CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
March 14, 2000, 1:00 p.m.
Francis
F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza
Level of City Hall
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Monday, March 13, 2000, at 08:25 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Dunham,
Turnbo, White, Cooper, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; "no abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE the
Minutes as amended, for February 8, 2000 (No. 789).
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 at E. side of S. Wheeling & N. of E. 78th
St.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated that the applicant made a timely request for a continuance of Case
No. 18625 to March 28, 2000, to include an additional land use in the
advertisement.
Interested
Parties/Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Continuance of Case No. 18625 to the
hearing on March 28, 2000, 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°4842
W a distance of 880 to the POB; thence S 0°1003
W a distance of 370; thence N 89°4842
W a distance of 414.1; thence N 89°4842
W a distance of 414.1; N 0°1003
E a distance of 554.75; thence S 89°4842
E a distance of 364.10; thence S 0°1003
W a distance of 185; thence S 89°4842
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°4842
W a distance of 880; thence S 0°1003
W a distance of 370; thence N 89°4842
W a distance of 414.1 to the POB; thence continuing N 89°4842
W a distance of 392.43; thence N 0°1003
E a distance of 554.89; thence S 89°4842
E a distance of 392.43; thence S 0°1003
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°4842
W a distance of 880; thence S 0°1003
W a distance of 370; thence N 89°4842
W a distance of 806.53 to the POB; thence continuing N 89°4342
W a distance of 298.47 to the E boundary of Block 13 Kensington Addition;
thence continuing N 89°4842
W a distance of 20 to the Ely right-of-way of S. Wheeling Ave.; thence N
0°1003
E along said right-of-way, a distance of 555; thence S 89°4842
E a distance of 20 to a point on the Ely boundary of said Block 13, Kensington;
thence continuing S 89°4842
E a distance of 313.47; thence S 0°1003
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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of lot width requirement from 150 to 130. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6; a Variance of land area per dwelling unit
from 26,250 SF to 8,995.60 SF for existing southerly home (second dwelling
unit). SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance of side yard requirement from 15 to 8.5 for
existing southerly home (second dwelling unit). SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance to permit two dwellings on one lot of
record. SECTION 207. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF
RECORD, located at 1320 E. 27th Pl. S.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated that relief requested was not sufficient. It has been re-advertised for March 28, 2000.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Continuance for Case No. 18680 to March
28, 2000, regarding the following described property:
All that part of Lot 3 in Section 18, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, described as follows: Beginning at a point that is 1,650 N and 30 E of the SW/c of said Section 18; thence E 430.00; thence N 315.00; thence W 320.00; thence S 194.00; thence E 25.40; thence S 101.00; thence W 135.40; thence S 20.00 to the POB
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal of Building Inspectors decision that this liquor store is over
300 from a proposed liquor store at 2616 North Cincinnati. SECTION 1214.C.3. USE UNIT 14. SHOPPING GOODS AND SERVICES, Use
Conditions, located at 2616 N. Cincinnati.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated that he was concerned that there was a flaw in the notice. Mr. Beach spoke with Mr. Barnum
regarding which property is the subject property, and it was identified as 2616
N. Cincinnati, not the parcel advertised.
The legal description and address are in error. Mr. Beach stated that the notice is not
valid for action today, the soonest would be April 11,
2000.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham stated that this case would be re-advertised for the April 11, 2000
meeting. Mr. Beach stated that the
applicant would need to bring the measurements of distance to prove his
point.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Continuance
of
Case No. 18682 to the hearing on April 11, 2000, on the following described
property:
N 50 S 195 E
147 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 23, T-20-N R-12-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance
of required number of parking spaces from 35 to 20 for a restaurant in a CH
district. SECTION 1212.D. USE UNIT 12. EATING ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN
DRIVE-INS, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, located at 3148 E.
11th St.
Presentation
David Dyer, 1116½ S. Gary Ave., stated he represented the owner of
Big Brothers Holding Company. He
submitted some drawings to the Board.
He stated that previously the Board granted relief to park on an
adjoining lot. He informed the
Board that they have re-advertised to include the adjoining Lot 23 to meet the
Boards requirements. He stated
that by adding that lot they gained 13 parking spaces, which provides the total
of 35 parking spaces required. The
applicant requested to withdraw the case, as it needs no
action.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked if the applicant is leasing Lot 23. The applicant replied
affirmatively. He stated that the
lease agreement stipulates that it will run concurrent with the other lot, for
the same period of time. Ms. Turnbo
asked that a copy of the lease agreement be mailed to Mr. Beach at INCOG. There was discussion among the Board
regarding a tie-agreement. Ms.
Turnbo pointed out that the applicant does not own the property, therefore to
comply, they need to provide the lease contract.
Interested
Parties/Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
The
applicant has withdrawn the request in Case No. 18642. No Board action is
needed.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
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 in the Southeast corner E. 11th St. & 129th E. Ave.
Presentation
Randy Pickard, 10051 South Yale, Suite 203, represented the
applicant. The owners are Mr. and
Mrs. Hamm. This case came before
the Board in 1996 for a nearly identical application for Special Exception, in
Board of Adjustment Case No. 17508.
On October 22, 1996, the Board approved each of the same requests as in
this case. Mr. Pickard indicated
there was a lack of clarity in the minutes from the prior Board of Adjustment
action in that previous case, as to whether the approval for uses requested and
the gravel parking pertained to the entirety of the 3.7 acres or to only part of
the property, which was to be used for an automobile towing/storage
business. He stated that they are
requesting an expansion of the former approval to permit the use unit requested
and to allow for gravel parking. He
stated that the owners and predecessors have used the gravel parking for at
least twenty-five years. He added
that in the last several months, additional gravel was placed over the hard
packed gravel in the south area of the 3.7 acre tract, which has resulted in a
drainage problem. The neighbor to
the south, owners of a kennel operation, has made a significant complaint. Cecil Cotner of the City of Tulsa has
reviewed this complaint and he has stated to Mr. and Mrs. Hamm that in his
opinion, the placement of additional gravel over the hard packed gravel did not
increase the impervious surface of the parking on the property. However, he did state that there appears
to be a drainage problem as a result of water getting under the loose gravel
that has not been packed down and the kennel has received water from the subject
property. Mr. Cotner recommended
that Mr. Hamm hire a civil engineer to address the problem, in a letter dated
December 14, 1999. Mr. Hamm did
hire Jack Spradling for the job.
Mr. Spradling wrote a letter dated February 3, 2000 to Mr. Cotner
enclosing the letter of agreement.
The surveying company has done the field survey of the property and the
civil engineering plans have been completed. The plan is to construct a curbing
system on the south side of the property to direct the water west to South
129th East Avenue to drain properly into the storm drainage
system. Mr. Pickard stated that in
order for them to begin construction of the curb system, they would need the
special exception to be approved.
Mr. Pickard offered photos of the subject property; the letter dated
December 14, 1999 from Mr. Cotner, stating the impervious surface has not been
increased; and the February 3, 2000 letter to Mr. Cotner from Mr. Spradling to
the Board for exhibits.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo stated that her understanding is that the 1996 approval was tied to the
towing of cars with a 30-day limit for owners to pick them up, and a temporary
one-year approval for this use. Mr.
Pickard replied that he reviewed the minutes of the 1996 approval, and it states
that the lease between the Hamms and the towing company was a one-year lease,
which has been renewed on one-year terms since 1996. He stated that he did not believe that
there was a representation made that it would only be there for one year and
that it was to be a temporary use.
He stated that there was discussion of the temporary nature of it, but a
one-year lease is common in the industry for such use. He agreed that it was stated at the
Board meeting that the reason for approval of gravel parking was that it was not
desirable to put in a hard surface for a use that might be changed later. Mr. Pickard stated he found only one
statement regarding one year, and that stated it was simply a one-year lease,
and that lease has been renewed on one-year terms since then.
Mr.
Cooper asked Mr. Pickard if Mr. Spradlings report calls for a curbing system
which includes a hard surface or curbing with gravel. Mr. Pickard responded that Mr. Spradling
agreed with Mr. Cotner that there is no change in the impervious surface, that
the gravel is sufficient, and the curbing will handle the drainage going south
across the property line directing the drainage flow to the west. Mr. White, asked if the preliminary plan has not
been submitted for the drainage.
Mr. Pickard replied that it has not been submitted to the city. The plan will be submitted subject to
the approval of this Board. The
city will want to know if zoning has been approved first.
Protestants:
Mary Prater Hill, stated she resides and operates a business at
1115 South 129th East Avenue.
She stated that she and her husband have owned the kennel since about May
1991. Ms. Hill expressed extreme
opposition to the Special Exception.
She stated that there have been drainage problems since last summer, when
Mr. Hamm put thirteen loads of additional gravel directly adjacent to her
property. Last summer there was no
rain, and then on Tuesday, September 7, 1999 around 09:30 or 10:00 p.m. there
was an extremely hard downpour. She
stated that within ten to fifteen minutes, the north wing of the kennel had
approximately four to five inches of water in the building. She had not had a flooding problem since
they purchased the property in 1991, until then. The DeShane Kennels mission statement
in essence states that they will provide
a
safe, competent, caring and loving environment for the pets that are there for
boarding and grooming. Ms. Hill
described her efforts to get help to correct the emergency situation by digging
ditches and setting up small pumps.
She borrowed a sump pump and set it up to be ready 24 hours a day for
another emergency. On December
2nd, 3rd, 4th, she had to pump water again, and
on December 9th due to an electrical problem, they could not start
pump fast enough to prevent flooding in the kennel once again. The pump cannot be left on without
someone checking it about every thirty minutes. Ms. Hill asked the Board not to grant
this request, stating she has heard a lot of talk about engineering studies and
plans, but it has gone on long enough.
She stated she is filing a civil suit. Ms. Hill submitted photos and a letter
from her attorney.
Mr.
Cooper asked Ms. Hill if the curbing would solve the drainage problem, what
would be the objection. Ms. Hill
stated that the problem has gone on too long, and she does not trust that the
problem will be corrected. The
applicants actions have caused a false perception the kennel as an unsafe
facility. Mr. Cooper stated that it
seems that the approval of this relief would be a help to her and a denial would
definitely not help.
Ms.
Perkins asked Ms. Hill when she said the applicant put in the thirteen loads of
gravel. Ms. Hill stated the gravel
was poured in June or July, and that there may have been gravel under the grass,
but previously there was grass growing there for nine
years.
Carolyn Harter,
1217 S. 129th E. Ave., stated that she lives to the south of Mary
Hill. She represents herself and
the owner of Pattern Concrete at 1116 S. 129th E. Ave. They both built their buildings within
the last two years and they were asked to do PFPIs on drainage. Their total expenditures equaled
$43,000.00. They also used
concrete, because it was required.
She suggested that the Board require the applicant to pave the property
and do a PFPI. Ms. Harter added
that people can see through the fence, and she understood that it was supposed
to be a solid fence.
Nancy
Craten,
245 S. 120th E. Ave., came to represent the East Tulsa Mingo Valley
Neighborhood Association and Western Village Association. These two associations concerns go
beyond this case. The corner where
the subject property is located looks like a salvage yard and is not conducive
to the intent of the Code. She
stated that the neighborhood associations are pleased with the new businesses
that have moved into the area. The
association members request relief for the neighborhood from the applicants
non-compliance.
James
Mautino,
14628 E. 12th St., representing the Tower Heights Association, stated
that he understood that when the relief was approved in 1996 to allow gravel and
the fence, it was approved as a one-year operation. The one-year limit weighed heavily in
the determination of the Board to allow gravel and a chain link fence with
slats. Mr. Mautino submitted
photographs of the subject property and the various trucks, cars, equipment and
fencing that give the appearance of a salvage yard.
Art
Justice,
City Councilman, stated that the business on the subject property is not
attractive to look at. There has
been continual Code enforcement problems on that part of the property and the
one behind it. He asked the Board
to deny the Special Exceptions requested until the flooding problems are
fixed.
Eck
Ruddick,
a member of the Tower Heights Neighborhood Association, stated that the former
case in 1996 was approved only for one year. He asked the Board to consider this in
making a decision.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Pickard stated that applicant has
submitted a solution to the drainage problem with a plan to use the curbing
system. The applicant would request
that approval be conditioned on the completion of those improvements. Mr. Pickard stated that the existing
fencing is the one that was specifically approved by the Board and required by
ordinance. He reminded the Board
that the area is zoned CG not CS, and the area is in transition. This zoning does provide accommodation
for the grouping of certain commercial and light industrial uses, which are
compatible with one another.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins asked Mr. Pickard why they brought in thirteen additional loads of
gravel. He responded that it was
added on top of gravel that was already hard packed into the ground.
Mr.
Dunham asked Mr. Pickard if it was his contention that the approval granted in
1996 was temporary or permanent.
Mr. Pickard replied that it was not temporary. Mr. Dunham asked him why he is applying
for the same relief today if it was permanent. Mr. Pickard stated he interprets in
light of the case report that was presented to the Board by staff. Mr. Pickard stated the permanent relief
applied to only part of the 3.76 acres.
He added that the towing companys lease applies to about one and a half
acres, and the use that is being requested now is the same use on the same 3.76
acres for the area to the south of the towing company.
Mr.
Beach asked Mr. Pickard if the towing company located on the property is the
same company that was there in 1996.
Mr. Pickard stated that it is the same company. Mr. Pickard stated that if the Board,
would approve this for a period of time to allow applicant to construct the
curbing system, the owners would be willing to build it prior to the grant of
the Special Exception.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked for staff interpretation of the temporary approval. Mr. Dunham stated that he remembered the
relief was supposed to be temporary but the minutes that were submitted do not
say temporary. Mr. White stated
that those minutes were of the meeting prior to the final vote because the
balance of the case was heard in the following meeting. Mr. White specifically remembered that
the woman who presented for the towing company stated it was a temporary need
because they were going to relocate.
Mr.
Beach stated that the legal description used in the 1996 case covered more
property than they intended for the use.
Now they are asking for the same relief on the rest of the property.
Ms.
Turnbo stated she remembers that the approval was for temporary relief. She stated that Mr. Bolzle talked about
it as a good use since the Board does not like to waiver from the hard surface
requirement, unless the use would damage the hard surface, and that temporary
use of towing would not damage the hard surface. She stated it was just for towing cars
not all of the other activities.
Mr. Dunham agreed that this is what he remembers also. His concern is that it was not in the
motion. Mr. Dunham stated that
regardless of what was decided in 1996, the applicant is asking for additional
land to be included in the Special Exception. Mr. Beach agreed that was his
understanding, as well. Mr. Beach
stated that the Board was presented with information that led them to believe
that this business would be there for about a year, and with that information
the Board approved gravel parking and tied it to the user, and the user happens
to be there four years later.
Mr.
White reminded the Board that the six-foot screening fence is required, but the
existing chain link fence with slats was supposed to be temporary for not more
than a year. Mr. White agreed with
Ms. Turnbo and stated the area has improved significantly in the last four
years, and what was intended to be temporary has long since passed.
Mr.
Cooper asked Mr. Beach to read the uses permitted in a CG zoned district. Mr. Beach stated the CG zoning allows
uses by right, to have off-street parking, offices, studios, and support
services, eating establishments other than drive-ins, adult entertainment
establishments unless within 150 of an R district, in which case they need a
Special Exception, convenience goods and services, other trades and services,
mini-storages, automobile repair and allied activities, drive-in restaurants,
and hotel-motel and recreation facilities.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
the Special Exception
to
permit storage of cars, trucks, boats, and other motor vehicles excluding mobile
homes, garbage trucks, gas and oil supply trucks, a Special
Exception of required hard surface parking to allow gravel parking
behind building setback line, and a Special Exception to allow a
6 screening fence on 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 or alternatively Variance to modify parking area setback to 55 feet
from centerline of Yale Avenue as applied to change of use previously
nonconforming. SECTION 1407.C. PARKING, LOADING AND SCREENING NONCONFORMITIES; a
Variance of building setback from a residential district from 22 feet to 10
feet. SECTION 1302. SETBACKS; a Variance of building setback from centerline of
Yale Avenue from 108 feet to 102 feet. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS
IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located at
4910
E. 21st St.
Presentation
Roy Johnsen, represented the applicant, Honda of Tulsa. He stated that at the last hearing the
Board approved a Special Exception to permit the sale of motorcycles on Lots 1
and 2. The applicant requests
relief from the parking setback requirement from Yale, remaining in alignment
with the parking previously provided, considering the lack of depth of the
property for a commercial use. Mr.
Johnsen stated the applicant also requests relief from the building setback
requirements from Yale and the residential district. He stated that the applicant has removed
two old dilapidated buildings to replace with an attractive new one. He stated that they also request relief
of the setback from Yale for the building, from 108 to 102, considering the
shallow depth of the lots.
Comments and
Questions:
None.
Interested
Parties/Protestants:
None.
Discussion
by the Board ensued.
Board Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Variance to
modify parking area setback to 55 feet from centerline of Yale Avenue as applied
to change of use previously nonconforming; a Variance of building setback from a
residential district from 22 feet to 10 feet; and a Variance of building setback
from centerline of Yale Avenue from 108 feet to 102 feet. SECTION 703, per plan,
finding the hardship to be the size of the lots and the depth of 32, finding
that it will be an improvement to the neighborhood on the following described
property:
Lots 1 - 2, Block
1, Gracemont First Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to allow electrical contractor business (Use Unit 15) in a CS
district. SECTION 704. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS Use Unit 15, located at 1136 S. 107th E.
Ave.
Presentation
The
applicant, Neal Roberts, 5584 S. Garnett, stated that to his knowledge,
the property has been vacant since 1980.
He would like to set up his business on the subject property because of
the location.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked the Interested Party if she is in favor of the action
requested. She replied
affirmatively.
Interested
Parties:
Nancy
Craten was present in support of the application.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action: