CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, March 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 |
Parnell, NBH Insp. |
|
Dunham, Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
|
|
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 Friday, March 19, 1999, at 8:59 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:
An appeal of the decision of Code
Enforcement officer and request for a Special Exception to permit transmission
and automotive repair in a CS District.
SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located 215 S. Lewis Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, John W. Moody, submitted a site plan (Exhibit A-1); a support
petition (Exhibit A-2) and mentioned to the Board that he wishes to withdraw
the appeal. . The Code Enforcement officer’s decision was an appropriate. Mr. Moody is proceeding with the Special
Exception portion of the request to permit an automotive transmission repair
shop located in the building between 2nd and 3rd Street
on South Lewis Avenue. Mr. Moody
reminded the Board that this application was continued from the March 9, 1999
meeting to allow the applicants to meet with the Kendall-Whittier Task Force
and the City of Tulsa Urban Development Department to see if there are some
things that they could do that would be mutually beneficial. Mr. Moody stated that they had some very
productive meetings and have come up with some recommendations which his client
has agreed to. Mr. Moody stated that
this is an old area that is going through a rebuilding phase which includes
business in the area. Mr. Springer (the
owner of the property) purchased the building from Otasco many years ago. Even though it appears that Otasco worked on
automobiles it wasn’t a heavy enough use to be called a nonconforming use. Mr. Springer has invested in the property
and less than two years ago he leased a portion of the property to a young man
to start a transmission shop. The young
man is a hard worker and has built up a very successful business. He now has seven employees in addition to he
and his wife and he has had no complaints with the Better Business Bureau. This is the type of business that they are
trying to attract to this area. The
young man’s business was growing and he was running out of space to store the
cars while waiting for parts to come in.
Since the visit by the inspector he has cleaned up the facility and he
has removed any vehicles for which he cannot receive parts within a few
days. Mr. Moody stated that one of the
conditions that they would attach to the request for the special exception
would be that they will agree not to park inoperable vehicles (more than two
nights) which cannot be repaired because of unavailability of parts. Mr. Moody mentioned that there is a dumpster
on the lot that is not screened. There
is an area on the north side of the building, which he has agreed to place a
screening fence. He will relocate the
dumpster to that area. He has met with
Greg Warren with the City and they agree to do some landscaping and they are in
the process of developing a landscape plan.
Interested
Parties:
Chris Smith, stated that he the executive director of the
Kendall-Whittier Ministry and he is in support of the application.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Parnell, Neighborhood Inspections,
mentioned that she has spoken with Tony, the man who runs the transmission shop
and he has been very helpful. Ms.
Parnell stated that Mr. Springer has also been very helpful and Neighborhood
Inspections recommends approval of 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 An appeal of the decision of Code Enforcement
officer and request for a Special Exception to permit transmission and
automotive repair in a CS District, with the condition that no inoperable
vehicles be stored over two days, landscaping installed, the fence per plan
submitted be installed, and the cardboard recycling dumpster be moved to a
different location, per plan submitted, 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 of Lots 8 and 17, and all of Lots 9 through 16, Block 3,
R. T. Daniel Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a
manufactured home in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9
and a Special Exception to waive the one year time limit to permit a
manufactured home on a permanent basis.
SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 3018 N. Garrison Place.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach reminded the Board that this case was continued from the last meeting because of an incorrect notice. The notice problem has been resolved and the application is properly before the Board today.
Presentation:
The applicant, Carla Joanne Hannah, 5814 E. 71st Place, Apt. 1310,
submitted a site plan (Exhibit B-1) and stated that she would like to put a
manufactured home on her lot at North Garrison Place. The manufactured home will be 58’ x 28’ in size. She would also like to waive the one year
time limit.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked the applicant if the manufactured home will be placed on a permanent foundation and she replied affirmatively. Ms Hannah submitted photos of the proposed manufactured home (Exhibit B-2).
Interested
Parties:
Algerita
Brooks, stated that she represents Planning District 25. Ms. Brooks stated that their opposition is
the same as it was when the application was before the Board several weeks
ago. They do not think that a manufactured
home is in keeping with what they want to see done in the area. Ms. Brooks asked the Board to deny the
application.
Councilor
Roscoe Turner, District 3, stated that he and Councilor Joe Williams,
District 1, are against allowing any type of mobile home in this area. The neighborhoods in these two Districts are
in a fragile state and they are trying to revitalize. Councilor requested that the Board deny the application.
Lydia
White, 3235 N. Garrison, stated that she is against the placement of mobile
homes in her neighborhood. She also
feels that this is a form of low income housing and believes that mobile homes
will bring property values down.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Lawrence Hannah stated that in this neighborhood the proposed manufactured home will be a great improvement over some of the existing homes. Mr. Hannah asked the Board to approve the application.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo toured the area and does not recall seeing any
other mobile homes in the area. She
also feels that the neighborhood is struggling to come back and has a good
chance to do that. Ms. Turnbo is not in
favor of putting a manufactured home in this neighborhood. Ms. Perkins agreed with Ms. Turnbo.
Mr. White stated that this is a delicate
area and the street to the north is sort of a dividing line. The argument could be made that a
manufactured home would improve that one block but he is afraid that overall it
would cause a decline in property values.
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 DENY
Special Exception to permit a manufactured home in an RS-3 district. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Special Exception to waive the one
year time limit to permit a manufactured home on a permanent basis. SECTION
404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, on the following described property:
Lot 17, Block 2,
Standard Heights Amended, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the maximum display area for
a wall sign from 426 SF to 493 SF. SECTION 1221.D.2. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS
SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING – Use Unit 11 and a Variance of the maximum
display area for a wall sign from 136 SF to 180 SF. SECTION 1221.D.2. USE UNIT
21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING – Use Unit 11, located SW/c of 71st St. & Lewis.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated this case was before the Board at the last meeting and it was improperly advertised and it was continued to today.
Presentation:
The applicant, Brian Ward, 9520 E. 55th Place, submitted a site plan (Exhibit C-3), a sign plan (Exhibit C-1) and stated that the application is to allow a wall sign on the north elevation and one on the east elevation that exceed the allowable square footage. Mr. Ward submitted some photos and drawings of the proposed sign (Exhibit C-2). United Video Corporation bought TV Guide and in doing that all the signage needs to be changed. The TV Guide logo is something that has been in use for many years and the logo itself is not to be varied as far as the overall shape. On the north elevation of the office tower, they have placed signage up there for Unit Corporation, Callidus Technologies and United Video.
Interested Parties:
Jim Dougherty, Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, 616 S. Boston, stated that they have worked with United Video in their efforts to bring substantial operation to Tulsa from TV Guide. They have been good corporate citizens. Mr. Dougherty mentioned to the Board that United Video will be removing their portion of the sign to make this a very minor variance. If they left the United Video sign up and added the TV Guide sign it would be a more substantial variance. Mr. Dougherty asked the Board to approve this application.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked Staff how much remaining signage would the site have available to it elsewhere on the site? Mr. Stump replied that the variance is for the two sides (east and north). There are other signs permitted within the PUD. Mr. Dougherty mentioned to the Board that within the PUD the signage is all used up. They are considering revisiting the sign plan for the PUD and revising it.
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 maximum display area for a wall sign from 426 SF to 493 SF. SECTION
1221.D.2. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING – Use
Unit 11 and a Variance of the
maximum display area for a wall sign from 136 SF to 180 SF. SECTION
1221.D.2. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS
AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING – Use Unit 11, finding that the Variances meet the
requirements of Section 1607.C., per plan submitted, on the following described
property:
Block 6, Kensington, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
Sign Variance of the maximum height of
50’ up to 65’. SECTION 1221.E.1. USE UNIT
21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, CG, CH, CBD, IL, IM AND IH Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use
Unit 23, located 121 N. 129th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, James Parker, was represented by Marty Phipps, who submitted a site
plan (Exhibit D-1), a sign plan (Exhibit D-2) and stated that he is before the
Board on behalf of Flying J, 9 West 4th Street, Freedom City,
Utah. Mr. Phipps stated that he works
for Flying J and is responsible for the signage for the company. Flying J
builds travel plazas and they have several in Oklahoma at this time. Mr. Phipps mentioned that they are asking for
a variance of 15’ on the height of a sign due to visibility problems on the
southeasterly direction of I-244. Mr.
Phipps submitted photos of the proposed sign (Exhibit D-3). Flying J signs are
typically 100’ tall and in order to be more in compliance with the City of
Tulsa’s Zoning Code they are willing to bring the sign down to 65’. Mr. Phipps explained that being in the truck
stop business they cater to the large trucks and they need to give the truckers
plenty of time to make the exit safely.
The 65’ would put the sign just above the tree line.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Stump asked the applicant if the location of the sign is the highest point on the tract and Mr. Phipps replied yes.
Ms. Perkins believes that the truckers need to be able to see the sign. Mr. Dunham agreed.
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 Sign Variance
of the maximum height of 50’ up to 65’. SECTION 1221.E.1. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CG, CH, CBD, IL, IM AND
IH Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use Unit 23, per plan submitted,
finding the hardship to be the height of the trees and the terrain on the
subject tract, on the following described property:
A tract of land that is part of the SW/4 of Section 33,
T-20-N, R-14-E, of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, said tract of land
being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: beginning at a point that is the SW/c of the SW/4 of said Section
33; thence due N along the Wly line of Section 33 for 422.64’; thence due E for
40.00’; thence due N for 97.52’; thence due E for 70.00’; thence due N for
351.83’ to a point on the SWly right-of-way line of I-244; thence SEly along
said right-of-way line on a curve to the right with a radius of 3134.05’ and a
chord bearing of S 55°20’04” E for 103.20’; thence S 54°23’28” E along said
right-of-way line for 923.66’; thence S
52°50’15” E for 368.64’; thence S 52°15’48” E for 73.75’ to a point on the Sly
line of the SW/4 of said Section 33; thence S 89°39’41” W along said Sly line
for 1297.95’ to the point of beginning
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a 6’ fence
in the required front yard. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6,
located 2715 S. Peoria.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ralph E. Smith, 2929 E. 29th Street, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit E-1) and stated that he represents the owner who would like to
construct a 6’ high ornamental iron fence.
Mr. Smith submitted photos of other fences along Peoria (Exhibit
E-2).
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 a 6’ fence in the required front yard, 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
210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions
in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, per plan
submitted, on the following described property:
A part of Lot 4, Sunnycrest Acreage, an addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point 50' E’ and 25' N of the SW/c of Lot 4; thence E and parallel to the S line of said Lot 4 a distance of 155.37'; thence in a Nly direction a distance of 215.31’ to a point, that is 240’ N and 205.50’ E of the SW/c of said Lot 4; thence W and parallel to the S line of said Lot 4 a distance of 155.50’; thence S and parallel to the W line of said Lot 4 a distance of 215’.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the allowable coverage of
the required rear yard with a detached accessory building. SECTION
210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in
Required Yards – Use Unit 6 and a Variance of the allowable size for
accessory building from 750 SF to 1,020 SF.
SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located SE/c E. 21st
St. & S. Cincinnati.
Presentation:
The applicant, Cynthia S. Steverson, 204 E. 21st Street, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit F-1) and stated that the house was constructed in 1921 with
a detached garage in the back of the property.
Ms. Steverson mentioned that they have had a new driveway and retaining
wall put in two years ago and at that time they added a pad next to the garage
to park her husband’s step van. At this
time, they would like to have covered parking over the step van. Ms. Steverson submitted photos of the
property (Exhibit F-2). The covered
parking will look more like the existing garage than a carport.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked the applicant what the small outbuilding is and she replied that it is a child’s playhouse.
There was some discussion about Mr.
Steverson’s step van being parked illegally in a residential area. Ms. Parnell stated that unless someone calls
to complain, no action would be taken.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance of
the allowable coverage of the required rear yard with a detached accessory
building. SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS,
Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6 and a Variance of the allowable size for
accessory building from 750 SF to 1,020 SF.
SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, finding that the
Variances meet the requirements of Section 1607.C., per plan submitted, subject
to no commercial activity and no storage of commercial vehicles, on the
following described property:
W 65’ of Lot 1, Block 6, Sunset Park Addition, an addition
to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required 150’ frontage on an
arterial street to 105’ in a CS District.
SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS and a Variance of the setback from 50’ to 30’. SECTION
703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located E of NE/c E. Apache & N. Cincinnati.
Presentation:
The applicant, Wilbert E. Collins, Sr., was represented by Stewart Goodman, 2605 N.
Cincinnati, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit G-1) and stated that they would
like to build a FastLube on the other side of their service station and car
wash. Mr. Goodman mentioned to the
Board that several years ago they received a variance for the same relief asked
for today. They would like to keep the
new building in line with the existing ones.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant why the building couldn’t be moved back to where it would be allowed by right. Mr. Beach stated that there is a provision for the applicant to average his setback between the building to the west which is nonconforming and the required setback and the average between the two is 41.5’. So the applicant can do that by right. According to the site plan, there is nothing behind the proposed building that would prevent him from setting it back that distance. Mr. Goodman responded that the cars will enter from the back and exit onto Apache.
Interested Parties:
Mike Barnum, stated that he owns the business across the street from the proposed FastLube. Mr. Barnum is not opposed to what the applicant is proposing to do on the property.
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 required 150’ frontage on an arterial street to 105’ in a CS District. SECTION
703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS and a Variance
of the setback from 50’ to 30’. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, per
plan submitted, finding the hardship to be the fact that the lot has already
been platted and that there are other instances of buildings at this setback,
on the following described property:
Lot 16, less the W 15’ and all of Lot 17, Block 4,
Devonshire Place, 4th, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required parking from 28
spaces to 12 spaces. SECTION 1214.D. USE UNIT 14. SHOPPING
GOODS AND SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Use Unit 14
and a Variance of the landscaping requirements which are included in Section
1002. SECTION 1002.A.-F. LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENTS, located 5827 S. Owasso.
Presentation:
The applicant, Thomas W. Williamson, submitted a site plan (Exhibit H-1) and
photos (Exhibit H-2) and stated that he is the architect for Tulsa Lighting and
Decorating Center. He is requesting a
variance on the landscaping and the parking requirement in a CS District.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant why they
are asking to have 16 less parking spaces.
Mr. Williamson replied that due to the nature of the business, there is
not a need for parking. A previous
variance was granted in 1972 for 6 spaces on the existing building. They are proposing to double the size of the
parking even though it will not be needed.
Some of the parking spaces will also be handicap accessible.
Mr. Dunham stated that this appears to
be a wholesale type of business. Mr.
Dunham asked if the building that will be added will be a sales room or a
warehouse? Mr. Jim Shardine (the
business owner) replied that the new building will be warehousing. The business is a wholesale operation, they
sell wholesale flooring.
Mr. Shardine mentioned to the Board that
they have a variance on the parking on the original facility. Mr. Shardine has owned the building for over
25 years. Mr. Shardine stated that
there is never more than 3 or 4 cars at one time at the most. His business consists of going out and
contact architects, builders and owners of apartment complexes and take samples
to them. There is virtually no drop-in
business.
Mr. Cooper asked the applicant if he is asking
the Board to limit the use of the building to a lighting wholesale
business? Mr. Stump replied that
warehousing and wholesaling is not allowed in this District.
Mr. Dunham asked Staff what the situation is since this business has been there for so long—is it a nonconforming use? Mr. Stump stated that he does not have any history on the use of the property. Since 1972, warehousing has not been allowed in the CS District nor allowed by exception in the CS District. Mr. Beach stated that the Board action in 1972 was very clear in stating that the variance was for an interior decorating business. Mr. Beach believes that in 1972 the business probably was an interior decorating business but since that time a little has been added here and there until it has become something entirely different.
Mr. Dunham mentioned that he drove by
the property and thinks that calling it an interior decorating business is not
entirely wrong.
Mr. Stump stated that wholesaling and warehousing
are both considered Use Unit 23 and are not allowed by right or exception in a
CS district. Mr. Dunham stated that
this property is zoned CS but he cannot imagine any retail business operating
here because it does not front on any major street.
Ms. Turnbo suggested that the applicant
should rezone the property. Mr. Beach
reminded the Board that he is not asking for approval of the use but
nevertheless he has described a use that is illegal in that zoning category. There is no action necessary related to the
use.
Mr. Cooper stated that he is willing,
for discussion purposes, to call this an interior decorating business but he is
concerned about the Variance of the parking because they are justifying this
because it is a low density use and the reason it is low density is because it
is being utilized as warehousing.
Mr. White stated that in 1972 a 7
parking space variance was granted and now they are going to be doubling the
floor area and going to 12 spaces and that is a less ratio than before.
Mr. Cooper asked the applicant to
explain his hardship on the landscaping variance. Mr. Shardine stated that warehousing would be a misnomer. There is no place in the existing building
for him to display carpet, light fixtures, etc. Mr. Cooper agreed with the applicant and said that you could go
into Home Depot and call it a warehouse even though they are really just
displaying their wares. Mr. Cooper said
his concern is about the hardship justifying the variances.
Ms. Turnbo asked if the general public
comes to his place of business and Mr. Shardine replied no, mostly decorators,
builders.
Mr. White asked if the 28 space
requirement was based on the new building and the existing building. Mr. Stump replied yes, at a ratio of 1 to
225.
Mr. Cooper asked the applicant to
discuss any other hardship besides financial for the variances. Mr. Shardine replied that he is not opposed
to the landscaping. This is a two block
area and on both sides of the street there is not any landscaping.
Mr. Dunham does not believe that the
applicant has a lot of need for the extra parking spaces. He also thinks that this business is an
asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. White mentioned that this business
is unique in that it is the only business that faces Owasso on that block. Everything else is the back end of the
stores that face Peoria. There is no
landscaping.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she has a hard
time with the application because if the use is considered retail, they need
more parking spaces and because it is a wholesale business it is illegal. Mr. Shardine explained to Ms. Turnbo that he
does not sell at the retail level and it is not exactly a wholesale business. He purchases his products from the
manufacture and sells it discount to builders.
Mr. Beach asked the Board if they are
looking for a way to get around the wholesale issue and the Board responded
affirmatively. Mr. Beach stated that it
is pretty clear from the applicant’s description of the use that there is a clear
distinction of what he described and what you would typically think of as a
wholesale warehouse that buys materials/products in quantity, stores them in a
warehouse, trucks come and go and they move items out in bulk and ship them to
retail outlets. That is probably what
was Code anticipated when Use Unit 23 was created.
Ms. Turnbo is concerned about someone
buying the property sometime in the future and using it for retail and there is
only 12 parking spaces.
Mr. Stump suggested to the Board that if
they are inclined to grant the parking variance, limiting it to interior
decorating with retail sales and only that use being granted for the parking
variance.
Mr. Cooper stated that the hardship is
only economic and that is not a valid hardship.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 3-2-0
(Dunham, Perkins, White "aye"; Cooper, Turnbo "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance of the required parking from
28 spaces to 12 spaces. SECTION 1214.D. USE UNIT 14. SHOPPING
GOODS AND SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Use Unit 14
and a Variance of the landscaping
requirements which are included in Section 1002. SECTION 1002.A.-F. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS finding that the
Variances meet the requirements of Section 1607.C., subject to the business
being limited to an interior decorating business with retail sales and any
other use of the property would have to come before the Board, on the following
described property:
Lots 18 and 19, Block 1, Broadview Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow additional 6’ wall on front of property fronting 18th St. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, located SE/c E. 18th St. & S. Peoria.
Presentation:
The applicant, Robert Johnson, was represented by Bill Holloway, 1855 E. 15th
Street, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit I-1) and stated that they are
building a PUD at the southeast corner of 18th and Peoria in the
Swan Lake Historical District. Mr.
Holloway stated that the request is to put an entrance gate has been approved
by the Tulsa Preservation Committee and has a Certificate of
Appropriateness. There is a 6’ masonry
wall running along Peoria north and south.
They had proposed at an earlier time having a 4’ wall along 18th
Street but have now decided that it needs to be 2’ taller to make it a 6’ fence
and add a wrought iron detail on top of the fence.
Interested
Parties:
Paul
Adkins, stated that he is the President of the Swan Lake Neighborhood
Association. They are worried about the
actual wording of the application stating that it will be a 6’ masonry wall. It is actually going to be a 4’ wall with 2’
of wrought iron. They would like it to
be stated in the Minutes how the wall will actually be constructed. Mr. Adkins stated that the neighborhood is
against the entire project. They are
concerned about this turning into a gated community which will hurt the Swan
Lake neighborhood as a whole.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
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 Variance to allow additional 6’ wall on
front of property fronting 18th St.
SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required
Yards – Use Unit 6, finding that the Variance meets the requirements of
Section 1607.C., per plan submitted, on the following described property:
Lot 1 through 4, Swan Lake Terrance, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow outdoor plant sales from April 18, 1999 to June 13, 1999. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2 and a Special Exception to allow alternative parking material (gravel). SECTION 1202.C.1. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Use Conditions, located SW/c 71st St. S. & 69th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Rachel Ward, 312 E. Freeport, Broken Arrow, OK, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit J-1).
Interested
Parties:
None.