CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Francis
F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza
Level of City Hall
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT |
MEMBERS
ABSENT |
STAFF
PRESENT |
OTHERS
PRESENT |
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
|
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the
Office of INCOG,
After declaring a quorum
present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr. Jim Beach
read the rules and procedures for the Board of Adjustment Public
Hearing.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
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 September
10, 2002 (No. 849).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
An extension of time for a period of three years from October 12, 2002 to
commence construction of the residence pursuant to previous approval of two
variances of the required front and rear yards in an RS-1 zoning district,
according to the site plan approved by the Board, located SE/c of E.
30th St. & 30th St. & S.
Victor.
Presentation:
Charles Norman, 2900
Interested
Parties:
Larry Henry,
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 An
extension of time for a period of two years from October 12, 2002 to commence
construction of the residence pursuant to previous approval of two variances of
the required front and rear yards in an RS-1 zoning district, according to the
site plan approved by the Board, on the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 17, Forest Hills, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, less and except a part thereof described as beginning at a point on
the SEly line thereof, 90.10’ SEly of the NE/c thereof, thence SWly for 64.52’ to the SE/c thereof, thence NWly along the SWly line thereof
for 135.38’ to the SW/c thereof, thence NEly on a
curve to the left having a radius of 301.79’ for 83.96’, thence SEly and parallel to the SWly line
of said Lot 1 for 130.12’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, located
Presentation:
Lynn Smith,
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
required front yard from 25’ to 2’ 6”, per plan, 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:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 10, Standard Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr. Cooper arrived at
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a beauty shop in an OL
district. SECTION 601.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 13, located
Presentation:
Nancy Smart,
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham confirmed with Mrs. Smart that they plan to meet the
landscaping requirements. Mr. White
confirmed that the proposed access would be only from
Interested
Parties:
Todd Lang,
Mr. White noted the Board received a letter (Exhibit C-2) from another
interested party. He asked Mr. Lang
how they felt it would affect traffic on
Susan Douze,
Herb
Newman,
Mr. Lang pointed out that the adjacent neighborhoods have both been
designated as historical neighborhoods.
Ms. Turnbo acknowledged that, but stated the
subject property is not included in the historical preservation.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mrs. Smart stated that at this time traffic in and out of the business is
low, and the employees are only part-time.
Mrs. Smart thought there were three or four employees and indicated there
is one chair for hair appointments and three nail stations. Ms. Turnbo
questioned if they would offer tanning booths, massages, facials, and other
services. Mrs. Smart did not
know.
Mr. Cooper asked staff about landscaping requirements. Mr. Beach responded that a five-foot
landscaping strip along the front of the property, and everywhere it abuts the
street except for points of vehicular access. He added that 15% of the street yard
must be landscaped. He stated that
would mean she would lose one or two parking spaces. The Board discussed the traffic that
would be generated from other types of businesses on this site; parking that
would be required; and hours of operation.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 2-3-0 (Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; White,
Dunham, Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
a Special Exception
to permit a beauty shop in an OL district, 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. The MOTION FAILED for lack
of affirmative votes.
The
Board tabled the case until later in the meeting to give Mrs. Smart time to
contact the applicant for more information to help the Board make a
decision.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal of the decision of Tulsa Preservation Commission to permit a certificate of appropriateness for a building permit for new structure on subject property, located 1814 S. Detroit
Presentation:
Mark Thurston, 1720 S. Detroit, stated that he represented the
applicants (listed in the case file) and Maple Ridge Homeowners’
Association. The Board received a
copy of the applicants’ statement of opposition (Exhibit D-1) prior to the
meeting. They appealed the decision
of the Tulsa Preservation Commission because they did not believe the
application submitted complied with the ordinance, as it did not have the
complete information required. They
believe that a member of the commission had a conflict of interest. They also believe that the project does
not comply with the mandates of the ordinance. He identified items missing as, a
list of materials to be used, a site plan, and the dimensions of the location of
the new structure with respect to the fronts of the structures immediately
adjacent to each side of the lot to be built upon. He gave the Board further details,
found in the applicant’s statement of opposition (Exhibit D-1). He asked the Board to either throw out
the decision as inappropriate or send it back to the commission for a proper
application and proper deliberation.
He also mentioned the need for a variance of the front setback for the
project; and that the notice should be an appeal of the decision of Tulsa
Preservation Commission to permit a certificate of
appropriateness.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked for specific objections other than the technicalities
the applicant listed. Mr. Thurston
responded that the objections are the front garages, the house is too large, and
the windows are too few and too small.
Interested
Parties:
Cathy Ambler,
1129 E. 8th St., stated she is a Preservation Consultant. She submitted a copy of her statement
(Exhibit D-2) to the Board. She
stated the new construction does not meet the requirement to maintain the
dominant relationship of the primary and secondary structures. She also mentioned the windows, which
are few and small in comparison to other homes with numerous, large
windows. She expressed concern that
the commission could make a decision without site plans and floor plans. She indicated that a precedent would be
set if the decision was upheld. She
suggested that if the decision was denied it would allow for a better project to
be submitted and encourage other designers to submit acceptable projects.
Johnna Thurston,
1720 S. Detroit, stated she sent a copy of her statement (Exhibit D-3) prior to
the meeting to the Board. Also
included in Exhibit D-3 are photographs and information she submitted at the
meeting. She was part of the group
that was instrumental in obtaining HP overlay zoning for the neighborhood. The HP zoning was to stabilize the
neighborhood and save the character of the historic homes. It was her opinion that the commission
did not do their duty in this case.
She listed previous projects that came before the TPC that were turned
down; or a significant amount of time was spent on details such as materials to
be used for windows. She also
considered the project to be out of character with the neighborhood.
Connie
Desai,
1512 S. Norfolk, stated she has been on the Board of the Maple Ridge Homeowners’
Association for over nine years.
She has served on the Certificate of Appropriateness sub-committee. Ms. Desai stated that the interpretation
of the HP guidelines regarding the subject property is not in keeping with the
content or intent of the guidelines.
This is what the residents of Maple Ridge want the Board to
understand. She noted that some
features in this project may be found among the 300+ homes, but there is not one
property that has all of the violations condensed into one project. Photographs were submitted (Exhibit
D-5).
Joseph
Clayberg,
204 E. 18th St., stated the same complaints as listed above. He is opposed to the project.
David
Breed,
P.O. Box 570976, Tulsa, stated he is the Vice-Chairman of the Tulsa Preservation
Commission. He came to
represent the commission. He
explained to the Board that Ms. deVerges declared at
the beginning of the meeting that she had what might be perceived as a conflict
of interest. The architect on this
project, not one of her accounts, used her bank. The applicant was a co-worker and friend
of hers at the bank, but they did not share the business of the bank in any
specific way. The chairperson of
the commission accepted that explanation as a potential perception but not an
actual conflict of interest.
The certificate of appropriateness sub-committee noted there was no site
plan. Their approval of the
application was conditional requiring a site plan to complete the
application. The site plan was
presented with the application to the commission. Mr. Breed submitted photographs (Exhibit
D-6) to show the Board the way the commission viewed the project within the
neighborhood.
Mr. Cooper asked for the materials list, because he did not have a copy
of them. Mr. Breed responded the
materials were listed on the plans.
Mr. Boulden asked Mr. Breed if there was any
question in his mind that the commission had a complete application at the time
they considered this case. Mr.
Breed replied the commission understood they had the complete application.
Kent
Shell,
stated he is staff to the Tulsa Preservation Commission. He wanted to be sure the Board
understood that the sub-committee reviewed an incomplete application, and did
their part to see the application was completed before it went to the
commission. Mr. Boulden asked if he had any concern regarding the notice of
the application for the Board of Adjustment hearing. Mr. Shell was not concerned and felt the
notice was good. Mr. Shell stated
that the commission does not expect to reach 100% consensus on the design
guidelines. They consider the
desires of the applicant also. Mr.
Shell noted that the commission discussion on the garage was thorough and the
rationale sound. Mr. Shell believed
that the scale of the house, the height, setback, and materials meet the
requirements of the ordinance.
Letters for the appeal (Exhibit D-7) were provided to the
Board.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Thurston pointed out to the Board that he obtained a copy of the
application file. He submitted that the site plan showing the relationship of
the proposed structure as to the fronts of the houses on the three adjoining
lots as required by the ordinance are not in the file, therefore the commission
did not have a site plan as required by the ordinance. He reminded the Board of Section
1051.H.7, the setback definition, and stated no one has had the front setback
information.
David Simmons stated he added the dimensions on the site plan
(Exhibit D-4) after the sub-committee requested it and prior to the commission
hearing. He stated the measurements
are from the sidewalk and are accurate.
Board discussion ensued.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Turnbo to
Uphold the Appeal of the
decision of Tulsa Preservation Commission to permit a certificate of
appropriateness for a building permit for new structure on subject property in
Case No. 19448, the motion DIED for lack of a second.
On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; Turnbo
"nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY the Appeal
of the
decision of Tulsa Preservation Commission to permit a certificate of
appropriateness for a building permit for new structure, on the following
described property:
N 63.40’ of Lots 48 and 49, Block 6, South Side Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a beauty shop in an OL district, located 2112
East 15th Street.
Presentation:
This case was tabled earlier in the meeting. Ms. Smart was not able to contact the
applicant and did not feel she could adequately answer the questions. She asked for a compassionate extension
of two weeks to thirty days to allow Mr. Sembritzky to
return to represent the applicant.
Mr. Dunham encouraged the applicant to meet with the neighborhood, and
discontinue operations until the Board takes action on the case.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, to CONTINUE Case No.
19447 to the meeting on October 22, 02, the motion DIED for lack
of a second.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins suggested the applicant should send a knowledgeable
representative to answer questions from the Board. The Board would like to know the desired
hours/days of operation, number of chairs, type of service, and possibly other
information. Ms. Turnbo stressed that the applicant needs to understand they
must abide by whatever the Board decides.
Board
Action:
On Amended MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to CONTINUE Case No. 19447 to the
meeting on October 8, 2002, and the applicant is to send a knowledgeable
representative, on the following described property:
W 50.00’ N 170.00’ of Lot 5, and E 10.00’ N 170.00’ of Lot 6, Block 1, Maywood Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of average lot width from 200’ to 192.29’ for a lot split
(19422). SECTION
903. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, located 5410 N.
145th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Betty Conatzer, P.O. Box 11, Owasso,
Oklahoma, stated she and her husband want to sell the back 2.5 acres to their
son with a 30’ access road. A
site plan was provided (Exhibit E-1).
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Cooper out at 3:22 p.m.
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 average
lot width from 200’ to 192.29’ for a lot split (19422), per plan, finding each
lot is sufficient in size to be legal and proper access exists to the following
described property:
The N/2 NE/4 SE/4 NE/4 of Section 9, T-20-N, R-14-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of 30’ frontage to 23.8’. SECTION 206. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED – Use Unit 6; and a Variance for the average lot width from 75’ down to 66.5’ to permit a lot split #19425 in an RS-2 district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 2205 S. Delaware Pl.
Mr. White stated he would abstain from Case No.
19450.
Cooper returned 3:24 p.m.
Presentation:
Mike Marrara, 9936 E 55th
Pl., stated he is the surveyor for the applicant to help process a lot split
application. The lot was originally
platted with E. 22nd Street on the north and S. College Avenue on the
east side. In 1988 the streets were
vacated by District Court action and are now a part of the property. The applicant would like to
maintain the least amount of property around the house in the front. She proposed to create a tract
with an access strip for a driveway along the north and sell the tract
behind. A site plan was
provided (Exhibit F-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach questioned Mr. Marrara about the
hardship. He responded that she has
an excess of land but the only way to use it is to create a separate lot. The created lot would be larger than the
required square footage.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-1(Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White "abstained";
no "absences") to APPROVE a Variance of 30’
frontage to 23.8’; and a Variance for the average lot width from
75’ down to 66.5’ to permit a lot split #19425 in an RS-2 district, per plan,
finding the hardship to be the shape of the lot, location next to the highway,
and the prior vacation of the street access, on the following described
property:
Lot 1, Block 3, Bryn-Mawr, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit auto body repair and
painting in a CH district which is within 150’ of an R district. SECTION
701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located 13454 E.
11th St.
Presentation:
David Smith, 1200 W. Englewood St., Broken Arrow, submitted a
packet with photographs (Exhibit G-1) to the Board. He has a lease to buy contract on the
property. He has been making
improvements. He proposes to set up
a used car lot and a small auto body shop with a paint booth for minor
bodywork. He would like to
specialize in classic cars but does not want to be limited to that. He is interested in the historic
preservation of Route 66. He has
discussed his plans with the neighbors and interested parties. He is aware of the need for OSHA
approval of the paint booth. He
would like to have the days/hours of operation of: Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Interested
Parties:
James Mautino, 14628 E. 12th
St., stated that he has talked with Mr. Smith about the proposed plans. He understood that the business would be
for touch-up work, minor repairs, and to display and sell the vehicles. He believes Mr. Smith has the same
vision as his homeowners’ association to promote Route 66. Mr. Mautino
expressed concern for what future owners would do. He stated they are in support of the
application, but would like to have some safeguards that would keep it in
compliance under any future owners.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Smith about storage of inoperable cars. Mr. Smith was agreeable to a limited
number of cars and limited time on the lot. Mr. Smith was questioned about the size
of the building and he was agreeable to a condition to not enlarge the
building.