CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES of Meeting No. 787

Tuesday, January 11, 2000, 1:00 p.m.

Aaronson Auditorium

Tulsa Central Library

400 Civic Center

 

 

                    MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT   STAFF PRESENT     OTHERS PRESENT

 

Dunham, Vice Chair

 

Beach

Prather, Legal

Cooper

Turnbo

 

Butler

Ballentine, Neighborhood Insp.

White, Chair

 

 

 

Perkins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Monday, January 7, 2000, at 01:37 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. 18620

      Action Requested:

         Variance of required setback for garages from street from 25’ to 16’.  SECTION 603.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located NE/c E. 49th St. & S. Yorktown Ct.

 

      Presentation:

         Mr. Beach stated that this case has been withdrawn.

 

      Interested Parties:

         None.

 

      Board Action:

         Chair White stated Case is withdrawn.

 

         Lots 3-4, Block 3, Bolewood Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18556

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception for lawn mower sales and repair in a CS District. SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. Use Unit 15; Variance of 300’ setback for outdoor sales from abutting R district to 0'. SECTION 1214. USE UNIT 14. SHOPPING GOODS AND SERVICES; and Special Exception to waive the screening requirement between a CS District and an R District. SECTION 212.C.1. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, Modification of the Screening Wall or Fence Requirement, located at 8760 South Lewis Avenue

 

      Presentation:

         Mr. Beach stated that this case was previously continued, and there are some discrepancies related to the legal description.  Mr. Moody and the applicant are working to resolve those discrepancies.

 

      Interested Parties:

         None

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Continuance of Case 18556 to the Board of Adjustment meeting on 01-25-00 regarding the following described property:

 

      All that part of Southern Villa Mobile Park Amended, an addition in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, more particularly described as:  Beginning at a point in the Ely boundary of said Southern Villa Mobile Park Amended, 659.71' from the NE/c thereof; thence S 25°45'43" E along the Ely boundary of said Southern Villa Mobile Park Amended (centerline S. Lewis Ave.) a distance of 314.10' to an existing corner post of the N side of the roadway leading across a low-water dam into the addition; thence S 64°14'17" W a distance of 218.0'; thence N 25°45'43" W a distance of 314.1'; thence N 64°14'17" E a distance of 218.0' to the point of beginning, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18612

      Action Requested:

         Appeal from Building Inspector’s decision to issue a building permit for a nightclub that does not have required parking and does not meet the 300’ spacing requirement from other adult businesses, SECTION 1605. APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, located at 3340 S. Peoria

 

      Presentation:

         Mr. Beach stated that the applicant made a timely request for continuance to the Board of Adjustment meeting on 02-22-00.

 

      Interested Parties:

         Mr. White asked the homeowners association representatives if the 02-22-00 meeting would be convenient for them.  They replied in the affirmative.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Continuance of Case 18612 to the Board of Adjustment meeting on 02-22-00 regarding the following described property:

 

      The N 49.5’ of Lot 19, less the E 25’, Block 2, Burgess Acres Amended, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18617

      Action Requested:

         Appeal from the decision of an Administrative Official that the subject property is in violation of the certificate of occupancy and zoning clearance of “Restaurant” Use Unit 12. SECTION 1605. APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, located SW/c E. 35th Pl. & S. Peoria.

 

      Presentation:

         Staff is recommending a continuance at the applicant’s request, as applicant was not given sufficient notice for today’s hearing after he filed his appeal.

 

      Interested Parties:

         Homeowners’ association representatives are present.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Continuance of Case 18617 to the Board of Adjustment meeting on 01-25-00 regarding the following described property:

 

      The E 110’ of Lot 5 less the N 30’ of the W 20’ of the E 110’ of Lot 5, and less the E 10’ of Lot 5, Block 3, Peoria Gardens Addition Amended, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.


 

Case No. 18624

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception to allow automobile sales (Use Unit 17) in a CS zoned district.  SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, and a Variance to allow open-air storage and display of merchandise abutting an R zoned district.  SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located at 2711 E. Admiral Pl.

 

      Presentation:

         Mr. Beach stated that Councilor Turner requested before the meeting to continue this case.  Mr. Turner did not offer a reason or request a date.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White responded that the Board can grant one continuance per side on an individual application.  Mr. White asked the applicant if it would be a problem to continue the case to 01-25-00.  The applicant, Mr. Romero replied that it would not be a problem.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Continuance of Case 18624 to the Board of Adjustment meeting on 01-25-00 regarding the following described property:

 

      Lot 16, Ozarka Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18625

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception to permit the Use Unit 5, Private School Recreation and Athletic Facilities and Fields as shown on the site plan in the OM, OL and RM-1 zoning districts applicable to the site.  SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5.  COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements.  – Use Unit 5, and a Variance of the off-street parking requirements in Use Unit 5, Section 1205.C of the Zoning Code to permit the 720 off-street parking spaces provided for the football and soccer stadium bleachers to satisfy the combined off-street parking requirements for the football/soccer stadium, the athletic facilities building and the baseball and softball fields.  SECTION 401.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 601.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, located E side of S Wheeling & N of E. 78th St.


Presentation:

         Mr. Beach stated that staff is recommending a continuance to the Board of Adjustment meeting on 01-25-00.  A site plan or other information to evaluate this application was not available until the agenda packet was mailed out.

 

      Interested Parties:

         None

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Continuance of Case 18625 to the Board of Adjustment meeting on 01-25-00, regarding the following described property:

 

         Lot 1, Block 15, Kensington, Blocks 15 & 17 and Tracts 1-3, as described below:  Tract 1: A part of the S/2 NE of Section 7, T-18-N, R-13-E, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the S line of the NE of Section 7, T-18-N, R-13-E and 50’ W of the E line of said Section 7; thence N 89°48’42” W a distance of 880’ to the POB; thence S 0°10’03” W a distance of 370’; thence N 89°48’42” W a distance of 414.1’; thence N 89°48’42” W a distance of 414.1’; N 0°10’03” E a distance of 554.75’; thence S 89°48’42” E a distance of 364.10’; thence S 0°10’03” W a distance of 185’; thence S 89°48’42” E a distance of 50’ to the POB; Tract 2: A part of the S/2 NE of Section 7, T-18-N, R-13-E, more particularly described as follows:  Commencing at a point on the S line of the NE of said Section 7, T-18-N, R-13-E, and 50’ W of the E line of said Section 7; thence N 89°48’42” W a distance of 880’; thence S 0°10’03” W a distance of 370’; thence N 89°48’42” W a distance of 414.1’ to the POB; thence continuing N 89°48’42” W a distance of 392.43’; thence N 0°10’03” E a distance of 554.89’; thence S 89°48’42” E a distance of 392.43’; thence S 0°10’03” W a distance of 554.75’ to the POB; and Tract 3: A part of the S/2 NE of Section 7, T-18-N, R-13-E, more particularly described as follows:  Commencing at a point on the S line of the NE of Section 7, T-18-N, R-13-E, and 50’ W of the E line of said Section 7; thence N 89°48’42” W a distance of 880’; thence S 0°10’03” W a distance of 370’; thence N 89°48’42” W a distance of 806.53’ to the POB; thence continuing N 89°43’42” W a distance of 298.47’ to the E boundary of Block 13 Kensington Addition; thence continuing N 89°48’42” W a distance of 20’ to the Ely right-of-way of S. Wheeling Ave.; thence N 0°10’03” E along said right-of-way, a distance of 555’; thence S 89°48’42” E a distance of 20’ to a point on the Ely boundary of said Block 13, Kensington; thence continuing S 89°48’42” E a distance of 313.47’; thence S 0°10’03” W a distance of 554.89’ to the POB, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and being located in an OL, OM, RM-1 and PUD 128B zoned district.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

MINUTES:

 

On MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of November 9, 1999 (No. 784).

 

On MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Turnbo, White, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of November 23, 1999 (No. 785) as amended with exception of Case No. 18547 for staff to research the motion.

 

On MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions”; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of December 14, 1999 (No. 786).

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Case No. 18599

      Action Requested:

         Variance of the setback from East 11th Street from 40' to 37.6' for addition to existing restaurant, SECTION 215.  STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ABUTTING STREETS – Use Unit 12, located at 1809 E. 11th St.

 

      Presentation:

         Brent Morrison, 1809 East 11th Street, stated he is asking for a variance of  two feet, six inches to allow outdoor seating accommodation during nice weather.  It would be handicapped accessible and would not obstruct the walkway.

 

      Interested Parties or Protestants:

         None.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Dunham asked if the applicant would have a problem with a removal contract, if the city wanted to widen the street.  Mr. Morrison replied he would not.  Mr. Dunham asked what the applicant’s hardship would be.  Mr. Morrison replied if the space is only 50’ it makes the area too small for comfortable seating at a table.  Mr. Dunham asked if it is an open air space.  Mr. Morrison replied affirmatively.  Mr. White asked if this change would affect parking.  Mr. Beach replied that it would not.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper, Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE

         a Variance of the setback from East 11th Street from 40' to 37.6' for addition to existing restaurant, subject to a removal contract, per plan on the following described property: 

 

         E 138' of N 52.5', Lot 1 and all of Lots 2 & 3, Clover Ridge Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18600

      Action Requested:

         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 E. 35th St. & Peoria.

 

      Presentation

         Pam Deatherage, 1516 E. 36th St., appeared as a representative of Southminster Presbyterian Church, and a resident of Brookside neighborhood.  The church requests that the current residential zoning to the west and south of the church be changed to allow church use. The three properties on Norfolk are deep lots, and they would like to expand the playground, moving the fence to allow that expansion.  A house was removed at 1123 E. 35th Pl., exposing a partial basketball court, and they would like to add a screening fence around that property.  She stated that the only difference would be the screen fence around the partial basketball court, and it would encroach on the 6900 square feet of the empty lot.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked if Ms. Deatherage had read the staff comments.  She stated she had not, but that she has spoken with Mr. Beach.  She stated that Mr. Beach suggested the church maintain 6900 square feet on the RS-3 properties with houses.  She stated that the properties that front on Norfolk are 50’ wide, they should still be able to move fence and expand the playground.

 

      Protestants:

         David Paddock, Vice-President of zoning for the Brookside Neighborhood Association appeared to protest the application.  He stated that at a meeting of the neighborhood association, there were 33 members in attendance.  Fifteen neighbors voted to deny this action.  Thirteen neighbors approved of Use Unit 5 with restrictions.  He stated they are concerned about parking problems, and patrons of bars loitering on the property.  He stated that the playground already extends past the lot line.  Mr. Paddock stated that the neighborhood agreed to Use Unit 5, with restrictions.  He listed five restrictions they believe are necessary: 

1.    No ingress or egress into resident neighborhood

2.    Lighting should be shielded from the neighborhood houses

3.    No extension of Norfolk through existing lot into 34th St.

4.    Restrict any more development including buildings, play grounds, fences, daycare, and parking lots 

5.    Adequate screening where Use Unit 5 abuts a non-Use Unit 5 RS-3 and RD zoned districts.

 

         Byron Brown 1040 E. 35th Pl., appeared to represent a group of 22 people on a petition to oppose the application to remove the single-family residences.  Their concerns were compatible with those listed by the neighborhood association.  They request that the restrictions listed by the neighborhood association be applied if application is approved.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked Mr. Beach if the houses can be removed from the lots.  Mr. Beach stated that the houses can be removed but the lots are still only zoned for residential use. 

 

      Interested Parties:

         Jerry Goodman, member of Southminster Presbyterian Church, on the land-use planning committee for 35 years.  The church began buying the land because they needed it for parking.  They currently do not need more parking space.  They seek to improve Brookside by their land-use to decrease density and increase green space. 

 

         Carol Ashcraft, lives in the Brookside neighborhood, across the street from the basketball court.  She states she filed for a continuance to have opportunity to see what the neighbors had to say.  Ms. Ashcraft stated that she was satisfied that the church has agreed to build a screening fence.

 

      Protestants:

         Martha Tarwater, 3516 S. Norfolk, appeared to oppose the removal of the houses.  She would like to keep the area residential. 

 

      Interested Parties:

         Cindy Bagwell, 1337 E. 32nd Pl., as a member of the church, does voluntary clean up of the church parking lot and nearby Brookside.  The church has offered the use of their parking space to neighboring businesses, and they do a lot for the community, such as picking up litter.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked Mr. Beach if the Board was inclined to approve this application, and the church wanted to use the lots for parking, would they have to come back before the Board of Adjustment for a public hearing.  Mr. Beach stated that the Board can approve a Use Unit 5 with restrictions of use, setbacks, and fences.

 

      Applicant’s Rebuttal:

         Ms. Deatherage stated that the church tries to be a good neighbor.  The church was constructed without a parking lot.  Now they have a parking lot, and a nearby business has offered the use of their parking lot to the church, so there is no need for more parking.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Dunham asked if she had looked at the restrictions suggested by the neighborhood association.  She replied that she saw them.  Ms. Deatherage replied that items one, two, and three are not a problem.  The daycare center is in the church building, the parking lot on the east is used for daycare. Attendance is not growing and there is no need for expansion.  The fourth restriction appears to negate what the application is asking for.  Mr. Dunham asked if the application was approved, would the church have a problem with some restriction for phase one.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper, Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception to permit church and accessory church uses in an RS-3 district per submitted phase one plan with the condition that the areas with residences must maintain 6900 square feet of land area, 4000 square feet of living space per dwelling, with the conditions that no additional ingress or egress for parking into the existing residential neighborhood and the lighting is shielded from the neighborhood on the following described property:

 

         The E 400’ of a 25’ Reserve Area lying directly north of Lots 1-4; the N 140’ of Lot 1; the N 140’ and the E 87.5’ of the S 140’ of Lot 2; all of Lots 3 and 5; the N 140’ of Lot 4; the N/2 of Lot 6 and the N 15.08’ of W 170’ of S/2 of Lot 6; all in Block 2, Peoria Gardens Addition and Lots 53-56, Block 1, Burgess Acres, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18603

      Action Requested:

         Variance of the allowable height for a fence from 4' in front to 6'-6" on brick wall. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, located at 3124 S. 137th E. Ave.

 

      Presentation

         Armando Ramirez, 3124 S. 137th E. Ave., presented photos to the Board.  The case was heard before and the Board asked for photos to be presented. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Dunham clarified that the variance is on an existing fence.  Ms. Turnbo noted that Ms. Parnell stated the fence measured five feet, eleven inches at the tallest point.  Mr. White stated the statuary on fence goes even higher.  Mr. Ballentine stated that the height of the statuary on fence would also have to be considered. 

 

      Protestants:

         Ken Dearsted, 3107 S. 137th E. Ave., appeared to protest because the neighborhood covenant does not allow fences in the front yard.  The fence was constructed with no permits.  The city ordinance allows four feet for fence, and this is above that limit.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Ms. Turnbo explained that the Board only deals with city ordinances, not neighborhood covenants.  Mr. White asked for the height at the top of the wrought iron fence.  The applicant replied the highest point would be about six feet and not more than six feet, six inches.  Mr. Dunham stated he observed that this is the only yard in the neighborhood with a front fence.  Mr. Dunham stated that if the fence is against the covenant, the decision by the Board will not have any effect on it.  Mr. White stated that there are no other fences and it is injurious to the neighborhood in that respect.  Mr. Cooper asked what part is injurious.  He does not think there is any obstruction.  Ms. Perkins stated she believes the applicant needs to abide by the requirement of four feet, and if it were level it would be in compliance.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (Perkins, Dunham, Turnbo, White, "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY the Variance of the allowable height for a fence from four feet in front to six feet, six inches on brick wall, on the following described property:

 

      Lot 14, Block 11, Summerfield, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

 

NEW APPLICATIONS

 

Case No. 18559

      Action Requested:

         Variance to permit off-street parking on a non-all weather surface.  SECTION 1303.D.  DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 12a; a Special Exception to the required number of parking spaces from 34 to 22.  SECTION 1408.B.4.  ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS; and a Special Exception to modify the screening requirement fr