CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
November 14, 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 Turnbo |
|
Butler Stump |
Parnell,
Neighborhood
Insp. |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Thursday, November 9, 2000, at 8:44 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:
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant made a timely request for continuance. He added that the approval granted by the Board of Adjustment is being appealed to District Court. He indicated that the continuance request is to allow time for the case to go through court.
Board
Action:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach stated
that the applicant made a timely request for Continuance to December 12,
2000.
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. 18924 to December 12, 2000.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted
4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of September 26, 2000 (No.804), as amended.
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted
4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of October 10, 2000 (No.805).
On
MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted
5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of October
24, 2000 (No.806).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 25’ rear yard to 17’1” for an addition to the existing dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 5804 S. New Haven.
Presentation:
John
Schaffer, 320 S. Boston, stated he is an attorney representing Donald and
Jacquelyn Cohen, owners of the subject property. He added that Paul Whitaker the
applicant is the builder. He
submitted a site plan, survey, map and minutes of previous actions (Exhibit A-1,
A-2, and A-3). Mr. Schaffer
informed the Board that they want to add a fourth bedroom to their three-bedroom
home. He pointed out that the back
property line tapers and there are some mature trees on the south in the back
yard. The neighbors immediately to
the west, north and south have no objections to this application.
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 the required 25’ rear yard to 17’1” for an addition to the existing dwelling,
per plan, finding the hardship to be the configuration of the lot and mature
trees in the back yard, on the following described
property:
Lot 5, Block 1, Rustic Hills II, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit auto salvage in an IM district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 28, located 13805 E. Apache.
Presentation:
Paul
Mauldin, owner of the subject property, stated he hopes to accommodate auto
recycling. He stated there are four
recyclers in the area, and so it would be in harmony and not injurious to the
neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham noted
that the staff comments indicated there should be screening on the west property
line. There is auto salvage on that
property, which is zoned AG. He
informed the applicant that the Code requires the screening or he needs relief
from that requirement.
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 Special Exception
to permit auto salvage in an IM district; and to Continue Case No.
18893 December 12, 2000 for relief of screening requirement.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
for a manufactured home in an RS district.
SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9; and a Special Exception of the
one-year time limit to indefinite.
SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located NE of W.
37th Pl. & S. Nogales.
Presentation:
Kirby
Ellis, stated he owns the subject property, and would like to move a mobile
home on the lot, for an indefinite time.
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
Special Exception
for a manufactured home in an RS district; and a Special Exception of the
one-year time limit to indefinite, on condition that all requirements be met for
permits, inspections, tie-downs, and skirting, on the following described
property:
Lot 11, Block 1, First McBirney Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal from decision of Neighborhood Inspections that existing duplex is an unlawful use of the subject tract. OR In the alternative a Special Exception to permit a duplex dwelling in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 7, located 1219 S. Florence.
Presentation:
Sam P. Daniel,
III, stated that he was representing Dan Perry. He stated that they were not aware there
were so many protests. He suggested
to the Board that they would be willing to continue the case in order to meet
with the protestors.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
if the applicant had met with any of the neighborhood. Mr. Daniel replied that he had not and
was not notified that there would be protest. Mr. Dunham commented that the
controversy appears to be whether the house has been an existing duplex or is
being converted to a duplex. Mr.
Daniel responded that their opinion was that it was an existing duplex when
purchased by his client. He added
that they do not have anyone to verify that. Mr. White stated that the request for a
continuance is untimely and there has been sufficient time to contact the
neighborhood association.
Mr. Daniel continued with his presentation. He noted that the applicant has obtained a building permit, and cleaned up debris from a house fire. He stated that this addition to the city was made in the 1920’s and all lots were platted to Code, therefore the size of the lot and frontage should not be held to the new Code, but grandfathered in. The owner has a good reputation for his rental properties, and takes good care of them. He stated that according to maps at INCOG, there are numerous Variances and Special Exceptions for properties in the area, with multiple bed and breakfasts, duplexes, and garage apartments.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked
Mr. Daniel what site plan or other was given to the City for a building
permit. Mr. Daniel referred the
question to Dan Perry, 3234 E. 15th St., stated he met Paul
Ennox, Building Inspector at the subject property. Mr. Ennox agreed that it was an existing
duplex and instructed him that since he was not making any structural changes,
just cabinetry and various repairs, that he only needed a repair permit. Ms. Perkins asked for the applicant to
identify the color codes used in a map that was submitted for the
applicant. He introduced John Sipes
to identify the exhibit. John
Sipes, 1928 S. Florence Ave., stated that everything in blue is a duplex
area and in green is a garage apartment. Ms. Perkins asked where he
got this information. Mr. Sipes
replied some of it was from court records, part of it is from his knowledge of
the area. Ms. Perkins asked if he
brought copies of the court records.
He did not have copies. He
stated that Jenny with INCOG confirmed that the properties marked in blue were
duplexes. Mr. White pointed out
that many of those were non-conforming use, but this one is not or would require
the applicant to prove that it was a non-conforming use.
Protestants:
David
Gurthet,
Inspection Supervisor for Neighborhood Inspections, stated that he is the one
that initiated the notice to the applicant. He stated he had personal knowledge of
this house when occupied by the former owner. The City had to clean up the property on
a monthly basis, and then the house caught fire due to a ‘meth lab’
explosion. The resident moved
into the back portion of the structure.
During that time he was the only occupant of the structure and no use as
a duplex, and was not a duplex for 36 consecutive months.
Mora
Robertson,
1320 S. Florence Ave., stated that she is a member of the Renaissance
Neighborhood Association. The
neighborhood has been transitioning away from multiple family rental use to
single-family owner occupied use.
The property value has increased.
She submitted a petition (Exhibit B-2) of protest.
Joseph
Rhoar,
1228 S. Florence Ave., stated that he used to go into the house and the house
has never been a duplex. The
bathrooms and kitchen were common to both parts of the
house.
Jeff
Callahan,
stated he owns property at 1240 S. Florence Ave. He commented that there is a wall
separating two sides of the house and two electrical boxes. He would like to see it returned to a
single-family dwelling.
Buddy
Edwards,
900 OneOk Plaza, stated he was an attorney, representing the homeowner at 103 S.
Florence. He indicated that a
duplex would decrease property value, and that the neighborhood is transitioning
to single-family dwellings.
Jenny
Rhoar,
1228 S. Florence Ave., state she has lived in the neighborhood since 1986. Her protest was for the reasons as
listed above.
Fran
Pace,
1326 S. Florence Ave., stated that she lives one block south of the subject
property. She called the
Board’s attention to Title 42, Section 404.C. and its
requirements.
Linda
Stalcupp,
1220 S. Florence, stated that the neighborhood association has been working with
the University of Tulsa and various other communities on parking
situations. She noted that on the
west side of Florence Ave. there is no parking during events. She feels a duplex would involve more
parking needs.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Daniel
reminded the Board that part of the house was rented out at one time. The lapse in use as a duplex was brought
about by the fire, and possible control of the property as a crime scene. It could not be restored without a
building permit, which was issued for repair of a duplex. Mr. Perry stated that there were two
kitchens, two baths, and one electric meter.
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 the Appeal from decision of Neighborhood Inspections that existing duplex is an unlawful use of the subject tract, and seconded by Perkins.
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to Deny a
Special Exception to permit a duplex dwelling in an RS-3 zoned
district, seconded by Perkins. Ms.
Turnbo added that the neighbor living diagonally across the street stated that
the dwelling was not used as a duplex since 1986. Ms. Turnbo stated that there were some
duplexes in the neighborhood farther to the east, located on corners of
blocks. A duplex in the middle of
the block at this location would require too many variances, cause parking
problems, and would be very injurious to the neighborhood.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow multifamily (25 dwelling units) in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 8, located SE/c E. 44th Pl. & S.
Peoria.
Presentation:
Sam
Beakey, 507 S. Rockford, stated he is a partner that owns the property. He pointed out that the dwellings are
multi-family duplexes on the subject site.
He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Gale Harris, the previous owners, had
obtained a CS zoning. Mr. Beakey
added that his partnership has been unable to sell it as commercial
property. They have considered
building some brownstones or lofts on the property, if they could obtain a
Special Exception. Mr. Beakey
informed the Board that they met with the Brookside Homeowners Association to
discuss the things they have considered.
The homeowners appeared to be concerned that they would tear down the
duplexes and replace them with something similar, which they will not do.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham
mentioned the staff comment that no parking or drives should be on the east side
of the property adjacent to the single-family residences. He also informed the applicant that he
would need to submit a site plan to be approved. Mr. Beakey submitted a site plan. Mr. Beakey responded that parking
was discussed with the homeowners association. He stated that there is overflow parking
on 44th Place between the platted area, the Riviera Apartments, and
the current duplexes.
Mr. Beach stated
that staff would require more time to review the site plan before it could be
presented for approval.
Interested
Parties:
David
Paddock, 1101 E. 34th St., Vice-President of Zoning for the
Brookside Neighborhood Association, stated their appreciation for the applicants
meeting with the association and indicated the neighbors were in favor of the
project. He added that they would
like to meet with them again to discuss the site plan, easements, landscaping,
lighting, and windows.
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
Special Exception to allow multifamily in a CS zoned district,
subject to submitting a detail site plan to the BOA for approval, 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:
N/2 Lot 11, and Lots 12, 13
and 14, Block 5, Wilder Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow car sales and storage facility in CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 23, located 2220 E. 3rd
St.
Presentation:
Trevon
Martin, (address not stated) presented the case for his father. He stated that it would help if they
could have their used car lot next to their business, rather than at another
location.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins
referred to photographs submitted to the Board, revealing inoperable vehicles,
auto parts, and no screening. Mr.
Martin responded that the lot has been cleaned up. Mr. White commented that the Board has
received several protest letters.
Protestants:
Maria
Barnes,
stated she was President of the Kendall-Whittier Neighborhood Association. She read her letter to the Board in
protest of this application, stating it does not promote the highest and best
use for this property and is not in the best interest of the neighborhood.
Fran
Pace,
1326 S. Florence Ave., asked for clarification of the application. She stated that she protests the
application because it is so vague.
Dan
McCaskill,
2437 E. 3rd St., stated he sent the Board a letter and he is a
neighbor within two blocks of the subject property. He stated his concern that it could
become more like a salvage yard as one such business in the
neighborhood.
Mr.
White asked Candy
Parnell,
with Neighborhood Inspections, to offer any information pertinent to this case
since she issued the citation. Ms.
Parnell indicated that the applicants have shown a total disregard for the City
ordinances, since they first appeared before the BOA in 1993. She stated that her office has sent them
numerous notices to clean up the property, and they have refused to comply. She added that they have written four
citations and taken Mr. Martin to court.
She stated that she has no reason to believe that they will comply in the
future, and in her opinion the use has outgrown the property.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Martin stated
that they have been located there for twenty years and they would lose half of
their business, from people not knowing their new site.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo
pointed out that auto storage is not within the Board’s power to approve.
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 a
Special Exception to allow car sales and storage facility in CS
zoned district, 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of front
building line requirement of 25’ to 5’ for construction of a carport. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; and a Variance to allow a detached accessory
building in the front yard. SECTION
402.B.1.b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions,
located 2877 E. 44th Pl. N.
Presentation:
William
Robison, 4808 S. Elwood, stated he is a general contractor, and builds
carports. He described the carport
as open on all sides, and gave dimensions.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper
commented that the BOA has previously considered if the carport was an integral
part of the house, and this one is not.
He also pointed out that there has been no hardship stated. Mr. Beach quoted the zoning code, that
it is required to be an integral part of the house.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Cooper, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye";
Dunham "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY a
Variance of front building line requirement of 25’ to 5’ for
construction of a carport; and a Variance to allow a detached
accessory building in the front yard, finding there is no hardship.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for a Use Unit 12a to be located within 150’ of an R zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 12a; and a Variance of required parking of 38 spaces to 6 spaces. SECTION 1212a.D. USE UNIT 12a. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, located 1011 W. Newton.
Presentation:
Harold
Weiss, 1011 W. Newton, stated he has been running his business in this
location for approximately fifteen years.
He indicated that his business was under the grandfather clause.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
if the six parking spaces were adequate, with those shared with the
barbershop. Mr. Weiss responded
that he owned the barbershop, and that there was also a gravel parking lot. Mr. Cooper asked how long the bar has
been established. Mr. Weiss
responded since about 1985, and it was a bar for the last 30-40 years.
Interested
Parties:
Joe
Williams,
City Councilor in District 1 where the business is located. He stated his support of this
application. He informed the Board
of the applicant’s involvement in helping youth to decrease violence. He stated that the applicant uses part
of the profits from this business to promote positive and constructive
activities for youth. Since 1994 as
a City Councilor, he has never received any kind of complaint from a neighbor or
anyone regarding this establishment.
He indicated that most of the patrons are business people that use the
place for networking, not loud or crowded at any time. There is a lot of vacant property
around it, so it does not interfere with residential parking.
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
Special Exception for a Use Unit 12a to be located within 150’ of
an R zoned district; and a Variance of required parking of 38
spaces to 6 spaces, finding the hardship to be there are a number of adjoining
parking spaces available, and no history of parking problems, on the following
described property:
Lots 1-3, Block 2, Osage Place Addition, City of Tulsa, Osage County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr. White out at
2:55.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for a single-family dwelling in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit; and a Variance of required setback from an R district to 5’. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located 1504 & 1508 N. Boston Pl.
Presentation:
Ellia
Gist, 501 E. Young Pl., stated that they requested the relief because the
property was sold through the Tulsa Development Authority to them as residential
property. She stated that Lot 12
has some CS zoning.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach stated
that he needed to ask some questions to determine if the applicant actually
needs this relief.
Rickey Gist
arrived and Ms. Gist suggested he answer the questions. Rick Gist, stated his address,
501 E. Young Pl.
Mr. Beach asked
if the applicant planned to expand the construction onto Lot 12.
Mr. White in
at 2:58.
Mr. Gist
responded that they plan to build a gazebo, and recreational items on that side
of the house. Mr. Beach stated that
for accessory residential use on Lot 12, they would need the relief.
Protestants:
None.