CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
May 23, 2000, 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 |
Turnbo |
Beach |
Jackere,
Legal |
|
Cooper White,
Chair |
|
Huntsinger Stump |
Ackermann,
Zoning
Official |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Friday, May 19, 2000, at 9:48 a.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance,
pursuant to the provisions of Table 2 of Section 903 of the Zoning Code, of the
setback from center line of abutting street (North Yale Avenue) from 100’ to
51’. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS. Variance, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 1303(D) of the Zoning Code, from the all weather
material requirement for off-street parking to a gravel surface for the 15’
driveway shown on the site plans. SECTION 1303. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, located at 2315 North Yale
Avenue.
Staff Comments:
Mr.
Beach stated that staff has received a request for a continuance on this matter
due to new issues that have arisen that may change the notice. He indicated that the applicant would
like to continue this application to July 11, 2000.
There
were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Presentation:
William
D. LaFortune,
2900 Mid-Continent Tower, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, stated that there are several
new issues to be addressed and it may require a new notice for additional
relief.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins,
White, “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Cooper, Turnbo “absent”) to
CONTINUE Case No. 18712 to July 11, 2000 at 1:00
p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Modification of
screening requirement. SECTION
212.C. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, Modification of the Screening Wall or Fence
Requirement – Use Unit 11, 23, 25, & 26; a Variance of requirement for
all-weather surfacing of off-street parking areas. SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
AREAS, and Variance of building setback from 100’ to 80’ within an OL
district. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE
DISTRICTS, located at 13521 East 11th
Street.
Presentation
Roy
D. Johnsen,
201 West 5th Street, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74103, stated that
he represents the owners of Rainbow Concrete facility. This property was before the Board of
Adjustment on an appeal from the determination of the Building Inspector on
April 10, 2000. The Board made a
rule that the landowner would have a 120 days to comply as to screening and the
all-weather surfacing requirement.
Mr.
Johnsen stated that he did not know how the Board would rule on the truck
washout area (Use Unit 26), which could not be located on the IL portion of the
subject property. He explained that
he has appealed the decision of the Board taken on April 10th to the
District Court. In the meantime, he
has filed a preliminary plat and an application for building permits for the
parking area and the fence; however, the permits have not been issued at this
time.
Mr.
Johnsen stated that he is going to request additional relief (special exception)
in the IL portion of the subject property in order to permit the truck washout
area. The previous determination of
the Board was an interpretation of the ordinance, but the Board does have the
authority in IL district to grant the special exception for this type of
relief.
Mr.
Johnsen explained that the Board granted the 120 days to comply regarding the
screening and parking, he feels that this is not the time to hear today’s
application. He requested a
continuance to July 11, 2000 in order to request additional relief and give a
new notice.
Interested
party indicated their agreement with a continuance to June 27,
2000.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins,
White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Cooper, Turnbo “absent”) to
CONTINUE Case No. 18742 to June 27, 2000 at 1:00
p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to allow Use Unit 12, 13, and 14 in an IL district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 12, 13, 14, located at the southeast
corner of East 51st Street and South Garnett.
Presentation
Mr. Beach stated
that Mr. Levinson has requested a continuance to June
13th.
There
were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins,
White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Cooper, Turnbo “absent”) to
CONTINUE Case No. 18743 to June 13, 2000 at 1:00
p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance
of allowable height for existing outdoor advertising sign from 60’ to 95’. SECTION 1221.F.15. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, Use Conditions for Outdoor Advertising Signs, located south of
southwest corner of East 91st Street and U.S.
169.
Presentation
Mr. Beach stated
that Mr. Moody has requested a continuance to June 13,
2000.
There
were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins,
White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Cooper, Turnbo “absent”) to
CONTINUE Case No. 18760 to June 13, 2000 at 1:00
p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the
Board voted 3-0-0 (Dunham, White, Perkins, “aye”, no “nays”, none “abstaining”,
Cooper, Turnbo “absent” to APPROVE the Minutes of, April
25, 2000 (No. 794).
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Action
Requested:
Review
and approval of detailed site plan as required by conditions on BOA #17658, for
property located 1003 North 129th East Avenue.
Comments and
Questions:
This application was continued to correct the legal description in the notice. The site plan to be considered lacks any dimensions or meaningful labels. The Board gave its approval in 1997 subject to a detailed site plan and that is why today’s application was filed. As a graphic concept, it appears to meet the general requirements of the Zoning Code for setbacks, parking layout, landscaped areas, etc., but without enough information, these things are impossible to determine. Staff has no particular concern with approval of this plan as a concept but would point out that the submittal is far from a detailed site plan. The purpose of requiring the plan to be approved before building permits may be released is to be sure the proposed development is as it was represented in 1997. If the Board is satisfied that it is, you could approve this plan today and it would still be subject to all of the detailed requirements of the Code.
Mr.
Cooper in at 1:18 a.m.
Presentation
Wallace
O. Wozencraft,
Architect, 1619 South Boston, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119, representing Church On The
Move, stated that the TV Studio building is fully detailed and drawings
presented to the building and planning departments for the City of Tulsa. The plans have been reviewed, in part,
by the City and is waiting on approval by this Board before being issued a
building permit. He indicated that
specific details of the “180º”
building, which is located in the far north of the subject project, is currently
being developed and will be submitted for detail review by the Building
Inspection Department within the first part of July.
Mr.
Wozencraft indicated that other projects, such as the high school building; bus
barn and a storage building, are conceptual at this time and will be developed
within the next two three to years.
If the staff requires a detail landscape plan and detail structural
drawings he can present them for staff review on the ministry building and the
“180º”
building at this time. He commented
that he is confused regarding how much detail the staff requires for this
Board’s review. He stated that it
was his understanding that the Board wanted the concept plan and location plan
indicating general function and the drawings submitted illustrate
that.
Mr.
Wozencraft explained to the Board which buildings are currently existing, in the
process of waiting for a building permit and buildings that are in the
conceptual phase. He listed the
future plans and buildings as follows: playground facility, skating rink, tennis
court, football stadium, swimming pool and numerous game activities
outdoors.
Mr.
Wozencraft stated that there is ample parking provided for the facility and all
landscaping ordinances will be followed.
He indicated that the setback requirement is not critical because the
church owns a large tract of land and the setbacks are well within code
compliance.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White read the minutes of 1997, which indicated that the condition of the approval included that the applicant return with a detail site plans for the new tracts being added to the overall site prior to building permits being issued for the areas.
Mr.
Beach stated that staff does not have a problem with the Board approving the
subject plan if the Board feels that it meets the requirements and satisfactions
of the motion and condition.
Mr. Jackere stated that the Zoning Code requires no special conditions for a church use. However, it does provide for setbacks and other requirements in the IL district. He pointed out that the application is subject to the Landscaping Ordinance requirements and Zoning Code requirements.
Mr.
Stump stated that the applicant requested a special exception for church use and
it has been granted. The church has
not asked for a special exception for a high school and it is indicated on the
conceptual plans. This conceptual
plan cannot be considered as part of a detail site plan because it has not been
properly advertised as a use and there are no immediate plans for the
development. He suggested that the
Board approve this application as church and customary accessory
uses.
There
were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE the conceptual plan for the church and customary accessory
uses only; subject to all buildings being subject to the detail requirements of
the Code, for the following described property:
All of Trinity Park, A subdivision in City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and being located in an IL zoned district.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit the property to be used as a cultural facility under Use Unit 5,
subject to the Master Plan and Detail Landscape Plan for the East
25th Street frontage.
SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL
USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located northeast
corner of East 25th Street and South Peoria.
Presentation:
Charles E.
Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120, representing the
Tulsa Historical Society, stated that he is requesting a special exception for
an addition to the existing property.
Mr. Norman stated
that his client is requesting the approval of the use of the Southern Travis
Mansion for the headquarters, library, museum and meeting rooms proposed to be
constructed as an addition to the existing building. Mr. Norman submitted a master plan
(Exhibit B-1) and site plan (Exhibit B-2).
He explained that his client has entered into a contract for 99 years
with the City of Tulsa for the joint and shared use of the parking facility
(behind and part of the Garden Center) and the spaces that will part of the
expanded Historical Society property.
He reminded the Board of previously approved parking spaces (11) along
the entry driveway from South Peoria, which may be jointly used by the Garden
Center and the Historical Society.
The staff has pointed out that the eleven spaces along South Peoria are
not to be counted in the proposed site plan.
Mr. Norman stated
that the site plan for the expansion indicates that there will be seven
off-street parking spaces on the south side with a access from East
25th Street. This was
done intentionally so that the new addition would be directed away from the
residential area to the south.
Mr. Norman
submitted a detail landscape plan (Exhibit B-3). This was developed for the south half of
the subject property as part of the concern for the neighbors on the south side
of East 25th Street. The
plans for the addition to the Historical Society Building has been presented to
the neighbors and several informal meetings have been held. The plans have also been presented to
the Garden Center Management and to the Tulsa Park Board. The Tulsa Park Board voted to endorse
the plans for the development of the subject property.
There
were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE the
Special Exception to permit the property to be used as a cultural
facility under Use Unit 5, subject to the Master Plan and Detail Landscape Plan
for the East 25th Street frontage. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5; per plan submitted, finding that 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:
A tract of land beg. at a point 246’ S of the NW/c of Lot 2 in Section
18, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma;
running thence in an Ely direction and parallel to the N line of said lot a
distance 330’; thence N 0º18’ E a distance of 23’; thence in an Ely direction
and parallel to the N line of said lot a distance of 121’; thence in a SEly
direction an on a curve with a radius of 28’ a distance of 43.49’; thence in an
Ely direction and parallel to the N line of said lot a distance of 145.8’;
thence S 0º18’ W a distance of 109.5’; thence in an Ely direction and parallel
to the N line of said lot a distance of 63.6’; thence S 0º18’ W a distance of
109.5’; thence in a Wly direction and parallel to the N line of said lot to the
W line of said lot; thence in a Nly direction and on the W line of said lot a
distance of 224’ to the P.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required parking on lot containing use to allow parking to be
provided on another lot. SECTION
1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS –
Use Unit 5 and a Special Exception for a cultural facility in an IM zoned
district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS, located at 1414 East 4th Street.
Presentation:
Jeff
Whitlatch,
1143 South Newport Avenue, Tulsa Oklahoma 74120, representing the Midwestern
Theater Troup, stated that he would like to request that the Board approve this
application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked Mr. Whitlatch if he has received an agreement letter regarding the parking on another lot. Mr. Whitlatch submitted a letter of agreement for parking on another lot (Exhibit C-1).
Mr. Whitlatch stated that the parking lot proposed is an open lot with no fencing. It is partially paved with 32 spaces and the remainder of the lot is gravel to allow a number of other parking spaces.
Mr. Whitlatch submitted a fact sheet and photographs (Exhibit C-2). He indicated the proposed parking area on the submitted fact sheet.
Mr. White read the letter from Ms. Connolly regarding the proposed parking and her permission to allow the parking on her property with conditions (Exhibit C-1).
Mr. Dunham asked if there will be a conflict regarding the parking and hours of business. In response, Mr. Whitlatch stated that Ms. Connolly’s employees park on the subject property from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Whitlatch stated that the theater would start around 7:00 p.m. and there would be no conflict with parking spaces.
Interested
Party:
Paul
Cane,
representing Ms. Connolly, stated that his client supports this application with
the conditions stipulated in her letter. He explained that when the theaters lease
ends the parking agreement will become void. He indicated that his client would like
the assurance that her property will remain IM zoned.
Mr.
Cane stated that his client would like to be able to use her property for
industrial use and it is important to protect the integrity of the IM
zoning.
Mr.
Jackere stated that the application is for a special exception for a cultural
facility in an IM zoned district and to use a parking lot nearby for the
required parking.
Mr.
Jackere stated that the Board is finding that the cultural use is allowed in the
subject property, as long as there is parking. The Board is further conditioning the
approval by approving this use with the parking on the stated parking lot and
that is acceptable. However, if the
applicant finds that this parking becomes unavailable,
but
he can supply parking elsewhere nearby, then the Board would be hard pressed to
deny the use.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of COOPER, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE Variance of required parking on lot containing use to
allow parking to be provided on another lot. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 5
and a Special Exception for a cultural facility in an IM zoned district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS, finding that the building in question is incapable of providing
any parking; and subject to the condition that the parking must be provided on
the subject lot as indicated, on the following described
property:
Lot 8 & part of Lot 9, Block 19, Lynch & Forsythe’s Addition, Beg. NE/c; thence Wly .32 Sly to point on SL Ely .14 Nly to the POB, AND Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 20, Lynch & Forsythe’s Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and being located in an IM zoned district.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Minor Variance of
front building line of 25’ to 22’ for addition of covered porch garage
extension. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located at 4334 South
Trenton.
Presentation
James
B. Griffith,
4334 South Trenton, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74105, stated that he is the owner of the
home. He indicated that the relief
he is requesting is less than is stated.
He stated that the only relief he is requesting is for the covered
porch. He explained that the garage
extension does not need to be included in the relief
request.
Mr.
Griffith stated that this is a 40-year old residence and he is trying to upgrade
the façade of the home. This would
require removing the existing front porch and replacing with a front porch of a
different design and orientation.
The overall area of the porch will not be any greater than it is now, but
the orientation would be different.
Mr.
Griffith submitted a site plan (Exhibit D-1) and a petition supporting this
request (Exhibit D-2 and 3). He
stated that the neighbors have expressed their support of this
project.
There
were no interested parties wishing to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE Minor Variance of front building line of 25’ to 22’ for
addition of covered porch.
SECTION 403. BULK AND
AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; per plan
submitted on the following described property:
Lot
7, Block 3, Forest Grove Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma, and being located in an RS-3 zoned district.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit a home occupation (clock repair) in an RS-3 district. SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 14, located 530
South 120th East Avenue.
Presentation
Sandra
Nightengale, 530 South 120th East Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128,
stated that in 1988 she started collecting and selling antique clocks. She indicated that currently 90% of the
sales are over the internet.
Ms. Nightengale
stated that her husband started repairing clocks in 1990. She explained that her husband uses a
small building in the back yard, which is 12’ x 24’, for a workshop. She indicated that she usually picks up
and deliver clocks that are worked on.
Occasionally, someone will come to her home for service, but the
customers are asked not to bring the clocks over after 7:00
p.m.
Ms. Nightengale
indicated that none of her neighbors have ever complained to her regarding the
clock business.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked staff if the applicant has been informed about the home occupation requirements. In response, Ms. Nightengale stated that she knows about the requirements for home occupations.
Interested
Parties:
Terry
Hillrickerson, 523
South 120th East Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128, stated that he lives
next to the subject property. He
indicated that the applicant is currently operating two businesses out of their
home. He stated that traffic is
heavy coming and going from the applicant’s home everyday except on
weekends. He expressed concerns
regarding the traffic and children in the neighborhood.
Mr. Hillrickerson
stated that the applicant does not have permits for the two home occupations and
he is opposed to this application.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked
Mr. Hillrickerson if he knew what the second business is for. In response, Mr. Hillrickerson stated
that it is a lawn service.
Mr. Beach stated
that a lawn service is not a permitted home occupation, but this is not before
the Board today.
Mr. Hillrickerson
stated that the traffic is generated by both businesses. He explained that employees come to the
applicant’s home to go to the lawn care site. He stated that the workers clean up the
equipment in the evenings at the applicant’s home. He indicated that the applicant works on
the mowers at their home.
Mr. Cooper asked
Mr. Hillrickerson to be more specific regarding traffic that relates to clock
repair business. In response, Mr.
Hillrickerson stated that cars park on the street and it makes the streets
narrow to where cars cannot pass each other.
Mr. Cooper asked
Mr. Hillrickerson how the clock repair business has inconvenienced him as a
neighbor. In response, Mr.
Hillrickerson stated that UPS makes two to three deliveries to the applicant’s
home a day. Mr. Hillrickerson
further stated that people come to his home by mistake for clock repair and
interrupt his evenings.
Mr. Cooper asked
Mr. Hillrickerson how many times a day do people come to his home by mistake for
clock repair. In response, Mr.
Hillrickerson stated approximately two or three times a
week.
Mr.
White stated that the Board received a petition with 36 names in support of this
application.
The following Interested Parties
indicated their support of this application:
John
Roy,
9018 East 38th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128; Nancy
Creighton, 245
South 120th East Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128.
Rebuttal:
Ms. Nightengale
stated that she was not aware that customers were mistakenly going to her
neighbor’s home for clock repair.
She explained that her address is prominently displayed. She indicated that she does receive a
UPS delivery three to four times a month or once a week at the
most.
Ms. Nightengale
indicated that her husband does own a lawn care service, but he does not repair
the mowers at their home. She
explained that any equipment needing repair is taken to a service center. She reminded the Board that the lawn
care service is not before the Board today.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins
stated that the clock repair business has been in existence for twelve years and
it has not caused a problem.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE Special Exception to permit a home occupation (clock
repair) in an RS-3 district.
SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory
Use Conditions – Use Unit 14, subject to following the Home Occupation
Guidelines, finding that 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 3, Block 14, Western Village Second, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
parking requirements for retail and bingo hall from 672 spaces to 426 parking
spaces. SECTION 1214.D. USE UNIT
14. SHOPPING GOODS AND SERVICES; SECTION 1219.D. USE UNIT 19. HOTEL, MOTEL, AND
RECREATION FACILITIES; Off-Street Parking Requirements, located East of the
northeast corner of East Admiral Place and North 68th East
Avenue.
Presentation:
Rick
Wheeler, Consultant for Tulsa Firefighters, 3025 South Sheridan Road, Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74129, stated that he is requesting a variance from 624 parking spaces
to 426 parking spaces.
Comments and
Questions:
Discussion ensued
regarding the square footage of the subject property. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the square
footage that would be used by the Bingo Hall is 21,742 square feet and
approximately 3,000 to 4,000 square feet of this will be office space and a
kitchen. The game room will be
called “Gators, Billiards & Games” and will have a full-service
restaurant. The game room will
occupy 16,700 square feet. The rest
of the space will be occupied by an existing thrift store.
Mr. Wheeler
indicated that he has never seen more than 25 to 30 cars in the parking lot at
any one time. He indicated that the
thrift store closes at 9:00 p.m.
Most of the bingo business is after 9:00 p.m. and the game room will be
in business from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Mr. Wheeler
stated that he has run the bingo hall for six years and the largest crowd he has
experienced is 424 people and there were 172 cars in the parking lot. He indicated that customers very seldom
come alone.
The
following Interested Parties expressed their
opposition:
Councilor
Roscoe Turner, District 3; Red Garrison,
The
following concerns were expressed by the above referenced Interested
Parties:
The Bingo Parlor
having a bar and billiards; should follow the Code to the letter; customers
throwing trash in the neighborhood; too many bars in the area;
vandalism.
Interested
Parties:
Patty
Kessler, no address given; stated that with the building being empty there
are all types of homeless people living on the subject property. She commented that it would be better to
have something occupying the building to keep down
vandalism.
Tommy
Woods, real estate broker, no address given, stated that on a weekly basis
he has to clean trash that people dump on the subject property. He indicated that homeless people do
hang around the subject property.
He commented that it would be better to have something in the building
and the proposal is a good operation.
After rebuttal and a lengthy discussion it was determined that the Board of Adjustment did not have enough information to take action on this application. The Board suggested that the application be continued to allow the applicant to supply exact square footage; exact uses and supply a detail parking plan.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
CONTINUE Case 18745 to July 11, 2000 at 1:00 p.m., subject to
applicant identifying the exact uses and a detailed parking plan so the relief
can be accurately described.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of maximum display surface area from 32 SF to 98 SF for a
bulletin board. SECTION
402.B.4.a. & b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use
Conditions – Use Unit 5 & 21, a Variance of maximum display area from 116 SF
to 147 SF for a ground sign. SECTION 402.B.4.a. & b. ACCESSORY
USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions and a Variance of
the maximum height from 20’ to 40’.
SECTION 402.B.4.a. & b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located on the southeast corner of East
26th Street and Skelly Drive.
Presentation:
James Adair, 7508 East 77th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma
74133, representing the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepard, stated that the
church is trying to get exposure from the Skelly Drive. The church hired a sign company to
determine the height and lettering necessary to be seen by vehicles along Skelly
Drive.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked Mr. Adair what the hardship would be for the three variances
requested. In response, Mr. Adair
stated that because of the way the land is situated a 20’ sign can’t be seen
from Skelly Drive. Mr. Adair stated
that the letters need to be fifteen inches tall and the marquee will have to be
40’ in height with a 147 SF display area.
Interested
Party:
Kathryn
McSherry,
8724 East 27th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74129, stated that she is
representing the neighborhood association.
She explained that thirteen of the condominiums abut the southeast
portion of the subject property.
She indicated that she is not protesting the sign.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Stump asked Mr. Adair if the proposal will replace the existing signage. In response, Mr. Adair stated that the
proposed sign will replace the existing sign.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE a Variance of maximum display surface area from 32 SF to
98 SF for a bulletin board.
SECTION 402.B.4.a. & b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 5 & 21, a Variance of
maximum display area from 116 SF to 147 SF for a ground sign. SECTION 402.B.4.a. & b. ACCESSORY
USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions and a Variance of
the maximum height from 20’ to 40’.
SECTION 402.B.4.a. & b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, per plan submitted; finding that the
elevation of the subject area and being adjacent/fronting the I-44 creates a
hardship on the following described property:
All that part of the NE/4 of SW/4, Section 13, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM,
more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the NE/c of NE/4 of SW/4 thence
N 89º53’38” W a distance of 60.0’; thence S 55º30’17” W a distance of 325.69’;
thence S 48º34’30” W a distance of 320.44’; thence S 00º05’26” E a distance of
159.64’; thence E 568.64’; thence N 00º02’00: W a distance of 556.0’ to the POB,
AND Lot 1, Block 1, Beekman Place, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of street frontage requirement of 150’ to 0’ for proposed
lot-split. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located on 9141 South
Yale.
Presentation:
J.
Anthony Miller,
no address given, representing GTB Properties, stated that he is seeking a
variance from the 150’ street frontage requirement in order to permit a
lot-split.
Mr.
Miller indicated that his client would like to divide the subject property into
two tracts. Tract A would have an
office building constructed and Tract B would have a
mini-storage.
After
a lengthy discussion it was determined that the applicant may need to advertise
for additional relief regarding signage.
Staff informed the applicant that the new sign plans and new notice
information must be submitted before May 25, 2000 in order to continue this
application to June 27, 2000.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham,
Perkins, White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
CONTINUE Case No. 18747 to June 27, 2000.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a monopole in an OL zoned district. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 4 and a Variance of 110% setback requirement of 55’
from O, AG, or R district down to 8.3’ and 14’. SECTION 1204.C.3. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES, Use Conditions, located 1618 East 15th
Street.
Presentation:
Roy
Johnsen,
201 West 5th, Suite 501, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, representing Randy
Fife, AT&T Wireless Services, stated that after the Engineers of AT&T
studied the subject area, it was determined that a tower is needed on the
subject property in order to provide cellular phone service to their
customers.
Mr.
Johnsen stated that the actual application involves the west 40’ of the subject
lot, which derives its access from an alleyway. Mr. Johnsen submitted a site plan
(Exhibit G-1) and described the surrounding properties and their zoning.
Mr.
Johnsen explained that the Code requires a 110% setback from office or
residential properties. He stated
that a 50’ wooden-monopole is proposed with a flush-mounted-panel antenna. The setback for this tower would be
calculated at 55 FT. If the
measurement is taken from the monopole location to the nearest residential
property the setback is met. The
setback cannot be met to the south, east and west of the office-zoned
property.
Mr.
Johnsen demonstrated the view of the proposed site and indicated that the tower
will be setting in a corner of two buildings that abut each other. He commented that this is an unusual
location, but a good location. The
south has an existing screening fence and his client will complete the screening
fence on the west side. Mr. Johnsen
submitted a photograph (Exhibit G-2) and a concealment design plan (Exhibit
G-4).
Mr.
Johnsen submitted a letter from the RF Engineer (Exhibit G-3), which identifies
the need for the proposed tower.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if the surrounding buildings were 30’ in height. In response, Mr. Johnsen stated that he
thought that the buildings are probably around 20’ in height. Mr. Johnsen further stated that the
existing utility poles are approximately 35’ to 40’. Mr. Dunham stated that the proposed
tower would be approximately 30’ above the buildings.
Regarding
the architectural design, Mr. Johnsen indicated that the size of the building is
12’ X 28’ with pebble finish on exterior as customary for AT&T, and 11’ to
12’ high. Mr. Johnsen stated that
the plan was to put the screening fence to replace the chain link fence on the
west boundary along the alley, and he did not see the need for any
landscaping.
Interested
Parties:
Chip Atkins, 1638 E. 17th Pl., stated he is the
president of Swan Lake Neighborhood Association. Mr. Atkins provided photos to
the Board. (Exhibit G-2) He added that he is a homeowner and manager of property
at 1613 E. 16th Street and at 1531 S. Trenton. The neighbors conducted an
informal random survey of people that were home, of the adjacent property owners
on Trenton, Troost, 16th Street, and between 14th Street
and 15th Street regarding this application. He stated that they did not find any
neighbors that were in favor of this application at all. Mr. Atkins mentioned that this property
is part of the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Atkins listed a couple of questions:
(1) Did the FCC get approval for this to be located in a National Register
Neighborhood?; (2) Has AT&T has any loans outstanding to the federal
government or has paid their FCC licensing to the federal government for their
past registration? Mr. Atkins
stated that this proposal is supposed to go before the Tulsa Preservation
Commission, and he indicated that they have not. He commented that the address given for
the subject property does not exist.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Stump pointed out that there is an OL lot to the west across the alley that is
less than 55’ from the site, and the OL lots to the east and south are less than
55’. Mr. Beach stated that if the
Board is inclined to grant this request, it would be a reduction of the setback
from the east down to 8.3’, from the south down to 36’, and from the west down
to 51.7’.
Board
discussion ensued.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins,
White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow a monopole in
an OL zoned district; and a Special Exception of 110% setback
requirement of 55’ from O, AG, or R district down to 8.3’ and 14’, per plan,
finding that 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:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a wireless communications facility in an AG
zoned district. SECTION
301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 4, located 4622 South 193rd
East Avenue.
Presentation:
Roy Johnsen, representing Randy Fife, stated that the owner owns a five- acre tract that adjoins a 2.5-acre tract. He stated that the 120’ monopole is 363’ from the west boundary, 600’ from the east, 165’ from the north boundary and 165’ of the south boundary. He added that it is designed to permit co-location.
Comments and
Questions:
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins,
White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow a wireless
communications facility in an AG zoned district, per plan, finding that 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:
The N 330’ of the E 660’ of the NE/4 of the SE/4 of Section 25, T-19-N, R-14-E, of the IBM, containing 5 acres, more or less, subject to a private roadway easement over the following described portion thereof: beg. at a point 50’ N of the SW/c thereof; thence S 50’; thence E along the S line thereof 660’; thence N 25’; thence W, parallel to the S line thereof, 616.70’; thence NWly along a curve to the left of radius of 50’ to the POB together with the W 328.39’ of the N 332.95’ of the E/2 of the NW/4 of the NE/4 of the SE/4 of Section 25, T-19-N, R-14-E of the IBM, subject to a private roadway easement over the following described portion thereof; Beg. at a point 52.94’ N of the SE/c of said tract; thence Ely along a curve to the right of the radius of 50’ to the POB, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18753
Action
Requested:
Minor
Variance of the required 30’ setback from front to 29.2’ for existing dwelling.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 4168 East
46th Street.
Presentation:
Judy Cooper, owner of the subject property, located at 4168 E.
48th St, stated that Cynthia McGrew is the realtor for the buyer of
this property. She stated
that the house was built in
1955, and the minor variance is creating a hardship on acquiring title insurance
for the buyer.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins,
White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE a Minor Variance of the required 30’ setback
from front to 29.2’ for existing dwelling, finding that the encumbrances are
unnecessary given the location of the property, and finding that 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 4, Block 9, Patrick Henry Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18754
Action
Requested:
Variance of the building setback from the centerline of Sheridan required
by Section 603 from 100’ to 65’ in accord with the site plan approved by the
Board. SECTION 603. BULK AND
AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, located 7901 South
Sheridan.
Presentation:
The
applicant, Charles Norman, represented Glen Shaw, the owner of the
subject property. He bought the
vacant property with an existing house, which was about 50 years old, vacant,
and very dilapidated. Mr. Norman
provided photos and a sit plan to the Board. (Exhibits I-1 and I-2) This Board of Adjustment had allowed
temporary approval of retail use.
At the time Mr. Shaw purchased the property, the house was being used for
storage. The applicant removed an
old screened in porch to reconstruct within the boundaries of the former
structure. Mr. Norman pointed
out that about 25’ of the original structure extends out past the setback, even
if this variance is not approved, and would be
non-conforming.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins,
White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE a Variance of the building setback from the
centerline of Sheridan required by Section 603 from 100’ to 65’ in accord with
the site plan approved by the Board, finding the hardship to be the existing
home has been there for many years, on the following described
property:
Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Deer Hollow Estates, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18755
Action
Requested:
Variance of the parking area setback under Section 1302.B. from 50’ to
30’ from the centerline of East 34th Street. SECTION 1302.B. SETBACKS – Use Unit 10; a Special
Exception under Section 212.C. or a Variance of the requirement of Sections
504.B., 1302.A. and 1302.E. of the Zoning Code requiring the north and west
boundaries of the subject property to be screened from the adjacent RS-3 zoned
existing parking lots. SECTION 212.C. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, Modification
of the Screening Wall or Fence Requirement or SECTION 504. GENERAL USE CONDITIONS IN THE PARKING
DISTRICT and SECTION 1302.A. & E.
SETBACKS; and a Variance of the requirement of Section 1002.A.3.
requiring the off-street parking areas to be separated by landscaped area not
less than 5’ in width from the north and west boundaries adjacent to the
existing off-street parking lots. SECTION 1002.A.3. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS,
Frontage and Perimeter Requirements.
Presentation:
The
applicant, Charles Norman, stated this application is a follow-up to the
re-zoning of this property by the City Council. He stated this is an effort to provide
more parking to the area. Mr.
Norman submitted a site plan (Exhibit J-1) to the Board with proposed landscape
plan.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, White “aye”,
no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a
Variance of the parking area setback under Section 1302.B. from
50’ to 30’ from the centerline of East 34th Street, finding that it
is consistent with other parking in the area and it was of a more comprehensive
plan to solve the parking problem in the area; a Special Exception
under Section 212.C. requiring the north and west boundaries of the subject
property to be screened from the adjacent RS-3 zoned existing parking lots,
finding that 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 the requirement of Section 1002.A.3.
requiring the off-street parking areas to be separated by landscaped area not
less than 5’ in width from the north and west boundaries adjacent to the
existing off-street parking lots, per plan, finding that it abuts existing
parking, on the following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18756
Action
Requested:
Variance
of Section 403 of the allowable height in a RS zoned district from 35’ to 95’
for church steeple and structure. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located SE/c 87th E. Ave. Skelly
Dr.
Presentation:
Roger Coffey and Nathan M. Koch, with Olsen, Coffey
Architects, representing Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd, at 8730 E. Skelly
Drive presented a packet (Exhibit K-1) with site plan, proposals and
elevations.
Chair White stated he would
abstain from this case.
Interested
Parties:
Catherine McSherry, 8724 E. 27th St., president of the
Beekman Place Property Owners Association, stated that they have no objection to
the steeple or church. The
association members are concerned about the provisions for stormwater
drainage.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham suggested that the interested parties meet with the church representative
and review their drainage plans, and the City Stormwater Management
Department. This Board does
not address the drainage issues.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
The
applicant stated that the church has grown, and desires to meet more of the
needs of the community with Child Development Center.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked for the hardship to be stated. The applicant stated that for the pitched roof to fit with the existing roof, and enlargement of the facility for the balcony and pipe organ, it requires greater height.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 3-0-1 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins,
“aye”, no “nays”, White “abstained”, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a
Variance of Section 403 of the allowable height in a RS zoned
district from 35’ to 95’ for church steeple and structure, per plan submitted,
finding that it will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or
impair the purposes, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive Plan, on the
following described property:
All that part of the NE/4 of the SW/4 of Section, 13, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the NE/c of the NE/4 of the SW/4; thence N 89º53’38” W a distance of 60’; thence S 55º30’17” W a distance of 325.69’; thence S 48º34’30” W a distance of 320.44’; thence S 00º05’26” E a distance of 159.64’; thence E 568.64’; thence N 00º02’00” W a distance of 556.0’ to the POB; and Lot 1, Block 1, Beekman Place all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18757
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 403 required setback from rear lot line from 25’ to
5’ for carport. SECTION 403.
BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 4511
South Lewis Place.
Presentation:
The
applicant, Stephen Olsen, with Olsen, Coffey Architects, stated he
represented the owners. There has
been no opposition in discussion of this application with the neighbors. He provided a plot plan (Exhibit
L-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach established that the subject
area is actually the side yard and a 5’ setback is allowed.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Perkins,
White “aye”, no “nays”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) that no relief is
necessary for the applicant to build the plan that was submitted, after
determining that 45th Street is the front yard, the south property
line is the rear yard, and the area involved is the side yard, which has only a
5’ requirement, on the following described property:
W 145’ of Lot 6, Barrows Orchard Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18758
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to operate an auto repair shop in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located Northwest corner East 21st Street & Lynn Lane.
Presentation:
Marcus S. Wright submitted photos (Exhibit M-2) and pointed out
that the sports complex is across the street, across the corner is a similar
facility under construction, the Lynn Lane Reservoir and water treatment
facility are just down the road, a residence is located on AG zoned property on
the west, and a residence to the north on the west boundary of that
property. The subject property is
commercially zoned at this time and does require a special exception for an auto
repair facility, with no auto bodywork.
The plan is for six bays and an office space.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if the repairs would all be done inside. Mr. Wright replied in the
affirmative. Mr. White asked if
there would be any painting. Mr.
Wright stated there would be no painting work. Ms. Perkins asked about parking for cars
awaiting repair. Mr. Wright stated
cars would be parked inside when there is sufficient room, and at times cars
would be parked outside until they are repaired.
Interested
Parties:
Wayne Chessler, 1922 S. Lynn Lane, stated his property abuts the
subject property on the north side.
He reminded the Board that the area is being developed and mentioned the
new sports complex. He presented a
petition of opposition to the application (Exhibit M-3) with 36 names of
homeowners. He described the
surrounding property and indicated that no sewage is available in that
area.
Bruce Denny, 905 Lynn Lane Road, stated he represents the Lynn
Lane Neighborhood Association. He
states that they are opposed for the reasons stated by the previous speaker; and
concerned that it is incongruent with the facilities on the opposite
corner.
Mike Rowe, 17331 E. 21st St., stated that his property
abuts the subject property on the west.
He provide a drawing, and stated that such a business could not be placed
on 21st Street or Lynn Lane as the applicant proposed because of the
creek and the high-pressure gas line.
He repeated the above concerns, and reminded the Board that all
surrounding property is AG zoned.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins asked why sewage is such a concern for this property. Mr. Rowe responded that with the presence
of the creek, pond and gas line there will not be much room to place a septic
tank.
Interested
Parties:
Mr. Pickering, 1726 S. Lynn Lane Rd., stated his concern that
there would be an excessive number of cars parked outside.
Robert Haymes, 1801 S. Lynn Lane, James Mautino, 14628 E. 12th St., and Councilor Art Justis, 1302 S. 122nd E. Ave. stated concerns as those above.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Wright stated that any business that would choose to build on the property would
need the City Public Works to address the concerns mentioned today. The residential owner on the west knew
when he purchased his property that this corner was zoned commercial.
Board discussion regarding
the opposition ensued.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 2-2-0 (Dunham, White “aye”,
Cooper, Perkins “nay”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to DENY
a Special Exception to operate an auto repair shop in a CS zoned
district, finding that 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
MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 2-2-0 (Cooper, Perkins “aye”,
Dunham, White “nay”, no “abstentions”, Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE a Special
Exception to operate an auto repair shop in a CS zoned district, finding
that 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.
Motion to approve failed for lack of three affirmative votes. Approval not
granted, on the following described property:
SE/4 of SE/4 of SE/4, Section 11, T-19-N, R-14-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18759
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to Section 401 to allow a church and related uses in an
RS-2 zoned district. SECTION 401.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5,
located Southeast corner East 4th Street & 130th East
Avenue.
Presentation:
Charles Chief Boyd, 1616 E. 16th St, Suite 500, came
requesting a Special Exception to allow a church in an RS-2 district. He stated he is the architect for
Cornerstone Hispanic Church and offered a conceptual plan.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, White, Perkins,
Cooper “aye”; no “nays”; no “abstentions”; Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE a Special Exception to Section 401 to allow
a church and related uses in an RS-2 zoned district, with conditions of
landscaping and other building requirements be met, finding that 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:
Block 5, Meadowbrook Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.18761
Action
Requested:
Variance
of setback from 25’ to 15’ for fence. SECTION
215. STRUCTURE SETBACK
FROM ABUTTING STREETS – Use Unit 6; and a Special Exception of the required
front yard fence height to 8’. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions
in Required Yards, located 1357 East 27th
Place.
Presentation:
The
applicant, Malcolm Rosser, 321 S. Boston, stated he represents the owner
of the property. They are building
a single-family residence to be used as their principle residence. He stated that the property fronts on
East 27th Place, that runs from Peoria to the entrance of Philbrook
Museum. The applicant proposes to
build a new fence to replace the existing fence on the front of the
property. It is similar to the
existing fence but lower with fewer columns.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Rosser continued that the base and columns would be the same materials as the
exterior of the house, fewer columns; and would be placed on the existing
footings. In addition, they want to
construct a setback gate that would allow a vehicle to pull in without having to
go through the gate.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, White, Perkins,
Cooper “aye”; no “nays”; no “abstentions”; Turnbo “absent”) to
APPROVE a Variance of setback from 25’ to 15’ for
fence and a Special Exception of the required front yard fence
height per plan, finding that 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:
A part of the N/2 of Lot 3, Section 18, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18764
Action
Requested:
Refund of on application expenses paid at the time application was
made.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach stated that staff recommends a refund of $140.50 on this application that
has been withdrawn.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, White, Perkins,
Cooper “aye”; no “nays”; no “abstentions”; Turnbo “absent”) to APPROVE
a Refund of $140.50, as recommended by the staff.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:24 p.m.
Date approved:______________________
__________________________________
Chair