CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
January 8, 2002, 1:00 p.m.
Francis
F. Campbell City Council Room
Plaza
Level of City Hall
Tulsa
Civic Center
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT |
MEMBERS
ABSENT |
STAFF
PRESENT |
OTHERS
PRESENT |
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Boulden,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler
|
Cox,
Neighborhood Inspections |
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 12:41 p.m., as well as at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action Requested:
Special Exception to allow a manufactured dwelling in a CH zoned
district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9; and a Variance to allow two dwelling units on one lot of
record. SECTION 207. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF
RECORD, located 231 S. 85th E. Ave.
Mr.
Beach stated that the applicant, Regina Strickland withdrew the
application.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for church use.
SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 5, located NE/c E.
91st St. & Union Ave.
Mr.
Beach informed the Board that this case was advertised with the incorrect legal
and would need to be continued to January 22, 2002.
Shirley Abbott Thompson, 818 S. Woodlawn, Okmulgee, Oklahoma
introduced herself to the Board.
There was some discussion among the Board, staff and the applicant to
determine the correct legal for the subject property.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
CONTINUE Case No. 19270 to the meeting on January 22, 2002.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of December
11, 2001 (No. 832) as amended.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Mr.
White abstained from Case No. 19257.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for use of weddings and receptions (occupants living
upstairs with receptions and weddings on first floor). SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 235 W. 18th St.
Presentation:
John Shafer, 320 S. Boston, stated he represented the owner of the
subject property. The case was
continued from December 11, 2001 to allow the owner to find parking provisions
for the business. He submitted
letters to show provisions made for parking (Exhibit A-2) with American Parking
and Davies Investments, Inc.
American Parking would provide 99 spaces after hours and 90 daytime
spaces. Davies Investments, Inc.
offer 30 after-hours parking spaces and Mr. Davies has confirmed 20 spaces
during the daytime. He showed the
Board where the parking lots are located on a map on the overhead screen.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked if the parking spaces on the subject property meet the zoning code
requirements. Mr. Shafer indicated
that they do. She also asked how
many cars the owner has.
Charles Sottong, 235 W. 18th St., stated that he has
three cars and a three-car garage.
Mr.
Cooper asked if the applicant has plans for valet parking for guest lists over a
certain number. Mr. Shafer
indicated that valet parking would be what most people would consider
doing. Mr. Shafer submitted a form
with suggested rules and hours of operation.
Ms.
Turnbo stressed the serious problem of the narrow streets and too many cars
parking on the street for different events prevents passage for emergency
vehicles. She noted that the
caterers, florists, and others preparing for the events would take up parking
spaces at the property. She
suggested that valet parking would be needed for any events at this
location. She also asked Mr. Shafer
about limiting the number of events per year to twelve. Mr. Shafer responded that would only be
once per month. Mr. Sottong stated
he might not have events every month but would like to have as many as
possible. Mr. Shafer admitted they
do not know how much business this will generate, but hoped they could have as
many as two to three events on weekends.
In discussion of the case, Cooper, Dunham, Perkins and Turnbo agreed that the streets were too narrow; people are used to arriving just before an event without time for valet parking; people tend to park in the closest space they find; and that the valet parking would be unenforceable.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White
"abstained"; no "absences") to DENY
a Special Exception
for use of weddings and receptions (occupants living upstairs with receptions
and weddings on first floor), finding it would not be in harmony with the spirit
and intent of the Code, and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described property:
Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, Buena Vista Park, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow an accessory building on a lot other than the lot with the residential structure. SECTION 1608.A. SPECIAL EXCEPTION, General and SECTION 402. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 1701 S. Trenton.
Presentation:
Ron Blackwell, 1701 S. Trenton, proposes to build a storage
building on Lot 1, Block 19.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White noted the staff comment that stated there is no problem with the request,
subject to a tie agreement.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested parties
who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays",
no "abstentions", no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special
Exception to
allow an accessory building on a lot other than the lot with the residential
structure, subject to a tie-agreement, per plan, finding it will be in harmony
with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following
described property:
Lots 12 and 1, Block 19, and 10’ vacant alley, Orcutt Addition, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required all-weather surface parking on subject property
for 3 years. SECTION 1303.D. DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS and SECTION 1304.C. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET LOADING
AREAS – Use Unit 23, located 5623 S. 107th E.
Ave.
Presentation:
Roy Ashley, 623 S. 107th E. Ave., stated he wants to
park construction equipment, trucks, and store 1500 railroad ties on the
property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper asked of a hardship. Mr.
Ashley mentioned that he would only need this for three years. Mr. Dunham asked what prompted this
application.
Interested
Parties:
Kevin
Cox,
111 S. Greenwood, stated that a complaint was made through a community action
project. When the property was
rezoned IL, some businesses moved in and did not comply with the code
requirement for all-weather surfaces.
Mr. Ashley was notified of the violation. He asked Neighborhood Inspections for an
extension, which they could not grant.
Mr. Cox advised him to go to the Board of Adjustment.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr.
White confirmed this was only for the north lot belonging to Mr. Ashley. Mr. Beach asked if Mr. Ashley
stated he plans to construct a building on the lot in three years. Mr. Ashley replied in the
affirmative. Mr. Beach asked how
many vehicles are parked there. Mr.
Ashley replied there are eight vehicles; they leave once per day and
return. Mr. White asked if any
other construction material is stored there. Mr. Ashley responded there is no other
construction material.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms.
Perkins noted it is on a dead end street and storage could be kept to a
minimum. Mr. White agreed that the
area was changed with the construction of U.S. Highway 169. Mr. Cooper was concerned there was no
hardship. Mr. Dunham pointed out
there are no neighbors on the east, just a detention pond. Mr. White stated that it is not a very
visible property.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Perkins,
the Board voted 3-2-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins "aye"; Turnbo, Cooper "nay"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance
of the required all-weather surface parking on subject property for 18 months,
no more than 10 vehicles on property, and allow storage of no more that 1500
railroad ties, finding it will not cause substantial detriment to the public
good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or Comprehensive
Plan, on the following described property:
Lot
2, less beg. at the NE/c, thence S 161.50’ W 386.92’ N 161.48’ E 385.22’ to the
POB for detention basin, Block 1, Golden Valley, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow detached accessory building in front yard. SECTION 402.B.1.b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6; and a Variance of required front yard of 50’ from centerline of street to 25.6’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 6938 E. Newton St.
Presentation:
Jay Baker, 1861 E. 15th St., stated he was representing
the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Son Rockstroh.
He informed the Board that the contractor did not obtain a building
permit for the carport. Mr. Baker
stated that his understanding was that in 1997 or 1998 when the carport was
built it was consistent with the zoning code, but the code was changed and it
was no longer in compliance. They
are asking for the variance because to remove the carport would mar the looks of
the house and the applicants would not be able to afford to repair the
house. He stated there are two
other covered patios constructed at about the same time. Mr. Baker submitted photographs of
the structure and other similar structures in the neighborhood (Exhibit
C-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach asked how the carport is attached to the house. Mr. Baker indicated that it was attached
to the rafters on each end. Mr.
Beach noted that it appears to have a pitched, composition roof. Mr. Baker stated that it was
aluminum. Mr. Baker pointed out
there are several carports in the neighborhood. Mr. White asked if the second story of
the house existed when the carport was added. Mr. Baker stated the second story was
pre-existing.
Interested
Parties:
Eileen Cook, 6948
E. Newton, stated that the second story was pre-existing and the carport is not
attached to the rafters. She stated
that it covers enough of the yard to park three cars and even a fourth one
across behind them. She was opposed
to the width and added that it is only 15’ to 20’ from the curb. It causes a traffic hazard because it is
so close to the street. She
informed the Board that Newton is a through street and sometimes traffic is too
fast. There are several children in
the area. She complained that most
of the yard has been paved.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr.
Beach informed the Board that the application was filed for a detached accessory
building. A zoning plans review
found it to be a detached accessory building.
Interested
Parties:
Tracy
Harris,
2441 E. 22nd St., stated that his parents own the property
immediately to the east of the subject property. He described the area as a
mature residential neighborhood. He
added that he was representing them.
He stated that the structure expands to the breadth of the yard; the curb
appears to have been removed; and there is parking in the place of the original
yard. He stated that it was not
characteristic of the neighborhood, but appeared more like commercial
property.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Baker responded that a real safety hazard would be to have the three vehicles
parked on the street. He stated
that near one-half of the original garages in the neighborhood are now dens or
bedrooms. Mr. Cooper asked for the
hardship. Mr. Baker replied the
hardship is because the law changed, and the inability to restore the property
to the previous condition.
Mr.
White stated that the house has been overbuilt, the yard paved, the curb
removed, and the relief would put the carport 6/10 of a foot from the property
line. Mr. White said you have to
have a permit to remove the curb.
Mr. Dunham objected to the oversized carport and driveway. Mr. Cooper, Ms. Perkins and Ms. Turnbo
concurred with Mr. White.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", no "absences") to
DENY a Variance to
allow detached accessory building in front yard; and a Variance of
required front yard of 50’ from centerline of street to 25.6’, finding that it
would cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes,
spirit, and intent of the Code, or Comprehensive Plan, on the following
described property:
Lot 3, Block 2, Sun Valley Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow parking on a
non-all-weather surface. SECTION
1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS – Use Unit 23, located 1928 N.
Sheridan.
Presentation:
Otis Collins, Rt. 3, Box 493, Wagoner, Oklahoma, stated that the
property has been the location of a trash business since 1970. He was told he had ten days to put in an
all-weather surface but he could not make the deadline. He stated that the owner would not sell
the property to him and he has rented it on a per month basis.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked how many trucks he has.
Mr. Collins responded that he has nine or ten. Mr. White noted that the business has
expanded, and about 30 to 35% of the property would fall within the
non-conforming use according to the aerial photographs. Mr. Beach stated that once the business
expanded he lost the non-conforming use.
Interested
Parties:
Kevin
Cox,
111 S. Greenwood, stated that prior to 1970 there was a non-conforming parking
surface with circle driveway. Since
that time it has been expanded and that is why Neighborhood Inspections sent out
notices. Mr. Cox advised the
applicant to file for a variance of the all-weather surface.
Delbert Howard, 1962
N. Sheridan, stated he is the pastor of a church immediately north of the
subject property. He objected to
the hazardous materials that run-off the subject property onto the church
property. He asked that they be
required to meet all of the zoning code requirements. He also made the complaint that there is
no screening fence on the north.
Mr.
White stated that a letter of protest was received regarding the dust from the
property blowing toward the residences to the west.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Collins responded that he put in a screening fence to the west for the
residences. Mr. Beach informed the
Board there is a requirement for a privacy fence on the west but not on the
other sides.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", no "absences") to APPROVE a Variance
to allow parking on a non-all-weather surface for a period not to exceed six
months, finding the business has existed there for many years, but now it has
expanded and is no longer a non-conforming status, on the following described
property:
Lots 2 and 3, Green Acres, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a detached accessory building to be 1,050 sq. ft. of floor area, in lieu of 500 sq. ft. maximum. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6, located 7882 E. King St.
Presentation:
James Taylor, 7882 E. King St., stated that his hardship is he
does not have a garage. The
structure is already built. It is a
pole barn style, pre-fabricated, and matches the house. He originally planned to build a
privacy fence on the south.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White noted that the only access is from the neighbor’s lot. Mr. Taylor responded that the neighbor
has given him permission to the access from Memorial through his yard. Mr. Dunham asked about the use of this
building. Mr. Taylor replied to
park a boat, car and pool table.
Mr. Dunham commented that a 1,000 square feet is considerably larger than
a normal garage of 400 to 500 square feet.
Mr. Taylor stated he also has a motorcycle to park in there. Mr. Beach asked if the neighbor has
agreed to an access easement, and if it has been filed. Mr. Taylor responded that the neighbor
is willing but it has not been filed yet.
Mr. Beach added that it would require a curb cut and driveway permits
from the City of Tulsa to get legal access from Memorial.
Interested
Parties:
Dorothy C. McClure,
7887 E. Jasper, stated she lives directly behind the subject property and
property where driveway would be put in.
She informed the Board that she and her neighbors have made repeated
calls to the building permit office, but nothing happened. She objected to the hardship it would
cause to have another driveway off of Memorial in the area and to the large
size. She considers the building
inappropriate for the property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Taylor submitted photographs (Exhibit E-1) to the Board. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Taylor the size of
the house. Mr. Taylor replied that
the house is about 950 to 1,000 square feet. Ms. Perkins commented that according to
the code 500 square feet for this structure would be the maximum.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", no "absences") to
DENY a Variance to
allow a detached accessory building to be 1,050 sq. ft. of floor area, in lieu
of 500 sq. ft. maximum, finding a lack of hardship, on the following described
property:
Lot 2, Block 4, Maplewood 3rd Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required side yard setback in an RM zoned district to 5’ and 9’ for an accessory building. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 1233 S. St. Louis.
Presentation:
Mark Thurston, 1720 S. Detroit, stated he is the owner of the
property and was representing the applicant. The applicant proposes to construct a
three-car garage for a single-family residence. This is a rental property and
there is no garage or storage. The
street is narrow and the driveway is narrow and difficult to use. Mr. Thurston stated he owns the
two four-plexes that are immediately south of the subject property. He added that this would provide parking
for his tenants and storage for ladders and lawnmowers, to work on the
properties.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White pointed out that staff suggested the building could be rotated
90°
and meet the code requirements. Mr.
Thurston did not consider the suggestion to make it very useful, putting the
structure too close to the house, and he hoped to add three parking pads between
the alley and the new structure.
Mr.
White commented that a neighbor wrote a letter of objection to the Board,
indicating that a mini-storage was going to be built. Mr. Thurston replied there is no such
plan. Ms. Turnbo asked what percent
of the structure would be storage.
Mr. Beach expressed concern that the building could not be rotated so
there is plenty of room all around it.
Mr. Thurston responded that the parking pad would be to the east of the
garage and if the garage is turned they would be facing the side of the garage
and a lot of concrete.
Interested
Parties:
Mr.
Boulden stated that an interested party had to leave and left written
comments. The party was
Judy
Morgan Welch,
1148 S. St. Louis.
Pat
Worthington,
1309 S. Trenton, stated she opposes the application because there are a lot of
homeless people that walk the area.
She was concerned about storage units causing an increase in
crime.
Joshua
Gilling,
1229 S. St. Louis Ave., stated he lives next door to the subject property. He opposed the application because you
would be able to see it from the street.
The each of the tenants in Mr. Thurston’s apartment complex are expecting
a rental storage space made available to them. He felt it would increase storm water
drainage onto his and other neighboring properties. Mr. Thurston indicated it would block
emergency vehicles from getting to the rear of the property. He thought it would ruin the appearance
of the neighborhood.
Samuel
Grayson,
1227 S. St. Louis, stated his objection to the sideyard setbacks, as not
compatible with the homes in the neighborhood. It would set a precedent for more
oversized structures to be built and change the overall appearance and use of
the property. He was concerned that
it would increase traffic and noise level in the alley. He indicated that it would decrease the
property value of his home. He
opposes storage units as potential space for crime such as stolen property, meth
labs, and an additional fire hazard.
Mr.
White reminded the Board that though the interested parties have referred to
single-family dwellings, the zoning is RM-2.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Thurston assured the Board that it is not going to be storage units, but a
garage. He stated that he would
evict any tenant involved in illegal activity. Mr. White asked if two of the garage
spaces would be for tenants and one for the owner. Mr. Thurston replied in the
affirmative. He suggested the
possibility that an apartment tenant might have the option to use a garage
space. He indicated that the
building would have guttering to help with drainage. He also stated that the setbacks could
be seven feet on each side if the Board thought that would be better.
Ms.
Turnbo suggested that the garage could be built 24’ x 30’ and be in compliance
to the code. Ms. Perkins was
concerned about possibilities of the garage being rented out. Mr. Cooper commented that the hardship
is self-imposed.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions", no "absences") to
DENY a Variance of the
required side yard setback in an RM zoned district to 5’ and 9’ for an accessory
building, finding a lack of hardship, and finding it would cause substantial
detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the
Code, or Comprehensive Plan, on the following described
property:
Lots 43 and 44, Block 6, Forest Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.