CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
February 26, 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 Friday, February 22, 2002, at 11:36 a.m., as well as at the City Clerks office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye", no "nays", no
"abstentions", no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of February
12, 2002 (No. 835).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Mr.
White stated he would abstain from Case No. 19281.
Action
Requested:
For
Lot 6:
Variance of Section 207 to allow
two dwelling units per lot of record.
SECTION 207. ONE
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF RECORD Use Unit 6; a Variance of Section 403
from required 5 side setback on NE property line to 2 and 0.9. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance
of Section 403 from required 20 setback from East 13th Street to
2.2 and 0. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; a Variance of Section 215 to allow a structure in the
Planned Right-of-Way. SECTION 215. STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM ABUTTING STREETS; a
Variance of land area per dwelling unit requirement from 6750 sq. ft. to 3816.75
sq. ft. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
For
Lot 5:
Variance of Section 403 required minimum average lot width of 50 to 49.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1224 S.
Indian.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach reminded the Board that this case was heard in January and because of the
peculiarity of the lot split and configuration of the lot line it was determined
that more relief was needed.
Patrick Kingsley,
appeared to present the case.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham noted that this was an existing condition.
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 APPROVE
a Variance
of Section 207 to allow two dwelling units per lot of record; a Variance of
Section 403 from required 5 side setback on NE property line to 2 and 0.9; a
Variance of Section 403 from required 20 setback from East 13th
Street to 2.2 and 0; a Variance of Section 215 to allow a structure in the
Planned Right-of-Way; a Variance of land area per dwelling unit requirement from
6750 sq. ft. to 3816.75 sq. ft., all for Lot 6; AND a Variance of Section 403
required minimum average lot width of 50 to 49 for Lot 5, finding the hardship
is the existence of these properties for an extended period of time, and with a
condition for a license agreement and approval of a lot split, on the following
described property:
Lot 5, Block 8, Norvell Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal of the administrative officials decision that use should be considered non-conforming use; and screening and hard surface parking should be considered as non-conforming, existing conditions, located 2111 E. Pine St.
Presentation:
Dwayne Allen, 3707 E. 47th St., stated he owns the
subject property. The property has
been in the family since 1965.
The width is about 100 east to west and almost 200 deep north to
south. There is a 28 x 60 shop
building on the northeast corner.
The property is fenced in by a 6 chain link fence. He stated that about 10% of the lot in
front of the building is paved with asphalt and concrete for customer
service. The remainder is
hard-packed gravel and this condition has existed for about 35 years. He acknowledged the notices from
Neighborhood Inspections for all-weather surface for parking, screening fence,
no outside storage. Exhibits were
submitted containing a warranty deed, newspaper article, photographs and
affidavits (Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham informed Mr. Allen that the staff comments state: after establishing the
non-conforming status, it still has to be screened and paved with an all-weather
surface. Mr. Allen responded that
he had discussed this with Mr. Cox, with Neighborhood Inspections. Mr. Cox indicated to him that the Use
Unit for the property should be a Use Unit 23 instead of 13, which would be for
trucks with 20 beds and larger.
Mr. Allen reminded the Board that they have ice cream trucks about the
size of ½ ton pickups; there were about 35 trucks; and the shop was built as an
automotive maintenance shop. Mr.
Allen stated that the ice cream business sold around 1990 or 1991, and the owner
moved it to a different location.
He added that the property continued be used as an automotive shop and
has become more of a tire related business. Mr. Boulden commented the affidavits
show that it was an ice cream business in 1976 to 1978, but not prior to
1970. Mr. Allen pointed out that
the neighbor on the north asked that a screening fence not be put up because he
felt it would encourage vandalism.
Mr. Allen stated that the business helps keep the area more viable,
encouraging business. Ms. Turnbo
asked about automotive repair and sales on the property. Mr. Allen replied that he grew up
building and selling four-wheel drives and trailers from that shop also.
Interested
Parties:
Kevin
Cox,
111 S. Greenwood, with Neighborhood Inspections, stated that he received a
complaint about an illegal operation.
He inspected and found a number of tires stored outside on racks and
vehicles for sale on a non-all-weather surface. He noted the front half of the property
was zoned CS and the back RS-3.
There were no Special Exceptions granted at that time. He considered the property to be used as
a Use Unit 15, for trades and other services. He classified the vehicle storage as a
Use Unit 23. He also discovered
they were not licensed to sell used motor vehicles. He stated that Mr. Allen told him the
vehicles were just being repaired and were not to be sold there. Mr. Cox also found the property was
being used as ice cream truck storage, and the trucks were loaded daily and sent
out on routes. Mr. Cox stated he
believes that the use has changed to an automotive and allied activity, which is
a Use Unit 17, which is not permitted in the RS zoned district without a special
exception, and is allowed in the CS district only by special exception.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Boulden asked Mr. Cox about the designation of Use Unit 15. Mr. Cox responded that though it did not
specify the ice cream truck business it did list similar size business
vehicles. Mr. Boulden asked how he
would treat the statement that they use the property for the repair of
automobiles. Mr. Cox replied that
he saw no documented evidence of vehicle repair. In response to other questions from Mr.
Boulden, Mr. Cox did not believe the auto repair was a primary use but an
accessory use to the ice cream truck business. Mr. Cox stated that the lot was mostly
covered with the ice cream trucks, about thirty-five or 40 per the
applicant. He could not see clear
evidence of auto repair. Ms. Turnbo
asked about outside storage of tires in the photos. Mr. Cox replied that he could tell on
the aerial there was storage of items other than vehicles. Ms. Turnbo asked about the sale signs in
the windows of vehicles on the photographs. Mr. Cox stated they are not licensed to
sell automobiles and Mr. Allen told him they are not selling vehicles. Mr. Beach stated that the ice cream
business is accurately placed in Use Unit 15. He added that if it is a tire business,
automotive repair would be a Use Unit 17, a change of use. Mr. Beach stated that as of January 1,
1995 the parking was required to be an all-weather surface, but the screening
requirements were not as clear.
Interested Parties:
Homer
Jones,
2148 N. Oklahoma Pl., waived his comments due to those previously made and
thanked the Board for their consideration of this matter.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Allen responded that he could not argue that Use Unit 15 might have been applicable to the ice cream business. The property has been used for truck and auto sales in the past. The current renter has been informed that he is not licensed to sell vehicles. This business is identical to others within blocks of it on the same street. The property is in better shape than the others. He concluded that the property is not worth the cost of paving and screening.
Comments and Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked how many years the tires, wheels and hubcaps have been stored outside. Mr. Allen replied there has been some storage of these since the 1960s.
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
an Appeal
of the administrative officials decision that use should be considered
non-conforming use; and screening and hard surface parking should be considered
as non-conforming, existing conditions, and to Uphold the
administrative official decision, that the previous Use Unit 15 was changed to a
Use Unit 17, on the following described property:
E 100 Lots 12 and 13, less S 5 thereof Block 1, Kinloch Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a Use Unit 2, City Waste Water treatment plant, in an AG zoned district. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT Use Unit 2, located S of SE/c I-44 W & S. Elwood Ave.
Presentation:
Bill Robison, with the City of Tulsa Department of Public Works,
stated he is the Project Engineer over the Process Improvements at the south
side treatment plant. They propose
to increase the size of one of their buildings.
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 a Use Unit 2, City Waste Water treatment plant, in an AG zoned district,
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:
Government Lot 3, Section 36, T-19-N, R-12-E, E of railroad right-of-way, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard of 25 plus ½ the planned right-of-way to 29 from the centerline, for the addition of an attached carport. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located 2320 S. Urbana Ave.
Presentation:
Roger Box, 2320 S. Urbana, stated he is a contractor. They propose to build a 20 x 20
attached carport, which exceeds 20 of a 50 requirement from the center of the
street. The hardship is a
steep grade of the topography. He
had submitted an elevation view and a structural cross section (Exhibits B-1 and
B-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach commented that the design is for an attached carport. Mr. White noted that the house is built
on the building line. Mr. Beach
stated that any size carport would extend across the building line. Ms. Perkins asked about the
existing garage. Mr. Box responded
that the overhead doors on the existing garage are too narrow for cars and a
shop has been set up in the garage.
Mr. White noted that the lot is only 90 deep compared to larger
neighboring properties.
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 Variance of
required front yard of 25 plus ½ the planned right-of-way to 29 from the
centerline, for the addition of an attached carport, restricting the size of the
carport to 20 x 20, finding it would be an attached carport and the depth of
the lot would make it difficult to build otherwise, on the following described
property:
Lot 1, Block 12, Ridgeview Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr. White abstained from Case No. 19296.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a detached
accessory building in the front yard.
SECTION 402.B.1.b. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use
Conditions Use Unit 6; a Variance of the 25 required front yard. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance of the required 5 side yard to 0. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1715 W. Easton Ct.
Presentation:
Jeffrey C. Fitts, 1715 W. Easton Ct., stated he has partially
built a carport without a building permit.
He wants to protect a classic car he purchased. The Neighborhood Inspector asked him to
stop construction. He submitted
photographs (Exhibit C-1) of the carport as it exists and other carports in the
neighborhood. Mr. Fitts stated he
would have changed the carport to the required setback but it would have made it
a 22 x 7 carport.
Interested
Parties:
Robert Brasey, 1724
W. Easton Ct., stated he and the neighbors on the block have consistently made
improvements. They are seeking
national designation for the historical structures in the neighborhood. He complained that the carport in
question is not appropriate to the house or the neighborhood.
Gail
Johnson,
1711 W. Easton Ct., stated that the applicant did not contact her regarding the
new construction. She expressed
concern that the structure might be partially on her property.
Allen
Bates,
1715 W. Easton Ct., stated he lives on the subject property. He is in favor of the project. He stated that it was built over the
driveway, not attached, and built on piers. He was confident that it was a sturdy
structure, and would be complimentary to the house.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Fitts stated that he owns eight pieces of real estate in the neighborhood. He has made substantial improvements to the house. He added there is not enough room in the back yard to put a carport. He assured the Board that the carport is on his property and not on the neighbors lot.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked for a hardship. Mr. Fitts indicated that the house does not conform to the Code, as it was built in 1925, and there are only 13 from the house to the lot line. The Board received a letter of opposition (Exhibit C-2).
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins,
Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White "abstained"; no "absences") to DENY
a Variance to allow a detached accessory building in the front
yard; a Variance of the 25 required front yard; and a
Variance of the required 5 side yard to 0, finding a lack of
hardship, on the following described property:
Lot 4, Block 1, Irving Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required setback from an R zoned district for a changeable lettering sign from 200 to 80 on the west and 92 to the south. SECTION 1221.C. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs Use Unit 11, located SE/c E. Independence & N. Memorial.
Presentation:
Roger Lister, 533 S. Rockford, with Claude Neon Signs, stated the project is for Golden Eagle Credit Union. He informed the Board they propose to put in an electronic variable message sign. The neighboring church does not object to the sign. He suggested the hardship is the uniqueness of the property.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, to APPROVE a
Variance of the required setback from an R zoned district for a
changeable lettering sign from 200 to 80 on the west and 92 to the south,
finding the hardship to be the shape of the lot, and the right-of-way on
Memorial and separation between the subject property and the property to the
west, the R property is not used as residential, and the motion
Died for lack of a second on Case No. 19297.
On
MOTION of Cooper, seconded by Turnbo the Board voted
3-2-0 (Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; White, Dunham "nay"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to DENY a Variance of the required
setback from an R zoned district for a changeable lettering sign from 200 to
80 on the west and 92 to the south, 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:
All
of Rice Center, a resubdivision of Lots 4 - 8, Block 1, Mingo Heights Addition,
and Lot 3, Block 1, Mingo Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma, less the following described property: Beg. at the SE/c of Lot 3,
thence W 50 along the S line, thence NW 213.23 to a point in the N line,
thence E 93.21 to the NE/c, thence S 203.88 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 75
setback from an R zoned district to 35.
SECTION 903. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 23, located 404 S.
122nd E. Ave.
Presentation:
Lynn Smith, 3122 S. Florence Ct., stated he is co-owner of Hodges
Quality Meat, a meat processing plant in Eastgate Industrial Park. They bought the property in March 2001
and have improved the property. The
rear of the building is about 75 x 200 and it abuts residential property,
separated by a concrete block fence.
They park their trucks on the side of the property near the block
fence. They hauled off the junk
that had been collected in that area over the years, including some inoperable
trucks. They propose to build a 24
x 30 metal storage building, with an overhead door for spare parts and
racks. There would be no electric,
gas or water connections.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked why it could not be located in front to stay in compliance with the
zoning code. Mr. Smith responded
that they load and unload trucks in the front.
Interested
Parties:
Nancy
Craten,
245 S. 120th E. Ave., stated she is the neighbor just west of the
subject property. She was also she
represented the Western Village Neighborhood Association. She submitted packets of
signatures/letters in opposition, and photographs (Exhibits D-1, D-2, and D-3)
to the Board. She referred to
a letter from Bob Hines with Eastgate Industrial Park, which assured the
neighborhood residents the dead end street would not be opened in the
future. She referred to the
photographs of the block wall, and informed the Board that the applicants
company trucks have hit the wall twice and knocked it over, then repaired it
very poorly. It also damaged her
personal fence but they did not repair it.
She complained of trucks not parked on all-weather surface, unsightly
outside storage, hazardous material improperly disposed, and vegetation growing
on the block wall.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Smith stated the company did replace the wall. He informed the Board that to his
knowledge, the EPA has not cited the company for hazardous material issues. The inoperable vehicles were removed
from the property.
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
DENY a Variance of the required 75 setback from an
R zoned district to 35, finding a lack of hardship on the following described
property:
Lots 20 and 21, Block 1, Eastgate Industrial Park, 3rd
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required rear yard and side yard property lines in an RM-1 zoned district form 20 to 5 in rear and 10 to 5 in side yard for an accessory building. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located N of the NE/c E. Easton & N. Florence Pl.
Presentation:
Vincent Longobardi, 3131 E. Easton, stated he would like to buy
the property, but wanted to find out if he could put in a garage and driveway
without destroying a mature pecan tree.
Interested
Parties:
Demetris
and Clyde Smith,
3202 E. Haskell St., stated they were interested in the applicants plans. After hearing the details they had no
objections.
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 of the
required rear yard and side yard property lines in an RM-1 zoned district form
20 to 5 in rear and 10 to 5 in side yard for an accessory building, per
plan, finding the existence of a mature pecan tree and the size of the lot, on
the following described property:
Lot 9, Block 2, Stahl Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a church and accessory uses in an IL zoned
district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 5, located 7015 E. 41st
St.
Presentation:
James L. Brown, 6760 E. 66th Pl., stated the applicant
is really the Oklahoma Conference of the Seventh Day Adventists.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach stated that a Use Unit 2 triggers the need for a platting requirement, and
the Planning Commission has to determine whether to require a re-plat or a plat
waiver.
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 permit a church and
accessory uses in an IL zoned district, 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 property described as
follows:
Lot 15, Block 2, Expressway Industrial and Commercial Center, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a drive-in restaurant in a CS district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS Use Unit 18, located E. 41st St. S. & E of
US-169.
Presentation:
Ted Sack, 111 S. Elgin, stated he represented Sonic Drive-Ins,
for a proposed drive-in restaurant.
It would be located on Reasors parking lot and would not take up too
many of the parking spaces. The
landscaping plans will be in compliance with the code. A site plan ( Exhibit E-1) was
provided.
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 permit a drive-in
restaurant in a CS district, per plan, providing it meets the landscape
requirements, 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:
A tract of land that is part of Lot 1, Block 1, Crossbow Center Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at a point that is the SW/c