CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES of Meeting No. 814

Tuesday, March 13, 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

Turnbo

Beach

Prather, Legal

Cooper

Perkins

 

Butler

 

Parnell, Neighborhood Insp.

White, Chair

 

 

 

 

The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, March 9, 2001, at 2:20 p.m., as well as at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall.

 

After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Mr. White announced that Case No. 19015 was withdrawn. 

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18967

      Action Requested:

         Applicant, Steve Novick, requested another Continuance for ninety days.   He suggested that since the lease would be up on June 30, 2001, that the application would be withdrawn at that time.  He also stated that there are interested parties who have relevant information that could not be present at this hearing.  

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper, Turnbo "absent") to DENY the Request for Continuance.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18993

      Action Requested:

         Mr. Beach stated that this case could be stricken from the agenda and re-advertised.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19000

      Action Requested:      

         Mr. Beach stated that this case could be stricken from the agenda and re-advertised.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19009

      Action Requested:

         Mr. Beach stated that this case has been withdrawn.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19015

      Action Requested:

         Mr. Beach stated that this case has been withdrawn.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

MINUTES:

      On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper, Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of February 27, 2001 (No. 813), as amended.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Case No. 18967

      Action Requested:

         Appeal from the decision of the Administrative Official that the Juvenile Delinquency Center/Detention/Correctional Facility, Residential Treatment Center, or Transitional Living Center requires a Special Exception from the Board of Adjustment; OR in the alternative: a Special Exception to operate as a Juvenile Delinquency Center until June 30, 2001 in an RS-3 zoned district.  SECTION 401.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 1202.  USE UNIT 2.  AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES – Use Unit 5; a Variance from the maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.  SECTION 404.F.1.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS; a Variance from the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet.  SECTION 404.F.2.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS; a Variance from the minimum frontage of 100’.  SECTION 404.F.3.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS; and a Variance from the minimum building setback of 25’ from abutting properties located within an R District.  SECTION 404.F.4.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS.

 

      Presentation:

         Steven A. Novick, 1717 S. Cheyenne Ave., stated he is the attorney for the Brown Schools of Oklahoma.  He informed the Board that the Variances requested were added by INCOG staff at the time of application but he and the applicant do not agree that those Variances are required with respect to this property.  He stated that this is a duplex dwelling and there are six young people residing in each side.  The court adjudicated these young people into the custody of Juvenile Affairs.   He stated it is their belief that under the zoning code that each side of the duplex is operated as a single housekeeping unit, and the six person units constitute families. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked Mr. Novick if he had read the staff comments.  He responded that he had not read the comments.  Mr. White asked Ms. Parnell to offer her comments while the applicant read the staff comments.  Ms. Parnell commented that the information in the agenda packet covered her observations of her initial inspection.  She stated that she has since learned that the young women living there do not attend public school, but the school system sends someone to teach them.  It was her opinion that under the zoning code definition of a family, if they are disabled in some form then it allows for one or two caregivers.   She stated that the day she was at the home there were fourteen caregivers and twelve girls.  The complaint she received was just for parking, but she believed the use of the property caused the parking problem.  Mr. White mentioned a letter from a policeman.  Ms. Parnell explained that a detective called in a complaint after she began working on the case to investigate because of the high amount of traffic and large number of cars being parked at this duplex.  Mr. White noted the complaint that cars were parked on the yard, blocking driveways and mailboxes.  Ms. Parnell reported there were fourteen cars at the time of her first inspection: six on the front yard of one of the duplexes, four on the driveway and four cars on the street.  Mr. Novick explained that the fourteen cars were there because they were having a staff meeting that day.  The caregivers are on duty per shift.  They have since changed the location for the staff meetings, so this problem has been corrected.  He compared the education in the home to be functionally no different than home schooling.   Mr. White asked if there was a staff member per side present at all times.  Mr. Novick replied that was correct.  Mr. Novick reminded the Board that most of these children have disabilities; some of them do not have permanent homes.  Ms. Perkins asked if all the girls were not adjudicated and they have to be there.  Mr. Novick responded in the affirmative. 

 

         Board discussion ensued.

 

      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 Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to DENY the Appeal of the decision of the Administrative Official that the Juvenile Delinquency Center/Detention/Correctional Facility, Residential Treatment Center, or Transitional Living Center requires a Special Exception from the Board of Adjustment; OR in the alternative: a Special Exception to operate as a Juvenile Delinquency Center until June 30, 2001 in an RS-3 zoned district.; a Variance from the maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; a Variance from the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet; a Variance from the minimum frontage of 100’; and a Variance from the minimum building setback of 25’ from abutting properties located within an R District, and the applicant will be given until June 30, 2001 to vacate the premises.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18992

      Action Requested:

         Variance of required all-weather surface parking to permit gravel for a temporary produce and flower stand.  SECTION 1303.  DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 2; and a Modify Request approved on BOA Case No.18715 approved dates to April 15, 2000, for 179 days per year for five years, located 8104 S. Sheridan.

 

      Presentation:

         Jeff Ogilvie, 8104 S. Sheridan, stated he requested the dates from April 15 for the next consecutive 179 days.

 

      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, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of required all-weather surface parking to permit gravel for a temporary produce and flower stand; and to Modify Request approved on BOA Case No.18715 approved dates, to be April 15, 2001 and next consecutive 179 days per year for five years, finding that it will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the following described property:

 

Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lucenta Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18997

      Action Requested:

         Variance to allow purchasing of artist’s work on premises.  SECTION 402.B.6.a. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6; a Variance to allow outside storage of artist’s materials; and a Variance to allow display of artist’s work outside of premises.  SECTION 402.B.6.a. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located 4751 E. 6th St.

 

         Mr. White stated he would abstain from this case.

 

      Presentation:

         Madalene Witterholt, 500 Kennedy Building, stated she was an attorney for the applicant.  She stated that the applicant, Delmar Layman, is an internationally recognized metal sculptor.  She submitted a large packet of exhibits (Exhibit C-1).  Ms. Witterholt pointed out that the back of the property faces Yale Avenue.  She noted that the driveway accesses Yale Avenue and was paved.  Several businesses and churches are located along this portion of the street.   Her client would like to display some of his artwork on the property.  She described the sculptures and explained that they are too large to place inside the home.  She informed the Board that he wants to use the detached garage for a shop and a fenced area on the back portion of the property for storage.   Ms. Witterholt stated the driveway could park four to six cars easily; and though they would not sell on the lot, people do stop to look at the sculptures. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Dunham asked if they have lived twelve years in the same location.   Ms. Witterholt responded in the affirmative.  He also commented that he did not see a sign.  She replied that they do not plan to run a business on the property.  Mr. Dunham commented on the large number of neighbors who signed the petition in support of the application.   Mr. Dunham asked how many pieces of art are on display in the yard.  She replied that there are six pieces and two of them are not for sale.  Ms. Perkins asked how many of them would be permanent.  Ms. Witterholt stated there are two pieces in the front yard that twelve would probably be the most at any one time.                       

 

         Mr. White stated that legal counsel advised him he does not have any conflict in this issue and he may resume participation as Chair.

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties present who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-1-0 (White, Dunham Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance to allow purchasing of artist’s work on premises; a Variance to allow outside storage of artist’s materials; and a Variance to allow display of artist’s work outside on the premises, finding it would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant has lived there for twelve years, on condition that the limit be the two permanent monuments, no more than four large sculptures and no more than four whimsical sculptures at any one time,  for a period of time not to exceed ten years, on the following described property:

 

      Lot 26, Block 5, Kendall View Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18998

      Action Requested:

         Variance of the required setback from property line to 7” and 18” for existing accessory buildings.   SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards and SECTION 402.B.1.0. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6, located  11301 E. 3rd St.

 

      Presentation:

         Therrel Pennel, 11301 E. 3rd St., stated he put up two accessory buildings in 1963, and did not realize they were so close to the property line.  He added that he has electricity to both buildings and uses a drill press, and wood saw.  They are portable buildings and are not on foundations.  He submitted a petition (Exhibit B-1) of signatures from his neighbor in support of the application. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked him if his woodworking was commercial in any nature.  Mr. Pennel replied that it is not commercial.  He added that he has used the buildings to store his wood and his saw.

 

      Interested Parties:

         Nancy Creighton, stated she is the president for the neighborhood association.  She added that the applicants have been model neighbors and the association is in support of the application. 

 

         E.T. Watkins, 11336 E. 3rd St., came in support of the application.  He stated that the buildings have been there for a long time. 

 

         Laddie Ondracek, 11327 E. 3rd, came in support of the application.

 

         Joseph Piquet, 215 S. Garnett, stated he owns the Thrift Town store, behind Mr. Pennel’s property.   He made objection to the application because Mr. Pennel has made multiple complaints about neighbors and neighboring businesses to Neighborhood Inspections.  He added that if the applicant was particular about others abiding by the Code then he should abide by it also.  

 

         Mr. White stated he received a letter from Neighborhood Inspections in support of the application.

 

         Mr. Cooper asked that Staff Comments be incorporated into these minutes: The three-foot setback rule for detached accessory buildings is not applicable in yards that abut a street. The required setback along Garnett Road is 85 feet from the centerline; along the north property line is three feet. The applicant stated the accessory buildings have existed in this location for almost 30 years. The application was filed because of a complaint to Neighborhood Inspections.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of the required setback from property line to 7” and 18” for existing accessory buildings, per plan, finding it would 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 18, Block 1, Western Village, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18999

      Action Requested:

         Variance of the maximum square footage for an accessory building in an RS-3 district from 750 sq. ft. to 2,690 sq. ft.  SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located 716 W. 71st St. S.

 

      Presentation:

         James Janzen, Jr., 716 W 71st St. S., stated his request for accessory building for travel trailer, boat and vehicles to keep them out of the weather. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Ms. Perkins asked if there was any commercial enterprise running from the building.  He replied there would not be any commercial endeavor.

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties present who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of the maximum square footage for an accessory building in an RS-3 district from 750 sq. ft. to 2,690 sq. ft., finding the hardship to be the size of the lot, and on condition that no commercial activity be conducted in this building, and if the lot were ever split additional floor area would not be permitted, on the following described property:

 

      Part of NW NE Beg. 880’ W NE/c W/2 NE; thence S 396’ W 110’ N 396’ E 110’ POB, less N 75’ thereof for road, Section 11, T-18-N, R-12-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19001

      Action Requested:

         Variance to permit 3 mobile storage buildings accessory to a church for a temporary period.  SECTION 402.  ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Uses Permitted  – Use Unit 5, located 620 S. Garnett.

 

      Presentation:

         Lloyd Campbell, 8403 E. 81st St., stated he was pastor of Garnett Road Baptist Church.  He stated they are adding on to their building.  The two portable buildings were for temporary space for storage during the remodeling.   The third building was already there and was not portable like the other two.

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked if one year is a sufficient time for construction.    He replied when they get the building permit, the building project would take six to nine months. They are awaiting approval of Storm Water Management.

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties present who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance to permit 3 mobile storage buildings accessory to a church for a temporary period not to exceed 18 months from this date or the buildings will be removed 30 days following the completion of the building construction, whichever comes first, and finding that they would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, for the following described property:

 

      Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, East Eleventh Park Subdivision and a tract of land Beg. 330’ N SE/c NE SE, thence W 660’ N 305’ E 452.5’ S 120’ E 207.5’ S 185’ to POB, less E 50’ S 185’ for street, Section 6, T-19-N, R-14-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19002

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception to permit outdoor tournament for a one-day event for a period of 5 years.  SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located 725 E. 36th St. N.

 

      Presentation:

         Gary Hack, 2826 S. Delaware Pl., came to present case. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Dunham asked if it is a one-day tournament.  Mr. Hack responded in the affirmative.

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties present who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to permit outdoor tournament for a one day event for a period of 5 years, for basketball tournament, 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 Block 2, Northland Center Addition, and that part of the SW/4 SW/4 SE/4 Section 13, T-20-N, R-12-E, of the IBM, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at the SE/c SW/4 SW/4 SE/4; thence W along the S boundary of said SW/4 SW/4 SE/4 a distance of 501.19’; thence N a distance of 50’ to the SE/c Block 2, Northland Center; thence N along the E boundary of said Block 2, a distance of 611.46’; thence E along the N boundary of said SW/4 SW/4 SE/4 a distance of 501.11’ to the NE/c of said SW/4 SW/4 SE/4; thence S along the E boundary of said SW/4 SW/4 SE/4 a distance of 661.37’ to the POB, all located within the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

Case No. 19003

      Action Requested:

         Variance of required 5’ side yard to 4’ to permit an addition to an encroaching structure.  SECTION 403.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; a Variance of required 5’ side yard to 2’ to permit the addition of a carport.  SECTION 403.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Minor Special Exception to allow a carport to extend 5’ into the required 25’ front setback.  SECTION 403.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1409 E. 37th Pl.

 

      Presentation:

         Suzanne Bedwell, 1409 E. 37th Pl, described the design plans and encroachment.   She stated that the pergola would help stabilize the carport structure. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. Cooper asked for the hardship of the second Variance.  Ms. Bedwell replied that the tree in the front yard near the driveway is a River Birch and leans somewhat over the street.  Mr. Cooper noted the large size.  She added that the trunk is split into three to four portions of twelve inches in diameter.  Mr. Beach asked for the overall dimension of the carport.  Ms. Bedwell replied that it is 18 ½ feet square to accommodate two cars.  Mr. Beach responded that it is just barely large enough for two cars.  She commented that she was trying not to impact her neighbors by keeping the size to a minimum, but that they did need protection for their two cars. 

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties present who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of required 5’ side yard to 4’ to permit an addition to an encroaching structure; a Variance of required 5’ side yard to 2’ to permit the addition of a carport; and a Minor Special Exception to allow a carport to extend 5’ into the required 25’ front setback, per plan submitted, finding the hardship to be the size of the lot and if the carport were any smaller it would not accommodate two cars, and the application applies only to the east half of Lot 10, Block 3, Leoki Place Addition, on the following described property:

 

      Lot 10, Block 3, Leoki Place Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19004

      Action Requested:

         Variance to allow required parking to extend to lots not containing use.  SECTION 1301.D.  GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 12; and a Special Exception to permit a parking lot in an RM-2 district.  SECTION 404.H.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 1413 E. 15th St.

 

 

 

      Presentation:

         Brett Rehorn, 4909 E. 88th Pl., submitted a packet (Exhibit E-1), including a site plan to the Board.   He stated he planned to open a restaurant at 1413 E. 15th and he will have a mixed beverage license.  He reminded the Board that this same Special Exception request has been previously passed twice by this Board, but the parking lot was never built.  He added that the reason for this was the previous tenants fell through on their lease.   Mr. Rehorn stated there would be 36 parking spaces, two entrances from Rockford and two entrances from the alley.   He also mentioned that he would need a Variance to use that lot for restaurant parking.  He pointed out a letter in his packet from Charles Faudree in support of his new business and offer of permission to use their parking lot at night. 

 

      Interested Parties:

         Steven Walter, 1428 S. Rockford, stated he lives directly north of the proposed parking lot.    He stated in 1993 that a Variance was approved for parking on the subject lot.  Mr. Walter added that when he moved there the subject lot was not vacant, but had a house on it.  He read a portion of Section 101 of the Zoning Code, stating that it was written to protect the residents of an RM area, not for commercial endeavors.   He asked the Board to deny the application as contrary to the intent and spirit of the Code.   Mr. Walter also called their attention to Section 1607.103.f of the Code.   He stated that the presence of a  parking lot so close to his home would be annoying, with noises and vibrations.  He submitted photographs (Exhibit E-2) to show the close proximity of the lot to his house on the side of his living room and bedroom.  He stated that people out drinking and partying late at night so close to his house would be very detrimental to his peace and sensibilities.   He pointed out there are two other residences across the alleyway, and an apartment house and two more residences to the east that would also be affected by a parking lot.   He indicated there was a sexually oriented business in the same building, and within 100’ of an R district.  He commented that the Board did not approve egress into the alley with the last two approvals for a parking lot on this property.   He stated that the alley was 14’ at the widest point, and only 11’ 8” at the most narrow point. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Ms. Perkins asked how long Mr. Walters had lived there.  He replied that he had lived there over twenty years.                

 

      Interested Parties:

         Meg Walter, 1428 S. Rockford, stated that the last time this property was brought before the Board, the Board made them screen the parking lot.   The Board also stipulated that the alley be screened with no ingress and egress to the alley. 

 

         Larry Kelly, 3136 E. 83rd, stated he is with Hearnden and Kelly Real Estate.  They have represented the owner of the property since Chimi’s left to find a replacement tenant.  He spoke in defense of the owner of the massage clinic, stating it is not a sexually oriented business, but it is a very reputable business.  He added that they are providing more parking spaces than the City requires. 

 

         Bridgett Silver-Neal, 1427 S. Rockford, stated that she and her husband own their home across the street from Mr. and Mrs. Walter, and next door to the apartment building.  She stated that the residential area is in transition and it is beginning on Rockford, since many of the houses have been remodeled and updated.   They do not want the traffic, noise and commercial area coming into the neighborhood.  They would like having the restaurant there, but not the parking lot that close to the residences. 

 

      Applicant’s Rebuttal:

         Mr. Rehorn stated that the new parking lot would be built to City Code with an eight-foot privacy fence, and five-foot buffer of landscaping.  He stated that his restaurant is increasing the occupancy and will need the extra parking space.  Mr. Cooper asked if the applicant had investigated other locations for the trash area.  Mr. Rehorn replied that there was an existing garbage can that would be fenced in.  He added that the trash area would be reconfigured with an entrance on the south and a new fence and gate.  Mr. Cooper asked if they had considered any other location.  Mr. Rehorn replied that he has not, but if that is a concern, he would consider relocating it. 

 

         Board discussion ensued.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to DENY a Variance to allow required parking to extend to lots not containing use; and a Special Exception to permit a parking lot in an RM-2 district, finding that it will 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.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19005

      Action Requested:

         Variance of the provisions of Section 603, Table 3 of the Tulsa Zoning Code to reduce the required building setback line from 100’ to 51’ for 100’ of the 310’ property frontage on East 21st Street, subject to a site plan approved by the Board.  SECTION 603.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, located 2121 E. 21st St.

 

      Presentation:

         Charles Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated he was representing Tulsa Dermatology Clinic at 2121 E. 21st St.   The property was constructed in 1968 or 1969 before the present Zoning Code was established.  It projects beyond the currently required building setback line established by the Major Street and Highway Plan.   A site plan, photographs, and written portion of application (Exhibit F-1, F-2, and F-3) were submitted with the application.  The purpose for the request is to permit the addition to waiting rooms, exam rooms, and establish a west exit to the building.  He stated that the property to the west is closer to the 21st Street right-of-way.  He pointed out that on 21st Street between Utica and Lewis the St. John Medical Center complex and the bank building on the northeast corner of Lewis and 21st Street are both constructed out to the right-of-way line.  He noted there are some other businesses that were permitted Variances in this stretch of 21st Street. 

 

         Dunham out 3:38 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

 

         Mr. Norman stated the circumstances that prohibit the building from being expanded to the east or the south.  There are two north-south easements immediately east of the existing building.  He stated that he has talked with the owners of the properties to the east and west and they have no objection to this application. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

         Mr. White asked about parking with this addition.  Mr. Norman replied there are no parking requirements that would be generated by this project, and there is more than adequate parking space.  

 

      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, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo  "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of the provisions of Section 603, Table 3 of the Tulsa Zoning Code to reduce the required building setback line from 100’ to 51’ for 100’ of the 310’ property frontage on East 21st Street, subject to a site plan approved by the Board, per plan, finding the hardship to be the existing variances already granted along 21st Street to the east and west of this property, on the following described property:

 

      Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Block 10, Woodward Park Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19006

      Action Requested:

         Modification of previously granted Special Exception (BOA #6564) for church use to permit use of church parking for non-church purposes and substitution of revised site plan.  SECTION 401.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 8181 E. 31st St.

 

      Presentation:

         Roy Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 501, stated he was representing John Calvin Presbyterian Church.   He stated that the church was approved a Special Exception in 1970 before it was constructed.   He informed the Board that in February of this year the City Council approved the rezoning of the west 220’ of the subject property from RS-2 to PK, for parking.  He explained that Reliable Chevrolet approached the church regarding their employees parking on the church parking lot during non-church use time, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday.  He suggested the number of spaces be limited to not exceed 50 parking spaces and limited to the northwestern four parking rows. 

 

      Interested Parties:

         There were no interested parties present who wished to speak.

 

      Board Action:

         On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Turnbo "absent") to APPROVE a Modification of previously granted Special Exception (BOA #6564) for church use to permit use of church parking for non-church purposes and substitution of revised site plan, with the conditions that parking for non-church uses be limited to the northwest four parking rows, employee parking only and not the storage of vehicles, limit of 50 spaces, and permitted during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, on the following described property:

 

      Lot 8, Block 1, Groveland Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, less and except beginning at a point on the E line of said Lot 8, said point being a point on the S line of an existing 80’ wide easement; thence Sly along said E line of Lot 8 a distance of 75’; thence Wly and perpendicular to the E line of Lot 8 a distance of 30’; thence Nly and parallel to said E line of Lot 8 a distance of 30.35’ to a point; thence S 77°59’33” W a distance of 207.06’; thence S 17°22’56” E a distance of 20’; thence S 73°37’04” W a distance of 20’; thence N 17°22’56” W a distance of 20’; thence S 78°05’90” W a distance of 151.44’ to a point on the W line of said Lot 8, said point being on the S line of said existing 80’ wide easement; thence N 72°37’04” E along said easement line a distance of 418.73 to the POB, and less and except commencing at a point on the E line of said Lot 8, said point being a point on the N line of an existing 80’ wide easement; thence S 72°37’04” W along said easement line a distance of 172.87’ to the POB; thence S 72°37’04” W and continuing along the N line of said easement a distance of 20’; thence N 17°22’56” W a distance of 20’; thence N 73°37’04” E a distance of 20’; thence S 17°22’56” W a distance of 20’ to the POB, and less and except beginning at the NE/c of Lot 8; thence S 48°34’30” W along the Nly line of Lot 8 a distance of 528.67’ to the NWly/c of Lot 8; thence S 00°35’30” E along the W line of Lot 8 a distance of 351.82’ to a point; thence NEly to a point on the E line of Lot 8, said point being N 00°35’30” W a distance of 505’ from the SE/c of Lot 8; thence N 00°35’30” W along the E line of Lot 8 a distance of 572.19’ to the NE/c of Lot 8 and the POB.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 19007

      Action Requested:

         Special Exception to permit a U.S. Cellular 120’ monopole wireless telephone transmission tower in an RS-3 zoned district.  SECTION 1204.C.5. USE UNIT 4.  PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions and SECTION 401.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 4; and a Special Exception to required 110% tower setback from an adjoining residential district.  SECTION 1204.C.3. USE UNIT 4.  PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions, located E of NE/c 69th E. Ave. & Tecumseh St.

 

      Presentation:

         Kevin C. Coutant, 320 S. Boston, stated he represents U.S. Cellular regarding property located generally south and east of the intersection of Virgin and N. Sheridan.   He provided a list of the criteria required for approval of this application as