CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
February 12, 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 |
Cooper |
Beach |
Romig,
Legal |
|
Turnbo |
|
Butler |
Cox,
NBH Inspect. |
|
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, February 7, 2002, at 3:48 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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Dunham arrived at
1:03.
Action Requested:
Review
and approval of an amended site plan for new pre-school, cafeteria and
gymnasium. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL
USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 1, located SW/c E. 21st St. & S.
Lewis.
Mr. Beach informed the Board that this property does not require relief. He added that because of a recent Code Amendment such existing schools were moved into a Use Unit 1 Area Wide Uses by Right. He recommended it be stricken from the agenda.
Board Action:
Mr. White stated that Case No. 19286 is stricken from the agenda.
Lots 1-11, Block 4; Lots 1-9, Block 5, Brentwood Heights, including that part of vacated Zunis Ave. and E. 22nd St. adjacent to said lots; And a tract of land in the NE/4 NE/4 of Section 18, T-19-N, R-13-E, described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at the NE/c of said Section 18; thence Wly along the Nly line of Section 18 for 1101.50’ to the Ely line of S. Yorktown Ave.; thence Sly along said Ely line produced for 150.00’; thence to the right on a curve with a radius of 1680.08’ for 344.90’; thence SWly along a tangent for 139.60’; thence Ely and parallel with the Nly line of Section 18 for 1170.00’ to the E line of Section 18; thence Nly along said E line for 630.00’ to the POB of said tract of land, less and except The Yorktown Addition, all located within the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted
4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye", no "nays", no "abstentions",
Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
the Minutes of January 22, 2002 (No. 834).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Variance of required off-street
parking. SECTION 1212a.D. USE UNIT
12a. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT
ESTABLISHMENTS, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Use Unit 12a,
located SW/c E. 69th St. & S. Lewis Ave.
Presentation:
Roy D. Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 501, stated he was
appearing on the behalf of the Comedy Club. He noted this was the third time the
Comedy Club has gone before the Board for the variance of required off-street
parking. The previous requests were
presented and approved on the concept that these are shared parking spaces, and
the club needed them for the most part after 6:30 p.m. while the other
businesses needed them before that time. Mr. Johnsen pointed out that It
has proven to work well over the last six or seven years. He stated they request that the variance
be approved on a permanent basis. He suggested some conditions as follows:
that there be no live performances before 7:00 p.m.; and activities before 6:30
p.m. be limited to administrative and management services.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach commented that he would recommend a permanent variance instead of a
limited time as in the previous approval.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance
of required off-street parking, with conditions that there be no live
performances before 7:00 p.m.; the activities be limited to administrative and
management functions prior to 6:30 p.m.; and on a permanent basis, 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 1, Block 2, Lewis Village, and
the N 195.00’ of the SE/4 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 6, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the all-weather surface requirement for parking of vehicles on CH zoned property. SECTION 222. MOTORIZED VEHICLES – Use Unit 17; and an Appeal of the Code Enforcement Officer that vehicles on site are unlicensed and inoperable vehicles are not salvage material, located 1144 S. Peoria Ave.
Presentation:
James Caputo, stated that he is an attorney, representing Donald
Lundgren. He stated that Mr.
Lundgren has the two properties 1144 and 1148 S. Peoria Avenue for several
years. He is licensed to operate a
used car dealership. The property
is CH zoned, which allows for such a business. At prior investigations by the
Neighborhood Inspections officials, he has complied with all of their
requests. Mr. Caputo stated that
Mr. Lundgren has had open-heart surgery and is recovering; and he plans to
resume the business when he is released from the doctors’ care. He submitted photographs of the property
(Exhibit A-1). He mentioned a
complaint of a dilapidated house, built around 1915, on 1148 S. Peoria Ave. The Historical Society is considering
the house for renovation.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked if the property at 1148 S. Peoria was included in the advertising
of this application. Mr. Beach
responded that the legal description did include both properties and is more
important than the address. Ms.
Perkins commented that Mr. Caputo stated that from the street people can’t see
anything, but the Board had photographs of behind the fence and it appears to be
a salvage yard, and that is not allowable.
Mr. Caputo responded that Mr. Lundgren repairs cars and has not been able
to work on them since his surgery.
The autos are not salvage or junked vehicles but are there for repairs to
be completed and as soon as Mr. Lundgren is physically able to, he will repair
them. Ms. Perkins asked how long it
has been since he worked on a car.
Mr. Caputo asked the applicant and Mr. Lundgren responded it has been six
or seven years.
Interested
Parties:
Donna
Rutledge, 1205
S. Owasso Ave., stated she lives across the street from the subject
property. She stated she has not
been disturbed by anything such as rodents, or anything else from this
property. She pointed out there is
a fence on both sides of the cars, and eight-foot fence the City of Tulsa built
and a ten-foot fence that Mr. Lundgren had constructed. She commented the cars are not
near either fence and are well spaced.
She stated there are vehicles that have salvageable parts.
Kevin
Cox,
Neighborhood Inspections, 111 S. Greenwood, stated they received a complaint
last December regarding inoperable vehicles, trash, junk, debris and vehicles
parked on a non-all-weather surface.
On inspection he found several inoperable vehicles, plus outside storage
of trash, junk, debris and auto parts and other items. These items were behind a ten or
twelve-foot fence. He found the
property was zoned CH, with no special exceptions. He has discussed the types of violations
pertaining to the property with Mr. Lundgren. Mr. Cox reminded him that he could have
an auto repair shop but the present manner of storage is against the Tulsa
Zoning Code. It is required to park
all the cars on an all-weather surface and the vehicles cannot remain over a
long period of time with the appearance of a salvage yard. The vehicles have not been run for
several years, with back axles sunk in the ground. Mr. Cox submitted notices and
photographs (Exhibit B-4). Mr. Cox
asked that the appeal be denied and the property be brought into compliance with
the zoning and nuisance laws.
Andrew
Turner,
1225 S. Owasso Ave., stated he bought his home there in 1995. He stated that they have tried to
maintain and preserve the neighborhood as a historic area. They want the City enforce the
surrounding uses comply with the applicable requirements. He stated the property is unsightly as
shown by the inspector’s photographs and unsightly from the street.
Carla
Lund,
1220 S. Owasso Ave., stated she has worked for the preservation of the
neighborhood for a long time. She
was concerned that all-weather surfacing on this property would cause drainage
from the sloping property onto properties in Tracey Park.
Allen
Litchfield,
302 E. 19th, stated he is a past resident of Tracey Park until
1987. He complained that some of
the same cars are parked on the subject property as were parked there back
then. He commented that it is
blight, and he encouraged the City to set it in compliance.
Michael
Bates,
4727 E. 23rd St., stated he is the president of the Mid-Town
Coalition of Neighborhood Associations.
He commented that this property is a challenge for Tracey Park and all
similar neighborhoods across mid-town. He asked the Board to deny the
application to set a precedent. He
expressed desire to preserve the historical home.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked if he was asking the Board to deny the appeal. Mr. Bates replied that was correct. Mr. White reminded the interested
parties that there were two items in the application, for variance of an
all-weather surface, and an appeal of the inspector’s decision that the vehicles
on the property are unlicensed, inoperable, and salvage material.
Interested Parties:
Mary
Atkinson,
1123 S. Owasso Ave., chose to move into the neighborhood because she saw the
improvements being made and the potential for the area. She stated that the use of the subject
property was not appropriate for the area and she objected to more asphalt on
the property.
Debbie
Blackwell,
1212 S. Owasso Ave., stated she felt the variance and appeal should be
denied. She added that a repair
shop was not in operation on the property.
She stated if all that can be done is pave the lot then that would
improve the appearance and then they will address the other issues.
Linda
Lichty,
1135 S. Newport, expressed her concern that all-weather surfacing would cause a
drainage problem for the residential properties.
Kevin
Cox, asked to speak again. He
stated that the all-weather surface is a concern because of the drainage. He hoped that the interested parties
were aware that if the variance were denied, that Mr. Lundgren would have to
pave the property and provide for proper drainage. Mr. Beach commented that a property
owner is not allowed to increase the amount of run-off from his property to
others by any construction.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Caputo stated that the Board should
be able to see that the vehicles behind the 10’ and 12’ fences, cannot be seen
from the street. He noted that the
interested parties who spoke have moved to the neighborhood while Mr. Lundgren
was living there. The applicant is
going through rehabilitation and intends to resume the business.
Comments
and Questions:
Ms.
Perkins asked that since Mr. Lundgren has been ill for five or six years that is
the reason that the vehicles are parked there and are untouched and in the
present condition. Mr. Caputo
replied in the affirmative. Ms.
Perkins asked if he was saying that since it is all behind fences and cannot be
seen from the street that the Board should allow him to run a business that he
was not approved to run. She stated
that it has the appearance of a salvage yard. Mr. Caputo responded that he does not
believe it is a salvage yard but cars that Mr. Lundgren was going to work on
when he became ill. She pointed out
six car doors that have been stacked against a wall. She noted the cars are rusted and sunken
down into the ground to the back axle, and trees growing up through the
cars. He is not denying that the
cars have been there for some time.
Ms. Perkins asked when the doctor is going to release Mr. Lundgren. According to Mr. Lundgren it may be a
year or two he did not know.
Ms.
Perkins stated in the Board discussion that it is obvious it is a salvage
yard. Mr. White asked what relief
could the neighborhood expect if the Board denies the appeal. Mr. Beach stated that the applicant
would have to come into compliance immediately, remove any salvage or inoperable
vehicles, dismantled parts and anything the inspector determined to be in
violation.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to DENY
a Variance of the
all-weather surface requirement for parking of vehicles on CH zoned
property. SECTION 222. MOTORIZED VEHICLES – Use Unit 17,
finding the variance would cause substantial detriment to the public good or
impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or Comprehensive Plan; and
regarding the Appeal of the Code Enforcement Officer that vehicles on site are
unlicensed and inoperable vehicles are not salvage material, to
UPHOLD the decision of the Code Enforcement inspector, on the
following described property:
Lots
7 and 8, Block 4, Ridgewood Addition of Tracy Park, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow detached
accessory buildings (three-car garage, shop building and potting shed) of 1724
sq. ft. total for all accessory buildings.
SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use
Conditions – Use Unit 6, located 2839 E. 49th
St.
Presentation:
Dwayne Snapp, 2839 E. 49th St., stated that he resides
on the subject property. He
informed the Board that he brought Darin Akerman, with Sizemore and Weisz, and
Associates, and he would also speak.
He informed the Board that it was 9/10 of an acre, with an older frame
home. He described the disrepair of
the house and neglected landscape.
They planned to restore the house and landscape the yard. The original garage was converted to a
utility room. He informed the Board
that property has mature trees. He
pointed out there is not enough space on one side of the house and a septic with
lateral lines on the other side. He
showed the Board a large poster size site plan and described the plans for
building the garage, hobby shop and exercise/storage room. Mr. Snapp stated that during his illness
and hospitalization the contractor began construction without a building
permit. There is a concrete slab
and a framed structure in place.
When they applied for the permit they were advised that they exceeded the
40% ratio. He stated that his
hardships are that the 40% ratio is very limiting on larger tracts of land and
several of his neighbors also exceed the 40% ratio on their property. He also noted there is not enough
room to add a three car garage to the house. He submitted information pages
(Exhibit B-4) with figures from the assessor’s office.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins noted that only one of his neighbors came to the Board for relief. Mr. Snapp responded that he did not know
if they came before the Board, but he obtained his figures from the County
Assessor’s office. Ms. Perkins
pointed out that the staff comments state his property is not uniquely larger
than others in the area.
Darin Akerman, 6111 E. 32nd Pl., with Sizemore, Weisz
and Associates, suggested the need for some flexibility on larger size lots, to
allow larger than a 750 square foot building. He mentioned similar properties they
found in the courthouse records, one being across the street from the subject
property and more down the street with accessory buildings of 1300 to 2400
square feet. He notes that this
would range approximately in the middle at 1700 square feet. The materials of the structures, the
quality of the grounds, and the master scheme are a very coherent and complete
plan. He showed some illustrations
to the Board of the plans for landscaping and building façade. The building would be covered with 60%
masonry on front and rear, with 100% masonry on the two sides. He also pointed out the decorative gated
fence to emphasize the aesthetic improvements the applicant intends to do.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach noted that several properties in the area zoned RS-1 are about 10,000
square feet. He stated that if each
of them had the maximum allowable detached accessory building, the density would
be greater than what this application would be. Since the subject lot is so much larger,
might be justification for granting this application.
Interested
Parties:
Donald Dixon,
2818 E. 48th St., stated that contrary to the applicant, his
buildings are visible to the Dixon home, even over his own six-foot privacy
fence. He submitted a petition
signed by twenty-five people (Exhibit B-3). He expressed concern that it would hurt
the sale of his home, because the backside of his home is mostly glass and the
subject property would appear to be an industrial area. He suggested that he have only two
buildings instead of three.
Chip
Wolfe,
2828 E. 49th St., stated concern there was going to be a car repair
business on the property, and cars parked on and
off-street.
John Owen,
4003 E. 82nd Pl., stated he is a co-trustee with his mother at 4801
S. Evanston. They are concerned
about storm-water drainage toward their property.
Weldon
Sailor,
4740 S. Delaware, expressed concern that the applicant was going to use the
building to restore antique automobiles. He stated it was a bad precedent
for a well-established neighborhood.
He further stated they have no assurance what such a building would be
used for if the property were sold.
He was concerned that it could decrease the value of his property.
Phillip
Conig,
2847 E. 49th St., stated he lives next door to the property, and he
has no objection to the application.
Patrick
Geary,
2823 E. 49th St., stated that he trusts Mr. Snapp’s judgment, and he
has no objection to the application.
Donna
Dixon,
2818 E. 48th St., stated she has lived there since 1968. She stated he disappointment in the
buildings being built on the subject property. She refuted the applicant’s statement
that the neighbors cannot see the buildings; affirming that they can see his
property and all the buildings. She
stated there is no way it can be hidden.
Susan
Conig,
1847 E. 49th St., stated she lives adjacent to Mr. Snapp. She commented the applicant has done
nothing but improve the property.
Her impression was that the landscape was
attractive.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Snapp assured the Board that he has no plans to run a business there. He submitted a petition (Exhibit B-2) signed by neighbors living on both sides of the property and across the street that are in favor of the application.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. White confirmed that the lot was 124 to 125’ wide. He questioned why the garage could not be added to the east of the house. Mr. Snapp responded that the septic tank, lateral lines, and very mature trees were located there. He added that it would not accommodate a three-car garage. Ms. Perkins asked how many of the homes have three-car garages. Mr. Snapp replied probably two or three of the homes.
Mr. Akerman mentioned the lesser density on the subject property than some of the smaller properties would allow for better drainage. He also mentioned the elevation of the subject property is lower than the properties causing concern to the interested parties.
Mr. Dunham asked if there was a reason the buildings need to be set so far back. Mr. Akerman responded that the primary accessory building sets 40’ from the rear property line and 25’ from the side lot line. The potting shed was moved to 10’ from the rear property line.
The Board discussed the case. Ms. Perkins considered the hardship to be self-imposed. She also commented that Mr. Snapp stated there are only two or three other homes that have a three-car garage. She stated it amounts to a six-car garage building, divided up for different uses. Ms. Turnbo was concerned that residents with smaller properties were allowed by Code to cover more of their property than the applicant on a larger property. Ms. Turnbo added that he was only going to cover 10.8% of his lot. Mr. Dunham felt that the size of the lot is an issue. He commented that the potting shed should be closer to the main structure. Mr. White stated that the potting shed was not in violation to the setback code. Ms. Turnbo suggested that the potting shed might be moved. Mr. White asked Mr. Snapp to comment. Mr. Snapp was willing to move the shed or landscape with taller plantings to screen. Mr. Dunham and Ms. Perkins commented on the excessive square footage of the accessory garage building.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Perkins,
the Board voted 1-3-0 (Perkins "aye", White, Turnbo, Dunham "nay", no
"abstentions", Cooper "absent") to DENY
a Variance
to allow detached accessory buildings (three-car garage, shop building and
potting shed) of 1724 sq. ft. total for all accessory buildings, finding it to
be excessive in size, seconded by Turnbo, and failed for lack of a quorum
vote.
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 3-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo "aye"; Perkins "nay"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance
to allow detached accessory buildings (three-car garage, shop building and
potting shed) of 1724 sq. ft. total for all accessory buildings, on the
condition that the existing potting shed be moved no closer to rear property
line than the proposed new building or in the alternative that the owner does
not move or remove the potting shed that the square footage be limited to 1500
square feet, and no commercial activity of any kind be conducted on the
premises, finding the property to be of sufficient size and 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 17, Block 1, Villa Grove, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow outdoor sales of plants in a CS zoned district
from April through July. SECTION
1202.B. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Included Uses – Use Unit 2, located 6570 E.
71st St.
Presentation:
Marvin Ward, 312 E. Freeport St., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, came to
present his case.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White stated they have addressed this several times in the
past.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow outdoor sales
of plants in a CS zoned district from April through July, 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:
Lot 1, Block 2, Kirkdale Commercial Center, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow the sale of automobiles, which have been
pawned and not picked up by the owner.
SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 14, located 9075 E. 31st
St.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach pointed out to the Board that the case report is based on a use unit 14
for pawnshop but auto sales are under use unit 17. So the use unit 17 would be a
second principal use.
Ron Gill, 9075 E. 31st St., stated he owns the pawnshop
on the subject property. He
stated that when a pawn expires, he could not sell the car under the code. He would like to park a maximum of cars
on the lot for sale as they become available after a pawn expires. He informed the Board that he has a
storage place where he takes all of the cars that are pawned and only brings
them to the subject property when it is to be picked up or hopefully when they
are to be sold.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo asked how many existing parking places are on the property. Mr. Gill replied there are 17 marked
parking spaces and room for 12 or 13 more.
Ms. Turnbo asked for the square footage of the existing pawnshop. Mr. Dunham commented if it is an old
Quik Trip it is probably about 40’ x 60’.
Ms. Perkins asked how long he would expect to leave a car parked for
sale. He stated he would not want
to leave them there for more than two to three weeks. He added that he does not take
inoperable cars. He stated that he
heard people were concerned he would put up a big fence, but he does not plan to
do that. There should be no changes
in the exterior of the shop, except an occasional car parked out front.
Interested
Parties:
Jan
McGee,
administrative aid to Councilor Sam Roop for District 5, stated that Councilor
Roop objects to this application.
He thinks it would be detrimental to the neighborhood; the parking lot is
not large enough for the pawnshop, much less for car sales; then other pawnshops
will want to do the same and it would set a bad precedent.
Nancy
Adams,
9042 E. 30th, stated she has lived in the neighborhood since
1977. She lives directly behind the
pawnshop. She submitted photographs
(Exhibit C-1). Ms. Adams objects to
the application because it will bring extra traffic to the neighborhood. She was concerned that it would not stop
with cars, next it could be motorcycles, travel trailers and other
vehicles.
Gordon
Carlson,
9076 E. 29th St., stated he bought the first house in the unit in
1966. He was concerned there
are only two access streets to the neighborhood.
Cull
Bivens,
9039 E. 28th St., stated he has lived in the neighborhood since
1967. He stated that he used to
have an office next door to this property.
Mr. Bivens mentioned that the prior owner stored cars on the property on
the east side of the building in the five parking spaces. One of the spaces was a shared space
with the office building where he used to work. He informed the Board that he has seen
numerous cars parked bumper to bumper, and the cars were in very bad
condition. The cars had to be towed
off the property. Mr. Bivens
expected it would be an eyesore if they approved the
application.
Mel
Rice,
9142 E. 26th Pl. S., stated his objection on the expectation that it
would lead to the demise of the neighborhood.
Greg
Linch,
9317 E. 29th Pl., stated that there were no obvious changes to the
property to indicate that the ownership had changed. He concluded that any future pawned cars
would not be of any better condition than the ones previously pawned.
Dr.
Larry Feldman,
8718 S. Quebec, stated he owns the dental office property. He added that he has worked very hard to
keep up the property. He was
concerned that this relief would affect Dr. Wagner’s practice at this location,
the value of the property and the nearby residences. He submitted a petition of protest
(Exhibit C-2).
Dr.
Scott Wagner,
11555 S. 68th E. Ave., objected to the pawnshop selling used vehicles
because of the expected condition of the vehicles. He also objected to cars parked where
they would block the visibility of his sign in front of the building. He was concerned that the visibility
would be blocked to patients pulling out into traffic.