Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews several rezoning requests in council district 3 and 9; most recommended by planning commission
Summary
The committee reviewed three rezoning requests on June 11 — a 10‑acre AG→IM site in East Tulsa, a request to revert an IL parcel to AG to allow expansion of a long‑standing residence, and a CS rezoning with an optional development plan to permit a digital tenant sign — all recommended to the council by advisory commissions.
The Urban Economic Development Committee reviewed multiple rezoning applications on June 11 and heard staff presentations and applicant remarks. Planning staff reported the advisory commissions recommended approval for each request.
Key items discussed: - Rezoning application C-7811 (agenda item 4): applicant Janet Coles requested a change from AG (agriculture) to IM (industrial‑modern) for a roughly 10‑acre parcel at the southwest corner of East 56th Street North and North 104th East Avenue in Council District 3. Staff said the parcel is at the city limits, is envisioned for employment land use and that the applicant had met with neighbors; the planning commission voted 10–0 to recommend IM zoning.
- Rezoning application Z‑7813 (agenda item 5): applicant George Daniel Harris requested IL→AG for a parcel east of the northeast corner of East Apache Street and North 190th Avenue (Council District 3). Staff said the property had been rezoned IL in 1975 but had been used as a residence since the 1950s and was a legal nonconforming use. The applicant seeks AG so the owner can expand the home and related accessory structures; the planning commission recommended approval 10–0.
- Rezoning application Z‑7814 (also listed as item 5 in committee order): applicant Jill Ferring for CGV Holdings LLC requested rezoning from OL/RS‑1 to CS with an optional development plan (Council District 9) to allow a digital tenant sign at a multi‑tenant office building. Staff said the applicant had reached out to nearby residents and that the recommended CS with ODP would permit the owner to seek a sign variance from the Board of Adjustment. Committee members discussed whether the ODP should include a sign‑size limit or require a monument sign; staff said CS imposes size limits and that the owner had already met proactively with neighbors; the planning commission recommended approval 10–0.
Committee action and next steps: Planning staff and councilors discussed the applications but did not take final votes at committee; councilors said each item will return to the council docket (some items scheduled for the full council on June 18). Committee members suggested possible friendly amendments for the CS/ODP item to specify measurable sign size or monument sign requirements at council if desired.
Context and limitations: Staff noted the area of the first parcel is surrounded by mining operations but is not large enough for mining. For the second parcel, staff emphasized the legal nonconforming residential use prohibits expansion under IL zoning absent rezoning. For the third item, staff and the applicant acknowledged the sign still requires a separate Board of Adjustment action if within 200 feet of residential zoning.
