CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
July 23, 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 |
|
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler
|
Cox,
Neighborhood Inspections |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, July 19, 2002, at 3:30 p.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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr. Jim Beach
read the rules and procedures for the Board of Adjustment Public
Hearing.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action Requested:
Appeal from decision of Tulsa Preservation Commission in granting a
Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a five unit apartment building, located
NW/c 17th Pl. & S. Quincy Ave.
Presentation:
Brent Capehart, 1417 E. 20th, stated he is the
Vice-President of the Swan Lake Association. He added that he was unaware of the
withdrawal of the appeal. He did
not want the neighborhood to lose the opportunity to be
heard.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach responded that the issue was to appeal the decision of the Tulsa Preservation Commission granting a Certificate of Appropriateness for a five-unit apartment building. The TPC withdrew their approval of the request, so there is now nothing to appeal.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Variance of maximum required rear yard coverage from 25% to 54% in an RS-2 district. SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards Use Unit 6, located 1230 Hazel Blvd.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated the applicant has requested a continuance to August 27, 2002. An attorney for one of the protestors
has agreed to that date.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins, Cooper "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 19391 to the meeting on August 27,
2002.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Mr. Cooper arrived at 1:10 p.m.
Action
Requested:
Variance of permitted signage in an OM district. SECTION 602.B.4. ACCESSORY USES
PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located 2424 E.
21st St.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach announced the request for a continuance to August 27, 2002.
Mr.
Johnsen stated that after he filed this application he determined that he might
have a conflict of interest. He has withdrawn from the case. Mr. Charles E. Norman has been hired and
will prepare to present the case.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 19411 to the meeting on August 27,
2002.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
Perkins "absent") to APPROVE
the Minutes of July 9, 2002 (No. 845), as amended.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Review and approval of an amended site plan previously approved with conditions (BOA #19056), located 1432 S. Rockford.
Mr.
Beach reminded the Board that this case was continued so the applicant could
prepare a drawing of what has actually been built. He submitted a copy to the Board
(Exhibit A-1). There are
differences in the original site plan and the work that was actually done.
Presentation:
Beth Mathers, 1401 E. 15th St., stated the Board
required the asphalt to be five feet from the property line, and it is five feet
from the property line. Before they
started digging for the wall she instructed them to check with the neighbor on
the north side and make sure they placed the wall in exactly the right place to
satisfy the neighbor, and he pushed it in two feet. She stated that she put in nicer trees
than were originally listed. The
Photinias were taken out. Ms.
Mathers informed the Board she met with several people from the City regarding
the water drainage. They wanted her
to put in a large pipe for drainage along the wall and take out the
Photinias. She added some Nandinas
against the wall and changed out the dogwoods because there is too much sun
there. She told the Board that on
the west instead of a new fence, they rebuilt three quarters of the old fence as
approved by the neighbor, Mary Lee.
She stated that when they were building the masonry wall the inspectors
red tagged it three times.
Ms. Perkins arrived at 1:18 p.m.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked who maintains the parking lot. Ms. Mathers replied that she does. She added that she used a lawn service
but now her maintenance crew will be doing it. Ms. Turnbo questioned her on why she did
not follow the plan but went by what the neighbor wanted. Ms. Mathers responded that she was
trying to please the neighbor.
Interested
Parties:
Stephen Walter, 1428
S. Rockford, expressed concern that the activities have not gone as
planned. He feels that those
in charge of following the Board Action on this case have not complied. He indicated there was no building
permit posted. The change in
elevation and drainage has caused water run-off onto his property. Mr. Walter stated they did not do a
survey before building the wall.
There was no pre-inspection, no rebar inspection, and no rebar in the
footing. The wall was supposed to
be 135 long, but it is only 123 long.
The wall is supposed to have split-face concrete block and it does not
have it on the north side. He added
that there is not a five foot space beside the wall for proper landscaping. The west fence was supposed to be
replaced with a new fence, but it was partially repaired.
Mike
Clarty,
1415 S. Rockford, stated that the fence was not built to code. He would like to see the project
completed as approved by the Board.
Gayna
Byrne,
1427 S. Rockford Ave., expressed concern for property values. The job was not done correctly and needs
to be redone.
Kevin
Cox,
111 S. Greenwood, stated he is with City of Tulsa Neighborhood Inspections. He noted there was no on-site
water distribution to water the plants.
The building permit was issued after the construction started. He asked the Board that a reasonable
time limit be set that the project could be completed correctly, so they can
enforce the codes. They are
receiving numerous complaints about the property. He was aware of two red tags on the wall
construction because of the footing inspection, and finding no rebar in it. He added that the vegetation was heavily
overgrown and would attract snakes and rodents.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Ms.
Mathers responded that they have cleaned up the property and they plan to put in
sod in the area next to the wall.
She stated that she made arrangements with Mr. Rehorn to have his
employees pick up trash around the parking lot in the mornings. Ms. Turnbo suggested that it would be
better to have it picked up at night before it blows around the
neighborhood.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked Ms. Mathers why she took out the Photinias. She explained that the City told her to
take out the Photinias where the drain was put in. She added that on the plans they gave to
the City they were not in there, and the City approved them. She stated she was going to put in some
bushes, which would do better than large trees. Ms. Perkins reminded her that the Board
told her she had to put the landscaping in. Ms. Mathers replied that the City told
her not to put the trees in there.
Mr.
Cooper asked if someone in the City Storm Water Department has the right to
change the plan approved by the Board of Adjustment as it relates to storm water
issues. Mr. Boulden responded that
they do not, but it appears to be competing areas of jurisdiction. Mr. Cooper commented that the sprinkler
system has not been put in yet. He
also noted that the fence was not new as required.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
Seconded
by Perkins
to DENY
a Review
and approval of an amended site plan previously approved with conditions (BOA
#19056), with condition to come into compliance in 90 days, and cannot use the
parking lot until it is in compliance.
Perkins withdrew her second.
On
Amended MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences")
to
DENY
approval
of an amended site plan previously approved with conditions (BOA #19056), with
condition to come into compliance in 90 days, allowing use of the parking lot,
on the following described property:
Lots 8 and 9, Block 6, Bellview Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to enlarge a non-conforming structure to add a 2nd
story, which will be 2-8½ from the property line. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 1405.
STRUCTURAL NONCONFORMITIES Use Unit 6, located 1544 E. 17th
Pl. S.
Presentation:
Mike Schmitz, 1601 S. Detroit, stated he is the architect for the
project. The house was built around
1925. The existing garage has an
interior length of about 17. The
owner proposes to add 5 to the back to make it usable. The second story has two
small bedrooms without bathroom facilities. They propose to expand the second floor
with bathroom facilities. It would
not be any closer to the property line than the existing garage is now, which is
2 8 ½. TPC has given
approval. A site plan was provided
(Exhibit B-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked the applicant to see that the staff receives a copy of the TPC
letter for the file.
Interested
Parties:
Darla
Holland, 1552
E. 17th Pl., stated she is in support of the
application.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance
to enlarge a non-conforming structure to add a 2nd story, which will
be 2-8½ from the property line, per plan, finding it is in an older
neighborhood with historic preservation, and it would cause substantial
detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the
Code, or Comprehensive Plan, if this restoration was not approved, on the
following described property:
W 60 E 120 of Lot 20, Block 1, Swan Park, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of sign display area and height in an AG district from 32 square feet and 20 in height to 98.6 square feet and 25 in height. SECTION 302.B.2.b. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, Accessory Use Conditions Use Unit 12, located 6825 S. Memorial.
Presentation:
Mike Moydell, 1221 W. 3rd, stated they propose to
elevate a sign for Taco Bueno. The
business is about nine feet below the street level. Site plans were provided (Exhibits
C-1 and C-2).
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 sign
display area and height in an AG district from 32 square feet and 20 in height
to 98.6 square feet and 25 in height, per plan, finding the hardship to be the
change in elevation between the site and the street in front of it, on the
following described property:
All
that part of Lot 1, Block 2, Woodland Hills Mall, Blocks 2, 3, 4, and 5, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, more particularly described as follows,
to-wit: Beg. at a point in the W boundary of said Lot 1, 160.0 from the S-NW/c
thereof; thence due E a distance of 116.0; thence S 0Ί0342
W a distance of 11.0; thence due E a distance of 123.0; thence N 0Ί0342
E a distance of 12.50; thence due E a distance of 12.00; thence S
0Ί0342
W a distance of 0.0; thence on a curve to the left having a radius of 121.38 a
distance of 30.83; thence S 14Ί2934
E a distance of 87.96; thence due W a distance of 276.00 to a point in the W
boundary of said Lot 1; thence N 0Ί0342
E along the W boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 114.17 to the
POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required front setback from 65 from center of street to 55 to center of street for new dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located 3245 S. Florence.
Presentation:
Pat Fox, 320 S. Boston, stated he is the architect for the
project. He informed the Board that
the previous zoning was RS-2, and changed to RS-1. The original house on the property was
removed and they propose to build a new one on the same site. It would be consistent with the setbacks
of the other houses on the street.
The hardship is that the zoning has changed since the other houses were
built. A site plan and letters of
support were submitted (Exhibits D-1 and D-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper noted an elevation in the back yard that could also make a hardship.
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
required front setback from 65 from center of street to 55 to center of street
for new dwelling, per plan, finding it would be consistent with the neighborhood
where the other houses were built before the zoning code changed, on the
following described property:
Lot 16, Block 4, Ranch Acres, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the allowable height for a sign from 50 to 65 with a setback from the centerline of Memorial to 101. SECTION 1221.E. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CG, CH, CBD, IL, IM, and IH Use Conditions for Business Signs Use Unit 21, located 3901 S. Memorial.
Presentation:
James Adair, 7508 E. 77th, stated he was representing
Thomas Cadillac. There is a
two-year old changeable message sign on the southwest corner of the lot. During the street construction and
changing the entrance to the Broken Arrow Expressway on Memorial, a new PSO
utility pole was erected in front of the Thomas Cadillac sign. The pole has already caused the public
to misread the sign, and they have received numerous calls about it. They
propose to increase the height and increase the setback. A site plan, photographs and a sign plan
were provided (Exhibits E-1, E-2, and E-3).
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
allowable height for a sign from 50 to 65 with a setback from the centerline
of Memorial to 101, per plan, finding the hardship to be the elevated
expressway and the location of the PSO pole, on the following described
property:
Lot 1, Block 1, Bond II Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard from 50 to 40 to permit a garage. SECTION 403.A. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE,
RS, RD, RT and RM Districts Use Unit 6; a Variance to permit a detached
accessory building in the front yard.
SECTION 402.B.1.b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use
Conditions; and a Variance of required side yard from 5 to 0 to permit a
carport in an RS-3 district.
SECTION 403.A. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RT and RM Districts, located 1343
E. 20th St.
Turnbo out at 2:29 p.m.
Mr.
White stated he would abstain from Case No. 19407.
Presentation:
Michelle Falkensten, 3319 S.
Yorktown, stated she represents the architectural firm and the owners, Jim and
Donna Murray. She stated they
received the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Tulsa Preservation Council,
which she promised to take a copy to INCOG for the file.
Turnbo returned at 2:31 p.m.
Ms. Falkensten submitted a site plan and photographs (Exhibit F-1). She pointed out the steep terrace up the driveway to the house, and a retaining wall that protrudes to hold the stone terrace. She informed the Board that the studio apartment at the back has never been a garage. There has not been a garage on this site. The plans were prepared to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. This would give them a carport and better access to the house. She submitted a petition (Exhibit F-2) with signatures of forty neighbors in support of the application.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo thought it was a very appropriate design for the neighborhood.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins,
Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White "abstained"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance of required front yard from 50
to 40 to permit a garage; a Variance to permit a detached
accessory building in the front yard; and a Variance of required
side yard from 5 to 0 to permit a carport in an RS-3 district, per plan,
finding it is HP zoning, and finding the elevation differences, it would be
difficult to do any other way, on the following described
property:
Lot 7, Russell and Sills Re-Subdivision of Lots 15 16, Block 28, Park Place Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required front setback from 25 to 17 for a distance of
25 per site plan for addition to warehouse. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 23, located 4640 S. 83rd E.
Ave.
Presentation:
Charles E. Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated that he was
representing the owner of the property.
He submitted a final plat, and photographs, (Exhibits G-2 and 3). He pointed out the unusual design on the
curved street. They platted an
eyebrow cull deeper into the property than would have been necessary to achieve
the same curve. It does not
appear on the other side of the property.
They propose to build an addition to the existing warehouse. He submitted a letter of support
(Exhibit G-4) from Tom McCartney, owner of the property immediately to the north
of the auto shop. A site plan
was provided (Exhibit G-1).
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 required front setback
from 25 to 17 for a distance of 25 per site plan for addition to warehouse,
per plan, finding the unusual configuration of the eyebrow on the street in
front of this building, on the following described
property:
Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, Richpark Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a manufactured home in an RM-2 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6 & 9; and a Variance to allow two dwelling units on one lot of record. SECTION 207. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF RECORD, located 5153 W. 12th St.
Presentation:
Reva Akee, 5343 W. 12th St., stated she owns this
property and she has a developmentally disabled daughter that lives in the small
house. She proposes to place a
manufactured home on the property for herself, her son and his wife. They help in the care of her
daughter. They talked with the
neighbors and no one objected. They
would use the existing driveway.
They propose to place home on a permanent foundation and pave for two
parking spaces, as required.
A site plan and photograph were submitted (Exhibits H-1 and H-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked if the property is in the flood plain. Ms. Akee replied that according to her
insurance company it is not in a flood plain. Mr. Dunham noted that the precedent had
been set for manufactured homes in the area. Ms. Turnbo informed the applicant that
since she did not ask for an extension of the time for a manufactured home it
would be allowed for one year.
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 Special
Exception to
allow a manufactured home in an RM-2 district; and a Variance to
allow two dwelling units on one lot of record, per plan, finding the lot is
large enough to support two dwellings and the configuration of the lot would
make it difficult to split, and to CONTINUE to the meeting on
August 13, 2002 for an extension of time for a manufactured home on the property
described as follows:
S 43.00 Lot 7 and S 43.00 Lot 8 and all Lots 9 and 10, less E 2.50 S 140.00 Lot 9 and less S 140.00 Lot 10, Block 2, Vern Subdivision #2, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback from R zoned districts from 75 to 0 and from 10 where R district is a freeway to 0. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 10; a Special Exception to waive the screening requirement along the lot lines in common with an R district. SECTION 1303.E. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS; a Variance of the 5 landscape strip requirement between off street parking areas and abutting residential areas to 0. SECTION 1002.A.3. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, Frontage and Perimeter Requirements; and a Variance of 15% street yard landscaping to 0%. SECTION 1002.A.1. and 3. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, Frontage and Perimeter Requirements, located S side of Gilcrease Exp. E side of Sheridan Rd.
Presentation:
Darin Akerman, 6111 E. 32nd Pl., stated he was representing the developer for the proposed site. A site plan was provided (Exhibit I-1). There is a canopy proposed to cover a majority of the site basically to the property lines except the Sheridan Rd. frontage. There