CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
August 22, 2000, 1:00 p.m.
Francis
F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza
Level of City Hall
Tulsa
Civic Center
MEMBERS
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT OTHERS
PRESENT
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
Perkins |
Beach |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper |
|
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
Stump |
|
|
Turnbo |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Thursday, August 17, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
required setback from an abutting R district from 75’ to 10’ on south and west.
SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance
of required number of parking spaces from 9 to 0. SECTION 1215. USE UNIT 15.
OTHER TRADES AND SERVICES; a Variance of required setback from centerline of
West 36th Street from 50’ to 38’. SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance of Section 1002.A.2. that
requires a five-foot landscape area along abutting street right-of-way except at
points of vehicular access. SECTION 1002.A.2. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS; a Variance
of Section 1002.A.3. that requires that off-street parking areas shall be
separated from abutting R districts by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area.
SECTION 1002.A.2. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS; and a Variance of Section 1002.C.1.
that requires one tree for each 1500 SF of street yard. SECTION 1002.A.2.
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, located 3602 S. Maybelle.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Tim Nall, 3755 S. Tacoma, stated that he lives about ½ mile from the
subject property, which he owns. He
uses the property to store and maintain some vehicles that he uses for his
business. Mr. Nall obtained light
industrial zoning. He built an 8’
fence, planted trees and repaired the old grocery building. He only has one crew, and they do
maintenance on their vehicles only on this property. He needs to build a garage to help in
the maintenance of the equipment.
The paved parking lot around the grocery store was already existing and
he would have to tear in up to put in landscaping along the street.
Protestants:
Charlotte
Smith,
3632 S. Maybelle, submitted photographs of the subject property (Exhibit A-2) to
the Board. She made a complaint of
a refrigerator on the front porch, that it would be a health hazard to children
in the area. She added that there
are wood shavings piled up on the property. She also stated that his fence was built
partially into the right-of-way at the back of property. Ms. Smith complained that he was
parking vehicles on the railroad and city right-of-way, and an inoperable van
was parked on corner that blocks the view at a stop sign.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Nall stated that he has never heard from Ms. Smith regarding any of her objections. He discussed and agreed with the neighbor that the fence would be built around the large trees rather than remove them. He informed the Board that the refrigerator Ms. Smith referred to is a reach-in style without doors. He has been trying to sell several of the old grocery refrigerators and will haul off those that don’t sell. He explained that the wood chips were for landscaping and he put them on the side of his property facing the refinery and away from the residential area as much out of site as possible. Code Enforcement has come out and inspected several times and they have not found any more violations.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham stated
that he noticed the wood chips from the street near 36th and Maybelle
and asked if it is permissible in an IL district. Jay asked the applicant if he has
erected a screening fence on the east, west and south sides. Mr. Nall replied that there is a fence
all of the way around the business. The shavings are on the parking area on the
north side. Mr. Stump stated
that the only area that can remain unscreened is on the north with no access to
Maybelle. The outside storage is
allowed in an IL district.
Mr.
White asked for comment on the Variance for parking spaces
from
9 to 0. Mr. Beach explained that
the existing parking spaces do not meet the technical requirements for the
design of parking spaces so they do not count as parking spaces. Mr. Stump added that the applicant is
backing into the street to get into the parking spaces and that is not
permitted.
Mr. Cooper asked
for the hardship for the Variance of setbacks. Mr. Nall replied that there is an
existing building and there is not room to turn around within the fenced area
for egress onto 36th.
Mr. Nall was not aware that he was not supposed to use an access to
Maybelle. He accesses the property
from 36th and then drives out onto Maybelle.
Board discussion
ensued.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance
of required setback from an abutting R district from 75’ to 10’ on south and
west, finding the hardship to be a public safety issue; Variance
of required number of parking spaces from 9 to 0, finding there is adequate
parking on the property; Variance of required setback from
centerline of West 36th Street from 50’ to 38’, to correct an
existing condition of many years; Variance of Section 1002.A.2.
that requires a five-foot landscape area along abutting street right-of-way
except at points of vehicular access, finding adequate landscaping has been
done; Variance of Section 1002.A.3 that requires that off-street
parking areas shall be separated from abutting R districts by a minimum
five-foot wide landscaped area, finding adequate landscaping and screening have
been done; and Variance of Section 1002.C.1 that requires one tree
for each 1500 square foot of street yard, finding adequate screening and
landscaping have been done, CONTINUANCE for additional relief for
a Variance of the screening requirement along Maybelle Avenue to permit
vehicular access, on the following described property:
Lots 2 - 3, Block 8, Garden City, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to allow an auto repair and service in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17; and a Variance of the required all-weather parking
surface to allow gravel parking.
SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, located NE/c E. 10th St.
& Sheridan Rd.
Presentation:
The applicant,
William Yuan, 5912 S. Jamestown, introduced his son Robert Yuan as
his business partner. He stated
that he purchased the property from an automotive business for a parts store and
repair business in 1980. He was
notified that he was in violation of zoning. He has built a screening fence to
comply, and took a petition to the neighborhood for acceptance of his
business. He received 60 signatures
on his petition. He submitted the
site plan, petition and photographs (Exhibit B-1, 2) to the Board.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
what the hardship would be for a Variance for gravel parking. Mr. Yuan replied that he used the gravel
parking area only for overflow for cars waiting to be picked up by owners after
repair. He plans to asphalt it
later. Mr. White asked if he does
any salvage business at this location.
Mr. Yuan replied that he does not.
Mr. Dunham commented that he saw some inoperable vehicles and parts. He stated at one time he leased the
grassy area to someone and stopped when he found out it was a violation. He stored a racecar body on a trailer
and when he was told the requirements for tag, wheels, etc. he got rid of
it. Mr. Dunham asked about the
engine cores and transmissions on ground in pictures taken June
26th. Mr. Yuan said he
does not have any of that laying around anymore. He has a bin for disposing those items
and they are hauled off as the bin fills up. When asked about specific pictures of
cars, Mr. Yuan identified the reason for being parked there. Two cars were awaiting parts from
England. Robert Yuan pointed out
that the motors in the photos have value, but it is not cost effective to ship
them back to a company until there are several at a time. Ms. Turnbo stated that when they are
sitting around in weeds it looks like junk. Mr. R. Yuan stated that they understand
that now and they are no longer storing them but disposing of them at the
time. He also added that they tried
parking the foreign cars up front, but because parts are hard to find, they get
vandalized.
Mr. White read
the nine violation citations that this business has received. Mr. R. Yuan stated that all of those
issues have been corrected. Mr.
White stated that Ms. Turnbo’s comment about the perception of junk is
appropriate.
Protestants:
David
Shriner,
6526
E. 9th St.,
stated
he came in three years ago when Mr. Yuan tried to change the zoning. He listed the following
complaints/comments: trash container was obtained only after Neighborhood
Inspections gave a citation; they do not need an auto repair shop behind their
house; Car Mart is an auto dealership, not a repair shop; thanked INCOG for
letter to neighbors because no sign was posted in front of property regarding
hearing for zoning change (Mr. Stump interjected that a sign was posted on
10th Street, but it is not for zoning change, but for a Special
Exception for a use that is not currently allowed); obtained and submitted a
petition of opposition with 72 signatures (Exhibit B-3), one letter of opposition from a neighbor
(Exhibit B-4), and photographs (Exhibit B-6); EPA hazards from cars parked
without motors and transmissions; late night operating hours, racing car on
neighborhood streets causing safety hazard; and the fence is used to hide work
that is in violation of ordinance.
Councilor Roscoe
Turner,
City Council District 3, stated there has not been cooperation between the
applicant and the neighborhood. He
added he has received complaints about this business since he has been in
office, November 1998. He was
concerned that the auto parts portion of the business has become used parts from
salvage of the repair business. He
stated that the only time anything was corrected was when Neighborhood
Inspections gave citations. He
requested that the application be denied.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Yuan stated
that if anyone has a complaint his door is open, and no one has come by to make
a complaint. He stated he has
always complied when a complaint is made.
He stated that the racecar is gone because he addressed the problem when
made aware of it. Robert Yuan
pointed out that Car Mart would have to make some repairs to prepare a used car
for sale. They propped the sign up
after it fell but they did not have anything to do with posting it. He pointed out that they have containers
to dispose of oil. He stated that
they are not even close to any residences except for a 5’ portion on the
northeast of the property that is enclosed in a privacy fence. They never open on Sundays, and they do
not even have a lighted facility for working nights, and close at 5:30 or 6:00
p.m. everyday. He added that they
were not even aware of a neighborhood association until they talked with Mr.
Turner a month ago. The president
of the association refused to talk with them when they attempted to make an
appointment with her. He pointed
out that they are not interested in storing any cars because they don’t make any
money off of them. He stated that
they have over $400,000 worth of new auto parts, which is 90% of their
business.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Stump stated
that sale of auto parts is a Use Unit 14, and installation of the parts or
repair of automobiles is a Use Unit 17.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to DENY
a Special Exception
to allow an auto repair and service in a CS zoned district; and a Variance of
the required all-weather parking surface to allow gravel parking.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
permitted 20% coverage of the rear yard to permit construction of a garage. SECTION 210.B.5. YARDS, Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, located 2001 W. Archer
Pl.
Presentation:
Bill
Covert, with W.D. Covert Construction, stated he was representing the
owner. They plan to build a 24 x 24
garage because the property does not have a garage. The yard is a little small.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance
of permitted 20% coverage of the rear yard to permit construction of a garage,
finding that the lot is non-conforming and there is not enough room to
otherwise, on the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 28, Phillips Re-subdivision, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of
setback requirement of 75’ right-of-way from the centerline to 70’ to change the
face on an existing sign.
SECTION 1221.C.6. USE UNIT 21.
BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for
Business Signs – Use Unit 17, located 3434 S. Sheridan.
Presentation:
Mike
Moydell, 1221 W. 3rd, stated that they are not just changing the
facing but the entire head of the sign on the same pole. He stated it is for Tulsa Auto
Collection’s new Lincoln/Mercury lot.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
how much larger is the new sign.
Mr. Moydell stated he did not believe it was any larger.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of setback requirement of 75’ right-of-way
from the centerline to 70’ to change the face on an existing sign, per plan,
provided that it is in the same location as the existing sign and not be moved,
on the following described property:
Beg. 222.15’ N and 50’ W of
the SE/c on the NE/4 then N 137.95’ then NW 124.48’ then N 662.75’ to highway
right-of-way then SW 984.25’ to M.K.T. right-of-way then 1,173.82’ to POB, City
of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Mr. White stated that Mr.
Dunham would abstain from Case No. 18836.
Action
Requested:
Approval of Site
Plan pursuant to Board of Adjustment Case No. 18663, located N side of E.
101st St., 5300-5500 blocks.
Presentation:
The applicant,
Stephen Schuller, 500 OneOk Plaza, Suite 500, 100 W. 5th St.,
stated he filed a site plan with the application. The plan of construction is the parking
lot on the southwest corner of the property first, followed by the sanctuary on
the original church property behind the existing church building, then
eventually the larger sanctuary shown to the north of the new parking lot and
the larger parking lot to the north of that. They are not going to look at the larger
sanctuary and larger parking lot for ten years or more. The planning commission approved the
preliminary plat, including a drainage easement of 35’ in width along the west
side of the property and 25’ easement on the east side of the property and at
the rear of the property on the north a 2.6 acre detention pond in a reserve
area. He reviewed the access
points, fencing, water drainage issues, and landscaping. He informed the Board that they met with
the neighboring homeowners, representatives of Leisure Estates, and Sun Meadow
associations. He stated that they
discussed light pollution, fencing, landscaping, preservation of mature trees
along the property line, and trees near the detention pond.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Stump asked
about the 6’ wood fence on the west boundary. Mr. Schuller stated that it is an
existing fence and the neighbors did not want any more fencing. Mr. Schuller stated they do not have any plans
for fences.
Protestants:
Cynthia
Woodson,
stated that she is the president of the Sun Meadow Residents’ Civic
Association. She added that she
lives on Lot 12 on the north side abutting the subject property. Ms. Woodson informed the Board that the
association members want the mature trees to remain, no spotlights that would
cause light pollution in the residential area, existing fencing is sufficient,
and the new detention pond to be built immediately.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Schuller stated that regarding a light barrier, the zoning code will provide for
the lights to be directed downward and away from the residential
areas.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Cooper commented that the Board would not be able to approve the application per plan because of the change in the parking on the east side of the lot. Mr. Schuller suggested it could be approved per plan as far as the location of the lot subject to landscaping requirements.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of
Turnbo, the Board voted 3-0-1(White, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; Dunham
"abstained"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE the site plan in Case No. 18836, per
plan, with conditions to meet all landscape requirements and all lighting be
hooded, directed down and away from the neighborhood, on the following described
property:
The W/2 SE/4 SW/4, less the
E/2 SW/4 SE/4 SW/4, Section 22, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required 30’ setback on front to 22.5’ for new porch. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 2655 E. 33rd
Pl.
Presentation:
Michelle Faulkinston, 3319 S. Yorktown, stated that they intend
to add to the existing elevation, and bring out a covered porch to the
front. She submitted photographs in
a packet (Exhibit C-1). She stated
this location is the lowest point of the yard, making this the only option for
providing a covered porch, because of the water flow
problem.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo stated
that she could not find this house in the neighborhood. She stated that she did notice it is
curved and the front of the houses do not line up in a straight row.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE a
Variance of the required 30’ setback on front to 22.5’ for new
porch, on condition it is open on both sides and not enclosed, per plan, finding
the hardship is the watershed in the back yard, and most of the houses do not
line up in an even way, on the following described
property:
Lot 6, less the E 10’, Block 1, Timberland Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the
required 35’ front setback to 29’ for construction of new single-family
dwelling. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 2985 E. 45th St.
Presentation:
Richard
Eldridge, 2916 E. 88th St., stated that his wife’s parents owned
the existing house on the subject property since 1948. His wife has inherited the
property. There was one addition
built on about 30 years ago. Mr.
Eldridge submitted photographs (Exhibit D-1). They intend to build a 5,000
square foot house on the property.
The lot is oddly shaped.
They would like to preserve the two large trees and the slab floor and
fireplace that were added to the existing house. He pointed out that the normal
water drainage flow is to the south and it would not be make sense to build
further back into the lot.
Interested
Parties:
Bill
Stanberry, 2940 E. 45th Pl., stated that he lives just around the
corner from the property. He stated
that the map that was mailed out had two properties outlined. He asked for clarification of the
property involved.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White
identified the property involved in the case and Mr. Stanberry was
satisfied.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of the required 35’ front setback to 29’ for construction of new single-family dwelling, per plan, finding the hardship is the drainage, shape of the lot and the location of the existing trees, on the following described property:
Lot 28, Block 7, Villa Grove Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to reduce the required 110% setback from an R district from 330’ to 170’ for a
cell tower. SECTION 1204.C.3.g.(1)
USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND
UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions – Use Unit 4; and a Special Exception to
waive landscaping requirement.
SECTION 1204.C.5.c.(1) USE UNIT 4.
PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions, located S of
Edison St., W of Union Ave.
Presentation:
The applicant,
John Moody, 7146 S. Canton, submitted photographs (Exhibit E-1) to the
Board. He is representing his
client regarding a lattice style cell tower designed for collocation of three
companies. They are requesting to
reduce the setback from some older residential lots that are undeveloped. He was contacted by the attorney for the
owner of a number of the vacant lots and was informed that the owner plans to
file for industrial re-zoning on the lots at a later date. He described a fairly steep topography
from the expressway to the south.
AT&T has a monopole tower nearby. He stated that they attempted to
collocate with AT&T but AT&T does not permit collocation. Mr. Moody stated that the hardship is
the irregular shaped lot immediately to the west of a used car dealership that
works out of an old house and trailer, to the south and east are Tulsa County
and City of Tulsa maintenance garage facilities.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked
about the height of the tower. Mr.
Moody stated they were willing to put in a 300’ tower.
Protestants:
None.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to reduce the required 110% setback from an
R district from 330’ to 170’ for a cell tower, per plan, finding: the height of the proposed tower,
300’; No residential structures;
undeveloped residential zoning to the north; 100’ monopole 130 feet to the east;
Nature of
uses on adjacent and nearby properties - City/County facilities south and east,
medium industrial west, undeveloped and expressway to the north; Surrounding topography is mostly flat to
gently rolling with steep slope up to expressway; Surrounding tree coverage and foliage is
sparse urban tree cover; the design
of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the
effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness is a standard
self-supporting lattice design, no special design characteristics; the total
number and size of antennas proposed and the ability of the proposed tower to
accommodate collocation is one at this time; no architectural design of utility
buildings and accessory structures to blend with the surrounding environment at
this time; proposed ingress and egress is a 30’ access easement from public
street 70 feet north of tower compound; the need of the applicant for a
communications tower within the immediate geographic area to provide an
acceptable level of communications service to the area is for a proprietary
grid; the Comprehensive Plan calls for
medium intensity with no specific land use and likely future development would
be medium industrial, finding that it
will be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on
the following described property:
All of that part of the W/2 NW/4 SE/4 Section 3, T-19-N R-12-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, more particularly described as follows: Beg. at a point 25’ E of the center of Section 3; thence E a distance of 632.15’; thence S a distance of 472.2’ to a point on the N right-of-way of the county drainage ditch; thence in a NWly direction along said right-of-way a distance of 653.96’; thence N to POB, a distance of 309.55’
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception
to the allowable 4’ fence in required front yard to 10’3” for rock columns;
brick and wrought iron fence will be 8’.
SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit
6, 6362 S. Harvard.
Presentation:
Michael R.
Dankbar, 9810 S. Vandalia Ave., stated that he was the architect
representing the homeowner, Mr. Bill Lee.
He informed the Board that the correct street address for the subject
property is 3233 E. 65th Street. He stated that the property is
approximately three acres. Mr.
Dankbar described the fence and with the use of a large drawing he pointed out
the details to the Board. He
submitted photographs (Exhibit F-1) of the fence.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Prather asked
about the address on the agenda, 6362 S. Harvard, where it was in relation to
the subject property. Mr.
Dankbar stated that would have been the address if the house had faced
Harvard. Mr. Prather determined
that the location was the same legal description.
Interested
Parties:
Guy Lalicker, 3232 E. 65th St., stated that he
lives immediately south of the fence in question, and his house fronts the
fence. He stated that he is in
support of the application, because it adds to the attractiveness of the
property, is well designed and built.
Protestants:
Chuck
Shipely,
6336 S. Harvard, stated that he is the neighbor to the north of the Lee
property. He submitted
photographs (Exhibit F-2) to the Board.
He understood that the height limit is 8’ for a side yard fence and this
fence reaches over 13’ and is uphill from his driveway where his children
play. Mr. Shipely does not consider
it attractive and he also considers it to be a danger. It is his opinion that there is not a
hardship, as it was built a year ago without a Special Exception. He pointed out that this fence is out of
character with the six-foot fence granted by Variance in 1984, and with the rest
of the neighborhood. He indicated
that the west fence on the subject property also is not in compliance.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked staff why the Board is not dealing with the west fence. Mr. Beach replied that there is nothing in the file from Neighborhood Inspections about the west fence and the application was filed as it has been presented to the Board.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Dankbar stated that numerous times
there were City officials on the subject property. He stated that they were trying to
follow the officials’ instructions.
He pointed out that the elevations made it difficult besides neither the
grading on Harvard nor their own grading and sodding outside the fence had been
completed. He understood that an
averaging is allowed when constructing a fence, and this was a major 2’ wide
continuous footing, heavily reinforced wall. He added that the fence was placed 40’
away from Mr. Shipley’s fence line and the last 20’ to 30’ has a severe
fall. He stated that the last
column on the corner is a little bit excessive in height.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked Mr. Dankbar if he builds
fences. He replied that he is an
architect, and he designed and built the home. The homeowner had requested that we do
some fencing around the property.
She also asked if he knew there were regulations on fences. He responded that he was familiar with
regulations, but that during the process of building the house the owner changed
his mind and decided he wanted a higher fence along Harvard to avoid traffic
noise. He stated it was just an
instance where they did not stop and re-think the situation at that time, and
built the fence while they were doing the foundation of the house.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked Mr. Dankbar if he obtained a building permit for the fence. Mr. Dankbar replied that he didn’t know a permit was needed for a fence. Mr. White stated that a permit is not needed for a fence but this was actually a wall. Mr. Dankbar stated that was explained to him since it was built. Mr. Dankbar explained that this is a three-acre tract and the tract to the west is two acres. They are all fenced on the property line completely around the properties, including Mr. Shipley’s. He added that even though they are taller, they were tying into the property corners. He stated that he was asked to submit for the front lot line and apply for the portion in front of the 35’ building line, which is what he has done. Ms. Turnbo asked him who instructed him. He replied that it was staff at the City Building Department. He also indicated that the issue Mr. Shipley brought up to him was regarding drainage. Ms. Turnbo asked if in any of the conversations with the City had anyone ever informed him that he would need to apply to the Board of Adjustment. He replied that no one instructed him to go to the Board of Adjustment.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; Perkins "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to the allowable 4’ fence in required front
yard to 10’3” for rock columns; brick and wrought iron fence will be 8’ on
65th Street, per existing fence, finding that it will be in harmony
with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following
described property:
A tract of land that is described as follows, to-wit: starting at the SE/c of the NE/4, of the SE/4, of the NE/4, of Section 5, T-18-N, R-13-E; thence N 00°03'18" W for 75.00'; thence N 89°34'44" W for 50.00'; to the POB; thence continuing along said Nly line N 89°34'44" W for 280.50'; thence S 00