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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.