CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, May
8, 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 |
Neighborhood
Inspec.: Parnell |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
Cartner |
|
|
|
|
Winston |
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Monday, May 7, 2001, at 9:20 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant has withdrawn this application.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated that the applicant has withdrawn this
application.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Presentation:
The
applicant, Charles
Norman,
made a request for a continuance of this case. He stated that the applicants have been
meeting with property owners, but they are not prepared yet to
present.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins, Cooper "absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19039 to the meeting on May 22, 2001.
Presentation:
Steven Hale, 502 W. 6th, stated that the applicant,
Donald Haslam, Jr., could not attend because of a family emergency, and
requested a continuance.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins, Cooper "absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19048 to the meeting on May 22, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Presentation:
The applicant, John L. Reaves, made a timely request for
continuance to June 12, 2001.
Interested
Parties:
Maria Barnes, 2252 E. 7th St., asked why the case is
being continued.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White informed the interested party that the applicant is allowed to
make a timely request for continuance.
Mr. Beach informed the Board that the attorney to present has court cases
on the next two BOA hearing dates, May 8th and 22nd,
2001. Ms. Barnes accepted the
continuance.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins, Cooper "absent") to
CONTINUE
Case No. 19061 to the meeting on June 12, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit special event parking and shuttle drop-off for 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.
Presentation:
Steve Worthy, with the U.S. Open, stated that he has met with the
residents of this neighborhood and informed them of the security measures and
restoration of the property after the golf tournament.
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, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins, Cooper "absent") to APPROVE a 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, 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 4, Block 1,
Vinson Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
REQUEST TO RECONSIDER a Special Exception to permit a parking lot in an
RM-2 district. SECTION 401.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1413 E.
15th St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Roy D. Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste.
501, asked for reconsideration of this case. He reminded the Board that the findings
of the infill study encouraged off-street parking for the Cherry Street
area. He noted that there is not
enough off-street parking for this restaurant, and the applicant does not desire
to cause more congestion of on-street parking when the proposed plan could
improve this matter. He
questioned where the line is drawn that would allow for the needed parking in
this area.
Mr. Cooper arrived during the presentation at 1:20
p.m.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of White, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins, Cooper "absent") to RECONSIDER Case No. 19056 with re-advertising of the
case, at the meeting on May 22, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required 30 of
frontage on a public street or dedicated right-of-way to permit 0
frontage. SECTION 206. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED Use Unit 6,
located 5824 E. 111th St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Richard E. Garmaker, 5824 E. 111th St.,
stated his request for relief to permit 0 frontage for his property. He informed the Board the access road to
his property from 111th St. is a private road that services only four
residences, and exclusively one family uses the road on the
west.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Jackere
explained to the applicant that his property must have legal access to Tract 2
from 111th St. and asked if he has any proof of an easement. Mr. Garmaker stated that he does not
have a written easement. Mr. Cooper
asked for a hardship. Mr. Garmaker
did not have a hardship to offer concerning the land.
Interested
Parties:
Robert Peters,
15 E. 5th St., Ste. 3800, spoke for Barbara and Gene Taylor who live
at 5706 E. 111th St.
He stated they object to the variance because the restrictive covenants
prohibit a lot-split and or a second owner. He pointed out that their driveway is a
private drive. They did not believe
there is a hardship.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo commented that the Board could not support the restrictive
covenants, but if their driveway is not a public road, then the applicant could
not use it for access.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Garmaker noted that no homeowners in the neighborhood association are
present to oppose.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absences") to
DENY a Variance of required 30 of frontage on a
public street or dedicated right-of-way to permit 0 frontage, finding a lack of
hardship.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of maximum size of
detached accessory building of 750 sq. ft. to 816 sq. ft. SECTION 402.B.d. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions Use Unit 6; and a Variance of
maximum coverage of 20% of required rear yard to 34%. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards, located 1824 E. 17th
St.
Presentation:
John Stowe, 1824 E. 17th St., stated he and his
neighbor share a driveway. He has
an old garage that has termites and needs to be demolished. They desire to build a three-car garage
to share with the neighbor. The
streets are crowded with parked cars.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham noted the staff comments suggest that if the new structure
were shortened by 2 9 that there would be no need for the variances. He asked what unusual circumstances
would exist that would cause unnecessary hardships if the variances were not
granted. Mr. Stowe responded that
their house is quite small and they need the extra storage space. He mentioned that they would be 10 from
the easement, while other such structures in the neighborhood are built on
easements. Mr. White asked if the
driveway would be changed. He
replied that they would probably re-pour the drive but it would not be any
wider, and more driveway would be needed up to the new
garage.
Interested
Parties:
Rosalyn Stowe,
1824 E. 17th St., explained that because the lot is narrow and the
topography of the driveway is uphill, a certain radius is required to turn
in. It was suggested to them to
widen the driveway at the top of the hill to allow space to get vehicles in and
out. They could not widen the lower
portion of the drive because the house stands too close. It would require major
excavation and change the historical significance.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to
DENY a Variance of maximum size of detached
accessory building of 750 sq. ft. to 816 sq. ft.; and APPROVE
a Variance of maximum coverage of 20% of required rear yard be
adjusted to permit an accessory building or garage of up to 750 square feet,
with building 10 from rear property line, finding the hardship to be the
topography change, and there are larger garages in the area, and they are
substandard lots, on the following described property:
Lot 14, Block 2,
Weaver Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow two manufactured home dwellings in an
RS-3-zoned district. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 9; a Special Exception to allow two
manufactured home dwellings for more than one year. SECTION 404. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS; and a Variance to permit two manufactured
home dwellings per lot of record.
SECTION 207. ONE
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF RECORD, located 2702 E. 49th St.
N.
Presentation:
Harold Parker, 10220 E. 21st Pl., stated that he bought
two and one-half acres in 1998 and understood that two manufactured homes were
allowed there. Later he found that
only one mobile home is allowed. He
described the land as having a swale and drainage ditch through the center of
it, and two corners the northeast and southwest are high ground. The manufactured homes are located
on these high places.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked what the hardship is for two dwellings. Mr. Parker replied because they were
both on the property legally at one time.
He was unaware that the one was allowed with a time limitation.
Interested
Parties:
Larry Elder,
4823 N. Birmingham Pl., stated he lives on the south side of the subject
property. He submitted a petition
(Exhibit B- 8) from Robinwood Addition with 74 signatures in opposition of this
application. The reasons for
objection are that it is a designated floodplain, improper maintenance of
property and horses, no sewer service and a question regarding utilities. He submitted photographs (Exhibit B-7),
a 1992 City of Tulsa Regulatory Flood Plain Map (Exhibit B-2) and a map marked
to show the floodplain (Exhibit B-3).
He informed the Board that the home on the east was vacant for three
years. He requested that the
application be denied. If it is
approved, he requested that the following conditions be imposed: to close off N.
Birmingham and use the legal address and entry to the property, to which the
City installed a culvert; and that the driveway be paved according to the Zoning
Code.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked for the main objection, to which he replied they object to any
manufactured homes.
William Guy,
2611 E. 96th St. N., submitted photographs (Exhibit B-1) of the
flooded property. He talked with
the applicant about cleaning up the property and he has refused to clean out
ditches or care for the horses. He
stated his own house had never been flooded until April. He informed the Board that one of the
manufactured homes has no gas or sewer.
He asked that the application be denied.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked if there is a mobile home on the west of the subject property. He replied that it is a mobile
home.
Interested
Parties:
Deborah
Dickens-Holmes,
2414 E. 47th Pl. N., stated she was a detective with the Tulsa Police
Department. She stated that she
lives in the neighborhood and when she was approached about the mobile homes
being moved into the neighborhood, she opposed it. She indicated that they do not look good
and decrease the property value.
From a professional standpoint, she believes problems like methamphetamine labs have
a higher percentage rate of occurrence in mobile homes than stickbuilt
homes.
W.C. Maloy,
2708 E. 49th St. N., stated he owns the property on the east and
south of the subject property. The
home that was approved around 1979 was repossessed and the current one was moved
in without a permit. His other
complaints were the same as above.
Candy Parnell,
a City of Tulsa Neighborhood Inspector, stated that there are two things she
found unusual about the property.
She stated that the older home to the east is dilapidated and not a safe
structure to use as a home. She
also noted that the homes are used as rental property, not the owners
residence.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Parker stated that the house was repaired and someone is living in it. He added that it is on well-water, and
has electric service; gas is not hooked up, but the meter is there if needed,
and it has a septic tank. He stated
that the home on the northeast corner was grandfathered into the City, and the
other home was placed there with a five-year time limit, but he was unaware of
the limitation.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo noted that in 1984 the one home was permitted with a one-year time
limit. Mr. Dunham expressed concern
regarding the floodplain.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to DENY
a Special Exception to allow two manufactured home dwellings
in an RS-3-zoned district; a Special Exception to allow two
manufactured home dwellings for more than one year; and a Variance
to permit two manufactured home dwellings per lot of record, finding a lack of
hardship, and that it would not be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the
Code, and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public welfare.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Special Exception to review a site plan for additional parking for
church purposes on Lot 3, located 6110 E. 20th
St.
Presentation:
John Crowdis, stated he is the President of Arc-Tech, Inc., for
South Lakewood Baptist Church. He
stated they are willing to build per plan.
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,
Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to
APPROVE a Minor Special Exception to review
site plan for additional parking for church purposes on Lot 3, per plan
submitted, on the following described property:
Lots 2, 3, 5, and
6, Block 2, Sheridan Ridge, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, AND
all that part of the SW/4 SE/4 SE/4 Section 10, T-19-N, R-13-E, of the IBM, more
particularly described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point in the S
boundary line of said SW/4 SE/4 SE/4, 180.00 from the SE/c thereof; thence N
0Ί2622 E parallel to and 180.00 from the E boundary line of said SW/4 a
distance of 265.20 to the POB; thence S 89Ί5920 W a distance of 269.80;
thence N 0Ί2622 E a distance of 105.00; thence S 89Ί5920 W a distance of
178.80 to a point in the E right-of-way line of S. Lakewood Ave.; thence N
0Ί2530 E along said E right-of-way line a distance of 120.00 to a point in
the S right-of-way line of E. 20th St. S.; thence N 89Ί5920 E along
said S right-of-way line a distance of 300.00 to the NW/c of Lot 2, Block 2,
Sheridan Ridge, thence S 0Ί2530 W along the W boundary line of Lot 2 of said
Sheridan Ridge a distance of 120.00; thence N 89Ί5920 E along the S boundary
line of Block 2 of said Sheridan Ridge a distance of 150.00; thence S 0Ί2622
W a distance of 105.00 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 19064
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a manufactured home in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 9, located 2605 East 49th Street
North.
Presentation:
Patsy J.
Powell,
1334 N. Boston Pl., stated her desire to place a mobile home on some land her
daughter gave her, and she has a lot-split.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Beach asked her if she had proof of an approved lot-split with
her. It was her understanding that
the survey gave her a lot-split.
Mr. Beach had no record that a lot-split was ever approved for this
property. She stated that her
daughter had deeded her the property and filed of record at the courthouse. Mr. Dunham explained to her the need for
an approved lot-split or approval for two dwellings on one lot of record.
Ms. Powell continued with her presentation. Photographs were shown on the overhead
screen, but not submitted to the Board.
She stated the home would be a new doublewide mobile home to be placed at
the back of the property. She plans
to place it on a permanent foundation and to put on a brick faηade. Mr. Dunham pointed out that she would
need relief for a mobile home on the property, for relief of a one-year time
limit (permanent placement), and a lot-split or relief for two dwellings on one
lot of record. Ms. Powell also
mentioned a problem of standing water on the property. Mr. White suggested that they need a
continuance to determine the needed relief for this property.
Interested Parties:
Mr. White informed the interested parties present that more information
would be required to determine what relief might be needed, and if a lot-split
would be permitted.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19064 to the meeting on June 12, 2001 to allow the applicant time to
find out what relief she needs to request.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.19065
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to allow a non-monopole, freestanding, self-supporting TV reception
tower in an IL district. SECTION
1204.C.3.b.2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTENNAS AND TOWERS, located 6804 E.
44th St.
Presentation:
Brett Peters, Cox Communications,
P.O. Box 470800, Tulsa, stated that the application is for multiple antennas on
a tower for television and other off-air signals. A monopole is not appropriate for the
needs and there would be no collocation.
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, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins
"absent") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to allow a
non-monopole, free-standing, self-supporting TV reception tower in an IL
district, 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 51, Block 1,
Katy Freeway Industrial Park, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit Use Unit 15, Other Trades and Services, in
the CS zoning district within proposed Lot 2. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit; and a Special Exception to modify the screening
requirement for the proposed Lot 2 to permit the screening fence to be located
between 154 and 290 from the west property boundary of proposed Lot 2. SECTION 212.C. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE,
Modification of the Screening Wall or Fence Requirement, located NW/c W.
71st St. & Union Ave.
Presentation:
Charles Norman, 2900
Mid-Continent Tower, stated he represented Oklahoma Natural Gas Company.
Mr. White stepped out at 3:11 p.m.
Mr. Norman stated that the company owns about sixteen acres at the
northwest corner of west 71st Street and S. Union Ave. He noted the uses of the surrounding
properties. The company proposes to
build a regional service center. He
submitted photographs of a similar facility and an amended site plan (Exhibits
E-1, E-2). The center would have 75
personnel and hours of operation from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. They are seeking a Use Unit 15, to
provide field service, maintain systems, some installation, parking of vehicles,
and outside storage of supplies.
Mr. White returned at 3:13 p.m.
It would be closed on weekends except for emergencies. It would require detention for
stormwater, leveling the hilltop, and built up on one side. He described a 290 setback, screening
fence, and added landscaping between the center and the golf course. They have been in communication with the
Executive Board of the Southwest Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, the City of Tulsa
Parks Department, and a developer of nearby property and worked out details to
their satisfaction.
Interested Parties:
Bruce Bolzle, KMO Development Group,
5550 S. Lewis, stated that after presenting all of their concerns to the
applicant, they have all been handled and they are in favor of the
application.
Tom Lester, 7350 S. 26th
W. Ave., stated he represented 32 property owners in the general area. These residents were not in favor of the
application. He stated that
homeowners in the Angel Wing Development area have contacted him and object to
the application. There is concern
regarding additional congestion at the 71st Street two-lane bridge
over I-75. There are no plans to
widen the bridge for a number of years.
They do not consider this to be an appropriate location for such an
industrial facility, and that landscaping would not make it attractive enough
for the area.
Leroy Smith, 6907 S. Union, stated
he lives across the street on the east side of the subject property. He noticed that all of the
landscaping was for the benefit of the golfers and not for the residential side
on the east. He stated that when
the church and school facility was put in next to his property, he could not get
anyone to inspect and keep them in compliance to finish their project as
submitted. He explained that the
church construction caused drainage of raw sewage and flooding on his
property. He wanted to know who
would be responsible to see that this project would be accomplished per
plan. He stated that he objects to
the application.
Margaret Oglesby, 7335 S. 26th
W. Ave., stated that she is opposed to the application due to traffic
congestion. She informed the
Board that this is a main access to the Oaks Country Club, Camp Lockridge, and
several housing additions. She
stated there is also a school nearby. The main concern is that the road
is two-lane with stop signs. She
also pointed out that these facilities end up looking junky, with a lot of pipes
stored outside, and trucks. She
asked for a continuance to give the Board time to check the traffic congestion
around 5:30 p.m. to see the problem.
Ruth Lester, reminded the Board that
this is a school bus route and children are walking to bus stops in this
area.
Applicants Rebuttal:
Mr. Norman mentioned something he left out earlier, that on the
71st Street side of the facility, there would be one compressed
natural gas pump. He reminded the
Board that an office building or commercial project would generate more traffic
than he described for the service center.
He stated that the building would have an office appearance on the Union
side, and there would be landscaping.
He assured the Board that there would be no vehicle repair or sumps for
oil changes. Mr. White asked if he
would agree to a continuance. Mr.
Norman did not think it would benefit.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins
"absent") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to permit
Use Unit 15, Other Trades and Services, in the CS zoning district within
proposed Lot 2; and a Special Exception to modify the screening
requirement for the proposed Lot 2 to permit the screening fence to be located
between 154 and 290 from the west property boundary of proposed Lot 2, per
plan submitted May 8, 2001, with conditions to restrict outside storage of gas
pipe no higher than 5, outdoor light standards shall not exceed 20 height,
outdoor lighting and building mounted lights be hooded and directed downward and
away from boundaries of the site, on the following described
property:
A tract of
land that is part of the SE/4 of Section 3, T-18-N, R-12-E, of the IBM, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows:
Beg. at the SE/c of said SE/4; thence N 0Ί2622 E and
along the Ely line of the SE/4 for a distance of 1,005.00 to a point; thence N
89Ί3338 W for
a distance of 605.19 to a point on the Ely line of Page Belcher Golf Course;
thence S 8Ί2000 W and
along said Ely line for a distance of 70.41 to a point; thence S 15Ί3903 W and
continuing along the Ely line for a distance of 924.21 to a point; thence S
0Ί0000 E for
a distance of 50.00 to a point on the Sly line of the SE/4; thence S
90Ί0000 E
along said Sly line for a distance of 857.00 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 19069
Action
Requested: