CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
February 27, 2001, 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 |
Cooper |
Stump |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Perkins Turnbo |
|
Butler |
Akermann,
Zoning
Official |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Wednesday, February 21, 2001, at 11:20 a.m., as well as at the City Clerks office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr. White announced that the applicant withdrew Case No. 18883.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
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 February 13, 2001 (No. 812).
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to modify the screening requirement along lot lines abutting an R zoned
district. SECTION 212. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, located SE of
E. 21st St. & 129th E. Ave.
The Chair
stated Mr. Dunham would abstain.
Presentation:
Ricky
Jones, 5323 S. Lewis, requested additional advertising of this case to
modify the screening on the subject property. The applicant desires to move the
screening fence between the proposed buildings rather than to place it on the
property line. The paved portion of
the street is narrow and would cause a tunnel effect.
Interested
Parties:
James
Mautino,
14628 E. 12th St., asked the Chair if he has certified to the Court
Clerk that a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. He stated that an appeal has been filed
on Case No. 18966.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White replied
that he has not and asked Mr. Boulden, the legal council to address the
question. Mr. Boulden stated that a
stay has not been filed and the appeal is to a previous action of this board and
this is a separate action. Mr.
Mautino responded that does not agree with the Zoning Code. Mr. Stump explained that section does
not apply to this case, because there has not been an appeal of this action,
since it has not been made yet. The
Chair noted that even though the case number is the same, they are different
actions.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 3-0-1 (White, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Dunham
"abstained"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to modify
the screening requirement along lot lines abutting an R zoned district, per
plan, finding it is a difficult piece of property, under O zoning, and 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:
A tract of land that is a
part of Lot 2, Block 1, Mizel Center, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, said tract being more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the
SE/c of said Lot 2; thence S 89Ί5217 W along the Sly line of Lot 2, for a
distance of 255.00 to a point; thence N 0Ί0006 E and parallel with the Ely
line of Lot 2, for a distance of 395.69 to a point; thence N 89Ί5245 E and
parallel with the Nly line of Lot 2, for a distance of 255.00 to a point on
said Ely line; thence S 0Ί0006 W along the Ely line, for a distance of 395.66
to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
18986
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow a home occupation in an RS-1 zoned district. SECTION 402. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
located 5824 E. 100th Pl. S.
Presentation:
Brad
Fuller, 20 E. 5th, Suite 200, attorney for Doyle D. and Joann
Junker, submitted photographs and advertising samples (Exhibits B-1 and B-2) to
the Board. He stated the request is
for a home occupation for an embroidery business, which at a less intense level
is allowed by right. A building
permit was obtained to build the pool house.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked
if it was built as a garage/hobby area.
Mr. Fuller replied it was built as a pool house/garage. Mr. Dunham asked if the applicant has
seen the staff comments. He
suggested Mr. Fuller address the questions from staff.
Mr. Fuller would
be willing to limit traffic to two to three cars per day, and two deliveries per
week. This property is near the
outside of the neighborhood and the building can be seen from 101st
Street, and one block from the access street into the neighborhood. Mr. White asked how many employees would
be involved. Mr. Fuller replied it
would just be Mr. and Mrs. Junker.
The Chair also noted that two other addresses were listed for this
business, on S. Mingo and 97th Pl. Mr. Fuller pointed out there are other
home occupations in the neighborhood and even another embroidery business that
advertises in the neighborhood association newsletter. He stated that they do not advertise
even on their cars, which they could by right. He stated they would be willing to keep
the hours of operation limited to 9 to 5, and put up screening fences if
required. Ms. Turnbo asked if
the applicants understand they cannot have someone else come in and help them
with the business. Mr. Fuller
responded that they understand. He
added that they deliver a lot of their own work. Ms. Turnbo asked if the other home
occupations in the neighborhood that Mr. Fuller mentioned were in the main
residence or in an accessory building.
Mr. Fuller responded that he understood them to be within the main
residences.
Interested
Parties:
Doyle Junker,
5824
E. 100th Pl., stated he is the applicant. He stated his wife really enjoys her
business and they have tried to keep the traffic down. He explained that it is a quiet business
and not disruptive.
James D.
Williams,
9717 S. Braden, stated that he sign the petition titled rezoning request when
someone brought it to his door. He
later discovered the petition had misinformation and regretted having signed
it. He spoke with the applicants
and the nearest neighbors and found no problem with the application. He stated that he has no problem with
the business.
Stan
Thompson,
5811 E. 100th Pl., stated he lives across the street from the
applicants. He stated he has not
seen excessive traffic, no noise, and he was in support of the application.
Jan
Draper,
7456 E. 49th St., stated she is a customer of the applicant. She only delivers work to the subject
property once every two to three weeks.
The largest truck she has ever seen at the subject property was a UPS
truck. She stated the numbers of
cars parked there at any one time are similar to a bridge party.
Joann
Junker,
5824 E. 100th Pl., stated she started this business a number of years
ago. She added that the president
of the neighborhood association had asked her if she would like to advertise in
their newsletter. Ms. Junker stated
that she did not realize there would be such objection, and understood that her
home occupation was by right.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked
if most of her work was more like subcontracting for other businesses. Ms. Junker replied in the
affirmative. Mr. Dunham
commented to the interested parties regarding the letter from the treasurer of
the neighborhood association, that this is not a re-zoning case. He pointed out that this Board does not
have the jurisdiction and would not be inclined to approve commercial activity
in a residential neighborhood. He
stated that the Board hears applications for home occupations. They are just what the name indicates,
not a business, and they cannot have signage, outside employees, or anything
that would indicate from the street that it is a business.
Interested
Parties:
Cynthia
Woodson,
9811 S. Granite Ave., stated she was the president of Sun Meadow Civic
Association. She stated that she
helped circulate the petition. The petition, protest letters and faxes (Exhibit
B-3) were submitted to the Board at the beginning of the hearing. She commented that she had not
thoroughly read the sign on the subject property at that time. Ms. Woodson added that she had no
objection to the home occupation in the home, but she did object to a building
over 750 square feet allowed by Code.
She was called by a neighbor with a concern that a business was in
operation next door to her home.
Ms. Woodson saw the sign in the yard next. She asked the Board if there had been a
citation because she had not contacted Neighborhood Inspections yet. Mr. Stump replied that there was a
citation from Neighborhood Inspections stating they were operating a home
occupation without Board of Adjustment (BOA) approval of a Special
Exception. She stated that Ms.
Junker asked her for a copy of the covenants, and she gave her a copy. Ms. Woodson added that there were other
home occupations in the neighborhood within the homes. She stated her primary opposition was
that the Junkers moved it out of their house into an ancillary building. She was concerned that the building
permit showed it was for an S-1 usage, and that is for a storage building and
the permit office stated for recreation.
She expressed concern that it gives the appearance of a commercial
building, not a pool house. Ms.
Woodson also mentioned that Mr. Junker told her and others that it would just be
him, his wife and their son working there.
She pointed out that the Board has made it clear that approval would not
cover their son or anyone else coming to work there. She stated that she let Mr. Junker know
that she did not think the building was appropriate in size and appearance for a
residential neighborhood. She
stated her concern that this would set a precedent. Ms. Woodson listed concerns regarding
limitation of hours of operation, ingress/egress through the neighborhood,
obtaining access to 101st Street, parking needs for
customers/suppliers, height of the building compared to height of privacy
fence. Mr. Dunham informed her that
access to 101st Street would be illegal. Mr. Stump advised her that the Code
allows one-story accessory buildings without any height limitation in an RS-1
district.
Mr. Dunham
reminded the interested parties that the BOA cannot take any action regarding
the building, and the applicants obtained a permit to build it. The BOA can only consider the request
for a Special Exception for a home occupation. He asked that interested parties direct
their comments to the application.
Mr. Stump asked
if Ms. Woodson would estimate the principal house is 2,000 square feet. She agreed to that estimate. He referred to the required limitation
she mentioned of 750 square feet.
He informed her that a more recent provision allows 750 square feet or
40% of the principal structure whichever is greater. He pointed out this would allow them 800
square feet and that would accommodate the size building they have. He noted that the building was properly
permitted for an accessory building.
James
Gigiletto,
stated he lives two houses from the applicants. He stated the petitions were passed
around for all of the neighborhood association to have an opportunity to be
involved. He stated there have been
trucks at the subject property. Ms.
Turnbo asked how many trucks came to the property on an average per week. He stated he did not know, but there
were three trucks on the day of the hearing and he took pictures. She asked him what kind of trucks. He replied there was an exterminator
truck, laundry truck and another he didnt recognize the name on it. He submitted the photographs (Exhibit
B-4). Mr. Gigiletto asked if
the building permit would have been issued if he told them he was going to do
his home occupation there. Mr.
Stump responded that his understanding was that even though they could build the
building, he would have been advised not to use it for the home occupation until
approved by the BOA.
Al
Maestas,
9742 S. Joplin Pl., stated
that
he and his wife put together the petition.
He apologized for the misinformation. He distributed the petition before he
was able to contact the applicant regarding the type of business they would
have. Later Mr. Junker shared with
him about the home occupation and stated that he, his wife and their son would
be working there. He listed the
concerns of the neighbors regarding property values and the afore-mentioned
objections. He made the point that
if a home occupation grows to this point it is time to move it to a commercially
zoned property.
Don
Bower,
9945 S. Irvington, stated there has been a lot of work and effort to improve the
neighborhood and he feels this activity would have a negative effect.
Wes
Sercus,
9753 S. Lakewood; Tammy
Taylor,
5150 E. 97th St.; Betty
Trinka,
5712 E. 98th St. expressed the same concerns as
above.
John
Newby,
9724 S. Hudson asked about limitations of type of home occupation, hours of
operation, delivery hours, and whether the actions go with the land or the
applicant. Mr. Dunham and Ms.
Turnbo responded that the Special Exception goes with the land and the BOA may
add limitations.
Lloyd
Bennett,
10013 S. Irvington, asked how the Code requirements would be enforced. Ms. Turnbo replied that Neighborhood
Inspections would respond to complaints from the
neighbors.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Fuller stated
that it would be obvious to interested parties if they came into the yard that
the building is functional and appropriate as a pool house. He noted that much of the
opposition appeared to stem from the misinformation in the petition letter. He stated that the applicants would
observe the Code requirements, which would settle issues regarding signage, and
employees; and would observe the Covenants by adding masonry, and all
others. Mr. Fuller expressed
the applicants willingness to accept limitation to the type of home occupation
allowed by the BOA.
Board discussion
ensued.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-1-0 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; White "nay"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to allow a
home occupation in an RS-1 zoned district, with conditions: restricted to embroidery
home occupation only, no signage on property or vehicles, days/hours of
operation/deliveries limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday in
addition to home occupation guidelines, 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 2, Block 4, Sun Meadow
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow church related uses in an RS-4 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 5; and a Special Exception to allow church accessory uses
to be located on a lot other than the lot with the principal use. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, located SW/c E. Seminole St. & Madison Ave.
Presentation:
John
Purdy, 22801 E. 98th St., representing the Friendship Baptist
Church, to obtain Special Exception for a building for increased classroom
space.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
if the building was a manufactured building. Mr. Purdy replied that it is a modular
stick-built placed on a foundation.
Mr. Stump stated if it meets the requirements of an office building it
would not be considered a mobile home.
Mr. Dunham stated if they can comply with the required 25 setback then
they would not need additional relief, but if they cannot comply then additional
relief would be needed. Mr. White
noted that 50 from the centerline would be required also. Mr. Stump suggested that the applicant
check with the City of Tulsa permit office to determine if they could meet the
setback requirements.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
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 Special Exception to allow
church related uses in an RS-4 zoned district; and a Special
Exception to allow church accessory uses to be located on a lot other
than the lot with the principal use, 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 2, Roosevelt
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
structure height from 35 to 519Ύ to permit an apartment. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE
DISTRICTS Use Unit 8, located SE/c E. 17th St. & Cheyenne
Ave.
Presentation:
Howard
Raskin, stated he represented Robert Raskin and Combined Technology. He informed the Board that when the
previous exception was obtained for width they failed to obtained approval for
the height. He stated that the
applicant has given all of the information to the Riverside Neighborhood
Association and they affirmed they have no objection to the application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
for a hardship for this variance.
Mr. Raskin responded that there is a twelve-story office building across
the street and a six-story office building behind this site.
Interested
Parties:
Jim
Brackett,
stated his support of the project as a good for the neighborhood and the infill
area of the city.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye";
no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE a
Variance of structure height from 35 to 519Ύ to permit an
apartment, per plan, finding there is CH property with unlimited height directly
to the east, and it fits the parameters of Smart Growth, on the following
described property:
Lots 1, 2, 3 and N/2 Lot 4,
Block 10, Stonebraker Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
setback from centerline on East 15th Street of 35 down to 30 for a
sign. SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT
21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs Use Unit 12, located
1419 E. 15th St.
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 setback from centerline on East 15th Street of 35 down to 30 for a sign, subject to a license agreement with the COT, 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 12, Block 6, Bellview
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to extend special event parking (U.S. Open) beyond 20 days per calendar year and
10 days in a 30 day period to March 1 to July 1, on Section A of the site plan
and from June 5 to June 18 on Section B.
SECTION 1303.F.4. DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS Use Unit 5, located 2636 E.
61st St.
Presentation:
Steve
Worthy, Director of Operations for the U.S. Open, stated they would need
some time in April as well as the dates requested.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
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
Special Exception to extend special event parking (U.S. Open)
beyond 20 days per calendar year and 10 days in a 30 day period to March 1 to
July 1, on Section A of the site plan and from June 5 to June 18 on Section B,
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, and to Continue if additional relief is needed for the
balance to March 13, 2001, on the following described
property:
A tract of land in Section
32, T-19-N, R-13-E, and Section 5, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma; Beg. at the SW/c of Lot 3, Block 2, Southern Villas Addition,
the E 165.09; thence S 330.18; thence E 165.11; thence S 815.5; thence SE
368.48; thence E 295.42; thence S 656; thence W 955; thence S 825; thence W
827.98; thence N 165.05; thence W 1,817.73; thence S 330.5; thence W
1,444.5; thence N 208.71; thence W 168.71; thence N 2,389.4 to a point which
is 25 S and 40 E of the NW/c of Section 5, T-18-N, R-13-E; thence E along the
S Boundary line of E. 61st St. S. to a point, said point being 329.4
N of the POB; thence S 329.4 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow parking on a lot other than the principal use lot for a special event
(U.S. Open), June 11-18, 2001.
SECTION 1303.F.4. DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS Use Unit 5, located SW/c E.
63rd St. & Utica Ave.
Interested
Parties:
Jody
Burton,
6106 S. Florence Pl., stated their home backs up to the golf course. She asked for explanation of what to
activity to expect
behind
their property during that time.
The access road from 61st is not a hard surface road.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham responded that it was for parking only at this location. Mr. Stump stated that special event
parking has the characteristic of being on an unprepared surface, rather than
dust-free surface and allowed on a limited basis. Mr. Worthy added that NBC would have a
broadcast compound nearby, and parking.
Ms. Burton stated she wanted information and was not in opposition to the
application.
Interested
Parties:
Wayne
Rousch,
6118 S. Florence Pl., informed the Board that the COT has plans to re-pave
Florence Pl. during this same period of time.
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
Special Exception to allow parking on a lot other than the
principal use lot for a special event (U.S. Open), June 11-18, 2001, 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:
Part of the SE/4 NW/4 of
Section 6, T-18-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the NE/c of the said
SE/4 NW/4; thence S 89Ί4500 W a distance of 1,319.6 to a point, said point
also being the SW/c of Valley View Center Addition to the City of Tulsa; thence
S 0Ί1300 E a distance of 847.2 to a point thence N 89Ί4400 E a distance of
100; thence S 0Ί1300 E a distance of 50; thence S 89Ί4400 W a distance of
100; thence S 0Ί1300 E a distance of 325; thence N 89Ί4400 E a distance of
100; thence S 0Ί1300 E a distance of 100; thence N 89Ί4400 E a distance of
225; thence N 0Ί1300 W a distance of 100; thence N 89Ί4400 E a distance of
150; thence S 0Ί1300 E a distance of 100; thence N 89Ί4400 E a distance of
844.6 to the SE/c of said SE/4 NW/4; thence N 0Ί1300 W a distance of 1,321.8
to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow parking on lot other than the special event lot, June 11-18, 2001, for
U.S. Open. SECTION 1303.F.4. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
AREAS Use Unit 5, located NW/c E. 61st St. & Madison
Ave.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
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
Special Exception to allow parking on lot other than the special
event lot, June 11-18, 2001, for U.S. Open, 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:
All of Gov. Lot 8 lying E Riverside Dr. less Beg. 40 N and 433.54 W SE/c Lot 8; thence W 303.02 to E right-of-way Riverside Dr.; thence NW along right-of-way 858 NW 396.68 NW 94.12 E 64.72 SEly curve left 570.45 SE 419.03 SE 396.01 POB for highway and less E 25 for street, Section 36, T-19-N, R-12-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow parking on a lot other than principle use lot for a special event (U.S.
Open) from June 11 to June 18, 2001.
SECTION 1303.F.4. DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS Use Unit 5, located NE/c & SE/c E.
81st St. & Lewis Ave.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked
the applicant if there was a possibility they would need relief for any extra
days. Mr. Worthy included June
18th as the extra day they might need.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
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
Special Exception to allow parking on a lot other than principle
use lot for a special event (U.S. Open) from June 11 to June 18, 2001, 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:
Block 1, Oral Roberts
University Heights and Block 1, Oral Roberts University Heights 2nd,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Special
Exception to modify a previously approved site plan and landscape plan. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 5, located NE/c E. 25th St. & S.
Peoria.
Presentation:
Charles
Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated that he gave notice to the
neighbors of this request. He added
that they have been supportive. Mr.
Norman noted that Mr. George Sharp responded with a request that the masonry
wall that face the south be increased in height to block car headlights. The applicant agrees to that
modification per letter (Exhibit D-2).
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 modify a previously approved site plan
and landscape plan, per plan, subject to modification to increase height of wall
to four feet in front of parking spaces facing south as per letter submitted, on
the following described property:
A tract of land beg. at a
point 246 S of the NW/c of Lot 2 in Section 18, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City
of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma; running thence in an Ely direction
and parallel to the N line of said lot a distance 330; thence N 0Ί18 E a
distance of 23; thence in an Ely direction and parallel to the N line of said
lot a distance of 121; thence in a SEly direction an on a curve with a radius
of 28 a distance of 43.49; thence in an Ely direction and parallel to the N
line of said lot a distance of 145.8; thence S 0Ί18 W a distance of 109.5;
thence in an Ely direction and parallel to the N line of said lot a distance of
63.6; thence S 0Ί18 W a distance of 109.5; thence in a Wly direction and
parallel to the N line of said lot to the W line of said lot; thence in a Nly
direction and on the W line of said lot a distance of 224 to the
POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being
no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:09
p.m.
Date approved:______________________
__________________________________
Chair