CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
September 26, 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 |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler Stump |
Parnell,
Zoning
Official |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Thursday, September 21, 2000, at 11:32 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
4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of August 8, 2000 (No. 801).
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted
4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of August 22, 2000 (No. 802).
Mr. Beach informed the Board
that the address given for the subject property is incorrect. The case needs to be stricken from the
agenda. Case No. 18875 will be
continued to the October 10, 2000 hearing.
Action
Requested:
Applicant was not
present. Chair White suggested
hearing the case later if the applicant arrived. No Interested Parties were
present.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required screening of accessory storage of materials, equipment, or products within 200 feet of an abutting R zoned district to permit the existing driveway access to South Maybelle Avenue. SECTION 902.B.3. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, located 3602 S. Maybelle.
Presentation:
Timothy Scott
Nall, 3755 S. Tacoma, stated that his hardship is public safety. He has a 33 long truck that is too long
to turn around and exit forward on West 36th Street. He requests the use of the Maybelle
access so that he can use the circle drive to enter off West 36th
Street and exit onto Maybelle.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
Lots 2 - 3, Block 8, Garden City, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of front yard from 25 to 20 to permit an addition. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located 4644 S. Vandalia.
Presentation:
Richard
Amatucci, 4644 S. Vandalia, stated the request for a Variance. He submitted a revised site plan
(Exhibit A-1). He informed the
Board that he resolved the questions that his neighbor had about the
application. He stated that
the hardship is the irregular shape of the lot and house. He described the revision in the
previous site plan is on the north end of the house so that it would not abut
the existing patio, and a slight extension of the east wall of the house.
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 front yard from 25 to 20 to
permit an addition, finding the hardship to be the irregular shape of the lot,
and finding it will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair
the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the
following described property:
Lot 10, Block 4, Green Hills, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 1301.D to meet parking requirements for a church on 2 lots other than where principal use is located. SECTION 1301. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS; SECTION 1202.D. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS; and SECTION 1800. DEFINITIONS Use Unit 5, located 2117 S. Garnett.
Presentation:
Chris
Busch, 2117 S. Garnett, stated he was the Administrator and Associate Pastor
of Bread of Life Fellowship. He
submitted a letter (Exhibit B-1) to the Board. He stated that as a part of the
application for certificate of occupancy they are asking for approval to fulfill
parking requirements with parking provided on adjacent properties. The size of the current auditorium is
12,500 square feet yielding a potential seating capacity of 950. This would translate into a need for 320
to 360 paved parking spaces, and there are currently 156 paved parking spaces on
site. He informed the Board
that through written agreement with two adjacent property owners, they have
access to an additional 230 parking spaces giving a total of 386 parking
spaces. He stated that approval of
this application would allow them to leave the south two acres unpaved for use
as a playground and recreation area for the church and community. The church would like to use their
facility to host events that would be a benefit to others, especially the youth
of the community.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked
the applicant to state the hardship.
Rev. Busch stated that they have been asked to host functions in their
facility once a month, and they would like to have concerts and
conferences. Mr. Dunham asked if
they have a written agreement for parking on the other lots. Mr. Prather stated that the contracts
for parking appear to have a stipulation that they can be cancelled with a
30-day written notice. Mr. Prather
noted that one agreement provides for parking during the hours of 6:30 p.m. to
2:00 a.m. on any weeknight, and from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ms. Turnbo made the point to the
applicant that if the landlords terminated a contract to allow parking on their
property the church would have to stop the activities requiring those parking
spaces. The applicant stated that
their contingency plan would be to pave a part of their own property.
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 Section 1301.D to meet parking requirements for a
church on 2 lots other than where principal use is located, on the condition
that no barriers be erected between tracts A and B, and A and C, and if the
contracts for parking on tract B or C were cancelled that the applicant would
have to provide parking on tract A, finding the hardship to be the size of the
property, on the following described property:
Tract A: Part of Lot 2, Block
1, Richard Henry Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma,
being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at the SE/c of said
Lot 2; thence S 89Ί5630 W along the S line of said Lot 2, a distance of
294.17 to a point; thence N 0Ί0418 W and parallel to the W line of said Lot
2, a distance of 448.80 to a point; thence due E and parallel to the N line of
said Lot 2, a distance of 206.07 to a point; thence N 0Ί0459 W and parallel
to the E line of said Lot 2, a distance of 47.56 to a point; thence N 44Ί4453
E a distance of 124.83 to a point on the E line of said Lot 2; thence S
0Ί0459 E along the E line of said Lot 2, a distance of 584.72 to the POB; AND
Tract B: Lot 1, Block 1, Burris Square Addition; AND Tract C: A part of Lot 2,
Block 1, Richard Henry Addition, being more particularly described as follows,
to-wit: Beg. at the SW/c of said Lot 2, Block 1, thence E along the S line of
said Lot 2 a distance of 335 to a point; thence N and parallel to the W line of
said Lot 2 a distance of 375 to a point; thence NWly at an angle N 79Ί0539 W
a distance of 341.23 to a point on the W line of said Lot 2, which point is
440 N of the SW/c of said Lot 2; thence S along the W line a distance of 440
to the POB, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Approval of
Amendment of Site Plan pursuant to previous cases BOA Nos. 15806, 17393 and
18836, for use of temporary classroom building and for sanctuary and parking
areas shown on site plan, located 5415 E. 101st
St.
Presentation:
Stephen A.
Schuller, 500 OneOk Plaza, 100 W. 5th St., stated that the
applicant has determined that they need temporary classroom space during
expansion construction. He added
that the temporary classroom building would occupy eight parking spaces, which
would be under the required minimum.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
how long the temporary building would be needed. Mr. Schuller replied nine months to two
years.
Mr. Dunham stated
he would abstain from this case.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Turnbo, the Board voted 3-0-1 (White, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
Dunham "abstained"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE the Amendment of
Site Plan pursuant to previous cases BOA Nos. 15806, 17393 and 18836, for use of
temporary classroom building and for sanctuary and parking areas shown on site
plan, with the condition that the temporary building will be there no longer
than two years, on the following described property:
The E/2 SW/4 SE/4 SW/4 of
Section 22, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of 100
setback from centerline of East 41st Street for temporary buildings
and outdoor sales. SECTION 703.
BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance of the
setback from an R district. SECTION
703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance to allow
building across lot line; a Special Exception to permit Christmas tree sales in
CS, RM, RS, and OL districts.
SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit
2; SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 2;
SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS Use Unit 2; and a
Variance of time limitations.
SECTION 1202.C.1. USE UNIT 2.
AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES; Use Conditions, located SE/c E.
41st St. & Harvard.
Presentation:
Roy
Johnsen, 201 W. 5th, Suite 500, stated he was representing Bill
Manley, the owner of the subject property.
The property has been used as a Christmas tree lot since the mid
1950s. He stated that over the
years the lot has been before the Board numerous times. In 1991 the application was protested
and at that time some definitive standards were set concerning operating hours,
setbacks, lighting and time frame for preparation of the lot for the sales. Since then the application has been
approved three times for increments of three years. Once again they request approval with no
changes to the previous standards, for the three-year time frame.
Interested
Parties:
Mrs. Richard C.
Heidinger,
4123 S. Jamestown, stated that she had no objection to the application, because
they have been good neighbors. She
requested that the Board approve another three-year renewal with the same
provisions.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White stated
that a letter (Exhibit C-1) was provided in favor of the application as stated
by Mrs. Heidinger.
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 100 setback from centerline of East 41st
Street for temporary buildings and outdoor sales; a Variance of
the setback from an R district; a Variance to allow building
across lot line; a Special Exception to permit Christmas tree
sales in CS, RM, RS, and OL districts; and a Variance of time
limitations, on the condition that the same development standards of the 1997
approval apply, for a period of three years, finding that it will not cause
substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and
intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the following described
property:
Lots 1 and 2 and W 100 Lot 25 and 26 and E 100 Lot 3, Block 1, Villa Grove Heights, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required rear yard from 10 to 9.6. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 8; and a Variance of required side yard from 10 to 8.9. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 6031 S. Newport.
Chair White
stated he would abstain.
Presentation:
Max
Heidenreich, 5704 E. 65th St., stated this application was made
to clean up existing deficiencies that could cause possible title problems on an
existing apartment complex.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 3-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White "abstained"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of the required rear yard from 10 to 9.6; and a Variance of required side yard from 10 to 8.9, finding the hardship is a pre-existing condition, and is not increasing the non-conformity, on the following described property:
Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17
& 18, Block 6, Broadview Heights Addition in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to
permit storage of motorized vehicles (not for sale) on surface other than one
consisting of all-weather material, where located behind building setback line,
in conjunction with and as accessory use to vehicle repair/service and auto body
repair uses (temporary storage of vehicles awaiting repair). SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
AREAS; and a Variance from screening requirement, to permit location of
screening fence to be set back from lot lines in common with abutting R
district. SECTION 1217.C.1. USE
UNIT 17. AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED
ACTIVITIES, Use Conditions, located 2902 W. 41st
St.
Presentation:
Stephen
Schuller, 500 OneOk Plaza, stated he was representing Ronald Gene David,
Jr. He stated that Mr. David has a
ground lease for the subject property from the Burlington Railroad, the property
owner. His client intends to
operate a repair shop for used cars to be sold on his car lots. He submitted a site plan (Exhibit D-1)
to the Board. He stated that there
would be no sales of vehicles conducted on this site. The zoning code requires a screening
fence along lot lines for abutting residential property. Some residents asked that no fence be
constructed because they like the openness, one has a privacy fence, and others
have chain link fences. A portion
of the southwestern property line has such dense vegetation and trees that he
could not tell if there were any fences.
The client has fenced the portion of property where the vehicle repair
would be conducted. Mr. Schuller
had a petition signed by a number of the property owners asking that no privacy
fence be put up on their property boundary. He indicated that the zoning code
itself would be the cause of an unnecessary hardship to enforce a 35 rather
than a 25 setback. Mr. Schuller
also mentioned that the landowner does not want a permanent pavement on the
property.
Protestants:
Darla
Hall,
5043 S. 33rd W. Ave., stated that she asked Tim Cartner and Chris Cox
to speak to the Board regarding this case.
Tim
Cartner,
Lead Inspector for District 2, described to the Board that the subject property
was inspected multiple times and cited for outdoor storage of junk cars, and
parts. He stated it was still not
in compliance as of the date of this hearing. The violations on this property
fit the salvage yard use.
Chris
Cox,
Inspector for District 2 was present to corroborate the same
complaints.
Ms. Hall stated the condition of the
property was not good for the neighborhood, and requests the Board to deny this
application.
Chris
Benge,
6864 W. 35th Pl., House Representative made a complaint about the
state of the subject property with emphasis on the view of property from the
expressway.
The following protestants brought similar
complaints as above:
Steva
Willis,
1824 W. Coyote Trail, Sand Springs, resident in the neighborhood
Victor
Hernandez,
(no address stated), long-time resident of the
neighborhood
Roberta
Brown,
4928
S. 63rd W. Ave.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Schuller,
stated he was before the Board to correct the problems. He stated that there are no more parked
cars outside of the screening fence, the property was mowed, getting place
cleaned up and screened properly.
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
Variance to permit storage of motorized vehicles (not for sale) on
surface other than one consisting of all-weather material, where located behind
building setback line, in conjunction with and as accessory use to vehicle
repair/service and auto body repair uses (temporary storage of vehicles awaiting
repair); and a Variance from screening requirement, to permit
location of screening fence to be set back from lot lines in common with
abutting R district, finding would cause substantial detriment to the public
good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the
Comprehensive Plan, on the following described property:
All that part of the NE/4
NW/4 NW/4 and the NW/4 NE/4 NW/4 of Section 27, T-19-N, R-12-E, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, situated N and W of the Main Line of the former
St. Louis and San Francisco Railway and S and E of the Frisco Addition to Red
Fork [now City of Tulsa], Oklahoma (being a parcel of land 300 in width between
such railway line and the Frisco Addition.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required setback from an abutting street from 35 to 25 to permit a fence in an
RS-1 district. SECTION 215. STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ABUTTING STREETS
Use Unit 6, located 2404 E. 27th Pl.
Presentation:
Bill
LaFortune, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated he was representing Mr. And Mrs.
John Cowan. He submitted
photographs, and a site plan (E-1).
He stated that the site plans with the privacy wall were approved by the
City of Tulsa for a building permit.
As his client built the wall, an Inspector cited him, the client came to
BOA, and for lack of a hardship, his application was denied. Mr. Cowan was instructed to remove as
much vegetation as possible on the street side of his property and find other
encroachments along Lewis between 21st and 31st
Streets. Mr. Cowan was trying to
protect his family by building a circle drive so they would not have to back out
onto a busy street. Mr. LaFortune
pointed out that other neighbors along this street also have a 25
encroachment. He informed the Board
that two neighbors came to oppose the application today, but when he showed them
what Mr. Cowan intends to do; they were in agreement and left the hearing.
Mr. Cooper stated he needed to abstain
from this case.
Protestants:
Curtis
Holdridge,
2724 S. Lewis, stated that he lives directly across the street from the subject
property (wall). He opposes
allowing this wall if it is out of compliance with the code just because there
are others out of compliance. He
stated his concern for the safety hazard to pedestrians and traffic on South
Lewis. He indicated that this
variance was previously denied in September 1999, because no unnecessary
hardship was found at that time.
He stated he was unaware of any changes since then. He described the situation of the stop
sign on 27th Place as being 8 back from the corner of Lewis, so that
people have to drive through the stop sign to get as close to Lewis as possible
to see past the wall for traffic.
Margaret
Holdridge,
2724 S. Lewis, stated that the structure is a reinforced wall not a fence. She pointed out that the lanes on Lewis
are very narrow and there are numerous wrecks in the area. She added that there is a lot of
pedestrian traffic in the neighborhood and she considers the wall to be
unsafe.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. LaFortune
stated he has spoken with Mr. Holdridge about their concerns. Mr. LaFortune stated that the south post
has been moved back in line with the existing fence for the safety of
pedestrians. He stated that
he also spoke with Ms. Charles and that she told him she is neutral, she
considers the structure a wall not a fence, and she does not be believe it
should be torn down.
Board discussion
ensued.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays";
Cooper "abstained"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE a
Variance of the required setback from an abutting street from 35
to 25 to permit a fence in an RS-1 district, per the plan submitted that shows
the post and the wall on south end of property being in line with the south
property line, and on the condition that the portion of wall that lies to the
north of existing wrought iron fence be removed and no new vegetation will be
permitted in front of the 35 building setback line, finding that it will not
cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit,
and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the following described
property:
Lot 3, of the Subdivision of
Lot 7, Block 3, Woody Crest Subdivision, an Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit extension of the Ronald McDonald House under Use Unit 5 or alternating
Use Unit 8 in an OL district.
SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS; SECTION 1205. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES;
SECTION 1208. USE UNIT 8. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AND SIMILAR USES
Use Unit 5, 8, located W of SW/c of E. 61st St. &
Hudson.
Mr. Cooper stated
he would abstain from this case.
Presentation:
Roy
Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 500, Tulsa, OK 7103, stated he was
an attorney, representing Ronald McDonald House Charities of Tulsa, Inc., as
well as Saint Francis, Inc., which will be the owner. He pointed out that in the 1989 BOA
approval for the Ronald McDonald House on the subject property, the use unit was
not specified. Since that time, the
zoning codes have changed. Mr.
Johnsen informed the Board that he and INCOG staff have discussed the issue and
concluded the Use Unit 8 is the most appropriate. He noted that there are 14 bedrooms in
the existing facility, and the proposed expansion would provide 10 extra beds,
plus some of the common areas for social gathering. This would require 24 parking spaces,
and there are about 42 available spaces.
Protestants:
Greg
Denny, 5541 E. 61st Place, stated he owns the duplex at 5541 and
5539. The back yard of the duplex
next door to the east abuts the Ronald McDonald House. He stated that he did not know
about the meeting for the homeowners association regarding the Ronald McDonald
House before the previous BOA application.
He added that he would have protested at that time. Mr. Denny pointed out that there is
increased traffic congestion at the 61st and Hudson traffic light in
front of the Ronald McDonald House between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the
evening. He informed the Board that
there have been numerous rear end collisions, and some were due to increased
traffic flow in front of the Ronald McDonald House. He stated his concern regarding
vandalism in the area, and indicated it may be attributed to the Ronald McDonald
House, because of the noise and the people who congregate outside the house at
2:00 and 3:00 a.m. He stated
that he has observed people cutting across his backyard from Saint Francis to
the house. He added that some were
inebriated, loud and caused a disturbance. He pointed out that this is a
24-hour operation without any security.
He further opposed any more obstruction to their view of LaFortune
Park. Mr. Denny brought up the
matter of a wood fence to be constructed, and suggested an alternative since a
brick wall is already in place.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White
reminded Mr. Denny that Mr. Johnsen has not requested relief on the fence
height.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Johnsen stated that the Ronald McDonald House is an excellent facility, well
received in the community and successful.
He commented that he would have an architect take a look at the fence and
contact Mr. Denny in the future. He
asked that no condition be imposed today regarding the fence.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-1(White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays";
Cooper "abstained"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to permit extension of the Ronald McDonald House under Use
Unit 8 in an OL district, per plan submitted, finding that it will be in harmony
with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following
described property:
The W 217.80 of the E
442.80 of Lot 1, Block 2, The Amended Plat of Warren Clinic East, an Addition
in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required setback for a ground sign from 60 to 30 from centerline of South
Yale. SECTION 1212.C. USE UNIT 12. EATING ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN
DRIVE-INS, Use Conditions, located SW/c E. 41st St. &
Yale.
Presentation:
Cecil
Ricks, stated he is an architect with Matrix Architects, Engineers and
Planners. He stated that he was
representing the University of Oklahoma Health Science Center. Mr. Ricks submitted photographs (Exhibit
G-1) to the Board. He informed the
Board that the University commissioned his firm to help them in the move from
the Sheridan campus and several other campuses to the campus at 41st
and Yale. He explained to the Board
that there are several rows of large mature trees along Yale, which they would
like to preserve. The school asked
for a temporary sign closer to the street than code requirements, pending the
widening of Yale.
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 a ground sign from 60 to 30
from centerline of South Yale, conditioned upon a license agreement with the
City and a removal contract, per plan, finding the hardship to be the existing
trees, on the following described property:
A tract of land being bounded
on the W by Saddlelane and Patrick Henry Additions and on the S by Greenhills
Addition, and being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: the E 80
acres of the NE/4 of Section 28, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma, less and except the S 20 acres
thereof.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Special
Exception to approve an amended site plan, located 3030 E. 91st
St.
Presentation:
Hank
Pellegrini, stated he was representing 3030 E. 91st St., Tulsa
Southern Tennis Club.
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 Minor
Special Exception to approve an amended site plan, per plan submitted,
on the following described property:
*.*.*.*