CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, July 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dunham, V. Chair |
Cooper |
Arnold |
Jackere, Legal |
|
Perkins |
|
Beach |
Ackermann,
Zoning |
|
Turnbo |
|
Stump |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
Parnell,
Code Enforc. |
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Friday, July 23, 1999, at 8:04 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:
Special Exception to remove the
screening requirement from an abutting R district for a parking lot and
abutting apartments in a PUD. SECTION 504.B. GENERAL USE CONDITIONS IN THE PARKING DISTRICT and SECTION
1303.E. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET
PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 10 and a Variance of the requirement of a 5’
landscaped area to 0’ from an abutting RS-1 property. SECTION 1002.A.3. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, Frontage and
Perimeter Requirements, located East 96th Street South &
South Memorial.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jeff Levinson, 35 East 18th Street, stated that he
represents Spirit Bank, the prospective purchaser of the tract. Mr. Levinson submitted a site plan (Exhibit
A-1) and mentioned that the tract is 48’ wide by 412’ deep and is going to be
used exclusively as a parking lot to service the existing Spirit Bank facility
on South Memorial. Mr. Levinson pointed
out that the tract is bordered by RS-1 and the owners of the RS-1 tract do not
anticipate it ever being developed as a residential use. Those owners support this application
fully.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. White asked Staff if a tie agreement is required? Mr. Levinson informed the Board that this lot is also the subject of a pending lot-split application. The 48’ tract will be tied to the Lot 1, Block 1, 9600 Memorial, which is Spirit Bank. Mr. Beach mentioned that as soon as the PK zoning is approved, it will be subject to plat and they can incorporate the lot into their plans.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to remove the
screening requirement from an abutting R district for a parking lot and
abutting apartments in a PUD, 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
504.B. GENERAL USE CONDITIONS IN THE
PARKING DISTRICT and SECTION 1303.E.
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 10 and a Variance
of the requirement of a 5’ landscaped area to 0’ from an abutting RS-1
property, finding that the hardship meets the requirements of Section
1607.C., SECTION 1002.A.3. LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENTS, Frontage and Perimeter Requirements, on the following
described property:
A tract of land that is part of the NE/4 of the SE/4 of
Section 23, T-18-N, R-13-E of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, said
tract being described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Sly line of 9600 Memorial, said point being
5’ Wly of the SE/c of said 9600 Memorial; thence S 01°07’48” E along the
present right-of-way line of S. Memorial for 48.00’; thence S 88°45’34” W 48’
Sly of as measured perpendicularly to and parallel with the Sly line of said
9600 Memorial for 412.30’; thence N 01°07’48” W for 48.00’; thence N 88°45’34”
E along a Wly extension of the Sly line of said 9600 Memorial and along the Sly
line of said 9600 Memorial for 412.30’ to the beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW APPLICAITONS
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an existing public park in RS-3
and AG Districts and to permit improvements to the park. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 301.
PRINICPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 5,
located 2877 South 77th East Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Clarence T. Ruby, Jr., City of Tulsa, Parks Department, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit B-1) and mentioned that the City plans to do some excavating
work including new picnic tables and a trail around the park.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Comments
and Questions:
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to permit an
existing public park in RS-3 and AG Districts and to permit improvements to the
park, 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 and SECTION
301. PRINICPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 5, subject to the conceptual site plan, and
that minor revisions may be made to the plan without further approval by the
Board; and being limited to only those items that are included in the 10 year
funded list (Exhibit B-2), on the following described property:
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Hodges Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an existing public park
(Woodland View II) in an RS-3 district and to permit improvements to the
park. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located North of east 58th
Street between South 85th East Avenue and South 84th East
Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Clarence
T. Ruby, Jr., City of Tulsa, Parks Department, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit C-1) and stated that the site map sent out by INCOG has an error on
it. The map shows an entrance at the
east side of the park and that entrance will not exist. Mr. Ruby explained that the entrance exists
on the plat but it is not used or accessible.
The entrance on the south will be the main entrance. There is another access in the northwest
corner
Interested Parties:
Dr. Jerry Powell, President of the Homeowners’ Association of Woodland View Park I. Dr. Powell indicated that the association is in support of the application. There have been no improvements made to the park since it was built in 1969.
Craig Stuttsman, 5643 S. 85th E. Ave. stated that the entrance on the east side of the park is directly across the street from him. He is concerned about it being used in the future. Mr. Stuttsman suggested that the City just divide up the small parcel of land and deed it to each homeowner on either side of it.
Mr. Jackere mentioned to Mr. Stuttsman that if the property is platted right-of-way, it can be closed and ultimately vacated. Mr. Jackere asked Mr. Stuttsman if there are any utilities on the property? Mr. Stuttsman replied that he can see no utilities.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Ruby stated that they have an agreement with one of the property owners that they would not reopen the access nor would they cut down the trees. Mr. Ruby stated that the 6’ strip was originally acquired with the park. The park was donated to the City by the developers.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to permit an
existing public park (Woodland View II) in an RS-3 district and to permit
improvements to the park, 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 5, subject to the improvements as shown on
the conceptual site plan (Exhibit ), on the following described property:
A tract of land located in the SW/4 of Section 36, T-19-N,
R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma described as Beginning at the
NE/c of Woodland View Park I Addition; thence due S 405’; thence S 27°00’00” W
a distance of 365’; thence S 41°00’00” W a distance of 352’; thence due E a
distance of 255’; thence due S a distance of 125.63’; thence due E a distance
of 20’; thence due N a distance of 123.63’; thence N 30°15’00” E a distance of
430’; thence N 9°50’00” E a distance of 145’; thence S 80°10’00” E a distance
of 115.01’; thence N 9°50’00” E a distance of 6’; thence N 80°10’00” W a
distance of 115.01’; thence N 9°50’00” E a distance of 189’; thence N 30°00’00”
E a distance of 334.20’; thence due W a distance of 320.15’ to the point of
beginning.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a manufactured home in an RS-4 District
and a Special Exception of the one-year time limit to permanent. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION
404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN
RESDIENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, located 1850 North Owasso Avenue
Presentation:
The applicant, Tasha Alexander, 445 East Oklahoma Place, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit D-1) and stated that she would like to place a mobile home on land
that has been passed down through her family.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that there are some improvements shown on the aerial photo. He asked the applicant if those improvements will remain? Ms. Alexander replied that it was torn down. She hopes to one day open a beauty salon adjacent to her home. The houses that are on the same side of the street are vacant. Ms. Alexander submitted photos of the surrounding area (Exhibit D-3).
Interested Parties:
Carol Matthews, 1851 North Owasso, stated that she is directly across the street from the proposed mobile home. Ms. Matthews is opposed to allowing a mobile home in a residential area because it will lower property values.
Leneta Dyer, 2005 North Madison Place, is opposed to the mobile home being allowed in the neighborhood. Ms. Dyer would like to see more stick built homes in the area and not more mobile homes.
Esther Oggins, stated that she represents the Lacey Park Task Force, stated that this area is strictly opposed to any mobile homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Oggins feels that they bring down property values. She stated that they are trying to rebuild their neighborhood and allowing mobile homes will not help their efforts.
Mr. White mentioned that the Board is in receipt of a petition of opposition (Exhibit D-2) signed by 20 neighborhood residents.
Mr. White reminded the Board that they do have, on record, a written opposition from Councilor Williams, that he is in opposition to any manufactured or mobile homes in the district.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Ms. Alexander impressed upon the Board
that a manufactured home will do nothing but bring up the value and quality of
the neighborhood. The houses that are
there have never been improved any way.
Ms. Alexander is planning to brick the house and add a garage to help
the appearance.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if the plan submitted is the one she plans on moving onto the property? Ms. Alexander replied affirmatively.
Mr. Dunham asked if the home will be
placed on a permanent foundation and Ms. Alexander responded that it will.
Mr. Dunham asked if the applicant has
any plans to pave the driveway and Ms. Alexander replied affirmatively.
Mr. Dunham asked the Board if there are
any other mobile homes in the area. Mr.
White replied that he has driven the neighborhood and did not see any other
mobile homes.
Ms. Turnbo stated that the house looks
nice in the pictures but she believes that this neighborhood is trying to
rebuild and the neighborhood strongly opposes mobile homes. She is leaning towards denial of the
application. Mr. White does not believe
that this home will be a benefit to the area.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to DENY Special Exception to permit a
manufactured home in an RS-4 District and a Special Exception of the one-year
time limit to permanent. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESDIENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, on
the following described property:
Lots 7-8, Block 7, Liberty Second Addition, an addition to
the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action Requested:
Variance of the required 60’ lot width to 50’ to permit a
lot split in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS;
Special Exception to allow duplexes in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Variance of the required lot area from 9,000 square
feet to 6,750 square feet; Variance of the required land area per dwelling unit
from 5,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet; Variance of minimum lot frontage
from 75’ to 50’ to permit duplexes. SECTION 404.C. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS;
OR
in the alternative: Variance of the required lot area from 6,900 square
feet to 6,750 square feet and Variance of the required land area per dwelling
unit from 8,400 square feet to 8,000 square feet to permit a lot split. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located East of the NE/c East 3rd Street
& South Delaware.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that all of the requests related to duplexes are being withdrawn.
Presentation:
The applicant, Linda Morrissey, was represented by John Nicks, 1325 South Guthrie, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit
E-1) and stated that he is one of the owners of the property. After talking to the neighborhood
association last week, they have decided to withdraw the request to allow
duplexes. Their application now is to
conform these lots to the rest of the lots on the block.
Interested Parties:
Maria
Barnes, 2252 East 7th Street, stated that she is the President
of Kendall-Whittier Neighborhood Association.
The Association supports the lot-split for single-family residences.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the required 60’ lot
width to 50’ to permit a lot split in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Variance of the required lot area
from 6,900 square feet to 6,750 square feet and Variance of the required
land area per dwelling unit from 8,400 square feet to 8,000 square feet to permit
a lot split being limited to a single-family dwelling; finding that the size of
the lots in the area would support the lot-split. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS finding that the Variances meet the requirements of
Section 1607.C., on the following described property:
Lot 7, Block 5, Pleasant View Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma
The applicant WITHDREW the request for a Special Exception to allow duplexes
in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Variance
of the required lot area from 9,000 square feet to 6,750 square feet; Variance
of the required land area per dwelling unit from 5,000 square feet to 4,000
square feet; Variance of minimum lot frontage from 75’ to 50’ to permit
duplexes. SECTION 404.C. SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS;
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback from an arterial street
from 90’ to 50’. SECTION 904. SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USES, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 23, located 2830 West Charles Page Boulevard.
Presentation:
The applicant, Clyde L. Johnson, 7529 South Gary Place, Tulsa, OK, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit F-1) and stated that he is the President of Interstate Steel
and Metals. The company needs to expand
its warehouse operations on Charles Page Boulevard. Mr. Johnson submitted photos (Exhibit F-2) of other sites in the
area and of his warehouse. The steel
that is currently laying exposed in the parking lot will be under cover if the
warehouse is approved.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the required setback
from an arterial street from 90’ to 50’, finding the existing conditions in the
neighborhood to be the hardship, SECTION 904. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 23, per plan
submitted, on the following described property:
Part of Government Lot 6, in Section 3, T-19-N, R-12-E of
the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as
follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point
562.2’ N and 1537’ N 79°10’ E of Meander Corner on the left bank of the
Arkansas River between Sections 3 and 4, T-19-N, R-12-E, being a point which is
30’ perpendicularly distant in a SEly direction from the center line of paved
highway known as Sand Springs Road; thence N 79°10’ E on and along the Sly line
of said Sand Springs Road, a distance of 257.5’; thence S 2°26’ E, a distance
of 212.1’ to a point on the Nly right-of-way line of Sand Springs Railway
Company, said point being 38.8’ perpendicularly distant in a NWLy direction
from the center line of the west bound main track of said railway company
thence S 78°58’ W on and along said Nly right-of-way line a distance of 259.0’;
thence N 2°2’ W a distance of 213.5’ to the point of beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback from an abutting street
from 55’ to 30’ to permit an accessory building which will be 5’ from the
property line. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 5502 South
Harvard Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Daryl F. Southard, 5652 South Delaware, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit G-1) and stated that he represents Harvard Avenue Christian
Church. The church would like to place an
accessory building within 5’ of the property line. The building will be utilized as classroom space for the
church.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the required setback from an abutting street from 55’ to
30’ to permit an accessory building which will be 5’ from the property line,
finding that the hardship meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, per plan submitted, on the following
described property:
That part of the NE/4 of Section 32, T-19-N, R-13-E, Tulsa
County, Oklahoma described as follows:
Beginning at a point 466.69’ S of the NE/c of the SE/4, NE/4; thence W
parallel with the N line of said SE/4, NE/4 466.69’ to a point; thence S 300’
to a point; thence E 466.69’ to a point on the E line of said section; thence N
along said line 300’ to the point of beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of the required 65’ setback from the centerline of
East 47th Place to 40’. SECTION 902. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15,
located 4711 South Mingo.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Charles Chief Boyd, 4998 East 26th
Street, submitted a site plan (Exhibit H-1) and stated that he is replacing a
lumber warehousing facility with a different structure in essentially the same location. The building will be slightly larger.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the required
65’ setback from the centerline of East 47th Place to 40’, finding
the hardship to be the configuration of the lot, SECTION 902. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15, per plan submitted, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of the requirement that corridor access shall be
principally from internal collector streets.
SECTION 804. ACCES REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 11,
located South of he SE/c East 91st Street & South Mingo Road.
Presentation:
The applicant, Wayne Alberty, 201 West 5th Street, Tulsa, OK 74103, stated
that he is representing the Sutherland family who owns the property. Mr. Alberty submitted a site plan (Exhibit
I-1) and mentioned that the Sutherlands were before the Board approximately
three years ago and at that time they had a different use in mind. The use that was approved was never
completed. The Sutherland family wants
to develop a project which will partially be for their own use (headquarters
for Sutherland Companies) and to provide extra space for medical offices. The Sutherlands believe that medical offices
will soon be in demand as direct result of the new SouthCrest Hospital being
located nearby. Mr. Alberty explained
that this tract is long and narrow and could not accommodate a collector street.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance
of the requirement that corridor access shall be principally from internal
collector streets, finding that the hardship meets the requirements of Section
1607.C., SECTION 804. ACCES REQUIREMENTS
– Use Unit 11, subject to an approved site plan, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of average lot width from the required 60’ to 38’
and 34’ to permit a lot-split with two panhandles for water and sewer
access. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQURIEMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 4122 South
Madison Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Kenneth
Craft, 4119 South Detroit, submitted a site plan (Exhibit J-1) and stated
that he attempted to do a lot split in the Spring and they ran into some
utility problems. He has since met with
the utility departments and has been told by them that they would have to
construct a panhandle to gain access to the utilities. Because of the panhandle length, the average
lot width would be reduced. Mr. Craft
explained that all of the lots to the south have been split. The lot directly to the south has a
panhandle for water access.
Interested
Parties:
Steve Pattison, 4132 and 4136 South Madison avenue, stated that he is in opposition to this proposed lot split. Mr. Pattison explained that the house that exists gains access from Detroit and the proposed lot would gain access from Madison. Mr. Pattison stated that Madison is barely a street and is about 8’ wide. There is not enough room to handle the traffic that currently uses the street. Mr. Pattison asked the Board to deny the application.
Mr. White mentioned that the Board is in receipt of a letter of opposition (Exhibit J-2).
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Pattison if there are houses that currently face onto Madison? Mr. Pattison replied that there are two houses that face onto Madison right now.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Craft stated that there is more than 8’ on Madison. He believes that Madison is closer to 22’ or 25’.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that it appears that the lots to the south that have been split are wider than the one proposed to be split.
Mr. White asked Staff when the lots to the south developed with the panhandle? Mr. Beach replied that he did not know. Mr. Stump stated that it was probably not granted a variance of lot width. Mr. Beach noted that if it wasn’t for the need to get to the sewer and water the applicant would not be before us. Mr. Stump mentioned that the City requires the lot front the water main and sewer main. If it does not, you are supposed to extend the water or sewer main so the lot does front.