Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Right Of Way Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues MidFirst Bank request to place walk‑up ATM in Elgin Avenue right‑of‑way; asks for security and hardship evidence
Summary
MidFirst Bank sought a variance to locate a walk‑up ATM in the Elgin Avenue right‑of‑way near the OneOK Ballpark patio. The board continued the matter and requested additional documentation on security, alternative locations and legal standing for placing a permanent structure in the right‑of‑way.
MidFirst Bank asked the City of Tulsa Board of Adjustment for a variance to permit a permanent, walk‑up ATM in the Elgin Avenue right‑of‑way next to a restaurant patio near OneOK Field. The board continued the item to its next regularly scheduled meeting and asked the applicant to provide more information showing why alternative locations are infeasible and to supply security data supporting the bank’s public‑safety rationale.
Natalie Cornett, representing MidFirst Bank, described the proposed unit as a walk‑up ATM sited in a landscaped strip between sidewalk, patio seating and the street. Cornett said the bank had a license agreement with the city pending final signature and an agreement with the property owner. She said the ATM location was chosen for visibility and lighting near the ballpark and that the unit would include standard security features (bolted mount, bollards, cameras and canopy).
Board members asked whether the ATM could be located inside the property or in a parking lot, and pressed MidFirst to explain the asserted hardship tied to the building footprint and the right‑of‑way location. Several members described the issue as “tricky” because the ATM would be a structure on city property that benefits a private entity. Nathan (planning staff) explained that property owners are responsible for the right‑of‑way area between their building and the curb, which ties the request to the adjacent parcel.
Board members said they generally supported the idea of a well‑lit, accessible ATM but wanted more evidence from the bank to show the location is the only reasonable option and to provide public‑safety or crime statistics to buttress the hardship claim. The applicant agreed to obtain additional information and return for the next hearing. The board voted to continue the case.
No public speakers registered opposition or support before the board moved to continue the application. The applicant was asked to return with documentation of alternatives considered, the signed license agreement with the city (if available), and any crime or security statistics MidFirst is relying on to justify locating the kiosk in the right‑of‑way.
