CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
February 22, 2000, 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,
Vice Chair |
Perkins |
Beach |
Jackere,
Legal |
|
Cooper |
|
Butler |
Prather,
Legal |
|
White,
Chair Turnbo |
|
|
Parnell,
Neighborhood Insp. |
|
|
|
|
Ballentine, Neighborhood
Insp. |
|
|
|
|
Ackermann,
Zoning
Official |
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Monday, February 21, 2000, at 10:34 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:
Variance of side
yard requirement from 5’ and 10’ to 1’ and 4.7’ to allow a lot-split. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located at 1516 E. 21st
St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Mike Marrara, submitted a letter, February 21 to continue this case to redesign the lot configuration and possibly change the relief as needed.
Comments and Questions:
Mr.Beach stated
that the applicant did not ask for a specific date for continuance. He suggested March 28th, in
case there is a need for re-advertising.
Interested
Parties/Protestants:
None.
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
a Continuance
of Case No. 18650 to the meeting on March 28, 2000, for the following described
property:
Lots 10 & 11, Block 2,
Terwilleger Heights, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow
a gravel parking area in a CS zoned district. SECTION 1303. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
AREAS – Use Unit 17, located: E of
NE/c E. 11th St. & 107th E. Ave.
Presentation
Mr. Beach stated that a timely request was made by the applicant, for a continuance of Case No. 18651 to the meeting of March 28, 2000.
Interested
Parties/Protestants:
One
Interested Party present, and agreeable to a continuance to March 28,
2000.
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
a Continuance
of Case No. 18651 to the meeting on March 28, 2000, for the following described
property:
S 300’ of Lot 8, Block 2, East Eleventh Park Sub., City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit storage of cars, trucks, boats, and other
motor vehicles excluding mobile homes, garbage trucks, gas and oil supply
trucks. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 23; a Special Exception of required hard surface parking to
allow gravel parking behind building setback line. SECTION 222. MOTORIZED VEHICLES; and a Special
Exception to allow a 6’ screening fence.
SECTION 212.A. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, Specifications, located at the,
SE/c E. 11th St. & 129th E. Ave.
Presentation
Mr. Beach stated
that the applicant requested a continuance to the meeting on March 14,
2000.
Interested
Parties/Protestants:
None.
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
a Continuance
of Case No. 18655 to the meeting on March 14, 2000, for the following described
property:
Beginning at the NW/c of Section 9, T-19-N, R-14-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma; thence E a distance of 330.26’ to a point; thence S a distance of 495.65’ to a point; thence W a distance of 330.26’ to a point; thence N a distance of 495.65’ to the POB containing 3.76 acres more or less
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit off-street parking in a RM-2 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 10; and a Variance of required setback from centerline of
Carson from 50' to 35'. SECTION 1302.B.
SETBACKS, located SE of E. 15th St. &
Carson.
Presentation
Robert
Nichols, 111 West 5th Street, appeared on behalf of the American
Association Petroleum Geologists.
Mr. Nichols stated that the neighborhood association has reviewed the
site plan submitted on February 8, 2000.
He requests the Board to act on this request at this
time.
Protestants:
Mike Tedford, 1628 S. Cheyenne, stated appreciation of the opportunity to review the revised site plan. The Riverview Association, by a vote, opposes the parking lot at the requested location. The neighborhood is being revitalized, with remodeling of numerous homes, rental properties are being reconverted to single-family dwellings, and young people with children are moving in. They oppose a parking lot within the neighborhood. He stated that lighting for the lot would bother the neighbors; no lighting would encourage a meeting place for transients; and the alley is not sufficient for the added traffic.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked if there were any circumstances under which the neighborhood association would be willing to see the parking lot be constructed. Mr. Tedford replied that they see no need for a parking lot, since other parking lots in the area are empty much of the time.
Other
members of the Riverview Neighborhood Association, appeared to oppose this
case. They were in agreement with
Mr. Tedford’s statements.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Nichols informed the Board that the applicant has lost leases to other parking lots, and that led to this request.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to DENY
a 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', finding that it would not be in harmony
with the spirit and intent of the Code, and would be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, for the following
described property:
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
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal
from the decision of the Neighborhood Inspector that a nightclub will not meet
the off-street parking requirements at this location; or alternatively, Special
exception pursuant to Section 1408.B.4. and/or Section 1212a.D.; or
alternatively, Variance of Section 1408.B.4. to modify off-street parking and
loading requirements applicable to a nonconforming night club (Use Unit 12A) and
a Variance of Section 1212.a C.3 USE CONDITIONS to modify the 300 foot spacing
requirement of a Use Unit 12A use from a church and from another Use Unit12a
use, if applicable to a nonconforming night club (Use Unit 12a), located at 3340
S. Peoria.
Presentation
Roy
Johnsen, an attorney, stated that he represents the lessees of the proposed
facility. A permit was issued to
his client for a U.U. 12.a, nightclub use.
He stated that the applicants proceeded with that permit, and then
received a notice of insufficient parking space for a U.U. 12.a. Mr. Johnsen submitted some exhibits to
the Board for review. Mr. Johnsen
informed the Board that 96 spaces are required for this business. He also pointed out that his clients
have leased another parking lot close to the subject property, which will
provide another 33 parking spaces when it is cleaned up.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked how this issue came up. Ms. Parnell stated that she received a complaint, and did an inspection, finding the business did not meet the parking requirement.
Protestants:
John
Moody,
attorney, stated he is representing Bud Barnes with the Bistro. Mr. Moody stated he came to address the
policy of the Building Inspectors’ Office, not the policy of the City, to not do
a zoning clearance review on U.U. 12.12.a. when they apply for remodeling
permits; that the appeal of the original issuance of the building permit be
granted, and that the building permit be rescinded. He asks that the Board uphold Ms.
Parnell’s citation requiring the applicant to comply with the parking
requirements.
Shannon
Ramsey,
3348 S. Peoria, stated his only concern is the cleanliness of the parking
lot. He stated that they would
apply to be open until 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday
nights.
Jerry
Dodson,
with Schlotsky’s, will be moving into their building with a ten-year lease. He has no opposition to the action
requested. He anticipates needing
60 parking spaces at lunch and 30-40 for dinner.
Bill
Elliot,
5549 S. Lewis, stated he is the property manager of the building that
Schlotsky’s wants to lease. He
added that the owner has a vested interest and desires to be a good neighbor to
everyone.
Nancy
Apgar,
3914 S. Norfolk, president of the Brookside Neighborhood Association, stated
that she has talked with Mr. Johnsen.
The Brookside Neighborhood Association believes that the laws must be
strictly enforced in the Brookside area.
She stated that they are not opposed to businesses that conform but to a
concentration of bars in this area.
Ms. Apgar reminded the Board that parking is at a premium in the
Brookside area.
Bud
Barnes,
2302 S. Delaware Pl., stated he is the owner of the Bistro restaurant in
Brookside. Mr. Barnes stated that
he was familiar with the parking problem since he went through the process to
open a business in that area. He expressed that his objection is not with the
new business, but with the process that allowed this circumstance to come
about. He made a point that the
requirements should be the same for everyone who opens a new business, including
obtaining off-street parking, landscaping, and financial requirements.
Beverly
Stewart,
3816 E. 111th St., co-trustee to the owner of the property, commented
that Mr. Barnes interpretation of the events was not quite correct. She stated that they tried to lease the
property, and parking was not discussed as a particular issue, but as a
contingency that was discussed.
Several of their three principals stated they would need a variance or
special exception, and they did not think it would be a problem. They proposed wanted the option to
purchase the property at the end of five years at a set amount. The owner of the property was not
interested in the proposal and stopped the negotiations.
Jack
Page,
stated he is the Director of Development Services at the City of Tulsa, Public
Works. He is over the Building
Permit office and the Neighborhood Inspections office that pertains to this
project. He explained to the Board
that the literature and statements made regarding a zoning clearance not being
performed, in his opinion is incorrect.
A zoning clearance has been performed. Mr. Ackerman signed a permit as the
zoning officer, which has reviewed and provided a zoning permit. The question arises as to what scope of
a zoning clearance is performed when they do such a permit review. Mr. Page explained that the difference
is the application for remodeling that would impact the means of egress, and
some building code issues, but none of these would impact the parking. The use, occupancy load, and square
footage, which would have pertained to parking, were not being changed. He stated that Mr. Ackerman checked the
parking requirements available by INCOG records, which indicated there was
sufficient parking after receiving notice of insufficient parking. Mr. Page stated they sought legal advice
and found they did not need to revoke the permit that was issued. This property was not identified on the
original list of bars that would not be in compliance when the ordinance was
changed requiring parking spaces.
This bar was simply overlooked, and was not questioned until a complaint
was made.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Roy
Johnsen, pointed out that the business owner has spent a substantial amount of
money to upgrade the property and make it a better facility. There are positive conditions with which
to work, such as: adjoining parking, a good distance of separation from the
neighborhood, a masonry wall and a willingness to share parking among the
businesses.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to Uphold
the decision of the Neighborhood Inspector that this facility does not meet the
parking requirements; to APPROVE
a Special
Exception
to modify the parking
requirements subject to the Use Conditions, as presented by the
applicant; and to Strike
the Variances,
which are found not to be necessary, on the following described
property:
All the N 49.5’
of Lot 19 except the E 25’ thereof, and an undivided 1//3 interest in Lot 21,
all in Burgess Acres Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
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, located at 3340 S. Peoria.
Presentation
John
Moody, 7146 S. Canton, stated he is representing the applicant in this
case. He filed the appeal after the
Building Inspector issued the permit.
Mr. Moody stated that subsequent to that time the zoning code enforcement
officer determined that they did not comply with the zoning, and issued a notice
to comply with the zoning on the property located at 3340 S.
Peoria.
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 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 for the property described as follows:
The N 49.5’ of Lot 19, less
the E 25’, Block 2, Burgess Acres Amended, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma
Action
Requested:
Reconsideration
of a Special Exception to allow an auto car wash (Use Unit 17) in a CS zoned
district. SECTION 701.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located at 4904 S.
Union.
Presentation
Lawrence
Taylor, 3223 E. 31st St., stated he is an attorney representing
the owners of the subject property.
He stated the property is in a CS zoned district with numerous other
businesses. He indicated that a
screening fence would cut down on the noise; signs would be posted, asking
people not to play their music loudly, and an attendant would be on hand. Mr. Lawrence stated that the carwash
would be an enhancement to the neighborhood, and would be consistent with the
other businesses there.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Taylor stated that the attendant would be there until dusk, but the carwash is open 24 hours per day. Mr. Cooper asked how the attendant could enforce the rule on loud music if he is not there. Mr. Lawrence replied that he couldn’t. Mr. White wanted to know how he would enforce it if he were there. Mr. Lawrence stated that the signs would be up and he would encourage people to keep the music volume down. Mr. White asked if the applicant had spoken with the neighbors to the west. Mr. Lawrence replied he had a couple of telephone conversations with some neighbors, but not the ones to the west. Mr. Gibson went to the residence of one woman who had a complaint to talk with her about it, but she chose not to discuss it.
Protestants:
Karen
Harris, 4831 S. Vancouver, stated she was also representing Ms. Anna Mae
Bratt at 4825 S. Vancouver, which is directly behind the subject property. She stated that she had a signed letter
from Ms. Bratt. Ms. Harris
submitted a photo of the back of her own house that is only 50’ away from the
subject property. She stated her
complaint is an increase in the noise level. She indicated that she does not believe
that the noise level could be controlled.
Joseph
Davidson, 4815 S. Vancouver, stated that he lives north and west corner from
the subject property to the back of his own house. There is already a carwash. The carwash had to put up shields to
deflect the lighting. He stated
that the vacuums to be used in the new carwash are the same as the ones in
use. He informed the Board that the
vacuums are just as loud, and have not changed in the last five years.
Chuck
Cline,
4849 S. Union, stated that he has had the carwash across the street since the
mid-60’s. and does not believe there is a need for another carwash in the
area.
Bill
McConnell,
6905 S. 32nd W. Ave., stated he has been a resident of west Tulsa for
30 years. He stated that since
November 1999 he has run the existing carwash, and had plans to buy the
business. He stated that he has
seen two carwashes go under in the time he has lived there. He included that there are three
carwashes in the area.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham reminded Mr. McConnell that the Board couldn’t consider the economic issues.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Lawrence stated that Mr. Gibson is from this neighborhood, and would like to return and make an investment. He indicated that the only problem here is that the business blend in with the neighborhood and the noise problem. He stated it is his belief that both of those items can be managed.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked
if the applicants would be willing to close the operations when there is no
attendant. Mr. Lawrence replied if
the Board made that condition, the applicants would comply.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-1-0 (White, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; Dunham "nay"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to DENY
a Reconsideration
of a Special Exception
to allow an auto car wash (Use Unit 17) in a CS zoned district on the following
described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow
two dwelling units on one lot of record.
SECTION 207. ONE
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF RECORD – Use Unit 6; a Variance of the
required land area per dwelling unit from 8,400 square feet to 4,525 square
feet; a Variance of the required livability space per dwelling unit from 4,000
square feet to 2720 square feet; a Variance of the required side yard from 5
feet to 4.5 feet. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; and a Variance of the required width for off-street
parking spaces from 8.5 feet to 8.0 feet. SECTION 1303.A. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, located at 4739 E. 6th
St.
Presentation:
David
Martin,
11605 E. 25th St., stated that the garage has been an apartment since
the mid-1940’s. He indicated that
there are six apartments within a two-block area. He requested approval by the
Board.
Glenn Bynum, 4731 E. 6th St., stated this is the second
time he has appeared regarding this application. He stated that he comes representing
himself and those who signed the petition that he submitted to the Board. He stated that Roy Ballentine, a Code
enforcement officer told the applicant not to proceed because this could
happen. Mr. Bynum stated that there
is not a garage apartment in use on Sixth Street in the 4700 block. The lot in question is Lot 23. On this block Lots 19, 20, 21, and 24
also would have space to build another unit in front of the house. The driveway is currently full, without
use of the apartment, with four cars.
Douglas Deckard, 4727 E. 6th St., stated concern for
depreciation his property value, and the parking issue. There are cars in front of each of the
houses every evening, and he expressed concern that the number of cars would
increase.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Martin informed the Board that he did not receive any notice from Mr. Ballentine until he had already spent over $10,000. He stated that two girls live in the front apartment and have one car each.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Cooper,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to DENY
a Variance
to allow two dwelling units on one lot of record; a Variance of
the required land area per dwelling unit from 8,400 square feet to 4,525 square
feet; a Variance of the required livability space per dwelling
unit from 4,000 square feet to 2720 square feet; a Variance of the
required side yard from 5 feet to 4.5 feet; and a Variance of the
required width for off-street parking spaces from 8.5 feet to 8.0 feet, finding
there is no hardship, regarding the property described as
follows:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback for church uses in an R district from
25’ to 10’5” on the west, 23’8” on the north, and 20’ on the south SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located at 2124 E. 31st Pl.
N.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach read the applicant’s request.
Comments and
Questions:
None.
Interested
Parties/Protestants:
None.
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
a Variance
of the required setback for church uses in an R district from 25’ to 10’5” on
the west, 23’8” on the north, and 20’ on the south, finding it conforms to
1607.C, on the following described property:
Lots
4-6, Block 7, Beauty Rest Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma