CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
November 27, 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 |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Cooper |
|
Butler |
Parnell, |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
Neighborhood |
|
Perkins |
|
|
Inspections |
|
Turnbo |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Wednesday, November 21, 2001, at 8:30 a.m., as well as at the City Clerks 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, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions",
Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
the Minutes of November 13, 2001 (No. 830).
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions",
Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
the amended Minutes of July 10, 2001 (No. 822).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow outdoor storage or display of merchandise within 300 of an adjoining R district. SECTION 1217.C.2. USE UNIT 17. AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, Use Conditions Use Unit 17, located 2607 E. Pine St.
Presentation:
Melissa Gibson, 2607 E. Pine, stated that similar successful auto
businesses do not display the cars indoors. She discovered through research that
where the autos are displayed indoors they experience increased vandalism, and
increased overhead. She pointed out
that a nearby tire shop displays merchandise outside, and a fast food chicken
restaurant has approximately 15 cars in the parking lot at any given time.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins asked if the other businesses she used in comparison have residential
homes within 300 of a residentially zoned area. Ms. Gibson replied that a large percent
of the ones near her business have residential homes directly behind them as her
business.
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, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no
"abstentions", Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance to
allow outdoor storage or display of merchandise within 300 of an adjoining R
district,
the
restrictions previously placed on this property: maximum of four cars displayed;
no lighting other than the existing security light; days and hours of operation
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; no outside speakers; no inoperable
vehicles stored on the premises; and no mechanical work on the premises, finding
that other similar businesses have been granted variances for the same relief
and would be a hardship on this property not to give the same consideration, on
the following described property:
Lot 728, Block 56, Tulsa Heights and Lot 11, Block 1, Waverly Place,
except tract 20 square in NE/c thereof; all in City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception of the required 110% setback from an O zoned district
from 110 to 76 on the north and 350 on the east for a monopole cell tower
100 in height, located NE/c E. 21st St. & S.
Columbia.
Presentation:
Dan Sullivan, stated the abutting property owner had previously
asked for a Continuance for Case No. 19232. He added that a letter was mailed to
INCOG. Mr. Beach verified the
letter was received.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no
"abstentions", Cooper "absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19232 to the meeting on December 11, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit cellular telephone antennas and supporting
structure to be affixed to an existing electrical utility monopole 75 in height
extending the height of the supporting structure to 83 with antennas extending
3 above the supporting structure.
SECTION 1204.3.g. & h.
USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC
PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES Use Unit 4; a Special Exception to delete
the requirement of security fencing of the cellular telephone tower. SECTION 1204.3.g. & h. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES; and a Special Exception to modify the setback of the cellular
telephone tower from residentially zoned lots from 91.5 to 42. SECTION 1204.3.g. & h. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES, located NE/c E. 36th St. & S. Lewis Ave.
Presentation:
Dennis Box, 522 Colcord Dr., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, stated that
they have returned to the Board with the same application as approved for Case
No. 18949 of January 2001, because the court determined that the notice was not
mailed properly. The application is identical to the previous one. He stated that the structural engineer,
Chad Tuttle was present, and an RF engineer, Richard Brown, and Pat Towery were
present.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked if this was approved before by the Board and District Court did not
hear the case then why has it come back to the Board. Mr. Boulden replied that the appellants
challenged the notice that was given by the Board of Adjustment that not all of
the residents within 300 of the property were given notice. Based on that, the court determined the
Boards decision was invalid.
Mr. Boulden advised that since the previous case was determined void then
this Board may act on a new application.
Mr.
Box continued with the presentation.
He stated that the existing pole is 75 in height, and with the antenna
it will be a little less than 85.
The closest residential structures are the condominiums on Lewis Avenue
about 250 away, to the north property line is 240, to the east is 290. The adjacent uses are: an electric
sub-station, a Southwestern Bell facility, a fire station, and residential
use. The topography is rolling
hills with numerous trees for a buffer.
The existing pole is found to be adequate for the addition of their
antennas. They will have three
antennas similar to the AT&T approved site. There are no other antennas planned for
this pole. He pointed out one of the photographs (Exhibit A-8) of the utility
cabinets they use, indicating they are smaller than usually found on an existing
building. A proposed 12
access drive with curb cut off of E. 36th St. is indicated on the
site plan. The likely development
is an electrical sub-station. The
site plan also shows plans for further landscaping and maintenance of some
existing trees. They asked for a
special exception to modify the setback from 91.5 to 42.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked how the look of the proposed pole would compare to the existing one
on the adjacent pole. Mr. Box
replied it would look the same.
Richard Brown, 10830 E.
45th St., Ste. 400, stated he is an RF engineer with Sprint PCS. He submitted a packet (Exhibit A-3) to
the Board. He reviewed the need for
the antennas by showing the RF coverage maps provided in the packet.
Mr. Cooper arrived at 1:30 p.m.
Mr.
Brown explained the reasons that the nearby church property and the fire station
would not be acceptable sites.
Chad Tuttle, 601 S. Boulder, Ste 703, stated he is a professional
engineer, specializing in the design and analysis of telecommunication
structures. They have done a
structural analysis of the pole and foundation (Exhibits A-2, 4 and 5) and have
determined that the pole and foundation will safely hold the proposed load. Mr. Cooper asked how they could get
service into this area when it is likely that several providers will need
antennas in this location. Mr.
Tuttle suggested the placement of one large tower and everyone collocate on
it.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Boulden asked if collocation was a possibility on this pole. Mr. Tuttle responded that it would not be feasible. Mr. Tuttle also noted there seemed to be a question about the height and he clarified that the pole is 83 from the ground to the platform.
Interested
Parties:
Bonnie Henke, 3449
S. Atlanta Pl.,
submitted
a letter of opposition (Exhibit A-6) from the resident next door to the
property, and a petition of other residents in opposition (Exhibit A-7). She stated that the Board was in no way
obligated to approve the application, which would require more clutter to be
located at an increasingly unattractive site. She stated that the property was
minimally maintained and progressively deteriorating. She indicated that modifications of
safety measures such as fencing, setbacks and screening would be inconsistent
with the spirit and intent of the code, and not in the public interest. She was concerned that additional
supporting wires to the AT&T pole since January 2001.
Harrison Townes,
3717 S. Birmingham, stated he is the President of the Greater Oakview Estates
Homeowners Association. He stated
this is a commercial enterprise, and has no place in a residential
neighborhood.
Les
Hill,
3538 S. Zunis Ct., stated he lives one block west of the subject property. He asked the Board to use the maximum
consideration possible for the residents of the area in this
decision.
Frank
Henke,
3449 S. Atlanta Pl., expressed concern that they have still not met the notice
requirements necessary to provide jurisdiction for this Board. He stated that the setbacks are not from
the tower exclusively but also from accessory buildings and guy wires. He believes the setback measurements
that are provided are incorrect. He
submitted a document from the Ameritec website (Exhibit A-9) regarding cell
range.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo questioned Mr. Henke regarding his point that not all residents in the
300 radius received notice. Mr.
Henke did not have anything to prove his point. Mr. Beach informed the Board that staff
received a list from an abstractor through the applicant on this case, and
compared them with our list before mailing. Mr. Beach believed it to be a valid
list. Mr. White questioned Mr.
Beach regarding correct setbacks.
Mr. Beach clarified that there are two setback requirements. One has to do with locating the tower
110% of its height away from abutting residential zoning. The other has to do with the location of
accessory buildings and guys meeting the minimum setbacks of the zoning
district.
Interested
Parties:
Herb
Beattie,
3474 S. Zunis Avenue, stated he lives less than 300 yards west of the site. He made the point that commercial does
not belong in the middle of residential zoning.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo responded that the Supreme Court ruled that cell towers are to be treated
the same as utilities. Mr. Beattie
complained that on 36th St., a designated bicycle path, the use of
cell phones by auto drivers makes it unsafe. He pointed out that in some cities cell
phone use while driving has been made unlawful.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Box reminded the Board that this applicant is using an existing facility to avoid cluttering the area any more and still meet legal requirements to provide adequate coverage.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach noted that the site plan indicates that the accessory building is setback
less than the required amount from 36th St. More relief may be needed. He asked Mr. Box whether he wanted to
give additional notice for setbacks or would they change the location to meet
the requirements. Mr. Box responded
that there is no accessory building.
The equipment is placed in cabinets. Pat Towery, 1341 W. Mockingbird, Ste. 600, Dallas,
Texas, responded, stating she is the Senior Property Specialist for Sprint
PCS. She stated that they use
outdoor equipment. The cabinets are
about 36 in width, and the door has a four-foot swing. The equipment is six feet tall. The cabinets are on a raised platform,
with no roof. Lighting will be used
in the event of equipment failure and repair. She stated that the structural
analysis including the factors for future plans by PSO, concluded there would be
no need for more guy wires.
Mr. White determined, with agreement of the Board members, from the code
definition that the cabinets would not be considered a
building
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White questioned Mr. Boulden about additional guy wires that PSO might add to
the pole. Mr. Boulden believed that
to be negligible, and the Board need not consider it, as long as the applicant
has met the requirements. Ms.
Perkins was in favor of using the existing pole. Mr. White commented that the pole has
existed for a long time and did not see the need for a fence. Mr. Dunham commented that he also rides
his bike in this area, and did not feel the antennas on an existing pole would
be any more of a problem. Mr.
Cooper mentioned the Supreme Court ruling to consider these facilities like
utilities. He does not like
the way the cellular industry or the rules regarding the physical facilities has
developed and impacted the community, but he was in favor of this application.
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 cellular telephone antennae and supporting structure to be affixed to
an existing electrical utility monopole 75 in height extending the height of
the supporting structure to 83 with antennae extending 3 above the supporting
structure; a Special Exception to delete the requirement of
security fencing of the cellular telephone tower; and a Special
Exception to modify the setback of the cellular telephone tower from
residentially zoned lots from 91.5 to 42, per plan, finding that all of the
factors to consider were presented by the applicant, and 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 property
described as follows:
Lot 7 and the S 93 of Lot 8, all in Block 4, Oak View Estates Addition,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the recorded plat
thereof. Tower Site Description: A
part of the right-of-way of E. 36th St. S., more particularly
described as commencing at the SW/c of Lot 7, Block 4, Oak View Estates, thence
E along the common boundary of said Lot 7 and the right-of-way of E.
36th St. S. a distance of 95.31 to the POB, thence S a distance of
11.50, thence E a distance of 11.00, thence N a distance of 11.50, thence W a
distance of 11.00 to the POB.
Equipment Site Description: A proposed 20.00 x 20.00 lease site lying
in and being part of Lot 7, Block 4, Oak View Estates, an Addition to the City
of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as
follows: Commencing at a Ύ iron bolt found for the SW/c of said Lot 7, Block 4;
thence N 88°5316
E along the S line of said Lot 7, Block 4, a distance of 127.10 to a point on
said S line; thence N 01°0644
W a distance of 29.75 to a 3/8 iron rod w/cap set for corner, said point also
being the POB; thence N 45°0342
W a distance of 20.00 to a 3/8 iron rod w/cap set for corner; thence N 44°5618
E, a distance of 20.00 to a 3/8 iron rod w/cap set for corner; thence S
45°0342
E, a distance of 20 to a 3/8 iron rod w/cap set for corner; thence S 44°5618
W, a distance of 20.00 to the POB.
12 Access Easement Description: An easement for ingress or egress
crossing a part of Lot 7, Block 4, Oak View Estates, on Addition to the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being 6.00 on either side of the
following described centerline.
Commencing at a Ύ iron bolt found for the SW/c of said Lot 7, Block 4;
thence N 88°5316
E along the S line of said Lot 7, Block 4, a distance of 150.19 to a point on
said S line, said point also being the POB; thence N 00°0000
E, a distance of 20.00, thence N 45°2312
W, a distance of 23.31 to an ending point on the SEly line of the above
described equipment site. 8
Utility Easement Description: An easement for utility purposes crossing a part
of Lot 7, Block 4, Oak View Estates, an Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma, being 4.00 on either side of the following described
centerline. Commencing at a Ύ iron
bolt found for the SW/c of said Lot 7, Block 4; thence N 88°5316
E along the S line of said Lot 7, Block 4, a distance of 100.81 to a point on
said S line, said point also being the POB; thence N 00°0000
E, a distance of 20.00; thence N 47°0551
E, a distance of 25.44 to an ending point on the SWly line of the above
described equipment site.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an auto detail shop in a CS district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 17, located 1902 E. Pine St.
Presentation:
Nathan Beckman, 1902 E. Pine, stated that he brought the property
into compliance with the zoning code.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham read the staff comments and reminded Mr. Beckman that he would need to
complete the screening fence for the residential property. He verified with the applicant that all
detailing work would be done inside, and that no inoperable vehicles would be
parking on the property. Mr.
Boulden mentioned that inoperable vehicles would include wrecked, unlicensed or
otherwise inoperable vehicles.
Interested
Parties:
Candy
Parnell,
111 S. Greenwood, stated she is an Inspector for Neighborhood Inspections for
the City of Tulsa. She stated that
they are not in opposition to this application, but an interested party. She commented that the applicant is
operating an auto repair and paint facility or was operating it when she visited
the facility. She wants to be sure
that the applicant understands the difference in the auto repair/paint and the
detailing business. She commended
the applicant for removing inoperable vehicles and cleaning up the
property. Ms. Parnell encouraged
the Board to request that he park automobiles on all-weather surfaces. Mr. White
asked Mr. Beckman if he understood the conditions that Ms. Parnell pointed
out.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Beckman replied that he understood the conditions and was willing to
comply.
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 an auto detail shop in a CS district, with conditions that
operations be limited to auto detail work only; all work to be done indoor; no
painting, body work or repair work; no wrecked, unlicensed, or otherwise
inoperable vehicles to be parked or stored on the property; no outside storage
of parts or other merchandise, and vehicles be parked on an all-weather surface,
on the following described property:
N/2 W/2 Lot 13, less W 20 thereof, Springdale Acre Lot Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Use Unit 26, Storage of Abandoned or Inoperative Vehicles, reclaimed from highways/streets for 60 days or less (excluding salvage vehicles). SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 26, located 3225 Southwest Blvd.
Presentation:
Ed
Crockett, 6380-A E. 31st, stated he is the attorney for Allied
Towing and Recovery Services. The
applicant has offered a letter of intent to lease the subject property.
Mr. White out at 2:34 p.m.
The
property is zoned IL, and is surrounded by the oil refinery, trucking
facilities, and a Southerland Lumber yard.
Allied hauls abandoned, wrecked or otherwise inoperable autos for
Oklahoma Highway Patrol, dealers, and other businesses. They decided to look for a better
location and zoning to allow for the additional operations: offices, support for
dispatching, as a matter of right Use Unit 17 automotive and allied activities,
minor repairs, Use Unit 23 warehousing, wholesaling, which includes but is not
limited to automobile and truck storage offsite, and Use Unit 25 light
industrial not elsewhere classified.
The property has asphalt parking, fenced areas on both sides, and a
24,000 building in the asphalt area.
Mr.
White returned at 2:36 p.m.
Allied proposes to store some vehicles in some of the buildings and some
outside. Mr. Crockett stated that
the average storage time for towed vehicles is five to six days. The maximum time of storage would be
sixty days. If vehicles are not
picked up within 45 days they are sold, and are removed from the site. Letters of support and photographs
(Exhibits C-1 and C-2) were submitted to the Board.
Interested Parties:
Wesley Harmon, 2420 Southwest Boulevard, stated he is the
President of Community Bank and Trust at this address. He submitted a letter (Exhibit C-4) of
opposition from Sinclair Refinery, which he read. He stated that the bank has worked with
corporate and civic neighbors to improve the properties along Southwest
Boulevard. He reminded the Board
that this is a historic part of Tulsa.
Route 66 is used in a lot of promotions. He stated that though this is not a
salvage yard it comes very close to the same.
Roy Heim, 6303 S. 30th W. Ave., stated he is opposed to
the application. He commented that
this area is the entrance to southwest Tulsa. He reminded the Board that Storey
Wrecking Service has to comply with the same laws. He added that the type of operations
could be seen from N. Elwood. He
informed the Board that he is the Secretary of the Southwest Tulsa Chamber of
Commerce. He submitted a letter
from the Chamber asking for a two-week continuance (Exhibit C-3). He stated that
they support projects with their own money to improve this area. They have contracted with the University
of Oklahoma Architectural Studies Program at Langston and OSU Tulsa for a
redesign of the Route 66 corridor in southwest Tulsa. He believes that this application would
put an end to the efforts to improve the area. He asked that the Board at least delay a
decision to give other chamber board and members opportunity to hear and
respond.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Boulden asked Mr. Heim if there are any plans to have this area rezoned. Mr. Heim replied they have given the
university a lot of freedom as to concepts. They plan to ask INCOG to review
District Plan 9 for a special corridor for Route 66. Mr. Boulden asked Mr. Heim if there are
any conditions they could offer to make this application more acceptable should
it be granted. He did not think
there were any that would make a difference.
Interested
Parties:
Randy
Miller, stated
she is the City Councilor for this district and a member of the Southwest Tulsa
Chamber of Commerce. She stated she
was in agreement with Mr. Harmon and Mr. Heim. She commended those who have worked to
improve this corridor. She was
concerned about this type of business being established at this location because
she has seen similar businesses that did not comply with the code. She informed the Board that if the
Southern Lumber Company yard is not sold, the plan is to build an office
development.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr.
Beach asked Councilor Miller about any conditions that would make this use fit
into their plans for the area. She
responded that a screening fence and a strict limitation of storage time for
inoperable vehicles. She did not
know if these conditions would be enough to lessen the damage it would cause to
the appearance of the area. Ms.
Turnbo asked if Urban Development was vitally involved in the efforts to improve
southwest Tulsa. She replied that
they attend all of the meetings, and they hope to make this the fourth infill
project.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Crockett stated he owns property in the area and encourages the improvements
also. He stated this is not a
salvage yard in any way. He added
there would not be dismantled vehicles there, and no inoperable vehicles for
more than 60 days. He
reminded the Board that the refinery is zoned for heavy industrial and around
the property is moderate industrial.
He stated that in such a fast moving society this type of business is
necessary. He indicated that Allied
would be a responsible company that could meet the need and accommodate the
efforts to improve the area.
Ms.
Turnbo commended the businesses and people who are making obvious improvements
along Southwest Boulevard. She was
in agreement with the interested parties that it is important to take pride in
our city and recognize that Route 66 is historic. She was impressed with a similar effort
in the Kendall-Whittier area, and after seeing the results she stated she would
not be favor of this application.
Ms. Perkins was concerned there would not be enough control over the
condition and number of automobiles stored there, or the time limitation. Mr. Beach commented that they would be
in violation if they did not stay in compliance with the code. Mr. White stated that in theory that is
true but in practice it is impossible to enforce. He added that he thought the use was too
disruptive and intense for this location.
Mr. Dunham concurred with the other Board members, though it is a special
exception for this zoning. He
recognized that this business is a necessity but it would probably not be
welcomed anywhere. Mr. Cooper
commented that there arent many uses that would want to back up to a
refinery.
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
allow Use Unit 26, Storage of Abandoned or Inoperative Vehicles, reclaimed from
highways/streets for 60 days or less (excluding salvage vehicles), finding this
is a fragile area, and that private enterprise and other entities are working to
design a plan that would upgrade this portion of Route 66, on the following
described property:
A tract of land located in the NW/4 NW/2 of Section 23, T-19-N, R-12-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, lying SEly of the Ely right-of-way of the present Tulsa and Sapulpa paved highway, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the SE/c of said NW/4 NW/2 of said section; thence W along the S line of said NW/2 NW/2 of said section a distance of 195.80 to a point of curve; thence around a curve to the left, having a radius of 197.71 a distance of 227.75 to an intersection with the Ely right-of-way of said Tulsa and Sapulpa highway, said point being 183.21 N and 313.75 W of said SE/c of said NW/4 NW/4 of said section; thence in a NEly direction along said Ely right-of-way, a distance of 481.13 to a point; thence at an angle of 65°5322 to the right a distance of 116.00 to a point on the E line of said NW/4 NW/4 of said section; thence S along said E line of said NW/4 NW/4 of said section a distance of 620.62 to the SE/c of said tract and the POB, less a tract of land described as follows, to-wit; Beg. at the NW/c of the above described tract for the point and place of beginning; thence E and parallel with the S line of the NW/4 NW/4 of said section, a distance of 116.00 to the NE/c of said tract; thence S along the E line of the NW/4 of said section a distance of 20.00 to a point; thence NW in a straight line to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception of the required all-weather material surface for parking to allow parking on grass surface. SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS Use Unit 26, located 123 N. Fulton.
Presentation:
Jerry Moreky, 5951 S. Birmingham, submitted a packet of
information (Exhibit D-1) to the Board.
She stated that she was representing the applicant, David Hamm. Ms. Moreky stated their request for a
special exception to allow parking of impounded vehicles on a grass and gravel
surface. She pointed out a
letter from a zoning officer at INCOG, and a list of similar businesses with the
same parking conditions. Ms. Moreky
informed the Board that she toured eight different wrecker services and impound
lots in the City of Tulsa, including the one with the exclusive contract with
the City of Tulsa, and they have the same parking surface as the subject
property. She also reviewed the
photographs in her packet for the Board.
She has been involved in testing the run-off water in the area. The run-off from Daves Wrecker Service
was found to be well within the acceptable level for any pollutants. The public cannot see the impound lot
because it is at the end of a private drive.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach informed Ms. Moreky that she needed a Variance for Use Unit 26, not a
Special Exception. He stated that
the application is under-advertised.
She replied that someone at INCOG instructed her to ask for a Special
Exception. She stated that a
wrecker service has existed on this property since 1945.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins "aye", no "nays", Cooper "abstained", no "absences") to
CONTINUE Case No. 19245 to the meeting on December 11,
2001.
Beg. NW/c SE SE SW, thence E 150.00 S 385.00 W 150.00 N 385.00, Section 34, T-20-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow used car rental and sales (Use Unit 17) in a
CS district. SECTION
701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 1608.A.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION, General Use Unit
17, located 6539 E. 31st St.
Presentation: