirit and intent of the Tulsa Zoning Code.
Shannon
Cavanaugh,
5528 E. 7th, stated she lives 102 from the back of the company. She stated that last May no one
responded to her complaints that the fumes were affecting her breathing. She noticed that the applicant
kept referring to the proposed business, but they are already up and
running. She wanted to know how
that could be. Mr. Dunham stated
that it is in operation illegally.
Ms.
Perkins interrupted Ms. Cavanaugh to make a motion.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Perkins,
to DENY
a Special Exception
under Section 701 of the Tulsa Zoning Code to permit the building located on
Tract One in a CH Zoning district to be used for light manufacturing as
permitted under Use Unit 25; and a Special Exception under Section
1301.D. to permit part of the off-street parking required for the Use Unit 25
uses to be located on Tract Two, finding that this business is heavy
manufacturing and does not belong in this neighborhood. Turnbo seconded the motion.
Mr.
Norman interrupted to ask the chairman to hear from the neighborhood association
with whom the applicant has been working on the issues.
The
motion was put on hold to hear from the neighborhood
association.
Interested
Parties:
Anna America, 546 S. Darlington Ave., stated she is the President
of the White City Neighborhood Association. She submitted a letter of support
(Exhibit B-11) from the association.
In response to questions from Ms. Turnbo, Ms. America stated there were
about thirty people that attended the association meetings. She sent e-mail notices to forty-five
people, and placed a sign in the park regarding their meetings. She informed the Board there was a
slight majority in support of the application with conditions. She indicated they were trying to make
the best of a bad situation, in hopes they would have a say in controlling some
of the problems.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Norman commented that he was told the vote in the last neighborhood association
meeting was 13 to 4 to support or at least not to object to the application,
according to the extensive proposals the applicant made. He stated that he was not going to
defend any activity of Oklahoma Installation Company that would create an
annoyance to people in the enjoyment of their homes. He added the applicant has tried to
demonstrate by a scientific evaluation with an independent consultant, and to
commit themselves to comply with Use Unit 25 that there be slight or no
objectionable environmental influence by reason of emission of noise or
odors. He suggested that the
statistics given by the interested parties were just speculation, unless you
discount the EPA, OSHA, DEQ and their efforts in respect to this particular
process. He suggested there is no
evidence this is a heavy industrial process, and the building inspector has
interpreted it to require light industry.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins expressed concern that styrene, under the National Fire Protection
Association rating system, reveals that it is rated an extreme danger for health
hazard, is unstable, and is subject to violent chemical change. She went on to say there are families
living just a few feet from this.
She commented that employees choose to work there, but people who own
their homes may not be able to move.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she believes it to be heavy manufacturing and too
much for the land use. Mr. Cooper
asked if Mr. Norman had any comments regarding the setback requirements from the
O and R districts. Mr. Norman
responded that a lot of Mr. Farris comments were regarding the existing
building, and the process of most concern is being moved. Mr. Cooper asked by what definition he
defined this as an IL use. Mr.
Norman replied the applicant received a DEQ air quality construction permit,
applied for a building permit and the building inspector gave his opinion in
writing that the combining of the materials to produce a new product comes under
light industry. Mr. Cooper asked
how he reconciled the zoning language that requires IL to have no objectionable
environmental influences. Mr.
Norman read the code to say slight or no objectionable environmental
influences. Mr. Cooper was reading
from Section 900 and Mr. Norman was reading from Use Unit 25. Mr. Norman stated they propose that
odors will not be discernable at the property lines.
Board
Action:
The
motion was repeated for the benefit of all:
On
MOTION of
Perkins, the Board
voted 3-1-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", Cooper "nay", White "abstained", no
"absences") to DENY a Special Exception under
Section 701 of the Tulsa Zoning Code to permit the building located on Tract One
in a CH Zoning district to be used for light manufacturing as permitted under
Use Unit 25; and a Special
Exception under Section 1301.D. to permit part of the off-street parking
required for the Use Unit 25 uses to be located on Tract Two, 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; and finding
that this business is moderate to heavy manufacturing. Turnbo seconded the motion. The motion was regarding the following
described property:
Tract 1: Lot 1, less the N 25 and the W 5 thereof and the N 200 of Lot
12, Block 1, Sanford Addition, a resubdivision of Block 26 and vacated E.
10th St. of Blocks 1 and 2, White City Addition; And Tract 2: Lot 1,
Block 70, Glenhaven Addition, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr.
White returned at 2:25 p.m.
Action
Requested:
Variance
of the one-story height limit in the OL District to permit a three-story parking
garage. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS; and a
Variance of the required setback from the centerline of 22nd Street
from 50 to 30. SECTION 1302.B. Table 1 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING AREA
SETBACKS FROM CENTERLINE OF ABUTTING STREETS, located
SW/c W. 21st St. & Main.
Presentation:
Roy Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 500, stated he
represented the owners of the former Jaycees property at 21st and
Main. He stated that he has
returned for additional relief to permit a three-story parking garage in an OL
district and variance of required setback from the centerline of 22nd
Street from 50 to 30. He pointed
out that the topography falls sharply east to west and south to north and works
very
well for the multi-level garage. He
noted that it is separated from the neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White mentioned the Board received a letter from the Broadmoor Condominiums in
support of the application.
Interested
Parties:
Sheree Cook,
2224 S. Boston, asked if there could be the possibility of a street opening onto
21st next to Harwelden, for commercial trucks or other traffic. Ms. Turnbo responded the Board would not
have anything to do with that. Mr.
White replied that it would cause a terrible traffic
hazard.
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 the one-story height limit in the OL District to permit a three-story parking
garage; and a Variance of the required setback from the centerline
of 22nd Street from 50 to 30, per conceptual plan as previously
submitted, finding the hardship to be the existing configuration of the property
and Harwelden to the south, on the following described property:
All of Lots 1, 2, 3, and the E 30.00 of Lot 11, and all of Lots 12, 13, 14, Block 3, Third Amended Plat of Riverside Drive Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, AND a part of Lot 4, Block 3, Third Amended Plat of Riverside Drive Addition, and being more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the SE/c of said Lot 4; thence W along the S line of Lot 4, a distance of 60.00 to a point; thence N parallel to the E line of said Lot 4 a distance of 89.50 to a point; thence around a curve to the right having a radius of 38.00 a distance of 59.69; thence continuing N parallel to the E line of said Lot 4 a distance of 20.00 to the N line of said Lot 4; thence E 22.00 to the NE/c of said Lot 4; thence S along the E line of said Lot 4, 147.5 to the POB; AND a part of Lot 11, Block 3, Third Amended Plat of Riverside Drive Addition, and being more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the SW/c of said Lot 11, Block 3; thence N along the W line 32.38; thence NEly along a curve to the left having a radius of 246.58 a distance of 122.74 to a point on the N line of said Lot 11, 38.79 E of the NW/c thereof; thence E along said N line 31.21; thence S parallel to the W line of said Lot 11, 147.50 to the S line thereof; thence W along said S line 70.00 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard of
30 to 25. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6; and a Variance of rear yard of 25 to
20. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1720 E. 32nd Pl.
Presentation:
Bill Powers, 6910 S. Lewis, stated that he was representing his
clients, Dr. Stanley and Christy Prough.
He noted the staff comments on relevant previous actions that would
apparently cover this application.
He referred to the zoning map, and the map does not show it but
32nd Pl. goes through north of the property. The property is non-conforming. There would not be any encroachment
beyond the existing plane of the home.
They have done extensive planning to meet the needs of the homeowner and
the zoning requirements as closely as possible. They notified the neighbor to the south
that would be the only resident impacted by the five-foot variance, and they
have no objection. A site plan was
submitted (Exhibit D-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham noted the lot is only 93 deep.
Mr. Beach pointed out the owner for purposes of zoning setbacks can
choose the front yard. Mr. Powers
responded that of all the plans they considered over the last six months, this
was the least intrusive.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present 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 of required front yard of 30 to
25; and a Variance of rear yard of 25 to 20, per plan, finding
the lot faces 32nd Pl. and has less depth than other lots in the
neighborhood, on the following described property:
Lot 15, Block 7, Bren-Rose Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the construction
requirements (specifications) of a required screening fence to allow 8 chain
link on the east boundary and concrete picket combination on south. SECTION 212.A. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE,
Specifications Use Unit 12, located 6605 S. Lewis.
Presentation:
Eddie D. Ramirez, 6555 S. Lewis, was concerned that the legal
description used for advertisement and notices may have been incorrect. Mr. Beach reviewed the case map with Mr.
Ramirez and determined the legal was correct. Mr. Ramirez stated that a dilapidated
wood fence was removed and a chain link fence was put up to replace it. He informed the Board that they felt it
would deter pedestrians from crossing the property to go to the bus stop. He submitted a site plan, floor plans,
photographs, and a letter with PALS Permit Documents (Exhibits E-1, 2, 3, and
4).
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins commented that in September of last year the applicants were informed
and aware of the code requirement for a screening fence. They received two notices to construct a
solid wood fence. Ms. Turnbo added
that a chain link fence is easier to climb than a solid wood fence. Mr. Dunham stated that he did not see
any hardship. He added that they
ignored the ordinance, which is very clear on the requirements.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Two
letters in opposition were submitted (Exhibit E-5).
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 of the
construction requirements (specifications) of a required screening fence to
allow 8 chain link on the east boundary and concrete picket combination on
south, for lack of a hardship, on the following described
property:
W 350 N 135 Lot A, Muzingo Hill Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of lot area from 6,900 square feet to 6,795 square feet to
permit a lot split #19365.
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 3904 E. 32nd St.
Presentation:
Bill Wilkins, 1142 S. Rockford, stated he owns the subject
property. He proposed to obtain two
residential lots out of this oversized lot. He added that he is about 105 square
feet short of the requirement.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked for the hardship. Mr.
Wilkins stated there would be 5 between the front porch of the existing house
to the lot line. He replied
that he lacks 105 square feet per lot to meet the code for two residential
single-family homes.
Interested
Parties:
Greg
Criser,
3905 E. 32nd St., submitted a petition with 25 signatures (Exhibit
F-1) from the neighbors in opposition to the application. The existing house is about 4,000 square
feet and the applicant is planning to place the back fence five feet from the
front door of this house.
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 of lot area from 6,900 square feet
to 6,795 square feet to permit a lot split #19365, finding a lack of hardship,
on the following described property:
N/2 Lot 6, Block 1, Virginia Terrace Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard from 20 to 6. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6; and a Variance of required side yard from 20 to 15 for a garage. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 657 N. Cheyenne.
Presentation:
David Giacomo, 111 S. Greenwood, stated he represented the Tulsa
Development Authority. He stated
that the Tulsa Development Authority, Preservation Commission and the Brady
Heights Association all support the application. A site plan was provided (Exhibit
G-1). Two letters of support were
submitted (Exhibit G-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if they plan to build per the site plan submitted. Mr. Giacomo replied in the
affirmative.
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 of required front yard from 20 to 6; and a Variance of required side yard from 20 to 15 for a garage, per plan, finding the lot is non-conforming, much smaller than the typical lot in the neighborhood, on the following described property:
N 40.5 of the W 111.05 of Lot 1, Block 4, North Tulsa Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow an emergency/protective shelter and learning
center for children and adults needing temporary assistance. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 2, located 2605 E. 29th Pl.
N.
Presentation:
Lester Shaw, 2238 N. Yorktown, stated they propose to demolish the
existing building on the subject property.
He added that he explained to the neighbors this project is not an
emergency shelter but a learning center this was just the most appropriate
zoning code for the case. He
informed the Board that 99% of the residents he spoke with regarding this
application were in favor. Mr. Shaw
indicated that the center would be for children in the neighborhood that could
walk to the center. The center
would be a safe, healthy environment for the residents.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked if the center would be structured under some non-profit
organization, a church or other.
Mr. Shaw replied that it would be under a non-profit organization called,
A Pocket Full of Hope, which is a 501C3 organization, and the Knit
Foundation. The funding will come
from the office of Juvenile Affairs and private donations. It will be a non-fee facility. Mr. White asked who owns the
property. Mr. Shaw stated
that his mother owns the property. Mr. White commented that the
Board received a letter from Mr. Willie Brown (Exhibit H-1) stating he owns the
property but he did not provide proof.
Mr. Shaw replied that his
family has owned the property since 1952.
Ms.
Turnbo asked how the students would be transported if they come from the area
schools. Mr. Shaw replied that most
of them live in the neighborhood and could walk there. She asked for the expected number of
children and adults attending. He
replied he expected ten to fifteen students at a time, and fifty students
maximum per week. Ms. Perkins asked
what he meant by at risk students.
Mr. Shaw explained that they could be having problems with school because
of such things as sleep deprivation, learning disabilities, or family
problems. Ms. Perkins asked if they
plan to have people who are drug offenders or sex offenders. Mr. Shaw replied they would not be set
up for that type of problems. Mr.
Shaw responded to other questions, informing the Board that hours of operation
would be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. He added that the facility would be for
the community and there may be some evening activity, like tenants association
meetings, as needed.
Interested
Parties:
Gerald Sanders,
3144 E. Queen St., stated his concern for property values, traffic, and
parking. He stated there are very
few children in the neighborhood and questioned where they live. He questioned the polling done by the
applicant. He also expressed a
desire to see building plans and hear other plans before the Board takes
action.