CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, January 12, 1999, 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cooper |
|
Arnold |
Ballentine,
Code Enforcement |
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
|
|
Turnbo,
Secretary |
|
Stump |
Parnell,
Code Enforcement |
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
Romig,
Legal Department |
|
|
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Thursday, January 7, 1999, at 11:38 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.
MINUTES:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Dunham,
Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", Cooper, Perkins
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of November 24, 1998 (No. 762).
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", Cooper, White
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of December 8, 1998 (No. 763).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Approval of detail site plan as required
by previous approval of Special Exception for Use Unit 2 (Church Use) in an
RS-1 and OL zoned district. SECTIONS 401. & 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS AND OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located E of NE/c E. 21st
St. & S. 84th E. Ave.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that this case was heard on
December 10, 1996. At that time the
Board granted approval of the application subject to the applicant returning
with a detail site plan.
Presentation:
The applicant, Alvin McCreary, 5814 E. 25th Place, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit A-1) and stated that he is the architect of record for Metro Christian
Church.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant if there
would be any problem with not having any access to 19th Street. Mr. McCreary stated that the problem with
that suggestion is that across the street from the church is the new post
office. There is a center median and it
would prohibit the church members’ access.
They would like to have the secondary access come off of 19th
Street.
Mr. White asked Staff if Traffic
Engineering has anything to say about this application. Mr. Beach replied negatively.
Mr. White asked Mr. McCreary if the
Board would be approving only Phase I or both Phase I and Phase II. Mr. McCreary responded that he would like
the Board to approve both Phase I and Phase II.
Mr. McCreary stated that the church has
about 176 members and anticipate 300.
The maximum that they will design the church for is 750 members. Mr. Stump stated that with 750 members would
be about 250 cars if they were at a maximum service. Typically, the maximum number of members would be at the church
only once a week and then twice a week a significant number of members.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE a detail site plan as required by previous approval
of Special Exception for Use Unit 2 (Church Use) in a RS-1 and OL zoned
district, finding that the special exception 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, SECTIONS 401. & 601.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND OFFICE DISTRICTS –
Use Unit 2, per plan submitted, on the following described property:
E 330’, W 635’, Block 10 O’Connor Park, an Addition to the
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, according to the Plat thereof less
street right-of-way and containing approximately 193,380 SF, more or less.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Repeal and rescission of the variance
granted May 9, 1995 in Case No. 17036 of the required number of parking spaces from
19 to 10 to permit a gymnasium to be located at the southeast corner of E. 34th
St. and S. Peoria Ave. and Repeal and rescission of the variance granted June
27, 1995 in Case No. 17090 of the required number of parking spaces from 20 to
11 to permit the third floor of The Consortium to be converted for use as
offices for a radio station, located at the southeast corner of E. 34th
St. and S. Peoria Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Charles E. Norman, stated that this application was a condition of
approval in the renovation application with respect to The Consortium building
at 35th Street.
Board Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Request to Repeal and rescind the Variance granted
May 9, 1995 in Case No. 17036 of the required number of parking spaces from 19
to 10 to permit a gymnasium to be located at the southeast corner of E. 34th
St. and S. Peoria Ave. and Repeal and rescind the variance granted June 27,
1995 in Case No. 17090 of the required number of parking spaces from 20 to 11
to permit the third floor of The Consortium to be converted for use as offices
for a radio station located at the southeast corner of E. 34th St.
and S. Peoria Ave., on the following described property:
The N 2’ of Lot 2 and all of Lots 3, 4,
5, 6 and the W 35’ of Lot 11 and the E 50’ of Lot 12, Block 3, Olivers Addition
to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW APPLICATIONS
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a sexually
oriented business in an IL zoned district.
SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS, located 3208 W. 43rd Place.
Comments &
Questions:
Mr. Beach advised the Board that this
application has been withdrawn by the applicant.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback requirement from 20’
to 0’ to permit an existing underground garage in an RS-3 District. SECTION
403.A.5. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the RS, RS, RD, RT
and RM Districts – Use Unit 6 and a Variance to permit a residential accessory
structure on an abutting lot under common ownership. SECTION 1608.A.11. SPECIAL EXCEPTION, General, located 844
S. 69th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Tammy
Mattox, was represented by Mike
Ormond, 27108 E. 84th Street, Broken Arrow. Mr. Ormond submitted a site plan (Exhibit
B-1).
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked when the existing garage was constructed and
Mr. Ormond replied 1949. Mr. White
asked the applicant when the workshop was constructed and the applicant replied
in 1949.
Mr. Dunham asked Staff if a license agreement is really
necessary since the building has been there for over 50 years. Mr. Romig replied that it will depend on
when the right-of-way was acquired. If
the right-of-way was acquired prior to the garage being there, then the license
agreement is necessary. Mr. White
stated that this is a platted subdivision so the dedication would be prior to
1949 and Mr. Romig agreed and stated that a license agreement will be required.
Mr. Stump suggested a tie agreement for the two lots. The Board agreed.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance of setback requirement from 20’ to 0’ to
permit an existing underground garage in an RS-3 District, subject to a license
agreement, if necessary,. SECTION 403.A.5. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and
Area Requirements in the RS, RS, RD, RT and RM Districts – Use Unit 6 and a
Variance to permit a residential accessory structure on an abutting lot under
common ownership. SECTION 1608.A.11. SPECIAL
EXCEPTION, General, finding that the variances meet the requirements of
Section 1607.C., subject to a tie agreement, per plan submitted, on the
following described property:
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Computer
Software Production and Distribution, Use Unit 15, in a CS District. SECTION
701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15, located 2136 E. 69th St. S.
Presentation:
The applicant, Gale Plummer, 2105 N. Yellowood, Broken Arrow, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit C-1) and stated that he is representing the owner of the
property. Mr. Plummer mentioned to the
Board that this application is for the conversion of the old SkateWorld
facility into a warehouse for a software business. The business is the duplication, processing and distribution of
manuals for their software. The
operation is currently only 400’ or 500’ away in the old Silo building on South
Lewis Avenue. This business has been
there for the last four years operating as US Business Forms. Mr. Plummer stated that this is exactly the
same operation and that they are only moving it 400’ or 500’ feet.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if there are a lot of
trucks coming into the site. Mr.
Plummer replied that there will be a number of trucks such as UPS type
trucks. There is preparation for a
tractor trailer truck dock. There will
generally be three to four trucks a week in the dock. There will be more of the smaller UPS or Federal Express type
trucks.
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if he has
access to the gated parking lot to west of the building. Mr. Plummer replied that the parking lot is
across the street from a two story office building. This office building is the primary user of the lot. The parking will be used for both the office
building and the warehouse.
Mr. Dunham asked if a truck coming to
the warehouse could exit through the parking lot. Mr. Plumer replied that yes, they could but that is not the
intention. The primary access point
will be off of 69th Street.
Mr. White asked how the size of the
SkateWorld building compares to the size of the Silo building. Mr. Plummer answered that they essentially
have the same square footage. The Silo
building is 26,000 square feet and the SkateWorld is about 24,000 square feet. Mr. Plummer mentioned that their lease will
be expiring in about a year and they had the opportunity to purchase this
building and convert it and that is the reason for this application.
Mr. Dunham pointed out that there was
probably more traffic congestion when SkateWorld was operating than would be
now. Mr. Plummer pointed out that they will
only have about 25 to 30 employees maximum.
Mr. Stump suggested to the Board that if
they decide to approve this, they should only approve this particular use
instead of all of the uses in Use Unit 15.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no
"absent") to APPROVE
Special Exception to allow Computer Software Production and Distribution, Use
Unit 15, in a CS District, finding that the special exception 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 SECTION
701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15 per plan
submitted and subject to the use being limited to the Computer Software use (as
previously described) being applied for, on the following described property:
E 206.58’, Lot 2, Block 2, Lewis Village Addition, an addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback from 50’ to 40’ to
allow a sign on existing poles. SECTION 1221.C.6. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS
SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use
Unit 25, located 61 N. Peoria.
Presentation:
The applicant, Oklahoma Neon, Inc., was represented by Terry Howard, 6550 E. Independence. Mr. Howard submitted a site plan (Exhibit D-1), a sign plan (Exhibit D-2) and mentioned that the poles are on their property but the major right-of-way for that area is 50’. The sign will be low profile and will be placed low on the poles. The property is on a hill and the applicant does not need a tall sign.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that because it is in the planned right-of-way it is subject to a removal contract. The applicant agreed to a removal contract.
Mr. Stump mentioned that this is one of the arterial streets that is being considered for reduction of planned right-of-way.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance of setback from 50’ to 40’ to allow a sign
on existing poles. SECTION 1221.C.6. USE UNIT
21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use Unit 25 ,
finding that it meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., per plan submitted
and subject to a removal contract, on the following described property:
Beginning 30’ E and 150’ N, SW/c Lot 4, thence E 220’,
N241.54’ SWly on SL RR ROW 239.47’ S 149.3 POB, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a carpet
retail business in an IL zoned district.
SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 14, located 6845 E. 40th St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Dunn Law Firm, P.C., was represented by John Foghts, 2828 E. 51st
Street, Suite 400. Mr. Foghts submitted
a site plan (Exhibit E-1) and stated that in March 31, 1998, under a zoning
plan review, from Kurt Ackermann, it was determined that Mill Creek Lumber
needed to come before the Board for a special exception for a carpet retail
business in an IL district. In the past
three years while Mill Creek Lumber has been occupying the building their uses
have changed from Use Unit 15 to Use Unit 14.
Under Use Unit 15, a carpet store is a use by right.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if the expansion process has been completed. Mr. Foghts responded by saying that the expansion process was completed almost three years ago. The building is mostly used as a warehouse but there is a carpet retail located at the front of the building.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to allow a carpet retail business
in an IL zoned district, finding that the special exception 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, SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 14,
per plan submitted, on the following described property:
Lot 14, Block 2, Expressway Industrial Commercial Center, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of maximum height limit of 50’
to 65’ for a pole sign. SECTION 1221.D.1. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS
SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CS District Use Conditions for Business Signs
and a Variance of required 40’ setback to 1’ to permit a 65’ high sign. . SECTION
1221.D.1. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CS
District Use Conditions for Business Signs, located 5150 S. 33rd
W. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, James Adair, 7508 E. 77th Ave., submitted a site plan
(F-1), a sign plan (Exhibit F-2) and stated that he represents Arkansas Valley
Petroleum. Mr. Adair stated that
approximately 10 years ago, Claude Neon manufactured the existing sign which is
currently 50’ high and meets the setback for that location. That sign is a 12’x12’ Phillips logo sign
and below it is a 4’x28’ neon price sign.
Mr. Adair stated that the sign was a very expensive sign and the trees
around it have grown and matured and now cover the sign. Arkansas Valley Petroleum would like to put
a new sign up. The current sign is 256
square feet and the sign that they are requesting is just a logo sign as
opposed to a sign with a logo and gasoline prices. They are not trying to gain any square footage by erecting a new
sign. In the past, when travelers were
going east, they were able to see the logo and exit quickly to buy
gasoline. Now, the sign cannot be seen. Mr. Adair mentioned to the Board that since
they are requesting a variance for the height they are willing to forego any
additional square footage.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked the applicant if the
existing sign is 50’ tall and the applicant responded affirmatively.
Mr. Beach clarified that the action requested
states that the variance for the setback is from 40’ down to 1’. That is incorrect and was a
misinterpretation of the handwriting on the applicantion and should be from 40’
to 7’. Mr. Adair agreed with Mr.
Beach.
Mr. Dunham asked if the sign will be in
the same location and Mr. Adair replied affirmatively and the sign will just be
raised 15’.
Mr. Stump asked Mr. Adair if there are
any utility easements where the pole is located now. Mr. Adair replied that he is not aware of any.
Mr. Cooper stated that if this was a new
site then he would believe that the hardship is self imposed but the fact that
the sign is already there he does not see a hardship. The only issue for him is the height variance and not the
setback.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of maximum
height limit of 50’ to 65’ for a pole sign finding the hardship to be the fact
that trees have grown and the sign cannot be seen. SECTION 1221.D.1. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CS District Use
Conditions for Business Signs and a Variance of required 40’ setback to 7’
to permit a 65’ high sign. SECTION 1221.D.1. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS
SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CS District Use Conditions for Business Signs finding
that the variances meet the requirements of Section 1607.C., per plan
submitted, on the following described property:
Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 1, Richmond
Acres Addition, less and except a tract beginning at the NE/c of Lot 10; thence
S along the E line of said Lots 10 and 11 to a point, said point being 8' S of
the NE/c of said Lot 11; thence NW to a point on the N line of said Lot 10,
said point being 32.25’ W of the NE/c of said Lot 11; thence continuing NWly to
a point on the W line of said Lot 10;
thence N along the said W line a distance of 24.02’ to the NW/c of said
Lot 10; thence E along the said N line, a distance of 150’ to a point of beginning,
and less and except the E 10’ of Lot 12, Block 1, and a portion of Lot 11, of
said Block 1, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the SE/c of said Lot 11; thence
N along the E line of Lot 11, a distance of 45’; thence NWly to a point, said
point being 10’ west and 47.84’ N of the SE/c of said Lot 11; thence S parallel
to and 10’ W of the E line of said Lot 11, to a point on the S line of said Lot
11; thence E a distance of 10’ to the point of beginning, all in Richmond Acres
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required rear yard from 25’ to 5’ to permit an addition to a nonconforming structure. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THERESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 1405. STRUCTURAL NONCONFORMITIES – Use Unit 6 and a Variance of required lot area to permit a nonconforming lot. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQURIEMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 1404. NONCONFORMING LOTS, located 2652 E. 34th St.
Presentation:
The applicant, Steve Baker, 2652 E. 34th St., submitted a site plan
(Exhibit G-1) and stated that he is the owner of the property. This lot is at an unusual corner location
and brings up two ways to interpret the side yard and setbacks. The property itself is a nonconforming
lot. The lot area requirement is 13,500
SF in an RS-1 district and this lot has approximately 11,500 SF. Upon conferring with INCOG and working with
an architect. It was determined that
the setback lines were also nonconforming.
It was also agreed that the best way to look at this property is that
the north side of the lot would be the front yard and the south side would
become the back yard. In that case, the
existing setback is 16½’. In that
location Mr. Baker would like to expand the bedroom and add a bathroom. They would have to move to a 5’ variance and
would leave the side yards with the 5 and 10 requirements. The side yards would be in compliance and
the back would not. The other
interpretation would be if the front yard were considered to be the east side
of the property, then the back yard would only be 7’ deep and it would be
nonconforming and he would have to ask for more relief.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Baker if the two variances would take care of his need on the lot. Mr. Baker answered affirmatively.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the
required rear yard from 25’ to 5’ to permit an addition to a nonconforming
structure. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THERESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 1405. STRUCTURAL NONCONFORMITIES – Use Unit 6
and a Variance of required lot area to permit a nonconforming lot. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQURIEMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 1404.
NONCONFORMING LOTS finding the hardship to be the configuration of
the lot, per plan submitted, on the following described property:
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow elderly
housing in an OL and CS zoned district. SECTION
601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE
DISTRICTS AND SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL
USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 8, located 650 S.
Memorial Drive.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ronald E. Smith, was represented by Bill Major who submitted a site
plan (Exhibit H-1). Mr. Major stated
that he is the executive director for Tulsa Senior Services and Vintage
Housing. Mr. Major mentioned that they
moved into this area because of the tremendous need for affordable elderly
housing in this area. Their plans
include a one building design with two stories and 48 units. 46 units will be one bedroom and 2 will be
two bedroom units. The building will
have inside access and corridors for increased security and social contact and
an emergency panic system in all rooms.
There will be many rooms for socializing and various activities. The number of vehicles and traffic loads are
all less than those for normal apartment complexes. Pioneer Village in Jenks is a similar facility.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that Staff makes
mention in its report that there is a 35’x90’ piece in the southeast
corner. Mr. Beach said that the piece
is no longer a problem. The piece would
displace 10 or 12 parking spaces. As it
turns out, the applicant meets or exceeds the parking requirement and would not
need the parking spaces.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to
APPROVE, Special Exception to
allow elderly housing in an OL and CS zoned district, finding that the special
exception 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, SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS
AND SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 8 per plan submitted, on the
following described property:
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Use Unit 20 outdoor skating
facility in a CS district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 20 and
a Variance of the required parking spaces from 108 to 80. SECTION
1220.D. USE UNIT 20. COMMERCIAL RECREATION INTENSIVE; Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements,
located 11665 E. 21st Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, Ron Davis, was represented by John Midtetes, 6106 S. Florence
Place, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit I-1). Mr. Midtetes stated that they are asking for a change to the
front part of the property to a Use Unit 20.
This has come about because Mr. Davis is wanting to put inline skating
ramps outside on the front of the property.
Mr. Midtetes believes that this would be a great asset for the City of
Tulsa. There is nothing else like this
in the City. Mr. Midtetes mentioned
that there has been roller skating at this facility for the past 27 years and
Mr. Davis wants to take the front part of the parking lot to place the ramps
in. In regard to the parking, the
building has never needed the 108 parking spaces. The people who come to the skating center are mostly under the
age of 16 and do not drive. Their
parents drop them off and come back in a few hours and pick them up. Mr. Midtetes mentioned that by placing the
ramps in the front of the property they will be taking up 28 of the 108 parking
spaces. The access to 21st
Street is still there and the flow of the traffic is the same as it has always
been. Mr. Midtetes submitted photos of
the skating ramps (Exhibit I-2).
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked the applicant if the
ramps are in place now as they will finally be and Mr. Midtetes replied that
they are not as they will finally be but they are in the spot where they will
be located for storage at this time. They
are not in use now.
Mr. Ballentine asked Mr. Midtetes if the
Fire Marshall’s concerns regarding getting a fire truck up to the building has
been addressed. Mr. Midtetes answered
affirmatively.
Mr. Dunham asked if there is going to be any change to the
building and Mr. Midtetes replied negatively, they are only placing skating
ramps outside the building. Mr.
Midtetes pointed out that the ramps will primarily be used only during the
spring and summer months.
Mr. White asked if the ramps will be visible from 21st
Street and the applicant responded affirmatively. Mr. White asked if there will be bleachers for people to observe
and the applicant replied no. Mr. White
believes that this will be a large draw for spectators. Mr. Midtetes responded that people would not
be standing there three or four deep at a time.
Ms. Perkins asked Staff what type of screening would be
required. Mr. Beach replied that there
would be none except where it might abut a residential district. Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that they
have the right to impose a screening fence as a condition of approval. Mr. White asked if Traffic Engineering
should have a recommendation on this or is it left up to the Board. Mr. Stump responded that Traffic Engineering
would probably not say anything about it.
Mr. Stump suggested to the Board that they might put a time limit on the
approval and see how the public reacts to it and if traffic becomes a
problem.
Mr. Beach asked the applicant why the ramps could not be
moved to the back of the property and away from 21st Street. Mr. Midtetes responded that you want to take
a business and let people know it is there.
Mr. Davis stated to the Board that they had originally intended to put
the ramps at the back of the property but there are too many ramps and they
would not fit, so they placed them in the front.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to allow Use Unit 20 outdoor skating
facility in a CS district, finding that the special exception 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, SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 20 and
a Variance of the required parking spaces from 108 to 80, finding that it meets
the requirements of Section 1607.C.,. SECTION 1220.D. USE UNIT 20. COMMERCIAL
RECREATION
INTENSIVE; Off-Street Parking and
Loading Requirements for a period of three years, on the following
described property:
Lot 21, Block 3, 21st
Garnett Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
Minor Variance to reduce the minimum 10’
side yard in an RM-2 district to 5’ to permit the construction of single family
homes. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 61st
St. & S. Madison Pl.
Presentation:
The applicant James H. Beale, 6933 S. 66th E. Ave., submitted
elevation plans (Exhibit J-1), floor plans (Exhibit J-2) and stated that he is
purchasing the property from the City of Tulsa and the Tulsa Housing
Authority. Mr. Beale stated that there
are 82 lots and he is planning on constructing homes on the lots. If Mr. Beale is approved for the 5’ variance
request, the homes will have 11’ between each one. Mr. Beale stated to the Board that the houses will be
approximately 1,200 square feet and will have a two car garage. The homes will also have three bedrooms, two
baths with a brick front. Mr. Beale
believes that this will be a big benefit for this neighborhood. Mr. Beale has had a lot of interest in the
home and has many prospective buyers, provided he receives this variance.
Interested
Parties:
Jacquelyn
Bridges, 6148 S. Madison Place, stated that she is concerned with the
appearance of some cluttering that may occur.
Ms. Bridges understands that the developer is wishing to enhance the
appearance of the neighborhood. The
homes will be surrounded by condominiums, duplexes and some apartments. She believes that the homes will be squeezed
into a small space and cause crowding.
Ms. Turnbo asked Ms. Bridges if she was
aware that the property is zoned RM-2, which means that the developer could
build multifamily houses on the property.
Ms. Turnbo also mentioned that the property with the single family homes
on it will be less dense than if they developed it as an RM-2 zoned
property. Ms. Bridges stated that she
was not aware of the different factors of the property or what the houses will
look like. After some discussion about
the design of the houses with the developer, Ms. Bridges stated that she does
not have a problem with the development.
Mr. Stump mentioned to the Board that
the 10’ side yard was intended for apartment buildings which are bigger than a
single family home.
Board Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Cooper, Perkins, Turnbo, White, "aye"; no "nays", Dunham "abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Minor Variance to reduce the minimum 10’ side yard in an RM-2 district to 5’ to permit the construction of single family homes. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6 finding that it meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., on the following described properties:
Lots 1-19, Block 1, Towne Park Addition;
Lots 1-6, Block 1, Towne Park II; Lots 2-9, Block 3, Towne Park 2nd;
Lots 1-8, Block 2, Towne Park Addition; Lots 1-12, Block 2, Towne Park 2nd;
Lots 2-12, Block 7, Towne Park Addition; Lots 1-14, Block 8, Towne Park
Addition; Lots 1-5, Block 6, Towne Park Addition; Lots 5 & 6, Block 9,
Towne Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required setback from
centerline of Charles Page Boulevard from 100’ to 42’. SECTION
903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 25 and a Variance from all weather surface
requirement for loading/parking. SECTION 1304.C. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET LOADING AREAS, located 3511
W. Charles Page Boulevard.
Presentation:
The applicant, Dennis Patterson, was represented by Jim Dougherty, 616 S. Boston,
who submitted a site plan (Exhibit K-2), photos (Exhibit K-1) and stated that
this application has grown out of the Brownfield grants. Mayor M. Susan Savage has obtained a grant
from the EPA to consider and stimulate redevelopment in vacant industrial
areas. Mr. Dougherty submitted photos
of the property. Mr. Dougherty
mentioned that this is an old industrial area and the original development crowded
Charles Page Blvd. The white building
in the photos is exactly 42’ from the centerline which is the same distance
that is being proposed in the application.
This property is zoned Industrial as is all of the other surrounding
property with the exception of the riverbed which is AG. The building is proposed to be constructed
on a slab of the previous building which has been demolished. There will be no encroachment other than
what the previous building had. Mr.
Dougherty pointed out that since this area is in close proximity to the river,
it is prone to flooding. The concrete
slab is elevated above the flood plain.
Mr. Dougherty pointed out that gravel is a standard in this area for
many reasons. There is a sand base
under the gravel and it is hard to put concrete on a sand base with heavy truck
and heavy equipment moving across it all the time. The property has had a gravel loading/parking surface since the
1920’s. Mr. Dougherty stated that the
hardship on the setback variance is the original development pattern, the
proximity to Charles Page Blvd. The
hardship on the all-weather surface is because it is a medium to heavy
industrial area and there are many gravel surfaces and because of the
difficulty of getting pavement to hold on the sand. The dust off of the Arkansas River exceeds the dust created by
the industrial area.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White asked Mr. Dougherty if he
would agree to a removal contract. Mr.
Dougherty responded that he did not have a problem with the removal
contract.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance of required setback from centerline of
Charles Page Boulevard from 100’ to 42’, subject to a removal contract, SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit
25 and a Variance from all weather surface requirement for
loading/parking. SECTION 1304.C. DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET LOADING AREAS, finding that the variances meet the
requirements of Section 1607.C., on the following described property:
A parcel of land in Lot 5, Section 4,
T-19-N, R-12-E, of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Sly right-of-way line of the Sand Springs
Railway Company 684.8’ SWly as measured on said Sly right-of-way line from the
E line of said Section 4, said Sly right-of-way line being parallel with and
58.5’ perpendicularly distant in a Sly direction from the centerline of W bound
main track of said railway company thence SWly on said Sly right-of-way line a
distance of 157.64’; thence along a deflection angle to the left of 95°05'27”
for a distance of 145.59’ more or less to a point on the Nly right-of-way line
of Charles Page Blvd.; thence NEly along said Nly right-of-way line parallel to
and 40’ distant from the center line of said Charles Page Blvd. for a distance
of 145.04’, more or less; thence NWly perpendicular to the Sly right-of-way
line of the Sand Springs Railway Company for a distance of 135.40’ to the point
of beginning
Action
Requested:
Approval of site, landscape and drainage
plan. PERSUANT TO APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUESTED ACTIONS: a Special Exception to permit Use Unit 13,
Convenience Goods and Services and Use Unit 14, Shopping Goods and Services in
an IL district SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL
USES PERMITTED IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Units 13 and 14; a Variance of the required building setback
line from the centerline of E. 61st St. from 100’ to 93’. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; a
Variance of the required building setback line from the north property line
from 75’ to 15’. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRITS; a Variance to delete the required
5’ wide landscaped area along E. 61st St. for a distance of
approximately 65’ per the site and landscape plan. SECTION 1002.A.2. LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENTS; a Variance of the required setback of off-street parking
areas from the centerline of S. 100th E. Ave. to permit 5 standard
off-street parking spaces and 2 handicapped spaces to be 30’ from the
centerline of S. 100th E. Ave. per the site plan. SECTION 1302.B. OFF-STREET PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING; SETBACKS; a
Variance of the required 5’ setback of off-street parking areas abutting a
residential district to permit 5 parking spaces 3’ from the north property line
per the site and landscape plan. SECTION
1002.A.3. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
and a Variance of the required minimum width of driveway aisles from 24’ to 20’
along E. 61st St. and from S. 100th E. Ave. per the site
and landscape plan. SECTION 1303. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, located NW/c
E. 61st St. & S. 100th E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Charles E. Norman, stated that he represents Mr. Carrol Culp. Mr. Culp has owned the property since
1980. The existing building on the
property was constructed in or around 1955 when the area was platted. Mr. Norman reminded the Board that this
application was submitted to the Board last June by Joe Donnelson and the
request was turned down. The Board’s
comments in the minutes from that meeting reflect their feeling that the
building was too large for the property.
Mr. Norman mentioned that this property is very unusual in shape because
it is 90’ deep (north and south) and 170’ wide (east to west). The property has been zoned in the
Industrial Light District for many years and Staff believes that the property
must have been zoned that way since the 1950’s when the existing building was
constructed on it. There is a
requirement for any structure to be setback 100’ from the centerline of an
arterial street. There is also a
requirement in the IL District that if it is adjacent to an R District then any
building must be setback 75’. With a
90’ depth there is no way that any structure, under today’s Code could be
constructed on the property without coming before the Board for some type of
relief. Mr. Norman stated that this is
one of the most technical applications he has ever presented and it all deals
with the size and depth of the lot. Mr.
Norman submitted photos (Exhibit L-2) showing the existing conditions on 61st
Street and the building to the west (Roy and Candy’s Music Store) which was
approved by the Board several years ago and has a total floor area of 5,800
square feet. The plan that was
submitted to the Board last year and was turned down also proposed about 5,900
total square feet. Mr. Norman also
submitted a copy of the proposal from last June and the new site and landscape
plan which shows the variances and special exceptions being asked for (Exhibit
L-1). Mr. Norman mentioned that there
were several concerns stated in the minutes from the June hearing and one of
the major ones was size. Another
concern was parking spaces. The present
plan provides parking as required by the Code and there is no variance
requested for the parking requirement.
The other concern of the previous hearing was the closeness to the adjoining
residences and a concern about drainage.
Mr. Norman stated that the property is not connected to a sanitary sewer
system. The system has been constructed
and is available on 99th Street to the west. When 61st Street was widened, it
was done so with a grade change allowing water from 61st Street to
run away from this property. The site
plan presented shows that a drainage curb will be constructed along the entire
west side of the property to force the stormwater to flow to the east to
another storm drain. Mr. Norman stated
that by reducing the size of the building they are trying to comply with as
many of the Zoning Code requirements as possible. Mr. Norman asked the Board to approve the site and landscape plan
as submitted. Mr. Norman also asked the
Board to approve Use Unit 13 and Use Unit 14 in an IL zoned district which are
the typical retail type uses. Office
uses are permitted by right in an IL zoned district. Mr. Norman pointed out that they are not asking for approval of
Use Unit 12 which is the restaurant use because they could not meet the parking
requirement. They are asking for a
variance of the required building setback from the centerline of 61st
Street from 100’ to 93’. The original building
and Roy and Candy’s building to the west are both within 65’ from the
centerline. The requested variance of
the required building setback from the north property line is from 75’ to 15’. If this property was zoned in the CS
district for Use Unit 13 and Use Unit 14, the required setback would be 10’ if
the building were not higher than 15’.
On the site plan, there is a limitation on the building height to
15’. Mr. Norman indicated that they are
planning to meet the landscape requirement of the Code but in order to provide
sufficient parking, they are asking for a variance deleting the 5’ landscape
strip on the street frontage for a distance of 65’ as shown on the site
plan. There are six trees that are proposed
to be planted which is in accord with the landscape ordinance. This property is within 50’ of an R zoned
lot. Therefore any parking spaces on
that side must be 50’ from the centerline of 100th Street. They are asking that the requirement be
reduced to 30’ to permit the parking layout as on the site plan. Mr. Norman mentioned that they have two
parking spaces on the east corner of the lot that are within 3’ of the north
property line instead of 5’. In order to
eliminate all of the parking spaces backing out they had to locate those 2’ closer
than permitted by the Code. Mr. Norman
stated that this is a complicated application but he feels that they have
complied with the spirit and intent of all of the requirements.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Norman about his
comment about meeting all the landscape requirements. Mr. Norman responded that the property will meet all of the
landscape requirements except the 5’ strip along the driveway entrance. Mr. Stump mentioned to the Board that they
do not meet the tree requirement of eight trees and they show six. Mr. Norman replied that they have no problem
planting two more trees.
Mr. White asked Mr. Norman if he or Mr.
Donnelson have spoken with any of the neighbors? Mr. Norman answered negatively.
Interested
Parties:
Dan
Kidd, 5948 S. 100th E. Ave., stated that he owns the residential
property that is directly north of the subject property. Mr. Kidd has no problem with the development
of the property. The problem is the way
that they are going about it because there are a lot of variance requests. Mr. Kidd believes that the owners of the
property are trying to build too much on too small of a lot. The proposed drainage plan will make the
water problem worse because they are going to construct a curb that will make
the water drain into his front yard.
Mr. Kidd submitted photographs (Exhibit L-3) of his house and the
lot. Mr. Kidd mentioned to the Board
that he has had to construct ditches all the way around his house to keep the
water run-off from going under his house.
Mr. Kidd is also concerned about the variance to allow the parking
spaces 3’ from his front yard. Mr. Kidd
is more than willing to sit down with the property owner and work out the
problems and try to work with each other.
Mr. Kidd requested the Board to turn down the application until the
owner can change the approach to the development of the lot.
Winston
Rourke, 5933 S. 99th E. Ave., stated that he applauds Mr. Culp
for trying to address the concerns of the neighborhood that were expressed last
June. Mr. Rourke believes that Mr. Culp
has many good ideas and is headed in the right direction. There is still a concern about run-off
water. Mr. Rourke mentioned that his
property has soggy land because of the run-off from 61st
Street. Mr. Rourke would like for the
property to be connected to City sewer and stormwater drainage. The subject property is currently on a
septic system. Mr. Rourke agreed to sit
down with Mr. Culp and discuss the neighborhood’s concerns about the property
and try to come to a solution.
Karen
Hicks, 5845 S. 99th E. Ave., mentioned that the drainage is her
major concern. Ms. Hicks spoke about
her neighborhood and how nice it is.
Her property is directly behind Roy and Candy’s store. Ms. Hicks does not believe that all of the
uses in Use Unit 13 and Use Unit 14 should be allowed in this location.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Norman stated that the drainage curb can be extended to the east property line to prevent any water from running north into Mr. Kidd’s front yard. Mr. Kidd has dug ditches around his property. Mr. Norman mentioned that this property cannot be developed as proposed without being connected to the sanitary sewer. They have no problem with that being a condition of approval. Mr. Norman indicated that the building’s north/south dimension is 30’ and that is about the minimum depth of any building that could be configured for any of the requested uses. Mr. Norman stated that the condition of limiting the uses to specific ones would be acceptable and it would take away the possibility of industrial uses.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Norman what the
specific use is of the property. Mr.
Norman replied that there are no specific plans for the building right
now.
Mr. Cooper asked about the flow of water
down 100th E. Ave. Mr.
Norman responded that the way the sidewalk was designed by the City, all of the
water will flow straight to the north and northwest. This plan would take that water around the building and by
elevating the northwest part of the site, force it to flow to the east and
contain it within the curb indicated on the plan.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Norman if he
believes that the drainage will be improved with the paving of the property. Mr. Norman replied that he does believe the
drainage will be improved for the two houses to the north because they will be
eliminating the drainage flowing to the northwest.
Mr. Norman informed the Board that it is
not the intent of the property owner to allow a liquor store or food service on
this property and Mr. Norman would agree to a condition limiting the use of the
property.
Mr. White mentioned that the drainage
swale on the east side of the parking lot would clear the water immediately
from the front yard of the property to north but it would only delay it. There is no drainage structure or bar ditch
until you reach at least two lots north of the property and you are just
displacing the water. Mr. Cooper
agreed.
Mr. Cooper is not convinced that the
problems have been solved.
Mr. White stated that he believes that
there is too much project for too small a lot.
Mr. Cooper could approve waiving the
setback from 75’ to 15’ because that would make the site unable to be developed.
Mr. White voiced a concern about the
sanitary sewer problem and Mr. Dunham stated that the sewer problem is not a
concern of his because they will have to connect to it because they cannot put
a septic system on it.
Mr. Dunham believes that for this
property to be developed it is going to take meetings with the developer and
the neighbors to come up with a solution.
Mr. Dunham said that this is a vast improvement over what they saw last
time but there are still some problems.
Mr. Stump believes that the only
hardship he can see is the 75’ setback from the north and the 75’ setback from
the south leaving a lot that cannot be built on. If the Board approves anything it should be those variance for
only Use Units 13 and 14. The rest of
it appears to be self-imposed by trying to get too much on the lot.
Mr. Cooper does not feel comfortable
approving anything without seeing a site plan.
Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Norman if it would help his client if the Board
approves the variance from 75’ to 15’ and the setback from 100’ to 93’. Mr. Norman replied that the approval of
those would establish the building envelope and they would need to know how
much building would be permitted. Mr.
Norman asked the Board to give them some guidance and continue this for a few
weeks and let them try to meet with the neighbors. Mr. Norman stated that he does not know the history behind Roy
and Candy’s store but there is 5,800 square feet there and they are asking for
4,000 square feet. Mr. Cooper stated
that it would be a great advantage to the owner of the property to solve the
issue of the drainage problem. As long
as the Board feels that there is a problem with the drainage they may not go
for the project.
Ms. Turnbo asked the Board if they would
be willing to make a motion to continue the case to allow Mr. Norman to meet
with the homeowners. Mr. Dunham asked
the homeowners what their feelings are.
The neighbors were willing to work with Mr. Norman and the owner. Mr. Cooper voiced his concern about getting
ready to turn something down and then the applicant saying that they are
willing to meet with the opposition. He
does not like that approach. Mr. Cooper
believes that they should have met with the opposition before they came before
the Board because they knew there would be opposition. Mr. Norman stated that is a good way to go
to court. Mr. Norman reminded the Board
that meeting with neighbors is a two-way street. The file is public record and is available to anyone wishing to
view it. The neighbors could have
initiated contact with the property owner.
Mr. Norman mentioned that he has tried to be respective of everything
that was reflected in the minutes from last June and has addressed everyone of
their concerns. Mr. Cooper replied that
he is not trying to challenge Mr. Norman but this is a case where both sides
rolled the dice and did not meet with each other and it is apparently going to
be turned down.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 4-1-0
(Cooper, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; Dunham "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to DENY Approval of site, landscape and drainage plan. PERSUANT
TO APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUESTED ACTIONS: a Special Exception to permit Use Unit 13, Convenience Goods and
Services and Use Unit 14, Shopping Goods and Services in an IL district
SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Units 13 and 14; a Variance of the required building setback
line from the centerline of E. 61st St. from 100’ to 93’. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; a
Variance of the required building setback line from the north property line
from 75’ to 15’. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRITS; a Variance to delete the required
5’ wide landscaped area along E. 61st St. for a distance of
approximately 65’ per the site and landscape plan. SECTION 1002.A.2. LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENTS; a Variance of the required setback of off-street parking
areas from the centerline of S. 100th E. Ave. to permit 5 standard
off-street parking spaces and 2 handicapped spaces to be 30’ from the
centerline of S. 100th E. Ave. per the site plan. SECTION 1302.B. OFF-STREET PARKING AND OFF-STREET LOADING; SETBACKS; a
Variance of the required 5’ setback of off-street parking areas abutting a
residential district to permit 5 parking spaces 3’ from the north property line
per the site and landscape plan. SECTION
1002.A.3. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
and a Variance of the required minimum width of driveway isles from 24’ to 20’
along E. 61st St. and from S. 100th E. Ave. per the site
and landscape plan. SECTION 1303. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, on the
following described property:
Lot 8, Block 2, Guy Cook Addition,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18280
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 75’ setback
from an R zoned district on the N, S and E.
SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 25; a waiver of the screening requirements, SECTION
1215.C. USE UNIT 15. OTHER TRADES AND SERVICES, Use Conditions
and a Variance of the all-weather surface for parking. SECTION
1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET
PARKING AREAS, located N of NE/c E. 61st St. & S. 107th
E. Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant, Alan
Roark, of Roark Landscape Corporation, 3704 E. 28th St.,
submitted a site plan (M-1), stated that his company is in preparation of putting
up a 40’x80’ building structure to house both office and storage
facilities. Mr. Roark pointed out that
they have 159’ of frontage along 107th Street and they want to turn
the building around so that it is 80’ long and there is not enough left over to
meet the setback. To the north of the
property is zoned commercial and behind that is residential but there are not
any houses on the residentially zoned part.
In the back is a detention facility and the south is zoned
residentially. Mr. Roark would like a
variance for the all-weather parking for a certain amount of time. It is their intention to pave the surface
but because of a financial hardship they can not afford to do so at this time.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked the applicant when he would be able to put
in the all-weather surface pavement.
Mr. Roark replied five years.
Mr. White pointed out that they usually granted them for six months to
one year.
Mr. Stump mentioned that to the east of this property is a
stormwater detention facility, where there won’t be any residences and this
area is in transition to Industrial.
Mr. Dunham mentioned that there are quite a few gravel drives in the
immediate area.
Mr. Dunham suggested allowing the applicant 18 months to put
in the gravel parking. Ms. Turnbo
suggested allowing the applicant two years, taking into consideration the time
to get a building permit.
Mr. Cooper does not see a hardship for the all-weather
surface. It is a new building and it
should be required. Mr. Cooper pointed
out that the Board has sometimes allowed a nonprofit the opportunity to raise
the money for the hard surface parking but this is a new business in a new
building and the money should be factored into the cost of new building
construction.
Interested Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, White "aye"; no "nays",
no "abstentions”; "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the required 75’ setback from an R zoned
district on the N, S and E, finding that it meets the requirements of Section
1607.C.,. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 25; a waiver of the
screening requirements. SECTION 1215.C. USE UNIT 15. OTHER TRADES
AND SERVICES, Use Conditions;
AND
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 2-3-0
(Cooper, White "aye"; Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to and
DENY a Variance of the
all-weather surface for parking. SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS;
AND
On MOTION
of TURNBO, the Board voted 3-2-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo "aye"; Cooper, White "nays", no
"abstentions”; "absent") to and
APPROVE a Variance of the
all-weather surface for parking, finding that it meets the requirements of
Section 1607.C., SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS for a period of two years, on the
following described property:
Lot 10, Block 1, Golden Valley, a subdivision of the W/2 of
the SE/4 of Section 31, T-19-N, R-14-E, IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma,
less and except: Beginning at the NE/c
of said Lot 10; thence S 01°21’01” E a distance of 160.24’ along the E line of
Lot 10 to the SE/c of said Lot 10; thence S 88°40’50” W a distance of 317.22’
along the S line of Lot 10; thence N 01°21’08” W a distance of 160.23’ to a
point on the N line of Lot 10; thence N 88°40’36” E a distance of 317.23’ to
the Point of Beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18281
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for drive-in use
within CS zoned property. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 18,
located SW/c 59th St. & S. Lewis.
Presentation:
The applicant, Sack
and Associates, Inc., 111 S. Elgin Ave., was represented by Ted A. Sack who
stated that this property will be used for a Sonic Drive-in.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. White referred to Staff Comments while asking Mr. Sack
about the 150’ of frontage on a major arterial street. Mr. Sack responded that this has been a
commercial site for a long time. They
do have 203’ of frontage on the collector street (59th Street) but
in a drive-in restaurant it does say that it needs 150’ of frontage on an
arterial street and they only have 145’.
They are going to readvertise for the frontage variance but would like
approval today for the special exception.
Interested Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception for drive-in use within CS zoned
property, finding that the special exception 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 SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 18 per plan submitted, CONTINUE the balance of the
application until January 26, 1999, on the following described property:
The E 253’ of the N 175’ of the SE/4 of the SE/4 of Section
31, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, less the N 30’ and the E 50’ of the N 155’ and
the E 40’ of the S 20’.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18282
Action
Requested:
Variance to permit parking structure to be
located in planned right-of-way. SECTION 215. STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ABUTTING STREETS – Use Unit 13,
located SW/c Pine and North Lewis.
Presentation:
The applicant, Sack
and Associates, Inc., 111 S. Elgin Ave., who was represented by Ted A.
Sack, submitted a site plan (Exhibit O-1), stated that this property is for a
proposed Walgreen’s store. Mr. Sack
proposes a variance of the Major Street and Highway Plan. Mr. Sack pointed out that they are
dedicating some right-of-way and these will be the new standards for the urban
arterial that are being talked about as being part of the new infill
projects. They are proposing 40’ of
arterial on each side of this intersection.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0 (Cooper,
Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance to permit parking structure to be located in
planned right-of-way. SECTION 215. STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ABUTTING STREETS – Use Unit 13,
finding that it meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., per plan submitted, on the following
described property:
A tract of land that is part of Lots 1 through 9, and all of
Lots 14, 15 and 16 of Block 1 of "B. F. Jacobs Subdivision" of Lots
1, 2, 25, 26 and 27 in "Springdale Acre" Lot Addition, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, Oklahoma, said tract of land being more particularly described as
follows, to-wit: starting at the NW/c of Lot 9 in Block 1 of "B. F. Jacobs
Subdivision”; thence due S along the Wly line of said Lot 9 for 9.50' to the
point of beginning of said tract of land; thence N 89°28'15" E and
parallel with the Nly line of Block 1 of "B. F. Jacobs Subdivision"
for 254.00' to a point that is 6.00' Wly of the Ely line of said Block 1; thence
due S and parallel with said Ely line for 275.50' to a point on the Sly line of
Block 1, said point being 6.00' Wly of the SE/c of Lot 6 in Block 1 of "B.
F. Jacobs Subdivision"; thence S 89°28'15" W along the Sly line of
said Block 1 for 254.00' to a point that is the SW/c of Lot 14 in said Block 1;
thence due N along the Wly lines of Lot 14 and Lot 9 in Block 1 for 275.50' to
the point of beginning of said tract of land
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18283
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a greenhouse in
a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15;
a Variance of the 63 required parking spaces to 20. SECTION 1215.D. USE UNIT 15. OTHER TRADES AND SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Requirements; and a Waiver of the screening requirement on the north and
west property line that abuts an R district to allow natural vegetation and
trees to serve as the buffer. SECTION 1215.C. USE UNIT 15. OTHER TRADES
AND SERVICES, Use Conditions, located 9020 S. Lewis.
Presentation:
The applicant, Joseph
R. Schulte, 4127 E. 49th St., submitted a site plan (Exhibit
P-1) and stated that he wants to construct a storage greenhouse on CS zoned
property. There will be no mercantile
work being done in the structure and the applicant is requesting a reduction in
the number of parking spaces. Mr.
Schulte mentioned that they will be growing plants and storing plants that they
have received in this location. The
retail facility is directly across the street from this site. Mr. Schulte stated that the vegetation along
the creek would not be removed and there is about 175’ to the nearest
residence.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham suggested approving the special exception to
allow the greenhouse but limiting the approval to no retail business may be
conducted. The applicant agreed with
the suggestion. Mr. Stump suggested
attaching the limitation of no retail sales to the parking variance instead of
the special exception so the applicant does not have to return to the Board if
he wants to make the greenhouse retail, he only has to comply with the parking
requirement of 63 spaces. The Board
agreed to do that instead.
Interested Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to allow a greenhouse in a CS zoned
district, finding that the special exception 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, SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15; a Variance of the 63
required parking spaces to 20, subject to no retail business being conducted on
the property, finding that it meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., SECTION
1215.D. USE UNIT 15. OTHER TRADES AND SERVICES, Off-Street
Parking and Loading Requirements; and a Waiver of the screening requirement
on the north and west property line that abuts an R district to allow natural
vegetation and trees to serve as the buffer, subject to a 25’ buffer being
maintained from the edge of the creek. SECTION 1215.C. USE UNIT 15. OTHER TRADES
AND SERVICES, Use Conditions on the following described property:
Beg. 111.35' W 672.60' N 25' W of the SW/c SE SW thence S
392.93' W 215.89' NW 39.12' on a curve with a radius of 472.12' to a point SL
Southern Villa Mobile Home Park thence E to the POB of Section 17, T-18-N R-13-E
containing 3.40 acres
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18284
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a mobile home
in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9
and a Special Exception to extend the one-year time limit to permanent. SECTION
404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 3519 E. 32nd Pl. N.
Presentation:
The applicant, Wynetta
D. Phipps, 982 E. 61st St, Apt. 7-J, submitted building plans
(Exhibit Q-1) and stated that she would like to place a modular home on the
subject property. Ms. Phipps submitted
a packet of information showing drawings of the home. The home will be 2,240 square feet and will be placed on a block
foundation. The home will meet all City
and County codes and they also meet HUD requirements. Ms. Phipps pointed out that the property she would like to put
the home on is currently being used as a dumping ground and by placing the home
there it will improve the property and the area.
Interested Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to allow a mobile home in an RS-3 zoned
district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Special Exception to
extend the one-year time limit to permanent.
SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, finding that the special exceptions 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, per plan
submitted, subject to the home being placed on a permanent foundation, on the
following described property:
Lots 17 and 18, Block 3, Mohawk Harvard Addition, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 18285
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a roof sign. SECTION
1221.C.11. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
General Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use Unit 14, located 2198 S.
Sheridan.
Presentation:
The applicant, Oklahoma
Neon, Inc., was represented by Ralph Sigler, 6550 E. Independence. Mr. Sigler submitted sign plans (Exhibit
R-1) and photos (Exhibit R-2) and stated that the existing sign on the building
extends above the roof. There are two
8” thick I-beams on the roof and that is where they would like to place the
sign. Even though the poles run through
the ground, Mr. Garriott of Development Services, did not want to sign off on
the sign because the it touches the building.
Mr. Sigler read the definitions of both a roof and a ground sign and
explained that this sign applies to both definitions.
Interested Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of COOPER, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Cooper, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; no "absent") to APPROVE Variance to allow a roof sign. SECTION 1221.C.11. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions
for Business Signs – Use Unit 14, finding that it meets the requirements of
Section 1607.C., per plan submitted, on the following described property:
Beg. 50’ W 250’ S of the NE/c NE thence S 1012.56’ W 630.88’
N 1211.54’ E 440’ S 200’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:53 p.m.
Date
approved: _____________________________
_________________________________________
Chair