CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
November 28, 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 |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Wednesday, November 22, 2000, at 10:57 a.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
setback requirements for parking and structure parking. SECTION 1302.B.
SETBACKS; a Special Exception for church use. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 5; and a Variance of height
limitation from 35 to 51. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 4102 East 61st
Street.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated
that Robert L. Triplett, Chairman of Architectural Committee, Livingston Park
Homeowners Association, made a timely request for Continuance. Mr. Coutant
requested 01-09-01 for hearing date.
Mr. Dunham commented that there is just one meeting in December, and it
seemed January would be too long.
Mr. Triplett responded that matters were complex, changing frequently,
and the holidays were coming up.
Mr. Cooper in
at 1:05.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of
Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to Continue
Case 18923 to the next hearing date December 12, 2000.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit a Bed and Breakfast Inn in an OL zoned district. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
THE OFFICE DISTRICTS Use Unit 2, located 1819 E. 15th
St.
Presentation:
Darrell
Brown, 7204 E. 90th Pl., stated he represented the
applicant. The application was for
a Bed and Breakfast in an older home previously occupied by Family
Services. He described it as having
seven bedrooms with bathrooms upstairs, kitchen and meeting rooms
downstairs. There are 15 parking
marked spaces by actual count on the property itself. The offices along this street have
contiguous drives; common drives, cross parking
agreements.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham
commented that the site plan includes more property than what was advertised for
this hearing. Mr. Brown
stated that the owner produced the site plan, and it shows that there are two
buildings on the site. Mr. Brown
stated the request is only for the house at 1819 E. 15th. Mr. White asked if the legal description
covers the request. Mr. Beach
replied that it does. Mr. Cooper
asked about what kind of signs are planned. Mr. White commented that there is a
limit of 32 square feet and 20 high.
Mr. Brown responded that they would not be requesting anything additional
to those requirements. Mr. Prather
pointed out the Code requires the Board to approve the size, type and location
of the sign, even if it does not exceed the parameters. Mr. Brown pointed out that this
application is preliminary to the lease on the property and they would have to
come back for the sign anyway. Ms.
Turnbo asked if there would be residents that will live on the premises. Mr. Brown replied there would not. Ms. Turnbo noted that staff comments
stated that only four of the seven bedrooms would be used for guests and no
special events would be held there.
Mr. Brown responded that was incorrect. Mr. Beach stated that was how the
application was filed, although the notice did not include those details so the
Board is not tied to them for this hearing. There was further discussion regarding
required parking spaces and special events to be determined later when all
information is available.
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 a Bed and Breakfast Inn in an OL zoned district, on condition that there be no more than 24 special events per year, that the balance of the application be Continued to the hearing on January 9, 2001 to address the location and size of the sign, the parking, and a specific site plan.
Mr. Brown interrupted the motion to ask if they could not hear the case on December 12, 2000. Mr. Beach replied that they just needed to know when he could be ready with the details. Mr. Brown indicated they could be ready by the December hearing.
Mr. Dunham Rescinded his MOTION and stated the MOTION as above and AMENDED it to Continue the balance of the application to hearing on December 12, 2000, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to approve the motion as amended, on the following described property:
Lot 17, Block 3, Terrace Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to permit a business sign to be located on a lot other than the lot containing the advertised business, located 7153 South Lewis.
Before the
presentation Mr. Dunham questioned the application in light of staff comments
that indicate the Board may not have jurisdiction in this case. Mr. Beach responded that Mr. Prather has
an interpretation that applies to this case. The definition states a business sign
shall be on premises. There is an
access easement, which is where the sign would be located, and that may be
considered on the premises. Mr.
Cooper brought up possible problem with size of sign versus the size of the
access easement frontage. Mr. Beach
added that there are a number of different rules that would apply, and other
relief might be needed after another sign permit review.
Bruce
Anderson,
was present, but did not make a presentation at this time.
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 Continue
Case 18915 to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) hearing on January 9, 2001, finding
there is no relief needed for the Variance that was requested but there may be
additional relief needed regarding the signage in this case.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow a community group home for children and adolescents 8-18 temporarily
housed prior to foster care, adoption or re-unification with family or to
independent living. SECTION
701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 8, located W of SW/c W. 51st St.
& S. Union.
Presentation:
Mark
Jackson, 6774 E. 66th Pl., shared a brief history. He stated he was a past administrator of
Childrens Medical Center. Upon
hearing of the closing of the group home, he and a business partner purchase
that business and have been searching for a new site for the group home. Their preference would be to place
the children in single-family dwellings, but they understand the difficulties
that presents. He informed the
Board that they have contacted the business owners around the proposed site, and
have received support and acceptance as new neighbors.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
about the capacity for this proposed home.
Mr. Jackson responded that the capacity of the motel is 40 units, and the
contract with the state is for 36 children.
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
Special Exception to allow a community group home for children and
adolescents 8-18 temporarily housed prior to foster care, adoption or
re-unification with family or to independent living, per plan, 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 1, Block 1, Frisco Center, a subdivision of part of the E 150 of the W 200 of the W/2, W/2, NE/4, NE/4 of Section 34, T-19-N, R-12-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception of the allowable height for a fence in the required front yard from 4 to 6. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards Use Unit 6, located 4972 S. Newport Ave.
Presentation:
Estelle
Manes, 4972 S. Newport Ave., stated that she bought her home in 1978. She stated there was a chain link fence
in the back yard that was falling down.
In 1991, Ms. Manes talked with Ms. Belew, her neighbor about replacing
the fence and her neighbor had no objection. She added that there have never been any
complaints until this past fall, when she received a note from this same
neighbor. She indicated that in
August she found her neighbor cutting her vine on the fence, and it died. The applicant had her attorney write a
letter to the neighbor (Exhibit B-2) as she did not feel she could communicate
with her. Ms. Manes described the
fence as being 16 9 from the curb, begins at 4 and as it goes back on the
property, it increases to 6, by survey it is located on Ms. Manes property on
either side except the last couple of feet where it stands on joint property
where it attaches to the back fence.
She submitted photographs of the fence and property (Exhibit B-1).
Interested
Parties:
Nancy
Apgar, 3914 S. Norfolk, President of the Brookside Neighborhood Association,
stated that the association took a poll of the neighborhood regarding this
fence. She stated that the fence
has been there for nine years, and there has been no complaint. She added that it does not obstruct
vision for people pulling out of the driveway.
Protestants:
Pauline
Belew,
4966 S. Newport Ave.,
described
the fence as standing less than four feet from her house and complained that the
vine was growing from the fence onto her own house, and had been trimming it
every year for the last four years.
She stated that she objects to the portion of the fence in the front
yard, because people can walk up and she cant see them until they are right in
her yard.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked if she or anyone in her household agreed to the fence that Ms.
Manes put up. Ms. Belew replied
that she was not informed the fence would extend into the front yard, and she
did not agree to that. Mr. Cooper
asked why this matter is just now coming to the Board. She did not realize there was anything
she could do to stop the construction of the fence, and she could not afford to
make a legal complaint at that time.
Ms. Perkins asked how she knew to come to the Board now. She explained that she went to an
attorney and was advised to attend.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Ms. Manes stated
that she did discuss the fence with Ms. Belew, and that it would take about a
week to construct it. Ms. Belew
told her she was glad to have a nice fence up that would prevent utility people
from climbing over and breaking down a chain-link fence. Mr. Cooper asked if there was any doubt
in her mind that Ms. Belew could have misunderstood where the fence would go or
unsure about how high it would be, or how it would obstruct her view in the
front yard. He asked if she felt
like she had discussed the details completely with her. Ms. Manes agreed she felt like she had
discussed the details clearly. Ms.
Manes stated she had not had any complaints about it in the nine years since it
was built.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception of the allowable height for a fence in the required front yard from 4 to 6, per plan of existing fence, 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 15, Block 18, Riverview Village B 14-20, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of 1200 spacing requirement between outdoor advertising signs to permit existing sign 600 from other sign, SECTION 1221.F.2. USE CONDITIONS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS, located East of Northeast corner of East Admiral Boulevard and South Rockford.
Presentation:
John W.
Moody, attorney stated this application was before the Board on October 10,
2000 to apply for a Variance of 600 requirement before discovering that there
was another existing sign. He
stated that they would now like to replace the sign with a monopole
construction. He added that it is a
legal non-conforming sign.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
if anything else has changed since the first application. Mr. Moody replied nothing has
changed.
Interested
Parties:
Joe Cataris,
9804
S. Louisville, just wanted to inquire if this would have any effect on the value
of his property just behind the subject property.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Cooper, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a
Variance of 1200 spacing requirement between outdoor advertising signs
to permit existing sign 600 from other sign, per plan, 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 14, Block 7, Lynch and Forsythes Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
setback from the rear property line at West 5th Street from 25 5 to
228, located 541 South 43rd West Avenue.
Presentation:
David
Simmons, architect, stated they are working on the new Mark Twain School
site.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
if the old building would be torn down.
Mr. Simmons replied that it would after the new one is built. The staff comments asked since the
variance is so minor, why couldnt the building be redesigned to meet the
requirement. Mr. Simmons responded
that it was drawn with a reduction of classroom sizes. The new construction will be so close to
the old building during the construction period, and they did not want to come
any closer than eight feet during that time. He added that utility lines would be run
through that small area with new electrical feed causing a very restricted
space.
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 setback from the rear property line at West
5th Street from 25 5 to 228, per plan, finding the hardship to be
the safety and welfare of the children in the existing school, on the following
described property:
Block 15 and 16 of Verndale
and vacated South 42nd West Avenue, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Chair White
announced he would abstain in Case No. 18921. Chair White out at
2:03.
Action
Requested:
Variance of requirement that townhouse dwellings must be attached by a common party wall. SECTION 1207a.C.1.f. USE UNIT 12a. TOWNHOUSE DWELLING; and a Variance of required side yards in a townhouse development from 5 to 1.6, 3.1, 4.8, and 4.9 SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 3731 South Riverside Drive.
Presentation:
John
Moody, attorney, stated he represented David Nelson. He informed the Board that the City had
issued building permits for the previous owners. When Mr. Nelson purchased the property
he was told that the permits had expired and he obtained new permits. The Building Inspector came to the site
and raised questions after the building was over 2/3 erected. He read the Zoning Code Section 403 A.6
that side yards shall not apply to interior lot lines of townhouse
developments. He stated that he
found no requirement that the townhouse must be attached. He felt that in this case the Building
Inspector was mistaken in respect to this requirement. However, his client did request a
variance of the side yards between the two units and the one unit. The reason he didnt connect all
three is that the space that goes between the units is a walkway that provides
access to doorway to the middle unit.
The lots are approximately 25 in width, and each unit has a two-car
garage. He pointed out that this is
the reason that the front doors needed to be placed on the side rather in the
front of the house. Mr. Moody noted
that there are two parking spaces in the driveways in front of the two-car
garages, and Lot 4 is a common lot, and each unit has an easement to that lot
for driveway and four marked parking spaces. Mr. Moody stated that the concrete was
not poured quite wide enough, therefore, he requests a variance on the exterior
side yard from 5 to 4.8 and 4.9.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach pointed
out the Zoning Code Section 1207a.C.1.f that a single-family attached townhouse
dwelling shall be attached by a common wall or walls to another townhouse
dwelling unit. Mr. Moody responded
that as he has shown the design was to give an entry to the house other than
through the garage, and he does not believe it violates the intent of the zoning
code in respect to townhouse development.
Mr. Cooper asked what the hardship would be for the first variance. Mr. Moody replied the hardship would be
the narrowness of the lot.
Interested
Parties:
Nancy
Apgar,
stated that the Brookside Neighborhood Association supports the application, and
consider the development a fine addition to the neighborhood.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye";
no "nays"; White "abstained"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Variance of requirement
that townhouse dwellings must be attached by a common party wall; and a
Variance of required side yards in a townhouse development from 5
to 4.8 and 4.9, per plan, finding the hardship to be the narrowness of the
lots, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to
permit 4 business signs on a lot with non-arterial street frontage. SECTION
1221.C.9.a. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING; General Use
Conditions for Business Signs; and a Variance of the required setback for a sign
that exceeds 25 in height in the CS district. SECTION 1221.D.1. USE UNIT 21.
BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING; CS District Use Conditions for Business
Signs, located 3112 South 79th East Avenue
Presentation:
Kishor
Mehta, 7826 S. Urbana, stated they are requesting 40 high sign for
visibility from all angles. Mr.
Mehta submitted a signage brochure and photographs (Exhibits F-1 and
F-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham
pointed out that staff comments stated the requirement for additional setback of
one foot for every foot of height above 25, and this sign would not meet the
requirement. Mr. Dunham asked what
the hardship for variance of the height.
Mr. Mehta responded that the sign would not be visible from certain
angles. Mr. Beach pointed out
different interpretations for the Code regarding this case, in the Board
discussion.
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
Variance to permit 3 business signs on a lot with non-arterial
street frontage, finding the hardship to be that the same relief has been
granted in this area in other cases; and to DENY a
Variance of the required setback for a sign that exceeds 25 in
height in the CS district, for the following described
property:
All that part of Lot 3,
Interchange Center, an Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, lying in the NE/4 of Section 23, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, more
particularly described as follows, to-wit: commencing at the NE/c of said
Section 23; thence due W a distance of 1,206.93; thence due S a distance of
692.34 to a point in the SEly right-of-way of I-44 (Skelly Dr.) and the NWly
boundary of said Lot 3; thence S 41Ί04 30 E a distance of 240.28; thence S
20Ί2303 E a distance of 50.00 to a point in the Nly right-of-way line of S.
79th E. Ave.; thence N 69Ί3657 E a distance of 0.00; thence on a
curve to the right with a radius of 390.00 along said S. 79th E.
Ave. right-of-way line a distance of 139.15; thence S 89Ί5627 E a distance of
52.81 to the POB; thence N 0Ί0000 E a distance of 159.83; thence N 45Ί00 E
a distance of 221.79 to a point in the SWly right-of-way line of E.
31st Ct. S.; thence S 41Ί2334 E along said right-of-way line a
distance of 120.42; thence S 10Ί2335 W a distance of 138.54; thence on a
curve to the right having a radius of 110.00 a distance of 152.95 thence N
89Ί5627 W a distance of 103.15; to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the frontage requirement in a CS zoned district to permit the creation of lots with 0 frontage. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located North of the Northwest corner Highway 169 and East 21st Street South.
Presentation:
Bruce
Bolzle, 5550 S. Lewis, with KMO Development Group, stated he represented the
applicant. They seek a variance of
the frontage requirement for a deep tract of 7.7 acres. It has adequate frontage on East
21st Street for development, but a majority of the width abuts the
Mingo Valley Expressway. He
called the Boards attention to a street that was developed when K-Mart was
built to City standards, that is in good condition with a curb and gutter, but
was not dedicated. It is named on
the City atlas as S. 103rd E. Ave. There is access agreement between K-Mart
and all abutting owners as to access and use of the street. A community organization requested a
portion of property in this area that prompted a study by a consulting
firm. Tanner Consulting did a study
of the property and found: that a major portion of the tract is in the flood
plain; the tract could be subdivided for development provided that a portion was
used for storm water detention and compensatory storage requirements; the creek
would have to be improved and channeled; and the balance could be brought up out
of the flood plain and adequately used both to a gift to the community
organization and for development for commercial
use.
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 Variance of the frontage requirement in a CS zoned district to permit the creation of lots with 0 frontage, finding the hardship to be the configuration of the lot, and that there is a mutual access street to all three tracts, on the following described property:
A tract of land that is part of Lot 1, Block 1, Magic Circle South Addition, an addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, said tract being more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the NE/c of said Lot 1; thence along the Ely line of Lot 1 for the next 4 courses: S 25Ί1620 E for a distance of 247.61 to a point; thence S 1Ί3520 E for a distance of 424.41 to a point; thence S 14Ί3420 W for a distance of 443.22 to a point; thence S 1Ί3840 E for a distance of 43.98 to a point, said point being the NE/c of Lot 2, said Block 1; thence N 90Ί0000 W along the Nly line of said Lot 2, for a distance of 175.69 to a point; thence S 0Ί0000 W along the Wly line of Lot 2, for a distance of 150.00 to a point, said point being the most Sly SE/c of Lot 1 and the SW/c of Lot 2; thence N 90Ί0000 W along the Sly line of Lot 1, for a distance of 150.00 to a point; thence N 26Ί3354 E for a distance of 22.36 to a point; thence N 0Ί0000 E and perpendicular to said Sly line, for a distance of 200.00 to a point; thence N 45Ί0000 E for a distance of 169.64 to a point; thence N 0Ί0000 E and perpendicular to the Sly line, for a distance of 931.17 to a point on the Nly line of Lot 1; thence S 89Ί5919 E along said Nly line, for a distance of 188.52 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow
required parking on a lot other than the lot containing the principal use. SECTION 1301.D. OFF-STREET PARKING
AND OFF-STREET LOADING; GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located SW of E. 21st
St. & S. Atlanta Pl.
Presentation:
The applicant was
not present. The case was tabled
until later in the hearing.
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 Continue
Case 18926 to the next hearing on December 12, 2000.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of minimum lot width in RS-3
district from 60 to 52.5. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit, located SW/c E. 8th St. &
S. Norfolk Ave.
Presentation:
Jeff Dunn,
1723 E. 71st, attorney, stated that his firm is counsel to the
American Lung Association. He
submitted a memo and schematic diagram (Exhibit H-1) to the Board. He pointed out the location of
Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 4, at 8th and Madison Ave., with the western
7.5 of Lot 3. The hardship is that
a portion of the property is zoned RS-3, but it has never been utilized as
residential and the size and dimension of the lot.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham
summarized the plans that the applicant intends to preserve the historical
building, and needs to get approval of the footage to facilitate the lot
split.
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 minimum lot width in RS-3 district from 60 to 52.5,
finding that there are a number of other smaller lots in the area, on the
following described property:
Lot 3, Block 4, Oaklawn Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow
required parking on a lot other than the lot containing the principal use. SECTION 1301.D. OFF-STREET PARKING
AND OFF-STREET LOADING; GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located SW of E. 21st
St. & S. Atlanta Pl.
Presentation:
The applicant was
not present. The case was tabled
earlier.
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 Continue
Case 18926 to the next hearing on December 12, 2000.
Action
Requested:
Request for Reconsideration of 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.
Presentation:
Barbara
Bowders, 2877 E. 44th Pl. N., stated that she owns her home at
this address. She submitted a copy
of her health and medical information and photographs of carports in the
neighborhood. (Exhibits I-1 and I-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked if there was any reason they could not put a single carport on the side of the house. Ms. Bowders replied there is a storage building and there is no room. Ms. Perkins asked if she was saying that she would not move the building to the back yard. Ms. Bowders replied that there is a tree in the way and they would just have to tear the building down. Mr. Cooper asked if she was saying there are not 5 yards between t