CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
December 11, 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,
V. Chair |
Cooper |
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal
|
|
Turnbo |
Perkins |
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 2:30 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
REQUEST
FOR CONTINUANCE:
Action
Requested:
Special Exception of the required 110% setback from an O zoned district
from 110’ to 7’6” on the north and 35’0” on the east for a monopole cell tower
100’ in height.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated he received a request for continuance to January 22, 2002. The applicant is trying to work out the
details of the precise location and agreements with the landowner and
neighbors.
Lou Reynolds, 2727 E. 21st St., stated he was
representing 21st Properties.
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 CONTINUANCE of Case No. 19232 to the
meeting on January 22, 2002.
MINUTES:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted
3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", Perkins, Cooper
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of November 27, 2001 (No. 831).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Approval of an amended site plan to add a 40’ x 40’ x 12’ storage building. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 10310 S. Sheridan.
Presentation:
Charles Hair, 10310 S. Sheridan, stated he was representing South
Tulsa Baptist Church. They have met
with neighboring homeowners since the November meeting and have come to an
agreement on the storage shed. The
applicant agrees to move the building location to 120’ north of the south
property line and everything else will be the same. A site plan and photographs were
submitted (Exhibit A-1 and A-2) to the Board.
Interested
Parties:
Ken Tate,
6030 E. 104th St., stated he is the President of Forest Park South
Homeowner’s Association. They have
agreed to the 120’ setback from the south property line, landscaping, windows
with shutters, and other items. He
stated that they have no objection as amended to be submitted.
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
an
amended site plan to add a 40’ x 40’ x 12’ storage building, per plan and
specifications submitted 12-11-01, namely that it be located no closer than 120’
north of the south property line, on the following described
property:
Lot 1, Block 1, South Tulsa Baptist Church Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required all-weather material surface for parking to allow parking on grass surface. SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 26, located 123 N. Fulton.
Presentation:
Jerry Mirecki, 5951 S. Birmingham, submitted photographs to the
Board (Exhibit B-1). She addressed
the conditions to be considered for approval by the Board. The property to the east of the subject
property is higher and causes a large amount of storm run-off. According to the EPA and the Department
of Environmental Quality contend that the biggest contributors to pollution and
Stormwater run-off are paved parking lots.
She reminded the Board that the property is at the end of a dead end
private drive, so is not seen by the public. As in the previous meeting she pointed
out that several similar businesses have the gravel and grass parking lots. She submitted three letters of support
to the Board (Exhibit B-2).
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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 Variance of the required all-weather
material surface for parking to allow parking on grass surface, finding the
hardship to be there are a number of other similar businesses in the area with
unpaved parking, on the following described property:
Beg. NW/c SE SE SW, thence E 150.00’ S 385.00’ W 150.00’ N 385.00’, Section 34, T-20-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow reduction in lot
area from 6900 sq. ft. to 6000 sq. ft. to permit a lot-split. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 1202 E. 28th
St.
Presentation:
Phillip E. Marshall, 4319 S. Quincy Pl., stated he is the owner of
the subject property and a homebuilder.
He plans to build a home on this lot. A neighbor has a disagreement on the
property line and is claiming adverse possession. He chose to deed over that portion of
the property and it requires a lot split.
The lot is zoned RS-3, requiring 6,900 square feet of land. The platted lot is classified as a
non-conforming lot. A site plan was
provided (Exhibit J-1).
Interested
Parties:
Patricia Spradlin, 2815
Woodward Boulevard, stated she is in support of the application.
Dennis
Boyd,
1207 E. 29th Pl., stated he was concerned that construction was
planned for more than one house. He
has no objection to the application.
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 Variance
to allow reduction in lot area from 6900 sq. ft. to 6000 sq. ft. to permit a
lot-split, per plan, finding the hardship to be the small portion to be split
off has been claimed as adverse possession, the lot is non-conforming and has
existed this way for more than fifty years, this will clear the title, on the
following described property:
Lot 14, Block 20, Sunset Terrace Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 85’ front setback from center of street to 64’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; and a Variance to allow an accessory building in the front yard. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards, located 3927 S. Atlanta Pl.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated that according to the plans that were submitted the structure would
be integral to the principal residence and therefore would not be a detached
accessory building. There is no
prohibition to an attached accessory building in the front yard, and the second
variance would not be needed.
Roger Hagland, 3927 S. Atlanta Pl., introduced himself and
deferred to his wife to present the case.
Jacqueline Hagland, of the same address, stated that their house is at
the end of a two-block long dead end street cul de sac. The original house has a detached
garage. They need a wheelchair
accessible carport. She added that
it would be landscaped attractively and an improvement to the house and
neighborhood. Mr. White asked if it
would be open-sided. Ms. Hagland
replied that they would like to enclose it on three sides. A site plan was submitted (Exhibit
K-1).
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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 Variance of the
required 85’ front setback from center of street to 64’, per plan, finding the
hardship to be the configuration of the lot, and 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:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr.
White stated the case would be heard as soon as the applicant
arrived.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow required parking to be located on a lot other than the principal use. SECTION 1301. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 11, located 9175 S. Yale.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated that because of a recent amendment to the Zoning Code, the relief
could be granted by special exception.
Mark Smiling, 9149 S. Yale, submitted a photograph (Exhibit D-1)
to the Board. He stated he built a
retaining wall to protect his neighbors’ property. He proposed to put in an ornate gate
with limited card access.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach asked the size of the office building. Mr. Smiling replied there are 30,000
square feet. Mr. Beach stated that
with 106 parking spaces, there is the potential for 106 cars to add two trips
per day each on Braden. Mr. White
mentioned a condition on a previous Board action with regard to limiting traffic
on Braden. Mr. Dunham and Ms.
Turnbo were both opposed to any more access on Braden.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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
allow required parking to be located on a lot other than the principal use, on
conditions of a tie agreement between this lot and the property adjacent to the
west, no access to Braden, a solid screening fence on the east side and that all
landscaping requirements be met, on the property described as follows:
S 54’ of Lot 2, Block 1, Hunter’s Glen Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a drive-thru bank facility. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, located SW/c E. 2nd St. & S. Memorial.
Presentation:
Roy Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 501, stated he was
representing State Bank. His client
owns the subject property and it is zoned OL. He reminded the Board that Memorial is a
four-lane street, divided by a median.
He added that at 2nd Street there is a signal with a turning
lane for northbound traffic to turn left.
Also, a left turn may be made from 2nd Street to go north on
Memorial. He stated that the
drive-through would not generate much traffic and would not be injurious to the
neighborhood. A site plan was
provided (Exhibit L-1).
Interested
Parties:
Brenda Wills, 8013 E. 2nd St., stated she is not in
opposition to a bank on the subject property, but she is in opposition to an
entrance on 2nd St. She
explained there is a lot of traffic on 2nd St. with back-up traffic
at the light. She pointed out there
is a bank at the corner of 1st and Memorial also, and daily there is
congestion caused by bank customers waiting in line for service. Ms. Wills stated she is not in
opposition to an exit from the bank on 2nd St. because that would not
cause the same congestion.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Johnsen responded that the median on Memorial would restrict access to the bank
without a 2nd Street entrance.
He indicated that the traffic signal on 2nd Street would make
the difference in traffic flow as compared to the congestion to the bank at
1st Street.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach was still concerned with a left-turn out of the bank onto 2nd
Street because there is a lot of use of the residential streets immediately west
of the property.
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
allow a drive-thru bank facility, per plan, on condition that it is understood
the plan is in error, that there can be no left turn lane onto Memorial because
of the median at 2nd Street, 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:
Tract 1: A part of the E/2 SE/4 NE/4 of Section 2, T-19-N, R-13-E, of the IBM, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at a point on the E line of said Section 2, said point being 1,095.00’ N of the SE/c of NE/4 of said Section 2; thence W along a line parallel to the N line of the S/2 NE/4 of said Section 2, a distance of 232.00’ to a point; thence N and parallel to the E line of said Section 2, a distance of 138’ to a point; thence E along a line parallel to the N line of the S/2 NE/4 of said Section 2, a distance of 232.00’ to a point on the E line of said Section 2; thence S along the E line of said Section 2, a distance of 138.00’ to the POB; AND Tract 2: A tract of land located in Section 2, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. 995.00’ N of the SE/c NE/4; thence W 232.00’; thence N 100’; thence E 232.00’; thence S 100.00’ to the POB, all located within the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow new residential construction in an OL district. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS; and a Variance of front yard setback of 50’ down to 25’. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS, located 2550 N. Norfolk Ave.
Presentation:
Monty McElroy, with Tulsa Development Authority, stated they were
selling the subject property to a family for construction of a 1800 square foot
home. The special exception is to
move house forward to allow more backyard and to line up with the existing
homes. A site plan was provided
(Exhibit M-1).
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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
allow new residential construction in an OL district, 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 a
Variance of front yard setback of 50’ down to 25’, per plan,
finding this is a residential use and it would be in line with all of the
properties to the west, on the property described as follows:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Emerson 2nd Addition, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal of violation notice; or in the alternative, modification of
conditions of the Special Exception granted in BOA 19013 to allow restricted
outside activity at specific times for limited periods, located 2225 E.
61st St.
Presentation:
Bill LaFortune, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated he represented
Jeremy Shadrick, and the Exceptions Paw Spa. He reminded the Board that he
represented them in March 2001. The
Board granted a special exception with the condition of no outside dog
activity. He submitted photos,
exhibits of the last case and current photos (Exhibits C-1). Mr. Shadrick obtained a lease for the
property and opened the business for veterinary care, grooming, and
boarding. Mr. Shadrick ran short of
funds for the indoor sewage system.
In the previous case the applicant agreed to no outside dog runs. Mr. LaFortune indicated that the
Firestone business next door makes much more noise than limited outside dog
activity. Mr. LaFortune stated that
it would have been better if his client had come to him first with the problem,
but as it is they are requesting an exception to allow limited outside
activity. He suggested increasing
the height of the screening fence, and moderate exercise time at 10:30 a.m.,
2:30 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. for three dogs at a time for fifteen minutes. He pointed out the distance across the
drainage ditch between the subject property and apartment complex. He noted a walking trail used at all
hours by dogs along the ditch, and mentioned that numerous dog owners live in
the apartment complex. The manager
of the apartment complex stated that she has received complaints about the
applicant’s dogs from only one tenant.
Mr. LaFortune indicated that there was no intention to violate the
condition previously made by the Board.
It was not their intent to have dog runs, but to allow minimal outside
activity during daylight hours only.
Mr. LaFortune withdrew the appeal.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked for the maximum capacity of the facility at one time and the hours
of operation. Mr. LaFortune replied
that the customer hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The capacity is 30 but the highest
occupancy has been 22 dogs at one time.
Interested
Parties:
John Linehan, 8316 E. 81st Pl., stated his support of
the business. He believes the
location and care of the animals is good.
Marty Meason, 2218 E. 59th, Apt. 3503, submitted
letters of opposition (Exhibit C-3).
He stated that the applicant has not complied with the previous
condition. He complained that
the outside dog activity and noise has been disturbing him. He indicated that the drainage ditch
acts as a megaphone, amplifying the noise.
He added that the business owner is not acting responsibly as a good
neighbor, and has refused to comply with the Board’s condition after receiving
complaints.
Mary Stanley, 2124 E. 60th Ct., stated she is the
President of the neighborhood association in the Garden Park area. She stated that the applicant has built
his indoor facility but also built for a facility outside, against the previous
Board Action.
Mr. White out at 2:30 p.m.
Ms.
Stanley questioned if the applicant would abide by a new Board Action if they
would not abide by the previous action.
Mr.
White returned at 2:32 p.m.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
LaFortune submitted letters
of support and advertisings (Exhibits C-2) were submitted to the Board.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White noted that having 30 dogs outside, three at a time for 15 minutes, would mean 2 ½ hours per exercise time. Mr. LaFortune responded that the outside yard was very large, three dogs at a time behind a high screening fence, could not cause more noise than dogs out loose, on the trail. Ms. Turnbo recalled that the applicant suggested the previous condition for no outside dog activity. Mr. Dunham considered the applicant to have ignored the previous condition and was not assured that he would not ignore new conditions.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye", no "nays", no
"abstentions", Perkins, Cooper "absent") to DENY the Special Exception
granted in BOA 19013 to allow restricted outside activity at specific times for
limited periods, 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:
Lot 2, less E 50.00’ thereof, Block 1, Southern Village Center, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of allowable display surface area from 32 sq. ft. to 58 sq. ft. SECTION 602.B.4.c. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 21, located 2819 N. Lewis.
Presentation:
Bill Tatum, 3219 Hedrick Dr., Princeton, Texas, submitted a new
site plan, and photograph (Exhibit E-1 and E-2).. He stated that they do not intend to
have the small drop down sign, so they only need 48 square feet. He added that it would be a manually
changeable marquee. He
indicated the internal lighting of the sign would illuminate the parking
lot.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach asked for the hardship. Mr.
Tatum replied that it needs to be big enough for traffic going 45 miles per
hour. It would be a benefit to the
community to notify them of designated days of free
services.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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 DENY a Variance of
allowable display surface area from 32 sq. ft. to 58 sq. ft., finding
a lack of hardship.
Lot 10, Block 4, The Ben C. Franklin Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 19255
Action
Requested:
Variance of maximum allowable
display surface from 31 sq. ft. to 80 sq. ft. SECTION 602.B.4.c. ACCESSORY USES
PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 21; and a
Variance of constant light requirement to allow time and temperature
display. SECTION 602.B.4.f.
ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located
3820 E. 51st St.
Presentation:
Bill Tatum, 3219 Hedrick Dr., Princeton, Texas, stated that the
upper portion of the sign is lighted and the lower portion is not lighted. There is a digital time and
temperature display on the sign.
There are numerous obstructions by other signs and shrubs. The existing sign would be removed. The other tenants of the building would
be listed at the bottom of the sign.
A sign drawing was submitted (Exhibit F-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach questioned Mr. Tatum about the frequency of change of the time and temperature display. Mr. Tatum suggested 15 seconds minimum, and it could be changed to just one or the other. It is meant to be a public service. Mr. Beach informed Mr. Tatum that 32 square feet is the minimum allowed. Mr. Beach asked for the size of the letters on the tenant directory. Mr. Tatum replied the letters are two inches.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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 Variance of maximum
allowable display surface from 32 sq. ft. to no more than 60 sq. ft.; and a
Variance of constant light requirement to allow time and
temperature display, on conditions that the constant light is for time and
temperature display, and will change no more often than 15 second intervals,
finding the property is across from commercial zoning with competition for
signs, on the following described property:
E 155.00’ N 175.00’ NE/4 NE/4 NW/4 Section 33, T-19-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Case
No. 19256
Action
Requested:
Ratification and approval of a
variance granted in Case No. 18304 allowing the Variance of the required
building setback from the centerline of East 15th Street from 100’ to
62’ for 265’ as shown on a site plan, to permit the construction of the north
wall of the home improvement store 38’ beyond the required building setback from
the centerline of East 15th Street. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 14 & 16; a Variance of the presently
required building setback from the centerline of East 15th Street
from 100’ to 72’ for 30’ near the northeastern corner of the property for the
mini storage facility, office and manager’s quarters. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance of the presently required building setback
from the centerline of East 15th Street from 100’ to 92’ for 30’ near
the northwestern corner of the property for the one mini storage building. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, located S side of E. 15th St., Approx. ¼ E of
Yale.