CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
October 10, 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 |
|
Beach |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper |
|
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
Turnbo |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Wednesday, October 4, 2000, at 3:26 p.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:
Special Exception
to allow Use Unit 5 in an RM-2 zoned district (furniture maintenance facility
for TU). SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 2807 E. 10th St.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant has asked for a continuance to decide on the appropriate use unit.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye";
no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to CONTINUE Case No.
18873 to the next hearing on October 24, 2000.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
requirement that a mini-storage development site must have frontage on and
access to an arterial street.
SECTION 1216.C.3. USE UNIT
16. MINI-STORAGE; Use Conditions, located N side of Virgin, E of
Sheridan.
Presentation:
Tom
Christopoulos, 12113 S. Memorial, Bixby, OK 74008 was
present.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White
established that this case was presented to the Board to clear up an incomplete
request for relief from a previous hearing.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance
of the requirement that a mini-storage development site must have frontage on
and access to an arterial street, 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:
A part of the W/2 NW/4 of Section 26, T-20-N, R-13-E, IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the SW/c of said W/2 NW/4 of Section 26; thence N 01º18’08” W along the W line of said Section 26, for a distance of 40.00’; thence N 88º45’25” E parallel to and 40.00’ N of the S line of said W/2 of the NW/4 for a distance of 200.00’ to the POB, being a 3/8” iron pin with cap; thence N 01º18’08” W parallel to the W line of said Section 26, a distance of 650.00’ to a 3/8” iron pin with cap; thence N 88º45’25” E parallel to the S line of said W/2 NW/4, a distance of 209.06’ to a 3/8” iron pin with cap; thence S 10º23’18” W, a distance of 510.58’ to a 3/8” iron pin with cap; thence S 88º08’32” E, a distance of 27.98’ to a 3/8” iron pin with cap; thence S 01º18’08” E parallel to the W line of said Section 26, a distance of 148.39’ to a 3/8” iron pin with cap; thence S 88º45’25” W parallel to and 40.00’ N of the S line of said W/2 NW/4, a distance of 133.54’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Special Exception to permit residential accessory use (parking) on concrete driveway on Lot 7, adjacent to Lot 6, Block 5, Louisville Heights Addition. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 1712 N. Indianapolis.
Presentation:
W. Michael
Hackett, 406 S. Boulder, Ste. 642, stated he was representing his clients
Ms. Delozier and Ms. Miller, who own the two lots. He stated that Lot 6 is the lot to the
north where the relief is needed.
Lot 7 is the lot to the south.
He informed the Board that his clients operate a Day Care Home on Lot 7,
which is licensed by DHS. They have
been parking their vehicles on a long concrete driveway on Lot 6, to avoid
traffic congestion around the day care.
There are no structures on Lot 6.
They request the relief to park on Lot 6 to avoid traffic congestion and
benefit their customers and the neighborhood. Mr. Hackett offered that his
clients would be willing to do a tie-agreement if the Board found it
necessary.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On Motion
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Minor Special
Exception to permit residential accessory use (parking) on
concrete driveway on Lot 7, adjacent to Lot 6, Block 5, Louisville Heights
Addition, 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:
Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 7,
Block 5 of Blocks 1-9, Louisville Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Use Unit 17 (used car sales) in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located 11225 E. Admiral Pl.
Presentation:
Betty J. Durbin, 3611 S.
130th E. Ave., stated that she is the owner of Second Childhood Cars
and Toys, currently located at 102 S. 111th E. Ave., Wagonwheel Trade
Center. She added that they
specialize in smaller motorcycles and ATV’s for children. She informed the Board that they are
required to have a used motor vehicle license from the State of Oklahoma, which
requires they have a zoning approval for a Use Unit 17. Ms. Durbin stated that they sell newer
model used cars, and usually have no more than five at a time. She indicated that since they
don’t make much on the motorcycles and ATV’s, they sell the cars so they can
make enough to buy more of the smaller products. She stated that their focus is on
selling items for children and families.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
for the proposed hours of operation.
She replied they are open Tuesday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m., and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Protestants:
Wayne
Bohanon,
10617 E. 1st St., stated he is the President of Wagonwheel
Neighborhood Association. He stated
that they oppose the used car lot at this location because they believe it would
bring down the value of their property.
Gretchen
Battaglia,
341 S. 117th E. Pl., submitted letters to the Board (Exhibits B-1,
B-2), which she read aloud. The
first letter from John L. Roy, 9018 E. 38th St., representing East
Tulsa Mingo Valley Association, stated that they do not oppose this application,
but ask for some conditions. They
asked that if the existing chain link fence is to remain that the remainder of
the frontage on Admiral Pl. and Garnett would have a fence or barrier no higher
than three feet; customer parking exempt from three foot barrier; if the
existing chain link fence is removed then the south and east side of the lot
would have a fence or barrier no higher than three feet and again customer
parking exempt from the three foot barrier; no banners, streamers or advertising
hung from poles, light poles, buildings or canopies; no light shining directly
on an R district; only light mechanical work on vehicles and must be performed
inside a building; and no outside storage other than inventory for sale. The second letter was from Nancy Craten,
representing Western Village and all of their good neighbors. The letter stated that their association
was not notified of this proposed action until they received the agenda on
Saturday before the hearing. The
letter stated that the subject property was much too small for a used car
lot. Ms. Craten suggested that the
applicant be given a four-month temporary approval to see if it works out. She also lists a safety concern for
children trying out the equipment for sale, especially when Admiral is
widened.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Ms. Durbin
reminded the Board that they are located in the Wagonwheel Trade Center. She stated that she spoke with a Phil
Kearns of the neighborhood association and informed them that the neighbors are
concerned that the subject property would look like a nearby unattractive used
car lot. She submitted photographs
(Exhibit B-3) of their existing location and their new location, and Doc’s
Corvettes. She informed the Board
that her family has lived and still lives in the neighborhood her entire
life. She stated that they have had
this business in the area since May, 1999, without complaints, and operating
within the law. She added that
their intention is to increase the value of the area, because that is where they
live. She also informed the Board
that they have a lease-purchase contract on the property.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
Ms. Durbin if she had seen the letter from John Roy. Ms. Durbin replied that they have no
intention of tearing the fence down or building other fences. She stated that if it would make the
property safer, then they would do whatever they could to make it safer. Mr. Dunham asked about lighting. She replied they are surrounded by two
CS locations so outside lighting would not affect residences. She added that if they put in a light,
it would be in the front of the property and would be directed into the fenced
area. Mr. Cooper asked about car
repairs. She replied that no auto
repair would be done on the property.
She stated they would not have any vehicles that require repair.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special Exception
to allow Use Unit 17 (used car sales) in a CS zoned district, on the following
conditions: 1) primary business is sale of ATV’s and motorcycles, used car sales
incidental to the primary use and limited to no more than six used cars offered
for sale; 2) no inoperable cars or vehicles stored on the lot and no repairs
made on the premises; 3) days and hours of operation would be Tuesday through
Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; 4) any
lighting erected would be directed down and away from any residential
neighborhoods; 5) no banners, streamers or advertising material be hung from
poles, light poles, buildings or canopies, on the following described
property:
471’ S and 50’ W of NE/c of
Lot 1, W 150’ S to a point 75’ N on S line E 150’, thence N to POB, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback requirements from 1200’ spacing and setback from R district to replace an existing two “I” beam pole sign with monopole sign. SECTION 1221.F.2. & 4.b. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, Use Conditions for Outdoor Advertising Signs – Use Unit 21, located East of NE/c E. Admiral Blvd. & Rockford.
Presentation:
John W.
Moody, attorney, stated they would not need the 1200’ spacing and withdrew
that part of the request, as there is not another sign within the 1200’. He pointed out that the subject property
is surrounded by CH, Industrial zoning and multiple uses in an RM-2 zoned
area. Mr. Moody submitted a
photograph to the Board (Exhibit C-1).
He stated that his clients want to replace an older twin I-beam sign with
a monopole sign, which complies with the requirements of the sign code. The narrowness and small size of the lot
is the hardship and the reason for their inability to comply with the code.
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
Variance of setback requirement from R district to replace an
existing two “I” beam pole sign with monopole sign. SECTION 1221.F. 4.b. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
Use Conditions for Outdoor Advertising Signs – Use Unit 21, per plan submitted,
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 14, Block 7, Lynch and Forsythe’s Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to use as a construction office and model home during the sound attenuation project for Tulsa Airports Improvements Trust. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2; and a Variance for setbacks for construction trailer. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 7887 E. Independence.
Presentation:
Bob
Parmele, 5109 S. Wheeling, with Cinnabar Service Company, stated that his
company has been selected by the Tulsa Airport’s Improvement Trust to conduct
their sound attenuation program.
This program includes almost 1700 homes around the Tulsa International
Airport. The purpose of this home
would be as a model home to give people an example of the quality and to see the
effect of sound attenuation improvements.
The home would also be used as an office for the duration of the
project. Mr. Parmele added that
hard surface parking, landscaping, and a screening fence on the north and west
property line would be provided.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
Mr. Parmele how long he would expect the need for the construction trailer. Mr. Parmele responded they would need it
for the five-year program. He added
that they are looking at an alternate site on the airport property for the
trailer. Mr. Cooper asked
should the Board grant a five-year limit, if that would be sufficient. Mr. Parmele agreed with that; and stated
that at the end of the project they would restore the property by removing the
hard surface and sod the yard, and add landscaping as needed to sell as a
single-family dwelling unit. Mr.
Beach informed the applicant that the trailer would require the same setbacks as
the home and he would need more relief.
Protestants:
Debbie
Lampkins,
7841 E. Independence, stated that she does not object to the model home, but she
objects to the trailer because it would impede vision for traffic. She was also concerned that it might
encourage too much traffic congestion and intensity for a residential
neighborhood.
Larry
Brandt,
7845 E. Independence, objected to the application for this use of the property
because of the congestion it would cause in the neighborhood.
Vernon
Hensley,
7863 E. Independence, does not object to the house as a model, but objects to
the trailer for the same reason as previous protestants.
Ed
Collins,
8973 S. 73rd E. Ave., stated he owns the property two lots south of
the subject property. He added that
it is 75’ wide and 400’ deep. He
suggested to the applicant that his own property would be available to lease or
purchase for a trailer or for construction, with an existing driveway for
ingress and egress to Memorial without causing congestion.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
where the parking would be located.
Mr. Parmele replied that parking would be on the east side and the access
would be from the driveway on Memorial.
Mr. Cooper asked about the number of homes that might be part of the
project. The applicant replied that
1200 was the initial estimate, but after research they found that 1690 homes
would be eligible for this project.
Mr. Cooper asked for an estimate of the peak number of visitors to the
site per day. Mr. Parmele responded
there would be about five to seven employees on a full-time basis, but it would
be hard to estimate visitors. Ms.
Turnbo asked about the expected hours of operation. He replied that it would be normal
business hours, but they offer the opportunity for people to visit in the
evenings or Saturdays, but no late hours.
Mr. Cooper asked about the hours for construction business people using
the trailer. He stated their hours
would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. also.
Mr. Cooper asked if they would show up at 6:00 a.m. Mr. Parmele stated they would not be
arriving early. Mr. Dunham
questioned if there was enough room for parking. Mr. Parmele stated they asked their
employees to carpool to work if possible, and they hope to make eight to ten
parking places.
Mr. Parmele
withdrew the request for a variance for setbacks for construction trailer to
free up space for parking.
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
Special Exception to use a model home during the sound attenuation
project for Tulsa Airports Improvements Trust, on conditions use not to exceed
five years, provide minimum of five off-street parking spaces on north side of
house with access from Memorial meeting all setback requirements, yard and house
be restored to a single-family dwelling, on the following described
property:
Lot 38, Block 6, Maplewood
III, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
one-story height limit for detached accessory building to two-story. SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6; a Variance of 20% requirement for
required rear yard from 248 square feet to 362 square feet. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions; and a Variance of 750 square
feet maximum for detached accessory building to 1296 square feet. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, location 1235 E.
30th Pl.
Presentation:
Alan
Mitchell, 111 E.
Dewey, Sapulpa, stated he is speaking on behalf of Victoria Petersen. He submitted photographs (Exhibit D-1)
to the Board. The house was
constructed in about 1942. Ms.
Petersen purchased the house and has lived there since 1978. She would like to add a second story
onto the garage for a family room.
There are other houses in the area that have added second story rooms to
garages. He added that the neighbors on that side
of the subject property have no objection to this application. He stated that the project does require
the variances requested to meet requirements and obtain the building
permit.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham
questioned Mr. Mitchell about use of the addition as a rental unit. Mr. Mitchell replied that they were so
cautioned against the use of the addition for a rental dwelling unit. He stated that it would have a bathroom
but not a kitchen.
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
Variance of one-story height limit for detached accessory building
to two-story; a Variance of 20% requirement for required rear yard
from 248 square feet to 362 square feet; and a Variance of 750
square feet maximum for detached accessory building to 1296 square feet, on
condition that addition to the garage be for a family room and restroom,
specifically be prohibited from a rental unit or unit for a second dwelling,
finding the hardship to be the size of the lot, and the fact that there are
numerous examples of two-story garages in the immediate area, on the following
described property:
Lot 21, and the E 4’ of Lot
20, Block 1, Southmoor Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Special
Exception to allow parking recreational vehicles in front yard in RS-3 zoned
district. SECTION 402.B.7.c.
ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6,
located 12132 E. 36th St.
Presentation:
Michael
McCoy, 404 W. Broadway, Broken Arrow, attorney with Gunter and Associates,
and a friend of Andrew Stenberg, the applicant. He submitted photographs of the subject
property to the Board (Exhibit E-1).
He stated that the applicant added a driveway to park his motor home
twelve feet from the curb. There is
not enough side yard on either side of the house to allow for parking his boat
or motor home in the back yard.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked
if there was anything preventing the applicant from storing one or more of these
vehicles in a mini-storage. Ms.
Perkins asked how many other neighbors park that many large vehicles in front of
the house. Mr. Stenberg replied
that he counted 15 improperly parked vehicles on two different routes out of his
neighborhood and 10 violations on a third route. She asked how many of them park three
such large vehicles. Mr. Stenberg
replied that they have five drivers in the family and use four cars. Mr. White asked if they have four cars
in addition to the boat and motor home.
Mr. Stenberg replied in the affirmative. Mr. Cooper asked how many citations and
complaints he received on these vehicles.
Mr. Stenberg responded that he did not know, and as he has received the
citations he has taken steps to correct the problems. Ms. Turnbo asked why he didn’t park the
boat in the garage. Mr. Stenberg
stated that it would not fit.
Protestants:
Mr.
White stated he had a letter of opposition from a neighbor across the
street. Mr. White also stated that
from Neighborhood Inspections, he had an accumulation of a current complaint of
June 27, 2000, two notices of violation, three criminal citations, a copy of a
prosecution report, copies of ten previous complaints on the property called in
since February 1991.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. McCoy
responded that he represented Mr. Stenberg in the prosecution case also. He stated that if it were necessary to
bring in the neighborhood to say they don’t object except for one person across
the street that has filed all of the complaints. He added that Mr. Stenberg was not in
compliance at the time that he received the citations, and went to INCOG to find
out how to correct the problem. He
was advised to build the second driveway and now the City of Tulsa is willing to
dismiss the case.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Perkins
commented on the large size of the recreation vehicles and multiple personal
vehicles, and asked where they are all parked. Mr. Stenberg directed the Board’s
attention to the photographs provided showing how they are parked except for the
van, which he parks on the street.
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 DENY Case
No. 18881, finding the intensity too high for a residential neighborhood, and
finding it would cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the
purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive
Plan.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
Date approved:______________________
__________________________________
Chair