CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
March 12, 2002, 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 |
Cooper |
Beach |
Romig,
Legal |
|
Perkins Turnbo |
|
Stump Butler |
Cox,
NBH Inspector |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, March 8, 2002, at 8:55 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an office in an RM-2 district (photography studio). SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, located 1437 S. Carson.
Mr.
Beach informed the Board that the applicant asked for a continuance. Mr. Beach stated he has talked with the
applicant and he needs a new notice.
He recommended a continuance to April 9, 2002.
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. 19289 to the meeting on April 9,
2002.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit existing construction company uses in CS district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15; a Special Exception to permit Building Contract Construction Services, Use Unit 25, in a CH district, including but not limited to heavy construction equipment/storage parking. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located 401 S. Memorial.
Presentation:
Kelly Knopp, 320 S. Boston, stated she represented the
applicant. She informed the Board
that she met with Mr. Beach on Friday afternoon. She requested the continuance when she
realized they were not advertised for all of the relief
needed.
Mr. White recognized the interested parties present. He asked Ms. Knopp if they would speak with the interested parties before the next meeting and see if they can work out any issues. She assured the Board her firm would have been willing to meet with any interested parties before if they had known the parties had issues. She responded that they would be glad to meet with the interested parties.
Interested
Parties:
Tom Hutchinson, 8345 E. 5th Pl., and his wife Toni were
present for the hearing. He stated that the applicant has not contacted them,
and yet they are next-door neighbors.
He had a packet of information to submit to the Board. He added they were opposed to any
exceptions to the code in this application.
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. 19314 to the meeting on April 23, 2002.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
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 February 26, 2002 (No. 836).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Consider and determine upon remand
of the District Court whether two existing ponds on the property are
“reservoirs” or otherwise included within Use Unit 1. Area-Wide Uses By Right;
And whether or not a variance or variances should be granted to permit uses
ancillary to a batch plant/ready mix concrete plant to be located within the OL
and RS-2 zoning portions of the property which uses may include truck storage,
miscellaneous materials and equipment storage, concrete block storage, and ponds
(if the Board should determine such ponds are not included within Use Unit 1.
Area-Wide Uses By Right), located 13521 East 11th
Street.
Ms. Perkins stated she would abstain from Case No. 18706.
Presentation:
Roy D. Johnsen, 201 W. 5th, Ste. 501, stated he was
representing APAC-Oklahoma, Inc.
APAC has owned the subject property since July 1999. He submitted a packet of information
(Exhibit A-1) to the Board. The
Board heard this application almost two years ago. In January of this year the case went to
District Court on appeal. The court
has remanded the case back to the Board to consider the two issues named in the
Action Requested. Mr. Johnsen
stated they are basically trying to distinguish a variance to permit an
ancillary use as opposed to a principal use is not prohibited by the City of
Tulsa Zoning Code.
Rainbow Concrete operates the batch
plant on the subject property. The
plant commenced operations in 1969.
The zoning code was amended and adopted in 1970. At that time all-weather surface parking
requirements, screening requirements, enclosure requirements, and others were
imposed. The batch plant is located
in an IM zoned area and is permitted by right in that district. The previous company extended outside
the boundaries of the IM in 1974.
An additional 70’ was rezoned adjoining the north boundary to an IL
zoning for storage of materials, and zoned property to the immediate east of the
IM to an OL classification to house the administrative offices of the
operation. This triggered a
platting requirement. The
company continued to expand the operations into the R zoned property. Neighborhood Inspections wrote a
notice of zoning violation and it was appealed to the Board of Adjustment. A substantial amount of the plant is in
a floodplain. The batch plant is
being operated in the same area as in 1999 except for a second pond just north
of the office building. The first
pond has been there for at least 30 years. The second pond is the only change
to the area being used since APAC purchased the property.
Mr.
Johnsen cited a case in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court quoted from a case, “In
Modern Builders vs. Building Inspector of City of Tulsa, 197 Okl. 80, 168 P.2d
883, it is said: “Zoning ordinances
being in derogation of the common-law right to use private property so as to
realize its highest utility, should not be extended by implication to cases not
clearly within their scope and purpose.”
In a second case, he quoted the Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Zoning
ordinances are to be strictly construed and not extended by implication. Any ambiguity or uncertainty should be
decided in favor of the property owner whose use of the premises, actual or
proposed, is in contest.” Mr.
Johnsen proposed that the ponds are reservoirs and fall within Use Unit 1, and
are permitted by right in all districts.
He raised the question of a whether this is a principal use or an
ancillary use. He recognized that
in the County use variances are allowed but the City Code has not been amended
and speaks to principal use in Section 1607.
Mr.
Johnsen described the process of washing out the trucks in cells and the
overflow drains into the ponds.
APAC has a plan to improve the process with a new piece of equipment
called a reclaimer. It is intended
to recover rock and sand and recycle the remaining water. They have applied for a permit to
construct the walls needed to use the reclaimer in the IL district.
Mr.
Johnsen explained that the first pond discharges to the second pond at a certain
level and the second pond discharges into the creek. He pointed out that they
have to meet the standards to have a permit from Department of Environmental
Quality. They are required to
submit monthly samples for lab tests.
The significant change would be that the truck washout would never get
into the pond with the reclaimer.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Romig asked what the purpose and use of the ponds would be if the reclaimer was
used. Mr. Johnsen stated they would
capture the water that drains from the balance of the reclaimer process. Mr. Stump asked if the ponds are
currently licensed by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, and what
kind of permits is current. Mr.
Johnsen referred him to the permit in the applicant’s exhibit packet and pointed
out the sign at the site with a DEQ permit number. Mr. Stump noted the permit information
refers to total retention with no runoff.
Mr. Stump stated that the information on the permit means that the flow
through and the total retention facilities are all considered industrial
wastewater disposal facilities. He
added that the current process is not under a new permit for the use of the
reclaimer because it is not in use yet.
Mr. Stump asked, for clarification for the Board, if Mr. Johnsen was
saying the Court interpreted that these facilities permitted for disposal of
industrial wastewater are reservoirs in a Use Unit 1 and are allowed in any
district anywhere in the city. Mr.
Johnsen replied no, that a permit could be issued that addresses an industrial
operation some of which may include portions that could be reservoirs. He added that the truck washout facility
presently in place, he is not calling a reservoir, but if the two ponds as they
existed and exist now, if they are a reservoir. Mr. Johnsen indicated that they want a
determination if what they are proposing is a reservoir. Mr. Stump asked for more
clarification of the source of the water that flows into the ponds
presently. Mr. Johnsen explained
that the washout area has holding cells that are not very large and some of the
water overflows into the pond, in addition water runoff from the yard flows into
the pond. Mr. White noted
there is nothing about the reclaimer being required in the new permit. He stated it appears that they are
renewing the same conditions as exist currently. Mr. Johnsen responded that the
classification for T01 listed on the last page of the permit in the exhibit has
to do with the reclaimer process.
Interested
Parties:
Pat
Boulden,
with the City of Tulsa Attorney’s Office, City Hall, Ste. 300, 200 Civic Center,
submitted a packet of information (Exhibit A-2) to the Board. He stated that he is the attorney
representing the City of Tulsa in relationship with the Board of Adjustment in
the District Court case, which resulted in the issues that have been remanded to
the Board. He stated that the Board
decided that the ponds were an ancillary use to the concrete batch plant and
therefore a Use Unit 26, per the staff notes. The Court wants the Board to address an
issue that Mr. Johnsen raised, that these ponds are not a Use Unit 26, but
reservoirs in a Use Unit 1.
The judge also wants the Board to address whether variances should be
granted for the storage of trucks, equipment, and concrete blocks. Mr. Boulden encouraged the Board to
consider their previous decision and rely on it to determine that the ponds are
a Use Unit 26. This would call for
these activities to cease in the OL and RS-2 districts, just as this Board
ordered previously. Mr. Boulden
submitted a packet of DEQ permits, and related information (Exhibit A-2). He informed the Board that the
information provides a definition for wastewater that will address what is in
the DEQ permits. He does not
believe that the statutory interpretations, cited by Mr. Johnsen, apply to this
case. He does not believe that the
definitions for Use Unit 1 in Section 1201 are ambiguous or uncertain. He read the included uses listed in the
code for Use Unit 1. He negated
agricultural use, public use, and open land use for the ponds. He provided photographs to demonstrate
to the Board (Exhibit A-4). He
pointed out the DEQ permit # WD79-067 and asked the Board to consider the
language in the permit. Mr. Boulden
read portions of the permit regarding the wastewater in the ponds: consisting of
exterior concrete mixer truck rinse water and storm water runoff, classified as
Class III; and interior concrete mixer truck rinse water, classified as Class
II. He noted these two
classifications include at worst: waste water containing or suspected to contain
pollutants for which the toxicity, concentration and volume pose a moderate risk
to humans, aquatic life, wild life, or the environment either through potential
to migrate in ground water or reasonable possibility if discharged. This water does cause adverse
effects. It does not fit the
definition of reservoir in the plain, ordinary meaning. Mr. White asked if the DEQ permit
overrides any of the zoning code.
Mr. Boulden replied that it does not, but he referred to a letter from
Jon Craig, with DEQ, to the Honorable Kevin Easley. They recognize the municipal and local
governments may impose other requirements, but those are not considered when DEQ
issues permits. Mr. Craig wrote
that the permit issued by DEQ will require the permittee to remove and replace
two of the existing cells with a much bigger concrete lined surface impoundment
that will receive the interior truck or mixer wash water. The DEQ agrees the ponds are part of the
concrete plant and therefore, an accessory use to the Use Unit 26 of the
concrete batch plant. Mr. Boulden
stated that the Code refers to accessory uses and the word ancillary has crept
into use in this case. He heard Mr.
Johnsen using it. He added that
ancillary is another way to refer to an accessory use, which is an incidental
and subordinate use to the principal use.
He suggested they should probably get away from the use of the word
ancillary because it is not used in the Zoning Code, unless it has some special
meaning to someone. Mr. Boulden
concluded that these industrial wastewater surface impoundments are a Use Unit
26; should not be interpreted as a reservoir that could be located anywhere in
the city; and they should not be allowed because they are not allowed by the
Zoning Code.
Mr.
Boulden addressed the issue of the storage of concrete blocks and trucks,
stating they are an accessory use, as are the ponds. They should follow the requirements for
Use Unit 26 and not be allowed in the RS-2 or OL districts. He encouraged the Board to compare
how the property has been used in the past and compare to more recent
photographs. He noted that the
concrete blocks have recently been removed.
James
Mautino, 14628
E. 12th St., submitted a warranty deed that shows Concrete Industries
purchased the property in 1971, not 1969 as Mr. Johnsen stated. He submitted a copy of the warranty deed
and a copy of the BOA minutes of a meeting in July 1974 (Exhibit A-3). The minutes recorded that the
company started an industrial use in the IM district as a temporary use until
they develop a workable plan under the proposed PUD ordinance. Mr. Mautino reminded the Board there was
only one pond at that time with existing trees for screening. He submitted a packet of exhibits and
photographs (Exhibits A-4 and A-5) to the Board of the previous and existing
conditions. The photographs showed
the results of the creek that was diverted, the sludge pile, water leaking from
the pond, a second pond, trees bulldozed down, increase in number of trucks and
truck size. He complained that the
hardships were on the residents of the neighborhood. He listed numerous problems including an
increased number of trucks, water, and dust; and the floodplain was pushed
closer to the residential neighborhood.
The photographs indicated that the outside storage of concrete blocks is
still not in compliance.
White
out at 2:40 p.m.
He
complained that the company built a block wall without a permit. Mr. Mautino suggested that most of the
problems would be alleviated if this business were within a building.
White
returned at 2:42 p.m.
Jack
Page,
as the Floodplain Administrator, stated he was present not in opposition or
support, but to give testimony regarding whether the ponds are storm water
detention ponds. It is true there
are detention ponds in the city that are outside the zoned area with the purpose
of storm water detention in general floodplains. They are specifically identified as
storm water detention ponds and have reserved areas, drainage easements, and are
depicted as a drainage facility.
Reservoir is not defined in the zoning code, but detention is defined in
Title 11a, Chapter 3, which is the storm water development ordinances for the
City of Tulsa, that regulates all development as it pertains to storm water
runoff and storm water control.
Detention is the temporary storage and controlled release of storm water
runoff, and it is defined as a facility for such. If a property is defined as being part
of a storm water detention facility, it must meet certain criteria, and specific
development standards associated with it.
It must be permitted to distinguish how the facility regulates or
controls the runoff. Calculations
must be submitted to determine what impact the facility has on the reduction or
mitigation of storm water runoff in the basin. Easements are required to identify to
everyone that it is a storm water detention pond for the purposes of storm water
runoff. A natural pond has some
benefit to detain storm water runoff in the area, but calling it that does not
make it a storm water detention pond, because it has not been proven that is
beneficial for storm water runoff.
The city of Tulsa does not recognize natural ponds as storm water
facilities. This pond was not
permitted as a storm water detention pond, but by a water quality agency.
Jonathon Prosser,
788 S. 138th E. Ave., stated he lives immediately east of the
plant. He stated he has spoken with
numerous neighborhood residents and wanted to share the concerns he heard. They expressed concern for the negative
impacts including dust, and noise; history of expansion with and without
permits; and a history of disregard for the neighbors.
A
list of signatures of interested parties in opposition, in attendance at this
hearing was entered as Exhibit A-6.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Johnsen refuted the remark that the applicant misled the Board. He reminded the Board that the IM zoning
predated the 1970 zoning code that required enclosure. He stated that his previous comments were that
no part of the property required enclosure within 300’ of residential property
other than their own, and the property to the west that was zoned office and
residential. The batch plant in the
IM is a lawful use; and the use of the IL is a lawful use. There is good separation from the
residential neighborhood.
Mr.
Johnsen agreed to the use of the word accessory rather than ancillary. He added that he disagrees with Mr.
Boulden in that statutory interpretation means just what he read out of the
Oklahoma Supreme Court cases that the term reservoir is ambiguous, not clear,
won’t be extended by implication.
He was adamant that the ponds meet the dictionary definitions for
reservoir. Mr. Johnsen stated that
toxic was a misuse of terms concerning the pond water. He stated that the pond water was Class
III on the new permit. He reminded
the Board that a Class III classification means that there may be substances in
the water but are not likely to degrade the beneficial use of the water to which
it is discharged. He also
stated that a brood of ducks was raised on the pond. He informed the Board that when the
reclaimer system is put in there would not be contamination of the ponds or
creek. He stated that APAC hauled
off concrete that was washed off into the pond. He added they are no longer making the
concrete blocks at this site.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays"; Perkins
"abstained"; Cooper "absent") determining that the existing ponds are not
reservoirs and otherwise not included in Use Unit 1.
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays"; Perkins
"abstained"; Cooper "absent") to DENY
a Variance
or Variances to permit uses ancillary to a batch plant/ready mix
concrete plant to be located within the OL and RS-2 zoning portions of the
property which uses may include truck storage, miscellaneous materials and
equipment storage, concrete block storage, and ponds, finding it is tantamount
to a use variance and a change of the zoning; finding the lack of a hardship
even if it was not a use variance; and finding it would cause substantial
detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the
Code, or Comprehensive Plan, on the following described
property:
E/2 E/2 SE/4 SW/4 and the W/2 E/2 SE/4 SW/4 all of Section 4, T-19-N,
R-14-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow outside, open-air storage and display of merchandise for sale within 300’ of an R zoned district. SECTION 1214.C.1.d. USE UNIT 14. SHOPPING GOODS AND SERVICES, Use Conditions; and a Special Exception for open air activities – other sales of merchandise. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 14 / 2, located 536 S. Sheridan.
Mr.
White asked Mr. Beach about the staff comment that the variance was not needed
in this case. Mr. Beach replied
that open-air storage is prohibited within 300’ of an abutting R district. This property does not abut an R zoned
district.
Presentation:
Michael Hyche, 4452 S. 109th E. Ave., stated he desires
to continue outdoor sales on the subject property. His merchandise is mostly tennis shoes,
handbags, telephone accessories and watches. The property was a former gas station
with a very small building used for storage. The hours and days of operation are
Tuesday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to about 5:30 p.m.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Stump asked for the number of off-street parking spaces on the property. Mr. Hyche responded there are
approximately ten parking spaces and two driveways. Mr. Stump suggested the Board may want
to impose a requirement that one parking space be provided for every 225 square
feet of building area and display space.
Interested
Parties:
Kevin
Cox,
111 S. Greenwood, with Neighborhood Inspections, stated they received a
complaint and investigated. He
informed Mr. Hyche that he would need Board of Adjustment approval. Mr. Cox received a second complaint that
the merchandise on the sidewalk was obstructing the view of traffic. He submitted photographs and related
information (Exhibit B-1). He noted
that the interested parties did not appear for this hearing. He stated his opinion is this is
injurious to the neighborhood and does not meet the intent of the code.
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 Special
Exception for
open-air activities – other sales of merchandise, finding 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 to
CONTINUE Case No. 19309 to the meeting on April 23, 2002 for
further relief, on
the following described property:
E
85’ S 152.5’ less E 15’ for street, Block 29, Glenhaven, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal of the Neighborhood Inspector’s decision that property with unenclosed parking spaces should be hard-surface; Or a Variance of the hard all-weather surface parking. SECTION 1301. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS and SECTION 1303. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 17, located 801 N. Mingo Rd.
Presentation:
Roy D. Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 501, stated he was
representing the applicant Steve Sanders, the owner of the Mingo RV Park. The Sanders family has owned the
property since 1981. They converted
the area that was formerly a mobile home park into an RV park. Mr. Johnsen submitted photographs
(Exhibit C-2, C-3) to the Board. He
pointed out the streets are all-weather surface and park is well
maintained. He informed the Board
there are no junk cars, and the park is clean, with curbing, private streets,
and a playground. They made two RV spaces for every one mobile home parking
space, so that part of each site has a parking space that is paved and the other
is not. Mr. Johnsen stated he
understood the inspector’s decision based on motorized vehicles parked on grass
or gravel. He indicated that the
hardship is that the underlying zoning is IL; the way the property was developed
in the 1960’s; and the fact that it is proven over the last twenty years not to
be any sort of injurious impact on other properties in the area. He pointed out that where the traffic is
moving on the streets it is paved and the sites do not cause a dust
problem.
Interested
Parties:
Kevin Cox, 111 S. Greenwood,
with Neighborhood Inspections, stated that he received a complaint related to
the all-weather surface. It was
inspected and found a large number of large motorized vehicles, including cars,
trucks, and motor homes, not parked on an all-weather surface. He submitted photographs and related
information (Exhibit C-1). He
reviewed the findings of the investigation with Mr. Sanders. It was determined the property needs to
comply with the code.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
He
reminded the Board that the streets are paved, and there is no dust problem from
the parking spaces.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Stump reminded Mr. Johnsen that in 1981 when this was converted to an RV park
there was a requirement to pave off-street parking spaces. Mr. Johnsen responded that the
supporting evidence should be practical reasons for a variance.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of
Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to DENY
the Appeal
of the Neighborhood Inspector’s decision that property with unenclosed parking
spaces should be hard-surface; and APPROVE a
Variance of the hard all-weather surface parking, finding this is
an isolated property with no residential property close by, and paving would
serve no useful purpose, on the following described
property:
A
part of Block 1, Amended Plat of Van Estates No. 1, an Addition to the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the Recorded Plat thereof,
being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the SW/c of
Lot 5, Block 2, Expressway Village Center, thence N 79°50’25”
E along the S line of said Lot 5 a distance of 203.16’ to the SE/c of said Lot 5
to the POB; thence N 0°02’16”
W along the E line of Expressway Village, a distance of 698.58’; thence N
89°58’27”
E a distance of 90.00’; thence N 0°02’16”
W a distance of 684.94’ to a point on the N line of the Amended Plat of Van
Estates No. 1, said point being 290.00’ E of the NW/c thereof; thence N
89°58’27”
E a distance of 222.00’; thence N 0°02’16”
W a distance of 330.00’ to the northernmost NW/c of Amended Plat of Van Estates
No.1; thence N 89°58’27”
E along the N line of Amended Van Estates No. 1, a distance of 1,044.44’; thence
S 20°13’42”
W a distance of 1,607.30’ to a point on the S line of Amended Van Estates No. 1;
thence S 72°36’49”
W along the S line of Amended Van Estates No. 1, a distance of 490.41’; thence
continuing along said S line on a bearing of S 79°50’13”
W a distance of 336.84’ to the POB, less and except: Beg. at the northernmost
NW/c of said Amended Plat of Van Estates No. 1; thence N 88°48’30”
E along the N line of said Amended Plat of Van Estates No. 1, a distance of
621.55’; thence S 19°10’05”
W a distance of 334.55’; thence N 62°52’15”
W a distance of 183.34’; thence N 01°11’54”
W a distance of 26.71’; thence S 88°48’06”
W a distance of 343.72’; thence N 01°12’13”
W a distance of 200.00’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the allowable 18’ in
height for an accessory building to 26’ for new garage. SECTION 210.B.5.a. YARDS, Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards; and a Variance of the size from 750 sq. ft. to
965 sq. ft. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
located 1350 E. 27th Pl.
Presentation:
Tony Jordan, 52250 E. 191st St. S., Bixby, Oklahoma,
stated they asked for a variance on the height to build the garage to match the
1920 design of construction of the house.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo informed Mr. Jordan that the code does not permit living quarters or
bathroom facilities in this addition of the house.
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 of the allowable 18’ in height
for an accessory building to 26’ for new garage; and a Variance of
the size from 750 sq. ft. to 965 sq. ft., per plan, finding it would be in
keeping with the neighborhood, the height and size are common in the area, and
this facility can only be used for garage or storage, on the following described
property:
E 200.00’ of E 360.00’ of N/2 SW NW SW, Section 18, T-19-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception under Section 701 of the Tulsa Zoning Code to permit
the building located on Tract One in a CH Zoning district to be used for light
manufacturing as permitted under Use Unit 25. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 25; and a Special Exception under Section 1301.D. to permit
part of the off-street parking required for the Use Unit 25 uses to be located
on Tract Two. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located SW/c E.
9th St. & RR ROW & NE/c E. 11th St. & RR
ROW.
Presentation:
Dunham out at 3:54
p.m.
Charles Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated he represented
the applicant, Simon Marshall, and Hudson Surfaces. The company proposes to manufacture a
hard surface material similar to Corian.
He submitted a brochure (Exhibit D-2) from the company. He informed the Board that it is a
process of mixing polymer resin with aluminum hydroxide. The process includes a sanding
machine.
Dunham returned at 3:57
p.m.
He
assured the Board that DEQ requires that the process be self-contained and
enclosed to capture and dispose of dust.
He submitted photographs (Exhibit D-1) to the Board to review the subject
property and surrounding properties.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins asked about odors. Mr.
Norman explained that the ventilation fans are on the roof to draw exhaust up
high above the building. Ms. Turnbo
was interested in any fumes that might be emitted. Mr. Norman was confident that since OSHA
and DEQ had already approved the proposed process there should be no problem
with fumes. Ms. Perkins inquired
about the days and hours of operation.
He stated the days and hours of operation would be Monday through Friday,
7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Ms.
Perkins asked about the noise level of the business. Mr. Norman replied they would be in the
building near the residential homes, but the walls of the building are concrete
blocks and are very good sound barriers.
Interested
Parties:
Don
Farris,
5515 E. 9th St. S., stated that the previous owner of Oklahoma
Fixtures kept the grounds well maintained.
He complained of strong fumes, so bad he had to call the fire department
at one time because the fumes caused him to have a headache. The fire department confirmed that it
was fumes from this business blowing in the direction of his house. He mentioned
that it has not happened again. He
also noted there are a lot more homes in the neighborhood than the applicant’s
pictures showed. He indicated that
he does yard work regularly across the street and one time he got a rash like a
chemical burn after handling the grass and suspected some sort of residue from
the plant. He objects to the plant
so close to a residential neighborhood.