CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
of Meeting No. 854
Francis
F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza
Level of City Hall
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT |
MEMBERS
ABSENT |
STAFF
PRESENT |
OTHERS
PRESENT |
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Jackere,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
|
Cox,
Neighborhood Inspections |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted at the
City Clerk’s office, City Hall, on
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.
Mr.
Cooper arrived at
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
CONTINUANCES
and CASES WITHDRAWN
Case
No. 19453
Action Requested:
Special Exception to allow a sporting goods store with
1,000 square feet of customer food service area. SECTION
1212.D. USE UNIT 12. EATING ESTABLISHMENTS
OTHER THAN DRIVE-INS, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; and a
Variance from the required 118 parking spaces to 87 parking spaces. SECTION 1214.D. USE
UNIT 14. SHOPPING GOODS AND
SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, located
Presentation:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that the applicant has withdrawn the
application.
Board
Action:
No action was required.
MINUTES
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE the
Minutes of
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Mr.
Beach informed the Board that Mr. R.L. Reynolds asked if Case No. 19481 could be
moved up on the agenda in order to pick someone up at the airport. The Chair agreed to move it to near
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard of 35’ to
18’. SECTION 403.
BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6,
located
Presentation:
Greg Florence,
Interested
Parties:
John Trender,
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White pointed out that the relief is for the house and
porte-cochere.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Florence stated the goal is to match the porte-cochere with the
others in the neighborhood with open beams. The plans are for an increase of eight
inches in height, but no other change in dimensions.
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 required front yard of
35’ to 18’, with condition relief would apply to carport only, no larger, no
more encroachment, no greater increase in height than 8”, and comply with the
plans, finding the existing structure could remain, and it is just being
replaced, on the following described property:
Lot 19, Broadmoor Hills, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW
APPLICATIONS
Action
Requested:
Variance from Section 1212.D. off-street parking and loading requirements
to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 208 to 178 in a 41,699
square foot mixed-use commercial shopping center presently containing Use Unit
11, 13, 14, and 19 in order to permit a 2,585 square foot eating establishment
(Use Unit 12) in the mixed-use commercial shopping center in accordance with the
attached plan. SECTION 1212.D.
USE UNIT 12. EATING ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN DRIVE-INS, Off-Street Parking and
Loading Requirements – Use Unit 11, 12, 13, 14, and 19, located NW/c S. Lewis
& E. 71st
Presentation:
Lou Reynolds,
Interested
Parties:
B.B. Miller,
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham noted the applicant listed only two vacancies, and he did not see any
others when he looked at the property.
Mr. Miller replied there were always a number of vacancies.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Reynolds stated he met with the representatives for AT&T, and
they have no objection to the application.
They understand that the parking will be primarily toward the east end of
the center. He reiterated that
there are only two vacant spaces in the center at this time, and has been a
typical pattern for the last several years.
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 from Section 1212.D.
off-street parking and loading requirements to reduce the number of required
parking spaces from 208 to 178 in a 41,699 square foot mixed-use commercial
shopping center presently containing Use Unit 11, 13, 14, and 19 in order to
permit a 2,585 square foot eating establishment (Use Unit 12) in the mixed-use
commercial shopping center in accordance with the attached plan, with condition
that Suite I be designated for office use only, per plan, finding the placement
of the building makes it unlikely there would be many retail tenants on the west
half or three-fourths of the center, and that to apply the retail code to this
center would be a hardship to the property, as described:
A tract of land that is all of the Sly 195.00’ of the Nly 390.00’ SE/4
SE/4 SE/4 of Section 6,
T-18-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, said
tract of land being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Starting at
the SE/c of said Section 6; thence due N along the Ely line of Section 6, for
271.32’ to the POB of said tract of land, said point being 390.00’ Sly NE/c SE/4
SE/4 SE/4 of said Section 6;
thence S 89º52’03” W and parallel to the Nly line of the SE/4 SE/4 SE/4 for 660.01’ to a point
on the Wly line of the SE/4 SE/4 SE/4, said point being on the Ely line of Yorktown 71
Addition; thence N 0º00’28” E along said Wly line and along the Ely line of
Yorktown 71 for 195.00’; thence N 89º52’03” E and parallel to the Nly line SE/4
SE/4 SE/4 for 659.99’ to a
point on the Ely line of Section 6; thence due S along said Ely line for 195.00’
to the POB of said tract of land.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal of Certificate of Appropriateness on apartments, located NW/c
Mr. Jackere, the City Attorney, questioned the notice as deficient. He pointed out that the ordinance
regarding an appeal states that the notice should specify the grounds for the
appeal.
Paul N. Atkins, IV, asked to address this statement. He informed the Board that he asked the
staff at the time of filing the application if they needed any more information
and they replied he did not. He
asked if they needed any more detail and he was told they did not. Mr. Atkins stated he sent more detail to
Mr. Beach as he requested. Mr.
Beach responded that he asked Mr. Atkins for the grounds, but the information he
received did not include the grounds for the appeal. Mr. White read the appeal. Mr. Jackere stated if he had seen the
information provided with the appeal he would not have raised the
objection.
Presentation:
Mr. Atkins stated he is the President of the Swan Lake Neighborhood
Association. He met with their
Board and discussed the appeal with David Simmons, staff of the Tulsa Historical
Preservation Commission. He
complimented the owner and architects for their efforts to not only meet their
need but also accommodate the neighborhood guidelines. Mr. Atkins stated that the TPC did not
give the owner and architect the direction they needed regarding building in the
historic district. He remarked on
one member of the Board of the TPC, indicating she was not a legitimate member,
causing a conflict of interest.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked for the specific objections to the project. Mr. Atkins responded their objections
are regarding specific ordinances and TPC guidelines. Mr. Dunham asked if the neighborhood
association made their objections known at the TPC meeting. Mr. Atkins replied they did not attend
the meeting because they had previously agreed with the guidelines and expected
the TPC to follow them. Mr. Atkins
stated the TPC did not follow the guidelines, Comprehensive Plan, or Zoning
Code. A site plan was provided (Exhibit
B-1).
Interested
Parties:
Jennifer Gimmel,
David Breed,
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if any of the Swan Lake Neighborhood Association were
present at that meeting. Mr.
Simmons replied that he did not remember and representatives for
Mr. Breed explained the process to the Board regarding the complaint of
the person who was not a legitimate member of the TPC.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Atkins repeated the complaint that TPC did not follow the zoning
ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan on review of this project in approving a
COA.
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 DENY the
Appeal of Certificate of Appropriateness on apartments, and APPROVE the Certificate of
Appropriateness from the TPC.
Lot 8, Block 23, Orcutt Addition, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow two dwelling units on one lot of record (zoned
RS-2). SECTION
207. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING PER
Presentation:
Ron Barnes, 2660
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 to allow two dwelling units
on one lot of record (zoned RS-2); and a Variance of the allowable 500 square
feet for an accessory building to 2,399 square feet, per plan, on condition that
no rental separate from the house, finding the lot is substantially larger than
other lots in the area, storm sewer line making attaching the dwelling units
impossible; finding it will not cause substantial detriment to the public good
or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive
Plan; and to CONTINUE this
case for additional relief, regarding the following described
property:
Portions of Block 17, Third Amended Plat of Riverside Drive Addition,
City of
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a manufactured home in an
RS-1 district. SECTION 401.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS– Use
Unit 6, 9; a Special Exception to extend one year time limit
indefinitely. SECTION 404.E.1.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
REQUIREMENTS; and a Variance to allow three dwelling units on one lot of
record. SECTION 207.
ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER
Presentation:
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham inquired of Mr. Jackere if all three dwellings were there
before 1965 would it be a legal non-conforming
use. Mr. Jackere thought the
property was probably not in the city limits of
Interested
Parties:
Charlotte Ker,
stated she was speaking for her mother,
Monica Barzak,
200 Civic Center,
Bruce Denny,
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper questioned Mr. Denny about when the trailers were moved onto
the property. He indicated that the
information he received was the trailers were moved in around 1973 and
1975. He added that 1966 was when
the city took the property into city limits. He has only lived there since
1992.
Cheryl Jones,
Interested Parties:
Nolan Miran,
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked when Ms. Rivera moved to this property. She replied it was five and one-half
years ago.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Ms. Rivera informed the Board that the she has cleaned up the property so
well that no one could make a complaint.
The Health Department came to the property twice and did soil percolation
test, and there is no problem with sewer.
Mr. Beach offered a 1966 aerial photo to the Board to compare with the
most current aerial. The
Board agreed that the structures shown on the older aerial were not the same as
the existing structures. Mr. Dunham
suggested Ms. Rivera might be able to prove the trailers were there before 1970
then she would not need any relief.
Mr. Jackere had already suggested they would need the variance to replace
the trailer. Mr. Beach stated he
would be willing to see documentation but that staff has spent a long time
helping Ms. Rivera put the application together and she has not produced any
proof so far.
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 to allow a
manufactured home in an RS-1 district; a Special Exception to extend one year
time limit indefinitely; and a Variance to allow three dwelling
units on one lot of record, finding lack of hardship, and finding it would cause
substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and
intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the following described
property:
All of
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback from required 25’ to 1.6’ to permit an existing in
ground cellar in the front yard.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; and a Variance to permit an accessory
structure as a principal use.
SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use
Conditions, located
Presentation:
The applicant was not present and the case was tabled until later on the
agenda.
Turnbo and Cooper out at
W 87.00’ of
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a pool in required front yard. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6; a Variance to allow fence to exceed 4’ in the required front yard, to 6’. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards; a