CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, May
22, 2001, 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
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Jackere,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, May 18, 2001, at 2:00 p.m., as well as at the City Clerks office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an outdoor flea market in a CG district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 2, located 2626 W. Skelly Dr.
Mr. Beach announced that this case was continued from a previous meeting
in order to correct a legal description.
Staff received the legal description too late and notice has been given
for the June 12, 2001 hearing.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Continuance to the meeting on June 12,
2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit under Use Unit 5, private school, athletic
facilities, buildings and fields in the OM and RM-1 zoning districts. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS and SECTION 601.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS Use Unit 5; a Variance to
permit the minimum of 700 off-street parking spaces for the 2,800 seat capacity
football, soccer and track stadium bleachers to satisfy the combined off-street
parking requirements for the football, soccer and track stadium and the existing
baseball and softball fields.
SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Requirements; and a Variance to permit a part of the off-street parking spaces
required for the football, soccer and track stadium bleachers to be located on a
lot other than the lot containing the stadium. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located E side of
S. Wheeling, N of E. 78th St.
Charles Norman stated that this case was continued to today to work out agreements with a developer of a residential project immediately north of the Victory Christian football/soccer complex. They have been unable to complete the written part of their negotiations. They jointly requested a continuance. There were no other interested parties at the prior hearings and there are none present today.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Continuance to the next meeting on June
12, 2001.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of March 27,
2001 (No. 815).
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of April 10,
2001 (No. 816).
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE the amended Minutes of
Case No.18323, March 23, 1999 2001 (No. 769).
Action
Requested:
Variance of maximum height for a
fence in front yard from 4 to 6 along E. 36th St. SECTION 212.A.2. SCREENING
WALL OR FENCE, Specifications Use Unit 6, located 3458 & 3460 S. Atlanta
Pl.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated the case was continued to today, but he has not received
a site plan, and the applicant is not present. The case would be to continue it again
or deny it without prejudice. A
fence was erected along 36th Street in violation of the height
restrictions on fences in the front yard.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Mr. Jackere advised the Board that the case is nearing the ninety-day
limit for Board action
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
the Variance of maximum
height for a fence in front yard from 4 to 6 along E. 36th St.
without prejudice.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required landscaping to substitute other plantings. SECTION 1002. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS and SECTION 1003. ADMINISTRATION Use Unit 5, located 1706 N. Madison.
Presentation:
The applicant, John Purdy, was not present. Mr. Beach reminded the Board that since
the last meeting staff has met with applicant regarding the landscaping
plan. Mr. Beach believes that the
applicant knows what the requirements are now. He suggested that the case be continued
one more time, and stated other issues that have come up also.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to Continue
Case No. 19043 to the meeting on June 12, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 19048
Action
Requested:
Variance of required number of parking spaces from 616 to 599 to permit an existing apartment complex. SECTION 1208. USE UNIT 8. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AND SIMILAR USES Use Unit 8, located 8028 S. Wheeling.
Presentation:
The applicant, Don Haslam, 502 W. 6th Street, stated he
is the attorney for the Lakes Apartments, LLC. He stated that when they were in the
process for re-financing, they received a zoning site report from the Planning
and Zoning Resource Corporation in Oklahoma City. The conclusion was that there is
not enough room on the property to re-stripe and add the extra seventeen parking
spaces. He understood that
the deficiency has been there since it was built in the early 1980s.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked if the applicant thought the lack of parking spaces was
intentional or an oversight. Mr.
Haslam felt sure it was an oversight.
Mr. Jackere asked who consulted and decided that re-striping would not
help. Mr. Haslam replied that the
Lakes Apartment LLC is owned by Case Properties and they consulted with the
on-sight manager. Mr. Jackere
suggested that the spaces might be oversized, so they have too little
information to know what is needed.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19048 to the meeting on June 26, 2001, and bring the measurements of
the parking spaces, and a plan for reconfiguration of the parking lot.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit 190 high monopole communications tower for
school and co-location with telecommunication companies. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT -- Use Unit 4, located N & W of NW/c of E.
71st St. & Mingo.
Presentation:
John Moody, 7146 S. Canton Ave., stated he represented Union
Public School and the Hemphill Corporation. He submitted the list of factors
with responses (Exhibit A-1) for a communications tower. The Union School District decided to
develop their own transmission network for telephone, computers, etc. The Hemphill Corporation in exchange for
a lease of the site for the tower will construct the towers at no cost to the
school district. The towers will be
engineered for collocation of other companies. This will be a substantial economic
benefit to the Union Schools. The
height of the proposed tower is 190 monopole to serve the Union School and
Sprint PCS needs for collocation.
The tower would be more than 250 from the nearest adjoining R district
and structures. The nearest
existing tower to the south of Sams is not available or adequate for
collocation. The surrounding uses
are ball fields, parking and heavy retail commercial uses. The topography is level, with the only
treed areas on the northwest corner of the subject tract. There will be two antennas initially
with capacity for four more antennas.
The utility buildings would be designed in such a way that they will not
be visible behind the planned landscape screening. Ingress and egress would be provided
through mutual access easement already in place. The tower is needed to provide service
to Union High School and to fill a coverage gap for Sprint PCS. The site is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and the most likely future development of the area. The tower would be secured by a
six-foot chain link security fence, one-foot barbed wire on top and Duraslat
fiberglass fillerstrips, and screened by landscaping.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked if there would be a need for more towers. Mr. Moody indicated there might be a
need for another tower to communicate with the system, and one other tower has
been approved. Mr. Moody
introduced Lee Snodgrass with Union Public Schools. Mr. Snodgrass stated that each
school has antennas on the roof for the present system. They are currently considering a
redundant system with a tower at the sixth grade center, but he does not
anticipate any of the other schools requiring a tower at this time. Mr. Cooper asked if the applicant
had a map to show the Sprint PCS coverage and gap in the area. Mr. Moody did not have the radio
frequency map. Mr. Moody stated
that they did hold meetings with the neighborhood residents to discuss any
concerns. Mr. Cooper expressed
concern that the tower is site specific and if they had a need for another
tower, it is possible that it might not be approved.
A site plan and letters from the school and Sprint were submitted to the
Board (Exhibit A-2, A-3, and A-4).
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to permit 190 high
monopole communications tower for school and co-location with telecommunication
companies, per plan submitted and finding that all the required factors would be
met, on the following described property:
N 400 of the
SE/4 SE/4 all in Section 1, T-18-N, R-13-E, IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of lot area from 9,000 sq.
ft. to 8,867.03 and 8,853.97 sq. ft.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6; a Variance of land area
per dwelling unit from 10,875 to 10,635.22 and 10,835.78 sq. ft. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance of required 75 lot width to 714 to
permit a lot split in an RS-2 district.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 2420 S. Owasso
Pl.
Presentation:
Pat Fox, 320 S. Boston, Ste. 1710 withdrew the request for
variance of lot width. They
desire to obtain a lot-split. There
has been a historical precedence for this type of lot-split in the
neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White noted that the lot
width was reduced on the northerly lot and the balance was on the southerly
lot. Mr. Dunham noted that the case
had been advertised incorrectly.
The case could not be heard for this reason.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of
Turnbo, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19074 to the meeting on June 26, 2001 to allow time to
re-advertise.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the allowable size of
an accessory building from 750 sq. ft. to 2,064 sq. ft. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions -- Use Unit 6, located 7725 E.
25th Pl.
Presentation:
David Boley, 7725 E. 25th Pl., stated that he proposed
to build an accessory building but needs relief because it exceeds the 40% of
the principle residence. The permit
office could not determine the square footage of his house, but he stated it is
2,562 square feet. He has a 264
square foot pool house, and 317 square foot garage. He plans to tear down the garage if the
variance is approved. The building
is for a workshop, to store a boat, utility trailer, lawn and garden equipment,
and wood working tools. He added
that his property is one and a fourth acre. He submitted a packet with an
architectural drawing, photographs and other items (Exhibit B-1, B-2). He stated it would meet zoning code
requirements.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked about the stairs.
Mr. Boley replied the stairs are to a four-foot area for storage of
furniture and boxes. Mr. Dunham
noted that the plat of survey indicates the frame garage will be removed and
asked if any other building would be removed. Mr. Boley responded that he didnt plan
to remove any more buildings. Mr.
Beach informed the Board that the applicant has not asked for enough
relief. The carport was not
figured into the square footage when the application was made. Mr. White informed Mr. Boley that he
could reduce the square footage for which he requests relief or ask for a
continuance to advertise for more relief.
Interested
Parties:
Charles M. Madden,
7705 E. 25th Pl., stated he is opposed to the application because the
property would have two structures the size of a home and it would detract from
the neighborhood. He felt that it
would set a precedent for more structures and decrease the value of the homes in
the neighborhood.
Robert
Peters,
15 E. 5th St., stated that he was representing several interested
homeowners in the Johanson Acres.
He submitted a petition of opposition (Exhibit B-3) to the application,
containing approximately 60 signatures from 30 homeowners in the area. They believe it will have a
negative impact and not be in harmony with the aesthetics in the
neighborhood. They believe any
hardship would be self-imposed.
Kurt Minnick,
7748 E. 24th, stated his backyard is adjacent to Mr. Boleys
backyard. He stated the new
building would be very visible to the neighbors.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked if the neighbors opposed the large metal barn that is
located to the east of the subject property. Mr. Minnick replied that he had taken
measures to communicate opposition to that structure also. Mr. Beach reminded Mr. Minnick to
contact Neighborhood Inspections if he feels there are code violations.
Interested
Parties:
Keith Conduff,
7735 E. 25th Pl., stated that the barn they are referring to is his
and it was built with a building permit.
He added that it is 750 square feet and complies with the Code.
Randy
McCollum,
7724 S. Canton, asked if it would have plumbing and sewage facilities. Mr. White responded that there are no
plans for plumbing or sewage.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Boley,
stated that the building would look like his residence and he does not want his
property to decrease in value. He
pointed out that though he has a chain-link fence, there are trees and
considerable vegetation that screen his yard.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper noted if this structure were an addition to his house it would be
permitted by right.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance of the allowable size of an
accessory building from 750 sq. ft. to 2,064 sq. ft., finding a lack of a
hardship.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a private gun club (Use Unit 2) and an indoor recreational facility (Use Unit 19) in an IL zoned district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 2/19; and a Special Exception for approval of an amended site plan (BOA 13755), located 5849 S. Garnett Rd.
Presentation:
V.M. Piland, 1660 E. 71st St., stated he is the
architect for the owner. They
propose to expand the size of the firing range.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked if this would include the repair of guns. Mr. Piland replied that it would include
everything as before the application.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception to allow a private gun
club (Use Unit 2) and an indoor recreational facility (Use Unit 19) in an IL
zoned district; Special Exception for approval of an amended site
plan, per plan submitted today, finding that it will be in harmony with the
spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
Lots 1 and 2,
Block 2, 6000 Garnett Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard of
30 down to 24 in an RS-2 district.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6; a Variance to allow
three dwellings on one lot of record.
SECTION 207. ONE
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF RECORD; and a Special Exception to allow a
mobile home in an RS-2 zoned district.
SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1201 S. 119th E.
Ave.
Presentation:
William Webb, 1201 S. 119th E. Ave., stated that the
existing residence has an entrance on the north side, and the address is from
119th on the west. The
City of Tulsa plans to reconstruct the drainage on the north side of his
house. He proposes to construct a
covered entry and a two-car garage on the west side of his house. He moved a mobile home on the property
in 1987.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked about the one story stone and frame dwelling, if it was another home between the existing home and mobile home. Mr. Webb replied that the small house was originally the second story of the big house before it was moved from another location. He added that it was roofed as a separate dwelling.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance of required front yard of 30
down to 24 in an RS-2 district, per plan submitted today, finding the existing
home and the City will be making drainage improvements on the north, causing
owner to relocate the direction he enters his garage.
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance to allow three dwellings on one lot
of record, finding it would cause substantial detriment to the public good or
impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive
Plan.
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Special Exception to allow a mobile home in
an RS-2 zoned district, finding that it would not be in harmony with the spirit
and intent of the Code, and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
A tract of land
Beg. 355 W and 845.68 S of the NE/c NE/4 NW/4 thence W 280; thence S 100;
thence E 280; thence N 100 to a POB, Section 8, T-19-N, R-14-E of the IBM,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required side yard
setback from centerline of Norfolk from 45 to 30 to construct a carport on the
existing dwelling. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance to allow a detached accessory building
in the front yard. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1103 E. 35th
Pl.
Presentation:
Jeff Kraemaer, 1103 E. 35th Pl., proposes to put in a
two-car detached, aluminum carport in the front yard.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham noted a former one-car attached garage on the house.
Interested
Parties:
David Paddock,
1101 E. 34th St., with Brookside Neighborhood Association, stated
they do not have an objection to the side yard setback. They do object to an accessory building
in the front yard.
Gabrielle W.
Jones,
1123 E. 36th St., stated she was not clear about the Code. She wanted clarification that a
detached carport is called an accessory building and requires a variance. She also questioned a single driveway
and a two-car carport. Ms. Turnbo
responded that he has to have all-weather surface to park his
car.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance of the required side yard
setback from centerline of Norfolk from 45 to 30 to construct a carport on the
existing dwelling, finding the size of the lot to prevent putting carport in
another place; and to APPROVE a Variance to
allow a detached accessory building in the front yard, for an open carport only
and not to waive the all-weather surface under carport, on the following
described property:
W 62½ of S/2 Lot 1, Block 2, Amended Plat of Peoria Gardens Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to allow an office (Use Unit 11) in an RM-2 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 11; and a Variance of the required rear and side setbacks
from 10 to 51 (on all). SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located W of NW/c E. 21st St. & S.
Boston.
Presentation:
John Walton, 1546 Swan Drive, stated
he is the architect on the project.
They proposed to build a two-story office building on the rear of the
property. Paul Corey wants to
preserve the Leonard-Chase-Ritz house. They propose to preserve the brick
and woodwork of the front faηade of that house for the front faηade of the new
office building.
Interested Parties:
Robert Collins, 6708 S. 67th
E. Ave., stated he owns the property to the east and north of the subject
property, and he has no objection to the application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper noted the staff comments mentioned the landscape
requirements. Mr. Beach pointed out
that the site plan did not meet the landscape requirements. Ms. Turnbo asked about the required
parking spaces. Mr. Walton replied
the requirement is for ten spaces, one handicapped space. Mr. Cooper asked for the hardship. Mr. Walton responded that preserving the
front faηade for historic preservation.
Mr. Dunham added the small size of the tract and the surrounding uses are
not residential.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to allow an
office (Use Unit 11) in an RM-2 zoned district; and a Variance of the required
rear and side setbacks from 10 to 51 (on all), per conceptual site plan, that
all landscape requirements be met, finding the hardship to be the size of the
lot and the adjoining properties are not being used for residential purposes, on
the following described property:
West 62 Lot 23
and 26, Block 1, Boston Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception for a Use Unit 4 utility facilities in an OL zoned district. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 4, and a Variance of one-story height limit in an OL zoned
district to two-story for enlargement of existing building. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE
DISTRICTS, located 5303 E.
71st St. S.
Presentation:
Barbara Larson, 5929 N. Main, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, stated she is an architect representing Southwestern Bell. They propose to expand the existing
southern most building up one story for switching equipment.
Interested Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception for a Use
Unit 4 utility facilities in an OL zoned district; and a
Variance of one-story height limit in an OL zoned district to
two-story for enlargement of existing building, on condition that the relief is
only for the southern most building, finding the hardship to be the size of the
lot, per plan, on the following described property:
Beg. at the SW/c SE/4 SW/4 Section 3, T-18-N, R-13-E, thence N 00Ί0034 E a distance of 1,321.04; thence S 89Ί5027E a distance of 329.98; thence S 00Ί0043 W a distance of 1,321.12 to a point on the S line of Section 3; thence N 89Ί4938 W a distance of 329.93 to the POB, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
3 requirement from property line for an accessory building down to 17. SECTION 402.B.1.c. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions --- Use Unit 6, located 1711 W.
Cameron St.
Presentation:
Frances Walker, 1711 W. Cameron St.,
stated that she needs the variance down to 19. They built a storage building that is
less than 100 square feet in size.
The existing garage needs to be torn down and replaced. The hardship is that they cannot
build it toward the back because of power lines within 10.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. White asked if they use the alley to access the garage. Ms. Walker replied that the garage is
too small for a vehicle and they park in the driveway. Mr. White asked if the
storage building is on blocks. Ms.
Walker replied that it is on blocks.
Interested Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Variance of 3
requirement from property line for an accessory building down to 19, finding
the hardship to be the size of the lot and that it is consistent with the
neighborhood, on the following described property:
Lot 10, Block 16,
Irving Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit 300 high monopole communication tower for
Union Public Schools and co-location for other communication companies. SECTION 1204.C.3.g.1. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES, Use Conditions; and a Special Exception to permit 300 tower within
25 of adjoining residential lot.
SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 600 E of SE/c E. 62nd
St. & 101st E. Ave.
Presentation:
John Moody, stated he is an
attorney and represented Union Public Schools and Hemphill Public Schools. They propose to place a 300 monopole
behind the 6th and 7th grade center as the primary
redundant backup system for the Union Schools microwave system. It would be engineered for
collocation. The school system owns
the subject property including a residential adjoining lot and the lot to the
south. The tower would be located
358 from the nearest residential lot not owned by the Union school system. Responses to factors to be
considered, site plan, and a letter (Exhibits G-1, G-2, and G-3) from Union
Public School were submitted.
White out at 3:16 p.m.
Mr. Moody submitted a response to the factors to be considered that
include the following information in addition to the above: There is no existing tower in the
immediate vicinity that can serve the needs of the school.
White returned 3:18 p.m.
The surrounding uses consist of schools, ball fields, parking commercial
and scattered residential lots on septic tank systems. The surrounding topography is level and
does not present any impediments to use for a communication tower. Five trees will be removed. Fifteen microwave dishes will be
initially installed leaving a capacity for six more antennas. The architectural design of the utility
buildings is such that they will not be visible behind the planned landscape
screening. Access will be provided
from E. 62nd Pl. The
tower is needed to service Union High School and to fill a coverage gap in order
to provide acceptable service in the area.
The location is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, most likely
future development, planned infrastructure, topography and the physical facts of
the area. The tower will be secured
by a six-foot high chain link security fence, with one-foot barbed wire on top
and will have Duraslat fiberglass fillerstrips. Landscaping will screen the security
fence and tower location.
John Hemphill, 3515 Dawson Road, with
Hemphill Corporation, stated that the plans are for the Union School needs with
the capacity for a minimum of six collocations.
Comments and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked what plans the school has for the residential property they own. Mr. Snodgrass with the Union Public Schools replied they have no short-range plans but they have considered moving the education service center to that location for administrative offices. She asked if they plan to sell any of residentially zoned property. Mr. Snodgrass replied that they do not plan to sell any of it.
Interested Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to permit
300 high monopole communication tower for Union Public Schools and co-location
for other communication companies, noting the applicants list of responses to
the factors to be considered was amended by hand on item #5, and on item #12
they will provide for another six antennas; and a Special
Exception to permit 300 tower within 25 of adjoining residential lot,
finding that it will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, on
condition that none of the residentially zoned property owned by Union Schools
will be developed for residential purposes, and finding that it will be in
harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following
described property:
Lots 1, 2, 7 and 8, Block 5, Union Gardens Subdivision, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a 1320 sq. ft.
accessory building for RV storage.
SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use
Conditions -- Use Unit 6, located 7727 E. 105th St.
Presentation:
Timothy Durham, 7727 E.
105th St., stated he has owned the property since 1998. He stated that the accessory building
would not cover more than 20% of the rear yard, located 6 from lot lines. He added that it is too high to
park in the garage. He described
the area as having a rural look, the property is at the top of a hill with very
little traffic. The building he
proposes to build will be aluminum siding with brick like his home, screened by
professional landscaping. He has
discussed this project with his neighbors and found none of them objected. Mr. Durham pointed out that because of
the layout of the property there is no other practical place to park the RV, and
the lot size is large enough for this accessory building. Conceptual site plan (Exhibit H-1)
submitted to the Board.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. White asked if there would be any commercial activities. Mr. Durham replied that there would not
be any commercial activities, and added that he would park a car, trailer and an
RV in the new building. Mr.
Durham also mentioned that it would have a low-pitch roof and guttering.
Interested Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Durham, the Board voted 3-2-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; Perkins, Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Variance to
allow a 1320 sq. ft. accessory building for RV storage. SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions -- Use Unit 6, located 7727 E.
105th St., per conceptual plan, with conditions for brick on front of
building, no commercial activity, compliance to all City Zoning Codes, and
existing storage building be removed, finding the lot to be large enough for a
building of this size, and that it will be in harmony with the spirit and intent
of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
Lot 6, Block 4,
Bridle Trail Estates, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr. Cooper stated he would abstain from Case No.
19084.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to permit a 10 fence on a side or rear property line. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards -- Use Unit 6, located 2407 E. 26th
Pl.
Presentation:
John-Kelly Warren, 2407 E. 26th
Pl., stated he and his wife own this property. He described the proposed fence as
native stone, 10 in height and 40 wide.
The area is heavily wooded, with Crow Creek on the south and a ravine on
the north along 26th St.
It would not be clearly visible
from 26th St. or 26th Pl. and would not be a
negative impact on the neighborhood.
He discussed plans with neighbors and they had no objections. A site plan and letter of support
(Exhibits I-1, and I-2) were submitted to the Board. Mr. Warren described the topography as
having a five-foot plus elevation change from the base of the fence to the
finished floor elevation of his house.
Interested Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-1
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper "abstained"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to permit a
10 fence on a side or rear property line, per plan submitted at the hearing,
and the 10 height to apply only to the area west of the pool, and wood fence on
either side to the masonry fence be limited to 8 in height, finding that it
will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on
the following described property:
W/2 Lot 7 and
beg. 93.8 W of NE/c Lot 7, thence W 80 S 141.10 E 78 N 134.35 to POB and
part of Lot 8 beg. at SE/c Lot 8, thence N 367.70 W 38.66 S 371.12 curve left
25.15 to POB, Block 1, Woody-Crest Subdivision, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 19085
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to operate a tire shop in CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 17; and a Variance to permit open-air storage or display
of merchandise offered for sale within 300 of an R district. SECTION 1217.C.2. USE UNIT 17. AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, Use
Conditions, located 1823 & 1831 N. Lewis Ave.
Presentation:
Carol Cherry stated she was one of
the partners involved in tenant, and she brought the property owner. She stated that they do not need any
open-air storage, the buildings are plenty large enough for storage. She informed the Board there is an
eight-foot fence on all sides, with a gate on Lewis and one on Virgin. There are plenty of parking spaces on
the property and plenty of trees for screening. Currently the property is vacant
and is an eyesore, but it is well suited for the proposed business.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if there would be no storage of merchandise
outside. She replied there would be
no outside storage. She stated that
tires would be changed outside in the bay areas.
Cooper out at 3:52.
Ms. Cherry mentioned that
a trailer would be put inside the building for old tires to be removed
nightly.
James Beasley, 1831 N. Lewis Pl.,
stated he is opposed to the application.
He was concerned that the property is already an eyesore, they have
problems with traffic and speeders, and they have five other tire stores in the
area. He also did not want
the added noise of air guns, and late hours of operation. He stated there are houses just the
other side of the six foot fence, which has been scaled for burglaries in the
past. Mr. White informed him that
only a six-foot fence is required by the zoning code. He indicated the gas tanks might
still be in the ground on the subject property. He complained that an eight-foot fence
on the corner of Tecumseh and Lewis Ave. would block the view of
traffic
Larry Beasley, 1910 N. Lewis Pl., was
in agreement with the previously stated objections. He was concerned about security and
objected to the sight of that type of work at that location.
Leon McCord, 7321 S. Yale, Condo
120, stated he is with Core Painting and Remodeling. He spoke in support of the
application as a good service for the community. He stated since he has been cleaning the
property up, that people stopped dumping things there.
Dunham out
at 4:02 p.m.
Grace Martin, 6217 E. King St.,
stated that she and her husband own the subject property. She added that they helped a previous
tenant to get relief for a flea market. They did not keep the condition
for their relief.
Dunham returned at 4:05
p.m.
Applicants Rebuttal:
The only opposition was the previous tenant who did not comply with the
zoning code. Mr. Cooper asked about
the hours of operation. Ms. Cherry
responded that hours of operation would be 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days
per week. Ms. Cherry stated
they did not have plans for open-air storage and withdrew the request for the
variance. Mr. Cooper asked if they
would use power tools to remove lug nuts.
Ms. Cherry replied that they would be using power tools. She acknowledged that it would be noisy
but that the property was large and the two neighbors behind and next door do
not object to the application.
Ms. Perkins questioned Ms. Cherry about the service being done inside a
building. Ms. Cherry responded that
it would limit the number of tires they could store.
Interested Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 5-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to DENY a Special
Exception to operate a tire shop
in CS zoned district, finding that it would not be in harmony with the spirit
and intent of the Code, and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare; and the Board acknowledged that the Variance
was withdrawn by the applicant.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 100 monopole tower in property zoned
AG. SECTION 1204.C. USE UNIT
4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES, Use Conditions; and a Special Exception for a monopole tower to be
within 110 of an adjoining lot line of an AG zoned lot. SECTION 1204.C. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES, Use Conditions, located S of W. 61st St. & E of
US-75.
Presentation:
Kevin Coutant, 320 S. Boston,
presented the case for U.S. Cellular for a 100 monopole tower. Mr. Coutant submitted the response to
the list of 12 factors (Exhibit J-1) to consider. The responses included: the tower
would be located in an area with no residential structures nearby, no R district
in area and no existing towers. The
surrounding uses are undeveloped land zoned AG on the north, east, south and
west. U.S. Highway 75 is on the
west. The topography of the land is
sloping, and partially treed. There
would be three antennas and capacity for two similar antenna facilities. There would be a 12 X 20
building with an aggregate rock exterior at the base of the tower. Access would be by a 25 access and
utility easement running north from the site to W. 61st St. The tower
is necessary to provide coverage in this area of town so as to avoid
unavailability of service. The
tract is approximately 2,500 square feet on 1.25acres. Landscaping would be provided as per the
zoning code requirements. The
applicant submitted a site plan and an exhibit packet (Exhibits J-2 and
J-3).
Interested Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to
construct a 100 monopole tower in property zoned AG; and a Special
Exception for a monopole tower to be within 110 of an adjoining lot
line of an AG zoned lot, with the conditions as per the response to the twelve
factors to be considered, per plan, finding that it will be in harmony with the
spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
A parcel of land described as follows: commencing at the NE/c NW/4 of Section 2, T-18-N, R-12-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, thence N 89Ί5209 W, a distance of 561.49 along N line of said Section 2 to the POB; thence S 01Ί0951 W, a distance of 239.39; thence N 89Ί5209 W, a distance of 230.00; thence N 01Ί0951 E, a distance of 239.39; thence S 89Ί5209 E, a distance of 230.00 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 19088
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for a public park and improvements to the park to
include trails, playgrounds, parking lot, restrooms, and lighting. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT -- Use Unit 2, located SE of W. 23rd St. &
Jackson.
Presentation:
Randy Nicholson, 1710 Charles Page
Boulevard, with the City of Tulsa Parks and Recreation Department stated they
propose to build a skate park in an old public park south of the 23rd
St. Bridge. He described the 60 X
60 steel structure on a concrete foundation. A sports lighting system would be
installed by provision of a private donor.
The park hours are from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Comments and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked if he would come back with the site plan, showing the lighting system. He replied that he would, but the department wanted to get Board approval before they went any further with plans.
Interested Parties:
Frank Keith, 3903 Riverside Dr.,
stated he has been the levy commissioner for the last twenty years. He stated that the project would be in a
flood control area. He contended
that the park consisted only of a trail and did not crowd the levy. He was concerned that this would cause
damage to the levy and was a danger to the public.
Ray McCollum, 7724 S. Canton, state
he is the vice-president of the Dawson Neighborhood Association. He came in support of the
application. He indicated this was
a healthier activity for the young people than drugs and crime. He was in favor of this site for such a
park.
Bonnie Henke, 3449 s. Atlanta Pl,
Mark Sweeny, and David Holloway, 3503 S. Yorktown all
spoke in favor of the application for similar reasons as above.
Applicants Rebuttal:
Mr. Nicholson recognized that the technicalities would need to be worked
out. The integrity of the levy and
any future needs to repair will have to be considered when they prepare and
approve the plans.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception for a public park and improvements to the park to include trails, playgrounds, parking lot, restrooms, and lighting, finding that it will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described property:
SE/4 of NE/4 of Section 14, T-19-N, R-12-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being
no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Date approved:______________________
__________________________________
Chair
TOP OF PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS HOME