CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, July 27, 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 |
|
|
|
|
Dunham, V. Chair |
Cooper |
Arnold |
Jackere, Legal |
Perkins |
|
Beach |
Ackermann,
Zoning |
Turnbo |
|
Stump |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
Parnell,
Code Enforc. |
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Friday, July 23, 1999, at 8:04 a.m. as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Special Exception to remove the
screening requirement from an abutting R district for a parking lot and
abutting apartments in a PUD. SECTION 504.B. GENERAL USE CONDITIONS IN THE PARKING DISTRICT and SECTION
1303.E. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET
PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 10 and a Variance of the requirement of a 5’
landscaped area to 0’ from an abutting RS-1 property. SECTION 1002.A.3. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, Frontage and
Perimeter Requirements, located East 96th Street South &
South Memorial.
Presentation:
The applicant, Jeff Levinson, 35 East 18th Street, stated that he
represents Spirit Bank, the prospective purchaser of the tract. Mr. Levinson submitted a site plan (Exhibit
A-1) and mentioned that the tract is 48’ wide by 412’ deep and is going to be
used exclusively as a parking lot to service the existing Spirit Bank facility
on South Memorial. Mr. Levinson pointed
out that the tract is bordered by RS-1 and the owners of the RS-1 tract do not
anticipate it ever being developed as a residential use. Those owners support this application
fully.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. White asked Staff if a tie agreement is required? Mr. Levinson informed the Board that this lot is also the subject of a pending lot-split application. The 48’ tract will be tied to the Lot 1, Block 1, 9600 Memorial, which is Spirit Bank. Mr. Beach mentioned that as soon as the PK zoning is approved, it will be subject to plat and they can incorporate the lot into their plans.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to remove the
screening requirement from an abutting R district for a parking lot and
abutting apartments in a PUD, 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
504.B. GENERAL USE CONDITIONS IN THE
PARKING DISTRICT and SECTION 1303.E.
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 10 and a Variance
of the requirement of a 5’ landscaped area to 0’ from an abutting RS-1
property, finding that the hardship meets the requirements of Section
1607.C., SECTION 1002.A.3. LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENTS, Frontage and Perimeter Requirements, on the following
described property:
A tract of land that is part of the NE/4 of the SE/4 of
Section 23, T-18-N, R-13-E of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, said
tract being described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Sly line of 9600 Memorial, said point being
5’ Wly of the SE/c of said 9600 Memorial; thence S 01°07’48” E along the
present right-of-way line of S. Memorial for 48.00’; thence S 88°45’34” W 48’
Sly of as measured perpendicularly to and parallel with the Sly line of said
9600 Memorial for 412.30’; thence N 01°07’48” W for 48.00’; thence N 88°45’34”
E along a Wly extension of the Sly line of said 9600 Memorial and along the Sly
line of said 9600 Memorial for 412.30’ to the beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW APPLICAITONS
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an existing public park in RS-3
and AG Districts and to permit improvements to the park. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 301.
PRINICPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 5,
located 2877 South 77th East Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Clarence T. Ruby, Jr., City of Tulsa, Parks Department, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit B-1) and mentioned that the City plans to do some excavating
work including new picnic tables and a trail around the park.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Comments
and Questions:
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to permit an
existing public park in RS-3 and AG Districts and to permit improvements to the
park, 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 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION
301. PRINICPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 5, subject to the conceptual site plan, and
that minor revisions may be made to the plan without further approval by the
Board; and being limited to only those items that are included in the 10 year
funded list (Exhibit B-2), on the following described property:
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Hodges Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an existing public park
(Woodland View II) in an RS-3 district and to permit improvements to the
park. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located North of east 58th
Street between South 85th East Avenue and South 84th East
Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Clarence
T. Ruby, Jr., City of Tulsa, Parks Department, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit C-1) and stated that the site map sent out by INCOG has an error on
it. The map shows an entrance at the
east side of the park and that entrance will not exist. Mr. Ruby explained that the entrance exists
on the plat but it is not used or accessible.
The entrance on the south will be the main entrance. There is another access in the northwest
corner
Interested Parties:
Dr. Jerry Powell, President of the Homeowners’ Association of Woodland View Park I. Dr. Powell indicated that the association is in support of the application. There have been no improvements made to the park since it was built in 1969.
Craig Stuttsman, 5643 S. 85th E. Ave. stated that the entrance on the east side of the park is directly across the street from him. He is concerned about it being used in the future. Mr. Stuttsman suggested that the City just divide up the small parcel of land and deed it to each homeowner on either side of it.
Mr. Jackere mentioned to Mr. Stuttsman that if the property is platted right-of-way, it can be closed and ultimately vacated. Mr. Jackere asked Mr. Stuttsman if there are any utilities on the property? Mr. Stuttsman replied that he can see no utilities.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Ruby stated that they have an agreement with one of the property owners that they would not reopen the access nor would they cut down the trees. Mr. Ruby stated that the 6’ strip was originally acquired with the park. The park was donated to the City by the developers.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE Special Exception to permit an
existing public park (Woodland View II) in an RS-3 district and to permit
improvements to the park, 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
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, subject to the improvements as shown on
the conceptual site plan (Exhibit ), on the following described property:
A tract of land located in the SW/4 of Section 36, T-19-N,
R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma described as Beginning at the
NE/c of Woodland View Park I Addition; thence due S 405’; thence S 27°00’00” W
a distance of 365’; thence S 41°00’00” W a distance of 352’; thence due E a
distance of 255’; thence due S a distance of 125.63’; thence due E a distance
of 20’; thence due N a distance of 123.63’; thence N 30°15’00” E a distance of
430’; thence N 9°50’00” E a distance of 145’; thence S 80°10’00” E a distance
of 115.01’; thence N 9°50’00” E a distance of 6’; thence N 80°10’00” W a
distance of 115.01’; thence N 9°50’00” E a distance of 189’; thence N 30°00’00”
E a distance of 334.20’; thence due W a distance of 320.15’ to the point of
beginning.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a manufactured home in an RS-4 District
and a Special Exception of the one-year time limit to permanent. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION
404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN
RESDIENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, located 1850 North Owasso Avenue
Presentation:
The applicant, Tasha Alexander, 445 East Oklahoma Place, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit D-1) and stated that she would like to place a mobile home on land
that has been passed down through her family.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that there are some improvements shown on the aerial photo. He asked the applicant if those improvements will remain? Ms. Alexander replied that it was torn down. She hopes to one day open a beauty salon adjacent to her home. The houses that are on the same side of the street are vacant. Ms. Alexander submitted photos of the surrounding area (Exhibit D-3).
Interested Parties:
Carol Matthews, 1851 North Owasso, stated that she is directly across the street from the proposed mobile home. Ms. Matthews is opposed to allowing a mobile home in a residential area because it will lower property values.
Leneta Dyer, 2005 North Madison Place, is opposed to the mobile home being allowed in the neighborhood. Ms. Dyer would like to see more stick built homes in the area and not more mobile homes.
Esther Oggins, stated that she represents the Lacey Park Task Force, stated that this area is strictly opposed to any mobile homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Oggins feels that they bring down property values. She stated that they are trying to rebuild their neighborhood and allowing mobile homes will not help their efforts.
Mr. White mentioned that the Board is in receipt of a petition of opposition (Exhibit D-2) signed by 20 neighborhood residents.
Mr. White reminded the Board that they do have, on record, a written opposition from Councilor Williams, that he is in opposition to any manufactured or mobile homes in the district.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Ms. Alexander impressed upon the Board
that a manufactured home will do nothing but bring up the value and quality of
the neighborhood. The houses that are
there have never been improved any way.
Ms. Alexander is planning to brick the house and add a garage to help
the appearance.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if the plan submitted is the one she plans on moving onto the property? Ms. Alexander replied affirmatively.
Mr. Dunham asked if the home will be
placed on a permanent foundation and Ms. Alexander responded that it will.
Mr. Dunham asked if the applicant has
any plans to pave the driveway and Ms. Alexander replied affirmatively.
Mr. Dunham asked the Board if there are
any other mobile homes in the area. Mr.
White replied that he has driven the neighborhood and did not see any other
mobile homes.
Ms. Turnbo stated that the house looks
nice in the pictures but she believes that this neighborhood is trying to
rebuild and the neighborhood strongly opposes mobile homes. She is leaning towards denial of the
application. Mr. White does not believe
that this home will be a benefit to the area.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to DENY Special Exception to permit a
manufactured home in an RS-4 District and a Special Exception of the one-year
time limit to permanent. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS and SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESDIENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, on
the following described property:
Lots 7-8, Block 7, Liberty Second Addition, an addition to
the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Action Requested:
Variance of the required 60’ lot width to 50’ to permit a
lot split in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS;
Special Exception to allow duplexes in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Variance of the required lot area from 9,000 square
feet to 6,750 square feet; Variance of the required land area per dwelling unit
from 5,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet; Variance of minimum lot frontage
from 75’ to 50’ to permit duplexes. SECTION 404.C. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS;
OR
in the alternative: Variance of the required lot area from 6,900 square
feet to 6,750 square feet and Variance of the required land area per dwelling
unit from 8,400 square feet to 8,000 square feet to permit a lot split. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located East of the NE/c East 3rd Street
& South Delaware.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that all of the requests related to duplexes are being withdrawn.
Presentation:
The applicant, Linda Morrissey, was represented by John Nicks, 1325 South Guthrie, who submitted a site plan (Exhibit
E-1) and stated that he is one of the owners of the property. After talking to the neighborhood
association last week, they have decided to withdraw the request to allow
duplexes. Their application now is to
conform these lots to the rest of the lots on the block.
Interested Parties:
Maria
Barnes, 2252 East 7th Street, stated that she is the President
of Kendall-Whittier Neighborhood Association.
The Association supports the lot-split for single-family residences.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the required 60’ lot
width to 50’ to permit a lot split in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Variance of the required lot area
from 6,900 square feet to 6,750 square feet and Variance of the required
land area per dwelling unit from 8,400 square feet to 8,000 square feet to permit
a lot split being limited to a single-family dwelling; finding that the size of
the lots in the area would support the lot-split. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS finding that the Variances meet the requirements of
Section 1607.C., on the following described property:
Lot 7, Block 5, Pleasant View Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma
The applicant WITHDREW the request for a Special Exception to allow duplexes
in an RS-3 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Variance
of the required lot area from 9,000 square feet to 6,750 square feet; Variance
of the required land area per dwelling unit from 5,000 square feet to 4,000
square feet; Variance of minimum lot frontage from 75’ to 50’ to permit
duplexes. SECTION 404.C. SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS;
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback from an arterial street
from 90’ to 50’. SECTION 904. SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USES, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 23, located 2830 West Charles Page Boulevard.
Presentation:
The applicant, Clyde L. Johnson, 7529 South Gary Place, Tulsa, OK, submitted a
site plan (Exhibit F-1) and stated that he is the President of Interstate Steel
and Metals. The company needs to expand
its warehouse operations on Charles Page Boulevard. Mr. Johnson submitted photos (Exhibit F-2) of other sites in the
area and of his warehouse. The steel
that is currently laying exposed in the parking lot will be under cover if the
warehouse is approved.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the required setback
from an arterial street from 90’ to 50’, finding the existing conditions in the
neighborhood to be the hardship, SECTION 904. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 23, per plan
submitted, on the following described property:
Part of Government Lot 6, in Section 3, T-19-N, R-12-E of
the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as
follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point
562.2’ N and 1537’ N 79°10’ E of Meander Corner on the left bank of the
Arkansas River between Sections 3 and 4, T-19-N, R-12-E, being a point which is
30’ perpendicularly distant in a SEly direction from the center line of paved
highway known as Sand Springs Road; thence N 79°10’ E on and along the Sly line
of said Sand Springs Road, a distance of 257.5’; thence S 2°26’ E, a distance
of 212.1’ to a point on the Nly right-of-way line of Sand Springs Railway
Company, said point being 38.8’ perpendicularly distant in a NWLy direction
from the center line of the west bound main track of said railway company
thence S 78°58’ W on and along said Nly right-of-way line a distance of 259.0’;
thence N 2°2’ W a distance of 213.5’ to the point of beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback from an abutting street
from 55’ to 30’ to permit an accessory building which will be 5’ from the
property line. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 5502 South
Harvard Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Daryl F. Southard, 5652 South Delaware, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit G-1) and stated that he represents Harvard Avenue Christian
Church. The church would like to place an
accessory building within 5’ of the property line. The building will be utilized as classroom space for the
church.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the required setback from an abutting street from 55’ to
30’ to permit an accessory building which will be 5’ from the property line,
finding that the hardship meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, per plan submitted, on the following
described property:
That part of the NE/4 of Section 32, T-19-N, R-13-E, Tulsa
County, Oklahoma described as follows:
Beginning at a point 466.69’ S of the NE/c of the SE/4, NE/4; thence W
parallel with the N line of said SE/4, NE/4 466.69’ to a point; thence S 300’
to a point; thence E 466.69’ to a point on the E line of said section; thence N
along said line 300’ to the point of beginning.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of the required 65’ setback from the centerline of
East 47th Place to 40’. SECTION 902. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15,
located 4711 South Mingo.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Charles Chief Boyd, 4998 East 26th
Street, submitted a site plan (Exhibit H-1) and stated that he is replacing a
lumber warehousing facility with a different structure in essentially the same location. The building will be slightly larger.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE Variance of the required
65’ setback from the centerline of East 47th Place to 40’, finding
the hardship to be the configuration of the lot, SECTION 902. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 15, per plan submitted, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of the requirement that corridor access shall be
principally from internal collector streets.
SECTION 804. ACCES REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 11,
located South of he SE/c East 91st Street & South Mingo Road.
Presentation:
The applicant, Wayne Alberty, 201 West 5th Street, Tulsa, OK 74103, stated
that he is representing the Sutherland family who owns the property. Mr. Alberty submitted a site plan (Exhibit
I-1) and mentioned that the Sutherlands were before the Board approximately
three years ago and at that time they had a different use in mind. The use that was approved was never
completed. The Sutherland family wants
to develop a project which will partially be for their own use (headquarters
for Sutherland Companies) and to provide extra space for medical offices. The Sutherlands believe that medical offices
will soon be in demand as direct result of the new SouthCrest Hospital being
located nearby. Mr. Alberty explained
that this tract is long and narrow and could not accommodate a collector street.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance
of the requirement that corridor access shall be principally from internal
collector streets, finding that the hardship meets the requirements of Section
1607.C., SECTION 804. ACCES REQUIREMENTS
– Use Unit 11, subject to an approved site plan, on the following described
property:
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of average lot width from the required 60’ to 38’
and 34’ to permit a lot-split with two panhandles for water and sewer
access. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQURIEMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 4122 South
Madison Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Kenneth
Craft, 4119 South Detroit, submitted a site plan (Exhibit J-1) and stated
that he attempted to do a lot split in the Spring and they ran into some
utility problems. He has since met with
the utility departments and has been told by them that they would have to
construct a panhandle to gain access to the utilities. Because of the panhandle length, the average
lot width would be reduced. Mr. Craft
explained that all of the lots to the south have been split. The lot directly to the south has a
panhandle for water access.
Interested
Parties:
Steve Pattison, 4132 and 4136 South Madison avenue, stated that he is in opposition to this proposed lot split. Mr. Pattison explained that the house that exists gains access from Detroit and the proposed lot would gain access from Madison. Mr. Pattison stated that Madison is barely a street and is about 8’ wide. There is not enough room to handle the traffic that currently uses the street. Mr. Pattison asked the Board to deny the application.
Mr. White mentioned that the Board is in receipt of a letter of opposition (Exhibit J-2).
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Pattison if there are houses that currently face onto Madison? Mr. Pattison replied that there are two houses that face onto Madison right now.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Craft stated that there is more than 8’ on Madison. He believes that Madison is closer to 22’ or 25’.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that it appears that the lots to the south that have been split are wider than the one proposed to be split.
Mr. White asked Staff when the lots to the south developed with the panhandle? Mr. Beach replied that he did not know. Mr. Stump stated that it was probably not granted a variance of lot width. Mr. Beach noted that if it wasn’t for the need to get to the sewer and water the applicant would not be before us. Mr. Stump mentioned that the City requires the lot front the water main and sewer main. If it does not, you are supposed to extend the water or sewer main so the lot does front. A way of getting around that is a panhandle lot.
Mr. White feels that this is a self-imposed hardship.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins,
Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”;
Cooper "absent") to DENY a Variance of average lot
width from the required 60’ to 38’ and 34’ to permit a lot-split with two
panhandles for water and sewer access. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQURIEMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use
Unit 6, on the following described property:
S/2 of Lot 2, Block 1, Demorest Addition to the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of the required rear setback from 25’ to 15’. SECTION
603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 2200 Block east 48th
Place
Presentation:
The applicant, Michael
Dwyer, was represented by Nancy
Gorley, 2153 East 48th Place South, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit K-1) and stated that she and her husband are the owners of the
lot. Ms. Gorley is requesting to have
the rear setback reduced to 15’. There
is a 15’ utility easement that runs along the north side of the
subdivision. There are 11 lots on the
north side of the subdivision.
Presently there are six lots occupied and four of them have received the
same variance that the Gorley’s are requesting today. Ms. Gorley also mentioned that they would like approval of the
variance because they do not want to build a two-story house and in order to
have sufficient square footage in the house, they need the variance. Their hardship is the fact that there are
several other houses in the area that have received the same relief.
Interested
Parties:
Mrs. Finlan Boesche, 2218 East 48th Street, stated that she and her husband helped design the subdivision. At the time, he suggested that they design the houses so there would be no lights shining into other houses. Ms. Boesche is very supportive of the one-story house that the Gorley’s are proposing to build.
Maury Stamin, 2229 East 48th Street, was concerned about there being no description of what is being planned. He supports the single-story house.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned that one of the development standards that was imposed in 1977 when the development was permitted, in addition to the 25’ rear setback for the northerly tier of lots, was that any garage that faces the street (or entry perpendicular to the street) must be setback 25’ from the street. That is not the case according to this site plan and they did not ask for that relief.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Ms. Gorley mentioned to the Board that the garage setback is a private restriction. None of the existing homes on the north side and on the other perpendicular streets, has a 25’ setback from the curb line. Some are as close as 16’ or 18’.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Beach stated that the applicant still needs relief from the garage setback and it should be continued to allow for notice of the relief needed.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of PERKINS, the Board voted 3-0-1 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, "aye"; no "nays", White
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance
of the required rear setback from 25’ to 15’, subject to the house being
single-story, finding the hardship to be that there have been four other
variances granted in the same neighborhood.
SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS
– Use Unit 6, and CONTINUE
the case to allow for additional notice for garage setback relief, on the
following described property:
Lot 13, Block 1, Bolewood Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Special Exception to allow a Use Unit 17, automobile sales,
in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17,
located 6222 South Peoria.
Presentation:
The applicant, Anthony
Wayne Hunter, 4102 South Madison Place, submitted a site plan (Exhibit L-1)
and stated that he owns the subject property.
Mr. Hunter explained that he would like to sell autos at the location on
South Peoria.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Beach informed the Board that additional relief will be needed if the Board approves this application. The relief needed would be from the requirement of no storage or display of merchandise within 300’ of an R zoned district.
Mr. White asked the applicant how many
cars he intends on displaying? Mr.
Hunter replied no more than 10. The lot
will not hold more than 10 or 12. There
will be no repairs done on the lot.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she is opposed to
this use. She feels that the lot is too small and it is located too close to
residential areas. Mr. Dunham agreed
with Ms. Turnbo.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to
DENY a Special Exception to
allow a Use Unit 17, automobile sales, in a CS zoned district, finding that the
use will be detrimental to the neighborhood.
SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, on the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 1, South Peoria Gardens, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Special Exception for a self support tower rather than a
monopoly tower in an IL zoned district.
SECTION 1204.C.3.b.2. USE UNIT 4.
PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions and a
Variance from the requirement of blending with the surrounding
environment. SECTION 1204.C.3.b.1. USE UNIT
4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES, Use Conditions, located NW/c South 105th East Avenue
& East 54th Street South.
Presentation:
The applicant, Titan
Towers, L. P., was represented by David Baker, 1500 Industrial Boulevard,
Abilene, TX, submitted a site plan (Exhibit M-1) and some supporting exhibits
(Exhibit M-2) to the Board. Mr. Baker
mentioned that their proposal is for a 300’ self-supporting tower. The reason for the request is because a
monopole cannot structurally be built that tall to accommodate the number of
different users that they intend. The
Code indicates that the tower should be galvanized or otherwise blend with the
surrounding environment, this tower will be galvanized with aviation style
lighting. The site is located near the
intersection of Highway 51 and Highway 169.
They intend to work with the City so the tower does not interfere with
their communications.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated that the expressway is zoned RS-3, technically the applicant needs a setback of 110% from an RS district. The applicant is not advertised for that relief. Mr. Baker mentioned that from the site plan, it appears that the edge of the property is about 170’ from the center of the tower to the expressway. Mr. Stump stated that the applicant does not need the relief from the expressway. The Code excludes expressways zoned residential.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception for a self support tower 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 1204.C.3.b.2. USE UNIT 4.
PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions and a Variance
from the requirement of blending with the surrounding environment, finding that
it meets the requirements of Section 1607.C.,
SECTION 1204.C.3.b.1. USE UNIT 4.
PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions, per plan
submitted, on the following described property:
Lot 8, Block 16, Tulsa Southeast Industrial District, Blocks
12A and 13 through 18 inclusive, a resubdivision of Block 12 of Tulsa Southeast
Industrial District, Blocks 9 through 12 inclusive and part of Block “A” and
all of Block “B” of Tulsa Southeast Industrial District Extended, addition to
the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of not more than 12˝% from the required number of parking spaces for any given use within existing shopping center, due to continual fluctuation among various uses and allocation of uses within shopping center and different hours of operation. SECTION 1211.D. USE UNIT 11. OFFICES, STUDIOS, AND SUPPORT SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; SECTION 1212.D. USE UNIT 12. EATING ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN DRIVE-INS, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; SECTION 1213.D. USE UNIT 13. CONVENIENCE GOODS AND SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; and SECTION 1214.D. USE UNIT 14. SHOPPING GOODS AND SERVICES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements and a Variance from requirement that required parking spaces be located on lot containing use for which such required parking spaces are to be provided, to permit such spaces to be located on adjoining lot which is nevertheless part of same shopping center. SECTION 1300.B. & C. APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENTS; and SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, located 8102-8222 South Lewis Avenue.
Presentation:
The applicant, Stephen
A. Schuller, 500 Oneok Plaza, 100 West 5th Street, Tulsa, OK
74103, submitted a site plan (Exhibit N-1) and stated that this application
pertains to The Plaza Shopping Center on the southwest corner of 81st
and Lewis. The shopping center takes up
the entire property and there is no additional surrounding property available
to be used for expansion. The stores
are primarily around the rear of the property so there is no way to add
additional parking without tearing down a building. Mr. Schuller stated that parking has never been a problem on this
site. Mr. Schuller explained that this
application came about because of a self audit done in connection with a loan
application. It was discovered that when you apply the various square footages
of the respective uses to the number of parking spaces, they may not be in
compliance from time to time. Mr.
Schuller explained to the Board the square footage of the buildings and the
available parking spaces for each use (see submitted site plan – Exhibit
N-1). Mr. Schuller stated that they are
only short a few spaces. He reiterated
that the shopping center cannot expand its parking. The allocation of the uses will fluctuate over time as tenants
and uses change. A 12˝% variance is all
they would need to be in compliance most of the time. The uses are primarily at different times. Zio’s Restaurant is busiest in the evening
hours and the stores are usually closed at that time so there is plenty of
parking.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Stump asked what the hardship
is? This shopping center’s tenant mix
changes just the same as any other shopping.
If the Board approves a blanket 12˝% reduction in required off-street
parking for this shopping center, it appears that every other shopping center
in town would qualify for the same relief.
This center was built when they had the off-street parking
requirements. Mr. Stump mentioned that
the applicant has not demonstrated a need for anywhere near the variance he has
requested. Mr. Stump indicated that he
does not see anything unique about this shopping center.
Mr. Schuller indicated that the shopping
center is unique because of the location of the buildings you can’t expand the
parking.
Mr. White asked if the application was generated
by mortgage banking purposes and Mr. Schuller replied affirmatively. Mr. White stated that the Board would not
have heard this application if it were not for the refinancing. Mr. Stump mentioned that since the center
has several areas vacant they probably meet the parking requirements right
now. Mr. Schuller stated that there is
plenty of parking at the center due to the various hours of the various
tenants.
Mr. Dunham agreed with Mr. Schuller in
that he has never had a problem finding a parking space at any hour within this
shopping center. It seems like a trend
in this center to have more eating establishments. Mr. Dunham suggested taking a second look at the policy in
general. He does not believe Mr.
Schuller’s request is out of line and it is reasonable. Mr. Stump suggested that Mr. Dunham
recommend to the Planning Commission that they give a break for smaller
centers.
Ms. Perkins agreed with Mr. Dunham in
that she has never had a problem finding a parking place.
Mr. White questioned the enforceability
of this request. Mr. Jackere replied to
Mr. White that enforcement would be easy.
Mr. Stump informed the Board that they must get an occupancy permit
before they can occupy with a new tenant.
Mr. Ackermann mentioned that when someone comes for an occupancy permit
or an interior remodel permit, they go through the parking and make sure there
is enough for the new use. In the cases
where there is not enough parking, they inform the applicant and the applicant
must demonstrate that they do have enough parking or the permit is denied.
Ms. Turnbo stated that she has no
problem with the second variance but the first variance she does not agree
with. Mr. Dunham asked the applicant
where the 12˝% came from. Mr. Schuller
replied that he made the number up, it is the worse case scenario. Mr. Schuller could support 10% or 11%.
Mr. Dunham stated to Staff that he believes that some relief on a policy level should be looked into. He has no problem with 10%.
Mr. Ackermann asked if, during the
computation of the parking of a new restaurant, do they deduct 10% of the
request for the certificate of occupancy for the restaurant or 10% of the
overall requirement of the shopping center?
Mr. Jackere stated the Board should limit it to one or the other. Mr. Dunham feels that the nature of the
request is 10% of the overall shopping center.
Mr. Schuller agreed with that statement.
Mr. Jackere asked Mr. Dunham why he
feels that they need to change the policy if you feel like you have the
authority to grant the relief that they are granting. Mr. Jackere asked Mr. Dunham if there is a hardship for the
granting of this variance? If the Board
finds a hardship then the Board can approve whatever they wish to approve. Mr. Dunham stated that the hardship is the
size of the center. He also stated that
the policy creates a hardship
Mr. Jackere stated that the Zoning Code
itself does not create the problem. It
creates limitations on people’s rights.
If that ordinance that makes it a requirement that the applicant must
have so many parking spaces per use is unfair for a center this size, then it
should be addressed purely as a policy matter.
Unless you can find that this center is different than other shopping
centers.
Ms. Perkins asked if the hardship would
then be self-imposed when the tenant mix changes? Mr. Jackere and Mr. Stump replied affirmatively.
Mr. Dunham and Mr. Jackere agreed that
the policy needs to be changed.
Mr. Stump suggested imposing a tie
agreement, tying all the lots together to use as parking.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
DENY a Variance of not more than 12˝% from
the required number of parking spaces for any given use within existing
shopping center, due to continual fluctuation among various uses and allocation
of uses within shopping center and different hours of operation. SECTION 1211.D. USE UNIT 11. OFFICES, STUDIOS, AND SUPPORT SERVICES,
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements; SECTION 1212.D. USE UNIT 12. EATING ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN DRIVE-INS, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Requirements; SECTION 1213.D. USE UNIT 13. CONVENIENCE GOODS AND SERVICES, Off-Street
Parking and Loading Requirements; and SECTION 1214.D. USE UNIT 14. SHOPPING GOODS AND SERVICES, Off-Street
Parking and Loading Requirements and APPROVE a Variance from requirement that
required parking spaces be located on lot containing use for which such
required parking spaces are to be provided, to permit such spaces to be located
on adjoining lot which is nevertheless part of same shopping center, finding
that the Variance meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., SECTION
1300.B. & C. APPLICABILITY OF
REQUIREMENTS; and SECTION 1301.D.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit
10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, subject to a tie agreement, on the following
described property:
Lots 1, 2 and 7, Block 2, Riverbend Addition, an addition to
the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Mr. Dunham requested that TMAPC look into changing the
ordinance as it applies to these types of sites.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit the Tennis Center, student
athletic and recreation field, the softball field and the accessory parking as
a University use under Use Unit 5 in the RM-2 Zoning District. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5; a Variance to permit the multiple lots
and vacated rights-of-way within the site to be considered as a single lot for
the purpose of establishing and measuring building and parking setbacks. SECTION 215. STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM
ABUTTING STREETS; SECTION 1302. SETBACKS; a Variance to permit required
off-street parking spaces to be on a lot other than the lot containing the use
for which the required spaces are to be provided (not required if above
variance is approved). SECTION
1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS,
Variance to permit a maximum building height in an RM-2 Zoning District of more
than 35’ to permit the Tennis Center east/west roof peak to have a height of
55’, the north/south mansards and roof of the Tennis Center to have a height of
43’ and to permit architectural features (mock chimneys) to have a height of
61’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Variance to delete the
requirement of a loading berth as required by the floor area of the indoor Tennis
Center. SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES; Off-street Parking and Loading
Requirements; Variance to permit unenclosed parking areas to be 55’ from
the centerline of South Delaware Avenue and 39’ from the centerline of East 6th
Street. SECTION 1302.B. SETBACKS; a Variance to permit the
required 5’ wide landscaped area to not abut the street right-of-way in the
south 720’ of the South Delaware Avenue street frontage. SECTION 1002. LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENTS; Variance of the prohibition in Section 1301.B. of the Zoning
Code to permit more than 1 vehicle to be parked for each 600 square feet of
area contained in the side yard of the Tennis Center. SECTION 1301.B. GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS; Variance to permit more than 1 identification sign to be
erected on South Delaware Avenue, East 6th Street and South Columbia
Avenue. SECTION 402.B.4.b. ACCESSORY
USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions; a Variance of
off-street parking requirements to permit the off-street parking space required
for the combined facilities in excess of 194 spaces to be provided off-site but
within the boundaries of the University campus. SECTION 1205. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES,
located W side of S. Delaware Ave. between E. 10th St., S. Columbia
Ave. & E. 6th St.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Beach mentioned to the Board that they are in receipt of two written requests of continuance and verbal instructions to withdraw the continuance request. Mr. Beach also stated that the continuance was not timely.
Mr. Charles E. Norman informed the Board that he has met with Chris Jones and Maria Barnes, representatives of the neighborhood. They agreed to withdraw the continuance request.
Presentation:
The applicant, Charles
E. Norman, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, Tulsa, OK 74103-4023, stated that he
represents The University of Tulsa. Mr.
Norman mentioned that in the last six months they have been in the process of
amending the Comprehensive Plan for the University which is a part of the
Kendall-Whittier Neighborhood Plan and also part of the District 6 Plan The purpose of amending the plan is to
relocate some of these uses to accommodate the requirement for a stormwater
detention facility at the south end of the site near the Bama Pie Company. Mr. Norman referred to the site plan while
explaining the layout of the parking and athletic fields (Exhibit O-1, O-2 and
O-3). Mr. Norman stated that the site
has about 1,000 feet of frontage on Columbia Avenue and totals about 14 acres. The purpose of this application is to obtain
approval of the details of the plan pursuant to the approved Comprehensive Plan
and to ask approval of specific site, landscape, sign and lighting plans. In discussions with the neighborhood groups
and College Hill Presbyterian Church (which is located on the west side of
Columbia), they were asked to push the tennis center as far to the east as
possible toward Delaware to leave view corridors through the detention
facility, practice fields and keeping the view corridor open on 6th
Street to the west of St. Anthony’s Orthodox Christian Church. Mr. Norman summarized each of the requests
before the Board. Mr. Norman explained
that they are asking for the multiple lots to be vacated and considered as a
single lot. Mr. Norman stated that they
are proposing to have identification signs at the four corners of the property
and specific wall signs for the Tennis Center, a sign on center field (adjacent
to 6th Street) that will give the name of the softball field and
another sign on the press box on the softball field. All the signs are within the total signage limitations. The largest sign requested is 100 square
feet. Mr. Norman stated that the
University has parking requirements based on the total square footage of
classroom buildings and the number of dormitory beds and the number of seats
within the stadium. The University’s
total parking requirement is about 1,100 parking spaces. At the conclusion of the Reynold’s Center
construction, the University has a total of 3,100 parking spaces on
campus. This application will provide
for an additional 194 spaces. Mr.
Norman submitted a letter that reflects an agreement that the University has
entered into with the two neighboring churches and the Kendall-Whittier Association
(Exhibit O-4). The neighbors expressed
a concern about commercial advertising signs around the softball field, Mr.
Norman stated that it is not the intention of the University to have commercial
advertising surrounding the field. Mr.
Norman asked the Board to approve a corporate sponsor sign for a softball score
board that would not exceed 104 square feet of scoreboard. There has also been some discussion
regarding the use of sound systems. Mr.
Norman pointed out that sound systems aren’t generally used during tennis
games. An agreement has been made with
the neighbors that the sound systems will not be used on Sundays, except
between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. and Wednesdays after 7:00 p.m. Mr. Norman also agreed with the neighboring
churches that they will not use the sound systems during a scheduled funeral or
wedding. The University has also agreed
that the outdoor lights will be turned out at 11:00 p.m. any time that they are
used. Mr. Norman informed the Board
that they overlooked a requirement that has been applied for but cannot be
considered today. Prior to February of
1998, Delaware was classified as a collector street with a maximum right-of-way
width of 40’ from the centerline. It
was overlooked that the Major Street and Highway Plan was amended to designate
South Delaware as a secondary arterial street.
The University has applied for an additional variance to permit the
Tennis Center to be located 55’ from the centerline. Mr. Norman asked the Board to approve this application for the
University of Tulsa.
Interested
Parties:
Maria Barnes, 2252 East 7th Street, stated that she is President of the Kendall-Whittier Neighborhood Association. The Association has met with Mr. Norman and TU staff and the Association supports the application.
Gary Watts, 1564 South Gillette, stated that he represents College Hill Presbyterian Church. Mr. Watts submitted a letter explaining the church’s position on the application (Exhibit O-5). Mr. Watts mentioned that they are pleased with the quality of the development that the University has presented to them and the church supports the application. Mr. Watts informed the Board that they have no problem with the request that is being continued to the next meeting.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception to permit the Tennis Center, student athletic and recreation
field, the softball field and the accessory parking as a University use under
Use Unit 5 in the RM-2 Zoning 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
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5; a Variance to permit the multiple lots
and vacated rights-of-way within the site to be considered as a single lot for
the purpose of establishing and measuring building and parking setbacks. SECTION 215. STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM
ABUTTING STREETS; SECTION 1302. SETBACKS; Variance to permit a
maximum building height in an RM-2 Zoning District of more than 35’ to permit
the Tennis Center east/west roof peak to have a height of 55’, the north/south
mansards and roof of the Tennis Center to have a height of 43’ and to permit
architectural features (mock chimneys) to have a height of 61’. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; Variance to delete the requirement
of a loading berth as required by the floor area of the indoor Tennis Center. SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES; Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements; Variance
to permit unenclosed parking areas to be 55’ from the centerline of South
Delaware Avenue and 39’ from the centerline of East 6th Street. SECTION 1302.B. SETBACKS; a Variance to permit the required 5’
wide landscaped area to not abut the street right-of-way in the south 720’ of the
South Delaware Avenue street frontage.
SECTION
1002. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS; Variance of the prohibition in
Section 1301.B. of the Zoning Code to permit more than 1 vehicle to be parked
for each 600 square feet of area contained in the side yard of the Tennis
Center. SECTION 1301.B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS; Variance
to permit more than 1 identification sign to be erected on South Delaware
Avenue, East 6th Street and South Columbia Avenue. SECTION
402.B.4.b. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions; a Variance of off-street
parking requirements to permit the off-street parking space required for the
combined facilities in excess of 194 spaces to be provided off-site but within
the boundaries of the University campus. SECTION
1205. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES,
finding that the Variances meet the requirements of Section 1607.C., subject to
the conditions set forth in Mr. Norman’s letter to the Board dated July 27,
1999 (Exhibit O-4) and per plans submitted (Exhibit O-1, O-2, O-3), Maps
Numbered 1, 2 and 3, and CONTINUE
the case to the meeting on August 10, 1999 for additional relief, on the
following described property:
A tract of
land that is all of Block 9 Highlands 2nd Addition, Part of Blocks 14,
15 and 16 of Highlands Addition, vacated E. 7th St. S. lying between
Blocks 15 and 16 and vacated E. 8th St. S. lying between Blocks 14
and 15, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, being more particularly
described as follows, to-wit: Beginning
at a point that is the NW/c of Block 9 of Highlands 2nd Addition;
thence N 89°40’27” E along the Nly line of said Block 9 and along the Sly
right-of-way line of E. 6th St. S. for 612.64’ to the NE/c of Block
9, said corner also being on the Wly right-of-way line of S. Delaware Ave.;
thence due S along the Ely line of Block 9 and the Wly right-of-way line of S.
Delaware Ave. for 89.00’ to the SE/c of said Block 9, said corner also being on
the Nly line of Block 16 of Highlands 2nd Addition, and 25.00’ Wly
of the NE/c of said Block 16; thence due S along the Wly right-of-way line of
S. Delaware Ave. and parallel with as measured 25.00’ Wly of the Ely lines of
Blocks 16, 15 and 14 of Highlands Addition for 931.00’ to a point on the Sly
line of said Block 14, said point also being on the Nly right-of-way line of E.
10th St. S.; thence S 89°40’27” W along the Sly line of Block 14 and
the Nly right-of-way line of E. 10th St. S. for 610.70’ to the SW/c
of Block 14, said point also being on the Ely right-of-way line of S. Columbia
Ave.; thence N 00°06’33” W along the Wly lines of Blocks 14, 15 and 16 of
Highlands Addition and Block 9 of Highlands 2nd Addition and also
along the Ely right-of-way line of S. Columbia Ave. for 1020.00’ to the point
of beginning of said tract of land.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of the required setback from the centerline of
Peoria from 70’ to 61’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use
Unit 6, located 1304 East 26th Place.
Presentation:
The applicant, Susie
Woody, Woody Design Associates, 1820 South Boulder Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74119,
submitted a site plan (Exhibit P-1) and stated that her clients would like to
build a porch on the south side of the residence. Ms. Woody stated that the hardship is the size of the lot, it is
very narrow and they cannot build on the side.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”;
Cooper "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of the required
setback from the centerline of Peoria from 70’ to 61’, finding the hardship to
be the size of the lot. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use
Unit 6, per plan submitted, on the following described property:
Part of Lot 19, Block 1, Travis Heights to the City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Variance of the required setback from Main Street from 40’
to 30’ to permit a sign. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMERICAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit
11, located 1300 South Main Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, Brian
Lloyd Freese, 5319 South Lewis, Suite 211, Tulsa, OK 74105, stated that he
is the architect for Bryce Insurance.
Mr. Freese submitted a site plan (Exhibit Q-1) and mentioned that their
building is located at 13th and South Main Street. Mr. Freese mentioned that they recently
completed an extensive remodel and addition to the building. The proposed sign will be a two sided
monument sign which will be aesthetically complimentary to the building.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Freese if there would be any problem approving the application subject to a removal contract? Mr. Freese replied that there would be no problem with that.
Interested
Parties:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance
of the required setback from Main Street from 40’ to 30’ to permit a sign,
finding that it meets the requirements of Section 1607.C., SECTION
703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERICAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, per plan submitted, subject to a
removal contract, on the following described property:
Lots 1, 2, 3 and N 20’ of Lot 4, less the NE/c of Lot 1,
Block 5, Horner Addition Amended, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Minor Variance of required side yard of 15’ down to
12’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 2136 East
47th Street.
Presentation:
The applicant, Louis
J. Hoogewind, 2136 East 47th Street, submitted a site plan
(Exhibit R-1) and stated he had been permitted to construct a building
adjoining his residence. After reviewing
the paperwork it was discovered that a mistake had been made and he was not
classified in the Residential Estate zoning district. Mr. Hoogewind mentioned that the garage addition will incorporate
the existing structure. He needs the
setback relief in order to have room put to appropriate insulation and rock
face. Mr. Hoogewind actually only need
9” of relief but decided to ask for the maximum 3’ of relief in case his
calculations are different.
Interested
Parties:
Maury Stayman, 2229 East 48th Street, stated that he has no objection to the variance. Mr. Stayman and several of the neighbors are concerned about the length of time the applicant has been working on the house (1˝ years).
Dianne Holcomb, 2130 East 47th Street, stated that she lives directly west of Mr. Hoogewind’s property. Ms. Holcomb opposes the application because there is not enough room between the two houses.
Mr. White explained to Ms. Holcomb that Mr. Hoogewind could build his structure at 15’ and not have to come before the Board. All the relief he needs is 3’. Ms. Holcomb understood but was still in opposition.
Ms. Holcomb is extremely concerned about how close the houses will be and the damage to the landscaping.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Hoogewind stated that he is not concerned about the landscaping, it will not be damaged. Mr. Hoogewind mentioned that construction has continued on for over a year and every time he gets started he finds another zoning problem or permit problem.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham,
Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions”; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Minor
Variance of required side yard of 15’ down to 13’, finding that it
meets the requirements of Section 1607.C.,
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, per plan submitted, on the following
described property:
E 31/3 acres of the SW/4, NE/4, SE/4, less the S 456.82’ and
less N 5’ for RD, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.
Date
approved: _____________________________
__________________________________________