CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
January 23, 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 |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper White,
Chair |
|
Butler |
Parnell,
Neighborhood Insp. |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, January 19, 2001, at 9:55 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0
(White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of January 9, 2001 (No. 810).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a duplex in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 7, located W of NW/c E. 32nd Pl. & N.
Lewis.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated that there was some confusion regarding permission of the owner for the applicant to file this application on the property. He added that the Staff recommends a Continuance to February 13, 2001. The applicant was not present.
Interested
Parties:
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham explained to the owner, that applicant made application and paid the fees
so the Board will hear him. He
stated that since Mr. Carter was on record that he would not sell the property,
then the Board would not approve the application.
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. 18956 to the hearing on February 13,
2001.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback requirements for parking and structure parking.
SECTION 1302.B. SETBACKS; a Special Exception for church use. SECTION 401.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5; and a Variance
of height limitation from 35’ to 51’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 4102 East 61st
Street.
Chair White stated he
would abstain from this case.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham informed the applicant and Interested Parties that there were only three
Board members to vote on the case, and it would take a unanimous decision for
any action.
Presentation:
Kevin Coutant, 320 S. Boston, stated he wanted to defer to
momentarily to the counsel for the Livingston Park South Homeowners’
Association.
Interested
Parties:
Jim Goodwin, 624 E. Archer, stated he represented the homeowners’
association. He stated that through
negotiations and continuance of this case the majority of the association and
the applicant resolved their differences and came to an agreement.
Presentation:
Kevin Coutant submitted a packet of the site plan, drawings and photographs (A-1) to the Board. Mr. Coutant stated that the applicant agreed to withdraw the Variance for building height for the proposed community center facility. He gave a brief history of the property, that the church purchased over time in two different parcels. The first parcel was in RS-3 zoning, and the surrounding parcel was RM-1, which was acquired later. The existing facility overlaps into both parcels and a Special Exception permitted church use per plan. The applicant asked for a general Special Exception for church use for the whole property for absolute clarity. He identified the proposed structure of a community center with gymnasium, with related locker rooms, offices, and workrooms to be located on an area currently occupied primarily by parking. He then pointed out the second proposed structure, which would be a single-level parking platform, with ramps at both ends. He informed the Board that agreements with the homeowners’ association included the exclusion of parking under the community center. This location has a higher elevation than the topography of the rest of the property and the homeowners objected to an obstruction of view. He noted the presence of the lower elevation for drainage into the detention pond to the east of the subject property. Mr. Coutant described the sloping topography, descending elevation, and existing retaining walls that would make this location efficient for accessibility, design and expense. He added that there would be an at-grade level of parking below the platform parking. The agreement also includes lowering the interior headroom of the structure to 7.5’. He pointed out the agreement includes landscaping with a minimum of 22 mature trees along the street frontages, with not less than one mature tree in front of each vertical structural support of the parking platform. Mr. Coutant went over the Variance of setback requested for the Board.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if Mr. Coutant was simply asking for the setbacks per plan and if
that was in agreement with the homeowners.
He replied in the affirmative. Mr. Coutant submitted copies of
the agreement between the applicant and homeowners’ association (Exhibit A-3) to
the Board. Mr. Coutant read the
agreement that the church would not plan to construct additional parking
facilities on the east of the existing church building or any structure having
more than one level on the property to the west of the existing church
building. Mr. Cooper asked for
clarification of the hardship. Mr.
Coutant responded that the hardship arises out of the topographic limitations to
the use of the property, because of the extreme downgrade as the property moves
away from the existing building, and the ability to find appropriate location
for additional parking is very limited.
Interested
Parties:
Carl Cannizzaro, 6201 S. Quebec, stated that he does not believe
that the agreement signed a few minutes before the meeting and presented to the
Board, represented the will of the homeowners’ association. He submitted a packet of exhibits
(A-2) to the Board. He stated that
his biggest objection was to the Variance requested for the parking garage. Mr. Cannizzaro pointed out that the
Variance would put the parking garage directly on 61st Street and
Richmond. He protested
such a structure at the entrance to the Livingston Park subdivision. He stated that he had offered five
alternatives for more parking as identified on page 3d in the exhibit packet
submitted. He asked the Board to
consider the aesthetics of the entrance to the subdivision and to deny the
request for Variance.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if Mr. Cannizzaro was from the same homeowners’ association. He responded that he was from the same
association.
Interested
Parties:
David
Winfrey,
President of the Livingston Park South Homeowners’ Association, stated that they
had a meeting of all members interested in this issue and voted. The decision of the majority, with two
dissenting votes was in favor of the agreement made with the applicant.
Emerson
Parker,
6304 S. Richmond, stated he was not a member of the homeowners’ association, and
a new resident to the neighborhood.
He stated his concern was that the Variance would cause too much traffic
congestion if ingress and egress were on Richmond. He suggested that access be from
61st Street.
Gregory F. Pape,
6443 S. Richmond, stated he was a member of the Livingston Park South
Homeowners’ Association. He asked
that Ms. Perkins abstain from the vote based upon her personal friendship.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham responded that if Ms. Perkins abstained there would not be a quorum to
vote. Ms. Perkins stated that they
used to go to church together.
Legal counsel advised Ms. Perkins that if she can assure him that their
friendship has no bearing on her decisions in the vote then she is allowed to
vote. Mr. Cooper commented that if
members abstain every time they have a relationship with someone, it would be
excessive, and that is not grounds to abstain.
Bob
Triplett,
4135 E. 62nd St., commented that this has been a very trying
issue. He added that the
homeowners’ association and the architect have been very helpful. It is not fair to hold the church back
from having growth.
Adell
Blum,
6418n S. Sandusky, stated that she is impacted by the appearance of the proposed
garage. She asked that the roof be
left off of the garage.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Coutant stated for clarification that the parking platform would not have a
roof. He also stated he
wanted to confirm just for the record, that Mr. White would be abstaining. Mr. White stated that he was
correct. Mr. Coutant stated he
heard that counsel advised Ms. Perkins that she could vote if it is a fact that
her friendship would have no affect on her vote. He requested a statement on the
record that Ms. Perkins asserts that it would not affect her vote. Ms. Perkins stated that is what counsel
advised. He noted that the
functional front access is on the east where most of the parking is used, but
that the architectural front is on the west. He stated they want to protect the
beauty of that west entrance. He
reiterated the key component to the written agreement, which was to lower the
community center structure. He
added that this impacted the need to create increased parking space on
site. Mr. Coutant recognized
that the agreement was not unanimous in the homeowners’ association, but it was
a decision by the majority of members.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked Mr. Coutant to show the portions of the parking structure that
require a Variance. Mr. Beach
clarified this information with the applicant and Board
members.
Board
discussion ensued.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Cooper,
the Board voted 3-0-1 (Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White
"abstained"; Turnbo "absent") to recognize the withdrawal of request for
Variance of height
limitation from 35’ to 51’; to APPROVE a Special Exception for
church use; and a Variance of setback requirements for parking and
structure parking from 35’ to 12’ on 61st Street and from 25’ to 3’
on Richmond, finding the hardship to be the topography and the detention pond to
the east, with the following conditions as summarized from the written agreement
(see written agreement attachment to the minutes of record): the Community
Center shall be lowered so that no variance for height shall be required. The maximum height of the building shall
not exceed 772’ above mean sea level; The parking platform planned for the
northeast corner of the Kirk property shall be constructed with headroom between
the surface parking and the “interior” bottom of the parking structure at seven
and one-half feet instead of nine feet as originally proposed; Upon completion
of the parking structure, the applicant will landscape the street frontage along
61st Street, Quebec and Richmond with not less than 22 mature trees
with one mature tree in front of each vertical structure supporting the parking
platform. The parties have agreed
that they will select the variety of trees mutually. Kirk of the Hills agreed not to
construct additional parking structures to this one shown on the plan, on the
following described property:
The N 396’ of the W
660’ of Lot 2, Section 4, T-18-N, R13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma, and all of Livingston Park Block 1, less and except the
portion thereof subsequently platted as Livingston Park South.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback from the freeway service road from 50’
to 19’-5” to permit an addition to the existing building. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located 10111 E. 45th
Pl.
Comments and
Questions:
Chair
White asked the applicant for the roof height of the new addition. Mr. Stokely replied it is a two-story
building, approximately 25’. Mr.
Beach commented that this is a continuance from a previous Board of Adjustment
(BOA) hearing. Mr. Dunham added
that they approved a variance from 45th Pl. Mr. White stated the height would not
block vision for the expressway.
Presentation:
Sam Stokely, stated he wanted to match up the height of the
addition to the existing building.
He indicated that the reason for the continuance was that the corner of
the building comes so close to the setback line. He stated that the lot has an odd shape,
and it is hard to fit a standard building on it.
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 the
required setback from the freeway service road from 50’ to 19’-5” to permit an
addition to the existing building, on the condition it not exceed the height of
the existing building, and in no case exceed 35’ in height, per plan, on the
following described property:
A part of Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1, Ideal Brick Industrial Tracts, an addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma, and an unplatted tract lying between said Lots 1 and
2, and all being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at
the SW/c of Lot 1, Block 1, Ideal Brick Industrial Tracts, according to the
recorded plat thereof; thence N 89º53’07” E a distance of 176.00’; thence N
0º10’07” E a distance of 60.00’ to a point, said point being on the N
right-of-way line of E. 45h Pl. S.; thence N 89º53’07” E a distance of 225.86’
to the POB; thence N 00º06’53” W a distance of 343.29’ to a point on the S
right-of-way line of the Broken Arrow Expressway (Oklahoma Highway 51); thence S
51º55’00” E, along said Sly right-of-way line a distance of 166.24’ to a point;’
thence S 22º25’32” E along said right-of-way line a distance of 259.95’ to a
point on the N right-of-way line of E 45th Pl. S.; thence S 89º53’07”
W along said right-of-way line a distance of 229.33’ to the POB, and containing
50,000.27 square feet, or 1.1479 acres, more or less.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the maximum display surface area for a bulletin board from 32 square feet to 50 square feet. SECTION 402.B.4.a. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. – Use Unit 21, located 1438 S. Indianapolis Ave.
Presentation:
Ron Flanagan, 2745 E. Skelly Dr., Ste. 100, stated he was
representing East Side Christian Church. He stated that they proposed to
place a pole sign one block away from the church building on the parking
lot. Mr. Cooper asked for an
explanation of the need. He
explained that they asked for an increase of display surface area because of the
one block distance from the church.
The additional 18 square foot space is in the name of the church, with
the message space remaining the same.
A site plan (Exhibit B-1) had been provided with the
application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach gave clarification, stating that this might be considered a bulletin
board, with the changeable copy on 35 square feet. Mr. Cooper asked if this was all fixed
signage and not moveable bulletin board, how many square feet would be
permitted. Mr. Beach replied the
Code provides for educational, religious institutional, similar uses requiring
announcements of activities; a bulletin board may be erected on each street
frontage that shall not exceed 32 square feet in surface area. He added that this was under residential
zoning district use conditions for special uses in residential districts. Mr. White noted that there are three
street frontages on the one lot. He
added that the request is for one sign of 50 square feet instead of three signs
of 32 square feet.
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 the maximum display surface area for a bulletin board from 32 square feet to 50 square feet, on the condition that it be limited to the sole sign, per plan, on the following described property:
Lots 3, 4, 5 and 21, Block 3; and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 4, Summit Heights Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the maximum display surface area for a sign from 260 SF to 303 SF. SECTION 602.B.4.c. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS & BOA 17071, 6/13/95, located 7030 S. Yale.
Presentation:
John Moody, 7146 S. Canton, stated he was representing
Northwestern Mutual Life Financial Network, for Gary Larsen. He gave a brief history of this
case. He pointed out the steep
topography at the intersection of 71st and Yale before some
improvements were made. The Copper
Oaks development includes this office building, which is about 800’ away from
Yale Avenue, under consideration in this case. He described all of the commercial
development that has been built around this area. The BOA approved a 260 square feet
display surface area for the original sign on the building. The original lettering was 48” in
height, as it is today. Since then
the company has changed their corporate name. Mr. Moody pointed out that it is
important to them to have the full name to inform the public of their expanded
services. They proposed to decrease
the size of the lettering to 42” to stay within the approved area. He added that they are requesting
this increase in display surface area to 303 square feet, and propose to leave
out the word (Life), add the two new words (Financial Network), and decrease
letter size, and still be large enough for good visibility.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked for a hardship. Mr.
Moody responded that it would be the topography, and it is so far back from the
street. Mr. White asked if the new
sign would be in the same area as the existing sign. Mr. Dunham responded that it would be in
the same location, but shorter in height and longer in
width.
Interested
Parties:
There
were not interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
discussion ensued.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-1-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins,
"aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance of the maximum display surface area for a sign from 260
SF to 303 SF, per plan, finding the hardship to be the complexes across from
commercial areas that are permitted greater amount of signage by right and
finding that the building is located on an irregular shaped lot 380’ from Yale
Avenue with limited street exposure, on the following described
property:
Beg. at the NE/c Lot 1,
Block 1, Copper Oaks, an addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma; thence N 89º44’34” W a distance of 1,257.04’; thence S 0º04’22” E a
distance of 330.11’; thence S 89º44’22” E a distance of 658.31’; thence S
0º02’11” E a distance of 270.14’; thence S 89º44’10” E a distance of 204.60’;
thence N 0º06’40” E a distance of 52.76’; thence S 89º53’20” E a distance of
0.00’; thence a curve to the left w/ a central angle of 98º24’40”, a radius of
5.00’, a distance of 8.59’; thence N 00º04’55” E a distance of 13.04’; thence N
16º03’23” W a distance of 107.77’; thence N 01º55’43” W a distance of 52.0’;
thence N 69º21’54” E a distance of 37.40’; thence N 89º42’56” E a distance of
108.79’; thence S 00º14’26” W a distance 72.41’; thence S 89º40’10” W a distance
of 18.02’; thence S 0º20’19” E a distance of 89.86’; thence N 89º34’15” E a
distance of 18.05’; thence S 0º07’47” E a distance of 26.04’; thence S 89º52’13”
W a distance of 4.58’; thence S
0º06’40” W a distance of 53.01’; thence S 89º44’10” E a distance of 30.60’;
thence due N a distance of 270.00’; thence S 89º44’10” E a distance of 243.00’;
thence due N a distance of 49.97’; thence due E a distance of 7.00’; thence due
N a distance of 280.35’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a multi-family use in an OL zoned district.
SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use
Unit 8; Variance to allow RM-2 Bulk and Area requirements for this
development. SECTION 604. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN OFFICE
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located SE/c E. 17th St. & S. Cheyenne
Ave.
Presentation:
Robert Raskin, 6724 S. Peoria, stated that this case was continued
to give more information to interested parties in two neighborhood
associations. He stated that he has
not had a meeting with them, but he mailed out packets of information with
elevations, site plans, sketches of proposed architecture. Mr. Raskin informed the Board that he
received only one phone call regarding the application. A site plan was submitted (Exhibit
D-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked Mr. Beach about the staff comment that the proper method to achieve
this would be re-zoning. Mr. Beach
responded that when the effort is to get a use allowed that needs multiple
variances to increase density controls, it is more appropriate to re-zone the
property.
Interested
Parties:
Lucky
Lamons,
205 and 209 W. 17th St, President of the Oakshire Homeowners’
Association, stated he was not present to oppose the application. He commented that Mr. Raskin sent out a
very appropriate and timely booklet to inform the neighborhood about the
application. He stated that the
only opposition he heard was from Judy Boyle in 209F, that there would be too
many cars for the area.
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 a multi-family use in an OL zoned district, finding that 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 Variance to allow RM-2 Bulk and Area requirements for this development, per plan, finding the density and bulk area to be consistent with other developments in the neighborhood, on the following described property:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and N/2
Lot 4, Block 10, Stonebraker Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Variance of the required 25’ rear setback to 9’0” for addition to existing garage. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located S of SW/c E. 45th St. & Columbia Ave.
Presentation:
Danny Mitchell, 4111 S. Darlington, stated he was representing the
applicant and owners of the property.
The owners met with ten of the twelve neighbors, and submitted seven
signatures (Exhibit F-1) acknowledging they understand the intent of the
application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham noted that the signatures submitted are not the same as the interested
parties present at the last hearing of this case. Mr. White asked for a show of
hands of interested parties in support of the application, and those in
opposition of the application.
Interested
Parties:
Herman Myer,
4605 S. Columbia Ave., reminded the Board that at the last hearing he raised
questions regarding the overall plan and why a four-car garage was needed for a
two-bedroom house. He stated that
his understanding was that the two properties owned by same owner, would
effectively become as one property, the garage would be removed from the owners’
residence and the garage space would be added to the house on the subject
property. Mr. Myer reminded
the Board that the owners’ residence is in a PUD, and therefore would not be a
simple matter of a variance.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham noted that none of the opposing interested parties that were present last
time signed the petition or attended this hearing. Mr. Dunham, Ms. Perkins and Mr. Cooper
all commented that nothing has changed.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to DENY a Request for Reconsideration: of a Variance of the required 25’ rear setback to 9’0” for addition to existing garage, finding that everything was the same as when the Board decided to deny.
Lot 2, Block 10, Villa Grove Park, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW APPLICATIONS
Action
Requested:
Variance of all-weather surface for parking to permit existing gravel. SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 10; and an Appeal from an administrative official’s determination that off-street parking must be on an all-weather surface, located 1111 S. Lewis Pl.
Presentation:
Brooks Bearden, 5136 S. Toledo, stated his office is on the corner
of 11th Street and Lewis Place.
He stated that he has a private parking lot for his business that is
fenced and lighted. He added that
he has let Chris Nichols use it.
Mr. Bearden noted that the lot has been graveled for more than 30
years. He stated he received a
notice (Exhibit E-1) that he needed to surface the lot, and therefore made
application to this Board. It was
his opinion that he was exempt from the requirement because of an ordinance
permitting gravel if it existed before July, 1970.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham responded it came to the attention of the BOA today that regarding the
Board action of 1969, where this property was approved for a parking lot, it was
subject to compliance with standards for parking lots on the subject property at
that time. Mr. Dunham explained
that meant the lot had to be paved.
He pointed out that since that was never done it does not qualify under
the grandfather rule. Mr. Bearden
replied that he always thought he was in compliance. Mr. White read the Standards for
Accessory Off-Street Parking approved by the BOA residential districts,
effective in 1969 and included: one requirement for design standards was that
all off-street parking areas shall be hard surfaced with an all-weather dust
free material; gravel, pressed rock or chat when used without an asphaltic or
concrete binder are not acceptable to meet this requirement. Mr. Cooper asked where this exemption
exists in the new ordinance. Mr.
Prather replied that it is under the non-conforming use provisions, Section
1407. He continued that to be a
non-conforming use, there must first be a lawful use, and under Section 1407E
for a lawful use exists, then the provisions of Title 42, which require that
vehicles to be parked for display or sale on an all-weather material shall not
apply to any non-conforming parking space that was constructed of a material
other than all-weather material prior to July 1, 1970.
Interested
Parties:
Sheryl Dyer,
P.O. Box 14260, Tulsa, OK 74159-1460, stated she represented the Renaissance
Neighborhood Association. She
submitted a petition of disagreement (Exhibit E-3) signed by 43 neighbors and
members of the neighborhood association, and a list of houses removed from the
neighborhood (Exhibit E-4). She
stated that she lives at 1122 S. Birmingham Pl., and as a resident she
recognized that Mr. Bearden has been a long time business owner in their
neighborhood association, and she does not want to make a hardship on him, but
she would like to see the lot surfaced with black top or something.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Bearden stated that the business has been at this location since 1925. He informed the Board that before they
acquired the business and removed the house in about 1966, there was a parking
problem along the street. He stated
that this was his solution to that problem. He stated that they add gravel and grade
it periodically, so that it is well maintained. He indicated that he was never informed
to pave the lot. He stated that the
ground absorbs the rainwater, and does not cause oily run-off as asphalt lots,
or have potholes from asphalt deterioration.
The
Board received a letter of opposition (Exhibit E-5) to this application from
Councilor Gary Watts, District 4.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins,
Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to
DENY Case No. 18951, finding it was unlawful non-conforming; and
to UPHOLD the administrative official’s
determination.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow RV and trailer sales in a CS zoned
district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17; and a Variance of the required all-weather surface
parking to allow gravel parking.
SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, located 10740 E. 11th
St.
Presentation:
Emmett Bean, 1880 E. 11th, stated he has owned the
subject property for about 27 years, and operates his business there. He asked for more time to sell his
merchandise and property, as they are in the process but it is taking longer
than he would like.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked what he thought would be a reasonable time to accomplish this. Mr. Bean suggested it would take about
one year. Ms. Bean stated that
10880 E. 11th is the correct address.
Interested
Parties:
Carolyn Harder, stated
she represented the East Tulsa Mingo Valley Neighborhood Association, in support
of the application, at least for a temporary variance. She indicated that Mingo Valley, Western
Village, Wagon Wheel, and Magic Circle neighborhood associations were all in
agreement to support this request.
She suggested six months to one year.
Janet
Miller,
1249 S. 105th E. Ave., stated she was also with East Tulsa Mingo
Valley representation, and the Crescent Heights Neighborhood. She spoke in support of the application
for the maximum time available. She
informed the Board that his property was always well kept. She did not feel this variance
would be a detriment to the community.
James
Mautino,
14628 E. 12th St., from Tower Heights Neighborhood Association, spoke
in support of the application. He
considered one year to be a reasonable time limitation.
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 RV and trailer
sales in a CS zoned district, finding that 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 Variance of the
required all-weather surface parking to allow gravel parking, for a period not
to exceed one year from the date of this hearing, finding that it will not cause
substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and
intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the following described
property:
E/2 Lot 1 and N 20’ vacated
street adjacent on S, less N 40’ for street, Mingo Valley Acreage, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 100’ monopole wireless telephone
transmission tower within 110’ of property zoned RS-2, located SE of E.
33rd St. S. & S. 79th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Kevin Coutant, 320 S. Boston, stated the location does not meet
the 110% setback from an RS district requirement. He submitted responses to required
criteria and site plan (Exhibit G-1). The tower is a 100’
monopole, at a distance of greater than 1,000’ from residential structures,
approximately 40’ from a residential district, with no existing towers within
required service area. He stated
that on the north and west are empty lots, a hotel on the south and on the east
in an RS district, the Tulsa Technology Center. There are no residences there. The topography is generally flat; tree
coverage is very limited; tower design is a galvanized steel monopole; with
three slim-line 1’x 6’ flat antennas near top of tower, engineered for
collocation of 2 similar antenna facilities; initial building would be
approximately 12’ x 20’; 15’ access and utility easement running west from site
to S. 79th E. Ave.; necessary for required coverage; on a 35’ x 40’
tract with probable development of “parent” tract:
commercial.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked if there was a plan for any landscaping. Mr. Coutant responded that the company
is willing to provide landscaping or screening fence as requested, but no
landscaping has been planned.
Interested
Parties:
There were not 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 construct a 100’
monopole wireless telephone transmission tower within 110’ of property zoned
RS-2, per plan, finding all eleven criteria are met: tower is a 100’ monopole,
at a distance of greater than 1,000’ from residential structures, approximately
40’ from a residential district, no existing towers within required service
area; on the north and west are empty lots, a hotel on the south and on the east
in an RS district, the Tulsa Technology Center, no residences, topography
generally flat; tree coverage very limited; tower design: galvanized steel
monopole; three slim-line 1’x 6’ flat antennas near top of tower, engineered for
collocation of 2 similar antenna facilities; initial building would be
approximately 12’ x 20’; 15’ access and utility easement running west from site
to S. 79th E. Ave.; tower necessary for required coverage; on a 35’ x
40’ tract with probable development of “parent” tract: commercial, on the
following described property:
Lot 2, Block 1,
Interchange Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor
Special Exception to permit a 25’ front setback down from 30’ approved for the
subdivision in BOA 17629. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 5515 E.
118th St. S.
Presentation:
Ronnie Herron, 11608 S. Erie, stated that he currently resides in
this subdivision, and act as treasurer on the Board of Directors of this
neighborhood and on the Beautification Committee, and Architectural
Committee. He provided a plot plan
(Exhibit H-1), which shows that the east side of the property contains 37 ½ ‘ of
easement, part of which is Oklahoma Natural Gas (ONG) and part utility. When utilities were put in that part of
the property was cleared of trees.
He would like to bring the front façade of the house forward and preserve
the trees in the rear.
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 Minor Special Exception to permit a 25’
front setback down from 30’ approved for the subdivision in BOA 17629, per plan,
finding the hardship to be the existing trees, and the lot to the west already
has a lesser setback, on the following described property:
Lot 10, Block 3, Forest Hills Estates, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Use Unit 25 (aircraft parts manufacturing) in a CH zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 25; a Special Exception to allow parking in an RM-2 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 10; a Variance to meet parking requirements on lot other than lot of principal use. SECTION 1301.D. OFF-STREET PARKING; GENERAL REQUIREMENTS; and a Special Exception of the screening requirements on the lot abutting an R district. SECTION 1225.C. USE UNIT 25. LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRY, Use Conditions, located 2124 N. Sheridan.
Presentation:
Scott Pryer, 2230 N. Sheridan, stated the business is an aircraft
parts manufacturer, located in an area of town in transition. He stated that the Use Unit 25 has been
granted in the last three years to the building to the north adjacent to the
subject property. Mr. Pryer
indicated there was no other property appropriately zoned for parking. He stated they propose to build fences
and provide an appearance that was consistent with the surrounding area. A site plan was provided (Exhibit
I-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White mentioned the staff recommendation for a tie agreement. Mr. Pryer responded that he had one
prepared to sign. Mr. White asked
if there would be access to Norwood Pl.
Mr. Pryer replied that there would not be access to Norwood Pl.
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 25
(aircraft parts manufacturing) in a CH zoned district; a Special
Exception to allow parking in an RM-2 zoned district; a
Variance to meet parking requirements on lot other than lot of
principal use, subject to a tie agreement, per plan, finding it will not cause
substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and
intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan; and a Special
Exception of the screening requirements between the CH lot and the RM-2
lot, per plan submitted, finding that 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:
A tract of land
beginning 495’ W of the SE/c of the N/2 SE/4 SE/4 NE/4 of Section 27, T-20-N,
R-13-E of the IBM, thence N 264.11’; thence E 235’; thence S 264.11’; thence W
235’ to the POB; and a portion of the SE/4 NE/4 Beg. at the SE/c of the N/2 SE/4
SE/4 NE/4; then N 164.11’ W 260’ S 164.11’ E 260’ to the Beg., less the E 35’
thereof for street, Section 27, T-20-N, R-13-E of the IBM, all in the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance
to permit a four-sided ground sign.
SECTION 1221.E.4. USE UNIT 21.
BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING; CG, CH, CBD, IL, IM, and IH Use
Conditions for Business Signs; and a Variance of sign height from 40’ to
56’6”. SECTION 1221.E.1. USE UNIT
21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING; CG, CH, CBD, IL, IM, and IH Use Conditions for Business Signs,
located E of N. Memorial Dr., S of Port Rd.
Presentation:
Brian Ward, 9520 E. 55th Pl., described the property
conditions as unfavorable for placing a sign where it is visible to potential
customers. He submitted a sign
elevation (Exhibit J-1) and photographs (Exhibit J-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if he wanted to put it on the building. Mr. Ward stated it would be on a pole
next to the building.
Interested
Parties:
There
were not 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 to permit a four-sided ground
sign; and a Variance of sign height from 40’ to 56’6”, per plan,
finding the hardship to be the location, no frontage, and finding it will not
cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit,
and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the following described
property:
A tract of land lying in the
SW/4 NW/4 and the NW/4 SW/4 of Section 13, T-20-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows to-wit:
Commencing at the SW/c NW/4 of said Section 13, thence N 00º00’24” W along the W
line of said Section 13 a distance of 401.87’, thence N 89º59’36” E and
perpendicular to the W line of said Section 13 a distance of 231.00’ to the POB,
thence N 89º59’36” E and perpendicular to the W line of said Section 13 a
distance of 513.18’ thence S 00º00’24” E and parallel to the W line of said
Section 13 a distance of 460.00’, thence S 89º59’36” W and perpendicular to the
W line of said Section 23 a distance of 513.18’, thence N 00º00’24” W and
parallel to the W line of said Section 13 a distance of 460.00’ to the
POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of minimum front setback from 25’ to 17’ to permit additions to a non-conforming structure in an RS-3 district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 2403 N. Quincy.
Presentation:
Willy McHenry, 727 N. Lewis Ave., stated he requested the variance
to build an addition to the house, to line up with the existing structure and
setback. A site plan was provided
(Exhibit K-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked about the staff comments that indicate he may need more
relief. Mr. Beach replied it is
required to setback from Virgin by 15’.
Mr. Dunham noted that he is not advertised for this relief. Mr. Beach responded that he asked for
relief on the front of the property.
He added that there is time to advertise so that the case could be
continued to February 13, 2001.
Mr. White asked when the house was built. Mr. McHenry was unsure, but suggested in
the 1950’s.
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 minimum front setback from 25’
to 17’ to permit additions to a non-conforming structure in an RS-3 district,
per plan, finding the hardship is an existing home and just squaring it up; and
to CONTINUE Case No. 18962 to the hearing on February 13, 2001 for
additional relief on the south side, on the following described
property:
Lots 13, 14, Block 2, Carver Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception under the provisions of Section 401 of the Zoning Code to permit
off-street parking under Use Unit 11 in the RM-2 zoned part of the
property. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11; and a Variance of the requirements of Section 1301.D to
permit a part of the required off-street parking spaces to be located on lots or
parts of lots other than the lots upon which the new office building will be
constructed. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located
NW/c of S. Peoria Ave.
& E. 8th St.
Presentation:
Charles Norman, 2900
Mid-Continent Tower, stated he represented Family and Children Services. They are purchasing additional property,
consisting of two lots fronting on south Peoria, part of the vacated alley, and
half of lots facing the west, to be developed into a new office building in
accord with the amended site plan (Exhibit L-1). He stated they are requesting relief for
off-street parking in the RM-2 district and required parking for the new office
building in the CH district to permit parking on lots other than the primary lot
where building is located. He
proposed that this would be subject to a tie agreement that none of this
property would be sold separately in part from any other part. He stated this results from the Urban
Renewal Project Plan, and division of the property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked about the landscaping requirements to be met. Mr. Norman responded that he discussed
this with the architects, and they assured him that the five feet of street
frontage landscaping could be provided. He added that there is no requirement for
street frontage in the CH district because there is no required front yard on
the Peoria side. Mr. Dunham
mentioned the staff comments that indicate a screening fence would be required
along the property line abutting the RM-2 district. He asked Mr. Beach if that is for the
west property line of the project.
Mr. Beach replied that on a portion of the west side and a portion of the
north side, according to the site plan it is where the parking lot is within the
RM-2 portion. Mr. Norman stated
that there would be a screening wall that is being jointly developed by the
Family and Children Services and the developer of the property to the west. He described it as a masonry wall along
the west and north boundary of the parking lot.
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 under the provisions of
Section 401 of the Zoning Code to permit off-street parking under Use Unit 11 in
the RM-2 zoned part of the property; and a Variance of the
requirements of Section 1301.D to permit a part of the required off-street
parking spaces to be located on lots or parts of lots other than the lots upon
which the new office building will be constructed, subject to a tie agreement,
subject to the amended site plan, and that it will meet the required landscape
and screening requirements, on the following described
property:
A tract of land that is part of Lots 9 through 13, part of Lots 18 through 26, and part of the vacated alley, adjacent thereto, Block 1, Oaklawn Addition, said tract being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NE/c of Lot 1, Block 1; thence S 89º17’08” W along the Nly line of Block 1, for a distance of 5.00’; thence S 0º00’00” E and parallel with the Ely line of Block 1, for a distance of 228.00’ to the POB; thence S 89º17’08” W and parallel with said Nly line, for a distance of 223.14’ to a point; thence S 0º42’52” E for a distance of 211.98’ to a point on the Sly line of Block 1; thence N 89º17’08” E along said Sly line, for a distance of 85.50’ to a point, said point being the SW/c of Lot 17, Block 1; thence N 0º00’00” W along the Wly lines of Lots 14, Block 1 through said Lot 17, for a distance of 100.00’ to a point, said point being the NW/c said Lot 14; thence N 89º17’08” E along the Nly line of Lot 14, for a distance of 135.00’ to a point located 5.00’ W, as measured along said Nly line, of the NE/c of Lot 14; thence N 0º00’00” W and parallel with the Ely line of Block 1, for a distance of 112.00’ to the POB; And Lots 14, 15, 16, and 17, Block 1, Oaklawn Addition, less and except the E 5’ thereof, and part of the vacated alley adjacent thereto, all located in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of side yard setback of 20’ down to 10’-2” for construction of a carport. SECTION 403.A.5. 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 5546 S. Newport Ave.
Presentation:
Craig Rychner, stated there was not enough room to build a carport
with a 20’ setback. A site plan
(Exhibit M-1) was provided.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham noted the staff comments asked how many square feet in the existing
garage. Mr. Rychner replied there
are 400 square feet. Lee
Wilson, 5546 S. Newport, the owner, stated that the problem was it was built
around 1949, and is too small for newer vehicles. He added that the carport would match
the existing house in architecture and finish. Mr. Dunham commented that he noticed a
number of carports in the neighborhood.
Mr. Dunham asked if it would be open-sided. Mr. Wilson replied in the
affirmative. Mr. White asked if it
would be attached to the garage.
Mr. Wilson stated that it would be.
Mr. Rychner stated that there were 43’ from the curb to the existing
garage. Mr. Cooper stated that the
Board does not know if the other carports in the neighborhood were built with
permits.
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, Perkins
"aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance of side yard setback of 20’ down to 10’-2” for
construction of an open-sided carport, per plan, finding there are other
numerous carports in the area and that it would be a hardship on this lot to
deny the same privilege, on the following described
property:
Lots 13 and 14, Houstonia Home Sites, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a single-family dwelling in a CS zoned
district for minister interns to live, for security and maintenance
purposes. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 6532 E. 71st St.
S.
Presentation:
There
were no applicants or interested parties present. The case was tabled, to follow the last
case.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for Use Unit 15 Other Trades and Services. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 13; and a Variance of the parking ratio requirement from 1
parking space to 400 square feet for non-office accessory space to 1 space to
250 square feet for office use and 1 space to 5000 square feet for accessory
storage use per conceptual site plan.
SECTION 1215.D. USE UNIT 15.
OTHER TRADES AND SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements,
located SE of E. 21st St. & 129th E.
Ave.
Mr. White stated that Mr. Dunham would abstain from this
case.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated that the applicant withdrew the request for a variance.
Ricky Jones, 5323 S. Lewis Ave., with Tanner Consulting, stated he
represented the buyers and sellers in this application. He submitted a site plan (Exhibit N-1)
to the Board. The original
plan shows three lots being developed, each with a 5,000 square foot
building. He added that they are
asking for Use Unit 15 uses in a CS zoned district, and both allow a number of
uses. Mr. Jones stated they are
willing to specifically restrict them to contract construction services. Mr. Jones pointed out the Code includes
such services as plumbing, electrical contractors, and general contractors. Use Unit 15 also allows such things as
flea markets, but they do not intend to use the property for this. He indicated that approximately 750
square feet per building would be used for office space, and the majority of the
building would be used for storage.
Mr. Jones pointed out that the preliminary landscape drawings have not
been prepared yet, and the conceptual plan (drawing, Exhibit N-4) was all that
he had. He stated that they have
met with Mr. and Mrs. Silver that reside immediately across the street and Mr.
and Mrs. Myers that own property across the street, as well as others in the
neighborhood. He described the
buildings as metal with pitched roof, with a minimum of 30% of the front of the
building and the sides (east of the screening fence) would have masonry to
soften the affect of a metal building.
Mr. Jones stated that they intend to exceed the required landscaping with
trees, bushes and/or shrubs to minimize any negative impact and buffer the area
between the center and the residential district. He stated that only vehicles that are
customary with the business, licensed to operate on a public street, and can fit
in a standard parking space, would be permitted in front of the building. Mr. Jones pointed out that they plan
screening on all four sides. The
property abutting to the west is commercial, and there is no requirement that it
be screened. This plan proposes a
six-foot solid screening fence, even to the north that abuts a carwash and other
similar property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked if the applicant had a list of the conditions he just covered in his
presentation. Mr. Jones replied
that he and the attorney have a list of those conditions, which he submitted
(Exhibit N-2).
Interested
Parties:
Gentra Sorem,
3700 First Place Tower, with Conner and Winters, stated she represented the
Silvers and Myers. She stated they
have met with the developer and covered her clients’ concerns, which are mainly
aesthetic. She pointed out that
130th E. Ave. is inadequate, and though nothing can be done about it
at this hearing, it could become a problem in the future. She stated that the developer has
complied with their requests. She
mentioned that her clients were concerned that outside storage be kept within a
screened area; and landscaping on the east and south have a screened
affect. She spoke for her clients
that they would agree to the Special Exception, with the site plan and specific
conditions, including: Use Unit 15, limited to contract construction services
per site plan; screening fence around perimeter of the property with setback for
the security gates; minimum masonry of 30% along eastern side between security
fence and screening fence; landscaping along eastern and southern boundaries;
limitation of three 5,000 square foot buildings, of one story; parking
configuration as shown in the site plan; no inoperable vehicles, or vehicles
that cannot fit in the parking spaces; and no outside storage in the front.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked for a copy of those conditions. Ms. Sorem submitted them (Exhibit N-3)
to the Board.
Interested
Parties:
Calvin
McClendon,
2205 S. 130th E. Ave., stated that he lives 100’ south of the south
building, in the cul de sac. He
indicated his own personal pride in his own home and property and the aesthetics
of the neighborhood. He expressed
his concern that metal buildings would overwhelm the view, and be detrimental to
the business community and to the value of residential property. He indicated that if they were bricked
buildings it would be an asset.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White consulted staff regarding jurisdiction over type of construction materials
used. Mr. Beach replied that the
ordinance does not address aesthetic design or construction materials. Mr. Beach added that the interested
parties could suggest any conditions they think are appropriate to mitigate any
harm that might otherwise come to a neighborhood, and the Board may impose them
if they agree.
Interested
Parties:
Mr.
McClendon continued that he objected to industrial buildings between commercial
retail and residential. He also
pointed out the one lane street is too narrow, only has a one inch overlay
surface, and is not conducive to truck traffic.
James
Mautino,
stated that the proposed structures are non-conforming. He pointed out the Arby’s, QuikTrip, car
wash, a new church, which are bricked, a commercial business in a metal building
that is fully bricked, and brick homes behind the Silvers’ and Myers’
homes. He stated that metal
buildings would be injurious to this neighborhood. He expressed his concern with the
appearance of this area, because it has been difficult to attract quality
businesses. Mr. Mautino mentioned
that the developers for this project own property to the west of the subject
property. He suggested that they
might plan to develop that property in a similar way.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Prather named the businesses allowed under Use Unit 15. He stated that the Board has the power
in granting a Special Exception to prescribe appropriate conditions and safe
guards. They may limit it to a
specified period of time and may require such evidence in guarantee or bond, as
it may deem necessary to enforce compliance with the conditions attached.
Interested
Parties:
Carolyn
Harder,
stated she represented East Tulsa Mingo Valley Association. She stated that they looked at the
project and thought it was excellent.
She and another member drove the lot and thought it would be a good fit
for the area. She added that she
was also a business owner on 129th E. Ave., with a Use Unit 15, and
it has worked well for her and her neighbors. Ms. Harder expressed her expectations
that the property would be better maintained by the owners than if the buildings
were leased. She stated that they
were in support of the application.
Janet
Miller,
1249 S. 105th E. Ave., stated she was a member of the East Tulsa
Mingo Valley Association. She drove
the area and talked with neighbors in support and opposition to the
application. She expressed her
concern that there were too many vacant lots in the area, and her preference for
non-metal buildings. Ms. Miller
suggested that landscaping be placed also on 21st Pl. S. by the time
they sell or develop the property that faces 129th E. Ave. She also suggested a condition
that the businesses’ storage be limited to supply materials and not equipment.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach commented that screening is required along the property line that abuts
130th E. Ave., except at points of vehicular access. The sections of screening fence shown on
the plan between the buildings do not meet that requirement. Mr. White asked about 21st
Pl. S. Mr. Beach replied screening
fence is required everywhere the property abuts residential zoning.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Jones stated that they are willing to limit no outside storage of materials
behind the screening fence, materials would be stored inside. He requested that the businesses be
permitted to park trailers for transporting supplies/equipment within the
screening fence as needed. He
informed the Board that they have talked with the City of Tulsa Transportation
Engineering Department. The City
has plans to widen 21st Pl. S., with curbs and guttering, brought up
to City standards. He pointed out
that this is not for industrial use.
He illustrated that putting a shopping center in this location, facing
north or east would leave the backs of the buildings with dumpsters and
semi-trucks facing the residential homes.
He proposed that this project would serve as a nice buffer between the
residential and commercial districts.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White commented that 130th E. Ave. has a 50’ right-of-way, but a
narrow paved surface, and asked if there were any plans to be re-paved. Mr. Tanner replied there were no plans,
but they had suggested to the neighbors to contact the City of Tulsa. Mr. Tanner reminded the Board that the
street serves only two houses and indicated that the developers were responsible
to put in the street when the area was platted. He stated that he expects the City
will see the need in the future but did not know when that would be. He pointed out that at this time that is
a City issue.
Mr.
Cooper asked Mr. Jones to speak to the Board regarding the noise from carpentry
and similar businesses. Mr. Jones
responded that the businesses would be construction related. The actual activities would probably not
be conducted there. He described an
example of an electrical contractor.
They would load the supplies onto a truck, go off-site to work, and
return at the end of the day. He
indicated that a table saw might be used inside occasionally, but it is not like
they would be doing actual construction activities on site. This would be more of a staging, and
storage area. He stated that they
could have sought BOA approval, and obtained a building permit to construct a
metal building, but they did not want to do that. Mr. Jones offered that from the
beginning it has been their concern to soften the appearance for the sake of the
residential neighbors. He stated
that it is not practical to brick the whole building because no one would see it
behind a screening fence. Mr.
Cooper commented that Mr. Jones indicated that there probably would not be any
construction going on in these buildings.
Mr. Jones responded that he did not want to mislead them, because he
could not tell them all of the uses that will or will not occur there. He urged the Board to place conditions
and limitations in the action that make it compatible. He reminded them that Neighborhood
Inspections was a mechanism in place for dealing with Code enforcement, and
would follow up on any complaints that are made in the future. Mr. Cooper stated he was very concerned
about the possibility of noise pollution because of the nature of the
construction businesses.
Joe
Westervelt,
1630 S. Boston, asked to speak to Mr. Cooper’s concerns. He stated that the three purchasers of
these buildings are a general contractor and two electrical subcontractors. The general contractor needs an office
to meet with his clients and store supplies. The electrical subcontractors, to his
knowledge would not do any particular on-site assembly or work. He also mentioned the distance of
over 300’ and the buffer of their insulated buildings, landscaping and screening
fence.
Mr.
Prather cited the Tulsa Zoning Code, Section 1215 concerning the provisions
permitted.
Mr.
Cooper asked if there would be a large door on the south side of the
building. Mr. Westervelt replied
that the east end of the property would be the gable end, with a retail look,
small canopies, and office doors.
The roll-up door will be on the south behind the screening fence with a
solid security gate. Ms. Perkins
stated that she does not expect the labor jobs to be done at this location but
out at the job sites.
Board
discussion ensued, regarding the suggested conditions and the
issues.
Board
Action:
A
MOTION
was made by Cooper
to CONTINUE
Case No. 18966 to the hearing on February 13, 2001. Motion
died
for lack of a second to the motion.
On MOTION
of
Cooper,
the Board voted 3-0-1 (White, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; Dunham
"abstained"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception for Use
Unit 15 Other Trades and Services, with the following conditions: a minimum of
30% masonry on the building outside the screened area and in addition non-metal
siding on the south side of the south building above the six foot fence; outside
storage per Code; storage cannot rise above six foot fence; no storage of
trailers or materials outside screened area; only vehicles which are licensed
for travel on public streets and typically found in conjunction with businesses
such as cars, vans, and pickup trucks, and can fit in a standard parking space
are allowed to be parked outside of screened area; landscaping per Code, and in
addition a three foot tall continuous hedge in front of the east facing parking
spaces; uses will be limited to those Use Unit 15 uses which are included in the
Contract Construction Services, Section 1215.B.4, prohibiting fabricating,
processing, installation and or repair, incidental or otherwise; screening fence
per Code and security fence per plan not to be less than six feet in height;
limited to three 5,000 square foot buildings of one story in height.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a single-family dwelling in a CS zoned
district for minister interns to live, for security and maintenance
purposes. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 6532 E. 71st St.
S.
Presentation:
The
applicant was not present.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins,
Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 18965 to February 13,
2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:01 p.m.
Date approved:______________________
__________________________________
Chair