CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
July 10, 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 |
|
Beach |
Jackere,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler |
Parnell,
Zoning
Official |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, July 6, 2001, at 2:50 p.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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant requested a continuance. The case was continued to today because
the applicant indicated at the previous hearing that he might be acquiring more
property on which he could meet the parking requirement. The owner of the other property is
present and stated to Mr. Beach that he does not intend to sell to the
applicant. August 14, 2001 was the
soonest the case could be heard.
The applicant was not present at this hearing. There were several interested parties
present for the second time and they objected to the continuance. Ms. Perkins asked that Mr. Beach contact
the applicant, to give him opportunity to present his case at this hearing. Mr. White tabled the case to later on
the agenda.
Action
Requested:
Gregg Van Wyck, 1521 E. 59th Pl, stated that Steven
Pollen, the legal representative for Oxford House, Inc., was out of town at
another court date. He requested a
continuance to July 24, 2001.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the staff member if the Board has authority to approve the variance requested. Mr. Jackere responded there is a special exception more appropriate for this case. Mr. White urged interested parties in opposition to obtain as much of their objections in writing as possible and send them to INCOG before the hearing so the Board will have time to review them.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 19125 to the meeting on August 14, 2001.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Perkins,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of May 22,
2001 (No. 819).
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 90’ monopole cellular transmission tower
on property zoned OL and within 99’ of an adjoining lot line of property zoned
OL. SECTION 1204.C.3. & 5. USE
UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND
UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions and SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 4, located S of SE/c of E. 45th St. &
Harvard.
Ms. Perkins stated she would abstain.
Presentation:
John Brightmire, 320 S. Boston, stated U.S. Cellular requests to
place an 80’ laminated wooden monopole on the subject property. The nearest residential structures are
more than 160’ away. The closest residential district is 160’ away and there are
no existing towers near the site.
The properties on the north, south and west are zoned OL with office
buildings and on the east is an RS-1 district. The topography of the land is flat with
some trees. The tower is designed
to accommodate three slim line antennas at 75’ and engineered for collocation of
two similar antenna facilities. The
building would be pre-fabricated, 12’ x 20’ with an aggregate rock
exterior. Access would be from the
existing parking lot. The tower is
needed to provide cellular service where there is inadequate service and
inadequate in-building service. The
tract size is approximately 50’ x 50’ on a 2,500 square foot parent tract. The most likely development would be the
Tulsa Racquetball and Athletic Club.
Landscaping would be done in compliance with the zoning code. The applicant submitted a packet of
exhibits to the Board (Exhibit A-1).
Three letters of support were also submitted (Exhibit
A-2).
Interested
Parties:
Bill Liftsaw,
4621 S. Jamestown, stated he was opposed to the application. He noted the trees would lose their
foliage and not provide screening seven months out of the year. He complained that the property is
dilapidated. He suggested that the
antennas should be placed on top of the taller buildings in the area.
Dr. Myrine Katz,
4543 S. Harvard, stated that the equipment building would be more like 15’ from
his property. He added that this
section of Harvard is an attractive light office area and he felt this tower
would detract from the aesthetics.
Mr. Cooper arrived at 1:36 p.m.
Jane Katz,
was concerned that U.S. Cellular was trying to put in a pole before a proposed
utility easement was approved.
Perkins out at 1:45 p.m.
Sharon Poleson,
4550 S. Harvard, stated she works in an office at this address. She was in agreement with Dr. Katz. She added that she is a U.S. Cellular
customer and she wants them to have good coverage, but this is the wrong
location.
Perkins returned at 1:47 p.m.
Ed Rosenheck,
4555 S. Harvard, was concerned that if the tower fell it would fall on his
building. He stated that the
applicant has not contacted him with any information regarding the tower. He expressed total opposition to the
tower at this location.
Rick
Jackson,
4520 S. Harvard, stated he is the landlord at this address, and is very much in
opposition of the application. He
stated that tenants of his building already have to see the very poorly
maintained subject property.
Margaret
Duncan,
4553 S. Jamestown, stated she opposes the application because it opens the door
to a zoning change from OL to heavy commercial.
Terry
Turner,
4501 S. Jamestown, Linda
Shaffer,
3312 E. 45th, Doug
Powers,
3324 E. 45th, Philip
Bayeau,
4055 S. Harvard, Ed Monnet, Jr., 3323 E. 45th St., and Cathy
Bogart,
3331 E. 45th St. are all in opposition for all of the above
reasons.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Brightmire responded to concerns over decreased property values,
stating that there are no studies that show cell towers cause a decline in
property values. He stated that the
applicant is willing to do whatever screening is necessary. Mr. Brightmire informed the Board that
the suggested sites for a tower would not help. He reminded the Board that they are
preparing for heavier cell phone usage and peak hours not just to maintain the
current usage. He pointed out that
the F5 tornados of last year did not fell their cell towers. He indicated that with the advancement
in technology the future towers would perhaps be shorter. He noted that the site is 200% back from
the lot line, which is meeting the spirit and intent of the code.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White noted a larger size “hole” in the coverage on the RF map. He asked how tall the pole would have to
be if it were put on a site farther south. Mr. Brightmire suggested that
usage and topography influence that decision. Ms. Turnbo asked how far the tower would
be from Dr. Katz’ office. He
replied it would be 24 feet from his office. She surmised that the building would be
about 15 feet from his office.
Doyle Grote,
1210 S. Detroit, stated that if they move the tower south it would not connect
with the other sites that they need to off-load. He reminded the Board that even though
it is called a tower it is a wood pole and slim line antennas, and they are
shorter than the other type of towers.
If the system is full it will not recognize if the next call is an
emergency or just for a loaf of bread.
The cell phone is used by the emergency services and is becoming many
people’s home phone. Mr. Cooper
asked Mr. Grote how many more towers would it take to cover the remaining three
gaps in mid-town Tulsa. Mr. Grote
replied that one to two more towers should cover those
gaps.
Board
discussion ensued.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; Perkins
"abstained"; no "absences") to Deny
a Special Exception to
construct a 90’ monopole cellular transmission tower on property zoned OL and
within 99’ of an adjoining lot line of property zoned OL, finding that it would
not be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and would be injurious
to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to reduce required parking for a non-conforming bar from 32 spaces to 11 spaces. SECTION 1408.B. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS -- Use Unit 12a. & 13, located 716 and 720 N. Sheridan.
Presentation:
Dan Mordhurst, 2607 E. 57th St., requested a
continuance for ten days. Kurt
Ackerman has the parking plat and if it is approved he will not need any
relief. This matter is separate
from the property he tried to purchase for parking.
Comments and
Questions:
The Board discussed the request for continuance.
Board Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
a request to CONTINUE
Case No. 19091.
Mr. Mordhurst presented the need for relief to satisfy the newer code
requirements for parking to obtain a new occupancy permit for the tavern on the
subject property. The tavern has
been in operation for 34 years. He
would also like to make a retail space available that has been used for storage
in the past. He has never had any
complaints regarding parking. He
reconfigured the parking lot to allow for 26 parking spaces.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White inquired about parking in the rear of the building and the
access to it. Mr. Mordhurst replied
there are parking spaces with a mutual access easement between the strip mall
and the Git N Go on the north. Mr.
Mordhurst informed him that a lot of the patrons to the tavern are pedestrians
from the neighborhood. Mr. Cooper
asked about peak hours of operation for the tavern and beauty salon. Mr. Mordhurst stated that peak hours for
the tavern start at 6:00 p.m. and are before 6:00 p.m. for the salon.
Interested
Parties:
Bob Painter, 1151
N. 56th E. Ave., stated he is involved in the neighborhood
watch. They are concerned about the
crime on N. Sheridan. He mentioned
a shooting at a bar across the street from the subject property and two grocery
stores robberies. Mr. Cooper asked
him if in his opinion the bar causes parking problems for the neighborhood. Mr. Painter replied that he has seen a
line of parked cars down Sheridan for two or three blocks, but he does not know
which bar they go to. He considered
parking adequate and not a problem on the residential
streets.
Hal
Joiner,
715 E. Haskell, stated he coordinates the McKinley-Mitchell Neighborhood
Watch. He expressed concern for the
close proximity of the bars in the area.
He also pointed out that the police are called to the area
frequently.
Red
Garrison,
6700 block E. Independence, stated the bar patrons park on other business
parking lots and walk to the bars.
One of the neighbors frequently complains about beer bottles in his yard,
and people cutting across his yard, and other offensive
actions.
Al
Crystal,
708 N. Oxford, stated he owns property at 711 N. Oxford next to the subject
property. He stated that bar
patrons once used his yard like a public park for barbecuing, have torn down his
fence, and often park on Oxford.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Mordhurst stated he has tried to reach all of the neighbors and wants
their input. He stated he would put
in screening. Mr. Jackere suggested
he talk with Mr. Ackerman because he will be making a decision regarding the
parking and it will be final and binding.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
a Special
Exception to reduce required
parking for a non-conforming bar from 32 spaces to 11 spaces, finding that it
would not be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and would be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-2 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; White, Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of June 12,
2001 (No. 820).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of a Special Exception to
permit home occupation (office). SECTION 402.B.6. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions and SECTION 404.B. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS and SECTION 1608.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION -- Use Unit 6 and 11, located 2218 E. 54th
St.
Presentation:
Steve Schuller, 500 ONEOK
PLAZA, 100 W 5th St., stated the
client would be willing to move the storage to another site and use the home for
office use only in one room. He
added that there would be no deliveries to the home.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Jackere stated that notice must be given for another hearing of this
case, in consideration of interested parties. Mr. Dunham noted that the objections in
the previous meeting were all about the deliveries. Mr. Jackere responded that there is no
way to enforce a condition for no deliveries because they may receive personal
deliveries but no one is going to know when it is personal or business. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Schuller for the
nature of the office business. Mr.
Schuller replied they sell and service game machines for casino type
operations. The office work would
be phone paper work, and bookkeeping.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; Dunham "nay"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences")
to
DENY
a
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of a
Special Exception to permit home occupation (office), finding that it would not
be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and would be injurious to
the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 25 to 16. SECTION 1212.D. USE UNIT 12. EATING ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN DRIVE-INS, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements and SECTION 1408. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS -- Use Unit 12A, located 3307-3309 S. Peoria.
Presentation:
Jeffrey Levinson, 35 E. 18th, presented for the
Brookside Bar. He informed the
Board that this applicant has been in close contact with the neighborhood and
their association. The bar has been
considered a good neighbor.
Interested
Parties:
Randall Duncan, 1924 S. Utica, stated he was representing Ed
Kallay, requested a continuance. He
stated that Mr. Kallay only received his notice the day before the meeting and
would like to discuss the case with the applicant. Mr. Duncan stated that the special
exception might not be necessary, as Mr. Kallay owns several properties in the
area and may be able to offer the applicant a satisfactory
alternative.
Mr. Levinson responded that he is not in favor of a continuance. He informed the Board that he has
already spoken with Mr. Kallay and he is not in agreement with his
proposal.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY the request to CONTINUE Case No.
19114.
Interested
Parties:
Mr. Duncan expressed their concern that Mr. Kallay went to a lot of trouble and spent a lot of money to comply with the code and now this applicant is trying to get the same thing with a special exception.
David Paddock, 1101 E. 34th St., stated he is the
Vice-President of the Brookside Neighborhood Association. He indicated that Mr. Kallay would not
meet with the Infill Task Force and had not shown interest in the
neighborhood. He added that the bar
has been established since the 1940’s, is small and does not draw
crowds.
Nancy Apgar, 3914 S. Norfolk, stated she is the President of the
Brookside Neighborhood Association.
She stated she had talked with Mr. Kallay the day before and she is in
agreement with Mr. Paddock that the bar should not be put out of
business.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Levinson stated that there is no guarantee for parking spaces shared
with other businesses.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception to reduce the required
number of parking spaces from 25 to 16, 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit duplex use in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 7, located N of NW/c E. 35th St. & S.
Hudson.
Presentation:
Bobby Griffin, 2702 E. 56th Pl., stated his family has
owned the property and there are now five duplexes built on there.
Interested
Parties:
Robert McCallum, 5535 E. 35th St., stated his concern
of inadequate access for emergency vehicles. He stated that the street does not have
access to Hudson Avenue. He
indicated that one resident complained that she has trouble just driving to her
home because of all the residents’ cars on that one city
block.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Griffin responded that no one parks in the street because they all
have two-car garages. He mentioned
two ambulance trips to their street and they had no problems getting
through.
Board
Action:
On Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to permit duplex use in
an RS-3 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, on the following described
property:
N 83.5’ of Lot 9, Block 7, Yorkshire Estates, the Resubdivision of Lots 2-4, Block 3, and all of Block 4-13, Yorkshire Estates, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow storage (Use Unit 23) in a CG zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 23; a Special Exception to permit parking and storage on a surface other than all-weather material. SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS; and a Special Exception to allow manufactured home and auto repair (Use Unit 17) in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 17, located 8936 E. Admiral Pl.
Presentation:
Sam Daniel, III, 1756 S. Utica, stated he was representing Henry
Harper. Mr. Harper owns a mobile
home park on Admiral between Mingo and Garnett. He submitted an amended legal
description, included in the applicant’s packet of exhibits (Exhibit B-1). The mobile home park is a non-conforming
use, opened in the late 1950’s. He
mentioned the maintenance trailer, number 18, on exhibit sketch that contains
items for repairing older trailers.
He added that Mr. McCombs in trailer number 27 does auto repair across
from his home in the CG district.
There are seven old mobile homes used to store parts and materials. Three of these homes will be repair and
placed on lots in the park for rent.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Jackere asked what they are storing in the mobile homes. Mr. Daniel referred him to a hand
written list of items as part of Exhibit B-1. Mr. Daniel pointed out that the storage
area is fenced. Things that are too
big to store in a trailer are behind the fence, such as axles.
Henry Harper, 13005 E. 28th, stated that almost
everything stored in the outside area is used to maintain or repair the mobile
homes. Mr. Cooper questioned the
applicant regarding cars in the photographs (Exhibit B-2) provided by
Neighborhood Inspections, which appeared to be inoperable. Mr. Harper stated they were all
operable, tagged and can be moved.
Mr. Harper stated that the tenants own these cars.
Interested
Parties:
Candy Parnell, stated that Mr. Harper has cleaned up the park some
since the photographs were taken around May 25, 2001. She stated that they have a work order
that is being turned in to clean out the rest of the junk and debris on this
property. It is taking longer
because Mr. Harper filed an appeal to the abatement notice. The appeal was denied. Mr. Daniel stated that Mr. Harper is
trying to clean up the property and meet the deadline from Neighborhood
Inspections.
Tim Cartner,
stated that Neighborhood Inspections recognizes the park as non-conforming. The lot that he is concerned about was a
vacant lot until they moved dilapidated mobile homes on it for storage and auto
repair. It is south and separate,
not connected from the mobile home park and has different zoning.
Sue Culbert,
8817 E. 2nd St., submitted a petition (Exhibit B-3) of
opposition. She stated that they
believe the street should have an all-weather surface. She said there were holes in the street
that allow water to stand. She
added the current condition of the street degrades the neighborhood. She added that the tenants keep up their
yards, but the landlord does not do as well around his own
house.
Ann Graham,
8821
E. 2nd St., submitted photographs included in Exhibit B-3. She expressed her concern that Admiral
and 2nd Street dead ends at this location and heavy traffic could
prevent emergency vehicles from getting through.
Don Culbert,
8817 E. 2nd St., complained that Mr. Harper started to put in a
driveway that is not up to code and did not complete it. He is concerned that if he obtains more
special exceptions he will continue to break the
ordinances.
Gene
Graham,
8821 E. 2nd St., stated he objects to the outside storage, and is
concerned that it will be abused.
Billy
Cole,
249 S. 89th E. Ave., submitted a photograph that is included in
Exhibit B-3. He pointed out that a
mobile home is not on wheels, and only 12 to 14 inches off the ground. He was concerned that it provides a
habitat for animals. He also noted
that old trailer chassis are scattered around and are not in condition to repair
other trailers, just salvage.
Tom
McBay,
1636 S. 117th E. Ave., stated he is the President of the East Tulsa
Mingo Valley Association of Districts 5 and 6. They support east Tulsa businesses and
insist they be good neighbors. He
stated that the special exceptions would discourage compliance with the code.
Troy
Williams,
402 S. 105th E. Pl., Vice-President of the Wagonwheel Association,
called the subject property a junk yard.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Special
Exception to allow storage (Use Unit 23) in a CG zoned district; a
Special Exception to permit parking and storage on a surface other
than all-weather material; and a Special Exception to allow
manufactured home and auto repair (Use Unit 17) in a CS zoned district, finding
that it would not be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and
would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Amendment to an approved site plan to permit an addition to a church in
an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 5, located 1714 W. 40th St.
S.
Presentation:
Maurice Clyma, 610 S. Main, stated he is an architect representing
Trinity Baptist Church, for an amendment to the site plan.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE an Amendment to an approved site plan to permit an
addition to a church in an RS-3 district, subject to the applicant meeting all
requirements of setbacks, landscaping, screening and other requirements of the
zoning code, on the following described property:
Lots 1-8 25, and
26, Block 6, Clinton Homesites Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to exceed 4’ limit to height of fence in required front
yard. SECTION 210. YARDS -- Use Unit 6, located 1385 E.
29th St.
Presentation:
Patrick Fox, 320 S. Boston, Ste. 1710, stated the request for
special exception.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham called Mr. Fox’s attention to the staff comments, stating he
will need more relief. Mr. White
determined that it is a wall and not a fence. Mr. Fox agreed it is an eight-foot wall
with ten-foot columns. Mr. Fox
pointed out other properties in the area with similar walls and columns. Mr. Fox also offered to move the whole
wall back five feet to comply with the requirement of 25 feet from the
centerline of 29th Street.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to exceed 4’ limit to
height of fence in required front yard, 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:
Beg. at a point
1335’ N and 982.5’ E SW/c of Section 18, T-19-N, R-13-E, thence N 315’, thence E
157.5’, thence S 315’, thence W 157.5’ to the POB, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma