CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
March 26, 2002, 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 |
|
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 Friday, March 22, 2002, at 11:00 a.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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
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 March 12, 2002
(No.837).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Special Exception under Section 701 of the Tulsa Zoning Code to permit
the building located on Tract One in a CH Zoning district to be used for light
manufacturing as permitted under Use Unit 25. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 25; and a Special Exception under Section 1301.D. to permit
part of the off-street parking required for the Use Unit 25 uses to be located
on Tract Two. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located SW/c E.
9th St. & RR ROW &
NE/c E. 11th St.
& RR ROW.
Presentation:
Mr.
White stated that he would abstain from Case No. 19313. He added that since there was not a
quorum to vote the case would need to be continued to the next Board
meeting.
Charles Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated that he would
like to meet with interested parties.
He would like to present the project and Environmental Assessment Report
that they have had prepared.
Interested
Parties:
The
White City Neighborhood Association submitted information to the Board for
review before the next Board meeting.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
Perkins, Cooper "absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19313 to the meeting on April 9, 2002, regarding the property described
as follows:
Tract 1: Lot 1, less the N 25’ and the W 5’ thereof and the N 200’ of Lot
12, Block 1, Sanford Addition, a resubdivision of Block 26 and vacated E.
10th St. of Blocks 1 and 2, White City Addition; And Tract 2: Lot 1,
Block 70, Glenhaven Addition, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required rear yard in
an RM-1 district from 20’ to 12’.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; and a Variance of
required side yard of 10’ to 5’, for an existing detached garage. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1013 N. Delaware.
Presentation:
Mike Duck, 1013 N. Delaware Ave., stated the City of Tulsa asked
him to tear down a condemned garage on the property. He built another garage on the same site
only wider than the previous garage.
He stated he did not know about the need for a variance. He received a notice from Neighborhood
Inspections after the garage was built.
He had previously applied for a building permit but had it built before
he got the permit. A site plan was
submitted (Exhibit A-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked about the storage building that is also on the property. Mr. Duck wants to keep the portable
storage building. Ms. Turnbo noted
that the contractor applied for a building permit and the notice was sent to
them, but they built the building before they received a permit.
Interested
Parties:
Sandy
Delaria, 1012
N. Delaware, stated he was in support of this application. He stated that the garage is an asset to
the neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked for the hardship to the variance. Mr. Duck responded that there was a
previous garage, which was removed.
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 required rear yard in an RM-1 district from 20’ to 12’; and a
Variance of required side yard of 10’ to 5’, for an existing
detached garage, per plan, finding this is replacing an older dilapidated
structure in essentially the same location, on the following described
property:
Lot 7, Portland Place Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback requirements in a RM-1 district to permit carport and parking 25’ from centerline of East King Street. SECTION 1302. SETBACKS; a Variance of setback and all weather parking surface for parking and use of awning to cover parking space beside house. SECTION 1303. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS; and a Variance of side yard setback to permit accessory building. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 848 N. College.
Presentation:
John W. Moody, 7146 S. Canton, stated he represented Austin and
Susan Hughes, the applicants and owners of the property. He informed the Board they want to
withdraw the variance for the all-weather surface and awning. He submitted photographs (Exhibit
B-2). They built a carport for a
limousine. The contractor informed
them that they did not need a building permit. The building inspector informed them
they would have to get a permit and would need an all-weather surface
driveway. The neighborhood is zoned
multi-family, and there is a four-plex on the west side of the property. The applicant has already paved the
driveway, and cut off five feet of the carport that extended over the easement
and right-of-way. He submitted a
petition with 33 signatures (Exhibit B-3) in support of the application. He pointed out that the street is only
one block long and would not be widened.
A site plan was submitted (Exhibit B-1).
Interested
Parties:
The
interested parties signed the petition as 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
a Variance of
setback requirements in a RM-1 district to permit carport and parking 25’ from
centerline of East King Street, per plan, finding it is consistent with the
neighborhood, and in line with the parking on adjacent properties, on the
following described property:
N 91.88’ of the E 136.625’ of the W 274.125’ of Lot 1, Block 2, Alex
Lewis Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for a duplex in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 7; and a Variance of required side yard of 35’ to 34’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located SW/c I-44 & S. Madison.
Presentation:
Steve Benge, 9945 S. 79th E. Ave., stated the property
has been vacant for years, and abuts I-44.
There are a number of duplexes in the neighborhood and he proposes to
build a duplex. The setback was
changed in the past to 35’, which makes the lot almost unusable for
construction. The house to the west
is built 25’ from the curb.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach pointed out that in a case like this, the code allows an average of the
required setback and the setback of the adjacent building (that is closer to the
street). Mr. Dunham informed the
applicant that the variance is not needed.
The applicant withdrew the request for a variance.
Interested
Parties:
Vince
Hightower,
320 S. Boston, stated 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
Special
Exception for a
duplex in an RS-3 district, per plan, 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, Block 1, Riverview Village 3rd Addition, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for church use in an RS-2 district to allow expansion of existing church. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5; a Variance for existing parking within a required front yard. SECTION 1205.B. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Included Uses; a Variance for required parking from 129 to 124 spaces. SECTION 1205.B. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Included Uses; and a Variance of required setback from a residential district for construction of a new accessory, detached metal storage building. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located 2900 S. Harvard Ave.
Presentation:
William Stoskopf, 3809 S. Troost, stated he represents the
Fellowship Congregational Church. A
site plan was provided to the Board (Exhibit C-1). They propose to add a 5,000 square foot
addition, for classrooms, meeting room, choir room, restrooms, an exterior
memorial garden, and remodeling of existing facility. The zoning is CH on Harvard and R on
29th Street.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked why they don’t move the existing storage building to the south
instead of asking for a variance.
Mr. Stoskopf responded that the variance is not for the existing storage
building and they could remove the building. He added they probably could move the
new building to the south.
Interested
Parties:
George Brewer,
2879 S. Gary Ave., submitted a photograph (Exhibit D-2) to the Board. He stated his property abuts the subject
property on the south and west. He
expressed concern that more storm water drainage would flow onto his
property. He asked for
clarification of the general location for the new structures. Mr. White explained that the Stormwater
Management Department would have to approve plans when it goes through the
platting process. Mr. Brewer
responded that the department has informed him that they could not prevent the
drainage onto his property.
He would not object to this application if they can direct the drainage
into the City drainage system.
Larry
Christian,
2863 S. Gary, stated he has no objection to the application. He did request that exterior lighting be
turned down toward the church property and not toward the residences.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Stoskopf responded that they would direct the lighting toward the church
property. He pointed out the storm
water drainage plans are shown on the site plan. Mr. Dunham asked if they build a new
metal storage building would they remove the existing one.
James
Derby,
4047 E. 43rd St., stated he is Chairman of the Board of Trustees, of
the church. He stated that the
existing storage building is about 6’ x 10’, used for lawn equipment, and has
been there since the 1950’s. They
would be willing to remove it if they are required.
Mr.
Beach informed the Board there is a subdivision plat being submitted this week
and all drainage issues would be taken up at that time.
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 for
church use in an RS-2 district to allow expansion of existing church; a
Variance for existing parking within a required front yard; a
Variance for required parking from 129 to 124 spaces; and a
Variance of required setback from a residential district for
construction of a new accessory, detached metal storage building, per plan,
noting that the variance for the required setback on the new metal storage
building is from 25’ to 15’; and with condition that all outside lighting be
hooded and pointed downward away from the existing neighborhood to the west, on
the following described property:
A tract of land that is part of the S/2 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 17, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, said tract of land being described as follows: Beg. at a point that is the SE/c of said S/2 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4; thence N 89°57’14” W along the S line of said S/2 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4 and along the N line of Harvard Complex, for 659.58’ to the SW/c S/2 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4 and a point on the E line of Amended Lakewood Addition; thence N 0°00’19” E along the W line of said S/2 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4 and along the E line of said Amended Lakewood Addition for 304.22’ to a point that is 25.00’ S of the N line of said S/2 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4; thence S 89°57’12” E and parallel with said N line for 609.55’ to a point 50.00’ W of the E line of said S/2 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4; thence due S and parallel with said E line for 280.00’; thence S 89°57’12” E and parallel with said N line for 50.00’ to a point on said E line; thence due S along said E line for 24.21’ to the POB of said tract of land.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a mobile home in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9; a Special Exception of one year time period. SECTION 404. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS; a Variance to permit two dwelling units on one lot of
record. SECTION 207. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF
RECORD; and a Variance of land area per dwelling unit from required 8,400 to
4,637.5 sq. ft. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 7827 E. 21st Pl.
S.
Presentation:
Janette Featherston, 7827 E. 21st Pl., stated she is
the daughter of the applicant. They
propose to move a 14’ x 40’ mobile home onto her backyard. She indicated it would probably not be
visible to the neighborhood. She
suggested it would be a temporary setup until her mother no longer lived
there.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham expressed sympathy for the situation of the family. He explained that the lot is too small
for two dwelling units, and there are no other mobile homes in the
neighborhood. He also noted there
is no hardship for this variance.
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 Special Exception to permit a mobile home in
an RS-3 district; a Special Exception of one year time period,
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; a Variance to permit two dwelling units on one lot of
record; and a Variance of land area per dwelling unit from
required 8,400 to 4,637.5 sq. ft., finding there is no hardship, on the
following described property:
Lot 3, Block 17, Michael Heights Ext. Addition Resub Part Lot 1, Block 11 (Plat #2317), City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit hotel use within an OH district. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE
DISTRICTS – Use Units 19 and 8; a Special Exception to permit required
off-street parking to be located offsite.
SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS, located SW/c W. 21st St. &
Main.
Presentation:
Roy D. Johnsen, 201 W. 5th, Ste. 501, offered to allow
an interested party to speak in support of the application as part of the
presentation.
Patrick Campbell, 3020 S. Madison Ave., stated he is the President
of the Maple Ridge Association. He
stated that he was not speaking for or against the application, but to express
there are residents in support and in objection to this application. The Maple Ridge Board chose to make no
comment on this project. Many members of the association appreciate the
applicant’s efforts to implement changes in the project and the interest shown
in the neighbors’ input on the project.
Mr.
Johnsen stated he represented Tulsa Portofino, LLC, of which Paul Coury is the
principal. The applicant purchased
this property, which was previously owned by the Jaycees. It is zoned OL, OM and OH, permitting
multi-family dwellings, restaurants, by right, and hotels by special
exception. They propose to build a
high-rise hotel, and an offsite parking garage. Boulder Park Drive is to the west. Veterans’ Park is to the north. Harwelden is to the south. Portofino property is to the east. He suggested that the land use
relationships are most appropriate.
The applicant has met with the Woodward Terrace residents. Mr. Johnsen submitted a letter of
support (included in Exhibit 1, the applicant’s packet) from the Woodward
Terrace Board. A letter from the
Tulsa Arts and Humanities Council is also included in Exhibit 1. Mr. Johnsen
identified three key conditions the applicant offered in this application, as
follows:
The hotel use shall not exceed 48 rooms and shall be located within a mixed-use building containing not less than 32 dwelling units. The mixed-use building shall not exceed 21 stories in height. The mixed-use building shall not contain more than 160,000 square feet.
Mr. Johnsen stated that the residential entry would be from 22nd Street and the commercial entry would be from 21st Street. The plan is conceptual, but the standards listed above would remain applicable.
Interested
Parties:
David
Cordell,
2300 Riverside Dr., stated he was representing Mrs. Lavonn Manny, Meva O’Conner,
Eunice Nolley, Mary Vance, and Ed Mayes.
He felt that many of the residents would have been present at this
hearing if it had not conflicted with a funeral of one of their neighbors. He stated that a number of
residents were opposed to the application because it would obstruct the
view. He expressed concerns
regarding increased traffic, transients and hotel use in their residential
neighborhood.
Carolyn
Boatman,
114 E. 24th St., stated there was no formal vote of the neighborhood
associations regarding support or objection to the application. She was not pleased with the earlier
public statements intended to represent the associations. She hoped the neighbors could continue
to stay in communication with the applicant, as the project develops.
Don
Romine,
112 E. 26th Pl., stated he owns a condominium at Woodward
Terrace. He stated that the
residents at Woodward Terrace were not contacted regarding their support or
objection to the project. He did
not believe that the statements made for Maple Ridge Association were
appropriate representation either.
Sherrie
Cook, 2224 S. Boston Ave., stated she is in
agreement with the concerns expressed by Ms. Boatman and Mr. Romine.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Johnsen stated there is considerable support for the project as shown by the
letters. He reviewed the options of
the OH zoning such as, unlimited height, unlimited floor area, residential use,
restaurants and provision for a special exception for hotel use. He expressed an understanding of the
issues of dealing with change. He
did not consider the argument of obstruction of view to be valid. He suggested that traffic would be less
than a high-rise office building would generate.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins, Cooper "absent") to APPROVE a
Special Exception to permit hotel use within an OH district; a
Special Exception to permit required off-street parking to be located offsite,
per conceptual plan allowing for minor changes, with conditions for entrance on
21st Street to the hotel, and entrance on 22nd Street for
residents; hotel not to exceed 48 rooms and shall be located within a mixed use
building containing not less than 32 dwelling units; building not to exceed 21 stories in
height; and shall not contain more than 160,000 square feet; and to
CONTINUE Case No. 19322 to the meeting on April 9, 2002, to
consider additional relief needed, on the following described
property:
All of Lots 1, 2, 3, and the E 30.00’ of Lot 11, and all of Lots 12, 13, 14, Block 3, Third Amended Plat of Riverside Drive Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, AND a part of Lot 4, Block 3, Third Amended Plat of Riverside Drive Addition, and being more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the SE/c of said Lot 4; thence W along the S line of Lot 4, a distance of 60.00’ to a point; thence N parallel to the E line of said Lot 4 a distance of 89.50’ to a point; thence around a curve to the right having a radius of 38.00’ a distance of 59.69’; thence continuing N parallel to the E line of said Lot 4 a distance of 20.00’ to the N line of said Lot 4; thence E 22.00’ to the NE/c of said Lot 4; thence S along the E line of said Lot 4, 147.5’ to the POB; AND a part of Lot 11, Block 3, Third Amended Plat of Riverside Drive Addition, and being more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the SW/c of said Lot 11, Block 3; thence N along the W line 32.38’; thence NEly along a curve to the left having a radius of 246.58’ a distance of 122.74’ to a point on the N line of said Lot 11, 38.79’ E of the NW/c thereof; thence E along said N line 31.21’; thence S parallel to the W line of said Lot 11, 147.50’ to the S line thereof; thence W along said S line 70.00’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:42
p.m.
Date approved:______________________
__________________________________
Chair
TOP OF PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS INCOG Home