CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, April 13, 1999, 1:00 p.m.
Francis F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza Level of City Hall
Tulsa Civic Center
|
MEMBERS PRESENT |
MEMBERS ABSENT |
STAFF PRESENT |
OTHERS PRESENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooper |
|
Arnold |
Ballentine, NBH Insp. |
|
Dunham, Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Parnell, NBH Insp. |
|
Turnbo, Secretary |
|
Stump |
Prather, Legal |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
White, Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Wednesday, April 7, 1999, at 10:40 a.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m.
MINUTES:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-1
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", White
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of March 9, 1999 (No. 768).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Minor Variance to reduce the minimum 10’
side yard in an RM-2 district to 5’ to permit the construction of single family
homes. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS
IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 61st St.
& S. Madison Pl.
Presentation:
The applicant, James H. Beale, was not present.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that the Board granted the
same relief on an adjacent property a month or two ago and these lots were
inadvertently excluded from the previous application.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Cooper,
Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", Dunham "abstentions”;
no "absent") to APPROVE
Minor Variance to reduce the minimum
10’ side yard in an RM-2 district to 5’ to permit the construction of single
family homes, finding that the Variance meet the requirements of Section
1607.C., SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, on the following
described property:
Lots 13-16, Block 7, Towne Park Addition, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Site plan review, located 1365 E. 46th
Street North.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ella M. Suttle, 1944 South 140th E. Ave., Tulsa, OK
74108, submitted a site plan (Exhibit A-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that they approved the use on this property on March 9 and the only thing that was outstanding was a site plan review.
Board Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE a Site plan submitted, on the following described
property:
The W/2 of the SE/4
of the SW of the SW/4 of Section 7, T-20-N, R-13-E of the IBM, east of N.
Cincinnati Ave. and north of 30th St. N., City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to waive the screening
requirement along the north property line abutting a residential district. SECTION
212.C.4. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE,
Modification of the Screening Wall or Fence Requirement – Use Unit 17,
located 7901 E. 21st St. S.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ralph Gray, was represented by Robert Gardner, 4211 E. 80th Place, Tulsa, OK 74136, stated that the application was approved as to use at the previous hearing and the only item remaining was the relocation of the screening fence. Mr. Gardner submitted a photograph of the fence (Exhibit B-1). The easternmost corner of the fence is 69” and they would like to be able to continue the height of the fence. On the west side of the building the fence is 6’ and above. The top of the existing fence is almost to the roof eaves of the apartment complex behind it.
Interested Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special
Exception to waive the screening requirement along the north property line
abutting a residential 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
212.C.4. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE,
Modification of the Screening Wall or Fence Requirement – Use Unit 17 on
the following described property:
The E 125’ of the W 155’ of the N 115’ of the S 165’ of the
SW/4 of the SE/4 of the SE/4 of the SE/4 of Section 11, T-19-N, R-13-E of the
IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a
manufactured home in an AG district. SECTION
301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 9, located NW of 31st St. N.
& 41st W. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Stephanie Underhill, 4701 W. 31st St. N., submitted a
site plan (Exhibit C-1) and stated that she would like to move a mobile home
onto her property that has been part of her family for many years.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White read a letter submitted by Councilor Joe Williams, District 1 and Councilor Roscoe Turner, District 3. The letter basically states that they are in opposition to any manufactured homes in both districts. They oppose the manufactured homes in all cases.
Ms. Turnbo stated that this is a very remote area and is not in a neighborhood.
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 APPROVE Special
Exception to permit a manufactured home in an AG 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 301. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 9, per plan submitted, on
the following described property:
Section 20; T-20-N, R-12-E, W/2 NE SW NE, N/2 SW SW NE W/2
SE SW NE less .47 acres for street, Osage County, State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
Variance to place business sign on lot
other than lot of record on which business is located. SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT
21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs; SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CS District Use
Conditions for Business Signs; SECTION 1221.C.
USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CG, CH, CBD, IL, IM and IH Use Conditions for Business
Signs; and SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT
21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, Use Conditions for Outdoor Advertising Signs, located NE/c E.
91st St. & S. 101st E. Ave.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that he
believes that Mr. Moody may have resolved the issue for the requested sign
permit. They will withdraw the
application when they have received the permit. Mr. Beach believes that Mr. Moody is still going through
process. Mr. Beach suggested continuing
the case and he will get in touch with Mr. Moody before the next meeting.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins,
White "aye"; no "nays", Turnbo "abstentions”; no
"absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 18359 to the meeting of April 27, 1999.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Variance of the required rear yard
setback from 20’ to 16’ for construction of a new room. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 9749 E. 5th Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, Karen Felkner, 9749 E. 5th Street, was represented by
Jim Lewis who submitted a site plan (Exhibit D-1) and stated that they had
measured their setback wrong and asked for the wrong relief at the last
meeting. The case was continued and
renoticed for the proper setback of 16’.
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 Minor
Variance of the required rear yard setback from 20’ to 16’ for construction
of a new room, finding that the Variance meet the requirements of Section
1607.C., SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6 on the following
described property:
Lot 25, Block 12, Amended Rosewood Addition, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW APPLICATIONS
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a temporary
tent for produce sales during the months of April, May, June and July and from
Thanksgiving through Christmas for five years.
SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located 11102 E. 21st St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Richard L. Jones, 11944 E. 15th Street, Tulsa, OK 74128,
submitted a site plan (Exhibit E-1) and stated that he has been operating on
the property for eight years.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White suggested limiting the days of operation to 179 days per year.
Interested Parties:
None.
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 APPROVE Special Exception
to permit a temporary tent for produce sales during the months of April, May,
June and July and from Thanksgiving through Christmas for five years, 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 2,
not to exceed 179 days per year for five years, starting in 1999, on the
following described property:
Beg. NW/c of Lot 3, Block 1, Amended Plat of Garnett Acres,
thence E 80’: thence S 250’ thence W 80’ thence N 250’ tot he POB, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of livability space from 7,000
SF to 6,700 SF. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDNETIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; a Variance of the
required front yard from 35’ to 24’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; a
Variance of the required rear yard from 25’ to 24’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and a Special Exception to permit a 6’ fence in the
required front yard. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards, located SE/c
E. 30th St. & 30th Street.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that
the applicant requested the continuance and it was made in a timely
manner.
Mr. White stated that the actual address
is 1780 E. 30th Street.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 18365 to
the meeting of April 27, 1999.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of allowable height for structure from 35’ to 37’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 3030 S. Madison.
Presentation:
The applicant, Brian L. Freese, 5319 S. Lewis, Ste. 211, Tulsa, OK, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit F-1) and stated that the home is in a neighborhood that was
constructed in the 1940’s. The house is
two stories and they would like to add two bedrooms to the existing two
bedrooms to bring it up to the standard of the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Freese would like to continue the
existing roof pitch to cover the proposed addition to the house.
Interested
Parties:
None.
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
APPROVE a Variance of allowable height for
structure from 35’ to 37’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6 finding the hardship being that the
home was constructed in the 1940’s and they are keeping the pitch and the
integrity of the architecture, on the following described property:
Lot 6 and that portion of Lot 7, more particularly described
as follows: commencing at a point on
the NE/c of said Lot, thence along the Nly lot line of said Lot in a NWly
direction a distance of 176.03’ to the NW/c of said Lot, thence S along the W
line of said Lot a distance of 55.6’ thence in a SEly direction in a straight line
to a point on the SE/c of said lot line thence NEly along the E line of said
Lot to point of beginning, all in Block 1, of the amended plat of Adams and
Reddin Resubdivision of Block 2 and 3, Southmoor Addition to the City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit Use Unit 14 uses in an IL district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 14, located NW/c 51st St. S. & 101st E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Samuel J. Smith, 11106 S. Sandusky Ave, Tulsa, OK 74137, submitted
a site plan (Exhibit G-1) and stated that they are asking for Use Unit 14 in an
IL District. They are building an
office/warehouse type configuration.
Ms. Smith stated that they have a prospective tenant who’s business is
wholesale tile with minor retail. The
area that the building is in has the same type of tenant up and down the
street.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant to explain the type of materials to be sold. Mr. Smith replied that they would like retail building material establishments that would cover tile and carpet. Paint stores and interior decorating would also be suitable.
Mr. Dunham stated that the use is in
accordance with other types of uses in the area.
Ms. Turnbo
asked the applicant if he had a concern with a condition that it be limited to
a home furnishing establishment? Mr.
Smith replied that they would like to be able to rent to as wide a spectrum as
possible. They would like to be
approved for all types of building wholesale such as paint stores, building
materials, decorating items.
Mr. White asked Staff to address their Staff Comments. Mr. Beach stated that there are certain commercial uses that are put into Use Unit 14 that really have an industrial character about them such as building materials, etc. Mr. Beach spoke with Dane Matthews, who is heavily involved in the Comprehensive Planning in the INCOG office, and she noted that this area has not developed in the way that the Comprehensive Plan anticipated and they are considering looking at this area again to include allowing some commercial uses because that is how the area is growing.
Mr. Dunham stated that he has no problem
with this use in this area. Mr. White
mentioned that he does not have a problem with it but he is worried about the
scope of the permitted uses under Use Unit 14.
Mr. Beach suggested that the Board limit the approval to certain types
Use Unit 14 uses.
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant if he
would approve of limiting the use to home furnishings establishment, paint
store, and the retail building material.
Mr. Smith replied that interior decorating would also be appropriate as
would a wall paper store. Mr. Smith
also suggested office and business machine such as a Kinko’s and a garden
supply store. Mr. Smith stated that
they are not trying to put in a gas station or clothing retail mainly
building/construction oriented.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception to permit Use Unit 14 uses 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 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 14
subject to the following uses being permitted: (1) Office and Business machine
sales; (2) Garden supply store; (3) Hardware store; (4) Home Furnishing with
the uses listed in the Zoning Code; (5) Office Furnishing Establishment; (6)
Office machine sales; (7) Office supply stores; (8) Paint store; (9) Wallpaper
store; (10) Retail Building Establishments with the uses listed in the Zoning
Code; (11) Interior Decorating with retail sales; (12) Locksmith and all other
Use Unit 14 uses being excluded, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a tent and outdoor special events in an RS-3 zoned district for four periods in 1999 as follows: April 30 – May 1; June 26 – 27; August 20-August 21; September 24 – September 25. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located 2210 S. Main.
Presentation:
The applicant, Carol Swarthout, was represented by Wendy Thomas, 2016 E. 17th
Place, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit H-1). Ms. Thomas stated that she is appearing on behalf of the Tulsa Arts
and Humanities Council. Ms. Thomas
mentioned that she was before the Board last year and was approved for two
events and they are asking to be approved for four events this year. They have arranged for parking in the Adkar
Shrine Temple and the Junior Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Thomas spent a lot of time with the neighbors last year and
their main concern was parking problems.
The Arts and Humanities Council provided them with private parking signs
and they were successful. After the
events last year, they received no complaints.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow a tent and
outdoor special events in an RS-3 zoned district for four periods in 1999 as
follows: April 30 – May 1; June 26 –
27; August 20-August 21; September 24 – September 25, 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 2 on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Special Exception of front yard requirement of 25’ to 21’ for the construction of a new house. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located E of the SE/c E. 83rd St. & S. 65th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Bruce
Berman, 9619 S. 68th E. Ave., submitted a site plan (Exhibit
I-1) and stated that he and his wife have developed a plan for a house which is
a one story plan. They discovered that
instead of the 11’ easement shown on the plat there is a 21’ easement. Mr. Berman stated that they had an architect
lay out a plan for them that was 3,200 SF, one story plan with glass across the
back with a view of the pool. The pool
was going to be 18’ x 36’. With the 21’
easement instead of the 11’ easement they would not be able to put the pool
in. The entire house was designed to
showcase the pool. Mr. Berman asked the
Board to approve the request and allow him to have a 21’ setback so he can
build a 13’ pool width.
Lindsay
Perkins, 4735 S. Atlanta
Place, stated that he is the developer of Crescent subdivision at 81st
and Sheridan. Lindsay Perkins mentioned
to the Board that there was a Scrivener’s error on the plat. The easement should be 21’ and not 11’. Lindsay Perkins has spoken with the owners
of Lots 1, 2 and 4 and none of them have a problem with the variance. There will not be any impact on any of the
other surrounding properties.
Comments and Questions:
Cheryl Perkins asked Lindsay Perkins if he explained to the adjacent homeowners that this garage will stick out four feet in front of their building line. Lindsay Perkins stated that none of surrounding homeowners had a problem with it.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of COOPER, the Board voted 4-1-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, White "aye"; Perkins "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Minor Special Exception of front yard requirement of 25’ to 21’ for
the construction of a new house, 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
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, per plan with the 20’ proposed building
being excluded, on the following described property:
Lot 3, Block 2, The Crescent (Crescent Court), City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Use Unit 17 in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located W of NW/c E. 49th St. S. & S. Memorial.
Presentation:
The applicant, Gale Plummer, 2105 N. Yellow wood, Broken Arrow, stated that this
property is adjacent to Ernie Miller Pontiac.
They are asking for that area to be allowed to have Use Unit 17 within
the CS zoning. The use would be
automotive sales, it will actually be an extension of the Ernie Miller’s
operation accommodating the parts business.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Plummer if there will be auto repairs
on the property? Mr. Plummer replied
that the final decision on what will be on the property has not been
decided. There are a few buildings on
the property and some will be removed and some will be used. The service department will remain where it
is.
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Beach if this
property was zoned IL would Use Unit 17 be allowed and Mr. Beach answered
affirmatively.
Mr. Beach stated that within a CS
District, Use Unit 17 uses may not have outside storage of merchandise for sale
within 300’ of a residential district.
He pointed out that this property is bordered on the west by RM-2. He advised the applicant that if he needs
relief from that requirement he needs to be advertised for that relief.
Ms. Turnbo suggested that the case be
continued and readvertised for a waiver of the setback.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no "absent") to CONTINUE Case No. 18372 to the meeting of May 11, 1999 to allow time for additional relief to be advertised.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow an auto repair – six bays (Use Unit 17) and a mini storage facility (Use Unit 16) in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 16 & 17 and a Special Exception of the screening requirements on the north and south boundaries. SECTION 1216.C.1. USE UNIT 16. MINI-STORAGE, Use Conditions, located 2940 W. Skelly Drive.
Presentation:
The applicant, Rob Coday, was represented by Cliff Kirkpatrick, who submitted a
site plan (Exhibit J-1). Mr.
Kirkpatrick stated that he has been in this location for 17 years. In December, Mr. Kirkpatrick was not able to
replace his gasoline tanks and bring them into compliance with the laws so he
removed them and closed down his filling station. Mr. Kirkpatrick would like to enlarge his service bays and do
mostly repair work on vehicles. Mr.
Kirkpatrick has considered putting in a mini-storage. Right now the repair business is more important than the
mini-storage, it may be developed at a later date.
Interested
Parties:
Councilor Darla Hall, Council District 2, stated that she was informed that Mr. Kirkpatrick was clearing his property of trees and bushes. Code Enforcement was called to get him to stop the clearing. Councilor Hall believes that Mr. Kirkpatrick may be trying to put in a salvage yard and that is against the Comprehensive Plan and that would not be favorable with the neighborhood. Councilor Hall stated that the request for no screening needs to be denied. There is a residential neighborhood to the south and screening should be required. Mr. Kirkpatrick’s property is at the top of a hill and the residences are at the bottom. Because of his clearing of the land it could cause a drainage and flooding problem for the residents. Councilor Hall has no problem with Mr. Kirkpatrick having an auto repair business on the property as long as it is properly screened.
Ms. Turnbo asked Councilor Hall if she had an objection with having mini-storage on the property. Councilor Hall replied that she did not have a problem with mini-storage on the property as long as the drainage/flooding problems are addressed and the proper screening is done.
Ron McGee, 5211 S. 32nd W. Place, stated that he has lived in the area for over 14 years. Mr. McGee mentioned that he has seen Mooser Creek flood and he is worried about Mr. Kirkpatrick tearing down all the trees and creating a flooding problem.
Marilyn McGee, stated that she is the Vice President of Mountain Manor Neighborhood Association and eighteen of the homeowners have asked to speak today. Ms. McGee mentioned that they are opposed to any type of mini-storage on the property. There are several other mini-storage facilities within one mile of this property. They also object to no screening. Ms. McGee is concerned about the flooding problem.
Ms. Turnbo asked Ms. McGee is she is objecting to the special exception to allow auto repair? Ms. McGee replied that they do not object to auto repair as long as it is screened and kept clean.
Sue McKinney, 5210 S. 32nd W. Place, stated that her only concern is about a possible flooding problem. Ms. McKinney would also like to have a screening fence put in place so they do not have to look at his property.
Paula Revis, 5207 S. 32nd W. Place, mentioned that her house is Mr. Kirkpatrick’s south border. Ms. Revis has had flooding problems in the past from Mooser Creek and is worried about the leveling of this property causing more flooding problems on her property. Ms. Revis objects to any change being made to the natural “wooded” area of Mooser Creek. Ms. Revis would like to see screening placed on the south side of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s property and that it be maintained.
Mr. White asked Staff if there is any review by Stormwater
Management that has to take place on any of this for work that has been done or
is proposed to be done? Mr. Stump
replied yes, in order for them to receive a building permit they have to show
that they were complying with the City’s Stormwater Management regulations.
Ron
Kirkpatrick, Clifford
Kirkpatrick’s brother, stated that they have removed the gasoline tanks on the
property. There is a strip of property
behind the filling station and he took his grader there and leveled some of
it. There is no water running off that
portion. The creek looks like a jungle
and it is a 30’ drop from their property to the creek. There are no plans to build that far
down. The city has classified it as
non-developable. The back of the
mini-storage facility will be an 8’ metal wall and will serve as a screening
fence.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked the applicant how far back from the existing
building has the land been cleared? Mr.
Kirkpatrick replied that it has been filled for years but a final grade was put
on it. That is all they have done is
grade the area. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated
that he has no intention to do anything on the property except minor repair
work and possibly operate a mini-storage.
Mr. Dunham mentioned that the Board
really does not get into stormwater management issues, those issues will be
taken up by stormwater management through the City.
Mr. Cooper mentioned that he is
uncomfortable waiving the screening requirements on the south boundary. The rest of the Board agreed.
Mr. Cooper feels that Mr. Kirkpatrick is
requesting a very low intensity use for a CS District. Mr. Cooper believes that mini-storage is a
low intensity use and a good use for this property.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she is in favor
of the auto repair and not the mini-storage.
Mr. Cooper asked why she would not be in favor of the mini-storage and
Ms. Turnbo replied that she thinks that it would be too much use on the
property. Mr. Stump pointed out that
the applicant has about 130’ of setback from the south property line to the
first mini-storage building.
Ms. Turnbo asked if the “greenbelt”
along the creek will be left as is or if it will be developed. Mr. Stump relied that it will be left as is.
Mr. Stump stated to the Board that if
the mini-storage compatibility is a concern, there is a set of conditions for
mini-storage facilities in multi-family districts. The Board could impose those same RM-2 conditions on this
mini-storage facility. Mr. Stump
summarized the conditions.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she could support
the mini-storage with those RM conditions and considering the fact that there
is 130’ between the proposed mini-storage facility and the adjoining R
district.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to allow an auto repair – six bays (Use Unit 17;) , not including body and paint shop, no storage of inoperable vehicles outside; and a mini storage facility (Use Unit 16) in a CS zoned district; with the conditions set forth in an RM-1 district; the south wall of the mini-storage being constructed out of masonry material and serve as the screening fence, SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 16 & 17 and a Special Exception of the screening requirements on the north and south boundaries. SECTION 1216.C.1. USE UNIT 16. MINI-STORAGE, Use Conditions; per plan submitted, finding that the special exceptions will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit auto sales in a CS district. SECTIO 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located 13148 E. 11th Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, Chris Turner, 17102 E. 11th Street, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit K-1) and stated that this property is an old filling station and
the tanks have been removed and all the environmental work has been done on
it. Mr. Turner would like to put auto
sales on the property. It is surrounded
by automotive uses on three sides and by an abandoned house behind it.
Interested
Parties:
John
Roy, 9018 E. 38th Street, Tulsa, OK 74145, stated that he is
appearing on behalf of the East Tulsa Mingo Valley Association. They do not oppose the use of this property
as auto sales. Mr. Roy mentioned that
this lot is not hard surfaced and he would like to make it a condition that it
be hard surfaced. Mr. Roy submitted a
list of restrictions (Exhibit K-2) that they would like to have made as part of
the conditions of approval. The
conditions are as follows: (1) no chain
like fences allowed on the north, west and the east sides; (2) perimeter
barrier must not be higher than three feet; (3) no banners, streamers being
hung from poles, light poles, buildings, etc.; (4) only light mechanical work
is allowed but it must be done inside a building; (5) parking must comply with
the Code.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Turner stated that they are going to asphalt the lot completely and they plan to meet all the Code requirements on screening. They are not planning to do any mechanical work on the property.
Mr. Dunham asked Staff about their
comment of no outside display of autos for sale within 300’ of an abutting R
district. Mr. Beach stated this is a
requirement of the Zoning Code. Mr.
Turner mentioned that he was never informed he had to ask for that relief. Mr. Jackere informed the Board that the
applicant’s case needs to be continued and notice needs to be given for the relief
specified.
Mr. Turner stated that it is their
intention to have a wrought iron fence surrounding the property that would be
taller than three feet. The cars that
he will be displaying for sale are classic and antique cars and he does not
want people to be able to climb on them after hours.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception to permit auto sales in a CS 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 17; subject
to the conditions submitted by the Interested Party with the exception of (2)
the fence height can be higher than three feet, provided that it is made of
wrought iron and CONTINUE the
rest of the case to give the applicant time to advertise for additional relief
for setback to the May 11, 1999 meeting; per plan, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit temporary bedding plants, produce and Christmas tree sales for April 15, 1999 for 179 days per year for a period of five years. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2 located 3212 E. 91st St. S.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jeff Ogilvie, 3212 E. 91st Street, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit L-1).
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that the application requested relief from the hard surface requirement but it failed to be included with the notice. New notice has been given for April 27 for that relief. It is not necessary for the case to be continued because the notice has already been given.
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 permit temporary bedding plants, produce and
Christmas tree sales for April 15, 1999 for 179 days per year for a period of
five years. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2 on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit temporary bedding plants from April 15, 1999 for a period of five years. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located N of NW/c 61st St. & S. Yale.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jeff Ogilvie, 3212 E. 91st Street, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit M-1). Mr. Ogilvie stated to
the Board that at this location he will only be selling bedding plants, no
Christmas trees and it will probably only be in the Spring and early Fall.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White mentioned to the applicant that the tent and outdoor displays must not occupy required parking spaces for the shopping center. Mr. Ogilvie replied that there is an abundance of parking spaces on the lot.
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 permit temporary bedding plants from April 15,
1999 for a period of five years, 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 2, for 179 days per year, on the following
described property:
E 100’ of the W 508.72’, Lot 1, Block 1 and the E 100’ of
the W 198.81’ S 29’ W 260’ NE, NW, NW Section 34, T-19-N, R-12-E and E 200’ W
408.72’ of Lot 1 and S 29’ E 101.28’ of vacated E. 52nd St. adjacent
on N of Block 1 and W 98.81’ S 29’ W 260’ NE, NW, NW Section 34, T-19-N, R-12-E
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Special Exception of required front setback from 30’ to 28.6’ and to allow a 3’ encroachment of a covered porch. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 4526 E. 85th St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Todd Goodwin, 8033 S. 79th E. Ave., Tulsa, OK, submitted
a site plan (Exhibit N-1) and stated that he is the builder for the property.
This lot is on the side of a hill and it is a very difficult place to
build. The grade is actually 19’ to 20’
below street level and the pins are 12’ from the curb. The home was accidentally pushed forward
(shown on site plan). The mistake was
not discovered until the framing and high walls were put in place.
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 Minor Special Exception of required front setback from 30’ to 28.6”
and to allow a 3’ encroachment of a covered porch, 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 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, per plan, on the
following described property:
Lot 11, Block 2, Brookwood II, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MR. WHITE OUT
AT 3:00 P.M.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a mechanical plant in CBD and IL zoned districts. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, and a Variance of required setbacks from the centerline of public streets in an IL district to permit a parking garage. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 10, located NE & SE of 1st Street & Cincinnati Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, George Shahadi, P.O. Box 2400, Tulsa, OK 74102, submitted a site
plan packet (Exhibit O-1) and stated that the application is to construct an
accessory central plant on the site shown on the site plan and a parking
garage. There are pedestrian bridges
planned to cross Cincinnati Ave.
Interested
Parties:
None.
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 Special Exception to permit a mechanical plan in CBD and IL zoned districts, 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 2, and a Variance of required setbacks from the centerline of public streets in an IL district to permit a parking garage. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 10, per plan submitted, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MR. WHITE IN
AT 3:03 P.M.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the 200’ setback requirement from the centerline of 129th E. Ave. SECTION 803. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE CORRIDOR DISTRICT and a Variance from the requirement for an arterial collector street in a CO zoned district. SECTION 804. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, located 442 S. 129th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Mark S. Stewart, was represented by Lou Reynolds, 2727 E. 21st
Street, Suite 200, Tulsa, OK, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit P-1) and
stated that because of the narrowness of the lot the 200’ setback does not
leave enough room for development purposes.
They are asking to move it out 100’ and it would be in line with other
commercial development on the east side of the street. It is their intention to develop only one
half of the lot and there is no intention to develop the other half at this
time. They will be filing a more
detailed site plan with the planning commission at a later date. Mr. Reynolds met with the neighbors and they
do not have any problem with the proposed plans.
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 200’ setback requirement from the centerline of 129th E. Ave. to 100’ SECTION 803. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE CORRIDOR DISTRICT and a Variance from the requirement for an arterial collector street in a CO zoned district. SECTION 804. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, finding the hardship to be that the lot is too small to meet the requirement, on the following described property:
Lot 1 and 2, Plainview Heights Addition , City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
Request for refund of Board of Adjustment Fees. The Case was withdrawn by the applicant, John W. Elder, Jr.
Staff
Recommendation:
Staff recommends full refund of fees.
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 Request for refund of Board of Adjustment Fees.
Action
Requested:
Request for refund of Board of Adjustment Fees. The Case was withdrawn by the applicant, Brian Ward.
Staff
Recommendation:
Staff recommends full refund of fees.
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 Request for refund of Board of Adjustment Fees.
POLICIES:
BOA Policies on carports and other detached accessory buildings.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach submitted a memo to the Board members regarding cases that came up last year on carports. In one particular case, the Zoning Officer determined that the carport, by definition was a detached structure, therefore was not permitted in the front yard. The applicant came to the Board and asked for relief from that requirement. The Board granted him that relief. During the hearing, there was much discussion about “attached” and “detached” and how is it determined. The Zoning Officer, from now on, is going to need some direction to help him make a decision when these cases come through. Mr. Beach advised the Board that they cannot make a decision about this today – there is nothing before them to make a decision about. They are not asking the Board to establish a policy or to make a determination but to have a discussion.
Ms. Turnbo feels that if the Code states that the carport/accessory building must be an “integral” part, then they can never approve an aluminum car port because it is not an integral part of the house. Mr. Stump mentioned that it can be approved by a Variance to allow a detached accessory building in the front yard.
Mr. Dunham asked Staff if it would be easier to change the Code to say “with the exception of carports”. Mr. Stump replied that it could, but they are trying to read what the intent of the Code is and by its language it appeared to them that the intent was not to allow the add-ons in a visible area of the front yard. Mr. Jackere said that the Code should have had a provision stating “no carports in the front yard”.
Mr. Jackere stated that it is easy for
the Board to approve a variance for a carport and find a hardship but if it is
tested in District Court it will be very difficult to justify that hardship, in
most instances. Mr. Jackere said that
he would not rely on the variance process all the time. If the Board is looking to allow certain
structures in the front yard, the Board may need to look at the meaning of
integral and adjust it.
Mr. Dunham stated that he would like to give Staff more discretion in some of the areas. Mr. Dunham feels that the Board hears so many cases that are automatic that Staff could take care of. Mr. Dunham believes that the Code should be changed to reflect the wording, “with the exception of carports”.
Mr. White stated that this is “the
public hearing”, giving the interested parties a chance to respond for or
against the application. Mr. White
agreed, in part, with what Mr. Dunham said and perhaps carports should be
considered as a separate item. Mr. White
believes that the public comments are very important on these issues.
Mr. Cooper believes that Staff has made
it very clear that these carports are not an “integral” part of the house. Without a change in the Code, Mr. Cooper
stated that he would vote no every time.
What has been done in the past has been a mistake and they will either
never correct it or correct it now.
Mr. Stump suggested that the Code could
classify carports in the front yard as detached accessory buildings and only
allow them by exception. Then the
finding changes to compatibility and noninjurious with no hardship
required. Mr. Dunham agreed with Mr.
Stump.
Mr. Dunham suggested changing the Code
to reflect a carport being allowed by special exception and not a
variance.
Mr. Stump said that there are instances
where a carport is put in and does not meet the building setback line–does the
Board want those kinds of carports to be considered as a special exception with
no hardship finding or just the ones that meet the setback requirements? Mr. Dunham replied all need to be considered
as a special exception. After further
discussion the Board decided that the carports that do not meet the setback
requirements should be considered as a variance and the ones that do meet the
setback requirements should be considered as a special exception.
Mr. Jackere asked the Board if they want
to prohibit accessory buildings in the front yard whether attached or
detached? The Board replied
affirmatively.
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Date
approved: _____________________________
_________________________________________