CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, June 8, 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 |
Prather,
Legal |
Dunham,
V. Chair |
|
Beach |
|
Perkins |
|
Stump |
|
Turnbo |
|
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Friday, June 3, 1999, at 2:55 p.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 1:01 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of May 11 1999 (No. 772).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of the allowable 750 square
feet for an accessory building to 2,200 square feet. SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6, located 7171 South Jackson.
Presentation:
The applicant, Tina McClanahan, 7171 South Jackson, submitted a site plan (Exhibit
A-1) and stated that she would like to construct a pole barn in her backyard to
store her trailer and large truck.
Interested
Parties:
Mr. White mentioned that there is one letter of protest in the file (Exhibit A-2). The letter implies that there is storage of old cars on the property. Ms. McClanahan mentioned that they are storing some old cars in the backyard. Ms. McClanahan mentioned that she and her husband fix up the cars, take them to car shows and sell them at the shows. Some of the vehicles are show cars.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the allowable 750 square
feet for an accessory building to 2,200 square feet, finding that it meets the
requirements of Section 1607.C. SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions
– Use Unit 6, per plan, subject to there being no commercial activity
conducted on the property and that the three small buildings shown on the plan
will be removed, on the following described property:
A tract of land in NW/4 of the NE/4 of Section II, T-18-N,
R-12-E, Tulsa County, beginning 1,046.48’ S of NE/c of NW/4 of NE/4, thence
140.52’ S, thence W 330’ thence N 140.52” thence E 330’ to the point of beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a beer bar
within 150’ of an R district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit
12a. Variance of the required
parking from 14 to 6 spaces. SECTION 1212a.D. USE UNIT 12a. ADULT
ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements;
a Variance of the spacing from another adult entertainment establishment. SECTION
1212a.C.3.c. USE UNIT 12a. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS, Use
Conditions, located 1137 North Sheridan Road.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that this case was before the Board on May 25 and there was some discussion about the status of the neighboring bar from which this one is seeking a variance of the spacing requirement. The only thing Staff could find is that there have been no prior Board of Adjustment approvals allowing the other bar. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued on December 7, 1989 for the other bar. Mr. Beach mentioned that Staff is not aware of the bar’s current status. This application was made for a variance of the spacing and the Board should assume that there is a bar there and act accordingly.
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Beach if the spacing
requirement was a condition when the second bar was opened? Mr. Beach replied that the bar that is the
subject of this application was purchased by the applicant and had been in
operation for some time. The applicant
then discovered that he needed a Certificate of Occupancy and when applying for
the Certificate of Occupancy permit the zoning deficiencies were
identified. Mr. Stump stated that the
spacing requirement was in effect in 1989 when the second bar (House of Blue
Lights) opened.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jessee L. Blevins, 6924 East Pine, stated that he has done some
research on the other bar. The City
issued a temporary Certificate of Occupancy dated December 7, 1989. It appears that the other bar was operating
under a temporary permit.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Mr. Blevins when The Odyssey (formerly House of Blue Lights) opened? Mr. Blevins replied that The Odyssey opened approximately two months ago, was opened for one weekend and then they were gone. The City has no license or permit on record for The Odyssey. The previous owners of House of Blue Lights moved their business about five months ago to East Pine Street and the Tax Commission has records of that transfer.
Interested
Parties:
Howell
Joyner, 7015 East Haskell Street, stated that he was not made aware of the
changes to this bar. Mr. Joyner pointed
out to the Board that the area has had an influx of bar activity between I-244
and Pine on Sheridan. Mr. Joyner
mentioned that he is not opposed to the actual bar but he is opposed to the
overflow of criminal activities that come out of the bar facilities and into
the neighborhood.
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Joyner if he is aware of any negative
activities that stem from this particular bar?
Mr. Joyner replied that he personally has not observed anything from
that bar. With it being in such close
proximity to many other clubs, it is hard to tell which bar the people are
coming from.
Councilor
Roscoe Turner, District 3, stated that he is opposed to any more bars going
into this area. Mr. Turner suggested a
tie agreement with the neighbors on parking.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked the applicant how many employees his bar
has and Mr. Blevins replied that he has four employees, his wife, his sister,
nephew and himself. Mr. Blevins
explained to the Board that most of their customers are retirees and most of
them walk to the bar in the daytime.
They do not have much business at night, the bar usually closes at 11:00
p.m. or midnight.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Blevins if he would be willing to limit
the hours of his bar to 11:00 p.m. or midnight? Mr. Blevins replied affirmatively, but he would like to stay open
later, if business persists, on the weekend.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Blevins mentioned that there have
been three bars open at the intersection of Haskell and Sheridan in the last
three months.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if he has explored the parking next door to see if he can get into a parking agreement with the owners? Mr. Blevins replied that there is some space in the back of his bar that could be used for parking. It would take some time to develop it. He believes that they could get an additional five parking spaces behind the building.
Mr. Dunham mentioned that this bar has
been there for over 18 years and there have been no complaints from the
neighborhood or this case would have been before the Board before now. The only interested party at the last
meeting was the person who would be most affected by the bar and she was in
support of the application. Mr. Dunham
drove by the property again yesterday afternoon and there were only three cars
in the parking lot at that time. He
does not believe that they need 14 parking spaces.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she definitely
has a problem with the parking situation.
If Mr. Blevins has four employees, they will take up four parking spaces,
leaving only two spaces for patrons.
Ms. Turnbo would be supportive of the application if the applicant would
agree to have 11 parking spaces on the lot.
Mr. Dunham asked the Board if anyone had
a problem with the spacing from an R District. Mr. Cooper replied that he had a small problem with it because
there are so many bars located in this general area. Mr. Dunham asked the Board if they would be willing to approve
the variance of the parking from 14 spaces to 11 spaces and allowing the applicant
six months to meet the requirement. Mr.
White agreed with the suggestion. Mr.
Cooper feels that this bar may be injurious to the neighborhood.
Board Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-1-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; Cooper "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to permit a beer
bar within 150’ of an R district, 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
701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 12a. Variance of required parking from 14
to 11 spaces, subject to the spaces being legal size and they must be installed
within six months; finding the hardship to be the size of the lot. SECTION
1212a.D. USE UNIT 12a. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS,
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; and WITHDRAW a Variance of spacing from another
adult entertainment establishment. SECTION 1212a.C.3.c. USE UNIT 12a. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS, Use Conditions, finding
that the relief is not needed, on the following described property:
N 50’ of S 180’ of W 150’ of Lot 3, Block 1, Aviation view
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required side yard from 5’ to 4’4”. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT – Use Unit 6; a Variance of the required rear yard from 20’ to 11’6”. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and a Variance of setback from a street from the required 20’ to 15’2˝”, all to permit joining existing structures. SECTION 403.5 BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1401 South Richmond Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Kenneth Craft, 1401 South Richmond Avenue, submitted a site plan (Exhibit B-1) and stated that the house is existing and was constructed in the 1940’s. The setbacks were different in the 40’s than they are now.
Interested Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the required side yard
from 5’ to 4’4”. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT – Use Unit 6; a Variance
of the required rear yard from 20’ to 11’6”.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and a Variance of setback from a street
from the required 20’ to 15’2˝”, all to permit joining existing
structures. SECTION 403.5 BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, per plan submitted; finding the
hardship to be the size of the lot and the existing house, on the following
described property:
Lot 18, Block 11, Adamson heights Addition, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a church in
an IL zoned district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5;
a Variance to permit required parking on lot other than lot on which church is
located. SECTION 1205. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE a Variance of the required number of parking spaces. SECTION 1301. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located SW/c & SE/c S. 91st
E. Ave. & BA Expressway.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that Mr. Moody would not be able to attend the hearing today and asked for a continuance (Exhibit C-1). Mr. Moody has spoken with all of the protestants and all of them agreed to a continuance.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to CONTINUE Case No. 18419 to the meeting of June 22, 1999.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception of the required 110%
setback from an R zoned property from 110’ to 10’ on the south and 110’ to 5’
on the west. SECTION 1204.C.3.g. SECTION
1204.C. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES,
Use Conditions, located 1402 South Memorial.
Presentation:
The applicant, Joyce Cobb, was represented by George
Crane, 1512 South Clear Springs, Mustang, OK, who submitted a site plan
(Exhibit D-1) and stated that he works for Fossil Creek Land Company who is
representing Sprint Spectrum in the Tulsa Area. Mr. Crane explained that the purpose of the request is to
construct a cellular telephone tower to fill a massive hole in coverage that
Sprint has between I-244 to the north, Highway 169 to the east and I-44 to the
southeast. They contacted this church
and they are willing to locate the tower on their property. The problem is that the church is zoned
residential. The closest residence is
about 199’ away and that is the pastor’s house. The next closest house is about 300’ away. The tower Sprint is proposing to construct
will be 100’ tall.
Interested Parties:
None.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham mentioned that the
circumstances on this application are a little bit different that what you
would normally find.
Board Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception of the required
110% setback from an R zoned property from 110’ to 10’ on the south and 110’ to
5’ on the west, 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 1204.C.3.g. SECTION 1204.C. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC
PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions, per plan submitted, on
the following described property:
PARENT AREA: N/2 of N/2 of SE/4
of SE/4 of NE/4 Section 11, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM except the W 30’ for a
street, Tulsa County, Oklahoma AND LEASE
AREA: A tract of land lying in and
being a part of the W 415.50’ of the S 31’ of Lot 1, Block 1, of Keim Addition,
an addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, being more
particularly described as follows:
commencing at the NE/c of the NE/4 of Section 11, T-19-N, R-13-E of the
IBM; thence S 01°14’42” E along the E line of said NE/4, a distance of 1950.09’
to the N line of said S 31’; thence S 88°35’59” W along said N line, a distance
of 439.74’; thence S 01°19’26” E a distance of 3.70’ to the point of beginning;
thence continuing S 01°19’26” E a distance of 16.51’; thence S 88°43’57” W a
distance of 40.70’; thence N 01°19’26” W a distance of 20.00’; thence N
88°43’57” E a distance of 20.00’; S 01°19’26” E a distance of 3.70’ thence N
88°43’57” E a distance of 20.70’ to the point of beginning AND ACCESS AREA: A 20’ wide easement for ingress, egress and utility purposes
crossing a part of the N/2 of the N/2 of the SE/4 of the SE/4 of the NE/4 of
Section 11, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, and crossing a part of the W 415.50’ of
the S 31’ of Lot 1, Block 1, of Keim Addition, an addition to the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, the centerline being more particularly described
as follows: Commencing at the NE/c of
the NE/4 of said Section; thence S 01°14’42” E along the E line of said NE/4 a
distance of 1990.09’ to the point of beginning; thence S 88°35’59” W a distance
of 470.39’; thence N 01°19’26” W a distance of 20.00’ to an ending point on the
S line of the above described lease area, said point being 10.00’ S 88°43’57” W
of the SE/c of said lease area.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the 20’ setback requirement
for a garage down to 15.5’. SECTION 403.A.5. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and
Area Requirements in the RE, RS, R, RT and RM Districts – Use Unit 6,
located 8210 South 72nd East Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ted Magsamen, 8517 East 95th Place, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit E-1) and stated that he works for Brumble Construction. There are two homebuyers that have designed
homes to sit on the two subject properties.
Mr. Magsamen explained to them about the 20’ setback. Mr. Magsamen mentioned to the Board that
both houses will have three car garages and someone could park three cars
abreast instead of lengthwise in the driveway.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant what the
hardship is? Mr. Magsamen explained
that when they originally began talking to different people and was told the
setback was 15’, as shown on the plat.
Later, they discovered there was a 20’ setback as far as the garage is
concerned. The lots are 75’ wide. If there is a 5’ side yard setback and a 20’
setback on the driveway side of the house, that leaves 50’ for the house and if
you take 20’ out for a garage, that leaves a 30’ wide house.
Mr. Dunham asked if the plat shows 15’
or 20’? Mr. Magsamen replied that it
shows 15.5’. Mr. Dunham then asked
Staff how the plat got approved at 15’?
Mr. Stump explained that the exterior side yard is required to have a
15’ building setback, except where you have a garage that accesses from that
side, then it is 20’ to have a long enough driveway to park one car (in depth). Mr. Stump stated that 15.5’ is not enough
length to park a car in the driveway.
Typically a person will park a foot or two away from the garage door and
an average size car is in the 15’ to 16’ range. The car will be in the right-of-way and is not actually on their
lot.
Mr. Dunham inquired as to why the garage
could not be accessed from the 72nd East Avenue side? Mr. Magsamen explained that the house would
then only be 35’ wide. The house faces
east and the garage access is from the north.
Ms.
Perkins believes that the applicant’s house is just too big for the lot.
Interested
Parties:
Lindsay Perkins, stated that he is the developer of The Crescent. Mr. Perkins stated that if the house were flipped and the front door was facing north, the more restrictive requirement, 25’ would be in place and it would not work. Mr. Stump stated to the Board that the 15’ requirement applies to a side yard. One side fronting a street on a corner lot has to be at least 25’ back, the other side has to be at least 15’ back. On the 15’ side, if a garage access that side, the garage has to be setback 20’. Mr. Perkins stated that the lots are expensive and people are building rather expensive houses on the lots. When you have a corner lot, you have a difficult time trying to fit the house on the property. Mr. Perkins is more concerned about aesthetics and the look of the neighborhood.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Perkins how far the house to the west sets back from 82nd Place South. Mr. Dunham responded that there is no house there and it would have to setback at least 25’.
Mr. White pointed out that this is a
brand new subdivision. Mr. White stated
that he believes this is a self-imposed hardship. Ms. Turnbo agreed and believes that the houses are just too big
for the lots. Mr. White mentioned that
if the Board is inclined to approve this application he can foresee every other
corner lot coming before the Board for a variance.
Mr. Cooper believes that a corner lot is
a hardship. There is something peculiar
about the property.
Mr. Beach pointed out to the Board that
when the developer designed the subdivision he made the corner lots wider in
order to accommodate the required additional setback. It was made wider by an additional 11 feet.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 3-2-0
(Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; Cooper, Dunham "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
DENY Variance of the 20’
setback requirement for a garage down to 15.5’. SECTION 403.A.5. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, R, RT and RM
Districts – Use Unit 6, finding that the hardship is self-imposed, on the
following described property:
Lot 1, Block 14, The Crescent, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required front yard from 30’ to 19.4’ to permit a carport. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 2205 South Delaware Place.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jim Morefield, 421 Green Valley Road, Inola, OK, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit F-1) and mentioned that he works for Bicks Unlimited, Contracting,
and he is representing Judy Ann Wortman, 2205 South Delaware Place. They are requesting a variance in order to
erect a carport on her property. The
reason for the carport is that her son is a musician and they would like to
turn the garage into a place for him to practice. The carport would allow her car to stay outside and still be
protected.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White pointed out that the house has a 25’ side yard, and asked if there is room on the side to place the carport? Mr. Morefield replied that it had not been considered due to the existing driveway.
Mr. Stump pointed out that there is 28’ on the side (north) and all they would need is 5’ for building setback.
Interested
Parties:
Maureen
Knutsun, 2202 South Delaware Place, which is directly across the street
from the subject property. Ms. Knutsun
is opposed to the carport. There are no
carports located in this neighborhood.
Ms. Knutsun mentioned that the current owners have already taken out the
garage doors so it now looks like a room with a single door.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Morefield believes that there are other carports in the neighborhood. The carport would be designed and colored to match the house.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked the applicant to explain his hardship to the Board. Mr. Morefield replied that it would be a hardship to the owner not to have her automobiles covered.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to
DENY Variance of the required
front yard from 30’ to 19.4’ to permit a carport. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, on the following described property:
The W 165’ of Lot 1, Block 3, and the S/2 of that portion of
vacated 22nd Street lying adjacent to the W 165’ of Lot 1, Block 3,
Bryn-Mawr, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required parking spaces from 3 to 2 spaces for a new addition of two one-bedroom units. SECTION 1407.A. PARKING, LOADING AND SCREENING NONCONFORMITIES, and a Variance of the design standards for parking spaces from the required 8.5’ and 18’ to allow 8.3’ with turning radius of 34’. SECTION 1303.A. DEISGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, located 1614 South Boston Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Bill Caylor, 1224 East 19th Street, Tulsa, OK, submitted
a site plan (Exhibit G-1) and stated that he would like to build two small
one-bedroom units which will be added to the existing four units. Mr. Caylor explained that the building is on
a 50’ wide lot. There are four existing
parking spaces and he proposes to add two new parking spaces to fill the needs
of the one-bedroom apartments. Because
the lot is 50’ wide it will only allow the parking width to be 8’4” per car
instead of the required 8’6” per car. Each
parking space will be one inch shy on each side. Access to the parking is through the alley so the turning radius
is partially in the alley.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that this area is very short on parking spaces. Mr. Dunham mentioned that the Board is in receipt of an objection letter (Exhibit G-2).
Interested
Parties:
Mark
McCafferty, 1615 South
Baltimore, stated that he owns the property directly west of the subject
property. Mr. McCafferty mentioned that
he also owns a 50’ wide lot and at the most he can only park five cars. The applicant is not taking into
consideration the trash dumpster which takes up room in the alley. Mr. McCafferty believes that adding two more
units will be too much constructed on the lot.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Caylor mentioned that the property was originally and
still is zoned CH. Mr. Caylor does not
believe that the parking requirement should be upheld in the CH district.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant how long he has owned the
property? Mr. Caylor replied that he
has owned this piece of land since 1978.
Ms. Turnbo asked Staff when the change to the Zoning Code was made that
required parking in the CH District?
Mr. Stump replied approximately 1985.
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 Variance of the required
parking spaces from 3 to 2 spaces for a new addition of two one-bedroom
units. SECTION 1407.A. PARKING,
LOADING AND SCREENING NONCONFORMITIES and a Variance of the design
standards for parking spaces from the required 8.5’ and 18’ to allow 8.3’ with
turning radius of 34’. SECTION 1303.A. DEISGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS on the
following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to permit a 523.86 square foot sign to exceed the allowed 500 square feet to add an additional sign to Flying J Travel Plaza ground sign. SECTION 1221. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING – Use Unit 23, located Admiral Place at 129th East Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Tulsa Neon, Inc., was represented by Bill Fair, 2012 West Air, Bethany,
OK, stated that he works with Flying J, Travel Plaza. Mr. Fair submitted a sign plan (Exhibit H-1) and mentioned that
he is asking for 5% of the maximum allowed square footage for a ground sign. They were before the Board in March and they
thought they had everything taken care of.
When they submitted the drawing, they discovered that they were over the
square footage. Mr. Fair explained that
the hardship is that they need the advertisement on the street, customers will
not see it from the highway because of the trees. Mr. Fair asked the Board to approve the application.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked the applicant if it would be possible to reduce the sign area by 5%? Mr. Fair responded that it would be possible but the Country Market sign need approximately 80’ to display the sign. If they reduce that further, the advertising value of the sign would be reduced.
Ms. Turnbo explained to the applicant
that if he reduce the “Welcome” portion of the sign by 5% he would be in compliance. Mr. Fair responded that the “Welcome”
portion of the sign is an electronic message center with changing copy. The size of that portion of the sign is set
by the manufacturer and the size of the components inside.
Mr. Dunham does not believe that there
is a hardship.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to
DENY Variance to permit a 523.86
square foot sign to exceed the allowed 500 square feet to add an additional
sign to Flying J Travel Plaza ground sign.
SECTION 1221. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING – Use Unit 23, finding
a lack of a hardship, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a mobile home in a RM-2 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6 and a Special Exception to extend the one-year time limit indefinitely. SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 1913 East Marshall Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, E. Sue Richardson, was represented by Jim Reynolds, 920 South Elm, Erick, Oklahoma. Mr. Reynolds submitted a site plan (Exhibit I-1) and mentioned that this property belongs to his mother. His mother moved a trailer onto this property during the 1970’s. In the 1970’s she had the proper licensing and permitting to have the trailer on the property. In the early 1980’s she built an additional bedroom onto the trailer and had all of the proper permitting. Up until 1985, every year she received the proper trailer license. At that point she was told that it was no longer necessary to get the permit because the room addition was a permanent fixture to the house. Ms. Richardson received notice this year that she was in violation of the Code.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked Staff if because there is a permanent addition to the trailer, does this change their assessment of it being a mobile home? Mr. Stump replied no. The Code was amended in 1970 to its current form. There was a limitation of one year on mobile homes. Mr. Stump believes that Ms. Richardson did not receive a variance to make it permanent at that time nor did they remove it after one year. It went all those years without a compliant and someone has now complained about the mobile home.
Interested
Parties:
J.W. Smith, 2140 South 77th East Avenue, stated that he owns property in the same area as the subject property. Mr. Smith does not want to see any mobile homes within the City limits.
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Smith when he acquired his property. Mr. Smith replied that he purchased his property about ten years ago. The mobile home was there at that time.
Juan Padilla, 1947 East Marshall, stated that he has no problem with the mobile home.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Reynolds mentioned that his mother is 78 years old and he is moving back to this area to help take care of her. He admitted that the residence does need some repair and he is going to be around to do that now.
Comments and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked Staff why this mobile home came before the Board since it has been located at this address since 1980. Mr. Beach stated that he has a copy of the complaint and it does not identify who filed it or what the complaint was. It does say that this is a violation consisting of erecting, moving, adding to or structurally altering any building or structure or to use or change the use of any building or land or permit the aforementioned actions without obtaining a zoning clearance permit. This violation requires a special exception. Mr. Stump stated that it also notes that the original approval expired in November of 1985.
Mr. Dunham stated that the mobile home has been at this location for 19 years and has had no complaints. Ms. Turnbo mentioned that there are other mobile homes in the area. Ms. Turnbo feels that this would be a very different situation if someone were bringing in a new mobile home rather than one that has been there for almost 20 years with no complaint.
Mr. Cooper stated that it would be his preference to keep some sort of time limit on the mobile home and not allow it on a permanent basis. Mr. White concurred.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception to
allow a mobile home in a RM-2 district, 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
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6 and a Special Exception to
extend the one-year time limit for a period of five years, 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. SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, per plan, on the following described property:
Lot 16, Block 4, Berry-Hart Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required lot area from 9,000 square feet to 8,247 square feet for RS-2 lots to obtain a lot split. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located SW/c East 36th Street & South Terwilliger.
Presentation:
The applicant, Bryan C. McCracken, was represented by Jeff Levinson, 35 East 18th Street. Mr. Levinson submitted a site plan (Exhibit
J-1) and mentioned that his client has contracted to purchase all of Lot 7, Block
5, which is a large, irregularly shaped tract.
Technically, the application before the Board today is to split the 180’
x 92’ tract. To the south of that is an
irregular shaped parcel which is also part of Lot 7, Block 5. What is before the Board today is the
product of a prior, pre-approved lot split which created the 180’ x 92’
tract. The total land area for Lot 7,
Block 5 is over the minimum amount and the lot area would be well over 30,000. If the area was divided into three lots they
would not need to come before the Board because they would have the required
lot area. The problem is when the
client did the prior lot split, due to the irregular shape on the south part of
the boundary, there was only 57.92’ which fronted Terwilliger. In RS-2 zoning, a lot needs a 75’ average
lot width. The tract to the south ended
up with 13,000 square feet because of the 75’ frontage on the street. Mr. Levinson explained that the hardship is
the strange shaped lot. As far as the
compatibility, in this area there are quite a few lots that are preexisting
that are less than 9,000 square feet.
Most of the lots that border this one were a product of lot splits. Across the street, in Kennebunkport, is a
unique development in which most of the lots are less than 9,000 square
feet. Mr. Levinson asked the Board to
approve the application.
Interested
Parties:
Bill Moran, 3607 South Yorktown Place, stated that his house is immediately adjacent to the double lot that is the subject of this application. Mr. Moran objects to the lot split because they do not want the existing house removed and they do not want to have the property divided. Mr. Moran submitted a petition (Exhibit J-4) with 66 signatures of opposition and several objection letters (Exhibit J-3).
Francis Schlater, III, stated that he lives immediately across the street from this development. Mr. Schlater submitted six more signatures of opposition to be attached to the petition. Mr. Schlater explained to the Board that he and the Morans canvassed the neighborhood for signatures of opposition to this application and submitted an exhibit showing other homes and properties in the area (Exhibit J-5). He believes that the sizes of the three properties are incorrectly represented. The average lot size in this area is half of an acre. There is heavy traffic on 36th Street and also a drainage problem in the neighborhood. The three houses will only add to those problems. Mr. Schlater feels that adding three houses on this property will greatly change the characteristics of the neighborhood. Mr. Schlater questioned the owner of the properties and his only reason for splitting the property is economic.
Neal Tomlins, 3613 South Yorktown Place, pointed out that his property is directly behind and to the west of the existing structure. Mr. Tomlins explained to the Board that this is one lot with one house on it and the applicant wants to split it into three lots and put three houses on it. If this application is approved it will greatly change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Tomlins pointed out that the applicant has the property under contract, he does not own the property yet. Making money off of a parcel of property is not a hardship, especially in an established neighborhood.
Alan Madewell, 3649 South Terwilliger, stated that he is a licensed architect and lives in the area. Mr. Madewell submitted a map (Exhibit J-2) of the area and the proposed lot split. If the lot is split it will create three nonconforming lots. The proposed lots will not conform to anything in the area. Mr. Madewell is opposed to the application.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Levinson mentioned to the Board that there is a house on 3645 South Yorktown Place that has less than 9,000 square feet. Except for the irregular shape of the lot, there would be enough gross footage and lot area to have three lots without coming before the Board. The reason they are before the Board today is because the lot is not rectangular in shape. The density and area is consistent with the current RS-2 zoning. Mr. Levinson asked the Board to approve this application.
Comments and Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked the applicant what his hardship is. Mr. Levinson responded that there are circumstances that are peculiar to the land, being the irregular shape of the tract is the hardship. If the southern boundary were more level, there would be no need to come before the Board, they would be able to do that by right in an RS-2 zoned district.
Mr. White feels that it is a self-imposed
hardship and that the split will be injurious to the neighborhood.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of COOPER, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no "absent") to DENY Variance of the required lot area from 9,000 square feet to 8,247 square feet for RS-2 lots to obtain a lot split. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, on the following described property:
The W 89.565’ of the N 92.08’ of Lot 7, Block 5, Highland Park Estates and the E 89.565’ of the N 92.08’ of Lot 7, Block 5, Highland Park Estates, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow off-street parking on lot other than lot containing the use. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 5; and a Variance of required parking spaces from 67 to 18 to permit a new school and gymnasium. SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, located 7001 South Union Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Max Bass, 518 West C Street, Jenks, OK, submitted a site plan (K-1)
and stated that he is the assistant pastor of New Life Pentecostal Church. Mr. Bass mentioned that the church owns the
subject property and also owns property adjacent to it at the east. The church owns approximately 10 acres on
the corner of South 71st Street and Union Avenue. They would like to utilize the southern
portion of the property for recreation purposes. The church presently has enough parking to accommodate the
school. Mr. Bass pointed out that the
church and school would not be used simultaneously. The school building would be utilized during the day Monday
through Friday and the church would be used Sunday during the day and Thursday
nights.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Bass if there would
be any problem tying the two lots together?
Mr. Bass replied that the church already has that agreement and he
submitted it to the Board (Exhibit K-2).
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance to allow off-street parking on lot other than lot containing the use. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 5; and a Variance of required parking spaces from 67 to 18 to permit a new school and gymnasium. SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, finding that the variances meet the requirements of Section 1607.C., subject to a tie agreement, per plan submitted, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a mini-storage in a CS zoned district, located NE/c E. 41st Street and US Highway 169.
Presentation:
The applicant, Mary Womble, submitted a site plan (Exhibit L-1). Ms. Womble mentioned that her client has a hotel on the front part of the property and he would like to add a mini-storage to another part of the property.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception to
allow a mini-storage in a CS zoned district, 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:
Lot 3, Block 1, Ravenwood Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required front setback from Joplin from 35’ to 27’ for a new single-family dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 8831 South Joplin.
Presentation:
The applicant, John M. Folks, was represented by Jeff Dunn, 2828 East 51st Street, Suite 400, Tulsa, OK
74105, stated that he is the attorney for the applicant and submitted a packet
of information (Exhibit M-1) to the Board.
Mr. Dunn explained that his clients purchased the lot in question in
October of last year. They hired a
builder, Masterpiece Builders, who staked out the footprint of the home they
would like to build. Mistakenly, they
missed the 35’ setback line by approximately 11’. The front of the property encroaches approximately 8’. Some excavation work has commenced, due to
the fact that the builder and homeowners were wrong about the setback.
Mr. Dunham explained that Staff is
concerned that the house does not extend closer to Joplin than 27’. Mr. Dunn assured the Board that the house
would not extend any further to Joplin.
Mr. Beach clarified that the setback is
27’ from the property line and not the actual street. Mr. Dunn understood and agreed to the setback.
Mr. Dunn submitted a Certificate of Amendment to the Plat.
Interested
Parties:
None.
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the required
front setback from Joplin from 35’ to 27’ for a new single-family
dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS
IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, finding the hardship to be the
topography of the lot, on the following described property:
Lot 6, Block 3, Woodhill Estates, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the 20’ side yard requirement for garages, down to 15.5’ on a corner lot in an RS-3 district. SECTION 403.A.5. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RT and RM Districts – Use Unit 6, located 7122 E. 81st Place South.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ted Magsamen, was present and submitted a site plan (Exhibit
N-1).
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 3-2-0
(Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; Cooper, Dunham "nays", no
"abstentions”; "absent") to
DENY Variance of the 20’ side
yard requirement for garages, down to 15.5’ on a corner lot in an RS-3
district. SECTION 403.A.5. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the
RE, RS, RD, RT and RM Districts – Use Unit 6, finding that the hardship is
self-imposed, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for Use Unit 4 in an R District. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 4; Variance of the structure height from 35’ to 100’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance from 110% setback from any adjoining lot line of a residential zoned lot to 101’ west and 90’ north. SECTION 1204. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, located 920 South New Haven.
Presentation:
The applicant, Joyce Cobb, was represented by George
Crane, Fossil Creek Land Company, 1512 South Clear Springs Road, Mustang,
OK, submitted a site plan (Exhibit O-1) and stated that their company
represents Sprint Spectrum. Mr. Crane
explained that they needed a tower south of I-244 and north of the Broken Arrow
Expressway. The initial search area was
based solely on The University of Tulsa campus. They approached the university about several locations and they
were turned down. Mr. Crane explained
that they extended the search to 15th Street and Harvard but found
that everything in the area is commercial and is immediately abutted by
residential.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Staff about the Use Unit 4 – does it need to be restricted any? Mr. Stump replied that the Board might want to allow only the communications tower.
Mr. Beach pointed out to the Board that
there are 11 items that are required by the Code to have a finding on and that
the finding appear in the record of this case.
Interested
Parties:
Steven Farmer, 903 South New Haven Avenue, directly across the street
from the property in question. Mr.
Farmer explained to the Board that he bought his home from the church in
1983. Mr. Farmer believes that the
location of the tower on the church property will hurt property values in the
area. Directly adjacent to the church
on church property is the church school with a playground. The tower will be directly adjacent to the
playground. Mr. Farmer asked the Board
to deny the application.
Dennis Birney, 911 South Louisville, stated that the tower will be even
with his property line. Mr. Birney’s
property is adjacent to where the tower will be located and he does not want to
walk out to his backyard and see the tower.
Mr. Birney explained to the Board that he was approached by the church
several years ago about donating the back portion of his property for a tax
deduction to help the church build a “park like setting” and to expand their
playground and school area. Mr. Birney
explained that there is a drainage area running across the property and that is
why the tower is being located so close to the neighborhood.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that the 110% setback
requirement can be adjusted by the Board by a Special Exception.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Crane explained to the Board that the reason Sprint
pursues church property to locate towers on is because they are community based
organizations and they like to give them the additional money for their
coffers. The site is leased rather than
purchased and the lease will be for 25 years.
Sprint has no interest in purchasing the property. Mr. Crane submitted some photos of the area with
a tower drawn in to show the location of the proposed tower (Exhibit O-2). Mr. Crane suggested to the Board that they
could make the “top hat” configuration of the tower a “flush mount” against the
tower so it does not stick out. The
tower is not a microwave tower, it is a digital PCS system. Mr. Crane explained that there are some
sewer lines that run through the property and they cannot place the tower on
those sewer lines. He believes that
there are enough trees on the property to hide the tower from most angles. There will not be any building located on
the premises. The equipment area is
about the size of a double-wide refrigerator.
Sprint will put up a privacy fence, with three strands of barbed wire
around the top, around the premises of the tower.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach asked the applicant what the height of the
proposed tower is? Mr. Crane answered
100’.
Mr. Beach asked the applicant to describe the design of the
tower. Mr. Crane explained that on a
typical cellular tower, there is a
large three sided “top hat”. They can
use what is called a “flush mount”, which is an antennae that protrudes from
the tower about 6”. Mr. Crane explained
that flush mount is also described as being low profile, flat panel
antennae. This is a monopole type tower
which will be galvanized gray.
There was much discussion at the bench as to the exact
location of the tower and the setbacks.
Mr. Beach asked Mr. Crane what the total number and size of
antennae proposed and the ability of the tower to accommodate co-location. Mr. Crane explained that Sprint builds every
tower with the capabilities to hold another carrier. It is usually 10’ of vertical distance between the carriers. Mr. Beach asked Mr. Crane if the topography
and the vegetative cover allows for good coverage at that height? Mr. Crane replied affirmatively.
Mr. Crane explained to the Board that they approached The
University of Tulsa to put a tower on their football stadium. Southwestern Bell already has a location on
their stadium. They were turned down
because of future expansion plans for the stadium and other areas of the
university. Mr. Crane submitted a
letter of denial from The University of Tulsa (Exhibit O-3) to locate a tower
on their property. Mr. Dunham asked
where the Southwestern Bell tower is located, is it actually on the stadium or
on the ground near the stadium? Mr.
Crane replied that it is on the stadium.
Mr. Crane stated that the church felt this was the best
location for the tower because it is an unused portion of the property.
Ms. Perkins asked Mr. Crane if the tower could be moved to
the other side of the sewer easement?
Mr. Crane stated that the area on the other side of the sewer easement
is a parking lot.
Ms. Perkins believes that Sprint needs to figure out a way
to get closer to the church instead of abutting the neighborhood.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception for Use Unit 4 in
an R District subject to the use being restricted to a monopole tower and that
the monopole tower have a low profile, flat panel antennae; after considering
each of the following factors: Height of the proposed tower; Proximity of the tower to residential
structures, residential district boundaries and existing towers; Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby
properties; Surrounding topography; Surrounding tree coverage and foliage; Design of the tower, with particular reference
to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating
visual obtrusiveness; The total number
and size of antennas proposed and the ability of the tower to accommodate
collocation; Architectural design of utility buildings and accessory structures
to blend with surrounding environment; Proposed ingress and egress; The need of the applicant for a
communications tower within the immediate geographic area to provide an
acceptable level of communications service to the area; The size of the tract and the most likely
future development as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan, planned
infrastructure, topography and other physical facts.; 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 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 4;
Variance
of the structure height from 35’ to 100’, finding that it meets the requirements
of Section 1607.C. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and DENY a Special Exception from 110% setback
from any adjoining lot line of a residential zoned lot to 101’ west and 90’
north. SECTION 1204. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES,
on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a ready mix concrete plant for the manufacture of cement utilizing sand and gravel at the source of supply for utilization off the premises on a 1.55 acre tract within a previously approved sand and gravel mining operation. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 24, located Between Delaware & the Arkansas River South of East 106th Street South.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that he received a written request for a continuance on this case yesterday, from an interested party. The request is not considered a timely request. The interested party is not within the 300’ notice area but they had received information about the case within the last few days. The Board decided to hear the case since the request was not timely and there were several interested parties present.
Presentation:
The applicant, Charles E. Norman, submitted a site plan (Exhibit P-1) and stated
that he represents Mid-Continent Concrete Company which is applying for a
Special Exception to permit a ready mix concrete plant in an AG District. Mr. Norman explained that ready mix concrete
plant is classified in Use Unit 24 and is permitted only in the IM District by
exception and the IH District by right.
It is not permitted in the IL Zoning District. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for the industry to find
locations that are centrally located.
The actual application is for a portion of land that is on the banks of
the Arkansas River and is 700’ from Delaware and consists of 1˝ acres. The mining and processing of sand and gravel
is also in the same Use Unit 24 and was approved by the Board in 1988 and has
operated as a dredging operation since that time. There have been many dredging operations along the banks of the
Arkansas River over the years but most of them are no longer in operation
because of the run off from the Keystone Dam.
It has become an acceptable practice among concrete companies to locate
concrete operations an acceptable hauling distance from their job sites. Mr. Norman mentioned that Staff has voiced a
concern about additional traffic on Delaware as a result of the operation. The number of trips per day may increase in
the immediate area but the number of trips per day in the entire area served
will not because you will eliminate trucks coming from Bixby that come down to
this area to serve the Jenks market.
Some trips will also be eliminate from Bixby to the 121st
area and further to the east. Mr.
Norman submitted photos (Exhibit P-3) to show distances of the plant site. On photograph number 4, the concrete plant
was located in the proposed location inadvertently and is presently there. Mr. Norman mentioned that he visited the
site and the dredging operation produces a much higher noise level than the
ready mix concrete operation. Because
the plant is in operation and because of the paving of Riverside Drive from 91st
to 81st, 231 cubic yards (30 to 32 loads per day) of concrete were
delivered from this site last week. The
operators of this site indicate that they doubt they will ever exceed 50 trips
per day from the site. Mr. Norman
explained to the Board that by operating the ready mix concrete plant in this
location they could reduce the number of sand trucks leaving the site to take
sand to other concrete plants. Mr.
Norman pointed out that he has searched for sites for Mid-Continent Concrete
Co. in Jenks, which has virtually no medium or light industrial zoning. South of Skelly Drive all the way to Garnett
has no area that is zoned in a way to allow the Board to consider either by
exception or right, the location of a ready mix concrete plant. The only other use of the west side of
Delaware between 111th Street and 121st Street is the
Philcrest Tennis Club. Development on
the east side is sparse.
Mr. Norman asked the Board to approve
the application to allow a ready mix concrete plant.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Norman what his
requested hours of operation are for the facility. Mr. Norman replied that typically the operation is dawn to
dusk. In the winter, it will be less
than that. In the summer, there are
some critical temperatures that prohibit the delivery of ready mix
concrete. Mr. Norman explained that
sometimes in the summer the plant will open at 4:00 a.m. and begin delivery of
the concrete before the temperatures rises above the critical level for that
mix. Most of those jobs are on public
projects where there is an increasing trend to work dual shifts and try to
complete the project in a shorter amount of time. Mr. Norman indicated that his client would be willing to limit
the location to only one plant, and limit the number of trucks, if that is of
concern to the Board.
Mr. Dunham asked Staff if there are any
plans in the immediate future to make any improvements to Delaware? Mr. Stump replied that there are no
immediate plans. It is ultimately
supposed to have Riverside Drive connect at 101st Street which would
be a primary arterial and curve to the east.
Mr. Norman pointed out that there will be a need to have ready mix
concrete trucks deliver in this area with or without improvements made to this
street. The company tries to have a
plant within 7 or 8 miles of the market and in this part of Tulsa it is almost
impossible to find a location that meets the requirements of the Zoning Code
and the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. White asked how many trucks per day will be coming/going from the plant. Mr. Norman replied that a typical work day is about 30 to 32 concrete trucks. Mr. White asked Mr. Norman how many sand and gravel trucks per day run out of the area? Mr. Norman responded that those are operated by the sand and gravel plant and he does not know the numbers on that. The volume of traffic generated by the sand and gravel plant will not change. Mr. White stated that he is wanting to know the net increase in heavy truck traffic on Delaware. Mr. Norman stated that it is hard for him to know the exact number of trucks.
Interested Parties:
Bill Puroff, 10505 South Delaware, stated that he has lived at this
address for 27 years. Mr. Puroff
explained that the sand trucks tear up the street and they speed through the
area. He is opposed to the addition of
more trucks to the area.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Puroff if the noise comes primarily
from the trucks or the dredging operation?
Mr. Puroff replied that the noise is from the trucks. He explained that the dredging operation is
about one-half mile away from him and he does not hear it.
Jerry J.
Puroff, 3009 East 101st
Place, Delaware Point, mentioned that there is heavy traffic on and around 101st
Street. Mr. Puroff is also concerned
about the amount of heavy truck traffic and the speed of the trucks. He is opposed to the application.
Russell Warner, General Manager of Philcrest Hills Tennis Club at 109th
and South Delaware Ave. Mr. Warner
submitted a petition of opposition (Exhibit P-2) signed by 79 members and
employees of the club. He pointed out
to the Board that the City has recently completed a sanitary sewer project
along Delaware Avenue that will open the door for single family housing in the
undeveloped areas along Delaware Avenue.
Joy Cepurniek, 7934 South Florence, President of the Board of Directors
of Philcrest Hills Tennis Club. Ms.
Cepurniek mentioned that the club has seven outdoor tennis courts on the south
side of their facility. She is
concerned about dust emissions coming from the plant onto their courts. Ms. Cepurniek asked the Board to deny the
application.
Robert Lemons, 11411 South Winston, stated that he owns property at 101st
and Delaware. Mr. Lemons mentioned that
the concrete plant is already in existence and is currently in operation. Mr. Lemons suggested allowing the plant on a
temporary basis until the jobs in the immediate area are finished.
Charles
Schuller, 4838 South 70th
East Avenue, stated that he owns 26 acres on the east and west sides of
Delaware about two blocks south of Anchor Sand. Mr. Schuller also stated that the concrete plant is already in
existence. Mr. Schuller summarized the
history and past Board actions of the sand plant. He is opposed to the application and the ready-mix concrete
plant. He pointed out that the minutes
of the 1988 hearing reflect approval of a sand dredging operation only on the
property.
Craig McGowen, 11033 South Delaware, stated that the owns Spring Creek
Nursery. Mr. McGowen pointed out that
the concrete plant has been in operation for over a month. There are trucks that bring limestone into
the plant. On May 30, 1999, Mr. McGowen
set up a video camera across the entrance to the plant for ten hours to count
the number of trucks entering and leaving the plant. The were 140 18-wheel dump trucks; 31 small dump trucks; 73
concrete trucks; 9 18-wheel concrete trucks.
The count consisted of trucks entering and leaving the plant. A majority of the trucks were owned by
Mid-Continent Concrete. Mr. McGowen is
concerned about the number of trucks on the street and the speed they go on
it. The road is being destroyed because
of the heavy trucks.
Tiny Thompson, 4990 East 114th Place, stated that he is
primarily here on behalf of Jim Moore.
Mr. Moore is the immediately adjacent property owner to the north of the
site. Mr. Thompson mentioned that the
sanitary sewer system has been put in place and the area is now ready for
development. Mr. Thompson mentioned
that he owns the river front about one-half mile south of the proposed concrete
plant. He explained that in 1992 he
came before the Board for a Special Exception to allow a sand plant. He was granted permission to mine sand for a
period of two years only. Some of the
major concerns were increased traffic and noise. Mr. Thompson urged the Board to deny the application.
James Farris, 320 South Boston, stated that he represents several
property owners in the area. Mr. Farris
stated that his clients would like to develop their properties as single family
neighborhoods, which is the highest and best use for property in that
area. Mr. Farris asked the Board to
consider all of the aspects presented to them today and deny the application.
Joe Tom Smith, 11885 South Yale, stated that he owns a nine acre tract
and intends to develop it. Mr. Smith is
concerned about the heavy truck traffic on Delaware especially during rush
hour.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Norman pointed out that most of the concerns and
comments have been about the sand operation and not the characteristics of the
ready-mix industry. Traffic is always and
issue and always will be an issue.
Traffic is caused by growth. Mr.
Norman stated that sand is a commodity and because of the location of the
source, sometimes the haul is a much longer distance than ready-mix
concrete. The market for ready-mix concrete
is caused by people building houses, driveways, public projects. The construction of the Creek Turnpike is a
major factor in the market for the next two to three years in this vicinity.
problems along 121st and Delaware.
Mr. Norman explained that the traffic problems along 121st
and Delaware, as discussed by Mr. Joe Tom Smith, are from Bixby and most of it
will be eliminated with the operation of a plant at this location. Mr. Norman pointed out to the Board that the
statistics given by the nursery owner of approximately 250 truck trips per day
is an existing condition. The addition
of this small plant will not greatly help nor hurt the traffic problem that
currently exists. Mr. Norman suggested
permitting the plant on a temporary basis (at least allow the completion of the
public projects). Mr. Norman suggested
to the area residents that they ask the City of Tulsa for some concentrated
enforcement of the traffic laws.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Stump asked Mr. Norman how far the concrete plant will
be located from the northern boundary?
Mr. Norman replied that it is located 150’ north and south and 400’ from
the bank of the river.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Norman who the landowner is. Mr. Norman stated that the landowner is Mr.
Newkirk and he has leased it to Anchor Industries. The concrete plant would be a sublease for the 1˝ acre tract
within that.
Mr. White mentioned that there were some statements made
from some of the protestants regarding the activities at this location and that
the ready-mix concrete plant was already in operation. Mr. Norman replied that the plant is
currently in operation and explained the field operations manager thought that
the plant was a permitted use. Mr.
Norman went on to explain that he filed the application on May 6, 1999 and
received a notice dated May 14, 1999 from Mr. Roy Ballentine. Mr. Stump stated that he has not stopped
operation and he is operating illegally.
Mr. White asked Mr. Norman if the all of the gravel is
trucked into this site? Mr. Norman
indicated that there is some small river type gravel that is produced from the
dredging operation but it is not the type that is used in concrete. That would have to be brought from another
site. The sand and water is available
at this site.
Mr. Cooper asked if it is the desire of Mr. Norman’s client
to use the facility for a limited period of time or permanently? Mr. Norman responded that because of the
difficulty of finding locations that can be zoned, it was a desire to have
permanent approval. But the immediate
market demand is what has motivated the need for this plant. A limited time period would be helpful to
the public and the company if that is the Board’s preference.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she is against the plant. She believes that a ready-mix concrete plant
is too intense a use for this area.
Mr. Dunham mentioned that he is inclined to agree. He is willing to listen to arguments for a
time limit. The reason Mr. Dunham is
willing to listen to a time limit is that he believes traffic could be reduced
with the plant. Mr. Dunham is
definitely opposed to this use on a permanent basis. Mr. White agreed.
Mr. Cooper stated that he could see a compromise allowing
both companies to use the area until he discovered that it wasn’t all the same
property owner and Mr. Norman does not have the authority to make a compromise
for the property owner.
Ms. Perkins is hesitant to approve it because you are
rewarding someone for openly defying something that the Board established in
1988.
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 permit a ready mix concrete plant for the manufacture of cement utilizing sand and gravel at the source of supply for utilization off the premises on a 1.55 acre tract within a previously approved sand and gravel mining operation. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 24, finding that the use is not in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and that the use is too intense for the neighborhood, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
Date
approved: _____________________________
__________________________________________