CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, February 9, 1999, 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooper |
|
Arnold |
Ballentine, Code Enforce. |
|
Dunham, Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
|
|
Enforcement |
|
|
|
|
Turnbo, Secretary |
|
Stump |
Parnell, Code Enforce. |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
Enforcement |
|
|
|
|
White, Chair |
|
|
Jackere, Legal |
|
|
|
|
Prather, Legal |
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Thursday, February 4, 1999, at 11:13 a.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
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 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of January 12, 1999 (No. 764).
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of January 26, 1999 (No. 765).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Special Exception to permit three
manufactured home dwellings in a CG zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, located 12906 E. 11th Street.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that this case came before the Board in May of 1998 and was denied. The case was appealed to the District Court and through a variety of circumstances that happened with the application and the notice, the Judge remanded it back before the Board in its original form except that the action requested has changed slightly. Notice has been properly given. The Board should treat the case as if it has never been before them.
Presentation:
The applicant, Walt Aaron, 12906 E. 11th St., stated that Mr.
Ballentine has been out several times to look at the property and DEQ has already
looked at the property. Mr. Aaron
mentioned that there are handicapped people living in the dwellings including
himself. Mr. Aaron stated that he has
some recreational vehicles that have been converted to manufactured homes by
rendering them unable to travel on the road and they are hooked up to a septic
system. He also has a hobby breeder’s
license and operates a kennel on the property.
The people who live on the property help with the cleaning and feeding
of the animals and with the maintenance of the property. Mr. Aaron mentioned that it would be a great
hardship if anyone had to move.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Mr. Aaron what the other businesses on the property are. Mr. Aaron replied that on the total 3.023 acres there is Metro Portable Buildings and they construct storage sheds. Allied Towing is also located on the property which stores vehicles that they have towed.
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Aaron what the
purpose is of the North American Van Line truck that is parked on the
property. Mr. Aaron responded that
there is no purpose unless it is stored on Allied’s side.
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant if he
sells cars and Mr. Aaron replied that he does not sell cars but there is a
gentleman who lives on the property that does take cars on occasion to the flea
market to sell.
Ms. Perkins mentioned that when she
drove by the property on the previous day she noticed several semi truck cabs
and she asked what they are for. Mr.
Aaron stated that they are for Allied Towing.
Ms. Perkins asked how long the vehicles are stored when they are towed
in and Mr. Aaron replied about 30 days.
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Aaron if there is
any hard surface parking or is it all dirt and he responded that it is a hard
surface with gravel.
Mr. Dunham questioned Neighborhood
Inspections if there are any present violations that they are aware of. Mr. Ballentine submitted photos (Exhibit
A-2) and answered that the condition of the property is the same as it has been
for the last year. The applicant does
have a kennel license for all of the dogs and the dog feces are picked up
occasionally. There are some vehicles
on the property that are advertised for sale.
Mr. Ballentine mentioned that there are three or four uses on the
property right now, Allied Towing, a storage facility, portable buildings and
the tract that Mr. Aaron is staying on.
Ms. Turnbo mentioned that there were a
lot of cars (around 15) and dogs running around on the tract that Mr. Aaron
occupies.
Ms. Turnbo asked Staff if the towing business should be on a hard surface. Mr. Beach replied that in 1996, the Board approved a special exception of the required hard surface parking to allow a gravel parking lot behind the building setback line only and tied to that use – which was Allied Towing. They also approved a variance to permit a chain link fence with slats to satisfy the screening requirement and a special exception to permit temporary storage yard for the auto towing business. That was applied to Allied Towing as long as Allied Towing occupies the property. Ms. Turnbo asked if the area in the front where the portable buildings are sitting should be paved. Mr. Beach replied yes, where it serves as a parking lot, it should be paved. If it serves as a yard for constructing portable buildings, it does not have to be paved.
Interested
Parties:
Mr. White mentioned to the Board that he is in receipt of three letters of opposition to this application.
Nancy Craten, 245 W. 129th E. Ave., stated that she represents Western Village Neighborhood Association which is an association located north and west of the subject property. They have also spoken with several other associations in the area who are also concerned about the property. Ms. Craten mentioned that this area is an eyesore and the screening fence is not adequate to shield from view the mess behind it. The slat fence does not comply with current Codes. Property values are being affected by the unkempt property. There is no protection for the residences in the area. Neighbors have complained of escaped dogs on several occasions. This property has the appearance of a salvage yard. Ms. Craten asked the Board to deny this application. Ms. Craten submitted copies of emails sent to her concerning the property (Exhibit A-1).
Sandra Nightingale, represents the East Tulsa Mingo Valley Association. Ms. Nightingale submitted letters from surrounding businesses and people who oppose this business who were unable to be present today (Exhibit A-1). Ms. Nightingale stated that the association is comprised of homeowners and business owners and they want to see East Tulsa grow and this property is a negative impact on the area.
Councilor Art Justis, stated that he agrees with the neighborhood. Councilor Justis mentioned to the Board that he does not like the “venetian” fence that the Board allows. Councilor Justis asked the Board to deny this application.
Rose Higdon, 1116 S. 129th St., mentioned that she is new to this area and is not fully involved in the association yet. Ms. Higdon said that this property is not an asset to the other businesses in the area.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Aaron stated that he has nothing to do with Allied Towing and Metro Portable Buildings. The mobile homes on the property are hooked up to three septic tanks and DEQ has inspected the property and said that it is okay. Mr. Aaron said that there are over three acres associated with this property and that is plenty of room for the businesses and the homes. To Mr. Aaron’s knowledge there were only two or three other cars than his on the property today. It would be a hardship to move all the people who live in the mobile homes.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White mentioned that from previous
discussions that only one septic tank was licensed by the Health
Department. Mr. Aaron stated that one
has been filled with gravel many years ago.
Ms. Turnbo asked Staff the definition of
a mobile home. Staff read the
definition from the Zoning Code.
Ms. Perkins asked the applicant how many
RV’s are being used for residences? Mr.
Aaron responded that there are three being used for residences.
Mr. Stump asked Mr. Aaron if he has
three septic tank permits from the Health Department or did they do an onsite
inspection. Mr. Aaron responded that he
did not put them in. They were in place
when he moved onto the property.
Mr. Dunham stated to the Board that RV’s
do not meet the definition of a mobile home.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to DENY Special Exception to permit three manufactured home
dwellings in a CG zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9,on
the following described property:
N/2, W/2, NW, NW, NW and N/2 S/2 W/2 NW NW NW less the N
24.75’ W 50’ S 470.25’ W 50’ S 470.25’ for street of Section 9, T-19-N, R-14-E,
containing 3.023 acres, unplatted, addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW APPLICATIONS
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a cosmetology
school (beauty school) in a CS zoned district.
SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15, located 4561 N. Peoria Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Eddie L. Cleveland, 1707 S. Sheridan, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit B-1) and stated that he and his wife own a cosmetology school on
Sheridan and it has a capacity of 80 students.
Right now the facility has 45 students and is still growing. Mr. Cleveland said that it is time for them
to expand the school. Mr. Cleveland
believes that this school would benefit the patrons, the students and may
possibly help bring more businesses to the north side. Right now the school will hold 23 students
and 2 instructors and also has a bus route to bring students back and forth to
school.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Cleveland what the proposed days and hours of operation will be. Mr. Cleveland responded Monday through Friday, 1:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Dunham questioned the applicant if
the school will be operated in combination with a beauty supply store. Mr. Cleveland replied that there will be no
retail beauty supply.
Mr. Beach asked the applicant how many
square feet of classroom space are in the building and Mr. Cleveland replied
23’ X 28’. Mr. Beach stated that the
floor plan shows a large open space in the middle of the building that is not
labeled for any use and there is a 13’ x 25’ area labeled “classroom”. Mr. Beach speculated that the open space
would be used for the retail sale of cosmetics and if that was the case, then
the parking might not be adequate. If
there is going to be more classroom space than what is labeled on the plan the
parking might not be adequate.
Mr. Cleveland stated that the classroom
space is 13’ x 28’. Mr. Dunham asked if
the Board approved the application for a 13’ x 28’ classroom space, would that
take care of the requirement? Mr.
Cleveland answered affirmatively. The
open space in the middle of the building is clinic floor. This is where they learn to cut hair, wash
hair, etc. on the clinic floor. There
will be sinks and workstations in the area.
Mr. Beach mentioned that there is a requirement of 1 space for every 40
square feet of classroom space. Mr.
Cleveland mentioned that there is a State requirement that they cannot have more
than 23 students at one time.
Mr. Dunham asked Staff how many parking
spaces the applicant has and Mr. Stump replied that he has 12 spaces. Mr. Cleveland stated that the City informed
him that he only needed 7 parking spaces.
Mr. White asked Mr. Cleveland if there
will be customers that the students will be working on? Mr. Cleveland responded yes, they are
offering an outside clinic service. Mr.
White mentioned that they will also need to be able to park 23 customers.
Mr. Dunham mentioned to the applicant
that any approval the Board would make would be subject to him providing
adequate parking and he is not sure the applicant has enough parking to meet
the Code. Mr. Beach mentioned to the
Board that based on this floor plan 33 parking spaces would be required on this
property for this use.
Mr. Dunham asked Staff if the Board
could approve the use provided the applicant meets the parking
requirement. Mr. Stump suggested the
Board not approve the application “per plan”.
Board Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to allow a cosmetology school
(beauty school) in a CS zoned district; subject to the applicant providing
adequate parking. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15, finding that the special
exception 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:
S 200’ of N 250’ of E 190’ of W 240’ of
the W 14.86 acres of Lot 1, (NW/4, NW/4) Sec. 18, T-20-N, R-13-E, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a truck wash
(U.U. 23) in a CG zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 23,
located East of NE/c E. Admiral Place and South 129th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Michael A. Matlock, 10130 E. 29th Street, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit C-1) and stated that they are purchasing 1.56 acres that is
adjoining the new Flying J Travel Plaza.
It is their intention to construct their corporate offices with a one
bay automated truck wash. This will be
the first fully automated, state-of-the-art truck wash in the State of
Oklahoma.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to allow a truck wash (U.U. 23) in
a CG zoned district, per plan. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 23
finding that the special exception 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:
A tract of land beginning at a point 672.41’ E of the NW/c
of Government Lot 4, Section 4, T-19-N, R-14-E; thence E 43.69’ to a point;
thence S 611.70’ to a point; thence W 143.69’ to a point; thence N 411.70’ to a
point; thence E 100’ to a point; thence N 200’ to the point of beginning, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma, said tract of land
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an indoor
recreation center with coffee shop in an IL district. SECTION 902. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
– Use Unit 19, located 4343 S. Memorial.
Comments
and Questions:
The Board determined that the applicant needs additional relief for parking and continued the application until March 9, 1999 to allow the applicant time to file an application for a parking variance.
Mr. Beach informed the applicant that he
will need 53 spaces.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to CONTINUE Case No. 18297 to March 9, 1999 to allow time for
additional notice.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback from abutting street
from 50’ to 26’ to permit construction of a storage building. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 5702 E. Admiral Place.
Presentation:
The applicant, Andy Jackson, 5702 E. Admiral Place, submitted a site plan (Exhibit
E-1) and stated that they would like to build on the property line. Mr. Jackson stated that there is a 10’ high
concrete, soundproof wall. If they
build the storage building 25’ in it only leaves them with 67’ of usable space. A tractor trailer is 45’ long and the
tractor is 20’ long so it does not leave them enough space to pull a tractor
trailer in to unload material. They
will have to back the truck out across four lanes of Admiral for the truck to
be able to back into the property. The
area surrounding the property is industrial.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Mr. Jackson if they will
be building 1’ in from the property line and Mr. Jackson replied affirmatively.
Ms. Turnbo asked if the materials that
are stored in the open yard now will be placed within the building and Mr.
Jackson answered yes.
Mr. Cooper asked the applicant to
explain his hardship for this application.
Mr. Jackson responded that when tractor trailers come to their property
to unload materials, without this variance, they will have to back onto Admiral
and block traffic.
Interested
Parties:
Barbara
Kyser, 5735 E. 2nd Street, stated that she lives on the row of
houses behind East Admiral Boulevard.
Ms. Kyser represents the neighborhood association. Ms. Kyser and the association are concerned
about the height of the building and they are concerned about it being an
eyesore for the neighborhood. They are
also concerned about being able to see around the building at the intersection.
Mr. White asked the applicant how tall
the building will be and Mr. Jackson replied approximately 11½’ tall.
Ms. Kyser reviewed the applicant’s site
plan and stated that she thought what they were proposing was appropriate.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Cooper mentioned to the Board that he believes this is a self imposed hardship. Mr. White said that he can see a viable hardship in that this is bounded on three sides by streets. They would not have to setback the additional amount if there was not a street there.
Mr. White asked Staff what setback could the applicant have if there was not a street but additional IL property? Mr. Stump replied that they could build to the property line.
Mr. Cooper asked what would prevent the applicant from moving the building to the east side. Mr. White answered that it would fit but it would make turning into it difficult. Mr. Beach asked why the building could not be turned 90° and put along the east property line and he also asked what the building would be used for.
Ms. Parnell, Code Enforcement, mentioned to the Board that there is a trucking company across the street and they also back out onto Hudson.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-1-0 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins
White "aye"; Cooper "nays", no "abstentions”; no
"absent") to APPROVE Variance
of setback from abutting street from 50’ to 26’ to permit construction of a
storage building SECTION 403.
BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS finding the hardship to be that there are streets on
three sides of the property, per plan submitted today and subject to the south
wall not exceeding 11½’ in height, on the following described property:
Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 3, Berryman Estates, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a
manufactured dwelling in an RS-3 district.
SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Special Exception to allow a manufactured home
for an indefinite period. SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS,
located 1003 E. Zion Place.
Presentation:
The applicant, Valeta Armstead, P.O. Box 480682, submitted a site plan (Exhibit F-1) and photos (Exhibit F-2), stated that the City of Tulsa acquired her property in August, 1998. Ms. Armstead mentioned that she was given money from the City of Tulsa to acquire a new home. When Ms. Armstead applied for financing for a new home to be located on her property at 1003 E. Zion Place, she was turned down. She did not qualify because of her limited income. Ms. Armstead stated that her only other alternative was to apply for a loan for a manufactured home and she was approved. Ms. Armstead asked the Board to approve her application for a manufactured dwelling on her property.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. White asked if the manufactured home submitted in the packets is the one that she is proposing and Ms. Armstead answered affirmatively.
Interested
Parties:
Esther
Oggins, 2202 N. Owasso, which is three blocks from the subject
property. Ms. Oggins stated that they
are trying to bring new home development into their area and they do not want
mobile homes in their neighborhood.
Sam
Brackeen, stated that he is affiliated with the Lacy Task Force. His concern is that this area is zoned RS-3
and they want to keep it that way. They
do not want any manufactured homes in the area.
Councilor
Roscoe Turner, stated that he is here as one of the Board members of the
Springdale Neighborhood Development Council and this is their secondary
area. Councilor Turner sympathizes with
Ms. Armstead and he hopes that they can solve her problem. The City of Tulsa has been working
diligently in this area to enhance it and bring people to north Tulsa to
live. Councilor Turner does not believe
that manufactured homes are suitable for this neighborhood.
Amley
Floyd, 1034 E. Young Place, stated that he is adjacent to the property and
he is speaking on behalf of some neighbors who could not be here today. They are concerned because they are also
working with the Development Authority to improve the area and not everyone is
informed about what is going on. Mr.
Floyd is not sure if the manufactured home should be approved or denied but he
is concerned about the process of the City taking possession of these
homes.
Brenda
Miller, Director of Urban Development, stated that this area has been of
interest to the City of Tulsa for many years.
They have been actively involved to upgrade this area and several
others. Lacy Park is in the middle of
some major developments. There is
acquisition going on in the area and there are some new homes being constructed
which has not happened in the last 25 years.
Right now, the Urban Renewal Plan for this area is being updated. Ms. Miller mentioned to the Board that this
area is in transition and there are a lot of good things happening here. Ms. Miller stated that they are not in favor
of allowing the manufactured home in this area.
Bernice
Alexander, 2124 N. Owasso, stated that she is the President of the 2100
North Owasso Block Club. Ms. Alexander
is concerned about the changes that are taking place in the area.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Ms. Armstead stated that at the time
Relocation Services contacted her, she was told that she would suffer no
hardship. Ms. Armstead mentioned that
she has limited income and cannot be approved for a home loan only a
manufactured home loan.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Perkins mentioned that she is
sympathetic towards Ms. Armstead’s problem but she feels that since there are
no other manufactured homes in the area, the Board should not introduce them to
the area.
Ms. Turnbo believes that the
manufactured home will be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to DENY Special Exception to allow a manufactured dwelling in
an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Special Exception to
allow a manufactured home for an indefinite period. SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, finding that the special exceptions 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 10, Block 2, Emerson 2nd Addition, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a 5’ high
fence in the required front yard. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6,
located 1219 S. Frisco.
Board Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to permit a 5’ high fence in the
required front yard. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6,
finding that the special exceptions 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, per plan, on the following described
property:
Lot 5, Block 12, Linsey 2nd Addition and Lot 8,
Block 1, Childers Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance
of required parking of 9 spaces to 4 spaces.
SECTION 1213.D. USE UNIT 13. CONVENIENCE GOODS AND SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Requirements – Use Unit 13, located 1709 S. Boston.
Presentation:
The applicant, Suzanne Heath, 2424 E. 36th Place, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit H-1) and photos (Exhibit H-2), stated that she would like to purchase
this residence for her business, which is a facial studio. The entire neighborhood has moved towards
commercial use. In order to operate her
business she only needs four parking spaces.
There is one employee, Ms. Heath, the person she is working on and the
next customer. She will expand the back
area for the parking of two extra cars.
They will be taking out the fence, the tree stump and the patio.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked if the entire lot width will be used for parking and Ms. Heath answered affirmatively.
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant if there
was any way she could get more than four parking spaces on the property? Ms. Heath replied that her plan shows six
but she only needs four.
Mr. Stump stated that many of the spaces
shown do not meet the standards and the layout she has proposed would not
accommodate six standard spaces.
Mr. Jackere asked if there will only be
one facial station and the applicant replied yes. Ms. Heath explained that the other employee is the office
manager, she books all the appointments and updates the books. Mr. Jackere suggested limiting the use to
only a facial studio.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of required
parking of 9 spaces to 4 spaces. SECTION 1213.D. USE UNIT 13. CONVENIENCE
GOODS AND SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Use Unit 13,
finding that it meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., subject to there
being only one employee and no more than two customers at a time and the use be
limited to a facial studio, on the following described property:
Lot 3, Block 3 of Townley Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception in “OL” District to allow drive-in bank facility on west side of proposed credit union building. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, located 5001 E. 91st St. S.
Presentation:
The applicant, R. Michael Lang, 5 West 22nd Street, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit I-1) and stated that he is an attorney representing the Red Crown
Federal Credit Union. They are the
credit union for Amoco employees. The
credit union is requesting a special exception to allow a drive-in bank
facility. There will be four drive-thru
lanes. Mr. Lang stated that the
building is around 9,000 square feet and will have twenty employees. The total membership of Red Crown is 10,000
people and is spread all over the area.
If the drive-thru is approved it will allow the people who use the
facility to come at greater times. Mr.
Lang feels that this falls into the type of use that is common in the
area. Mr. Lang asked the Board to
approve the application.
Interested
Parties:
Janette
Taylor, 5128 E. 91st Place, stated that she is a resident of the
Braden Park area that is south of 91st Street. Ms. Taylor mentioned that there is quite a
bit of traffic on 91st Street and she believes that the proposed
bank will cause more traffic. The
library is planned for expansion and that will add to the traffic
problems.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Perkins pointed out that even though there are 10,000 members of the credit union, they do not all live in Tulsa.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Lang stated that the 10,000 members
are located all over the world. Mr.
Lang understands the traffic problem on 91st. The bank will have two entrances to the
site, one on 91st Street and the other one will be on Yale. The bank hours are not specifically set yet,
but the drive-in part will possibly be open from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach asked Mr. Lang why there is a
road showing out to the north property line.
Mr. Lang replied that north of the bank property is a vacant piece of
land. The agreements that the bank has
with the other property owners will be that there will be a road that runs
through it and the people in the housing addition will have access to 91st
Street and to Yale.
Mr. Sump stated that the Zoning
Ordinance prohibits that because the property is zoned residentially and
commercial traffic is not allowed to pass through a residential area. Mr. Beach mentioned rezoning the property to
a commercial or office designation.
Mr. Stump also mentioned that the bank
will be required to place a screening fence along the entire north boundary and
not allow any access. Mr. Lang was told
that the long term plans show the street running through the property to the
north. If that doesn’t happen, it is
okay.
Mr. Stump pointed out on the site plan
the trash dumpster is placed in the corner closest to the single family
residential. Mr. Stump suggested to the
Board that they put a setback on the dumpster location. Mr. Beach suggested a minimum of 100’
setback.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception in “OL” District to allow drive-in bank
facility on west side of proposed credit union building. SECTION
601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, finding that the special exception 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, subject to the
trash dumpster being setback a minimum distance of 100’ from any residentially
zoned area, on the following described property:
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit the IM zoning district uses included in Use Unit 12, Eating Establishments Other Than Drive-Ins, Use Unit 13, Convenience Goods and Services, and Use Unit 14, Shopping Goods and Services SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance of the required building setback from the centerline of E. 15th St. from 65’ to 62’ for 265’ SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQURIEMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; and a Special Exception removing the requirement for a solid screening fence along the E. 15th St. frontage of the property and approving in lieu thereof the landscape plan for the E. 15th St. frontage. SECTION 212.C. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, located S and E of E. 15th Street and S. Yale Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Charles E. Norman, submitted a site plan (Exhibit J-1), a landscape
plan (Exhibit J-2) and photos (Exhibit J-3) and stated that this property is
entirely zoned IM district. The
property is about 15 acres net and was subdivided into a number of parcels
prior to 1945. None of the property has
ever been platted or subjected to any of the development standards that are in
Tulsa today. The proposed developer has
acquired contracts on ten parcels of land in order to assemble this site for
redevelopment into a home improvement store.
The proposed home improvement store would occupy a space about 265’ in
depth along east 15th Street and would face Yale Ave. The property is in the IM zoning district
and permits Use Unit 15 – Other Trades and Services, including lumber sales and
the sale of plumbing supply and equipment.
It does not include the retail sales of a number of other items that are
sold in home improvement stores. Mr.
Norman stated that in order to accomplish this project, they have had to ask
for three items. The first is a special
exception to permit Use Units 12, 13 and 14 to permit the operation of the
store in an IM district. The setback
from the centerline of 15th Street is for the store building. The variance is also necessitated for the
need of an overland drainage easement to go around the south side of the
building. There are four buildings that
are less than 58’ from the centerline of 15th Street and all four of
the buildings that do not comply will be removed. Mr. Norman is also modifying the requirement for a screening
fence on the south side of the street and allow them to apply the landscape
plan for 15th Street. There
is no driveway between 15th Street and the north wall of the
building. This plan will require the
moving of Mill Creek Lumber Company and the mini-storage will also be
moved. Mr. Norman asked the Board to
not consider the site plan a specific plan with respect to the interior. They need the latitude to make interior
adjustments to the site plan as may be necessitated by the final grading
plan. The grading could change the
alignment of the parking spaces, etc.
It is anticipated that it will take about a year to 18 months to
relocate the existing tenants before the construction of the major project
commences.
Interested
Parties:
Morgan
Powell, 4921 S. Joplin, stated that he is appearing on behalf of Harold
Ali, 1440 S. Canton. Mr. Powell
mentioned that Mill Creek Lumber has been at this location for a number of
years and the fence has protected the surrounding neighbors from dust of the
business. The concern is with the
landscape plan; would it give the neighbors the same protection as the
screening fence would? Mr. Powell
looked at the proposed landscape plan and stated that he had no objection to
it.
Donald Farris, stated that he owns the optometrist office on the
southeast corner of 15th & Yale. Mr. Farris stated that he has no objection to this application
but he is here as an interested party.
Mr. Farris stated that he was approached at one time to sell his property
but he chose not to sell. He believes
that this will be a great improvement to the area and he likes the landscape
plan.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Norman mentioned that the receiving dock is designed for three trucks to back into and the circle indicates the turning radius. Mr. Norman stated that Jeannie McDaniel and the Mayor’s office arranged a meeting with the neighborhood associations close to this area and the plans were shown to them.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Staff if they have reviewed the landscape plan and are they content with it? Mr. Beach replied that it appears, on the surface, to meet all the requirements. It meets the intent of screening along 15th Street. Staff is satisfied.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception to
permit the IM zoning district uses included in Use Unit 12, Eating
Establishments Other Than Drive-Ins, Use Unit 13, Convenience Goods and
Services, and Use Unit 14, Shopping Goods and Services, finding that the
special exception 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 SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS; a Variance of the required building setback from the centerline
of E. 15th St. from 65’ to 62’ for 265’ finding that it meets the
requirements of Section 1607.C., SECTION
903. BULK AND AREA REQURIEMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; and a Special Exception removing the requirement for
a solid screening fence along the E. 15th St. frontage of the
property and approving in lieu thereof the landscape plan for the E. 15th
St. frontage. SECTION 212.C. SCREENING WALL
OR FENCE, finding that the special exception 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 per the location of the building
and per landscape plan on 15th Street, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback abutting public street of 70’ down to 55’ for proposed accessory building. SECTION 402.B.1.c. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions and SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, located 4024 S. New Haven Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ron Wies, 4024 S. New Haven Ave., submitted a site plan (Exhibit
K-1) and stated that he has lived at this location since 1985.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of setback
abutting public street of 70’ down to 55’ for proposed accessory building. SECTION
402.B.1.c. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions and SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS,
Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, finding that it
meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., per plan, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 25’ rear yard to 13’6” to construct a new dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 2626 E. 33rd Street.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that the applicant, Mr. White, called his office requesting the case to be withdrawn. Mr. Beach informed Mr. White that he needed something in writing and he has not received it yet.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
STRIKE Case No. 18306 from
the Agenda.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the maximum land coverage of buildings from 30% to 38%. SECTION 803. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE CORRIDOR DISTRICT – Use Unit 23, located 6336 S. 105th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ted A. Sack, 111 S. Elgin, submitted a site plan (Exhibit L-1) and
stated that this tract of land lies on the west side of the Mingo Valley
Expressway and 65th Street.
The property has recently been rezoned to Corridor. The plans for the site include RV storage
which will be similar to a mini-storage.
In corridor zoning there is a unique requirement that you do not have any
additional land coverage that exceeds 30%.
Mr. Sack stated that they have met with the neighborhood and they are
satisfied with the use. Mr. Sack asked
the Board to approve 41% instead of the 38% they are advertised for.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Jackere stated that they cannot approve the application for 41% because they are only advertised for 38%. Mr. Sack agreed to accept the approval of the 38% and try to make it work and if it does not, he will file a new application for a variance to 41%.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the
maximum land coverage of buildings from 30% to 38%. SECTION 803. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE CORRIDOR
DISTRICT – Use Unit 23, finding that it meets the requirements of Section
1607.C., subject to Use Unit 23 - storage only, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Date
approved: _____________________________
_________________________________________