CITY OF TULSA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
April 24, 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 |
Perkins |
Beach |
Jackere,
Legal |
|
Cooper |
Turnbo |
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, April 20, 2001, at 8:40 a.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 1:05 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach stated that the case has been withdrawn.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that the applicant has withdrawn this
application.
Case No.
19039
Action Requested:
Mr.
Beach stated that an interested party made a timely request for continuation to
allow time to discuss the application with the applicant.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE
a CONTINUANCE
to the meeting of May 8, 2001.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception of required 110% tower setback (88’) from adjoining OL district to 46’ to permit a U.S. Cellular 80’ monopole wireless telephone transmission tower in a CH-zoned district. SECTION 1204.C. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions and SECTION 1608. SPECIAL EXCEPTION – Use Unit 4, located 1107 S. Florence Pl.
Presentation:
Kevin C. Coutant, 320 S. Boston, stated that this is the same
application he presented six weeks ago. Since then he has met with the
neighborhood association leaders and members. He submitted a packet of exhibits
(Exhibits A-1 site plan; A-2 response to factors, and other; A-3 landscape
plans). The pole would be an 80’
wooden monopole with three slim-line antennas and availability for collocation
of two similar facilities. The
tower would be about 120’ from nearest residential structures, 90’ from existing
area; commercial zoning to the north, east, west and a parking lot on the
south. The surrounding topography
is flat, and there is no tree coverage.
The equipment will be enclosed in an outdoor cabinet 5’ X 12’. Ingress and egress will be per access
easement to S. Florence Pl. The
tower is needed to provide coverage for the University of Tulsa campus,
in-building coverage for Skelly Stadium and T.U., to off-load towers at
I-244/Admiral between Yale and Sheridan, and at 11th and Lewis at the
fairgrounds. The tract size is 100’
x 140’, with likely commercial development.
Interested
Parties:
Michelle Grounds stated she
is the president of the Renaissance Neighborhood Association. She stated that they object to
setting a precedent and expressed concerns regarding collocation. The association members were pleased
regarding the landscaping plans and screening fence that the applicant
proposed.
Marcell Fribee, 6505 E. 99th St., owner of the OL-zoned
lot for which the variance was needed, she stated the Code requirement for
setbacks was written for a reason.
Cheryl Dyer, 1122 S. Birmingham Pl., stated she represented the
neighborhood association. She
submitted a petition with 32 signatures (Exhibit A-5) of opposing
residents. She stated her concern
for health issues.
Earline Walker, 3140 E. 11th, stated that she owns the
subject property. She informed the
Board that several property owners rescinded their signatures from the petition
of opposition. Ms. Walker stated
that she and her husband have been in the neighborhood for 30 years and have
tried to help improve it. They
studied this project before they decided.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Coutant noted that the very language of the Code and advertising
could lead to misunderstanding of the type of structure. He stated that the burden is on the
applicant to help the neighborhood understand what the facility would look
like. He reminded the Board that
the FAA has negated issues of health hazards from cell towers. Mr. Coutant felt that they have
demonstrated the need for the pole and provisions for coverage with minimal
impact on the neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham commented that the applicant has demonstrated the need, and TU
has responded that they do not want to lease. Mr. Cooper noted that there is some
obligation to make accommodation for these towers under federal law. He stated that if we only put them where
people want them, we wouldn’t have any.
T.U. is creating a demand because of their facilities and yet apparently
is not able to accommodate further users.
He stated that there are certain areas of town where there are few places
to locate towers and it causes a concentration of towers in other places. He expects there will be a greater need
and indicated if the pole or tower were taller it could accommodate more
collocation. Mr. White commented
that he would not be for this application if it were located in the R-zoned
area. He compared the cell pole to
the light standards at Skelly Stadium and the power poles along 11th
Street. He considers the pole to be
less intrusive than those structures.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE
a Special
Exception of required 110% tower
setback (88’) from adjoining OL district to 46’ to permit a U.S. Cellular 80’
monopole wireless telephone transmission tower in a CH-zoned district, with
six-foot screening fence; and with landscaping per plan, finding all the factors
required would be met, 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:
Lot 23, Block 1,
Pilcher Summit Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an outdoor flea market in a CG district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located 2626 W. Skelly Dr.
Presentation:
Rick Vanderpool, 2614 W. Skelly Dr., stated he also owns property
to the east of his original property.
It was abandoned and had no structures. He cleaned it up and fenced it.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked if the property to the south where the construction
company is located belonged to the applicant. He replied that it did not. Mr. Beach asked for a more specific
property line description. Mr.
White determined the site was not properly advertised.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to CONTINUE
Case
No. 19035 to the meeting on May 22, 2001 to advertise with the proper legal
description.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow two dwellings on
one lot of record. SECTION
207. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER
LOT OF RECORD – Use Unit 9; a Special Exception to allow a manufactured home in
an R-zoned district. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Special Exception to allow a manufactured home
permanently. SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located W
of SW/c E. 54th St. & N. Zunis Ave.
Presentation:
Carolyn Harris Lee, 2004 E. 54th St. N., stated her
plans to move a manufactured home onto the subject property as a permanent
residence.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White noted that the Board has approved two other manufactured homes
within one block of this property within the last two years. Mr. Cooper asked if access to the
property is prevented from 51st Street N. because of the pond. She responded that it is blocked.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE
a
Variance to allow
two dwellings on one lot of record; a Special Exception to allow a
manufactured home in an R-zoned district; and a Special Exception
to allow a manufactured home permanently, with conditions of DEQ approval,
tie-downs, skirting, building permit, finding the lot is large enough to
accommodate two dwellings, on the following described
property:
The W 318.54’ of
the W/2 SE/4 NE/4, less the S 164.57’ and less the N 20’ for road purposes and
less beg. 20’ S of the NW/c of SE/4 NE/4, thence E 75’, thence S 150’; thence W
75’; thence N 150’ to the POB, all in Section 7, T-20-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow church and church school and related accessory
uses in an IL-zoned district.
SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5; and a Variance of street
frontage from 50’ to 0’. SECTION
903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, located 1003 N. 129th E.
Ave.
Presentation:
Wallace O. Wozencraft, 1619 S. Boston, stated he is an architect
for Willie George Ministries. The
applicant proposes to use property for ball fields, bus barn, and school
activities. He mentioned that they
are going to revise the site plan for another portion of the property in the
future.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked why they didn’t apply for a PUD, considering the size
and uses of the property. Mr. Beach
responded that this course is appropriate and does not require a PUD at this
time. The applicant has
purchased property in separate parcels as they became available. Mr. White asked if the only building of
substance on the new request is the bus barn. Mr. Wozencraft replied that there would
be smaller buildings in the baseball field areas and the bus barn. He described the plans to obtain
approval to increase parking when they put up bleachers for the football
field. He added that they are in
the process of obtaining a water pipeline from 129th St. after
approval of the City. They are in
to the process of platting the property.
Interested
Parties:
Richard Young,
606 N. 145th, stated he is with Industrial Piping Specialists. He asked if the traffic flow would come
from the west on 129th St.
He asked if he could have a site plan to take back to his company for
information. Mr. White responded
that access would be from 129th St.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Special Exception to
allow church and church school and related accessory uses in an IL-zoned
district; and a Variance of street frontage from 50’ to 0’,
subject to a tie-agreement between the new parcel to existing parcel, 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:
The SE/4 NW/4 and
the E/2 NE/4 SW/4 and the NW/4 SE/4 and the N/2 SW/4 SE/4 of Section 33, T-20-N,
R-14-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, less the
following described tract of land: Beg. at the SW/c N/2 SW/4 SE/4; thence N
89º52’08” E on the S line of the N/2 SW/4 SE/4 for 682.34’; thence N 13º34’07” W
for 621.91’; thence N 48º34’21” W for 84.46’ to the N line of the N/2 SW/4 SE/4;
thence S 89º51’45” W for 75.36’; thence N 48º34’21” W for 329.14’; thence N
84º13’30” W for 150.28’ to the W line of the NW/4 SE/4; thence continuing N
84º13’30” W for 666.48’ to the W line of the E/2 NE/4 SW/4; thence S 0º07’23” W
for 302.51’ to the SW/c of the E/2 NE/4 SW/4; thence N 89º51’45” E for 663.37’
to the SE/c of the E/2 NE/4 SW/4; thence S 0º05’31” W for 660.87’ to the SW/c
N/2 SW/4 SE/4 and the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Variance of the required RM-2 setbacks to allow RS-3 setbacks (5’
and 5’ for side yards) for single-family homes. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located SE/c E. 60th St. & Madison Pl.
& S of SW/c E. 60th St.
& Newport.
Presentation:
Charles Patterson, 2642 E. 21st, stated he is the
proprietor of Patterson Realtors.
He shared the proposed plans for these nine lots to put in single-family
homes to solidify the neighborhood.
He stated that the RM zoning requires ten-foot setbacks on either side of
the lots. He described the hardship
of the narrow lots would make it difficult to build homes with a garage.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Minor Variance of the
required RM-2 setbacks to allow RS-3 setbacks (5’ and 5’ for side yards) for
single-family homes, finding the hardship to be the size of the lots and 10’
setbacks would make them unbuildable, on the following described
property:
Lots 4 - 6 and 19
- 24, Block 6, Broadview Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the 750 sq. ft. requirement to 1920 sq. ft. for a detached garage. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6, located 3546 N. Sheridan.
Presentation:
Albert Tocci, 3546 N. Sheridan, stated he collects antique Mac
trucks and would like to build a place to store them out of the weather. He would not need electric or water to
the structure.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Variance of the 750 sq. ft. requirement to 1920 sq. ft. for a
detached garage, finding the lot is large enough to support the additional size
and that it would not be used for commercial activity, per plan, on the
following described property:
A tract of ground
in the NE/4 NE/4 of Section 22, T-20-N, R-13-E, and more particularly described
as follows to-wit: Beg. at a point 208.89’ S of the NE/c of Section 22, T-20-N,
R-13-E, on the E line of said Section 22, thence W and parallel to the N line of
said Section 22 a distance of 35’ to a point; thence S and parallel to the E
line of said Section 22 a distance of 25’; thence W and parallel to the N line
of said Section 22 a distance of 25’; to a point; thence N and parallel to the E
line of said Section 22 a distance of 25’ to a point; thence W and parallel to
the N line of said Section 22 a distance of 625.11’ to a point; thence S and
parallel to the E line of said Section 22 a distance of 200.00’ to a point;
thence E and parallel to the N line of said Section 22 a distance of 685.11’ to
a point; thence N along the E line of said Section 22 a distance of 200.00’ to
the POB, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit special event parking and shuttle drop-off for the U.S. Open from June 10-18 located less than 50’ from an R-zoned district and on another lot than the principal use. SECTION 1303. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 5, located 6677 Evanston Cir.
Mr. Cooper stated he would need to abstain from this
case.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to CONTINUE Case No. 19041 to the next meeting May 8,
2001, for a quorum to vote.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit special event parking on a lot not containing
the principal use for the U.S. Open from June 10-18, 2001. SECTION 1303.F. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
AREAS – Use Unit 5, located SW/c E. 61st St. & S.
Yorktown.
Presentation:
Steve Worth, 19 Short St., Charleston, S.C., stated that they need
additional parking on a grassy area during the week of the U.S. Open, from 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on June 9th through June 18th,
2001.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Special Exception to
permit special event parking on a lot not containing the principal use for the
U.S. Open from June 10-18, 2001, during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
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:
E 540.7’ NW/4
NE/4 Section 6, T-18-N, R-13-E, less E 30’ and N 50’ for roadway, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required landscaping to substitute other plantings. SECTION 1002. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS and SECTION 1003. ADMINISTRATION – Use Unit 5, located 1706 N. Madison.
Presentation:
John Purdy, 22801 E. 98th St., stated they desire to
use alternate plantings for the required landscaping to make it more financially
feasible. He submitted a landscape
plan (Exhibit B-1). He described
the landscaping plan for the Board.
Mr. White asked if the landscaping would be implemented with the
construction of the building. Mr.
Purdy replied that it would. Mr.
Cooper commented that it appeared they were substituting bushes for trees.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that he could not evaluate these plans in a few minutes
during the meeting.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to CONTINUE Case No. 19043 to the meeting on May 22,
2001 to give the applicant time to submit his landscape plan to the
City.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Variance of yard abutting an arterial street from 35’ to 32’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 1441 N. Denver.
Presentation:
Mike Parks, 6550 E. 71st, stated he is a realtor and
construction manager for Terry McGee.
He stated that the property is at the corner of Pine and Denver. In order to conform to the strict
architectural guidelines of the Brady Heights area, they need the additional
footage to build the home that has been approved by the
association.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if the relief from 85’ to 82’ is from the centerline of
Pine. Mr. Beach replied in the
affirmative. The site plan
submitted does not reflect the shape of the property, but the case map
does.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Minor Variance of a yard abutting an arterial street from 85’ to
82’ from the centerline of Pine, finding the hardship to be the odd shape of the
lot, on the following described property:
Part of Lot 12, all of Lot 13, Block 1, Hobbs Addition, part of 12 beginning at SE/c of Lot 12; thence N 20’ along the E line of Lot 12; thence SW to the SW/c of Lot 12; thence along the S line of Lot 12 to the POB, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a single-family dwelling in a CH- and OL-zoned district. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS and SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 1444 N. Boston Pl.
Presentation:
William Carter, Jr., 601 N. Yukon Ave., stated that when he first
obtained a contract with TDA, it indicated the property was zoned residential,
but when the builder filed for a building permit he was told it was zoned
OL. His building plans would extend
10’ into the OL-zoned district.
Interested
Parties:
Loraine Haines, 1416
N. Boston Pl., stated her concern regarding the timeframe of the City’s
acquisition of her property and several others. Mr. Dunham responded that the Board
could not answer her question.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Special Exception to allow a single-family dwelling in a CH- and
OL-zoned district, 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, less N 20’
and all Lot 2, Block 2, Lloyd Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow an automobile wash in a CS-zoned
district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located W of NW/c E. 101st St. and S.
Memorial.
Presentation:
Roy D. Johnsen, 201 W. 5th, Ste. 501, stated he
represented Les Gregg, the contract purchaser of the subject property. He described the surrounding
properties and zoning. Exhibits of
use conditions and photographs (Exhibits C-1 and C-2) were submitted. Mr. Johnsen informed the Board
that the facility would have a masonry (Butler’s block) façade. The plans are for a ten-bay auto wash,
eight self-service and two automatics.
He mentioned other factors in the plans, including: vacuums constructed
with internal exhaust to limit the noise; a minimum of 10% landscaping of the
net lot area; and lighting by shielded fixtures not to exceed 15’ in
height. He let it be known that the
site plan is conceptual in some respects, and he asked that if the Board
considers it to be an appropriate location for the use, to approve the site plan
but give the applicant an alternative so that they can come back to the Board
with a revised site plan as to the arrangement of the vacuum areas, and allow
them to come back with a detailed landscape plan for the northwest corner.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked why the vacuums were on the west instead of the east, to
be farther away from the residential district. Mr. Johnsen replied that was one of the
alternatives they wanted to submit.
Interested
Parties:
Bill Jerballa, 9962
S. 79th E. Ave., submitted a packet of exhibits/petitions in
opposition to the application. He
pointed out a concern regarding wastewater discharge, stormwater pollution,
increased traffic problems, security issues, noise, and loitering. He identified a traffic count of
38,400 on average, which is one of the highest for an intersection in south
Tulsa. He stated that the
neighborhood would prefer an office building with a garden and less nighttime
traffic. He suggested a limitation of hours of operation, a 30’ dense greenbelt
on the north and west borders, a 12’ privacy fence, maximum-security lights, and
a study for stormwater management.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Johnsen reminded the Board that the property would have to be platted before a
building permit is issued and at that time, Stormwater Management would become
involved. He noted that
101st is a planned arterial, which will be four lanes and may by five
or six at the intersection with Memorial.
The
Board discussion covered shielded lighting, proximity to an R district,
access/auto headlights directed away from R district, and noise/location of the
vacuums.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Special Exception to
allow an automobile wash in a CS-zoned district, per applicant’s conditions
submitted at meeting, and vacuums be located on east boundary line, 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:
W 165.02’ of E
495.06’ of S/2 S/2 SE SE, Section 23, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
The applicant was not present. Mr. White suggested the case be tabled
to the end of the agenda.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to expand an existing building.
SECTION 1202.D. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Requirements – Use Unit 2; and a Variance of setback requirement of
85’ from the centerline of East 51st Street South down to 75’. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE
DISTRICTS, located 5115 E. 51st St. S.
Presentation:
Richard Humiston, 524 May Ave., Fort Smith, Arkansas, stated that
he is an architect, retained by the applicant. He pointed out that opportunities
for addition are limited except on the east side. The nursing home is filled to capacity
with 94 beds and the proposed addition represents an increase of 24 beds.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Special Exception to expand an existing building; and a
Variance of setback requirement of 85’ from the centerline of East
51st Street South down to 75’, finding the existing building sets at
that setback, on the following described property:
Lots 17 and 18, Canfield Subdivision, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, less a tract of land being a part of Lots 17 and 18, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at the SW/c of said Lot 18; thence N along the W line of said lot, a distance of 22.41’ to a point; thence S 66º42’20” E a distance of 19.60’; thence S 88º05’40” E a distance of 216.56’ to a point; thence E a distance of 69.07’ to a point on the E line of Lot 17; thence S along said E line of said Lot 17, a distance of 7.42’ to the SE/c thereof; thence W along the S line of said Lots 17 and 18, a distance of 304.50’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Variance of existing encroachment of dwelling from the required 25’ rear yard setback to 23’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 2522 S. Columbia Ave.
Presentation:
Bryan C. McCracken, 1201 E. 33rd St., came before the
Board to present his case.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Cooper, “aye”; no “nays”; no
“abstentions”; Perkins, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Minor Variance of an existing encroachment of dwelling from the
required 25’ rear yard setback to 23’, finding the hardship is the shape of the
lot, on the following described property:
Lot 8, Block 1, New Bedford Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a 12’ screening fence along Lewis Avenue.&