CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
June 26, 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 |
|
Beach |
Jackere,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler |
Parnell,Cartner,
Cox, Zoning
Officials |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 2:26 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 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach stated this case needs to be continued to the hearing on July
24, 2001 because the applicant requested additional relief.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 19090 to the meeting on July 24,
2001.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of April 10, 2001 (No.816) as amended.
Action
Requested:
Approval of a site plan as a
condition imposed February 8, 2000 in approval of a Special Exception for a
church in an AG district. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 5, located N side of E. 11th St.
between 129th E. Ave. & 145th E.
Ave.
Presentation:
Jerone Roland, 14017 E. 11th St., Applicant did not
have a site plan when the case was previously approved. The site plan (Exhibit ) was submitted.
Interested
Parties:
Deloris
Wood, 14101 E.
11th, stated she was opposed to the application. She was concerned about where the sewer
connection would be. She had
complaints of workmen trespassing on her property, large equipment use at late
night hours.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Roland stated they only want to provide ministry and he was not aware of any
trespassing.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked what hours they plan to do the work. Mr. Roland explained that the night before they hauled in gravel and it was the only time they have done any work late and do not plan to work at night.
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 site plan as a condition imposed
February 8, 2000 in approval of a Special Exception for a church in an AG
district, on the following described property:
The E/2 of SE of SW of SE, Section 4, T-19-N, R-14-E, of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Clarification of minutes of 3/22/94
to determine impact of shared parking on neighbor and to make shared parking
arrangement permanent.
Presentation:
T. Michael Smith, 3415 S. Peoria, came to present case. The Board granted a variance of required parking
spaces in 1994 providing for shared parking spaces. The case never came back
before the Board for determination of impact. Notice was not sent to the
neighborhood. Mr. Dunham stated
that they needed to hear from the neighborhood before they could decide on this
case. Mr. Smith stated that
that there has not been a problem with the shared parking for Sharkey’s
Billiards.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Jackere stated that it
is properly before the Board to determine the impact, but subject to giving
notice to the public to property owners within 300’ to give a knowledgeable
determination.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 16611 to the meeting on July 24, 2001 to allow
time to give proper notice.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Case 19043 was stricken from the agenda.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
19048
Action
Requested:
Variance of required number of
parking spaces from 616 to 599 to permit an existing apartment complex. SECTION 1208. USE UNIT 8. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AND SIMILAR USES –
Use Unit 8, located 8028 S. Wheeling.
Presentation:
Don Haslam, 502 W. 6th St., stated he represented The
Lakes, LLC. He stated that they
have determined since the last hearing that the parking spaces were 9’
wide. His client is currently
re-surfacing the parking lot and will re-stripe. There is a discrepancy in the counts of
the parking spaces. He explained
that because of the geographic layout of the property and the curb space they
are concerned that they still may not be able to add seventeen more spaces.
Mr. Cooper arrived at 1:34 p.m.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham instructed the applicant that if they meet the parking
requirements they can withdraw the case.
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, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 19048 to the meeting on August 28, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a parking lot in an RM-2 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS; and a Variance of parking setbacks and screening fence requirements,
located 1413 E. 15th St.
Presentation:
Roy Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 500, stated he was
representing Brett Rehorn. He
reminded the Board that they previously requested a reconsideration of an
earlier application.
Mr. Rehorn has leased the subject property and proposes to place a
restaurant in the old Chimi’s location.
This same request for parking was made by Chimi’s in 1989 and 1993, and
both times this Board granted it, but they did not proceed with construction and
so the approval terminated. He
pointed out the mixed uses in the area, single and multi-family dwellings,
commercial, and OL districts. He
informed the Board that the owners of the duplex by the alley have agreed to
allow Mr. Rehorn to have the screening fence repaired. He reminded the Board that off-street
parking is allowed within an RM-2 district by the code. He noted the shortage of parking in the
area. He reviewed the screening and
landscaping that his client has offered to provide for the adjacent
residences. He noted that the plans
are consistent with the results of studies regarding the needs for the area and
the Comprehensive Plan. He
indicated that the site plan reveals that the neighborhood as a whole would be
better off with off-street parking provided properly. Mr. Johnsen pointed out a revision of
the screening on Rockford to move the fence back from the boundary line and
place landscaping in front of it.
He added that the trash area has already been improved with a new slab
and screening fence. A site
plan, photographs and other applicant exhibits (Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-5)
were submitted. Mr. Johnsen stated
that the pub will be prefabricated in Ireland, then shipped and installed on the
subject property. This includes a
complete re-do of the façade of the building. The interior is very ornate and includes
a kitchen that takes up about a third of the floor space, compared to the small
kitchen used by Chimi’s. He added
that the restaurant would be licensed, to permit minors, with a full menu and no
dance floor.
Interested
Parties:
Nelson Dean,
1728 S. Erie Ave., stated he is in favor of the application. He added that he owns several buildings
in the area and sees this application as a good solution for the parking
needs.
Patricia Dickey,
233 E. 27th Pl., and David
Cantrell,
5502 S. Delaware Pl., stated their support of the application to meet the
parking needs of the area.
Steven Walter,
1428 S. Rockford, stated he lives next door to the subject property and is
opposed to the application. He
stated his objection to the close proximity of the lot to his house for a bar
that would be open three nights per week until 2:00 a.m. He stated the eleven-foot wide alley was
inadequate for inebriated drivers.
He reminded the Board that the owner has not maintained the office. He indicated the use was too intense for
the location. Mr. Walter
referred to a letter (Exhibit A-4) that was sent to the Board by the Tulsa
Preservation Commission that recommends denial of the application as an
inappropriate use and endangerment to the neighborhood.
Mark
Hardy,
1415 S. Rockford, stated as a homeowner he did not want bar patrons using his
residential street late at night.
He suggested that the hours of operation be changed to close at 9:00 p.m.
and that community leaders find ways to balance the development and existing
neighborhoods in the area.
Bridgett
Silver-Neal,
1427 S. Rockford, stated that she did not hear a hardship given for the
variance. Ms. Turnbo informed Ms.
Silver-Neal that the relief for a parking lot in this case is a special
exception and does not require a hardship.
She objected to the parking lot stating it would isolate existing
residences. She was concerned that
even though Mr. Rehorn may maintain the property, the next lessee may not.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Johnsen referred to the Cherry Street study in 1986, the adopted policy of the
council and community. He
read a portion suggesting encouragement of low intensity office parking or
residential uses, abutting existing commercial zoning to establish a
transitional buffer between existing commercial and single-family
neighborhoods. It also called for
encouraging the identification and zoning of additional off-street parking on
either side of 15th Street to accommodate existing and commercial
needs. The restaurant will have to
stay within the code definitions to keep the non-conforming use. These ordinances were carefully
written to protect the neighborhoods.
Mr. Johnsen stated that the objection in the letter from the Historic
Preservation Commission was not well founded. He responded regarding the argument of
whether it would be a restaurant versus a bar. They will have a full menu to 11:00 p.m.
and a reduced menu until close.
Board
discussion ensued.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; White "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to permit a
parking lot in an RM-2 district; and a Variance of parking
setbacks and screening fence requirements, per plan, except fence moved back
from along Rockford to allow landscape in front of the fence and the fence along
Rockford is to be 4’ high, on the following described
property:
Lots 8, 9, 13 -
15, Block 6, Bellview Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of lot area from 9,000 sq.
ft. to 8,396 sq. ft. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6; and a Variance of land area per
dwelling unit from 10,875 sq. ft. to 10,271 sq. ft. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 2420 S. Owasso Pl.
Presentation:
Pat Fox, 320 S. Boston, Ste. 1710, stated they propose to split
Lot 8 of Sunset Park III into two 75’ lots. The lot on the southeast is slightly
short of the required land area and lot area for RS-2 zoning. He pointed out that other lots have been
split in this neighborhood and lots are of similar size and odd
configurations. He plans to develop
the properties with two residences, a single driveway on the common lot line and
place garages at the rear of the property.
Interested
Parties:
Larry David,
2131 E. 17th Pl., stated he is a potential owner/occupant of this
property. He was in favor of the
application. He submitted a
letter (Exhibit B-2) from a neighbor, Chris Bumgardner, a resident on lot two,
in support of the application.
Frank Clingan, 2404 S. Owasso Pl., stated he lives immediately
adjacent to the subject property and indicated he was not in favor of the
case. He stated that the neighbors
on Lot 1, Block 1 were not in favor of the application.
Deborah Grisso, 1215 E.
24th Pl., stated the subject property gives a skyline view of her
backyard and limits their privacy.
She indicated that no hardship has been given. She stated that a lot-split would cause
the neighborhood to lose continuity.
Paul Gilling, 1231 E. 24th Pl., stated his concern that
the larger lots are being split and smaller homes are being built. He suggested that it would be better for
the neighborhood if the existing house was enlarged or replaced with one larger
home.
Sally Davies, 2502 Woodward Boulevard, stated if the lot were
split it would be the two smallest lots on the street. She stated that the last lot split was
in 1988 and there is no real history of lot-splits.
Cathy Gilling, 1231 E. 24th Pl., reminded the Board of
previous staff comments on Case No. 19074 that a lot split would result in two
lots smaller than those in the immediate area, causing an increased density that
is closer to RS-3 standards.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Fox noted that the split would be consistent with the underlying
zoning within a small percentage.
The property has not be owner occupied for several years. This would encourage residences that are
more consistent with historic precedence in the neighborhood.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance of lot area from 9,000 sq. ft. to 8,396 sq. ft.; and
a Variance of land area per dwelling unit from 10,875 sq. ft. to
10,271 sq. ft, finding a lack of hardship.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal of the administrative official’s decision the use is a restaurant
on subject tract; and If appeal is denied, a Variance of use conditions for Bed
and Breakfast to allow a sandwich shop (tea room) to public. SECTION 1202.C.8. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Use
Conditions, located 1819 E. 15th St.
Presentation:
Darrell Brown, 7204 E. 90th Pl., attorney, stated he
represented Sheila Kay Daniels. He
stated that Ms. Daniels is leasing the westerly building, owned by the Jiles Co.
at 1819 E. 15th St. It
is a two story building with seven bedrooms, each with a bath. The first floor
has five rooms, one of which is a commercial kitchen. Ms. Daniels understood when the special
exception was approved for a bed and breakfast, that the accessory use of a
tearoom was an allowed use under the OL zoning. A letter of support (Exhibit C-2)
was submitted to the Board.
White out at 3:21 p.m.
Mr. Brown stated he could not find the definition of a restaurant in the
zoning code. He did not consider a
tearoom the same as a restaurant.
White returned at 3:23 p.m.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham informed Mr. Brown that the Board does not have the
jurisdiction to approve a use variance. He added that the letter of
support indicated that someone ate at the restaurant, and was not staying at the
Bed and Breakfast. Ms. Perkins
noted that it has been advertised to the public, and yet the Board did not give
approval and could not give approval for a restaurant. Mr. Jackere stated that this was a
case for municipal court to appeal the Code Inspector. A notice from Neighborhood Inspections
and letters of opposition (Exhibits C-1 and C-3) were submitted to the Board.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
Uphold the administrative official’s decision the use is a restaurant on subject
tract; and to DENY a Variance of use conditions for
Bed and Breakfast to allow a sandwich shop (tea room) to public, finding it is
beyond the authority of the Board of Adjustment.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of permitted rear yard
coverage of 20% to permit an addition to an existing garage. SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards -- Use Unit 6, located 123 E. 25th
St.
Presentation:
Mark Schell, 123 E. 25th St., proposes to build an
addition to an existing garage. He
stated that he would remove the dog pen also. He submitted site plans concept A and
concept B (Exhibit D-1 and
D-2). He added that he spoke with
neighbors and informed them of his plans.
He submitted a petition of support (Exhibit D-3).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked what the hardship would be. Mr. Schell replied that the existing
garage was not big enough to put the newer large size automobiles, and the lot
size.
Interested
Parties:
Steven Gray,
4530 S. Sheridan Rd., Ste 205, stated he represented a nearby property
owner. They object to the
application stating there is no unique hardship. A packet of items (Exhibit D-4) in
opposition was submitted. Mr. Gray
noted there were no easements, topography issues or problems with the size and
shape of the lot. He suggested the
old garage could be torn down and a new one built. He pointed out that the applicant
planned to put in large garage doors on the back of the garage facing his
clients’ property, and they objected to that.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Schell responded that he had not wanted to tear down the existing
garage.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance of permitted rear yard coverage of
20% to permit an addition to an existing garage, finding a lack of
hardship.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required all-weather surface for vehicles being parked or
stored. SECTION 222. MOTORIZED VEHICLES and SECTION 1402.D.
& E. NONCONFORMING USE OF BUILDINGS, OR BUILDINGS AND LAND IN COMBINATION --
Use Unit 17 and 23; and a Appeal of neighborhood inspector’s determination that
non-conforming use of buildings or land has ceased for 36 consecutive months,
located 17317 E. 14th St.
Presentation:
Carl Edmundson, 17317 E. 14th St., came to appeal the
neighborhood inspector’s determination that the non-conforming using of his
buildings and land has ceased for 36 consecutive months and to obtain a variance
of requirement for all-weather surface for vehicles being parked or stored. He stated that he has stored a car
there since 1953. He also indicated
that he was approved to repair and store cars as a non-conforming
use.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Jackere stated that no approval was given to store junk cars. Mr. White asked how many cars are stored
or are parked there for repair at a time.
Mr. Edmundson did not state a total of cars. Mr. Jackere asked where the repairs are
done. Mr. Edmundson replied they
work on the southwest corner. Mr.
Jackere asked if they work inside the building. Mr. Edmundson responded that they
do some work inside. He asked the
applicant how many buildings they have.
Mr. Edmundson replied four or five.
Mr. Jackere asked what jobs were done in the building prior to four
months ago. Mr. Edmundson replied
that they stored auto parts and used a valve-grinding machine.
Dunham out at 4:10
p.m.
Mr. Cooper asked for a hardship.
Mr. Edmundson replied that the land won’t perc because the nearby water
facility made the land boggy.
Dunham
returned at 4:13 p.m.
Mr. Jackere explained the Code regarding abandoning the repair business
in one or all buildings for a period of 36 consecutive months.
Interested
Parties:
Candy Parnell,
Neighborhood Inspector, submitted photographs (Exhibit E-4) of the subject
property to the Board. She informed
the Board that the City of Tulsa removed 49 junk abandoned vehicles and salvage
from the property. She stated that
there was so much vegetation in front of the building that vehicles could not be
moved in and out. Ms. Parnell noted
that many of the same cars had been there for several years. She pointed out that the water had been
turned off there since October 1999 and remains disconnected today. The door to the building mentioned
earlier would not stay open without holding it up.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Edmundson made comments regarding the annexation of his property into the Tulsa city limits.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins suggested a continuance to allow the applicant time to submit
documentation regarding junk storage.
Mr. Jackere suggested the applicant needed an attorney and documents to
present his case. Ms. Turnbo asked
the applicant to provide proof in writing of when and where the city limits were
extended.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a CONTINUANCE to the meeting on July 24,
2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Cooper left the meeting.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit home occupation (office). SECTION 402.B.6. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions and SECTION 404.B. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS and SECTION 1608.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION -- Use Unit 6 and 11, Appeal from Zoning Violation
Notice issued by Neighborhood Inspections Office on May 4, 2001, located 2218 E.
54th St.
Presentation:
Stephen Schuller,
500 Oneok Plaza, 100 W. 5th
St., stated that his clients asked about permission to operate a business from
their home. They were misinformed,
and subsequently received a zoning violation notice. He read the home occupation requirements
and indicated this application meets the requirements.
Roland Miller, 2218 E. 54th St., a resident of
the home stated that one time per month a Penske truck comes to the house. He stated that no equipment is brought
to the house.
A packet of information including zoning violation notices (Exhibit F-1)
was submitted to the Board.
Interested
Parties:
(Name inaudible), an interested party, questioned if the applicants live at the residence. He found no basis for the appeal to the zoning violation notice.
Mitchell Morale,
2249 E. 54th St., expressed concern that the applicants were
warehousing in the garage and shipping/receiving. He submitted photographs and a yellow
page advertisement (Exhibit F-2 and F-3).
Karen
Smith,
2217 E. 54th St., stated she has seen a semi-truck at the subject
property other than the moving day, and four other trucks there on a daily
basis. A letter of opposition was
submitted (Exhibit F-4).
Virginia
Melikian,
5423 S. Zunis Pl., expressed concerns as above.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Schuller responded that there are three residents in the home.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked about the items on the driveway shown in the
photograph. Mr. Miller replied that
they were validation machines, the type that they work on. Mr. Jackere asked about the frequency of
these deliveries to the house. Mr.
Miller stated that the photograph was of a rare occasion.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
DENY a Special Exception to permit home occupation
(office); and to Uphold the determination of the Zoning Official in issuing a
Zoning Violation Notice on May 4, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Perkins out at
5:20 p.m.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception use to allow a paint ball facility – Use Unit 20
Intensive Outdoor Recreation Facility in an AG zoned district. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT -- Use Unit 20, and a Variance of parking requirement from
one space per 800 sq. ft. site area to 0 spaces. SECTION 1220.D. USE UNIT 20 – COMMERCIAL
RECREATION: INTENSIVE; Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, located SW/c
SH-266 & N. 145th E. Ave.
Perkins returned at 5:22 p.m.
Dunham out at
5:22 p.m.
Presentation:
Johnny Hollowell, 4848 N. 145th E. Ave., described the
property and layout. He stated
there are no environmental issues, as the paint balls are gelatin and they are
propelled by carbon dioxide. He
added that the property is screened.
A packet of applicant exhibits was submitted (Exhibit G-1).
Dunham
returned at 5:24 p.m.
Interested
Parties:
Tony Foster, P.O.
Box 309, Claremore, pointed out that State Highway 266 would become a major
truck route when the connection opens to I-44. He added that a limestone quarry
to the north of the property would increase traffic. He concluded that these increases in
traffic and the 0 parking spaces would be a dangerous
situation.
John
Morrison,
7515 S. Urbana, stated he farms 2,000 acres in the area of the subject
property. He has dealt with a
considerable amount of vandalism.
He already also has a problem with hunters and others parking in front of
his gate.
Sharon
Casey,
Owasso, expressed concern regarding the truck traffic on the Port Road. The sun impairs drivers’ vision on this
east/west road. The combination of
these and young drivers to ball fields and paintball fields would be more
dangerous.
Orval Flannery, P.O. Box 456, Catoosa, stated concern due to the reasons given above.