CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
of Meeting No. 859
Francis
F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza
Level of City Hall
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT |
MEMBERS
ABSENT |
STAFF
PRESENT |
OTHERS
PRESENT |
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
Turnbo |
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Cooper Perkins |
|
|
Romig,
Legal |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the
City Clerk’s office, City Hall, on
After declaring a quorum
present, Chair White called the meeting to order at
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
MINUTES
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted
3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins, Turnbo
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of February 11, 2003 (No. 858) as amended.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Case
No. 19498
Action Requested:
Mr. Coutant asked if this case could be tabled until later on the
agenda.
Board
Action:
The case was tabled.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 90’ monopole tower 68’ from
an adjoining lot line of an RS-3 zoned lot
from the site to the closest residential district. SECTION
1204.C.4.a. USE UNIT 4.
PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions – Use Unit 4,
located SE/c E. 61st
Presentation:
Kevin Coutant, 320
Perkins arrived at
He referred the Board to the applicant packet (Exhibit B-1). The tower would be located in a CS
district. It would have panel
antennas with collocation possible.
They plan to put brick on the retaining wall, construct an 8’ privacy
fence, and provide continuous landscaping.
To the north is a CS district.
South of the property is
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked about collocation on an existing tower 300’ to the
northwest of the proposed site. Mr.
Coutant responded that collocation was not possible and was documented in the
applicant’s packet (Exhibit B-1) under tab’s two and three. It is not engineered strong enough to
support the kind of antennas that are required for this facility. Mr. Beach explained that in this case
the tower should be set back 110% from the zoning line.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to construct a 90’
monopole tower 68’ from an adjoining lot
line of an
RS-3 zoned lot
district, per plan, finding the twelve conditions for approval were
addressed in the presentation and applicant’s exhibit and have been met; with
additional conditions for brick façade on any retaining wall; to construct an
eight foot privacy fence around the structure; and to place continuous
landscaping around the perimeter of the compound, 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, on the following
described property:
Lot 1, Block 1, Southeast Square Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
(Words deleted are shown as strikeout; words
added or substituted are underlined.)
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 19498
Action Requested:
Special Exception for church use in RM-1 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL
USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance of required one acre minimum
lot size to 33,000 square feet. SECTION 1205.B.1.a. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES; and a Variance of 25’ setback from residential area.
SECTION 404.F.4. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS,
located
Mr. Boulden expressed his concern about references the applicant made
regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He informed the Board that this
Act stated if our zoning laws put a substantial burden on the exercise of
religious activity by a person or assemblies or institutions, then we may not
impose that burden on the institution/person(s) in the exercise of religious
activity, unless it is in the furtherance of a compelling state interest; and
the least restrictive means should be used in imposing requirements on a
religious institution. He
suggested that parking or traffic concerns might be a compelling state
interest. If the case should
go to court, the burden would be on the applicant to show that the Board’s
actions imposed a substantial burden on the religious activities of the
church. However, when a prima facie
(bare minimum) case is made by the applicant the burden shifts back to the city
to prove that we had a compelling state interest and used the least
restrictive means in trying to accomplish that compelling state interest.
Presentation:
Kevin C. Coutant, 320
Dunham out at 1:50 p.m., and
returned at
Mr.
Coutant expressed the desire to obtain the least restrictive means by which the
applicant might accommodate the concerns of the Board. He suggested the proposed use is
consistent with the previous use.
He stated the parking is adequate for the size of the sanctuary and
revealed how the parking could be increased if necessary. He mentioned frequent evening events
when the masons used the property and added the church use would be decreased in
intensity.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper noted the conflict in comparison between the use by the church
and the masons. He stated it has
been said the proposed use would be consistent with the previous use and then he
heard the church use would be a decreased intensity.
Max Tankersley, 4240
Hamilton Okotie, 9241 S.
85th E. Ave., replied to Mr. Cooper that they would meet on Sundays
from 11:00 a.m. to
Mr. Coutant asked that the Board consider some leniency regarding these
days and hours, as ministries do change.
Mr. White asked if they have discussed the application with the
neighbors. Mr. Coutant responded
that they have not. Mr. White asked
about the proposed temporary status of the church at this location. Mr. Coutant stated they plan to build
their own facility, possibly in two to three years. Mr. Coutant indicated that the hardships
were more of a special and unique quality than to do with the land and asked for
consideration due to the structure being 50 years old, adapted to more recent
zoning codes.
Interested
Parties:
Mr. Dunham asked what use she would suggest as less intrusive on the
neighborhood. She suggested
an office use that does not generate a lot of traffic.
Rod Puckett,
Mr. White referred to a letter of opposition from Steve Tulk,
Houston Mount,
Perkins out at
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Coutant reminded the Board the church is only made up of 32
families. He pointed out that it is
a temporary situation. They plan to
build their own facility on another property. It is an attractive facility and would
be functional for the church. He
stated it would be good for the neighborhood. He pointed out it is surrounded by nice
rental property, and there are not a lot of single family residential owners
objecting to the application.
The Board discussed the issues at length. Mr. White stated they meet the parking
requirements. He mentioned an S
turn in the street where emergency vehicles would have difficulty if there were
cars parked on the street.
Mr. Dunham noted that the building has been non-conforming for fifty
years as far as the setbacks.
Mr. Boulden out and Mr. Romig
stepped in for him at
Mr. Cooper stated he was looking at the whole neighborhood. The fact that the church and school
generate traffic needs to be considered.
The intensity makes it unique.
Mr. Cooper added that he has not heard a hardship at either hearing.
Mr. Dunham asked again about days/hours of operation, to which Mr.
Coutant responded: Sunday
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, to APPROVE a Special Exception for church use in
RM-1 district; a Variance of required one acre
minimum lot size to 33,000 square feet; and a Variance of 25’ setback from
residential area, finding the hardship is that the purpose of the one acre
minimum is for the property to meet the parking standards, with conditions for
the property to meet the parking standards now and continue throughout the time
allotted (if the sanctuary is enlarged the parking would be enlarged); the
days/hours of operation be Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
to 9:00 p.m., and Friday 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. as regular services; no windows
or doors installed on the south and east walls of the building; no lighting on
the property that would diffuse onto the neighborhood; weddings and funerals
would be permitted for members to be held no later than 7:00 p.m., the motion Died for lack of a
second.
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 2-2-0 (Perkins,
Cooper "aye"; White, Dunham "nay"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to DENY a Special Exception for church use in
RM-1 district, finding 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; a Variance of required one acre
minimum lot size to 33,000 square feet; and a Variance of 25’ setback from
residential area, finding it would cause substantial detriment to the public
good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the
Comprehensive Plan, and presents a life safety concern when combined with the
school use, Died for lack of
a minimum affirmative vote of three.
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-1-0 (White,
Dunham, Perkins, "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception for church use in
RM-1 district; a Variance of required one acre
minimum lot size to 33,000 square feet, finding the requirements are to insure
the parking requirements are met; and a Variance of 25’ setback from
residential area, finding the property has been non-conforming for over 50
years, with conditions for the property to meet the parking standards now and
continue throughout the time allotted (if the sanctuary is enlarged the parking
would be enlarged); the days/hours of operation be Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m., Wednesday 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and Friday 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. as
regular services; no windows or doors installed on the south and east walls of
the building; no lighting on the property that would diffuse onto the
neighborhood; weddings and funerals would be permitted for members not later
than 7:00 p.m., and this approval be for a period not to exceed five years, on
the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW
APPLICATIONS
Action
Requested:
Modification of a previously approved site plan to add an additional
building for school purposes. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located
Presentation:
Ed Beck,
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present 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 Modification of a
previously approved site plan to add an additional building for school purposes,
per plan, on the following described property:
A tract of land in the NE/4 NW/4 SW/4 of Section 21, T-20-N, R-13-E, more
particularly described as follows: Beg. at a pent 30.00’ E of the W line and
30.00’ N of the S line of said NE/4 of NW/4 SW/4 of Section 21, thence N
01º09’35” W a distance of 270.00’; thence N 88º49’52” E a distance of 161.33’;
thence S 01º09’35” E a distance of 270.00’; thence S 88º49’52” W a distance of
161.33’ to the POB, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow required parking to be located on a lot other than the
principal use. SECTION
1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use
Unit 8, located
Presentation:
Steve Benge, 9945 S.
79th E. Ave., stated he has a contract to purchase the subject
property for multi-family housing, but need to satisfy the parking requirements
on each lot, as it was platted in 1916.
There are three 50’ x 130’ lots.
He could get seven parking spaces per four-plex but the requirement is
for eight spaces. This will be a
gated community with handicap accessibility. Mr. Beck stated he would be open to a
tie-contract.
Mr. Boulden returned at
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
A
notarized agreement to the application from the owner of the property was
submitted to the legal department.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance to allow required parking
to be located on a lot other than the principal use, finding the property was
platted as fifty foot lots many years ago, subject to a tie-agreement, and by
means of the tie-agreement the parking will be met, and finding it will not
cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit,
and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the following described
property:
Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 15, Maplepark Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow auto repair in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located 9404
Presentation:
Jolomi Ogisi,
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow auto
repair in a CS zoned district, with conditions for a 6’ screening fence on the
south property line, no outside storage of parts and accessories, no inoperable
vehicles on the premises for more
than sixty days, 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, on the following described property:
The E 50’ of the W 255.00’ of the N 180.00’ of the SE/4 SE/4 NE/4 of
Section 36, T-20-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit vehicle repair and service (Use Unit 17) use
of property. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS and SECTION 1608. SPECIAL
EXCEPTION – Use Unit 17; and a Variance from minimum required building setback
from
Presentation:
Stephen Schuller,
Interested
Parties:
Councilor David Patrick
stated he is in support of the application. He mentioned the area is unique, as the
existing convenience store is more like a truck stop. He is familiar with the business and
considers it to be a good development in the area. They need these services for big
trucks in this area. The
applicant’s existing operation is next to a mobile home park and he found the
residents had no complaints.
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 permit vehicle
repair and service (Use Unit 17) use of property, subject to completion of the
CS zoning of the property; and a Variance from minimum required
building setback from Zion Street (or in the alternative Apache Street), no
closer than ten feet from the property line on the south, finding the hardship
to be the lots are 120’ deep and it would be difficult to use the property for
any use and meet the setback requirements from Apache St., subject to
construction of screening fences along the west and south property lines, per
plan, on the following described property:
Lots 1 to 7, inclusive, Block 2, Smithdale, City
of
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the minimum average lot width in the RS-3 district from 60’
to 49’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located
Presentation:
Frank Spielberg,
Interested
Parties:
Jim Inhofe,
320
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 minimum average lot width in the RS-3 district from 60’ to 49’, per plat submitted today, finding the hardship to be the long, narrow lots, and this action is necessary to correct an existing condition, on the following described property: