CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, December 14, 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 |
Perkins |
Beach |
Jackere, Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler |
Ackermann, Zoning
|
|
White, Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Monday, December 13, 1999, at 10:48 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18599
Action Requested:
Variance of the setback from E. 11th
St from 40' to 37.6' for addition to existing restaurant. SECTION 215.
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ABUTTING STREETS – Use Unit 12.A. Continuance
is requested by a letter, which was proper and timely.
Board Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 3-0-0
(Dunham, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays"; no"
abstention"; Cooper, Perkins "absent") to CONTINUE this case to the January 11,2000 meeting.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18600
Action Requested:
In opposition requested a Continuance to January 26, 2000,
regarding Special Exception to permit church and accessory church uses in an
RS-3 district. SECTION 401.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located
at 1127 East 35th Place.
Case No. 18600 (continued)
Board Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 3-0-0
(Dunham, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays"; no"
abstentions"; Cooper, Perkins "absent") to CONTINUE this case to the meeting on January 11, 1999.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of
DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-0-0
(Dunham, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays"; "no
abstentions"; Cooper, Perkins "absent") to APPROVE the minutes of October 12, 1999 (No. 782).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
Action Requested:
Variance of the average lot width of 200’ to 161.59’ and
133’ for a lot-split. SECTION 303. BULK
AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 6, located at 8160
South Elwood.
Presentation:
John Moody, 7146 South Canton, co-counsel with Mr. Bearer, is
representing John French and Jack French.
Mr. Moody stated this property has belonged to the French family for
many years. He pointed out the long,
narrow tract. Mr. French has a legal,
nonconforming business on the property, using it for equipment maintenance and
storage. Mr. French wants to convey 3.3
acres of the property in the rear to his son, who intends to build a
five-bedroom, single-family dwelling on the property. Mr. Moody stated the condition is included in the application that
it be used for residential purposes only.
He added that this would be an advantage to the neighborhood in
providing a nice residential buffer from the existing nonconforming industrial
use to the residences on the west and southwest of the property. Mr. Moody included that an old barn on the
property will be removed.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of
Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0
(Dunham, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper, Perkins, "absent") to APPROVE the Variance, of the average
lot width of 200’ to 161.59’ and 133’ for a lot-split with condition that an
existing barn straddling the new property line be removed, and that tract G be
used for residential purposes, finding the hardship to meet the requirements of
Section 1607.C.
A tract of land in the S/2 of the N 2/3 divided equally as
to area of the N/2 of the NE/4 of Section 14, T-18-N, R-12-E of the IBM, being
more particularly described as follows:
Beg. at a point on the E line of said S/2 N 2/3 a distance of 250.90’ N
of the SE/c of said S/2 N 2/3; the N 00°08’18” E on the E
line of said S/2 N 2/3 a distance of 161.59’ to a point 30’ S of the NE/c of
said S/2 N 2/3; thence N 89°53’57” W parallel with the N line of said S/2 N 2/3 a
distance of 820’; thence S 00°08’18” W parallel with the E line of said S/2 N 2/3 a
distance of 161.63’; thence E on the N line of an utility easement, a distance
of 820’ to the POB, less and except the E 50’ thereof; AND a tract of land in
the S/2 of the N 2/3 divided equally as to area of the N/2 of the NE/4 of
Section 14, T-18-N, R-12-E of the IBM, being more particularly described as
follows: Commencing at the SW/c of said S/2 N 2/3; thence S 89°53’42” E on the S
line of said S/2 N 2/3 a distance of 1559.28’ to the POB; thence continuing S
89°53’42”
E on the S line of said S/2 N 2/3 a distance of 278.16’ more or less to a point
820’ W of the SE/c of said S/2 N 2/3; thence N 00°0818” E parallel with the E line of said S/2 N 2/3 a
distance of 412.43’; thence S 89°53’57” E parallel with the N line of said S/2 N 2/3 a
distance of 820’ to a point on the E line of said S/2 N 2/3; thence N 00°08’18” E on the E
line of said S/2 N 2/3 a distance of 30’ to the NE/c of said S/2 N 2/3; thence
N 89°53’57”
W on the N line of said S/2 N 2/3 a distance of 1098.7’ more or less to a point
1559.28’ E of the NW/c of said S/2 N 2/3; thence S 00°04’11” W parallel
with the W line of said S/2 N 2/3 a distance of 442.41’ more or less to the POB
less and except the E 50’ thereof all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Amend a
required tie contract to release Lot 10, Block 3, Henry Addition. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit
5, located South of Southwest corner East Young Street & North Owasso
Avenue.
Presentation:
R.E. Walker, Pastor of Pilgrim Rest
Baptist Church, submitted a letter from the City of Tulsa Development Authority
to acknowledge that the construction of the plan submitted has been
accepted.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham
asked if the City of Tulsa has sent anyone to determine if parking is adequate
for the church. He explained that the
concern is why the tie agreement was made, since two other lots have previously
been released. The Board reviewed the
size of the sanctuary and Landscape Plan.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Turnbo, White, Cooper
"aye; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins
"absent") to APPROVE
the amendment of the tie agreement to release Lot 10, Block 3, Henry Addition.
Lots 9, 10, 11 and 14 - 18, Block 3,
Henry Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
RECONSIDER a Variance of five-foot sideyard
requirement to four feet in an RS-3 district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located at 4619 East 37th Place.
Presentation
Jerry
Dixon, 4619 East 37th Place, stated that after he added on to
his house he was too close to the property line. He had previously obtained a building permit, approved by the
City of Tulsa, which specified the structure was exactly five feet from the
property. This was further established by White Survey, if the platted property
lines are accepted. A second survey
prompted by a neighbor's complaints revealed that he built four feet too close
to the property line.
Mr. Cooper
asked why a continuance was not requested earlier by the attorney representing
him. The attorney had agreed with Mr.
Cooper to request a continuance, but the applicant withdrew the request. He is now making the request again, for
reconsideration of this variance.
Mr. Allen Yerten, 47 South 105th
East Place, stated that this case has already been heard, and if it is granted,
it will cause a substantial detriment to the public good. Based upon the violations of the Code, the
applicant should not be forgiven.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Cooper stated
that the applicant was represented well the first time. There are no new facts
and no indication of why there would be new facts to cause the Board to
re-rule.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 2-1-1 (Dunham, Turnbo "aye";
Cooper "nay"; White "abstaining"; Perkins
"absent") to RECONSIDER
a Variance
of five-foot sideyard requirement to four feet in an RS-3 district. Motion
failed for lack of a majority of three.
Lot 16, Block 2, Max Campbell 4th
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma and being located in a
RS-3 zoned district.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18588
Action Requested:
Special
Exception to permit off-street parking in a RM-2 district and a variance of
required setback from centerline of Carson from 50' to 35'. This property is located at southeast corner
of East 15th Street & Carson
Presentation
Robert Nichols, 111 West 5th
Street, attorney representing this applicant.
Mr. Nichols submitted a photograph.
This particular lot has not been targeted to be developed for
residential use, as have several in the area.
Ms. Turnbo
asked where the auto access to this lot is located. Mr. Nichols stated off of Carson and the alley to the east of the
lot. Mr. Nichols was corrected that the
traffic would only come from the alley.
Ms. Turnbo asked about landscaping and a privacy fence on the south
side. Mr. Nichols stated they would have
no problem with a condition to build a similar privacy fence on the south side
and a hedge on Carson.
Interested
Parties:
Charlotte Hopkins, 1515 South Carson
Avenue, next door to the vacant lot.
She said there are nine small children who live within this block in an
old historical area. A parking lot
would not help property values, or the appearance of the neighborhood. Ms.
Hopkins submitted a petition of opposition from the neighborhood.
David Hopkins 1515 South Carson Avenue,
wanted confirmation that the Board has the petition. Mr. White stated that the petition contains twenty-one names in
opposition. Mr. Hopkins stated that
there are a number of children who ride bikes in the area, and additional
traffic would present a safety hazard.
Mr. White asked if Mr. Hopkins recognized that his home and the vacant
lot are zoned RM-2, and lots on east and north of the vacant lot are zoned for
OM. Mr. Hopkins replied that he was
aware, but the special exception should not be allowed to negatively impact the
neighborhood.
Jean Lemon, 1524 South Cheyenne, stated
that several neighbors have made offers to buy the property, or to take care of
the property for them, without a positive response.
Mr. White asked
what could be built there legally as it is zoned. Mr. Beach stated that a multi-story apartment building could be
built there, as high as 35', with two to three stories, with sufficient
parking.
Applicant's
Rebuttal:
Mr. Nichols
reminded the Board that this is an uptown neighborhood. The use of the lot is limited in size and is
impractical for multi-family housing.
He stated that the applicant would accept the approval of the special
exception with a denial of the variance and bring back a specific site plan,
which would provide buffering to Carson and residents to the south.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo,
stated that she was on the committee to update this district's Comprehensive
Plan several years ago. The
neighborhood is becoming much more vital and it is still zoned for mixed use. The infill study could use creative ways to
buffer this lot. Mr. Cooper stated his concern that this area will be in need
of more parking space as time goes on.
Board
Action:
The
MOTION of DUNHAM to APPROVE the Special
Exception to permit off-street parking in an RM-2 district and to DENY a Variance of required
setback from centerline of Carson from 50' to 35'. The motion was WITHDRAWN before a vote.
On MOTION of TURNBO, the
Board voted 3-1-0 (Turnbo, White, Cooper "aye"; Dunham
"nay"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to CONTINUE the application, with
the condition that the developers meet with the neighborhood and try to come up
with a solution that would buffer the neighborhood, and return to the Board
with a site plan, at the meeting on February 8, 2000.
The N 20' of Lot 10 & all of Lot 11,
Block 2, Stonebraker Heights Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW
APPLICATIONS
Action Requested:
Special Exception
to permit a mobile home in an RS-3 district; Variance of time limitation to
permit a mobile home on a permanent basis; a Variance of 30' of frontage on a
public street; and a Variance to permit two dwelling units per lot of record. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, located at 4643 N. Evanston Ave.
Presentation:
Larry Corbett, 4643 North Evanston
Avenue, stated that his daughter wants to move her mobile home onto the
property. The property was previously
used for a mobile home park, but all of the homes were removed. There are existing septic lines and there is
considerable distance between the selected site and the neighbors.
Interested
Parties:
Ron Fleming, 4731 North Evanston,
stated that his only interest is that it not become a trailer park again and
that the septic tank be checked, so that it does not drain onto his
property. He added that he has no
objection to bringing in one trailer for their relative to live there.
Roscoe Turner, District 3 Councilor,
requests a denial on this application, until the Councilors and the
manufactured housing association can come to some agreements that will help
everyone.
Applicant's
Rebuttal:
Mr. Corbett stated
that he was uncertain as to what Councilor Turner meant, but he just wants to
move his daughter's existing mobile onto his property.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White
stated he has a note that Councilor Williams of that district is in opposition
to the application. He added that this
is a remote area, at the end of a long
dead-end road, close to Bird Creek, and has an expressway at the back. Mr. Dunham stated that the property is large
enough for two dwelling units.
Mr. Cooper
stated it is becoming more of a gateway for the area and he can't tell how much
can be seen from the neighbors', so he is against it.
Mr. White
considered the location appropriate for the second mobile home because it is shielded
from the expressway by elevation and trees.
Board
Action:
The
MOTION of Cooper the Board voted 2-2-0 (Turnbo,
Cooper "aye"; White, Dunham "nay"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to Deny the Special Exception and the three Variances
failed for a tie vote. Application was
denied.
Beg at the SW/c
NE SW SE thence N 264' NE to a point thence E 161.1' S 210.5' SW 262.4' Sly
188.6' W 381' to POB, Section 8, T-20-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18592
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required number of parking spaces from 40 to eight and a Variance of the
required landscaping to none. SECTION
1226.D. USE UNIT 26.
MODERATE
MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRY, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Use
Unit 26, located at 5519 East 15th Street.
Presentation:
Robert Dyer, 5805 East 15th
, states that the required number of parking spaces (40) is excessive for only
eight employees. The plant is a
concrete block loading yard, most of it paved, and the other part is covered
with crushed stone that has been compacted over the years. Any planting would have little or no chance
to exist. The front of property is
Burlington Northern right-of-way, and so cannot be landscaped.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins
"absent") to APPROVE
the Variance
of the required number of parking spaces from 40 to eight and the Variance
of the required landscaping to none, on the condition that it be used for
concrete block manufacturing.
A tract of land
located in the W/2 of the SW/4 of the NE/4 and in the E 495’ of the SE/4 of the
NW/4, all in Section 10, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, Oklahoma, all being more particularly described as follows, to
wit: Beginning at the point of
intersection of the N and S centerline of said Section 10-19-13, and the Wly
right-of-way line of the St. Louis – S.F. Railway (Howard Branch), said point
being 342.5’ S of the NW/c of the SW/4 of the NE/4 of said Wly right-of-way
line, a distance of 115.71’ to a point of curve for the right-of-way of the St.
Louis – S. F. Railway (Fairgrounds Spur); thence around the arc of a curve to
the right having a radius of 553.81’ and along the Wly right-of-way of said
Spur Track, a distance of 430.44’ to an intersection with said N and S
Centerline of said Section 10-19-13; thence continuing around the arc of the
said curve to the right having a radius of 553.81’ and along the NWly
right-of-way line of said Spur Track, a distance of 344.1’ to a point of
tangency, said point being 238.81’ W of said N and S Centerline of said Section
10-19-13, and 212.35’ N of the E and W Centerline of said Section 10-19-13;
thence in a SWly direction along a straight line, a distance of 287.02’ to a
point on the E line of Smithville addition to Tulsa, Oklahoma, said point being
82.94’ N of said E and W Centerline of said Section 10-19-13; thence N along
the E line of said Smithville Addition, a distance of 577.36’ to a point on the
N line of the SE/4 of the SE/4 of the NW/4 of said Section 10-19-13; thence N
along the E line of said Smithville Addition, a distance of 630’ to the N line
of the SE/4 of the NW/4 of said Section 10-19-13; thence E along a line
parallel to and 30’ S of the N line of said SE/4 of the NW/4 of said Section
10-19-13, a distance of 396.7’ to an intersection with the said Wly
right-of-way of the said St. Louis – S. F. Railway (Howard Branch); thence in a SEly direction along said
right-of-way a distance of 327.1’ to the POB and being located in an IM zoned
district.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18593
Action
Requested:
Variance of
minimum lot width from 60' to 58.33', 45.08', 42.84' and 57.69' for lot-split
purposes. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located at 5700 S. Xenophon
Presentation:
Lahoma Bassett, a member of Real-Pro,
LLC, 4948 South Union and Paul Rongey
represented Dennis Hall. Mr. Rongey stated
that there are two existing foundations on the two middle lots. The reason for the lot-split is that the
property pins originally were improperly located. The footings were placed across two lots each. This request for variance is made to
accommodate these foundations. The
applicant is actually giving up one lot by taking five lots and making them
into four lots.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo
asked if these were originally forty-foot lots.
Interested
Parties:
Alyn Alsobrook, P.O. Box 9335, Tulsa,
OK, stated that he and his wife Kathy have questions regarding this case. The Board answered their questions. They had no protest.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper
"aye'; no "nays"; no "abstention"; Perkins
"absent") to APPROVE
the Variance
of the minimum lot width per plan submitted, the hardship being the unusual
size of the existing lots, and finding that the new lots would be larger than
the existing lots. Staff would remind
the applicant that all of the RS-3 yard requirements must be met with any new
construction.
Lots 12 - 16, Block 3, Woodview Heights
Amended, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of sideyard on a corner lot from 15’ to 7.3'. Variance of 20' requirement to 12.7' for a
garage on the sideyard. SECTION 403
BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6,
located at 9007 E. 40th St.
Presentation:
Winifred Gail Cloud, 9007 East 40th
Street, stated that her house has been on the property for thirty-three
years. She is the third owner of the
property. She was recently informed
that the house extends into the easement.
She has had three surveys on the property, showing easements of three
feet, four feet and seven feet.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach asked
where the 12.7 feet are located. Mr.
Ackerman stated it is the difference of the 20' requirement and the 7.3'. Mr. Dunham did not think the second variance
request was necessary. Mr. Beach stated
that, so the record would be clear, if the Board is inclined to approve the
first variance, then the second one should be stricken and everything should be
covered.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"'; Perkins
"absent") to APPROVE
the Variance
of the sideyard on the corner lot from 15' to 7.3', and STRIKE the Variance of 20' requirement to 12.7'
for a garage on a sideyard, and that the existing house with existing garage is
approved in its present location.
Lot 12, Block 1, Imperial Estates, City
of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required three-foot setback from property line to eight inches for existing
carport. SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, located at 11124 E. 28th
Pl.
Presentation:
Jimmie Ozment, the applicant, 11124
East 28th Place, stated he had a carport installed in his backyard
to cover his boat from a large pecan tree and to keep the frontyard neat. He stated that there is no room to move the
carport over because of the pecan tree.
A privacy fence was built between his house and the next door neighbor.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham
determined the location of the neighbors' property. Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Ozment if he had a permit to build the
carport. Mr. Ozment stated he did not
know he had to have a permit to build the carport. Mr. Dunham asked how long the carport has been in place. Mr. Ozment stated it has been there over
four years.
Interested
Parties:
Lou Duensing, 11118 East 28th
Place, and husband, Ted, appeared in protest.
She submitted pictures to the Board for exhibits. She stated that the carport was built not
over two years ago to her knowledge.
She added that his driveway is right on the property line between
them. The privacy fence needs to be
replaced, but they cannot get to it because of all the items Mr. Ozment has
stored there. She complained of loud
motorcycle noise around 3:00 to 4:00 a.m., near their bedroom window.
Ted Duensing, 11118 East 28th
Place, stated that the driveway could have been built with access to
Garnett. Mr. White replied that there
is not legal access from Garnett.
Marie Jones, 2813 South 112th
East Avenue, stated she protests because of the impact on the neighborhood,
with several cars, a motorcycle and a boat.
June Gordon, 2817 South 112th
East Avenue, stated her concern is that if this variance is approved, then
others in the neighborhood could do the same thing.
Mr. White
presented a letter in support of this case, from neighbors next door, the
Mansfields.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Mr. Ozment
stated he has no reason to use his motorcycle at those hours of the morning,
but he does hook up his car and boat sometimes at 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. to go
fishing. Mr. Cooper asked him what the
hardship is for this variance. Mr.
Ozment replied that a large pecan tree is about four inches from the carport
and a little over eight inches from the privacy fence. Mr. Cooper asked if the variance is just for
the carport and the drive. Mr. Beach
stated that it is for the carport only and the driveway is not considered a
structure in this case. Mr. Dunham
asked if there was not a permit for the carport. Mr. Ozment stated he had no permit for the construction of the carport.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions" Perkins
"absent") to DENY
the Variance of the required three-foot setback from
property line to eight inches for existing carport, finding the neighbors to be
concerned that it will cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair
the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan and it
was built without a permit.
Lot 23, Block 11, Valley Glen, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18596
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required 300' distance between a liquor store and pawn shop to 0'. SECTION
1214.C.3. USE UNIT 14. SHOPPING GOODS
AND SERVICES, Use Conditions – Use Unit 14, located on the NE/c E. Independence
& N. Peoria
Presentation:
Pattie
Robinson, 740 North Quaker, stated that the liquor store and pawn shop are
family-owned and operated. She has made
application for the variance for security purposes, stating that after 6:30
p.m. there is nothing open except the liquor store. If the pawn shop is next door she would keep both businesses open
the same hours.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked staff to explain the
spacing regulation in the Zoning Code.
Mr. Beach replied that the intent was from a perception that the
patronage of certain types of businesses might be undesirable. The spacing was to prevent clustering of the
patronage at these businesses. Mr.
Dunham stated that they are family-owned and there are no protestors. Mr. Ackerman asked staff if this spacing
requirement was placed in the ordinance last year. It was confirmed that the space requirement was added in February
1998.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-1-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, "aye", Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions";
Perkins "absent") to APPROVE
the Variance
of the required 300' distance between a liquor store and pawn shop to 0',
finding the hardship to be security issues and these are one-family-owned
businesses in one building.
Lots 13 through 16, Block 5, Capitol
Hill Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma and being located
in a CH-zoned district
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a Use Unit 12A
within 150' of an R zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 12A, a Variance of off-street parking
requirement of 54 spaces to 0. SECTION 1212.A.D. USE UNIT 12. EATING
ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN DRIVE-INS, Description, and a Variance of spacing
requirement of 300' from another Adult Entertainment Establishment down to
150'. SECTION 1212.A.C.3.c. USE UNIT 12.
EATING ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN DRIVE-INS, Description, located at 1209
N. Sheridan
Presentation:
Martin
Gayton, 11410 East 61st Place, Broken Arrow, stated he did not
understand the need for this action.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham explained that there is a
spacing requirement for a certain distance between bars. He stated that in the last six to eight
months another bar just south of this one came before this Board for
approval. It was determined at that
time that the bar in this case has never been permitted. The Board continued the other case to find
out if there is a permit on this bar, and found out there was no record of
permit. Mr. Dunham stated that the
other bar has been there since before the permitting and spacing requirements
were necessary. The bar in this case
should have come before the Board when it was put in eleven or twelve years
ago.
Interested
Parties:
B.J.
Myers, owner of the property, stated that she was unaware of the lack of a
permit for this business.
Mr. Dunham asked what variances are
needed. Mr. Beach stated that Mr.
Gayton applied for a zoning clearance permit.
There were several deficiencies identified. One problem is that he has to provide one off-street parking
space for every 75 square feet of floor area, and he did not provide adequate
information to determine the parking requirement. Mr. Beach explained that the reason the request is for zero
parking spaces is because the bar is located in a strip-shopping center. The center has thirty-eight spaces and the
requirement for this bar is fifty-four spaces.
There is not adequate parking space for the bar.
Ms. Myers added that they also own two
parcels contiguous with the shopping center to the south all the way to the
other bar.
Mr.
Howell Joiner, 7015 East Haskell Street, coordinator McKinley/Mitchell
Neighborhood Watch Group, appeared on behalf of the group to protest the
variance request. Their concern is that
parking will overflow in the