CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
August 13, 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 Wednesday, August 7, 2002, at 8:55 a.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.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr. Jim Beach
read the rules and procedures for the Board of Adjustment Public
Hearing.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Mr.
Cooper arrived at 1:02 p.m.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required side yard from 5’ to 2’. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 1631 S. Delaware Pl.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach informed the Board this case was continued to this date, but since then it
was discovered more relief was needed.
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
CONTINUE Case No. 19413 to the meeting on August 27, 2002, for
advertising of additional relief requested.
Lot 17, Block 6, Avondale Addition to City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit auto sales in a CS district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17; and a Variance of requirement that there shall be no
open air storage or display of merchandise offered for sale within 300’ of an R
district. SECTION 1217.C.2. USE UNIT 17.
AUTOMOTIVE AND ALLIED ACTIVITIES, Use Conditions, located SW/c E. 30th St. & S.
Sheridan Rd.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach informed the Board this application was withdrawn because the property
owner did not authorize this use of the property and is negotiating a lease with
a different party. He added that
the notice was stopped after staff received this information.
Sandra Alexander, 1044 E. Pine, stated she represented the
property owners. She stated the
owners spoke with the applicant about a lease but had not come to any
agreement. The owners do not
support the application and do not need the requested relief.
The
applicant was not present.
Board
Action:
The
case was considered withdrawn.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of July 23,
2002 (No. 846) as amended.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to extend the one year time limit for a manufactured
home. SECTION 404.E.1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 9, located 5153 W. 12th
St.
Presentation:
Reva Akee, 5153 W. 12th St., returned to the Board for
relief of the one year time limit.
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 extend the one-year time limit for a manufactured home to thirty (30) years,
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:
S 43.00’ Lot 7 and S 43.00’ Lot 8 and all Lots 9 and 10, less E 2.50’ S
140.00’ Lot 9 and less S 140.00’ Lot 10, Block 2, Vern Subdivision #2, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a detached accessory building in the front yard. SECTION 402.B.1.b. ACCESSORY USE CONDITIONS – Use Unit 6, located 2508 W. Easton St.
Presentation:
Vernon McCarty, 2508 W. Easton St., stated his request for a
variance for a carport.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Perkins questioned Mr. McCarty about the accuracy of his side yard
measurement. He responded that it
was correct according to the fence line that was constructed after a
survey. He added that the eaves had
to be cut back. Mr. White asked Mr.
Beach what precipitated the application.
Mr. Beach noted there was a zoning notice issued. Mr. McCarty responded that the neighbor
complained about water run-off on his place. Mr. McCarty attempted to get a
contractor for guttering and applied for a building permit.
Interested
Parties:
Leo
Butel,
2520 W. Easton St., complained of water run-off from the subject property. He stated that the fence is two inches
inside the property line.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
McCarty responded that if the Board approved the application, he would correct
the drainage problem in ten days.
He submitted photographs of his carport and others in the neighborhood
(Exhibit A-1). The Board allowed
Mr. Butel to submit photographs also (Exhibit A-2).
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 APPROVE
a Variance to
allow a detached accessory building in the front yard, with conditions to be
open-sided, five feet from property line to eave of carport, and guttering on
the front, back and west side so the water does not flow to the neighboring yard
on the west in any way, finding there are other carports in the neighborhood,
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:
Tract
Beg. 75’ W NE/c NE SE NW, thence W 66’ S 170’ E 66’ N 170’ to POB, Section 3,
T-19-N, R-12-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Approval of amendment to a previously approved site plan. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, located E of SE/c E. 111th St. & S. Yale
Ave.
Presentation:
Jim Healy, 324 E. 3rd St., stated he is an architect
representing the St. James United Methodist Church. They propose to add a dining room and
classrooms, two stories in height.
A site plan was provided (Exhibit B-1).
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
an amendment
to a previously approved site plan, per plan submitted today, on the property
described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, St. James United Methodist Church and part of N/2 NW/4 NW/4, Section 34, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of allowable number of signs per street frontage in an OM zoned
district, to allow a second sign.
SECTION 602.B.4.b. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS,
Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 21; and a Variance to increase allowable
signage from 150 square feet to 300.5 square feet. SECTION 602.B.4.c. ACCESSORY USES
PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located 2702 E.
81st St.
Presentation:
Tom Dillingham, 7700 S. Lewis, stated he is the youth pastor at
Victory Christian Center. They
propose a new sign on the youth building that would catch the attention of young
people. The trees and the angle of
the building on the property make it difficult to identify it as the youth
building. A site plan was
provided (Exhibit C-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham noted the steep topography change and the trees that screen the building
from west bound traffic.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
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
APPROVE a Variance of allowable number of signs per
street frontage in an OM zoned district, to allow a second sign; and a
Variance to increase allowable signage from 150 square feet to
300.5 square feet, per plan, finding the hardship to be the topography and the
heavy foliage coverage, on the following described
property:
Lot 1, Oral Roberts Heights II, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an existing dwelling in a CS district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 8818 E. Admiral Blvd.
Presentation:
Kassandre S. Young, 8818 E. Admiral Blvd., stated her property is
zoned commercial and the potential buyer is having difficulty obtaining a loan
for the house. The use is basically
residential.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White recognized the problem from a similar case, as the entire sub-division is
zoned CS. He noted the porch of
this house encroaches on the neighbor to the west.
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 an existing dwelling in a CS 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 following described
property:
Lot 4, Block 2, Hirrlinger Re-Subdivision of Day Suburban Acres Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of structure setback from planned right-of-way from 60’ to 52’. SECTION 1221.C.6. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use Unit 21, located 3220 S. Memorial.
Presentation:
James Adair, 7508 E. 77th St., stated the request for a
variance. The sign would be smaller
and shorter, using the existing steel.
A site plan was provided (Exhibit D-1).
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
structure setback from planned right-of-way from 60’ to 52’, per plan, finding
the hardship to be the sign has been located at this site for years, and is in
line with other signs in the area, on the following described
property:
S 408.75’ of E 430’ of Lot 3, Interchange Center Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow required parking (five spaces) on lot other than lot with principal use. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 5, located 1508 S. Gary Pl.
Presentation:
Norma Woodberry, 23214 Slick Rd., Bristow, Oklahoma, stated she
has approval from the landlord for special parking. She added that she needs the parking
space to open a business. Sandor
Horvath, 3222 E. 15th St. and 1508 S. Gary Pl., stated he owns
these two adjoining properties.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked staff to explain where the applicant wants parking and questions if
it is advertised properly. Mr.
Beach and Mr. Boulden determined the advertising was adequate.
Interested
Parties:
Phyllis Hutchinson,
1511 S. Gary Pl., stated she owns a home daycare. She informed the Board that she counted
nine full parking spaces for the pawnshop and a sports card store. She added that the owner Mr. Horvath
also owns a portion of the parking lot adjacent to Merritt’s Bakery and leases
it to the bakery so they can meet their parking requirements. The wheelchair ramp is being built in
the front yard and the parking is in the backyard with no wheelchair ramp. She questioned how they would be ADA
accessible to the clients.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr.
Beach commented that the requirements for handicap access come under the
building code functions, and are not a zoning code matter. Ms. Hutchinson commented that the
traffic and parking is very congested around Merritt’s in the
mornings.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Horvath suggested that the carport and parking spaces at 1508 S. Gary Pl. could
be used during bad weather.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms.
Turnbo noted there is no turn around space at 1508 S. Gary Pl. and people would
have to back out of the drive.
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 Special
Exception to allow required parking (five spaces) on lot other
than lot with principal use, on the following described
property:
Lot 2, Block 2 Exposition Heights, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Appeal of the decision of the code enforcement officer that subject fence is in the front yard; Or in the alternative that a Special Exception be granted for the height of the fence from 4’ to 6’. SECTION 210.B.3. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards – Use Unit 6, located 7516 S. Toledo Ave.
Presentation:
Lisa Deller, 7516 S. Toledo Ave., introduced her husband to
present the appeal of the code enforcement officer’s decision.
Collin J. Deller, 7516 S. Toledo Ave., stated his name and
address.
Mr. White announced he would abstain from this case.
Mr. Deller explained that the reason they were appealing this decision is because their property is unique in that it is on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Dunham interjected that there is not a question according to the code that the house fronts on Toledo. Mr. Deller maintained that the front yard is the portion on the curve of the cul-de-sac. He submitted photographs (Exhibit E-1) to the Board.
Interested
Parties:
Kevin Cox, 111 S. Greenwood, stated he is with Neighborhood
Inspections and filled in for Candy Parnell. Ms. Parnell made an inspection in June
and determined the fence is in front of the building setback line and at six
feet high is not in compliance. She
spoke with the applicants about applying to the Board of Adjustment. The notice and photographs from
Neighborhood Inspections was provided (Exhibit E-3).
Ed
Bates, 4502 E. 75th St., stated he and his wife own their home
across the street from the subject property. He asked other neighbors in the room to
stand in agreement with him that the fence is in the front yard. They are concerned this case would set a
precedent if it were approved. He
submitted a photograph from (Exhibit E-4) to show the view of the fence from his
yard. He objected to the
fence.
Gene Kaefer, 4214 E. 74th St., indicated that the
applicants did not check with the City of Tulsa before building the fence. He added that they were not willing to
communicate with the neighbors. He
expressed concern that this case would set a precedent if approved.
Bill Holloway, 7277 S. Pittsburg, read the definition of frontage
on a curved non-arterial street or cul-de-sac, to emphasize his belief that the
fence is in the front yard. He
stated his opposition to a fence in the front yard.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Deller stated when they bought the house he was not aware of the covenants. He acknowledged that Mr. Bates informed him about the covenants, and he removed several fence posts. He contacted Mike Howell of the neighborhood association so that he could do the right thing. Mr. Howell discussed their plans with a committee of the neighborhood association and gave Mr. Deller an ok to proceed with the fence at the side of the house. Mr. Howell also drove by while the fence was being constructed and commented approvingly. Mr. Deller explained that he took great care to build a fence that would meet their needs and look good in the neighborhood. He showed another photograph of the fence from Mr. Bates front yard (Exhibit E-1).
Comments and
Questions:
The
Board deliberated over the division of the back yard, front yard and side
yard. Mr. Boulden considered the
neighborhood inspector’s decision to be correct at that time. He added that on the appeal they could
view the lot under Section 403.A.5, which allows the owner to elect which will
be the front yard. He pointed out
that this is a five-sided lot, with one curved side.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins,
Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White "abstained"; no "absences") to DENY
the Appeal of the
decision of the code enforcement officer that subject fence is in the front
yard.
The
Board continued to hear the presentation on the special exception of Case No.
19420.
Presentation:
Mrs. Deller next presented the request for a special exception for a six-foot fence. She submitted a letter of support from her neighbors on the cul-de-sac (Exhibit E-5) to be included with several others (Exhibit E-2) in the case file. She submitted photographs of other privacy fences in the neighborhood (Exhibit E-1). She informed the Board that Ms. Parnell cited them on a technicality but encourage them to seek a special exception, as the home was uniquely situated on the property, with the aesthetic front yard facing the cul-de-sac. Ms. Parnell described the front yard as: where the front door, house numbers, mailbox, and the direction the house is facing. Ms. Deller explained that the retaining wall would have interfered with the fence if it was moved back and would have given a jagged appearance to the fence. The topography of the property is a hill, with the bedrooms downstairs, facing the street. The fence was built for safety and to screen the playground equipment they intend to build for their children.
Interested
Parties:
Kim Williamson, 7525 S. Sandusky, stated their driveway meets the
back yard of the subject property.
She considers the fence unsightly and their main concern is the potential
decrease in property value due to the fence. She believes it is in conflict with the
covenants and the zoning code.
Catherine Mears, 4351 E. 72nd Pl., stated she is a
realtor, and is familiar with this house from a realty listing. She stated that the property is only
worth what someone is willing to pay.
Pat Seal, 4522 E. 75th St., stated she could see the
fence when the leaves fall off the trees and it obstructs the view of the
terrain.
Ed Bates, 4502
E. 75th St., submitted a photograph of his view of the fence (Exhibit
E-4). He stated that it obstructs
the view of the park-like properties.
He asked to hear or read the contents of the letters in support of the
application. He pointed out that
the letter written on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Ball at 7525 S. Toledo, stated
their support as long as the fence is in compliance with all other deed
restrictions and covenants of South Ridge Estates, then they would have no
objection to a fence height of six feet.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mrs.
Deller stated that the odd configuration of the yard, securing their dogs, and
privacy for the bedrooms are some of the important reasons for the fence. Mr. Deller pointed out that the closest
the fence gets to the setback line is twelve feet.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins,
"aye"; Cooper "nay"; White "abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special Exception be granted for the height of the fence from 4’
to 6’, finding that the configuration and elevation of the lot influence how
this property is dealt with under the code, and 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:
Lot 13, Block 5, Amended Plat of Southridge Estates 5th
Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a two-story structure in an OL district. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, located S of Pine, W side of Norfolk.
Presentation:
Mike Parks, 1304 W. Los Angeles St., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma,
stated the request for a variance to allow a two-story building. Several businesses have shown an
interest in locating here.
Interested
Parties: