CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
July 25, 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 |
|
Beach |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper |
|
Butler |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
White,
Chair Turnbo |
|
Stump |
Ackerman,
Zoning
Official |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Monday, July 24, 2000, at 8:30 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 1:11 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted to 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of June 27,
2000 (No. 798).
Action
Requested:
For the Board of
Adjustment to reconsider its decision in the referenced case that was
made in a public hearing on July 11, 2000.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated
that Tower Heights Neighborhood Association made a request for re-advertisement
of this case to be re-heard by the Board of Adjustment.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
Mr. Prather to explain the procedure for Reconsideration of a case. Mr. Prather explained that one of the
members that voted for the case in the previous Board action would need to make
a motion to reconsider. There would
need to be an extraordinary circumstance, such as the Board has exceeded their
jurisdiction, or there was some sort of mistake in the rule, or similar
problem. To be extraordinary, it
would need to change the whole tenor of the issue. Mr. White brought up the three issues
listed by the applicant. Mr.
Prather stated that he saw no legal reason to re-hear the case.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Perkins,
the Board voted 3-2-0 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye"; no White, Cooper "nay";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
Case No. 18742 to re-advertise.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
Section 1217.C.2 to allow open-air storage or display of automobiles offered for
sale within 300 of an R zoned district to 0. SECTION 1217.C. USE UNIT 17. AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, Use
Conditions Use Unit 17, located S of SW/c E. 11th St. & S.
145th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Robert
Flynn, P.O. 799, Tulsa, OK, stated he was an attorney representing Andy
Flynn. It was his opinion that the
Board of Adjustment (BOA) Action of 18 years ago, regarding when uncle started
his business, needed some housekeeping.
He stated that the BOA allowed him to operate a car lot, permitting the
sale of automobiles and or mobile homes in a CS district, with a screening fence
required on the south and west sides, and a hard surface parking lot to run with
this owner only. He added that they
did not specifically state that they would also allow him to display cars on the
hard surface parking lot, which seems to be contradictory.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Flynn about the outside storage of stacked tires and old batteries. Mr. Flynn responded that someone who leased the property had allowed this but it has been cleaned up since that time. He stated that the applicant only desires to display automobiles; motor homes rather than mobile homes, campers, and similar things on the hard surface lot. Mr. Dunham commented that this application is only for that portion of the lot that fronts on 145th and only on the paved area.
Protestants:
James Mautino,
14628 E. 12th St., submitted an information packet to the Board
(Exhibit A-1). He
stated that Use Unit 17 has two conditions for fencing, and that within a CS
district not outside display within 300 of an R district. He stated that for several years the
applicant leased the property, and it was used for storage on bare ground, the
pole barn was used for a garage and repair. He added that neighbors were disturbed
at all hours of the night.
Neighborhood Inspections cited Mr. Flynn, and the towing service was then
cleared out and the property cleaned up.
Mr. Mautino informed the Board that in 1999 the property was leased to a
tire wholesaler that brought in two semi-truck loads of used tires and stacked
them on bare ground, and put up a screening fence. When a third truckload of tires was
brought in, Code Enforcement stopped the process. Recently a used car lot was
established and the pole barn has again been used for repairs. There are signs of detail work and
painting. The pole barn is 13 from
a residential property line, where young
children
play. Four high intensity lights
were installed on a high pole, and shine on the neighboring property. Mr. Mautino also stated concern
regarding some 55-gallon barrels and what they may contain that have been stored
on the subject property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked Mr. Prather if the Board were inclined to deny the application,
would the BOA actions in 1982 and 1989 be in effect. Mr. Prather responded that the previous
actions would be in effect.
Protestants:
Randy
McPhearson,
14326 E. 11th St., to the west of the subject property, stated
concern about more paving that could cause excess water run-off onto his
property. He had a complaint
that the lighting on the subject property was too bright and much of it is
directed toward his property.
Eck
Ruddick,
P.O. 6920177, stated he is in the Tower Heights Neighborhood Association. He shared his concern regarding
the wrecker service that was allowed to use the property, on an unpaved surface,
and use alarm lights and sounds, all hours of the day and night. He stated that the cars disappear on
Tuesdays and are returned on Fridays.
Mr. Ruddick mentioned the possible dangers of paint fumes to the children
that play in the yard next door.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked if anyone in the neighborhood contacted the EPA about the barrels. Mr. Ruddick replied that they only recently took the pictures of the property and had not contacted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as yet. He informed the Board that the neighborhood association has a meeting with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on July 26, 2000, and the subject will be addressed.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Flynn stated his belief that the need in this case is for the Board to do housekeeping to accomplish what the applicant attempted to do in 1982. He recognized that those who had leased the property in the past did not comply with the zoning code. The applicant was relieved to have the Neighborhood Inspections citation to facilitate breaking the lease so that he could clean up the property. Mr. Flynn stated that the presence of the barrels and their contents would be brought to the applicants attention. His request was that the applicant be permitted to display automobiles on the hard surface parking lot.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Mr. Flynn to reiterate the hardship for the Variance. Mr. Flynn stated that the hardship is the time and money the applicant spent to meet the requirements for a hard surface and screening if he cant display cars on the hard surface he was instructed to put in for parking cars. Mr. Cooper asked if Mr. Flynn would be willing to put in shields for the lights. He replied that this would be a good idea, and he thought the applicant would be willing to shield the lights. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Flynn to suggest established operating hours that would be agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Flynn indicated whatever is usual and customary, or what is reasonable to the Board.
Board discussion
ensued regarding the legal description, portion of property involved in the
action requested, lights, and hours of operation.
Board
Action:
Mr.
Dunham
made the MOTION
to CONTINUE
Case No. 18790 to August 8, 2000.
The motion failed for lack of a second. After further Board discussion Mr.
Dunham
WITHDREW
the motion to continue.
On MOTION
of Cooper,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance
of Section 1217.C.2 to allow open-air storage or display of automobiles offered
for sale within 300 of an R zoned district to 0, finding the
hardship to be an administrative matter to clean up the prior Variance, and to
place restrictions that lights be shielded and pointed downward, auto
sales only, operable cars only, hours of operation be 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, paved surface for autos on display, and all of Lot 1
and east 31.4 of south 150 Lot 2, a screening fence along the south and west
boundary properly installed, and finding that it will not 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:
S 150 of Lot 1 and all Lot 2
less and except the E 31.4 of the N 150 thereof, Block 1, Maudlin
Resubdivision Lot 1, 2 and 7, Block 2; Eleventh Street Acres, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18794
Action
Requested:
Variance of
required street frontage in a CS district of 150 down to 83 for lot split
purposes. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, 6501 E. 71st St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Larry Pennington, 9718 E. 55th Pl., stated his request,
describing the portion of the property involved in the case. He indicated the need to move the access
on Sheridan further north. The
hardship is that current driveway is so steep that trucks hang up on high
center.
Protestants:
None.
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 street frontage in a CS district of 150 down
to 83 for lot split purposes, per plan, with the condition that no access on
remaining 83 frontage on Sheridan, and the intention of the Board is that the
83 continue to be tied with the remainder of Lot 3, finding the hardship to be
the elevation changes to the corner, on the following described
property:
All of Lot 3, less the east
20 and less a parcel in the NW/c of Lot 3, more particularly described as
follows: Beg. at the NW/c of Lot 3; thence E 180 to a point; thence S 295.01
to a point; thence W 180 to a point on the W line of Lot 3; thence N along the
W line of Lot 3 a distance of 295.01 to a point beg. and less, Beg. at a point
20.00 due W of the SE/c of said Lot 3; thence due W along the S line of said
Lot 3, a distance of 125.00 to a point; thence due N a distance of 226.90 to a
point, said point being on the NEly property line of said Lot 3; thence S
61Ί3520 E a distance of 0.00; thence SEly along the NEly property line of
said Lot 3 on a curve to the left, said curve having a central angle of
11Ί0938 and a radius of 680.00, a distance of 132.46 to a point; thence S
1Ί0059 E on a line 20.00 W of the E line of said Lot 3, a distance of 175.62
to the POB, Block 1, Plaza Village, an Amended Plat of Skyview Center, an
Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, And less and
except: A parcel of land lying in Lot 3, Block 1, Plaza Village, an Amended Plat
of Skyview Center, being more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
Commencing at the SW/c of said Lot 3, said point also being the SE/c of Lot 4;
thence N between Lots 3 and 4, 10.00 to the POB; thence E and parallel to the S
line of Lot 3, 132.60; thence N 10.00; thence W and parallel to the said S
line 132.60; thence S along the Lot line between Lots 3 and 4, 10.00 to the
POB. And less and except: A part of
Lot 3, Block 1, Plaza Village, an amended plat of Skyview Center, being more
particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at the NW/c of Lot 4, Block 1;
thence N 00Ί0537 W, along the W line of Lot 3, a distance of 46.67; thence N
89Ί5423 E, a distance of 140.50; thence S 00Ί0537 E, a distance of 30.00;
thence N 89Ί5423 E, a distance of 61.00; thence S 00Ί0537 E, a distance of
197.00; thence N 90Ί0000 W, a distance of 1.50 to the E line of said Lot 4;
thence N 00Ί0537 W along the E line, a distance of 180.00 to the NE/c of said
Lot 4; thence N 90Ί0000 W, along the N line of said Lot 4, a distance of
200.00 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit tire sales and auto repair in a CS district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 17, located 12545 E. 21st St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
F.L. Swanson, 11421 S. Granite Pl., stated he sent a letter to the Board
and a survey, and asked if it was received. Mr. White responded that the letter was
not received but the survey was received.
Mr. Swanson stated that he desires to allow his tenant to continue a tire
sales business and auto repair. He
was willing to build the screening fence.
The property was previously used for a gas station and tire sales. He was unaware that the business was not
in compliance with the zoning.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White stated
that the Special Exception approved by the Board of Adjustment in 1983 allowed
the lot to be split into 60 and 90 sections and limited the west bank to
automobile sales only. He asked the
applicant if he wanted the Special Exception to cover the entire 150. Mr. Swanson replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Beach stated
that a citation was written for failure to build a required screening fence and
for tire sales that are not allowed on the property.
Protestants:
James
Mautino,
14628 E. 12th St., stated he represented Tower Heights Neighborhood
Association. He protests this
application based on outside storage of old cars, junk, used tires, and
submitted pictures (Exhibit B-1).
Hilda
Brown,
706 S. 138th E. Ave. stated complaints as above.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
The speaker for applicant (name and address not stated to the Board) spoke in defense of the established business, stating that the lessee is an honest businessman. The applicant has stated he will build the screening fence in compliance.
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 Case
No. 18803, 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to Section 701 to allow a single-family dwelling in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located1308 N. Nogales.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Jose Botello, P.O. Box 2872, Tulsa, Ok., stated the lot is vacant and he desires
to move a house onto the property.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked
if the house was a mobile home. Mr.
Botello replied that it is an existing frame house.
Protestants:
Harold
Wise,
1011 W. Newton, owner of the Brown Sugar Club protests the application on the
basis that it would be right next door to a club. He was concerned about possible
complaints in the future against his club by the applicant.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Botello stated that he had relatives in the neighborhood, he liked the neighborhood and that is where is wanted to live.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye";
Perkins "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception to Section 701 to allow a single-family
dwelling in a CS zoned district, and that the intent is for a single-family
dwelling and not a commercial business, 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 permit a mobile home in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 9; and a Special Exception of one-year time limit to permit
a mobile home permanently. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 496 W. 36th Pl.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Timothy Scott Nall, 3755 S. Tacoma, stated he had fulfilled all of the
obligations, site plan was given to the Board and would like to move a mobile
home back on the property permanently.
He stated that there are other mobile homes in the area. He stated that the legal description was
incorrect, and should read the N 165 of Lot 11.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye";
Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a
Special Exception to permit a mobile home in an RS-3 district, per
plan; and a Special Exception of one year time limit to permit a
mobile home permanently, 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:
N 165 of Lot 11, Block 2, Garden City Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.18809
Action
Requested:
Variance of
required 5 side yard 2½ to permit the construction of a garage in an RS-2
district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located 4930 E. 7th
St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Anthony Miller, 1722 S. Carson, Ste. 3101, stated he represented Jason
Ray, 4930 E. 7th St. The
applicant wants to replace the existing garage. The old structure is about 71 years old
and was built too narrow for the newer cars. The unique shape of the lot and
the easements do not allow enough room on the other side of the house for a
garage.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach asked
if the finished structure with the brick would be only 2 ½ from the property
line. Mr. Miller replied that the
boundary survey shows it would be 2.9 from the property line. Mr. Stump asked about the 32 depth for
the garage that would cause an encroachment to the required setback. Mr. Ray, the owner, replied that he was
trying to stay with the style of the house, and wanted to include a work space
at the back of the garage for personal use and not commercial. Ms. Turnbo asked about the plans for a
single garage door at back of the structure. Mr. Miller wanted access to the back
yard by driving through the garage.
Protestants:
James
Williamson, 1515 E. 71st, Ste 302, came representing Billie
Townsend, 4931 E. 7th St., neighbor on the west of Mr. Miller. Ms. Townsends objection to the
application is that her own property would be diminished by the variance. He stated that there is no hardship for
the variance; it is just the personal preference of the applicant.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Miller stated
that the length of the new structure would be a distance of .2 over the 5
requirement and would farther from the lot line than the old structure.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
about storage of 28 empty box trailer.
Mr. Miller replied that he uses it to travel to car shows, and he has
permission from the neighbors to park it there.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of
Cooper, the Board voted
5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Variance of required 5
side yard 2½ to permit the construction of a garage in an RS-2 district for
personal use only not commercial, per plan, on the following described property:
A part of Lot 10, Block 23,
White City Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, more
particularly described as follows to-wit.
Beg. at the SE/c of said Lot 10; thence in a NEly direction along the E
line of Lot 10, 264.5 to the NE/c of said Lot 10; thence along the N line of
said Lot 10 on a 662.39 radius curve, a distance of 132.7 to a point of
tangent; thence in a Sly direction a distance of 241.07 to a point on the S
line of said Lot 10, this point being 2.2 NWly from the SE/c of said lot;
thence in a SEly direction a distance of 2.2 to the POB
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18810
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow church use in an RS-3 district.
SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 5, located 3143 N. Xanthus
Pl.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Tony Maxville, 1204 N. Santa Fe, stated that the church desires to build
a dining hall across the street from the church. The existing kitchen and dining hall is
too small for the number of people they serve.
Protestants:
Opal
(last name inaudible), 2015 E. 31st Pl. N.,
protested the application because it would be behind her home taking her privacy
and cutting her off from her neighbor.
She expected it would cause a traffic problem because of the narrow
street, and lower her property value.
She indicated that it would be inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked
the protestant to point out where her home is located on the site plan as
related to the subject property.
Mr. Stump stated she is located immediately south and her neighbor is
immediately north of the tract.
Mr. White advised the Board of a letter
of protest from Harvey Jones, at 3216 N. Xanthus Pl., which is north of
the subject property.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Maxville
stated he had just talked with Harvey Jones, and his concern was that the map
that was sent out to the neighbors showed an alley as if it were a street. He stated that just because they added
space to the sanctuary did not mean they do not need more space in the
kitchen/dining area. He stated they
need more room to accommodate larger numbers of people for funerals and other
gatherings. The traffic would not
change from what it has been at these times and the parking would continue to be
at the main church building.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
why they dont want to build on the other lots owned by the church. Mr. Maxville replied that they plan to
use the other lots for recreation area for the children. Mr. Beach asked if they plan to use the
dining hall for other group gatherings.
Mr. Maxville stated that it would be for the church functions only.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye";
Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception to allow church use in an RS-3 district,
with the conditions to meet landscape requirements, dining hall to be used for
church purposes only and not leased for outside purposes, 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:
Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Murray
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.18812
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow a Bed and Breakfast (Use Unit 2) in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 2, located 1585 E. 19th St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Jocelyn Heard, 6535 S. Fulton, stated she desires to use the subject
property as her personal residence and a bed and breakfast. She submitted a binder containing
documentation on her plans, transactions and photographs for the bed and
breakfast. She addressed the
traffic/parking issues, including shuttle service and required parking
spaces.
Comments and
Questions:
In answer to
questions from the Board and staff, Ms. Heard responded there would be two
guestrooms; she plans to serve breakfast only to overnight
guests.
Protestants:
Aaron
Adams, 1575 E. 19th St., stated her concern regarding commercial
encroachment, and security issues when there are a people coming and going that
are not a part of the neighborhood, late night check-in times, and parking on
the street.
Interested
Parties:
Chip
Adkins,
1638 E. 17th Pl., President of the Swan Lake Home Owners Association,
stated he talked with other Board members regarding this application. They already deal with some commercial
encroachment concerns in the area, and have had traffic problems on
19th Street. They
appreciated Ms. Heards agreement to 10:00 p.m. as the latest check-in time, and
screening fence in back yard. The
association has no objection to the bed and breakfast.
Stacey
Bales, came before the Board in support of the bed and breakfast. She stated Ms. Heard has been more than
candid with the neighbors, and has taken exceptional steps to consult with the
neighborhood.
Trish
Sherry, came to represent her mother who owns property at 1568 Swan
Drive. She is in favor of bed and
breakfasts, and came today with interest and some concerns. She was satisfied and feels her concerns
were all addressed.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Ms. Heard stated
there are four other bed and breakfasts in Tulsa. She shared her plans to convert the
sunroom and garage into bedrooms for herself and her daughter. She is very concerned about safety,
especially for her own child. Ms.
Heard also described her plans to put in a hedge for screening
also.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
if the neighborhood had any other conditions they would request. Mr. Adkins stated the latest
check-in time of 10:00 p.m. is good.
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 Bed and Breakfast (Use Unit 2) in an
RS-3 zoned district, subject to meeting all of the conditions of a Bed and
Breakfast, and a no later than 10:00 p.m. check-in time, 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 9, Block 2, Swan Park,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.18813
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow an 8 screening fence in the required front yard in an RS-3
district. SECTION 212.A. SCREENING
WALL OR FENCE, Specifications Use Unit 17; and a Special Exception to waive
the screening requirement along the south line of Lot 3. SECTION 212.A. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE,
Specifications, located 3244 N. Lewis.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Jerry Springer, 3244 N. Lewis, stated his request for an 8 screening
fence because of past burglaries.
Protestants:
(Name inaudible)
Ogens, of Dewey, Ok, and her daughter, Joyce Ogens, 1409 S. Oak, Bartlesville,
Ok., stated concerns from misinformation, and they withdrew any protest.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Springer
stated that a metal fence would be placed where the existing fence is
located.
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 an 8 screening fence in the required front yard in an RS-3 district,
per plan; and a Special
Exception
to waive the screening requirement along the south line of Lot 3, 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:
Lots 1 - 4, Block 1, Beauty
Rest Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow Use Unit 24 (sand and gravel removal) in an AG zoned district for two
years. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT Use Unit 24, located 5629 E. 131st
St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Stacy Ingraham, 5629 E. 131st St., stated that he would like
to complete the job that he started, and he has not had any
opposition.
Protestants:
Steve
Wallace, stated he is the developer of the property southeast of the subject
property in the area identified as PUD 4090, from 1993, on the case map. He made his objection to the size
of the mining operation and the excessive amount of truck traffic in and out of
the property. He indicated that the
applicant has been out of compliance for 23 months and never came to the Board
of Adjustment, for the mining operation.
He desires to see the request denied and the land restored to the
original contour.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked
when the building of his development was going to begin. He responded that they considered to
have already begun, since the channel has been constructed. He stated it was going to be difficult
to find investors with a mining operation going on next
door.
Protestants:
Royce
Wright, 6716 E. 65th St., stated he owns the 80 acres east of the
subject property. He has made an
offer to buy the 20 acres and give Mr. Ingraham time to fill in the hole.
Bud Carr,
12602 S. Sheridan, stated that his family owns property a Ό of a mile south and
½ west. He stated concern about the
impact on neighbors well water. He
also had concerns as listed above, including truck traffic.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Ingraham
stated that he had spent about $30, 000.00 to improve 131st Street
that his trucks use. He indicated
that he is not close enough to affect the wells in the area. Mr. Ingraham stated that Mr. Wallace was
aware and could have purchased the property before mining started. He expected to be through with the
mining before building begins in the new development. Mr. Ingraham stated that he is required
to stay 100 from the levy, and he is not even that close. He was commended by the Oklahoma Mining
Department for reinforcement of the levy, for which he paid. He informed the Board that he has
monthly inspections by the Oklahoma Mining Department; and has received zero
violations. He offered to show the
Board copies of all his permits, contracts, and pictures. He stated that if he had known he needed
a Special Exception he would have requested it. He has a Watershed Development permit,
an Earth change permit from the City of Tulsa, and an Oklahoma Mining Department
permit available for anyone to see.
Mr. Ingraham offered the contract between himself and Mr. Wallace of five
or six years ago, and one between himself and Mr. Wright.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
how many trucks the applicant is running per day. Mr. Ingraham replied about 25 trucks,
eight trips per truck per day on an average per year.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Cooper, 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 Use Unit 24 (sand and gravel removal)
in an AG zoned district for two years, 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:
Government Lot 8, Section 3, T-17-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18815
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit auto sales in a CS district and vehicle repair in preparation for
sale. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 17; and a Special Exception to permit storage or display of
motorized vehicles on gravel located behind the building setback line. SECTION 222. MOTORIZED VEHICLES, located 5929 S.
Peoria.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Joe Seibert, 1371 E. 27th St., stated he has owned the
property since 1961 and has leased to a number of companies. He stated that numerous times he has
turned down businesses because he did not consider them appropriate. He believes that used car sales would be
appropriate there.
James Martin, 5510 S. Cincinnati,
stated he would like to open a used car lot, a wash bay and do minor car
repairs.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked
about the type of car repairs. Mr.
Martin stated just minor things to prepare used cars and wash them in
preparation for sale.
Protestants:
Paul
Missick, 6004 S. Birmingham, stated his concern regarding the ingress/egress
for this property.
Dean
Missick, 1330 E. 58th St., stated that his concern is for the
stormwater drainage in the area. He
informed the Board that all of the lots drain toward the mini-storage. He had to raise the elevation of his
property for his mini-storage business.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
The applicant
stated they do not intend to store cars.
They have no plans to change or add anything, just to use it as it is
now. The site plan identifies
the details.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked
if they plan to park cars for sale on the unpaved area. The applicant responded that is what
they request even if it is for a limited use of time.
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 permit auto sales in a CS district and
vehicle repair in preparation for sale, on condition specifically that no body
work, auto painting, or major engine work be allowed, and that vehicles offered
for sale would have to be on a paved parking area, 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 to DENY a Special Exception to permit storage or display of motorized
vehicles on gravel located behind the building setback line, on the following
described property:
Lot 8, less W 15 thereof and
Lot 9 less W 15 thereof, St. Southlawn Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18816
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to permit Use Unit 5 church and accessory uses in an RS-3 district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 5; a Variance of the all weather surface requirement for
the church parking lot. SECTION
1303. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS; a Variance of required setback from centerline of East
11th Street from 85 to 57.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance of required setback
from abutting R district from 25 to 5.
SECTION 404.F.4. SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 13902 E.
11th St.
Presentation:
Lou
Reynolds, 2727 E. 21st St., stated that he met with the members
of the Church of God, and they desired to amend the application to withdraw the
request to move front yard setback from 85 to 57. He submitted a site plan (Exhibit H-1)
and photographs (Exhibit H-2) to the Board. He stated that the property has been
used for a church for years, two other churches are down the street and it
appears to have been harmonious to the neighborhood. He stated they do not have much more
room to place the sanctuary without getting into the
floodplain.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked
why they could not pave the parking area.
He replied that it would be over the lateral lines and would not allow
evaporation. He explained that the
type A gravel used minimizes dust and allows evaporation.
Interested
Parties:
Bob
Wilson, 1129 E. 26th Pl., stated he was in favor of the
Variance. He has mowed the property
and wanted to confirm that very little dust comes from the type of gravel used
there.
Protestants:
None.
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 permit Use Unit 5 church and accessory uses
in an RS-3 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; a Variance of the all weather
surface requirement for the church parking lot; and a Variance of
required setback from abutting R district from 25 to 5, subject to meeting all
of the landscaping and parking requirements, 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 a Variance of required
setback from centerline of East 11th Street from 85 to 57 was
withdrawn by the applicant, on the
following described property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18817
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
under Section 301, Table 1, and Section 401, Table 1 to permit the use of
property within the AG and RM-1 zoning districts for a public high school
multipurpose student activities center, a wellness center, offices, locker rooms
and training facilities, a fine arts center and additional parking subject to
approval by the Board of the site plans as shown on Exhibit B and Exhibit C
hereto, and subject to street frontage and parking area landscaping in accord
with the Landscape Chapter of the Zoning Code. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT and SECTION 401.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 5; and a
Variance of the off-street parking spaces required in Use Unit 5, Section 1205.C
of the Zoning Code to permit a minimum of 1800 spaces to satisfy the combined
off-street parking requirements for the existing and proposed academic and
athletic facilities as shown on Exhibits B and C. SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES,
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, located W side of S. Mingo Rd. at
E. 66th St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Charles Norman, 2900
Mid-Continent Tower, stated he represented the Union School District. He added that Cathy Burton,
Superintendent of Schools, members of her staff, and members of the design team
that are working on this project were present with him. The application is for two purposes: to
permit the additional facilities in two phases, and to increase the number of
parking spaces needed in connection with the addition of bleachers in the
football stadium.
Comments and
Questions:
The Board was
familiar with this request in connection with the action taken at the previous
hearing. Neither the Board nor
staff had any questions.
Protestants:
None.
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 under Section 301, Table 1, and Section 401, Table 1 to permit the use of property within the AG and RM-1 zoning districts for a public high school multipurpose student activities center, a wellness center, offices, locker rooms and training facilities, a fine arts center and additional parking subject to approval by the Board of the site plans as shown on Exhibit B and Exhibit C hereto, and subject to street frontage and parking area landscaping in accord with the Landscape Chapter of the Zoning Code, 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 off-street parking spaces required in Use Unit 5, Section 1205.C of the Zoning Code to permit a minimum of 1800 spaces to satisfy the combined off-street parking requirements for the existing and proposed academic and athletic facilities as shown on Exhibits B and C, per plan, on the following described property:
NE/4 SE/4 and the N 400 of
the SE/4 SE/4, Section 1, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18818
Action
Requested:
Variance from the
50 setback from the centerline of an abutting street to 2 from an abutting
street right-of-way line. 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 1; a Variance
from the 25 setback requirement for a building abutting a non-arterial street
to 9. SECTION 1302. SETBACKS; a Variance from 25 + 1 of
setback for each 1 of building height exceeding 15 from abutting properties in
an R district, to a setback of 30.
SECTION 1201.C.2.c. USE UNIT 1.
AREA-WIDE USES BY RIGHT, Use Conditions; a Variance in the minimum
setback for parking lots from an RS district from 25 to 5. SECTION 1201.D. USE UNIT 1. AREA-WIDE USES BY RIGHT, Off-Street
Parking and Loading Requirements; a Variance from the parking spaces requirement
of 1 per 800 square feet plus 1 per 4 stadium seats, reducing the requirement
from 1,553 spaces to 995 space. SECTION 1201.D. USE UNIT 1. AREA-WIDE USES BY RIGHT, Off-Street
Parking and Loading Requirements; and a Variance in the maximum structure height
in an RS-3 zoned area from 35 to 40 for the new Classroom Building, and to 55
for the new Auditorium. SECTION
1201.C.2.c. USE UNIT 1. AREA-WIDE
USES BY RIGHT, Use Conditions, located at Trenton Ave. and Woodrow
Pl.
Presentation:
Darin
Ackerman, 6111 E. 32nd Pl., with Sisemore, Weisz &
Associates, Inc., representing the Tulsa Public Schools for this request. He pointed out that these variance
requests are for some demolition and construction on the Booker T. Washington
High School campus. He stated that
they have met several times over the last year and a half with neighborhood
property owners, school representatives, architects, and city staff regarding
the construction on this site.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Variance from the 50 setback from the centerline of an abutting street to 2 from an abutting street right-of-way line; a Variance from the 25 setback requirement for a building abutting a non-arterial street to 9; a Variance from 25 + 1 of setback for each 1 of building height exceeding 15 from abutting properties in an R district, to a setback of 30; a Variance in the minimum setback for parking lots from an RS district from 25 to 5; a Variance from the parking spaces requirement of 1 per 800 square feet plus 1 per 4 stadium seats, reducing the requirement from 1,553 spaces to 995 space; and a Variance in the maximum structure height in an RS-3 zoned area from 35 to 40 for the new Classroom Building, and to 55 for the new Auditorium, per plan, 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, on the following described property:
A tract of land being all of Blocks 1 and 2, Carver Heights Second Addition; and all of Lots 4 - 12 in Block 1, and all of Blocks 2 5, all in Coots Addition; and all of Block 1 Trenton Arms, a re-subdivision of Lots 1 - 5 and 18 - 22 of Block 6, Coots Addition; and all of Blocks 1 and 2, Carver Heights Third Addition, and all that part of N. St. Louis Ave. E lying Nly of the N right-of- way line of E. Woodrow Pl. N and Sly of the S right-of-way line of E. Zion St. N; and all that part of N. Trenton Ave. E lying Nly of the Sly line of Lot 7, Block 1, Trenton Arms and Nly of Lot 5, Block 5, Coots Addition; and Sly of the Nly line of Lot 4, Block 2 and Lot 4, Block 1, Coots Addition; and all that part of E. Woodrow Pl. N lying E of the Ely right-of-way line of N. St. Louis Ave. E and W of the Ely line of said Coots Addition; and all that part of E. Young St. N, lying Ely of the Wly line of said Carver Heights Second Addition and Carver Heights Third Addition, and Wly of the Ely line of said Coots Addition; and the NE/4 SE/4 NW/4 and part of the SE/4 SE/4 NW/4 all in Section 30, T-20-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, said tract of land being described as follows: Beg. at a point that is the NW/c of Lot 1, Block 2, Carver Heights Second Addition; thence N 89Ί2708 E along the Nly line of Blocks 1 and 2, Carver Heights Second Addition for 326.50 to the NE/c of Lot 1, Block 1, Carver Height Second Addition and the NW/c of Lot 1, Block 2, Coots Addition; thence N 89Ί0316 E along the Nly line of Block 2, Coots Addition for 140.00 to the NE/c of said Lot 1; thence S 00Ί3252 E along the Ely line of said Block 2 for 151.50 to the NE/c of Lot 4, Block 2; thence N 89Ί0316 E for 190.00 to the NE/c of Lot 4, Block 1, Coots Addition; thence S 00Ί3252 E along the Ely line of Coots Addition for 1758.50 to the SE/c of Lot 11, Block 5, Coots Addition; thence S 89Ί0316 W along the Sly line of said Lot 11 for 140.00; thence N 00Ί3252 W along the Wly line of said Block 5 for 305.00 to the SW/c of Lot 5, Block 5, Coots Addition; thence S 89Ί0316 W along the Sly line of Block 1 of said Trenton Arms for 330.00 to the SW/c of Lot 6 in said Block 1; thence N 00Ί3252 W along the Wly line of Block 1 and the Ely line of N. St. Louis Ave. E for 315.00 to the SW/c of Lot 12, Block 1, Carver Heights Third Addition; thence S 89Ί0316 W along the Nly right-of-way line of E. Woodrow Pl. and the Sly line of Lot 12, Block 2, Carver Heights Third Addition for 186.40 to the SW/c of said Lot 12; thence N 00Ί2322 W along Wly of Carver Heights Third Addition for 635.75 to the NW/c of Lot 1, Block 2, Carver Heights Third Addition; thence N 00Ί2407 W for 55.00 to the SW/c of Lot 12, Block 2, Carver Heights Second Addition; thence N 00Ί4418 W along the Wly line of Carver Heights Second Addition for 601.50 to the POB of said tract of land; and all of the NE/4 SE/4 NW/4; and all of the SE/4 SE/4 NW/4, less and except the Sly 40.00 thereof, all in Section 30, T-20-N, R-13-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18819
Action
Requested:
Variance of 150 street frontage requirements, for 4 lots with frontage as follows: Tract 1 140; Tract 2 120; Tract 3 0; Tract 4 123.75. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, located 9727 E. 31st St.
Mr. White stated that Mr.
Dunham would abstain from this application.
Presentation:
Ted Sack,
111 S. Elgin Ave., with Sack and Associates, stated that this request is
actually a lot-split application.
He submitted a site plan (Exhibit K-1). He stated that in applying for a
lot-split for Tract A, he discovered that Tracts B, C and D had not been
created. This request is to clear
up the case. There is no
accessibility from Tract A to Tract C because of the floodplain and drainage
channel. Tract C has zero frontage
on 31st Street, therefore the applicant would ask for a mutual access
easement into Tract B or D.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked
what the hardship would be. Mr.
Sack stated it would be the floodplain issue and that Tract C has already been
cut off.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-1 (White, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; Dunham "abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Variance of 150 street frontage requirements, for 4 lots with frontage as follows: Tract 1 140; Tract 2 120; Tract 3 0; Tract 4 123.75, subject to Tract 3 recording a plat for mutual access to Tract 2 or Tract 4, per plan, finding the hardship that floodplain makes the back tract unusable, on the following described property:
Lot
4 and Lot 5, Block 1, and the west 120.75 of Lot 1, Block 2, Longview Lake
Estates Center Addition Amended, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to the 4 height requirement of Section 210.B.3. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards Use Unit 6, located 3442 S. Atlanta
Pl.
Presentation:
Charles
Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated he is representing the applicant,
Robert R. Peters, II, at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Jim Pielsticker. He stated they desire to build a 5 3
iron perimeter fence. He submitted
plans, map, and letters of support, and a letter withdrawing their signature of
protest on a petition (Exhibit L-1, L-3).
The fence would be constructed of stone columns and wrought iron
screening and security fence.
Protestants:
Rodney
Edwards, 6120 S. Yale, came to represent Frank and Bonnie Henke, who reside
at 3449 S. Atlanta Pl., and own another house at 3455 S. Atlanta Pl. He submitted petitions of protest with a
color chart (Exhibit L-2). He
pointed out that the neighborhood was platted before the city limits of Tulsa
reached 36th and Lewis.
It has very large lots with houses set back well off the street, with
asphalt streets without curbs, and no existing front yard fences. He indicated that the site plan appears
to be more wall than fence, with stone posts of 6 3 high, 20 across, and gateway posts of 7 high, and 30
across. He stated that on the front
of the property there would be 17 of these posts. The neighbors were concerned that this
would set a precedent for others to build such fences.
David
Bradshaw, 3428 S. Birmingham, stated his appreciation of the openness of the
neighborhood area. He added that
people ride bikes through the area; the neighborhood has not had security
issues; and the fence would look inappropriate in this area.
Kathryn
Bradshaw spoke for Mary Ann who lives at 3437 S. Birmingham, stated that the
gates obstruct the view.
Bob
Boswell, 3404 S. Atlanta Pl., stated he lives two houses north of the
subject property. He does not want
to see the fence built but if it were, he would ask that it be constructed
within the restrictions of the ordinance.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Norman
directed attention to the site plan and explained how the fence would be
constructed so that there is a clear view through the iron palings. He stated that security is an
issue. Mr. Pielsticker travels
extensively, the main house is set back 270 and property has been stolen. The fence is constructed with pointed
tips on the wrought iron palings to highly discourage someone from climbing over
the fence.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins
commented that five people had signed a petition of opposition and then changed
their minds a few days later and informed the Board.
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 the 4 height requirement of Section
210.B.3, 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:
Part of Lot 4, Block 4,
Oakview Estates, Beg. SE/c W 181.2 on SL NEly 138.77 to a point 30 S of NL E
237.88 to a point on EL 30 S of NE/c SWly 169.68 on a curve to POB Block 4;
AND Lot 4 less Beg. SE/c W 181.2 on SL NEly 138.77 to a point 30 S of
NL E 237.88 to a point on EL 30 S of NE/c SWly 169.68 on a curve to POB Block
4; AND a tract of land that is part of Lot 5, Block 4, Oakview Estates,
being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Starting at the NW/c of
said Lot 5; thence N 89Ί2434 E along the Nly line of said Lot 5 for 217.00 to
the POB of said tract of land; thence continuing N 89Ί2434 E along the Nly
line of said Lot 5 for 251.51 to the NE/c of said Lot 5 also being on the Wly
right-of-way line of S. Atlanta Pl.; thence S 33Ί0235 W for 0.00 to a point
of curve; thence SWly along the Ely line of said Lot 5 along a curve to the left
with a central angle of 13Ί2344 and a radius of 656.22 for 153.42; thence N
82Ί5445 W for 164.65; thence N 10Ί0053 W for 116.03 to the POB of said
tract of land, all in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No. 18821
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required side yard from 15 to 5 to permit a carport. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6; and a Variance of the required side yard
from 15 to 12 to permit an existing encroachment. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 2686 E. 38th St.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Mark Nelson, 1927 S. Boston, Suite 207, stated that the existing
encroachment was discovered when applying for this variance. He added that they could build the
carport in the backyard, but there are some large trees in the backyard. It will not be a metal carport but will
be designed and constructed with materials to match the house. They prefer to build it at the side of
the house for ease of access
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked
if it would be attached to the house.
Mr. Nelson stated he was told it is not allowed, so they did not plan to
attach it. He submitted pictures
(Exhibit M-1).
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Cooper, 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 side yard from 15 to 5 to permit a
carport, finding it is done to protect a very large tree; and a
Variance of the required side yard from 15 to 12 to permit an
existing encroachment, finding it was built before the ordinance, on the
following described property:
Beg. at the NE/c of the S/2
SW/4, Section 20, T-19-N, R-13-E, thence S along the E boundary of said SW/4
330; thence W parallel with the N boundary of said S/2 SW/4 145 for a place of
beginning; thence N 305 parallel with the N boundary of the S/2 SW/4 140; thence in a Sly direction
305 to a point 133 W of the POB; thence E and parallel with the N boundary of
the S/2 of the SW/4 133 to the POB, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:42 p.m.
Date approved:______________________
__________________________________
Chair