Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Minutes of Meeting No. 2286

Wednesday, September 19, 2001, 1:30 p.m.

Francis Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic Center

 

Members Present

Members Absent

Staff Present

Others Present

Harmon

Bayles

Bruce

Romig, Legal

Hill

Carnes

Dunlap

 

Jackson

Horner

Huntsinger

 

Ledford

Selph

Matthews

 

Midget

 

 

 

Pace

 

 

 

Westervelt

 

 

 

 

 

The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, September 18, 2001 at 9:45 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk, as well as in the Office of the County Clerk.

 

After declaring a quorum present, Vice Chair Jackson called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m.

 

Minutes:

Approval of the minutes of August 22, 2001, Meeting No. 2284

On MOTION of HARMON the TMAPC voted 6-0-0 (Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Bayles, Carnes, Horner, Selph, Westervelt “absent”) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of August 22, 2001, Meeting No. 2284.

 

Minutes:

Approval of the minutes of September 5, 2001 Meeting No. 2285

On MOTION of HARMON the TMAPC voted 5-0-1 (Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Midget, Pace “aye”; no “nays”; Ledford “abstaining”; Bayles, Carnes, Horner, Selph, Westervelt “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of September 5, 2001 Meeting No. 2285.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

REPORTS:

Director’s Report:

Mr. Dunlap reported that there are several items on the City Council agenda for September 20, 2001.

 

Mr. Westervelt in at 1:38 p.m.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

SUBDIVISIONS

LOT-SPLITS FOR RATIFICATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL:

L-19276 – Robert Elliott (194)                 (PD-17) (CD-6)

South of southwest corner Admiral and 193rd East Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

Mr. Bruce stated that this lot-split is in order and staff recommends APPROVAL.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of MIDGET, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Carnes, Horner, Selph "absent") to RATIFY this lot-split given prior approval, finding them in accordance with Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

FINAL PLAT:

Olympia Medical Park (282)                           (PD-8) (CD-2)

Location: Northeast corner of west 71st Street South and US Highway 75

 

Staff Recommendation:

The ownership will be platted in phases.  The lot currently being platted will be the site of the Tulsa Spine Hospital.

 

Release letters are in order.  Staff recommends approval, subject to receipt of owners’ papers.

 

Note: The engineer has indicated that the applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement for sidewalk along the east side of South Olympia Avenue based on his perception that there will be little if any need.  The Subdivision Regulations require that sidewalks be located on both sides of collector streets.

 

After review, staff is of the opinion that sidewalks are appropriate in the area and recommends that the request for waiver be denied.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Roger Taylor, 20 West 2nd, Sand Springs, Oklahoma 74063, stated that this application is targeted for medical facilities.  There are clusters of different types of medical facilities on the site and his position is that the traffic going into the facility will be going into a particular satellite business within the property and using the internal sidewalks.  He explained that there would be no call for pedestrian traffic from one satellite area to the other.  He commented that for this reason, he would like to request a waiver of the sidewalk requirement.

 

Mr. Taylor indicated that the nearest sidewalk to the subject property is the sidewalk on the bridge crossing Arkansas River, which is approximately one mile away.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Ms. Pace stated that this is a large parcel and it would be unfair to not require the sidewalks when anticipating future growth.  In response, Mr. Taylor stated that there are vacant areas in the subject property with sizeable detention facilities, which are separated by different satellite areas by 600 or 700 feet.  Mr. Taylor explained that the satellite facilities would have their own internal sidewalks and he does not see the use being warranted to have sidewalks linking each of the satellite areas.

 

Ms. Pace asked Mr. Taylor if he feels that he shouldn’t contribute to the ongoing infrastructure in that quadrant of the City.  In response, Mr. Taylor stated that he certainly intends to contribute to the infrastructure, but doesn’t think the character of this PUD would be utilizing the sidewalk system that is required.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of WESTERVELT, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Carnes, Horner, Selph "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Olympia Medical Park and DENY a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

PRELIMINARY PLAT:

Metro Park East

Northeast corner of West 71st Street South and US Highway 75

 

Staff Recommendation:

GENERAL:

The site is located at the northeast corner of East 61st Street South and 129th East Avenue.  The site is the southern portion of the Ford Glass Plant Addition and runs for a length of approximately 2600 feet along 61st Street.

 

Easements to the Visteon Corporation are indicated in the central and eastern portion of the plat.

 

STREETS:

The eastern three lots will be accessed from 61st   Street; the western lot will be accessed off of 129th East Avenue and 61st Street. The plat will not create any new streets.

 

Street dedications are indicated per the Ford Glass Plant Plat with 50’ along both 129th and 61st.

 

SEWER:

Atlas sheet 382 indicates an eight-inch line present to the east.

 

WATER:

Sheet 382 indicates a 12” line present along the east side of 129th East Avenue.

 

STORM DRAIN:

Underground storm drain is shown in the western portion of the site and along the south boundary.  Tulsa regulatory floodplain and overland drainage easement are shown in the southeast corner of the site.

 

UTILITIES

The plat indicates perimeter easements.

 

Staff provides the following information from TAC.

 

STREETS:

Traffic: The limits of no access should be noted in the covenants as “enforceable by the City”.  The access points should be reduced from 60’ to 40’.  Access to Lots 2 and 3 should be shared.

 

Streets: No comment.

 

SEWER:

An extension with easement will be required.

 

WATER:

An extension with easement will be required.

 

STORM DRAIN:

Onsite detention will be required, maintained by lot owners.  The floodplain should be plotted using the 100 year flood elevation.  The area of flooding should be put in a reserve; standard reserve language should be included in the covenants.  The drainageway should be placed in a separate easement.  Underground storm sewer should be in easement.

 

FIRE:

No comment.

 

UTILITIES:

Cox:  Requested a five-foot and five-foot easement along the Lots 3 and 4 properly line.  Issues surrounding a rail crossing should be explored.

 

Staff recommends APPROVAL of the preliminary plat subject to the following:

 

Waivers of Subdivision Regulations:

 

1.

None requested.

Special Conditions:

 

1.

Limits of no access should be addressed in the covenants as “enforceable by the City”.

2.

Access points should be reduced to 40’ in width

 

 

A shared access should be placed between Lots 2 and 3.

 

The floodplain area should be mapped with a reserve area laid over it and extending 15’ on either side of the floodplain.  Drainageways and underground systems should be placed in easements.

 

A five-foot and five-foot utility easement should be placed at the line between Lots 3 and 4.

Standard Conditions:

 

1.

Utility easements shall meet the approval of the utilities.  Coordinate with Subsurface Committee if underground plant is planned.  Show additional easements as required. Existing easements shall be tied to or related to property line and/or lot lines.

2.

Water and sanitary sewer plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to release of final plat.  (Include language for W/S facilities in covenants.)

3.

Pavement or landscape repair within restricted water line, sewer line, or utility easements as a result of water or sewer line or other utility repairs due to breaks and failures, shall be borne by the owner(s) of the lot(s).

4.

Any request for creation of a Sewer Improvement District shall be submitted to the Public Works Department Engineer prior to release of final plat.

5.

Paving and/or drainage plans (as required) shall be approved by the Public Works Department.

6.

Any request for a Privately Financed Public Improvement (PFPI) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.

7.

A topo map shall be submitted for review by TAC (Subdivision Regulations).  (Submit with drainage plans as directed.)

8.

Street names shall be approved by the Public Works Department and shown on plat.

9.

All curve data, including corner radii, shall be shown on final plat as applicable.

10.

Bearings, or true N/S, etc., shall be shown on perimeter of land being platted or other bearings as directed by the County Engineer.

11.

All adjacent streets, intersections and/or widths thereof shall be shown on plat.

12.

It is recommended that the developer coordinate with the Public Works Department during the early stages of street construction concerning the ordering, purchase and installation of street marker signs.  (Advisory, not a condition for plat release.)

13.

It is recommended that the applicant and/or his engineer or developer coordinate with the Tulsa City/County Health Department for solid waste disposal, particularly during the construction phase and/or clearing of the project.  Burning of solid waste is prohibited.

14.

The owner(s) shall provide the following information on sewage disposal system if it is to be privately operated on each lot: type, size and general location.  (This information to be included in restrictive covenants on plat.)

15.

All lots, streets, building lines, easements, etc., shall be completely dimensioned.

16.

The key or location map shall be complete.

17.

A Corporation Commission letter, Certificate of Non-Development, or other records as may be on file, shall be provided concerning any oil and/or gas wells before plat is released.  (A building line shall be shown on plat on any wells not officially plugged.  If plugged, provide plugging records.)

18.

A "Letter of Assurance" regarding installation of improvements shall be provided prior to release of final plat.  (Including documents required under 3.6.5 Subdivision Regulations.)

19.

Applicant is advised of his responsibility to contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act.

20.

If the owner is a Limited Liability Corporation (L.L.C.), a letter from an attorney stating that the L.L.C. is properly organized to do business in Oklahoma is required.

21.

All other Subdivision Regulations shall be met prior to release of final plat.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of WESTERVELT, the TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Carnes, Horner, Selph "absent") to recommend APPROVAL of the preliminary plat for Metro Park East subject to the special conditions and standard conditions as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

COVENANTS FILED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT:

Z-6726 (PUD-623) (494)                                    (PD-17) (CD-6)

Southeast corner of East 5th Street and South 129th East Avenue

 

Staff Recommendation:

In January of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a plat waiver for the above-noted parcel.  One of the conditions of the waiver was that the applicant file covenants by separate instrument that delineated the standards of the PUD.

 

The purpose of this request is to gain the Planning Commission’s approval of the covenants to be filed by separate instrument as submitted.

 

Staff has reviewed the submittal and recommends APPROVAL.

 

There were no interested parties wishing to speak.

 

The applicant indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of WESTERVELT, TMAPC voted 7-0-0 (Harmon, Hill, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Carnes, Horner, Selph "absent") to APPROVE the covenants filed by separate instrument for Z-6726 as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

CONTINUED ZONING PUBLIC HEARING

Application No.:  z-6833                                                   il to cs

Applicant:  Thomas Vogt                                           (PD-18-C) (CD-5)

Location:  7901 East 41st Street South

 

Staff Recommendation:

 

RELEVANT ZONING HISTORY:

BOA-17538 October 1996:  The Board of Adjustment denied a variance of the required 300¢ separation from another adult entertainment establishment and a variance of the required 1,000¢ separation from another sexually oriented business in order to operate a bar and adult entertainment establishment on property located north of the northeast corner of East 41st Street and South Memorial Drive and abutting the subject tract on the east.  The proposed facility would have utilized the former Jade East Restaurant.

 

Z-6491 July 1995:  All concurred in approval of a request to rezone a 150¢ x 250¢ tract located on the northwest corner of East 33rd Street and South Memorial Drive from IL to CS for retail use.  The tract is located north of the subject property and north of the Broken Arrow Expressway.

 

BOA-16076 August 1992:  The Board of Adjustment approved a special exception to permit Use Unit 14, Shopping Goods and Services in an IL-zoned district, and a special exception to permit Use Unit 12a, Sexually Oriented Business, in an IL-zoned district, with specific conditions, to open and operate an adult book store on that portion of the subject tract that is in the southeast corner.

 

AREA DESCRIPTION:

SITE ANALYSIS:  The subject property is approximately four acres in size and is located west of the northwest corner of East 41st Street South and South Memorial Drive.  The property is flat; non-wooded; contains an adult entertainment establishment; and is zoned IL.

 

STREETS:

Exist Access

MSHP Design

Exist. No. Lanes

East 41st Street South

100¢

4 lanes

South Memorial Drive

120¢

4 lanes

 

The Major Street Plan designates East 41st Street South as a secondary arterial street and South Memorial Drive as a primary arterial street.  The City of Tulsa Traffic Counts 1998 – 1999 indicates 22,600 trips per day on East 41st Street South at South Memorial Drive.

 

UTILITIES:  Water and sewer are available to the subject property.

 

SURROUNDING AREA:  The subject tract is abutted on the north by industrial and commercial uses, zoned IL; to the east by one restaurant zoned IL and one restaurant zoned CS; to the west by a warehouse that has been approved by the Board of Adjustment for church use; and to the south by a strip shopping center, zoned IL.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:

The District 18 Plan, a part of the Comprehensive Plan for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, designates the subject tract as Special District 1 – Industrial Area.

 

According to the Zoning Matrix the requested CS zoning may be found in accordance with the Plan Map.

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Any zoning classification may be found in accordance with the special district designation, provided the uses permitted by the zoning classification are consistent with the land use and other existing physical facts in the area, and supported by the policies of the District Comprehensive Plan.

 

Based on the existing Industrial Special District designation and industrial uses in the area, staff cannot support the requested CS zoning and therefore recommends DENIAL of CS zoning for Z-6833.

 

TMAPC Comments:

TMAPC received two letters of opposition regarding the CS zoning for Z-6833 (Exhibit B-1).

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Thomas Vogt, 15 East 5th Street, Suite 3800, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing the property owner, Andrew J. Broughton, stated that his client has owns the subject property since 1981 and he has continuously operated his business as a night club or dance hall.  He indicated that the subject property has been operating with the same use since 1962.

 

Mr. Vogt stated that the subject property is a commercial type of use and it is not permitted as a matter of right in an industrial area.  He explained that his client would like to conform the zoning to the use.  He stated that after 40 years the subject property should be zoned to reflect what it is being used for.

 

Mr. Vogt cited the different uses and zonings along Memorial Drive.  He indicated that the special district begins at 51st Street and runs north.  The special district includes Fontana Shopping Center and it is zoned CS, not industrial.  The Fontana Shopping Center sets a precedent to allow commercial zoning within the special district.  He stated that within the industrial district there is a very large Wal-Mart less than a quarter of a mile from 41st and Memorial Drive.

 

Mr. Vogt stated that on the corner of 41st and Memorial Drive there is some CS zoning (Burger King Restaurant), which is adjacent to the subject property.  Mr. Vogt cited the adjacent uses and zonings to the subject property.  He stated that the pattern of retail and commercial uses are all along Memorial Drive and many are within the industrial district.  Given the proximity of the subject property to the intersection of 41st and Memorial Drive it would be appropriate that commercial zoning be granted.

 

Mr. Vogt explained that the subject property did receive a special exception and a variance in 1974 to allow the ballroom.  Mr. Vogt submitted Board of Adjustment minutes from 1974 (Exhibit B-2).  He explained that his client has a number of licenses he has to obtain and each time he has to prove his has a variance and special exception.

 

Mr. Vogt stated that there are several protestants in attendance and he believes that there is some concern that the subject property could be used for a sexually oriented business.  He explained that there is a church next door to the subject property and therefore there can’t be a sexually oriented business located on the subject property.  There is also an existing sexually oriented business on a portion of the subject tract that would prevent another sexually oriented business from going into the subject property.  He indicated that in 1996 the Board of Adjustment denied a variance to allow another adult entertainment establishment east of the subject property.  The concerns of the interested parties are not valid because it is not an issue.  The zoning request is not for a sexually oriented business.

 

Mr. Vogt commented that the variance and special exception language is broad enough that his client could have a sexually oriented business if the church and Priscilla’s were gone.  Mr. Vogt stated that his client has a variance and special exception to operate any commercial use that was approved in 1974, which was Use Unit 12.  He reiterated that his client is not requesting zoning to allow sexually oriented businesses, but to rezone to reflect the use that has been present for 40 years.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt stated that Mr. Vogt is a Contract and Title Lawyer and this is a lot of work to go through to keep from having to read a semi-faded piece of microfiche that gives his client permission to operate.  Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Vogt if there is some other motivation beyond this sort of paperwork clarification.  In response, Mr. Vogt stated that according to his client, he deals with a number of different agencies and he has to prove his special exception and variance each time.  If his client were to ever misplace the documents it would be detrimental to his business.

 

Applicant’s Comments:

Jack Broughton, 7901 East 41st, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135, stated that the whole situation came about because of the church situation next door.  He explained that if his permits or his variance were to lapse, with a church next door he couldn’t reopen.  If the doors should shut due to permitting problems, then the church has precedence over his business.  He explained that without the correct zoning, the church next door could preclude him from operating if his license or permits lapsed.  Mr. Broughton commented that he has never had any problems with his permits and licenses over the past twenty years.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt asked staff if there is a timeframe on the Board of Adjustment action or is it an open-ended action.  In response, Mr. Romig stated that it is an open-ended action and there is no risk of it lapsing or expiring.  Mr. Broughton stated that if he made a mistake and forgot to renew a license or permit, he would have to close down.  Mr. Broughton commented that he believes that if he is late one day renewing his license or permit than he cannot serve beer until the license is given, which could be 45 days until the license is renewed.  Mr. Broughton explained that he doesn’t know this for a fact, because he has never lapsed or been late renewing his license or permits.  Mr. Midget stated that he doesn’t understand what the permits and licensing have to do with the zoning and preventing him from continuing his business.  Mr. Midget commented that the zoning doesn’t change because the applicant forgot to renew his beer license.  In response, Mr. Broughton stated that the reason he wants the correct zoning is so that if he should make a mistake, which causes him to shut his doors until they are renewed, then he can reopen regardless of the church having priority.  Mr. Broughton stated that the use of the subject property is not going to change.  Mr. Broughton explained that he leased his office to Priscilla’s, which has a sexually oriented business permit.  Mr. Broughton commented that he leased the property to a sexually oriented business in order to have an umbrella up and down Memorial and 41st Street.  Mr. Broughton explained that with the umbrella, it would prevent additional sexually oriented businesses and there are fifteen years left on the lease.  Mr. Broughton further explained that Priscilla’s couldn’t use their sexually oriented business permit to the fullest extent because it would break his lease.

 

Mr. Midget stated that his concern is the impact that the requested zoning could cause.  If the Caravan were to close, he would still have a distance problem from the church with a CS zoning.  Mr. Broughton stated that this is his point.  Mr. Midget explained that if the Caravan Ballroom closed tomorrow and he was granted a CS zoning, he still would have a distance problem with the church being across the street.  Mr. Midget asked Mr. Broughton if he had any plans in the future to redevelop the subject property into a strip mall or expanding the current use.  Mr. Broughton stated he has none whatsoever.  Mr. Broughton further stated that the subject property has been a dance hall for 40 years and would continue to be a dance hall for another 40 years.  Mr. Broughton reiterated that he has no intention of creating anything other than the existing development.  Mr. Broughton agreed that there is a distance problem because of the church and Priscilla’s; however, if it were zoned correctly, by right he could open back up as a dance hall.  Mr. Broughton stated that if the subject property were zoned CS he would still have to apply for the sexually oriented business, so just because it is zoned CS doesn’t give him the right to have a 12a use.

 

Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Broughton if the Planning Commission denied his application today, what he would do differently.  In response, Mr. Broughton stated that he would continue to operate the existing dance hall.

 

Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Romig if he could clarify the conversation between the applicant and his attorney.  In response, Mr. Romig stated that it doesn’t really matter what the zoning is, because the spacing requirement would still have to be met. Mr. Romig explained that regardless of the zoning, with the church and the Priscilla’s being adjacent, there would still be spacing problems if the existing business changed.  Mr. Romig stated that if the subject property were zoned CS, there are numerous other uses allowed by right, whereas under the present IL zoning, these uses would require a special exception.  Mr. Romig commented that this would be the biggest change regarding the zoning request.

 

Ms. Pace asked Mr. Romig since Priscilla’s is leased from the applicant, and he referred to it as formerly being his office, there is any chance he could combine the two buildings and have a larger sexually oriented business if the church moves out.  In response, Mr. Romig stated that he believes that the difference in the buildings, the ownerships and types of business, he doesn’t see that as a possibility.

 

Interested Parties Comments:

Brad Beasley, 100 West 5th, Suite 800, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing Mrs. Lois Thomas-Dupree, Jim Thomas, JMT Investment Company and Thomas Cadillac, stated that his clients are in opposition to the requested change in zoning.  He commented that Mr. Vogt described all of the commercial uses along Memorial; however, the subject property does not front on Memorial.  He indicated that the subject property fronts on 41st Street and South 79th East Avenue.

 

Mr. Beasley stated that times and circumstances could change and there are no guarantees or assurance that the current sexually oriented business located on the applicant’s property would be there in two years and the same with the church.

 

Mr. Beasley stated that he doesn’t understand why the applicant needs the zoning change because he is currently in compliance with Zoning Code by obtaining a variance and special exception from the Board of Adjustment.  If the subject property is zoned CS, then there are more uses that are allowed as a matter of right.

 

Jan Magee, City Council Office, representing Councilor Sam Roop, read a statement opposing the zoning change from Councilor Roop (Exhibit B-1).

 

E.J. Buchanan, Jr., 2252 East 7th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107, stated that his family owns property to the north of the subject property.  He expressed concerns regarding taking someone’s word that the use would never change over the years.  The subject use has existed under the current zoning for over 40 years and he does not see any reason to change the zoning.  Mr. Buchanan stated that he is strongly against the requested zoning change and is speaking for his tenants as well.

 

Robert Hart, 9218 East 37th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145, representing Fulton Neighborhood Association, stated that there are numerous neighbors present today who are against this request.  He explained that the Fulton Neighborhood is located at 31st Street and 41st Street and Mingo and Memorial.

 

Mr. Hart stated he is not sure why the applicant wants to rezone the subject property, since it is currently allowed to operate under the existing zoning.  There would be opportunities for changes in the uses if the CS zoning were granted that would greatly impact the neighborhood.  Mr. Hart concluded that the Fulton Neighborhood opposes the CS zoning for the subject property.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Hart how close the nearest residence is to the subject property.  In response, Mr. Hart stated he didn’t know the footage, but the neighborhood is located on the north side of the Broken Arrow Expressway.

 

Interested Parties Comments:

Nancy Mackey, 4818 South Zunis Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145, stated that she is co-owner of the one of the properties located along Memorial.  Ms. Mackey cited the various properties of which she is co-owner.

 

Ms. Mackey stated that she leases a piece of property that currently back up to the subject property and experiences many problems with the clientele from the Caravan Ballroom.  She described the problems and behavior of the clientele from the Caravan (trash, defecating, broken beer bottles, etc.).

 

Julian Codding, 701 Northwest 5th, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, co-owner of El Dorado Motors, stated that he owns property on Memorial and 79th East Avenue.  He commented that he strongly opposes any sexually oriented business and the rezoning of the subject property.  These types of businesses bring a poor clientele to the neighborhood.  He commented that currently the Caravan Ballroom is allowed to operate and there is no compelling reason to change the current zoning.

 

Applicant’s Rebuttal:

Tom Vogt stated that the fear of a sexually oriented business is not valid.  If there is a fear of a sexually oriented business with CS zoning then no one would want CS zoning anywhere because it allows a Use Unit 12.a.  The arguments made today would apply to any CS zoning.

 

Mr. Vogt stated that if his client had requested a CS zoning for a drugstore there would not have been a problem.  There is nothing wrong with the subject property being zoned CS.  Memorial is full of CS-zoned land, commercial and retail uses.  He recognized that the subject property does not front Memorial because there is a strip of CS-zoned property between the subject property and Memorial.  He commented that the subject property is a prime corner for CS zoning.

 

Mr. Vogt pointed out that the Fulton Neighborhood has CS zoning next to their neighborhood and across the street.  He cited the various retail uses in the subject area.  He reiterated that this application is not about a sexually oriented business.  He stated that the only reason for the request is to make it easier for his client to renew his licenses and permits without having to prove he has a variance and special exception.  Mr. Vogt concluded by requesting the Planning Commission to consider the land issue and not the current use.

 

TMAPC Comments:

Mr. Harmon stated that he doesn’t see any valid reason for the zoning change.

 

Mr. Westervelt stated that he is ambivalent about the application and doesn’t think everyone has been forthcoming with the reasons for opposing and the request for the zoning change.

 

TMAPC Action; 7 members present:

On MOTION of HARMON, the TMAPC voted 6-1-0 (Harmon, Hill, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Westervelt "aye"; Jackson "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Bayles, Carnes, Horner, Selph "absent") to recommend DENIAL of CS zoning for Z-6833 as recommended by staff.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

ZONING PUBLIC HEARING

Application No.:  z-6835                                       ag/rs-3 to cs

Applicant:  John Moody                                               (PD-15) (CD-1)

Location:  South of southeast corner of East 46th Street North and North Peoria

 

Staff Recommendation:

 

RELEVANT ZONING HISTORY:

Z-6743 February 2000:  All concurred in approval of a request to rezone a four-acre strip located east of the southeast corner of East 46th Street North and North Peoria Avenue from RS-3 to CS.

 

Z-6575 February 1997:  All concurred in approval to rezone .4-acre tract located south of the southeast corner of East 46th Street North and North Peoria Avenue from OL to CS.

 

AREA DESCRIPTION:

SITE ANALYSIS:  The subject property is approximately 6.6 acres in size and is located south of the southeast corner of East 46th Street North and North Peoria Avenue.  The property is flat; non-wooded; contains stacks of used tires (a nonconforming use); and is zoned AG, RS-3, and CS.

 

STREETS:

Exist Access

MSHP Design

Exist. No. Lanes

East 46th Street North

100¢

2 lanes