CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, February 23, 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, Code Enforc. |
|
Dunham, Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
|
|
Turnbo, Secretary |
|
Stump |
Parnell, Code Enforc. |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
White, Chair |
|
|
Jackere, Legal |
|
|
|
|
Prather, Legal |
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Tuesday, February 16, 1999, at 10:36 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 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Appeal from the determination of the
Neighborhood Inspector (Code Enforcement) of an unspecified violation of the
Zoning Clearance Permit and Certificate of Use and Occupancy No. 126335 and an
Appeal from the determination of the Code Official (Building Inspections)
ordering the Applicant to ”remove outdoor
storage of material including paper, cardboard and similar products awaiting
processing in any manner associated with recycling as per zoning clearance
permit.” SECTION 1605. APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL,
located 10601 E. Ute Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, Stephen A. Schuller, 100 W. 5th Street, Suite 500,
stated that there was a continuance granted on this case six months ago to
today’s date. Mr. Schuller reminded the
Board that the applicant was to construct a building for storage of recyclable
papers. Mr. Schuller mentioned that
this process has taken longer than they expected. The owner of the property is a Judge in Missouri and it was not
easy for him to come to Tulsa to look at the plans for the building. The owner has reviewed the plans and agreed
to let them construct the building. It
was then necessary to have a contractor to prepare detail plans and
specifications for the building permit process. They received the plans this morning. Mr. Schuller stated that after the permits are issued it will
take about four to six weeks to construct the building. The building will be very similar to the
existing building on the property. Mr.
Schuller mentioned that they have been meeting, on a regular basis, with the
property owners association and they are pleased with what they are proposing
to build. Mr. Schuller asked the Board
for a ninety day continuance in order for them to complete the construction of
the building.
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. 18098 to the meeting of May 25, 1999.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a Use Unit
13, day spa to include but not limited to manicure, pedicure, facials, sauna,
baths, massage, wraps and tanning in an OM District. SECTION 604. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN OFFICE DISTRICTS,
REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 13 and a Special Exception to remove the screening
requirement on east side. SECTION 212.C.1. & 4. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, Modification of the
Screening Wall or Fence Requirement, located 2525 E. 51st St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Adonna Roland, submitted a site plan (Exhibit A-1) and was
represented by Lou Reynolds, 2727 E. 21st St, Suite 200. Mr. Reynolds stated that this property is
bounded on the north side by I-44 and on the south side by E. 51st
St. It is also bordered on the east
side by an apartment complex and a creek between the apartment complex and the
site and to the west is office buildings.
Because of the topography of the land and the creek, Mr. Reynolds is
asking for a Special Exception to waive the screening requirement. The property line is in a depression about
6’ or 7’ deep, therefore the screening fence would not screen anything. Mr. Reynolds submitted photos (Exhibit A-2)
of the property and the creek. Mr.
Reynolds does not believe that using this property as a day spa will be
injurious to the neighborhood in any way.
Mr. Reynolds mentioned to the Board that this property has been approved
by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission to be zoned OM.
Interested
Parties:
Harry
Crow, 406 S. Boulder, stated that he owns the residence across the street
to the southeast of the property. Mr.
Crow is opposed to the application and believes that the applicant is trying to
get by Special Exception what he could not get by zoning. He does not believe that this will be an
advantage to the neighborhood.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
None.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham mentioned that this property has been on office building for many years. Even though it was zoned RM it has been used for office for a long time. He has no problem with the use and he does not see the commercialization of the area going any further to the east because of the existing apartments.
Mr. Cooper asked Staff what the square
footage of signage allowed? Mr. Stump
replied that they would not be allowed any additional signage because of the
special exception, it would just be office signage which is very limited. It is two-tenths of a square foot for each
linear foot of frontage and only one sign per street frontage. Mr. Cooper does not have any objection to
the application.
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 a Use Unit 13, day spa
to include but not limited to manicure, pedicure, facials, sauna, baths,
massage, wraps and tanning in an OM District.
SECTION 604. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN OFFICE DISTRICTS,
REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 13 and a Special Exception to remove screening
requirement on east side. SECTION 212.C.1. & 4. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, Modification of the
Screening Wall or Fence Requirement 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:
Beginning 30’ N of the SE/c of the SW/4 of
the SW/4 thence W 164.28’, N 159.93’ to a point on the Sly line of the highway,
SE along the highway right-of-way 20.87’, S 22’, SE 146.7’ and S 105’ on an
unplatted lot, Section 29, R-13-E, T-19-N, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance from the required setback from
the centerline of S. Peoria Ave. from 70’ to 29.75’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6 a Variance to permit
a structure in the Planned Right-of-Way of S. Peoria Ave. SECTION
215. STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ABUTTING
STREETS and a Variance of the allowable fence height in the front yard from
4’ to 8’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1234 E. 20th
St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Scott Sanford, 1234 E. 20th St., stated that he is
asking to construct a garage in his backyard and he is limited to a very small
amount of space in which to do it. He
now backs onto Peoria Ave. and he would like to move the garage so he does not
have to do that now. The structure will
be hidden by an 8’ privacy fence that will run parallel down Peoria Ave.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Sanford if he would
object to a removal contract with the City of Tulsa in case they ever widen
Peoria. Mr. Sanford stated that if the
City ever widened Peoria right there they would have to buy his house because
the new right-of-way line would run through the middle of his property. Mr. Sanford agreed to a removal contract
with the City of Tulsa.
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 Variance of the setback from S. Peoria from 15’ to
5’ for a detached garage. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use
Unit 6 and a Variance of the allowable fence height in the front yard from
4’ to 8’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, subject to a removal contract
along the right-of-way of Peoria Ave., finding the hardship to be the
topography and size of the lot, on the following described property:
E/2, Lot 1, Block 4, Maple Heights Addition.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of 30’ frontage requirement
down to 25’. SECTION 206. STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIRED, located 2741 N. Yukon.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that since Mr. King was not present they could continue the case to the next meeting and Staff will attempt to contact him.
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. 18308 to March 9, 1999.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required front yard from
35’ to 30’ on all lots in subdivision in an RS-1 zoned district. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 121st St. S. &
S. Joplin.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ted A. Sack, 111 S. Elgin, submitted a cite plan (Exhibit C-1) and
stated that he is asking for a Variance of the setback in an RS-1 zoned
subdivision. The tract is being
developed by Mrs. Huckabee and it lies on the north side of 121st
Street west of Sheridan. The tract is
narrow and lengthy and the topography is quite steep. Most of the other subdivisions around the area have been
developed by the PUD process with similar zoning and setbacks. Due to the topography, Mr. Sack asked the
Board to allow them more room to build the homes.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Sack if his
hardship is the topography of the land.
Mr. Sack replied yes, the topography and the width of the tract which is
quite narrow. Mr. Sack stated that they
did have the option to go through the PUD process but since the setback was the
only thing that they needed they did not think they needed to proceed through
the PUD process.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Sack to respond to
comments that this is a self imposed hardship.
Mr. Sack replied that they are trying to reduce the density. There are properties to the north of this
one that are zoned RS-2. In laying out
the lots and trying to keep from having a straight street up through the middle
of this property, they need the reduction on the setback in order to give them
more flexibility.
Mr. Dunham asked if the Board granted
similar relief to the subdivisions to the west. Mr. White seems to remember that they did but it is not indicated
on the case report. Mr. Beach could not
recall the exact subdivisions but he believes that the Board has done this
before.
Mr. Beach pointed out that this
application can be granted as a Special Exception. The Board has a policy that a reduction of 5’ or less of the
required front yard can be granted by Special Exception, so there is no
hardship finding required.
Mr. Dunham asked if the property was
zoned RS-2, could the applicant do the 30’ front yard by right? Mr. Beach answered affirmatively.
Mr. Stump mentioned to the Board that
they just have to find that it is compatible with the surrounding area and
there are no other lots that connect with this so the front yard should be
consistent throughout the subdivision.
Mr. Stump pointed out that this application is actually a Minor Special
Exception.
Interested
Parties:
Jim
Garrot, 6105 E. 121st Street, stated that he is opposed to this
application. Mr. Garrot believes that
the developer is trying to maximize the number of lots on this piece of
property.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Sack stated that they have tried to reduce the number of lots in this area. They feel like this is compatible with the other subdivisions in the area and most of them have been done under a PUD with less setbacks than what they are asking for. Mr. Sack believes that the subdivision flows well with the topography and is an asset to the area.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White mentioned that he is in receipt of a letter (Exhibit C-2) from Bill Cyganovich, Transportation/Public Works with the City of Tulsa. He believes that the required front yard should remain the 35’ in depth and the granting of this variance will set incorrect precedent for future development in the area.
Mr. Stump mentioned to the Board that this application should be considered a Minor Special Exception instead of a variance.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she does not have a problem with this application and she does not feel that it will be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Stump if this property had gone through the PUD process, would it have been approved? Mr. Stump answered affirmatively. Mr. Stump stated that there are several examples of developers wanting to have 5’ less in the front yard for the entire subdivision. At the time it was classified as a Variance and the Board granted a few of them but it is very difficult to show a unique hardship when a developer is laying out new ground. There was also the recognition that there is no real harm done when it is done for an entire subdivision. So they came up with the 5’ reduction in the front yard being a Minor Special Exception rather than a variance. More people now like smaller front yards and larger back yards.
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
Minor Special Exception of the required front yard from 35’ to 30’ on all lots
in subdivision in an RS-1 zoned district. SECTION 403. BULK AND
AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, finding that the special exception will be in
harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to
the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the
following described property:
The E/2 of the E/2 of the SW/4 of the SE/4 and the N 901.86’ of the W/2 of the W/2 of the W/2 of the SE/4 of the SE/4 of Section 34, T-18-N, R-13-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a government (municipal)
safety training facility (Use Unit 2) in an RMH zoned district. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located W of SW/c I-244 & N.
Garnett.
Presentation:
The applicant, J. D. Turner, 2317 S. Jackson, submitted a site plan (Exhibit D-1) and stated that he is a project engineer with the City of Tulsa. This facility is located at Admiral and Highway 169. The majority of the facility is in the flood plain and the City bought it out. The City is using the property for the training of various equipment operators. They would like to put a facility in the northeast corner out of the flood plain to provide a classroom, breakroom, restroom facilities and several offices.
Interested
Parties:
Leleta
Lingle, 28 North 106th Place East, stated that her property is
near the subject property and they are curious if there will be any more land
than they currently have now. Mr.
Turner showed Ms. Lingle the plans and she does not have any problem with the
site.
Billy
Young, 10875 E. Admiral, stated that his property is on the north side of
the creek that is on the subject property.
Mr. Young wants to know if the facility will be open during non use
hours for public use, such as teaching a teenager to drive.
Mr. White mentioned that he does not
believe the City would do that because of the liability issue.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Turner did not know if the City
would be willing to let the public on its facility but the interested party
should go through the Mayor’s Action Line to find out.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to allow a government (municipal)
safety training facility (Use Unit 2) in an RMH zoned district. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, 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, on the following described property:
All of Holiday
Park, a part of the S/2 SE/4, Section 31, T-20-N, R-14-E, lying S of the
Crosstown Expressway, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, less and except that
portion now platted as Sanders England First not owned by Granter; and less and
except the following two described tracts:
TRACT I: A part of Block 1, Holiday Park, an addition
to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly
described as follows, to-wit: Beginning
at the most SE/c of Block 1, Holiday Park, said point being on the N
right-of-way line of E. Admiral Pl.; thence S 88°57’11” W along the S line of
said Block 1, a distance of 125.00’ to a point, said point being 40.00' E of
the most SW/c of Block 1; thence N 01°07’19” W a distance of 525.41’ to a
point; thence N 88°57’11” E a distance of 125.00’ to a point on the E line of
Block 1, Holiday Park; thence S 01°07’20” E a distance of 525.41’ to the point
of beginning and containing 65,676 SF or 1.50771 acres more or less AND TRACT II: A part of Block 1, Holiday Park, an addition to the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma being more particularly described as
follows, to-wit: Beginning at the most
NE/c of Block 1, Holiday Park, said point being the intersection of the S
right-of-way line of the Crosstown Expressway (I-244) and the W right-of-way
line of N. Garnett Rd.; thence S 86°06’00” W along the S right-of-way line of
I-244 a distance of 414.27’ to a point; thence S 80°13’05” W along the S
right-of-way line of I-244 a distance of 365.45’ to a point; thence S 01°06’28”
E a distance of 79.28’ to a point; thence N 88°44’55” E a distance of 775.07’
to a point on the W right-of-way line of N. Garnett Rd.; thence N 01°06’53” W
along the E line of said Block 1, Holiday Park, a distance of 152.50’ to the
point of beginning and containing 96,600 SF or 2.21763 acres, more or less.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the landscape requirements
for no landscaping on new parking lot. SECTION 1002. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 10, located NW/c S.
Lakewood Ave. & E. 13th St.
Presentation:
The applicant, J. D. Turner, 2317 S. Jackson, submitted a site plan (Exhibit E-1)
and stated that he is with the City of Tulsa.
This request is because Lakewood Street will never be utilized as a
street. There is a million square foot
detention pond to the south and the pond drains through the area shown as a
street. The area is heavily wooded and
the east side is a small creek. The
City would like to use part of the street area as a driveway to get to their
back parking area. Since the area is
heavily wooded there is no need for landscaping.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if there is anything that is being changed in the area. Mr. Turner replied that they are converting a gravel storage area into a paved parking lot. They are also completely renovating the inside of the building.
Board Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-1-0
(Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; Cooper "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the landscape requirements for no
landscaping on new parking lot. SECTION 1002. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 10, finding the hardship to
be the surrounding area, on the following described property:
Lot 14, Block 3, C & C Industrial Park, City of Tulsa,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to permit a structure to be
located in the planned right-of-way as designated on the Major Street and
Highway Plan. SECTION 215. STRUCTURE SETBACK
FROM ABUTTING STREETS – Use Unit 10, located SW/c E. 15th St.
& S. Baltimore Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Roy D. Johnsen, 201 W. 5th Street, Suite 501, submitted
a site plan (Exhibit F-1) and stated that he appears on behalf of Boulder
Towers. This was before the Board in
September and was approved for a landscape plan. When the owners sought a building permit, Mr. Ackerman made an
interpretation that parking was a structure as defined by the Zoning Code. At the time, 15th Street was an
arterial street. Mr. Johnsen disagrees with that
interpretation. In the past, it has
been recognized that you can park in planned right-of-way. Some years back there was an interpretation
that parking within planned right-of-way would not qualify as required
parking. That has now gone from
required parking to any parking is not allowed in the planned right-of-way. The Code definition stated that anything
affixed to the ground, including fences, walks (typo intended to mean walls),
signs. It does not say parking. You can argue that paving is affixed to the
ground. In this instance, what was
planned as 100’ of right-of-way is actually 60’, the Staff report reflects that
it is likely that it will change to 70’.
Mr. Johnsen stated that they have 5’ of landscaping between the property
line and the parking lot. It seems that
if the right-of-way is going to be 70’ and there is actually 60’ that is a
total of 5’ of each side of the centerline.
Mr. Johnsen is confused about how Mr. Beach arrived at his figure of
4’6” that the parking lot was going to extend into the planned
right-of-way. Mr. Johnsen believes that
a removal contract makes sense for buildings, but with a parking lot, there is
only paving and landscaping. They are
on a short time frame and there is no need for a removal contract.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Stump mentioned to the Board that
they are not on for an interpretation of the Zoning Code only for a request for
a variance. Mr. Johnsen stated that
the Board always determines if there is relief needed or not.
Mr. Ackerman stated that it is not his
interpretation, he implemented an interpretation that he was advised of by
Staff that parking lots are considered to be structures and that parking lots
are not to be allowed in the right-of-way.
In the 2˝ years that he has been with the City, this has been a standard
procedure.
Ms. Turnbo stated that on 15th
Street the Board approved parking in the planned right-of-way for Luby’s
Cafeteria. Mr. Ackerman stated that
this is the same situation. Ms. Turnbo
asked if they did a removal contract on the Luby’s property. Mr. Ackerman does not know. Mr. Stump does not believe that they had
one.
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 Variance to permit a
structure to be located in the planned right-of-way as designated on the Major
Street and Highway Plan. SECTION 215. STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ABUTTING STREETS – Use Unit 10,
finding that it meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., subject to the
structure being limited to a parking lot, per plan, on the following described
property:
Lots 1 through 5, Block 2, Amended Plat of Earns Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a fence (wall) that is over 8’ in height. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards, located 4011 S. Yorktown Place.
Presentation:
The applicant, Tony Jordan, 5220 E. 191st St. S., submitted a site plan
(Exhibit G-1) and stated that he is the building contractor for Charles and
Lynn Schusterman. They are asking for a
variance to extend a 6’ wall on top of the retaining wall already constructed
on the property.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Jordan what is the
necessity for a wall this high in this area?
Mr. Jordan replied that the decorative wall is about 6’ and sits on a
4˝’ retaining wall. The retaining wall
is there to build the location of the house up because the property slopes about
14’ from the highest point to the lowest point.
Mr. White stated that he could not get
into the area because it is a gated community but he did drive on 39th
Street and saw the property that way.
It is a high wall and he is surprised that there is no one there to
protest it. Mr. Jordan mentioned that
they have spoken to most of the neighbors and they do not have an objection.
Steve
Williams, stated that he is the landscape architect for the
Schustermans. The retaining wall has
already been constructed and runs at a varying height of 4’ to 6’. They are proposing to construct a 6’ screen
wall on top of the retaining wall to screen the Schusterman’s outdoor living
space. The wall will be stucco and will
be aesthetically pleasing to everyone. One portion of the wall will have iron fencing on the top.
The Board felt that since nobody from
the neighborhood showed up to protest, the wall was agreed to by the neighbors
and would not be a determent to the area.
Mr. Williams stated that not only did the neighbors receive the Board of
Adjustment notice, the Schusterman’s also sent a notice to the surrounding
homeowners.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception to allow a fence (wall) that is over 8’ in
height. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards
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, on the following
described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a children’s day care center in an RM-2 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 4939 S. Yorktown Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Kenneth Chapman, 8330 S. 74th E. Ave., submitted a site
plan (Exhibit H-1) and stated that this facility was originally approved for
use as a day care center and in 1967 it was approved for use as a beer
tavern. They would like to remove that
use and return it to its original use, a day care center. Mr. Chapman stated that they have been
through the plans approval process with the City of Tulsa.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned that they are
concerned about whether or not there is an outdoor playground. There is a swimming pool shown on the site
plan. The site plan appears to be very
old. Mr. Chapman replied that the pool
has been filled in and leveled out. The
playground will be on the site shown as the pool.
Mr. Dunham inquired as to the days and
hours of operation and Mr. Chapman responded Monday through Friday from 6:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. White asked if most of the customers
of the day care will be tenants of the apartment complex. Mr. Chapman replied yes, but there will be
some children from outside the complex.
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 a children’s day care center in an RM-2 zoned 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
all the appropriate licenses and inspections, on the following described
property:
Action
Requested:
Variance of front setback from E. 80th St. S. from 30’ to 20’ to permit an existing dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 3222 E. 80th St. S.
Presentation:
The applicant, Cindy Read, 7615 E. 63rd Place, Suite 105, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit I-1) and stated that she is representing her clients Jerry
and Evelyn Harrison on the sale of the home on 80th Street. One of the title requirements is to have
this variance because the home is 6’ to 10’ over the building setback
line. The house was built in 1970.
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 Variance of front
setback from E. 80th St. S. from 30’ to 20’ to permit an existing
dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, finding that it
meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., per plan, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a mini storage in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 16, located SW of 45th St. & Peoria Ave.
Presentation: