CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
October 23, 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 |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler |
|
|
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, October 18, 2001, at 10:50 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr.
Beach announced this case was withdrawn per Steven Schuller, the
applicant.
Action
Requested:
Mr.
White clarified with the applicant that the legal description was
correct.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Variance of the maximum sign height from 20 to 26-3. SECTION 302.B.2. ACCESSORY SIGNS IN THE AG DISTRICT, located 6841 S. Memorial Dr.
Presentation:
Mike Moydell, 1221 W. 3rd, stated that he has returned
to ask relief for the maximum sign height.
He submitted photographs (Exhibit A-1) of the site to the Board. He described the need showing the
landscaping elevation from the restaurant to the street.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins commented that in a CH zoning district the maximum height would be
25.
Paula Baliss, 4201 W. Memorial, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, stated
that 263 is the standard height they request for their signs in every
city. Ms. Perkins asked if they
could work with the 25 allowed in a CH zone.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Dunham,
the Board voted (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE
a Variance of the maximum sign height from 20 to 25, finding
that the AG zoning is very unusual for this area and they could build 25 by
right, and finding that it will not cause substantial detriment to the public
good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or Comprehensive
Plan. on the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 2, Tract B, Woodland Hills Mall, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required number of
parking spaces from 134 to 104.
SECTION 1219.D. USE UNIT 19.
HOTEL, MOTEL, AND RECREATION FACILITIES; Off-Street Parking Requirements,
located S of SW/c E. 56th St. & S. Garnett
Rd.
Presentation:
Mendy Ward, 7912 E. 31st Ct., Ste. 200, stated she came
before the Board for a change in use and relief from the all-weather surface
requirement. She stated she was not
advertised correctly for the surface requirement and so came before the Board
today. Since then the owner agreed
to pave the parking lot and determined the maximum number of parking spaces to
be 104. The property abuts the City
of Tulsa property in the flood plain.
She reminded the Board that indoor soccer is primarily a participant
sport not a spectator sport, therefore decreasing the need for parking
spaces. The office is only open
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., which would leave their 28 parking spaces available for
overflow parking. The need for
parking would be primarily evenings and weekends.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", no
"abstentions", Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance of the
required number of parking spaces from 134 to 104, finding that this use would
rarely need the required spaces under the Code, and finding it will not cause
substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and
intent of the Code, or Comprehensive Plan, on the property described as
follows:
Block 1, Garnett Place, less E 200, S 300.49 and less N 20 thereof,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the previously approved conditions (BOA-16534) to increase beds allowed from 285 beds to 320 beds. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; BOA Imposed Special Exception Use Conditions, located 302 W. Archer.
Mr. White stated he would abstain from this
case.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach informed the Board that this request could be considered as a special
exception.
Don Hoover, 302 W. Archer, stated he is the Facility Administrator
at the Avalon Correctional Center.
He stated that his facility contracts with the Department of Corrections
and the Bureau of Prisons to operate halfway house services for offenders who
are on their way out of the system.
These inmates are employed outside of the facility and they are assisted
in finding housing when they leave.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked if they still follow the conditions as approved in 1994 that no
murderers, sex-offenders, or drug dealers would be housed on this premises. He replied they comply with this
condition. She asked Mr. Hoover
that no more than 50 inmates receive visitors at any time. He replied that they comply with that
requirement. He stated that they
stagger the visiting hours over Saturday and Sunday and have not had a
problem. Mr. Dunham commented that
they would have the same conditions with the change of the number of
beds.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 3-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye", no "nays", White
"abstained", Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception
of the previously approved
conditions (BOA-16534) to increase beds allowed from 285 beds to 320 beds, and
keeping the conditions previously approved in Case No. 16534: no more than 50
inmates receiving visitors at any given time; and no murderers, sex offenders or
drug dealers being housed on the premises, finding it will not cause substantial
detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the
Code, or Comprehensive Plan, on the following described property:
Lot 1 - 7, Block 63, including the vacated south alley, Original
Townsite, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of side yard requirement
of 5 down to 3.9. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located 8207 S. 68th E.
Ave.
Ms. Perkins stated she would recuse herself from Case No.
19213.
Presentation:
Anthony Rice, 9408 S.
Urbana, stated they encroached on the construction line on the west side of the
house when they built and did not realize until the survey. The geometry of the lot is pie-shaped
making it difficult to measure. A
site plan (Exhibit B-1) was submitted to the Board.
Interested
Parties:
Dr. Craig Stevens, 8206 S. 69th E. Ave., stated that he
was informally representing the residents that he spoke with in this area. He stated that they object to the
application because of the breach of the covenant of this neighborhood, and
because it obstructs the view.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked how it could obstruct his view if it is on the opposite side of the
house. Mr. Stevens replied that it
is because of the way the land is divided.
Ms. Turnbo informed Mr. Stevens that the Board does not enforce
covenants. Mr. White pointed out
that the extreme enforcement would mean the builder would have to trim off that
portion of the house. Dr. Stevens
responded that they did not actually expect that kind of correction but to voice
their concerns.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Rice commented that the five-foot side yard requirement is a City Code. Ms. Turnbo asked who built the house. Mr. Rice replied that he built it. He explained that he took the word of the one who laid out the measurements. He discovered that it was measured not on the arc but straight from one point to another.
Board
Action:
On
Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 3-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo
"aye", no "nays", Perkins "abstained", Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance of side yard requirement of 5 down to 3.9, per plan
submitted today, finding the shape of the lot to be the hardship, making it
difficult to establish the exact front building line, on the following described
property:
Lot 21,
Block 13, the Crescent, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow automobile sales in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 17, located 2607 E. Pine St.
Presentation:
Melissa Gibson, 2607 E. Pine. St., stated her request for a
special exception to allow auto sales in a CS zoned district. She stated that nothing would change
from the existing conditions. There
will be no extra lighting, no auto repairs, and no outside speakers. The screening is already in place and
the all-weather surface also.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked about landscaping. Ms.
Gibson replied that the City building permit exempted her from the landscaping
requirements. Mr. Beach responded
that he would have to research the case regarding the landscaping but it could
be legally non-conforming. Mr.
Dunham asked for the days and hours of operation. Ms. Gibson replied they would be open no
later than 5:00 p.m. Mr. Boulden
noted that in a use unit 17 no open-air storage, or display of merchandise
within 300 of an adjoining R district.
He pointed out that she did not request relief for display of
merchandise.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 3-1-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins
"aye", Turnbo "nay", no "abstentions", Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Special
Exception to allow automobile
sales in a CS zoned district, per plan, subject to no more than four cars
offered for sale; no lighting other than the existing security lighting;
days/hours of operation 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; no outside
speakers; no inoperable vehicles stored on the premises; no mechanical work on
the premises; finding 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; and to CONTINUE Case No. 19214 to the meeting
on November 27, 2001 to advertise for additional relief of the 300 setback
requirement, on the following described property:
Lot 728, Block 56, Tulsa Heights and Lot 11, Block 1, Waverly Place, except tract 20 square in NE/c thereof; all in City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a manufactured home in an RS-1 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6; and a Special Exception to extend the one-year time limit. SECTION 404. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located SE/c E. 14th St. & 173rd E. Ave.
Mr. White stated he would abstain from this
case.
Presentation:
Patricia A. Breon, stated she was the property owner of 17304 E.
14th St. She
introduced Kathy Flannigan and Rick
Vaughn with Oak Creek Village.
Kathy Flannigan, 11306 E. Admiral, submitted photographs (Exhibit
C-1) to the Board. She described
the proposed plan to move a mobile home on the subject property. There are mobile homes on either side of
the property. The loan application
shows an appraisal of $172,000.00 with the mobile home on the land so it would
not decrease the value of the land.
Rick Vaughn, stated that the home would be anchored on concrete
footings, with skirting, and a 6/12 pitched roof. It is 32 x 64 manufactured home with
triple dormers, and would look like a stick built home.
Interested
Parties:
Mr.
Dunham noted for the record that the Board received four letters (Exhibit E-1)
of objection to the application.
Mrs. Carl
Turner,
1213 S. 173rd E. Ave., stated there was an empty mobile set behind
the barn but no one ever lived in one on the property. She does not want it to set a precedent
for mobile homes in the area. She
stated they have spent years improving their own property and do not want to
lose property value. They have
already had one bad experience with a mobile home in the neighborhood that
required a lot of cleanup.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo encouraged Ms. Turner to see the picture of the kind of home that they
propose to build. Ms.
Turner questioned the change in the time limit. Ms. Turnbo explained that it is an
allowed exception in the zoning code.
Ron
Gratiff,
stated he owns property at 1402, 1410, and 1426 S. 173rd E. Ave.,
directly across the street to the west of the subject property. He stated that his primary residence is
at 1402, and it is a 12-year-old manufactured home. He considers the proposed home to be
attractive. He added that the
owners have improved the property considerably.
Carl
Edmondson,
17317 E. 14th St., stated he owns the property across the street from
the subject property. He stated his
concern for the rising water table in the area, causing his fences to fall.
James
Mautino,
14628 E. 12th St., expressed concerns as listed above.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mrs.
Breon informed the Board that they invested in an aerobic sewer system after
they purchased the property. She
stated that they thoroughly investigated the construction of these types of
homes and were satisfied that it is good quality. They have improved the property and will
continue to improve it to increase the value. The existing mobile home will be
removed.
Board
Action:
On
Motion of Perkins, the Board voted 3-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins
"aye", no "nays", White "abstained", Cooper "absent") to APPROVE a
Special
Exception to allow a
manufactured home in an RS-1 zoned district; and a Special
Exception to extend the one-year time limit to 100 years, finding 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 and 4, Block 8, Lynn Lane Estates, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the allowable size for an accessory building from 500 sq. ft. to 1,130 sq. ft. for an addition to existing garage and carport. SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards Use Unit 6; and a Variance of the required 5 side yard to 2. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 2023 E. Xyler St. N.
Presentation:
Fred Stevenson, 1003 E. Zion Ct., stated he needs a variance of
the allowable size of an accessory building and a variance of the required side
yard.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins asked why he needs a carport if he has an existing garage and carport.
Mr. Stevenson responded that the
owner of the property was present and could answer the
question.
John Jones, 2023 E. Xyler, replied that the existing carport is
attached to the garage at the back of the house, and the new carport would be on
the side of the house. He felt it
would make the house look better and improve the neighborhood. Ms. Perkins asked about the building
materials. He stated it would be a
wood A-frame, open-sided, with a gable.
Mr. Beach determined that it would be an unattached carport. Mr. Dunham determined the
dimensions.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Cooper "absent") to
DENY a Variance of the allowable size for an accessory building from
500 sq. ft. to 1,130 sq. ft. for an addition to existing garage and carport; and
a Variance of the required 5 side yard to 2, finding a lack of
hardship, on the following described property:
Lot 10, Block 4, Coats 2nd Addition amended, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for mobile home in an RM-1 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 9; and a Special Exception to extend the one-year time limit. SECTION 404. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 1144 E. Haskell.
Presentation:
Michael Sund, 1247 N. Allegheny, stated he purchased the property
for a permanent residence. He plans
to improve the mobile home and property.
Letters of support (Exhibit E-1) were submitted.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins asked the age of the mobile home.
Mr. Sund replied that it was a 1972 model. He pointed out there are two more mobile
homes across Peoria in the same housing addition. Mr. Sund proposed to tie-down and skirt
the home.
Interested
Parties:
Raymond Miller,
1116 E. Haskell Pl., stated he has improved his own property and
neighborhood.
Mr. Cooper
arrived at 2:44 p.m.
He
stated that the subject property is an eye sore. He added that he owns other lots on
Haskell. He submitted letters of
objection (Exhibit E-2). He does
not know of any other mobile homes in the neighborhood.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Sund admitted the home does not look good now, but he has plans to improve it
for a permanent residence. He
stated there was also a third mobile home in the neighborhood but it burned
out. He has spoken with other
residents in the area and they were in support of the
application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach asked Mr. Sund to describe his plans to make the house look better. Mr. Sund replied he planned to add on
about 15 with a peaked roof, an unattached garage toward the middle and back of
the property, and a front porch across front. He planned to use wood siding over the
exterior of the mobile.
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 Special
Exception for mobile home in an
RM-1 zoned district; and a Special Exception to extend the
one-year time limit, finding 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, on the following described property:
Lots 5 and 6, Block 4, Frisco Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard of
30 down to 284. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located 135 E. 26th
Ct.
Presentation:
The
applicant, Susan Haas, 135 E. 26th Ct., stated she would like
for her architect to speak for her.
Steve Brown, 3015 S. Madison, stated that the project is a front
porch across the front of the house.
He stated part of the porch is covered with the roof and part is open to
the sky. Mr. Brown described the
house at the end of a dead end street.
The street is divided by a 30 landscaped island with 20 paved streets
on either side. There is no plan to
enclose the porch.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion of Dunham, the Board voted (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", no "absences") to APPROVE a
Minor Variance of required front yard of 30 down to 284, per
plan, on condition that the porch remain open and not be enclosed, finding the
hardship to be the center island and porch not enclosed affects the setback in
this instance, and finding it will not cause substantial detriment to the public
good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or Comprehensive
Plan, on the following described property:
Lot 5, Block 6, Riverside View, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
19221
Action
Requested:
Variance of the 50 setback
requirement from the centerline of East 21st Street down to 35. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE
DISTRICTS Use Unit 11, located 2538 E. 21st
St.
Presentation:
Ed
Horkey, 4411 S. Sheridan, stated he was representing Carrie and Pamela Lowe,
that have a dental practice on the subject property. He stated that the hardship was the
abutting property to the east has an Oklahoma Natural Gas drying and switching
station that is enclosed stands above grade about three feet. A site plan (Exhibit G-1) was
submitted.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham noted that the staff comment suggested a removal contract.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
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 Variance of the 50 setback requirement
from the centerline of East 21st Street down to 35, per plan,
finding the existing natural gas drying station and distribution point and other
signs would make this sign difficult to see otherwise, and in case the
right-of-way is ever required to meet the Major Street and Highway Plan that
there would be a removal contract, and finding that it will not cause
substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and
intent of the Code, or Comprehensive Plan. on the property described as follows:
The E 80.60 of the W 241.00 of the N 193.00 of Lot 29, Herters
2nd Sub-Division, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Case
No.19222
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to allow auto sales on the west 90 of subject tract. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 17; and a Special Exception to allow auto repair on the
west 60 of subject tract. SECTION
701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located 12545 A&B E. 21st
St.
Presentation:
Mark
Smiling, 8908 S.
Yale, Ste. 450, submitted a packet of exhibits (Exhibit H-1) to the Board. He explained to the Board that 50 was
deeded back to the owner by the mini-storage. They would like the same special
exception to the back of the lot as the front of the lot. The applicant was unable to produce the
documents to prove that the Board had approved the relief he indicated the owner
had obtained for auto repair.
Comments and
Questions:
After much discussion and confusion the Board determined that auto repair was denied in Case No. 19803 on July 25, 2000, and only auto sales was approved in Case No. 16285 in 1983. There was also confusion over which parts of the property were actually involved.
Dunham out at 3:10
p.m.
Mr.
Boulden commented to Mr. Smiling about open-air storage and display of
merchandise within 300 of an adjoining R district. Mr. Cooper noted that he was not
advertised for that relief.
Dunham returned at
3:13 p.m.
Interested
Parties:
Eric Paschal, 12420 E. 14th Pl., submitted letters of
objection (Exhibit H-2). He stated
that the appearance of this property has been degrading the area. He expressed his opinion that this
application would be detrimental to east Tulsa.
James Mautino, 14628 E. 12th St., stated that they went
through a lot of effort with Neighborhood Inspections to get this area cleaned
up. He stated that the property is
not land-locked, but can be accessed.
Mr. Mautino suggested that they should apply for
re-zoning.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Smiling stated that they want the exception to be consistent on the whole property. Mr. White noted that the case map outlines more property than the legal description and the Board does not have a record of previous approval for auto repair.
Mr. Smiling withdrew Case 19222 in order to review the files and obtain the correct information for a future case.
Board
Action:
No Board action was needed for Case No. 19222, on the following described property:
A tract of land located in Lot 1, Block 1, Stacey Lynn Third Annex, being
more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the most NWly SW/c of Lot 1,
Block 1, Stacey Lynn Third Annex; thence N 00Ί0000 E along the W line of Lot
1, Block 1, Stacey Lynn Third Annex a distance of 50.00; thence S 89Ί4700 E
and parallel with the S line of Lot 1, Block 1, Stacey Lynn Third Annex, a
distance of 150.00; thence S 00Ί0000 W and parallel with the W line of Lot 1,
Block 1, Stacey Lynn Third Annex, a distance of 50.00 to the most NEly SW/c of
Lot 1, Block 1, Stacey Lynn Third Annex; thence N 89Ί4700 W along the S line
of Lot 1, Block 1, Stacey Lynn Third Annex a distance of 150.00 to the most
NWly SW/c of Lot 1, Block 1, Stacey Lynn Third Annex the POB AND Lot 1, Block 1,
Shannon Park Plaza, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:34
p.m.
Date
approved:______________________