CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, April 27, 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 |
Turnbo |
Arnold |
Ballentine, NBH Insp. |
|
Dunham, Vice Chair |
|
Dunlap |
Parnell, NBH Insp. |
|
Perkins |
|
|
Ackermann, Zoning |
|
White, Chair |
|
|
Jackere, Legal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Friday, April 23, 1999, at 2:30 p.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m.
MINUTES:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, White, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper, Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of March 23, 1999 (No. 769).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION
of PERKINS, the Board voted 3-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, White, "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper, Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of April 13, 1999 (No. 770).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Cooper in at
1:05 p.m.
Action Requested:
Variance of the required 75’ setback to
5’ from an abutting R District to facilitate drainage. SECTION
903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 16, located 1303 N. Garnet Road.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunlap mentioned that on March 23,
1999, the Board requested of the applicant a drainage plan. Staff did not receive a drainage plan but
they are in receipt of comments from an engineer.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jake Floyd, 2909 E. 29th Street, Tulsa, OK, submitted an
engineer’s report (Exhibit A-1) and stated that he represents the property
owner who is interested in developing the tract into a mini-storage
development. Mr. Floyd mentioned that they
are asking for a variance down to 5’ in order to construct a mini-storage
building. Mr. Floyd stated that they
would like to amend their request so that the 5’ variance would only affect the
East 900’ of the South property line.
The area has bad drainage and they have visited with Stormwater
Management at the City of Tulsa about how they could build the mini-storage
facility without exacerbating the problem.
Mr. Floyd thought the Board wanted him to submit an engineer’s report
and not a drainage plan. He indicated
that he has spoken with the neighbors and they have worked out most of the
problems. Mr. Floyd indicated that
before anything proceeds, a full drainage report/study will be submitted to
Stormwater Management for their final approval.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunlap stated that in the engineer’s
report there is an additional variance request of the screening
requirement. That variance request has
not been part of the original application and has not been advertised. Mr. Floyd responded that he was not aware
that it would have to be readvertised.
Mr. Floyd suggested acting on the variance and continuing the waiver of
the screening fence.
Interested
Parties:
Mary Ann Yarbrough, 1225 North Garnett, stated that her property adjoins the subject property to the south. Ms. Yarbrough mentioned to the Board that the neighbors have spoken to Mr. Floyd about his proposed project. They have been able to work out many of their problems. Mr. Floyd assured Ms. Yarbrough that once the variance is approved they will then submit the drainage plan to the City. The plan indicates that the neighbors will not have any additional water runoff to their property. Ms. Yarbrough submitted photos of the property (Exhibit A-2). Ms. Yarbrough explained to the Board that there is a water problem in the area and the residents have learned to live with it but their largest concern is about additional water coming onto their properties.
Mr. White asked Ms. Yarbrough if she had any problem with the buildings being constructed 5’ from the property line? Ms. Yarbrough replied that she did not have a problem with that. The only concern that she has is drainage.
George
Palmer, stated that he owns the 880’ adjoining the subject property to the
south. Mr. Palmer opposes the
application.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Floyd stated that the 5’ variance is not the bulk of the problem. The bulk of the problem is further north. The water flows from the southeast to the northwest. Mr. Floyd explained that yesterday everyone in the area was flooded from all of the rain over the past few days. He believes that the drainage on Garnett needs to be addressed by the City.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if the property is in
the flood plain and Mr. Floyd replied negatively.
Mr. White asked why the southerly row of buildings could not be placed on the northerly portion and center the buildings up on the property and the 49˝’ variance that was approved in 1995 would not be questioned. Mr. Floyd responded that as you move to the north, because of the lay of the land, it begins to fall off. There is a natural detention pond on the west end of the development.
Mr. Dunham stated that in the absence of
a drainage plan and a hardship, he is very concerned about putting the
buildings 5’ away from the south property line. Mr. Cooper agreed. Mr.
Floyd mentioned that he would be able to have Mr. Donnelson, the engineer put
together a drainage plan showing the hardship.
Mr. Floyd suggested continuing the application for at least 30 days.
Mr. Cooper stated that the hardship the
applicant is attempting to show is financial.
Mr. Cooper pointed out that the Board does not make its decisions on
economic hardships.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”;
Turnbo "absent") to DENY
Variance
of the required 75’ setback to 5’ from an abutting R District to facilitate
drainage. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 16, on the following
described property:
N 99.5’ of Lot 2 and Lot 1, Cooleys Subdivision, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa 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.
Presentation:
The applicant, John W. Moody, stated that he is withdrawing the request (Exhibit
B-1).
Board Action:
None taken.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of livability space from 7,000
SF to 6,700 SF. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; Variance of the
required front yard from 35’ to 24’. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; a Variance of the required rear yard
from 25’ to 24’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; 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. & S. Victor.
Presentation:
The applicant, Brian L. Freese, was represented by Charles E. Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, Tulsa, OK 74103, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit C-1) and stated that the owners of the lot are Steve and Debbie Ganzkow. Mr. Freese is the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Ganzkow. Mr. Norman submitted photos of the lot (Exhibit C-7) and stated that this property was part of a larger tract that was divided into two lots in 1989. At that time, this neighborhood was zoned in the RS-2 district. In 1989 these lots were legal RS-2 lots. Mr. Norman pointed out that RS-2 lots have a lot size requirement of 9,000 square feet and 5,000 square feet of livability space. In 1989, the Board approved an application for the construction of a residence on this property which included a variance of the 30’ setback required under the RS-2 to 24’ and a site plan for the residence was submitted at that time. The residence was never constructed at that time. About three months later the Board approved an application for similar variances on the lot immediately to the south which is identified as Dr. Millstone’s property. In 1994, this neighborhood was rezoned to an RS-1 district and the lot was made nonconforming in width and slightly nonconforming in size. The new RS-1 requirement is 100’ of lot width, 13,500 square feet of lot area and a 35’ setback rather than the 30’ that was in existence when the Board granted the variances in 1989. Mr. Norman pointed out that one of the requests on this application was for a variance of livability from 7,000 square feet to 6,700 square feet. Mr. Norman feels that there is some question about what livability space is under the Zoning Code. Mr. Norman’s interpretation is that livability space is the area of the lot that is not occupied by house or driveways. It is the area available for landscaping, backyards, pools and decks. The RS-2 has a livability space requirement of 5,000 square feet and in the RS-1 the requirement is 7,000 square feet. The proposed site plan provides for 6,700 square feet of livability space. Mr. Norman has had the engineer and the architect calculate the lot area and that is indicated on the site plan as 12,439 square feet. The livability space is 6,712 square feet which represents 53.9% of the lot. Mr. Norman believes that they do not need the variance of the livability space and is withdrawing that request. The total livable area of the home is about 4,300 square feet. The second variance requested is for the required front yard from 25’ to 24’. There are two small corners of the building where they project 1’ into the required rear yard. Both of the triangles are a little over 3 square feet in area and they result from uneven lot lines. Mr. Norman pointed out that there is a screening wall on the site plan from the front building line and goes to the north approximately 15’. That is a design feature to provide screening to the bedroom wing of the residence. Because of discussions with the next door neighbor, the Ganzkow’s are withdrawing the request for the 6’ high screening wall in part of the front wall.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Norman asked Mr. Jackere if he believes that if the livability area is more than 50% of the lot area and this is a lawful nonconforming lot, that they would not need the variance of that requirement. Mr. Jackere replied that the applicant can withdraw the request if he feels it is not needed but he is not prepared to give an opinion at this time.
Mr. White asked Mr. Norman exactly which requests he is withdrawing and Mr. Norman replied that he is withdrawing the request for livability space and the request for the 6’ screening wall.
Interested Parties:
Margie Hughes, 2840 S. Victor, stated that she has lived at this location for over 35 years. Ms. Hughes submitted an objection letter from a neighbor (Exhibit C-2) and a petition (Exhibit C-4) signed by neighbors opposing this application. Ms. Hughes stated that she is opposed to this application and she is opposed to any changes in the Zoning Code.
Carol Ashcroft, 1754 E. 30th Street, submitted photos of the surrounding neighborhood (Exhibit C-6). Ms. Ashcroft stated that she is opposed to this application. This house is at the corner of a major intersection of the neighborhood and is out of character with the other older homes in the area. Ms. Ashcroft is concerned about the continual flooding problem of the street and how this proposed development will affect that. She feels that since there will not be much landscaping/grass area it will cause more flooding and drainage problems. Ms. Ashcroft feels that this property could meet the setback requirements of an RS-1 lot.
Larry Mills, stated that he lives across the street from the subject property and has owned his house since 1958. Mr. Mills believes it is wrong to reduce the size and livability of the neighborhood. The applicant needs to abide by the Zoning Code.
Barbara Mills, mentioned that the houses are setback 35’ and have large yards. Ms. Mills is worried about the continuity of the new house and the neighborhood.
David R. Cordell, 2126 E. 30th Street, stated that he is appearing as member of the neighborhood and an attorney on behalf of some neighbors who could not be present. Mr. Cordell mentioned that he is a new to the area, only having lived there about a year and a half. In making his purchasing decision he was impressed with the integrity of the neighborhood and the safety for his children to ride bikes in the neighborhood. Mr. Cordell is concerned about what the corner will look like with the height of the structure and the closeness of the house to the street. Mr. Cordell mentioned that the applicant has not presented a necessity for the variances.
Carol Leach, 1742 E. 30th Street, stated that she is concerned about the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Ms. Leach mentioned to the Board that most of the houses in the neighborhood do set back 35’ from the street.
Melinda Mercer, 3020 S. Wheeling, mentioned that he lot is adjacent to the back corner of the subject lot. About four years ago, after a large storm their backyard looked like a river with a swift current. Their new wood fence was torn down. She is concerned about all the pavement proposed for the new house and how the water will just run off of it and towards the neighbor houses.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Norman stated that a 4’ fence is permitted by the Zoning Code and is not an issue before the Board. One of the speakers mentioned that one of the speakers mentioned that she thought the calculations for the floor area were incorrect and this was a smaller lot around 11,000 square feet. If that was the case, then the 6,700 square feet of livability space would be 60 or 65% of the lot area and way more than the 50% that is required under the Code. There is also a provision for nonconforming lots that you only have to have a side yard of 5’ and not the ordinary 15’ that is required when a side yard is on a street. Mr. Freese designed the side yard to be 15’ not 5’. This plan preserves a better yard on the north side on 30th Street and complies exactly with what was done by this Board with respect to the lot next door. Mr. Norman asked the Board to approve the application under the conditions that were created by the change in zoning from RS-2 to RS-1.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Norman if the setback went from 30’ to 35’ because of the RS-1? Mr. Norman replied affirmatively.
Mr. Cooper referred to a photo submitted and he believes that the interested party are measuring from the curb line and not the lot line and Mr. Norman agreed with Mr. Cooper’s comment. Mr. Cooper believes that this is a misunderstanding with the neighbors.
Mr. White mentioned that the Board is in receipt of a letter of support from David Chernicky, 1782 E. 30th.
Mr. Cooper stated that other than the comments about the drainage, he did not hear any specific objections about the drainage.
The Board determined that there was not a problem with the variance of 1’.
Mr. White mentioned that looking at the plans, there were many concerns about the sight line and they are valid concerns because it is an odd shaped intersection and the hill. Mr. White believes that a vehicle should still be able to see around the porte-cochere.
Mr. Dunham pointed out that the people who are to be the most affected by the proposed dwelling are in support of the application.
Mr. Cooper believes that this is a very minor variance request. Mr. Cooper asked Ms. Ashcroft to come to the podium and explain the flag placement on the photos she submitted. Ms. Ashcroft explained that Mr. Freese had put the flags in the position the house will be situated. The Board asked Mr. Freese to come forward and explain the position of the flags. Mr. Brian Freese, 5319 S. Lewis, architect for the Ganzkows, stated that he did not actually place the flags on the lot, the owner did, but they did discuss where the flags should be placed. The flags show the two corners of where they are proposing the 6’ wall to be. The was another flag located on the northwest corner of the house.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Turnbo "absent") to WITHDRAW Variance of livability space from
7,000 SF to 6,700 SF. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use
Unit 6; and Special Exception to permit a 6’ fence in the required front
yard. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS,
Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards, and APPROVE a Variance of the required front yard
from 35’ to 24’, per plan submitted SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; a Variance of the required rear yard
from 25’ to 24’, per plan submitted SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; finding the hardship to be the
configuration of the lot, on the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 17, Forest Hills, an addition to the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, less and except a part thereof
described as beginning at a point on the SEly line thereof 90.10’ SEly of the NE/c thereof, thence SWly
for 64.52’ to the SE/c thereof, thence NWly along the SWly line thereof for
135.38’ to the SW/c thereof, thence NEly on the curve to the left having a
radius of 301.79’ for 83.96’, thence SEly and parallel with the SWly line of
said Lot 1, for 130.12’ to the point of beginning.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a waiver of
the dust-free all-weather surface requirement for a period of five years to
coincide with a temporary sales operation.
SECTION 1202.C.1. USE UNIT 2—AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USES; Use Conditions, located 3212
E. 91st St. S.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jeff Ogilvie was not present.
Interested Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to permit a waiver
of the dust-free all-weather surface requirement for a period of five years to
coincide with a temporary sales operation.
SECTION 1202.C.1. USE UNIT 2—AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USES; Use Conditions, 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:
NE, NE, NE, Section 20, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
NEW APPLICATIONS
Action
Requested:
Variance of lot width from the required
200’ to 182’ and 100’. SECTION 303. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit
6; a Variance of lot area from 2 acres to 1.12 acres and 1.0 acres. SECTION 303. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit
6; and a Variance of land area from 2.2 acres to 1.328 acres and 1.03 acres
in an AG district to permit a lot split. SECTION
303. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 6; located 2515 W. 91st St. S.
Presentation:
The applicant, Irene Cody, was represented by Darrell Brown, 7204 E. 90th
Place, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit D-1) and stated that the character on
91st Street ranges from large tracts of several acres down to .35
acres. The zoning on one side is RS-3
with numerous small tracts. This parcel
of land is two acres that was split off of six acres. As far as he knows that split was not an approved split and it
was done sometime in the early 1980’s.
There are two approved splits in the abstract. One was a 12’ split on the east side of the two acre tract. Mr. Brown stated that the hardship is that
the land is burdened by a 25’ easement along the west of the property. That easement is not only utility but also
an access easement for the 4.1 acres directly north of the subject tract.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Staff if there needs to be additional relief from the 30’ of frontage on Tract A. Mr. Jackere replied that he believes that the Code requires a minimum 30’ of frontage on a dedicated street, so yes, there needs to be additional relief requested.
Board Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE Variance of lot width from the
required 200’ to 182’ and 100’. SECTION 303. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit
6; a Variance of lot area from 2 acres to 1.12 acres and 1.0 acres. SECTION 303. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit
6; and a Variance of land area from 2.2 acres to 1.328 acres and 1.03
acres in an AG district to permit a lot split. SECTION 303. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 6, finding the hardship
to be the size of the lot and the neighborhood and to CONTINUE the application to May 25, to allow time for
additional notice for the relief of the 30’ street frontage on Tract A and also
with the condition that the 30’ mutual access easement would continue through
Tract A providing access to the property to the north, on the following
described property:
W 200’ of the N 435.60’ of the S 485.60’ and the E 12’ of
the W 212’ of the N 435.60’ of the S 485.60’ of the E/2 of the SE/4 of the SW/4
of Section 15, T-18-N, R-12-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required frontage for CS
zoned district from 150’ to 86’ on an arterial street. SECTION
703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 9801 E. 11th Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, W. P. Smith, 1007 W. K, Jenks, OK, submitted a site plan (Exhibit
E-1) and stated that he represents the property owners Merle Martindale and
Clark Brewster. Mr. Smith mentioned
that this is a 20 acre tract, 660 x 1320 less the street right of way. The East Tulsa Christian Church has a
contract to buy 14.06 acres on the back and their plans are to relocate their
church to this site.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Smith if his
request is to provide access to the back portion of the property and Mr. Smith
replied yes.
Mr. Dunham suggested making a condition
that the 86’ strip be used for access only and that no structure could be build
upon it.
Case No. 18381 (continued)
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Smith for a hardship. Mr. Smith mentioned that it would be a hardship on the church if they had to purchase all of the commercial property on the front of the tract. Mr. Dunham stated that if this is only used for access and nothing else he feels that it would be a hardship to require the church to have 150’ of frontage for access.
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if he
plans to put a sign on the access? Mr. Smith
replied yes. Mr. Dunham suggested
putting a condition of approval that no structure be placed on the access
except for a sign.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-1-0
(Dunham, Perkins, White "aye"; Cooper "nays", no
"abstentions”; Turnbo "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the required
frontage for CS zoned district from 150’ to 86’ on an arterial street. SECTION
703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, per plan; subject to no structures being
placed on the 86’ with the exception of a sign and that the 86’ be used for
access; finding the hardship to be the size of the tract in the back and the
need for access; on the following described property:
A part of the SW/4 of the SW/4 of Section 6, T-19-N, R-14-E
of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma and more
particularly described as follows, to-wit:
Beginning at a point 26’ N and 1,491.66’ W of the SE/c of the SW/4 of
said Section 6, T-19-N, R-14-E; thence in a Nly direction 1,294'; thence in a
Wly direction 658.80'; thence in a Sly direction 1,294'; thence in an Ely
direction parallel to and 26’ N of the Section line a distance of 660’ to the
point and place of beginning. Subject
to Easement dated April 29, 1955, granted to the County of Tulsa, State of
Oklahoma, covering the following described property: Beginning at a point 26’ N and 1,491.66’ W of the SE/c of the
SW/4 of Section 6, T-19-N, R-14-E, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, thence N a distance
of 39' to a point; thence W and parallel to the S line of said Section 6 a
distance of 182’ to a point; thence N 10’ to a point W and parallel to the S
line of said Section 6, a distance of 353.92’ to a point; thence N a distance
of 16’ to a point; thence W and parallel to the S line of said Section 6, a
distance of 82’ to a point; thence S a distance of 16’ to a point; thence W and
parallel to the S line of said Section 6, a distance of 44.08’ to a point;
thence S a distance of 49’ to a point; thence E and parallel to the S line of
said Section 6, a distance of 660’ to the point of beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to operate a styling salon in an office building zoned OL. SECTION 603. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 13, located 4625 S. Harvard.
Presentation:
The applicant, Sam Wheeler, was represented by Steve Jennings of Coury Properties
who submitted a site plan (Exhibit F-1).
They are requesting a special exception to relocate and operate an
existing salon to an office complex zoned OL.
Mr. Jennings mentioned that the salon would occupy 1,716 square
feet.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Jennings if he has seen the Staff comments on the property and Mr. Jennings replied that he had not seen them. Mr. Jennings listened to Mr. Dunham explain the conditions of Section 604.C. Mr. Jennings explained that the conditions of Section 604.C. relate to an OM district and not an OL district. Section 604.F. relates to a beauty salon in an OL district. Mr. Dunlap said that Mr. Jennings is correct.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Turnbo "absent") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception to operate a styling salon in an office building zoned
OL. SECTION 603. SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USES IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 13, 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:
Tract 5, Block 3, Villa Grove Heights No. 1 Addition, to the
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow outdoor sales of produce in a CS zoned district from May 15 through August 15 for three years (from 1999 through 2001). SECTION 1202.B. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Included Uses – Use Unit 2, located 3205 S. Garnett.
Presentation:
The applicant, Tommie Boyd Long, 9161 E. 102nd Place South, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit G-1) and stated that he is asking for a permit to sell
produce for the summer.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked the applicant if he understands that the special exception cannot exceed 179 days per year and Mr. Long understood that condition.
Interested
Parties:
Perry Partney, 9070 E. 29th Street, stated that he is the owner of the office building that is directly east of the proposed produce stand. Mr. Partney explained to the Board that there are only two entrances to this building. If two cars are parked on each side of 32nd Street, there is barely room to get one car between the two. Mr. Partney said that he is not against the sale of the produce but he thinks that there would be better utilization of the facilities next to Garnett by putting the tent and storage building next to the existing building that housed the Total gas station. Mr. Partney submitted photos of the area (Exhibit G-2). He does not want to see a grass area turned into a gravel parking lot.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Long stated that the tent will sit on the concrete on the south side. There is no storage building and there will be no gravel on the lot. The tent is 20’ x 30’.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Turnbo "absent") to
APPROVE Special Exception to
allow outdoor sales of produce in a CS zoned district from May 15 through August
15 for three years (from 1999 through 2001).
SECTION 1202.B. USE UNIT 2.
AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Included Uses – 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, subject to the grassy area on the lot remaining and for a
period not to exceed 179 days per year, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow outdoor sales of produce in a CS zoned district from May 15 through August 15 for three years (from 1999 through 2001). SECTION 1202.B. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Included Uses – Use Unit 2, located 6570 E. 71st Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, Tommie Boyd Long, submitted a site plan (Exhibit H-1) and stated
that there was a little confusion about the property. There is another man who is selling plants at this location right
now until June. In June Mr. Long hopes
to take over and start his produce business.
Comments
and Questions:
The Board mentioned their concern about the current use of the property, the proposed use of the property and the previous approval for a car lot on the property. Mr. Jackere suggested placing condition on the approval that this use be the only use or a use in conjunction with or a second use with a time specification.
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Long what is his
understanding of the situation, will the tenant be there through the
summer? Mr. Long replied that the other
tenant will be there until June 18. Mr.
Jackere asked the applicant if he intends to start selling produce now or wait
until June 18? Mr. Long said that he
will wait until June 18 to start selling produce.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception to allow outdoor sales of produce in a CS zoned district for
three years (from 1999 through 2001). SECTION 1202.B. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Included Uses – 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, beginning on June 19, 1999, and beginning on May 15, 2000 and
2001; subject to it being the sole use permitted on this property for 179 days
per year for three years, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception reducing the number of required off-street parking spaces from 24 to 13 to permit a restaurant to continue to operate. SECTION 1407.C. PARKING, LOADING AND SCREENING NONCONFORMINITIES – Use Unit 12, located 1517 S. Main St.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Dunlap stated that there has