CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, March 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 |
White, Chair |
Beach |
Ballentine, NBH Insp. |
|
Dunham, Vice Chair |
|
Stump |
|
|
Turnbo, Secretary |
|
|
Parnell, NBH Insp. |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prather, Legal |
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Friday, March 5, 1999, at 2:14 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 1:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of February 9, 1999 (No. 766).
On MOTION of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of February 23, 1999 (No. 767).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Staff
Comments
Mr. Beach informed the Board that a request for continuance
has been made for Case No. 18323. The
request was not timely (was asked for before the beginning of the
meeting).
Mr. Moody and his client did not agree with the continuance
since it was not made in a timely manner.
On MOTION of COOPER, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to DENY the request for continuance on Case No. 18323.
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 and a Variance of the required number of parking
spaces from 140 to 105 for the entire center.
CHAPTER 12, VARIIOUS SECTIONS;
OF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS, located 4343 S. Memorial.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jim Rodgers, was represented by Richard Ewalt, 4343 S. Memorial, submitted a site plan (Exhibit
A-1) and stated that he is the owner of the proposed business. Mr. Ewalt stated that the other businesses
in the immediate area close by 6:00 p.m. and he is proposing to open at 6:00 p.m.
to midnight. Mr. Ewalt mentioned that
they have 105 parking spaces available.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that at the previous
hearing, it was discovered that the applicant needed relief from the parking
requirements for the entire shopping center.
What the applicant is proposing is a reduction in the total number that
is required from 140 to 105 and he is justifying that by saying that his hours
of operation will be different than the other users in the center. All of the parking spaces would essentially
be available to him after 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if he
would be limiting his hours to 6:00 p.m. to midnight and the applicant replied
affirmatively.
Mr. Cooper suggested limiting the square
footage of the use to 5,280 square feet.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to APPROVE Special
Exception to permit an indoor recreation center with coffee shop in an IL
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 902. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 19 and a Variance
of the required number of parking spaces from 140 to 105 for the entire
center. CHAPTER 12, VARIOUS SECTIONS; OF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
REQUIREMENTS, limiting the hours of operation from 6:00 p.m. to midnight
and limiting the use to 5,280 square feet and finding the hardship to be the
fact that the other businesses in the center close at 6:00 p.m., on the
following described property:
Lots 1-8, Block 1, Memorial Industrial Park, corrected plat,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of 30’ frontage requirement
down to 25’. SECTION 206. STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIRED, located 2741 N. Yukon.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that no notice was given for this case and it has been stricken from the Agenda.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow two dwelling units on one
lot of record in a RS-1 zoned district.
SECTION 205. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT – Use Unit
6, located 8329 E. 12th St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Geoffrey Geesing, 8329 E. 12th Street, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit B-1) and stated that the property is over an acre and has a
pre-existing building. There are other
properties in the area that have more than one dwelling. He is trying to get a variance to rent the
house.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked the applicant to explain his hardship. Mr. Geesing replied that it would be a financial hardship for him. Ms. Perkins responded that they cannot consider financial needs as a hardship.
Ms. Turnbo asked if the lot were to be split, would each lot meet the bulk and area requirements? Mr. Beach replied yes, the lot is large enough that the applicant could get a lot split and create two lots.
Mr. Dunham stated that it appears that several of the lots in the area have been split. Mr. Stump stated that the only requirement is a 100’ average lot width, 13,500 square feet of lot area and that the buildings meet the proper setbacks from the new lot line. If that is 41 feet between the buildings, there is plenty of space to position a side lot line so that both lots would have the proper width and land/lot area.
Interested Parties:
Al Nichols, 8525 E. 16th Street, stated that he represents the Mingo Valley Homeowners’ Association. Mr. Nichols submitted some handouts to the Board (Exhibit B-2). Mr. McNew purchased this property about a year ago at an auction and at that time the home was in pretty bad shape. Mr. McNew immediately converted the garage into two apartments. Mr. Nichols stated that Mr. McNew applied for a similar variance for another piece of property that he owned and was denied by this Board in May of 1998. He put the property up for sale shortly thereafter. Mr. Nichols stated that no hardship has been established and the application should be denied.
Tracey Harden, 8512 E. 12th Street, stated that he resides directly across the street from Mr. Geesing. Mr. Harden is concerned about parking and access to the property. There is not adequate parking. Mr. Harden stated that he has never seen Mr. Geesing on the subject property and he does not know if he is the owner or a renter. Mr. Harden mentioned to the Board that there has been more than one family living in the home at one time. Mr. Harden asked the Board to deny the application.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Geesing stated that Mr. Nichols does not live within 300’ of the property. He also stated that this is not a duplex, it is a single family dwelling. It has one kitchen that is downstairs. The driveway was originally located on 85th Street. The City put drainage in behind the house and blocked off 85th Street past that portion.
Comments and Questions:
Ms. Parnell, Neighborhood Inspections, asked the applicant how long he has owned the property and he responded since October 2, 1999. Ms. Parnell asked him if he purchased the property from Kelly McNew and Mr. Geesing replied yes. Ms. Parnell asked if Mr. McNew explained to him the problem with the second dwelling at the time he purchased the property? Mr. Geesing answered negatively. Ms. Parnell mentioned to the applicant that Mr. McNew had been given notice to vacate the dwelling at the back of the property.
Mr. Cooper asked the applicant if he intends on keeping the existing structure of if he intends to tear it down and rebuild? Mr. Geesing stated that he will not tear it down but he may use it for storage.
Ms. Turnbo feels that the applicant has not met the hardship requirement and she is not in favor of two dwellings on one lot of record.
Mr. Dunham feels that the hardship is the size of the lot. The lot that was turned down last June was half the size of this lot.
Mr. Cooper stated that he is mixed about this case. He believes that the lot is large enough to split but he does not think the applicant has presented a hardship.
Ms. Perkins thinks that the applicant should try to obtain a lot split. She does not want to see two dwellings on one lot of record.
Mr. Stump stated that Staff has a problem saying that this is unique for its size and it is big enough for two dwelling units. The result of that logic is that you then comply with the law and divide it into two lots, he has plenty of width, land area, etc. He can’t see where the hardship is. The applicant can comply with all of the requirements if he splits the property.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins no "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to DENY Variance to
allow two dwelling units on one lot of record in a RS-1 zoned district. SECTION
205. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT
– Use Unit 6, on the following described property:
Lot 16, Block 2, Forest Acres, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
An appeal of the decision of Code
Enforcement officer and request for a Special Exception to permit transmission
and automotive repair in a CS District.
SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located 215 S. Lewis Ave.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that he has spoken with Mr. Moody who would now agree to a continuance on the case. The Board denied the request for a continuance at the beginning of this meeting.
Presentation:
The applicant, John W. Moody, submitted a site plan (Exhibit C-1) and a zoning
violation notice (Exhibit C-2) and stated that after meeting with the
opposition they think that it will be good for all parties to sit down and try
to work the differences out. Mr. Moody
stated that he and his client agree to the continuance.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to CONTINUE Case No. 18323 to the Meeting of March 23, 1999.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a
manufactured home in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9
and a Special Exception to waive the one year time limit to permit a
manufactured home on a permanent basis.
SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 3018 N. Garrison Place.
Presentation:
The applicant, Carla Joanne Hannah, stated that she would like to put a
manufactured home on her property permanently.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that on Staff Comments
it was mentioned that the site plan and the legal description do not
match.
Mr. Beach asked the applicant how large
is the property and Ms. Hannah replied 7,000 square feet. Mr. Beach proceeded to ask the applicant how
wide the property is on Garrison and she responded 50’ on Garrison. Mr. Beach asked Ms. Hannah if the property has
frontage on three sides and she replied yes.
The legal description provided calls for Lot 17, Block 2 and the map on
the back of the notice shows the lot being 140’ deep and 50’ wide and only
fronting on Garrison Place.
Mr. Beach stated that he believes that
the legal description or the applicant’s drawing is wrong.
Discussion followed about the legal
description of the property and the Board decided to continue the case and
allow the applicant to get the property surveyed.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no
"absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 18324 to the meeting of March 23, 1999.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a double
wide manufactured home in an RS-3 district.
SECITON 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Special Exception to waive the one year time
limit to permit a manufactured home on a permanent basis. SECTION
404.3.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located East of the Southeast corner
of North Lewis & 29th Place North
Presentation:
The applicant, Arthur Primas, submitted a site plan (Exhibit D-1) and stated that
he would like to put a 28’ x 52’ double-wide mobile home on his property.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant if he is going to remove the existing house and he replied yes but he would like 90 days to remove it.
Ms. Turnbo asked if the mobile home will
be placed on a permanent foundation, skirted and tied down. Mr. Primas replied that it would be on a
permanent foundation.
Interested
Parties:
Algerita
Brooks, stated that she represents Planning District 25. They are very concerned about the number of
manufactured homes that are being requested to be placed in their
district. Their objective is to raise
the number of homeowners in the district.
Because of that reason, the neighbors object to the placement of
manufactured homes in residential areas that are built on raised foundations.
Councilor
Roscoe Turner, District 3, stated that they are in the process of trying to
revitalize these neighborhoods. Mr.
Turner believes that manufactured homes are not going to be conducive to trying
to build these neighborhoods into viable neighborhoods. Mr. Turner asked the Board to deny this
mobile home application.
Lydia White, stated that she lives on North Garrison and she objects to
mobile homes in residential neighborhoods.
Ms. White believes that mobile homes reduce the value of property.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Primas mentioned that the foundation of the mobile home
will not be just a concrete slab. The
mobile home will look nice.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo believes that this is a neighborhood that is on the edge and the residents are trying very hard to bring their neighborhood up. Ms. Turnbo stated that she is not in favor of the application.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to DENY Special
Exception to permit a double wide manufactured home in an RS-3
district. SECITON 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Special Exception to waive the one year time limit to permit a
manufactured home on a permanent basis.
SECTION 404.3.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, on the following described property:
Lots 3 and 4, Block 7, Amos T. Hall Addition, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 5’ side yard to
2’ to permit a carport. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use
Unit 6, located 1527 S. St. Louis.
Presentation:
The applicant, Antonia Z. Saffa, 1527 S. St. Louis Ave, submitted a site plan (Exhibit
E-1) and stated that she is a first time homeowner and has recently put up a
carport without knowing that there were restrictions. Ms. Saffa went before the Tulsa Preservation Commission and they
gave her a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Interested
Parties:
Paul
Adkins, stated that he is President of Swan Lake Neighborhood
Association. They have done an informal
survey of the neighborhood and there is no opposition to the carport.
Board Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to APPROVE Variance
of the required 5’ side yard to 2’ to permit a carport. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, per plan submitted, finding the lot
size to be the hardship, on the following described property:
Lot 10, Block 4, Orcutt Addition, City of Tulsa, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow an auto
painting business (U. U. 17) abutting an R zoned district from the required
150’ to 0’. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located 1108 S. Atlanta.
Presentation:
The applicant, Chris Nikel’s Autohaus, Inc., was represented by Chris Nikel, who
submitted a site plan (F-1) and stated that they are located at 11th
and Lewis Ave., where they have had an auto body and paint facility for many
years. They wish to relocate the paint and
body shop a few hundred feet up the street.
The proposed building is 150’ x 50’ and the property line is the line of
the building. Mr. Nikel stated that
they are zoned commercial. The paint
booth is inside the building and the traffic flow comes from Lewis Place. Because of today’s environmental issues
there is much regulation of what is discharged into the air. The new paint booth will meet all of the new
environmental regulations. Mr. Nikel
asked the Board to approve his application.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant if the fumes are not vented outside, per the submitted packet (Exhibit F-2), where will they be vented. Mr. Nikel replied that the fumes go through such a purification process all that is left is hot, thermal air.
Interested
Parties:
Maria
Barnes, 2252 E. 7th Street, stated that she is the President of
the Hillcrest – Kendall-Whittier Homeowners’ Association. Ms. Barnes met with Mr. Nikel last week and
took a tour of his building. Ms. Barnes
stated that Mr. Nikel is a good neighbor and has had a meeting with the
neighbors. Ms. Barnes supports this
application.
Fran
Pace, 1326 S. Florence Avenue, stated that she lives in the Renaissance
neighborhood. Ms. Pace mentioned to the
Board that she is a member of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
but she is here speaking only as a concerned resident. Ms. Pace is against Use Unit 17 in the
area. Ms. Pace spoke with the County
Health Board and they informed her that you cannot screen out the odor. You can screen out the particulate and there
will not be any solid matter coming out but the odor is hard to screen
out. Ms. Pace stated that she has had
several calls against this use from neighbors who could not come today. Ms. Pace is against this use and urged the
Board to deny the application or put a time limit on the approval.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Nikel stated that over the past three weekends he has personally delivered letters to surrounding neighbors and spoken with them about the facility. Mr. Nikel mentioned that what odor does come out goes up into the air and is carried away by the prevailing winds. Mr. Nikel needs to expand his business and he would like to keep the expansion within walking distance so he can check on it frequently.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that they can have a
body shop by right in this area the only issue is the paint booth. Mr. Dunham does not have a problem with the
application.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow an auto
painting business (U. U. 17) abutting an R zoned district from the required
150’ to 0’. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, 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 plan submitted and per the documents describing the paint booth
submitted by the applicant, on the following described property:
Lot 2, Block 1, Boswell’s Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 62’ setback from a freeway service road to 25’. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 19 and a Variance to permit a business sign on a non-arterial street in a CS District. SECTION 1221.C. 9. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs, located 3214 S. 79th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Thomas D. Mansur, 1648 S. Boston Ave., submitted a site plan (Exhibit
G-1) and stated that he represents A. H. Patel who is the owner of the property
under application. Mr. Patel bought the
property several months ago from 31st & Memorial, L.L.C. for the
purposes of constructing a Fairfield Inn on the property. Mr. Mansur stated that this building is to
be a prototypical 3-story facility identical to the one off of 71st
Street. Mr. Mansur pointed out that
there is a drainage area that drains all of the property to the south. The City has asked that they try to maintain
the alignment of that as much as possible.
If the building is moved closer to the front of the property the swale
will have to be moved.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance of the required 62’ setback
from a freeway service road to 25’. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit
19 and a Variance to permit a
business sign on a non-arterial street in a CS District. SECTION
1221.C. 9. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
General Use Conditions for Business Signs, per plan submitted, finding the
hardship to be the location of the lot and the drainage system location, on the
following described property:
All that part of Lot 3, Interchange Center, an addition to
the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, lying in the NE/4 of Section 23,
T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the NE/c of said Section 23;
thence due W a distance of 1,206.93’; thence due S a distance of 692.34’ to a
point in the SEly right-of-way of I-44 (Skelly Drive) and the NWly boundary of
said Lot 3 and the point of beginning; thence S 41°04’30” E a distance of
240.28’; thence S 20°23’03” E a distance of 50.00’; thence S 69°36’57” W a
distance of 0.00’; thence on a curve to the left having a radius of 390.00’ a
distance of 140.84’ thence S 48°55’30 W a distance of 54.54’; thence N
41°04’30” W a distance of 261.90’ to a point in the NWly boundary of said Lot 3
(SEly right-of-way of I-44) thence N 48°55’30” E along the common boundary a
distance of 210.00’ to the point of beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of square footage requirement for a detached accessory building of 750 SF to 1,200 SF for construction of a pole barn. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6, located 503 E. 27th Court North.
Presentation:
The applicant, Darlene Hall, stated that she represents her father, James Hall,
503 E. 27th Court North, submitted a site plan (Exhibit H-1). Mr. Hall would like to construct a 30’ x 40’
pole barn to house a truck, boat, lawn mower.
Ms. Hall mentioned that right now the yard looks like a junk yard and
with the new pole barn, everything will be placed inside and it will make the
yard look nicer.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Ms. Hall if there would
be any commercial activity in the barn and Ms. Hall replied that it would only
be for her father’s items. Ms. Hall
indicated that her father’s home was remodeled last year and there is no garage
attached to the house. This building
would be utilized as a garage.
Ms. Perkins asked if the smaller storage
building will be removed. Ms. Hall
answered that her father gave her the smaller building and she is going to put
it in her backyard.
Interested
Parties:
Willie
Pearl Walton, 2806 N. Frankfort Place, stated that she has lived in this
area for 37 years. Ms. Walton mentioned
to the Board that this property has been very unkempt for years. Her concern is the property would remain
junky after the building is constructed.
Ms. Walton is opposed to the application.
Ms. Turnbo stated that the applicant
mentioned that he would be placing the junk into the building. Ms. Turnbo then asked Ms. Walton if she
would object to the building if Mr. Hall placed all of the junk inside the
building? Ms. Walton said that is sufficient.
Mr. Dunham mentioned that the Board is
in receipt of a letter from a neighbor that is in opposition to the application
(Exhibit H-2).
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if she had any photos to show
what the building will look like and Ms. Hall replied negatively.
Mr. Dunham asked if the building is pre-manufactured or will
it be constructed on-site? Ms. Hall
responded that it will be constructed on-site.
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant showed him the construction detail
of the roof support trusses. It is a
typical 4 and 12 pitch roof with a single ridge in one direction.
Mr. Beach asked the applicant if the building will be open
or enclosed? Mr. Hall stated that it
will have 26 gauge steel siding and roof and it will have a concrete floor.
Mr. Cooper feels that this is an improvement over the junk
being seen on the property.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of square footage requirement for a detached accessory
building of 750 SF to 1,200 SF for construction of a pole barn. SECTION
402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6, subject to
the building being fully enclosed; having a concrete floor and it not being
used for commercial use; finding the hardship to be that there is no garage
currently on the house, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a community center offering counseling, computer lab and tutoring for school students and adults and other community services in an RS-3 District. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 1365 E. 46th St. N.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ella M. Suttle, 1944 S. 140th St., submitted a site plan
(Exhibit I-1) and stated that her church is working with Neighbor for Neighbor. They have started a tutoring program in the
church and they would like to extend that program. The program currently has about 20 students and 11 tutors. They will also teach computer skills and
living skills for older people. They
have been doing this work already but they just don’t have a building to big
enough to house all of it in. Ms.
Suttle stated that they have received donations from area residents and
businesses that have enhanced their program.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if this will be a new building and Ms. Suttle replied yes, it will be a donated building.
Mr. Dunham asked about the site
plan. Ms. Suttle stated that the site
plan should show 14 parking spaces and the building is 3500 square feet.
Ms. Turnbo asked how many square feet in
the existing church are used for sanctuary space? Ms. Suttle replied that the use will not be in the church but on
the church property. Ms. Turnbo asked
how many parking spaces total are on the property. Ms. Suttle replied that the parking for the tutoring program will
be separate from the church parking.
Mr. Dunham asked if the tutoring program will be conducted at the same time as church services are being held and Ms. Suttle replied no, tutoring will be Monday through Friday only.
Ms. Turnbo feels that the case needs to
be continued so the applicant can submit an appropriate site plan to the Board
showing the layout of the buildings, the number of parking spaces and the
square footage of the buildings.
Interested
Parties:
Algerita
Brooks, tape was inaudible.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to permit a community
center offering counseling, computer lab and tutoring for school students and
adults and other community services in an RS-3 District. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, 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 applicant submitting an acceptable site plan and limiting the hours of operation
to 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow coverage of more than 20% of the required rear yard by a detached accessory building. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6 and a Variance of detached accessory building floor area of 750 SF to 1,100 SF. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located 2619 S. St. Louis.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jimmy
W. Harden, submitted a site plan (Exhibit J-1) and photos (Exhibit J-2) and
stated that he wants to add to his existing garage. The new addition will be compatible with the existing
architecture.
Interested
Parties:
Tape not audible.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Tape not audible.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE Variance to allow coverage of more than 20% of the required rear yard
by a detached accessory building. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6 and a Variance of detached accessory building floor area of 750 SF to
1,100 SF. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions ,
finding that the Variances meet the requirements of Section 1607.C., on the
following described property:
S/2 of Lot 3, all of Lot 4, Block 14, Terwilliger Heights,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a manufactured home in a RM-2 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Special Exception of the one year time limit to permanent. SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 1913 E. Marshall Place.
Presentation:
The applicant, Linda R. DeLaughter, was represented by Edwin McCully, 100 W. 54th
Place, Sand Springs, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit K-1) and stated that he
would like to move his mobile home to 1913 E. Marshall Place. The mobile home is a 1998, 18’ x 80’ single
wide Solitaire mobile home. The mobile
home will be placed on a permanent foundation.
Interested
Parties:
J.
W. Smith, stated that he owns a house one block south of the proposed
lot. Mr. Smith stated that the
neighborhood is run down but that is not a sign that they should put mobile
homes in the area to run it down even further.
The area has been improved some over the past few years. Mr. Smith objects to the placement of any
mobile home or manufactured home in the area.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. McCully said that the area is run down but a mobile home will not decrease property values. Mr. McCully stated that his mobile home is new and will look better than some of the houses in the area.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Perkins believes that the area is trying
to be revitalized and they do not need mobile homes in the area.
Mr. Dunham is very opposed to waiving
the one year time limit and believes that the Board should not allow it.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
DENY Special Exception to allow a manufactured home in a RM-2 zoned
district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Special Exception of the one year time limit to permanent. SECTION
404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, on the following
described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow two identification signs. SECTION 402.B.4.b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6 and Appeal the decision of an administrative official that the graphic depiction of birds is considered a sign and not artwork OR in the alternative a Variance to allow 281.5 square feet of display surface area. SECTION 402.B.4.b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located 7803 E. 101st St. S.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jacki Snider, Oakwood Graphics, submitted a site plan (Exhibit
L-2); sign plan with photos (Exhibit L-1) and stated that the subdivision
developer has designed a wonderful entry gate with the subdivision name on
it. Ms. Snider mentioned that they were
denied a permit for two reasons (1) it was in a PUD; (2) because of the way the
bird’s tail was incorporated into the wording, the entire gate was considered
to be a sign and they were over the 495’ frontage on the property. Ms. Snider believes that this is a tasteful
design and will enhance the appearance of the entrance. They were approved a permit for just birds
(no wording) on the 98th Street entrance.
Interested
Parties:
Don Walker, 9168 S. Florence Place, stated that he is the Managing Partner in the development of this subdivision. Mr. Walker mentioned that an effort has really been made to meet the standards and regulations.
Mr. Dunham asked Staff what the best relief would be? Mr. Beach responded that the Board needs to
decide whether or not this constitutes a sign so that the record is clear.
Mr. Beach stated that because of the nature of the art, it
goes along with the words Audubon Park.
Mr. Stump stated that Staff’s feeling is that because it is associated
with the product, the subdivision, which is named Audubon Park it is part of
the sign. To not call it a sign would
set a dangerous precedent. Mr. Stump
believes that the applicant may be using this symbol in their marketing as well
and Mr. Walker agreed.
Mr. Cooper asked Staff if they felt that the leaves on the
sign are artwork and the birds are part of the logo and Mr. Stump replied
affirmatively.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 2-2-0
(Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; Cooper, Dunham "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
UPHOLD the decision of an
administrative official that the graphic depiction of birds is considered a
sign and not artwork.
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE Variance to allow two identification signs as depicted on the
plan. SECTION 402.B.4.b. ACCESSORY
USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6 and a Variance to allow 281.5 square feet of
display surface area. SECTION 402.B.4.b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
Accessory Use Conditions , finding that the Variances meet the requirements
of Section 1607.C., on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the maximum display area for a wall sign from 426 SF to 493 SF. SECTION 1221.D.2. USE UNIT 21. BUSINES SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING – Use Unit 11 and a Variance of the maximum display area for a wall sign from 136 SF to 180 SF. SECTION 1221.D.2. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING – Use Unit 11, located SW/c 71st St. & Lewis.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach explained that this notice was not complete and the case needs to continued for new notice.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 18334 to
the meeting of March 23, 1999.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 60’ lot width to 50’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA EQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6 and a Variance of the required 5’ side yard to 3.8’ to allow a lot split and existing dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1410 E. 33rd St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Catherine A. Wall, submitted a site plan and support petition
(Exhibit M-1) stated that the property is located in the Oliver’s Addition
which was platted as 100’ wide lots in 1924.
The majority of the lots have been subdivided and split into 50’ wide
lots over the years. Ms. Wall mentioned
that this property has been repeatedly added onto over the years creating an
uninhabitable and unusable space on the east side of the lot. The additions will be removed thus taking
the house back to the original structure.
Once the structure is brought back to its original structure, it will
sit 3’8” from the proposed lot split line.
The new construction on the east side of the lot could accommodate 10’
between the structures. The literal
enforcement of the Code then results in an unnecessary hardship because it
prevents the reasonable use of the property consistent with all other
properties in the surrounding area. Ms.
Wall submitted a petition of support from various immediate neighbors. Ms. Wall asked the Board to approve the
application so the lot can be consistent with all others in the addition. Michelle
Falkingston, 3319 S. Yorktown, submitted house plans (Exhibit M-2) and
stated that she is representing Ms. Wall on the design development of the
property.
Interested
Parties:
Carol
Ashcraft, 1754 E. 30th Street, stated that the neighborhood is
in support of this project. It does not
impair appearance of the neighborhood.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that he had made a comment
in the Staff Report that if the Board is inclined to approve this application
that they should limit the side yard variance to the 24.5’ that makes up the
side of the existing house. He asked if that condition would hinder the new
construction project? Ms. Wall replied
that it would not be a problem.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the required 60’ lot width to 50’, finding that it is
consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA EQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6 and a Variance
of the required 5’ side yard to 3.8’ to allow a lot split and existing
dwelling, limiting it to 24.5’, the length of the existing house as depicted on
the site plan; SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, finding that it meets the requirements of Section
1607.C., per plan submitted, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback down to 20’ to permit an 80’ monopole transmission tower with necessary equipment. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 16, located E. 31st St. & Yale.
Presentation:
The applicant, Kevin Coutant, 320 S. Boston, Suite 500, submitted an information
packet (Exhibit N-1) and stated that he represents United States Cellular
Telephone Company and they request the approval of an 80’ monopole transmission
tower located west of 31st and Yale. The location is behind an existing mini-storage facility that was
built in the early 1970’s. Mr. Coutant
stated that the property is zoned CS and it is surrounded by commercial uses
and commercial zoning. There is some OL
zoning across the freeway. Mr. Coutant
mentioned that the reason for the application is for a setback from the Broken
Arrow Expressway. The equipment
necessary to run the tower will be housed in an existing part of the
mini-storage facility. The only “new”
structure will be the 80’ monopole tower.
The setback required by Code would be 25’ off of the existing
right-of-way of the Broken Arrow Expressway.
Mr. Coutant has asked for a 20’ variance of that setback. Mr. Coutant pointed out to the Board that
this is a very unique site in that it has an expressway running on one side and
an expressway exit ramp on another side.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Perkins mentioned to the rest of the Board that this is a good location for a tower.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the required setback down to 20’ to permit an 80’
monopole transmission tower with necessary equipment. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 16 per plan submitted, finding that it meets the
requirements of Section 1607.C., on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of 15’ yard abutting a non-arterial street to 5’ to permit new construction in an RS-4 District. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 535 E. Reading St. N.
Presentation:
The applicant, Tom M. Dermit, 6933 S. 66th E. Ave., submitted a site plan
(Exhibit O-1) and stated that he represents Jim Beale for Beale Company
Builders. Mr. Dermit mentioned that
they own a 50’ lot that is on a corner of Reading and Frankfort. They applied and received a building permit
to construct this plan on this lot. It
was discovered at a later date that the plan would not work because the lot was
located on the corner of two streets.
Mr. Dermit stated that there is 15’ between the curb line to the edge of
the house which won’t be restricting anything.
In order for any house to be constructed on this lot, it would need a
variance.
Interested
Parties:
Juanita Jones, 516 E. Reading, stated that her father lives on the corner lot adjacent to the lot in question. Their concern is will it affect the other corner lots that the house is no longer in line. They do not want to change their fence line.
Bernice Smith, 535 E. Queen Street, stated that all the houses on this street line up and the proposed one will not.
Elizabeth Johnson, 524 E. Seminole Place, stated that the placement of the house would throw off the balance of the street.
Ms. Turnbo stated that this will not affect the street in any manner.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Dermit mentioned that this will not be an eyesore. This is a Tulsa Development Authority lot and it will enhance the area around the house.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Stump mentioned that if this was
zoned RS-3 and was a nonconforming lot because it is 50’ wide rather than 60’
by right he could put the house 5’ from the street.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of 15’ yard abutting a non-arterial street to 5’ to permit
new construction in an RS-4 District. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use
Unit 6 per plan submitted, finding that it meets the requirements
of Section 1607.C., on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the building setback required under Section 703 of the Zoning Code to permit the branch library to be constructed approximately 70’ from the centerline of S. Lewis Ave. or 24’ from the W property line of the site according to a site and landscape plan approved by the Board. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located NE/c of S. Lewis Ave. & E. 1st St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Charles E. Norman, submitted a site plan (Exhibit P-1), building
plans (Exhibit P-2) and photos (Exhibit P-3) and stated that he represents the
Tulsa City/County Library System and they are proposing to construct the new
Kendall-Whittier library at 1st Street and Lewis Avenue. Due to an oversight by the architect he did
not realize that this site is zoned in the CS District. Mr. Norman asked the Board to approve the
Variance of the building setback for the construction of this library.
Interested
Parties:
Maria Barnes, stated that she represents the Kendall- Whittier Neighborhood and they are in support of the proposed library.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; White "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the building setback required under Section 703 of the
Zoning Code to permit the branch library to be constructed approximately 70’
from the centerline of S. Lewis Ave. or 24’ from the W property line of the
site according to a site and landscape plan approved by the Board. SECTION
703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5 , finding that it
meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:24 p.m.
Date
approved: _____________________________
_________________________________________