CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
August 14, 2001, 1:00 p.m.
Francis F.
Campbell City Council Room
Plaza Level
of City Hall
Tulsa Civic
Center
MEMBERS
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT OTHERS
PRESENT
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
Cooper |
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Perkins Turnbo |
|
Butler |
Ballentine
& Parnell, Zoning
Official |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, August 10, 2001, at 11:20 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 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach announced that the applicant made a timely request for a continuance of this case to August 28, 2001.
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. 19157 to August 28, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach announced there is no relief needed for this case and does not
need any action.
Board
Action:
No action was needed. Mr.
White announced that Case No. 19166 was stricken from the agenda.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of July 10,
2001 (No. 822).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays"; Perkins
"abstained"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of July 24,
2001 (No. 823), as amended.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Modify condition of Special Exception for Use Unit 17 imposed in BOA 18323 to permit autos to remain on lot for five days instead of two days. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 17, located 215 S. Lewis Ave.
Presentation:
John W. Moody, stated he was representing Lester Springer. This property came before the Board in
March 1999. The facility was used
for an Otasco store years ago. There are six bays used for auto
maintenance. He was required to not
store inoperable vehicles there more than two days, and to put up screening
fence and to do some landscaping.
The tenant was cited for inoperable vehicles parked for more than two
days and for not doing the screening and landscaping. The tenant ended up vacating because he
could not operate such a business with the short turn-around time. Mr. Springer would like to use the
property but he is unwilling to follow-up with the previous conditions until he
has a new tenant and until he knows that he can use the property under certain
conditions. Mr. Moody stated they
are asking for modification of the prior approval subject to the conditions he
submitted to the Board (Exhibit A-1).
He also submitted photographs (Exhibit A-2) of other businesses in the
area.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White commented that the case was continued to allow the applicant
time to meet with the neighborhood and asked if they had contacted the
neighborhood. Mr. Moody replied
that Mr. Springer met with the neighborhood once. Mr. Springer was trying to contact Greg
Warren regarding landscaping. Mr.
White noted that the application does not mention a maximum number of days. Mr. Moody responded they would request
five days as a maximum. Mr. White
asked if the new plan would be different.
Mr. Moody replied that the site plan would be new.
Interested
Parties:
Maria Barnes,
2252 E. 7th St., stated she is the President of the Kendall-Whittier
Neighborhood Association. She
stated that the applicant has never complied with the previous conditions made
by the Board in 1999. She added
that he has not complied since the July 10, 2001 meeting, nor has he contacted
Greg Warren. She stated they were
opposed to five days maximum.
Candy
Parnell,
111 S. Greenwood, stated that Mr. Springer has not shown good faith to this
Board since he has not complied with the conditions set in 1999. She mentioned that Pep Boys stays within
a two-day turn around time. She
suggested that transmission repair might not be the proper use for this
property. She stated that
Neighborhood Inspections asks the Board to deny this application.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Moody stated that the previous tenant decided not to comply with the
terms and moved out. Mr. Springer
is not going to do any fencing or landscaping, as he is entitled to use his
property under the CS zoning and will continue to do so, unless he has a tenant
that can utilize the bays. He
stated that Mr. Springer did try to contact Mr. Warren.
Board discussion ensued.
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
Case No. 19124, finding that in Case No. 18323, the right to park cars there for
two days was conditioned upon landscaping and fencing requirements and the
dumpster, and unless he complies then he should not have the two days he asked
for in 1999.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow 8 “disabled” unrelated people, to be a “family”, instead of six as defined. SECTION 1800. DEFINITIONS -- Use Unit 8; and an Appeal of zoning officer’s decision that this is a multi-family boarding, rooming house, located 3738 S. Canton Ave.
Presentation:
Steven Pollen, stated he is the attorney for Oxford House,
Inc. The City of Tulsa has made
provision for six unrelated, disabled people plus two staff persons as a family
in one residence. There is no
staff, no treatment and no management.
The house is self-supported.
The Oxford Houses have not been treated as rooming and boarding
houses. They are not sororities or
fraternities. They choose to live
in a good neighborhood for single-family dwellings, away from the environment of
drugs and alcohol. They are totally
responsible for paying the bills, maintaining the house and property. They are requesting a reasonable
accommodation out of the Federal Fair Housing Act, which requires the granting
of their request to substitute two residents for staff members. He stated there is no administrative or
financial burden to the city and it does not fundamentally alter the zoning
scheme. He stated there is nothing
in the tenant’s backgrounds to warrant concern to the neighborhood. The applicant submitted a letter
and a brief (Exhibits B-1 and B-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if he has read the staff comments. He told Mr. Pollen that the Board does
not have the authority to change the definition of a family in the zoning
code. Mr. Pollen responded that the
Board has the authority to grant a variance or special exception. Mr. Boulden responded that the Board has
the authority to grant a variance based on an unusual hardship that is unique to
the land and property. Mr. Boulden
added that the applicant is asking for an interpretation based on federal law,
but the Board has to look to the state statutes and city ordinances. The Board’s authority is
restricted to land use based on the law in Oklahoma. Mr. Dunham commented that there are no
criteria for a variance regarding the land. Mr. Beach suggested that there
might be some alternative relief in the form of a special exception.
Interested
Parties:
Joe Kenworthy,
5126 E. 38th Pl., submitted a petition (Exhibit B-3) signed by over
sixty neighbors in opposition to the application.
Byron Todd,
3717 S. Canton, stated he is a resident within 200’ of the subject
property. He stated his agreement
with Mr. Dunham that the Board does not have authority to address this
application under the existing law.
He showed a photograph to emphasize the parking problems that the
residents of this property cause.
Walter
Scott,
3735 S. Canton, stated he lives across the street from the subject
property. He described the
situation as the subject property being a rental house amid upscale homes mostly
for retired residents. He
complained of the parking and increased traffic caused by the residents of this
house.
Robert
Wyreth,
3750 S. Canton, expressed his concern for the safety of the other
residents. He stated his opposition
to the application.
Mary Lee
Evans,
3719 S. Braden Pl., stated this application would be a detriment to the
neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White commented that the zoning code by right allows a family of six
unrelated people and this would not be a zoning change. Ms. Evans asked if he considered this a
business. Mr. White replied the
Board does not consider it a business.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she or anyone could rent a home out.
Interested
Parties:
Clay
Byrd,
stated he is a City Counselor for District 7. He stated that this case brings up
questions. He stated that granting
a variance for eight people to live on the subject property would be excessive,
and inappropriate. He added that it
does seem to be a business and did not see a good reason to allow it.
J.R. Sandschaper,
3611 S. Braden Pl., questioned whether this is a single-family or multi-family
dwelling. He stated objections as
those previously stated above.
Mr.
White read the zoning code definition of family.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Pollen stated it is unfortunate that the neighbors have based their
opposition on unfounded fears, stereotypes and other generalities to cast the
Oxford House residents in a most unfavorable light. The homeowner will continue to pay
taxes. The total income of this
home probably equals or exceeds that of other households in the
neighborhood. He added that
this is not a business, just people trying to do the right thing. He commented that there has not been one
instance of anything to disrupt the neighborhood. He indicated that residents would deal
with any parking problems.
Gregg Van
Wyck,
1521 E. 59th Pl., stated it was an honor to sponsor this house. He informed the Board that the residents
meet once a week and once monthly pertaining to the business of the house. He noted an occasion when the entire
street was lined with parked cars for a party at another house on that
street. He stated they don’t mind,
occasionally the Oxford House residents have a party also. He added that according the Roy
Ballentine with Neighborhood Inspections there have been no complaints but they
have received compliments on how much better the property looks.
The Board discussed parking, the code definition for family. Ms. Turnbo commented that residents
cannot just name two of them as resident staff, does not make them staff. She noted they stated that they all have
equal responsibility in the home.
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 Variance to allow 8 “disabled” unrelated people, to be a
“family”, instead of six as defined; and to DENY an Appeal of
zoning officers decision that this is a multi-family boarding, rooming-house,
finding that the requirements of Section 1607.C were not met.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required parking spaces from 14 to 0. SECTION 1211.D. USE UNIT 11. OFFICES, STUDIOS, AND SUPPORT SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements -- Use Unit 11, located 1401 S. Cheyenne.
Presentation:
Ron Kitchen, 2436 E. 18th St., stated he is the
architect for the owner, Dan Lowe.
The applicant proposes to enlarge the building, a historic residence that
has been remodeled into an office building. The existing parking does not conform to
City standards. Mr. Kitchen
reviewed the site plan for the Board.
Comments and
Questions:
The plan was discussed at length regarding parking with a drive
aisle. Ms. Perkins asked
about the number of parking spaces needed for the expansion. Mr. Kitchen replied it would require 14
parking spaces. Mr. Dunham asked
for a hardship. Mr. Kitchen replied
that the alley is higher than the old structure and the new structure would be
higher and allow for better parking.
Mr. White determined that there are five legal parking spaces on this
property.
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, Turnbo "aye"; Perkins "nay"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance of the required parking spaces from 14 to 5, per
plan, noting there are five illegal parking spaces on the plan on the Cheyenne
side of the property, finding the hardship to be the change of elevation and the
size of the lot, on the following described property:
Lot 1 and N 15’
Lot 2, Block 1, Carlton Pl., City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance limiting one single-family dwelling per lot of record to permit
two dwelling units. SECTION
207. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER
LOT OF RECORD and SECTION 403. BULK
AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6, located 1229
S. 83rd E. Ave.
Presentation:
John Folks, 4111 S. Darlington, stated he is an attorney for
Garland Brunson. The
applicant and his wife purchased the property two years ago. They have found that they cannot use the
two dwelling units on the property because of the zoning code. The neighborhood used to be in the
county and was later brought into the city limits. The first structure was brought to the
property. He informed the Board
there are several lots with two dwellings. He indicated that the applicant
would be interested in a lot-split.
Mr. Beach informed him that this Board does not approve lot-splits that
would be the planning commission.
He added that they are not advertised for other relief to allow a
lot-split. Mr. Folks submitted a
packet of exhibits (Exhibit C-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Boulden asked what the hardship would be. Mr. Folks stated the two dwellings
existed on the property before the zoning code required the setbacks. Mr. Boulden asked if there was anything
unique to the land. Mr. Folks
replied that in this neighborhood the lots are smaller and many of them were
developed to have a main house and guesthouse. Mr. Folks added there is a creek running
across the property. He also
mentioned that the second dwelling is only large enough for one person. Mr. Dunham asked what triggered
this application. Mr. Folks replied
that the owners are newcomers and want to comply with the law. Mr. Beach asked if they own the property
now. Mr. Folks replied that they do
own it.
Interested
Parties:
Hank Brandt,
8937 E. 15th,
stated
that he is the President of the Mingo Valley Homeowners’ Association. He commented that the second dwelling is
very small, approximately 21’ x 8’.
He stated that Code Enforcement cited the owner and the owner went before
the Board for a lot-split and it was denied. Mr. Brandt did not remember when that
took place. He complained that the
driveway is gravel. He stated there
are three buildings on the property, including a shop behind the house. They object to someone living in the
second dwelling. He listed other
properties that Neighborhood Inspections is dealing with regarding use of a
second dwelling on the property.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Folks stated the property is the same as when they purchased it. He stated that the smaller dwelling has
almost 300 square feet with a kitchen and bath. He commented the property is well
maintained.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
DENY a Variance limiting one single-family dwelling
per lot of record to permit two dwelling units.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow overhead door sales office in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 11 & 15; a Variance of 26’ setback requirement from R district to 16’8” on east and 22’4” on north. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance of the 150’ frontage in CS to 147’. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance of 100’ setback on west to 95’. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; and a Special Exception of screening requirement from south and north back 50’ in front and to allow alternative landscaping on east, located 6501 S. Peoria.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach commented as in the staff report that no screening is needed on
the north property line because there is no residential zoning district; there
is no setback from the north side so the variance of 26’ setback requirement
applies only on the east side.
Brian Smidt, 1218 N. Ash, Broken Arrow, stated they propose to
build a modern building for a sales office. He stated the owner of the property
around him has a permit for a mini-storage and a home.
Sam Bebido, stated they want to open an overhead door sales
office. He stated there is a
five-foot strip of land zoned RM on the east side. They wish to use that five-foot strip
for a landscape strip. There is an
abandoned home to the east of the subject property, about 200’ from the property
line. He indicated that this
business would be a benefit to the neighborhood. The setbacks on the south and east side
are generated by the building height.
The owner purchased the property as it is with only 147’ instead of the
150’ required for CS zoning.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if there was a lot-split. He wondered how the deed was transferred
with 147’ without lot-split approval.
Mr. Beach responded that he did not know and stated he could research
it. Mr. Dunham asked for a
hardship. Mr. Bebido replied that
the property is zoned CS and the 147’ frontage does not meet the requirement and
property was purchase. Ms. Perkins
asked if they are running a business.
He replied that they do not.
She then wanted to know why they have a Yellow Pages advertisement that
states this address. He stated that
the ad was placed in anticipation of the project.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception to allow overhead door
sales office in a CS zoned district; a Variance of 26’ setback
requirement from R district to 16’8” on east; a Variance of the
150’ frontage in CS to 147’; a Variance of 100’ setback on west to
95’; and a Special Exception of screening requirement from south
to allow alternative landscaping on east, per plan, finding the unusual
circumstances of the configuration of the zoning pattern of this lot is the
hardship, on the following described property:
Beg. at a point
10’ S NW/c of Lot 7, Block 3, Valley View Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma; thence E 155’; thence S 147’; thence W 155’; thence N
147’ to the POB
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit parking of oversized truck in an RS-3
district; Appeal of Administrative determination the inoperable or unlicensed
vehicles are being stored on residential property on a non-all-weather
surface. SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY
USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions -- Use Unit 6, located
209 S. 67th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Dennis Dvorak, 209 S. 67th E. Ave., stated he has lived
there since 1980 and plans to retire there. He informed the Board that he discussed
the application with the neighbors for a block around the subject property to
obtain their opinion. He obtained
signed statements by all but two elderly neighbors, one of which has Alzheimer’s
and the other stated her children asked her not to sign anything, but she was in
support. He stated that he does not
work at the house; he just parks the truck there after work. He submitted a photograph of his truck
(Exhibit D-1) and other photographs (Exhibit D-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked for the location of his office and business phone for
service calls. Mr. Dvorak replied
that an employee away from his home answers his service calls and records are
kept at another location.
They communicate by mobile phone and pager for service calls.
Interested
Parties:
Paul Lanansky, 232
S. 68th E. Ave., stated he drove by the property and observed that
the house is impeccable but there is a lot of concrete paving around the
house. He saw a large box truck on
the driveway. He stated he was
unsure what an oversized truck would be, but he did not consider the truck to be
appropriate in a residential neighborhood.
Roy Ballentine,
111 S. Greenwood, submitted photographs and a copy of the violation notice to
the Board (Exhibit D-3). There was
a complaint of two trucks originally on June 20, 2001, as shown in one of the
photographs. Yesterday there was
only one vehicle located on the property.
There were no markings on the vehicles. The property was well maintained. A complaint was made that a plumbing
business was being run out of the home.
He stated he could not verify this, but when he called the phone number
he heard a recording of a Charles Plumbing answering service. There has been no verification that a
business is run from there. He
stated that it is not uncommon for a plumbing or air conditioning company to
have a phone forwarded for messages.
The fact that a truck over 11/2 tons parked on residential property is
what initiated the violation notice.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked if the 1 ½ ton size is the breaking point for oversized
trucks. Mr. Ballentine replied that
he has a copy of the City Attorney’s office real estate division to Kurt
Ackerman from Pat Boulden, stating requirements of vehicles over 1 ½ ton
capacity that they not be parked on residential property. Mr. White asked about the determination
that an inoperable or unlicensed vehicle was stored. Mr. Ballentine replied that the
violation notice is in error, put in automatically by the computer. Mr. White determined there is no
administrative determination to appeal.
Mr. Ballentine confirmed that, just the oversized vehicles are in
violation.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Smidt stated that his truck is a two-ton truck. Ms. Perkins asked where he receives his
materials for his work. Mr. Smidt
replied that supplies are delivered to the job site. Ms. Perkins asked if he received any
deliveries at the home. He replied
that he does not receive business deliveries at home.
Mr.
Boulden stated that vehicles customary to the area are allowed in a residential
neighborhood. He added that this
was not a customary vehicle for a residential area. The only way it could be considered
customary is if it was for a home occupation. He suggested it almost requires a
variance to allow this kind of vehicle in the area.
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 parking of
oversized truck in an RS-3 district.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of lot width from 75’ to 62.21’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit
-- Use Unit 6; a Variance of lot area in RS-2 from 9,000 sq. ft. to 8,671
sq. ft. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit; and a Variance of land area from 10,875 sq.
ft. to 10,226 sq. ft. for a lot split.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit, location NW/c E.
52nd St. & Columbia Pl.
Presentation:
Jeff Levinson, 35 E. 18th St., stated he represents the
applicant. This application is in
connection with a lot-split for four lots instead of three. He found they were short of the area
required by about three percent because of the unique shape of the lot being
narrow and deep. It is bordered by
a church parking lot on the north and west. There are RT and RD districts across the
street. He stated this would
be a way to compromise so that the density would remain essentially consistent
with the rest of the neighborhood.
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
APPROVE a Variance of lot width from 75’ to
62.21’. SECTION 403; a
Variance of lot area in RS-2 from 9,000 sq. ft. to 8,671 sq. ft.;
and a Variance of land area from 10,875 sq. ft. to 10,226 sq. ft.
for a lot split, finding it to be consistent with the balance of the
neighborhood and 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:
S 248.85’ of Lot
2, Bethel Union Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct an 80’ monopole cellular transmission
tower within 88’ of property zoned OL and within 88’ of property zoned
RS-3. SECTION 1204.C.3 & 5. USE
UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND
UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions -- Use Unit 4, located 9509 E.
61st St.
Presentation:
John Brightmire, 320 S. Boston, submitted a packet of exhibits
(Exhibit E-1). The RF engineer,
Keith Sacks, stated that a tower is necessary for United States Cellular
to provide service in this area because they lack coverage and to off-load
capacity from surrounding sites.
Mr. Brightmire referred to the coverage maps, noting the gap in coverage
and the future coverage by the proposed tower. The proposed tower would be an 80’
galvanized steel monopole. The
closest house in a residential addition is more than 250’ to the west. Property to the north is zoned RS-3 but
Mingo Creek lies in the area zoned RS-3.
The residential addition to the west is separated from the site by Mingo
Creek, which creates a natural barrier between the site and the residential
use. There are no existing towers
near the site. Mingo Creek is to
the north of the subject property.
The Volunteers of America
office is to the east. There
is undeveloped property across 61st Street to the south. Mingo Creek is to the west of the
site. The topography of the land is
flat, with some trees. The tower is
designed to accommodate three slim line antennas, and is engineered for
co-location of two similar antenna facilities. The equipment building would be a
pre-fabricated 12’ x 20’ building with an aggregate rock exterior. A 20’ access easement runs southeast
from the site to 61st Street.
The tract is approximately 35’ x 40’. The likely development is unknown at
this time. The landscaping would be
subject to the zoning code requirements. A site plan was provided (Exhibit
E-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked about the two towers east and south of the site that the
Board approved recently. Mr.
Brightmire replied that they did consider the possibility of co-location on the
Hemphill tower to the east but it did not fit their needs for coverage.
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
APPROVE a Special Exception to construct an
80’ monopole cellular transmission tower within 88’ of property zoned OL and
within 88’ of property zoned RS-3, per plan, finding that the twelve criteria
required have been met, and finding there was no request for relief from any of
the code requirements, on the following described
property:
A tract of land
Beg. at a point 400’ W of the SE/c of Section 36, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma; thence N 250’; thence W 265’;
thence S 250’; thence E 265’; to the POB, less and except: a parcel of land
lying in the S 250.00’ of the W 265.00’ of the E 665.00’ of the SE/4 SE/4 of
Section 36, T-19-N, R-13-E, being more particularly described as follows to-wit:
Beg. at a point 400.00’ W and 24.75’ N of the SE/c of said Section 36; thence W
and parallel with the S line of Section 36, 265.00’ thence N 35.25’; thence E
and parallel with said S line, 85.00’; thence S 10.00’; thence E and parallel
with the S line 180.00’; thence S 25.25’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of side yard requirement from 10’ to 7’ in an RS-2
district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit
-- Use Unit 6, located 1516 E. 37th St.
Presentation:
Jeff Johnson, 1516 E. 37th St., stated his
request.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham questioned the dimension in the request since they did not
match the site plan dimensions. He
suggested that when he clears his title everything could be corrected at the
same time rather than one at a time.
Mr. Johnson stated he was not aware of the need for two corrections.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance of side yard requirement from 10’
to 8’ in an RS-2 district, on the east side, per plan, finding the mature
magnolia tree in the center of the yard, and 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 3A, Block 3,
of the Amended Plat of Lots 1, 2 and the W 25.00’ of Lot 3, and Lots 10, 11 and
12, in Block 3, and Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 4 of Woodland Heights, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.