TULSA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
June 18, 2002, 1:30 p.m.
|
Alberty,
Chair |
|
Butler |
West,
Code Inspect. |
|
Tyndall |
|
Beach |
Blakely,
D.A. |
|
Walker |
|
|
|
|
Hutson |
|
|
|
|
Dillard,
Vice Chair |
|
|
|
The notice
and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W.
5th St., Suite 600, Friday, June 14, 2002 at 8:16 a.m., as well as at
the City Clerk’s office, City Hall.
After
declaring a quorum present, Chair Alberty called the meeting to order at 1:30
p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Tyndall, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Alberty, Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”;
no "absences") to APPROVE the
Minutes of May 21, 2002 (No. 264).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow an existing duplex in an RS district. SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 7, located 1033 N. Valley Dr.
Presentation:
Kelly D. Poulter, 5801 S. 260th W. Pl., Sand Springs,
Oklahoma, want to remodel a duplex at the back of the property and provide
separate utilities for the duplex.
There is a single family dwelling at the front of the property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Hutson asked when the structures were built. Mr. Poulter replied that the duplex was
moved there in 1970. The other
house was probably built in the early 1950’s or before.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to allow an
existing duplex in an RS 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 10, Block 24, Charles Page Home Acres, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required lot area from 2 acres to 1.6 acres on Tracts 5
and 6 combined. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; and a Variance of required land area from
2.1 acres to 1.716 acres, Tracts 5 and 6 combined for a lot-split. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS, located 815 S. 263rd W.
Ave.
Presentation:
Virgil Ray Goodman, Rolling Oaks Box 7, Mannford, Oklahoma, stated
he purchased the property in 1994 and obtained a title opinion. There were no problems found. He has since sought to turn the
six original lots into four lots by lot splits but there is no record of the lot
splits. He has three homes on this
property that were built with building permits.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked if the deeds exist today.
Mr. Goodman replied that the deeds exist. Mr. Alberty surmised that the applicant
is asking the Board to approve what has been done. He added that the applicant was under
the impression it had been processed properly, but have been informed that he
needs to go through the official lot split procedure. Mr. Alberty asked for clarification
regarding Tract 5 if it is already tied to Tract 6. Mr. Goodman responded in the
affirmative. Mr. Alberty also asked
if all the lots have access to Coyote Trail. Mr. Goodman replied that the lots have
access to Coyote Trail.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, Hutson "aye"; no
"nays", no "abstentions”; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance of the
required lot area from 2 acres to 1.6 acres on Tracts 5 and 6 combined; and a
Variance of required land area from 2.1 acres to 1.716 acres,
Tracts 5 and 6 combined for a lot-split, 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 5: A tract of land situated in the N/2 S/2 SW/4 NW/4 SE/4 of
Section 6, T-19-N, R-10-E being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the NE/c N/2 S/2 SW/4 NW/4 SE/4, thence N 89°54’57” W along the N line of said N/2 a
distance of 120.00’ to the POB; thence S 00°00’20” E a distance of 50.00’; thence N
89°54’57” W a distance of 366.52’ to a point on
the E right-of-way of Coyote Trail; thence N 17°54’28” E along the E right-of-way of Coyote
Trail a distance of 52.52’, to a point on the N line of said N/2; thence S
89°54’57” E a distance of 350.36’ to the POB;
Tract 6: Beg. 163.14’ E of the SW/c N/2 SW/4 NW/4 SE/4 of Section 6, T-19-N,
R-10-E; thence E a distance of 496.86’; thence N a distance of 110.00’; thence W
a distance of 462.86’; thence S 17°02’ W a distance of 115.03’ to the POB, all
in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of land area per dwelling unit from 2.1 to 1.5 acres. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 12848 E. 122nd St.
N.
Presentation:
Lacreta Hill, 4917 E. Admiral Boulevard, proposes to place a
mobile home on her son’s property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked Ms. Hill for a hardship for the variance. She replied that there is less than four
acres as required by the code. Mr.
Alberty noted there are other lots in the area with two dwellings per lot
setting a precedent, to which Ms. Hill agreed.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted (5-0-0) (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance of land
area per dwelling unit from 2.1 to 1.5 acres, finding other properties in the
area with more than one dwelling per lot, 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:
E
198.00’ W 462.00’ S 660.00’ E 660.00’ of NE/4, Section 5, T-21-N, R-14-E, of the
IBM, less 25.00’ for roadway, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the allowable 750 square feet for accessory building to 1,750
square feet. SECTION 240.2.E.
YARDS, Permitted Yard Obstructions – Use Unit 6, located 16723 W.
56th Pl. S.
Presentation:
Martha Ann Witt, 16723 W. 56th Pl. S., Sand Springs,
Oklahoma, stated the variance is to build a garage with a recreation room. The existing garage is too small for
their vehicle. The proposed
structure would have two larger garage doors. It would be located 170’ off the
road. A vehicle was stolen from their property, which is part of the reason for
the application. She submitted a
photograph (Exhibit A-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked if they planned any commercial business in the building. Mr. Arthur G. Witt, III, of the
same address, replied that he is an electrical contractor, and he offices out of
his house. He explained that all of
his work is done on other sites. He
added that he does not keep trucks or equipment at his home. Mr. Witt stated that the building would
be for personal use only. Mr.
Alberty asked if there are other similar size buildings in the
neighborhood. Mr. Witt replied
there is one larger building across the street. Mr. Witt noted that the parties present
and in objection to the application, do not live on property adjoining his. The owners of the property abutting his
are in support of the application.
Interested
Parties:
Mr.
Alberty mentioned the Board received a list of the restrictive covenants (Exhibit A-2) for the neighborhood from
unnamed homeowners in Pleasant Oaks Addition.
Marita Bridges,
16427 W. 56th Pl. S., stated she opposes a metal building because the
size is inappropriate in the neighborhood. She pointed out that the other
building Mr. Witt referred to is a wood frame and brick building. She stated that she was not notified
about the other metal building in the neighborhood before it was built.
Rita
Hodges,
17157 W. 58th St. S., Sand Springs, Oklahoma, stated this equals a
four-car garage. She indicated that
tax records show the house on the subject property is about 1793 square
feet. The other large
building across the street may have been built without a permit.
Claudia
Heller,
16662 W. 56th Pl., Sand Springs, Oklahoma, submitted signatures in
opposition (Exhibit A-3). She
expressed the same reasons for opposition as previously stated.
Lora
Dale,
5605 S. 70th W., Sand Springs, Oklahoma, stated she and her husband
own the property directly behind the subject property. The applicants talked with them ahead of
time, and they are in support. She
stated there are other problems the neighborhood needs to deal with, rather than
this project.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Witt stated that he has two and a half acres, not just a small lot and he would
like to utilize it. He stated it is
a metal building, but he would be willing to use a rock façade on the building,
like his house. He added that the
structure would not be visible to most people. He felt that it would increase rather
than lower property values.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Walker commented he could support it with condition for no lot-split and a rock
façade. Mr. Hutson asked for the
hardship. Mr. Witt stated he has
had theft and needs a place to store personal possessions. Mr. Dillard asked what type of roof he
planned to use. Mr. Witt responded
it would have a metal roof. Ms.
Witt asked for more information on hardships. Mr. Alberty explained the need for
something unique with the land and the proportional size to the land area. She asked the Board to consider the size
and amount of land.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance of the
allowable 750 square feet for accessory building to 1,750 square feet, with
conditions for a wood frame or metal construction, with rock veneer, and a
composition shingle roof, no exposed metal siding or roofing, and that the lot
remain intact and not be split, 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 4, Block 1, Oak Haven II Addition, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of lot area from required 2 acres to 1.02 acres on Tract A and
to 1.01 acres on Tract B. SECTION
330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS; and a Variance of land area per dwelling unit from
2.1 acres to 1.14 acre on Tract A and to 1.01 acres on Tract B in an AG zoned
district to permit a lot split.
SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS, N of 156th St. N. on E
side of 104th E. Ave.
Presentation:
W.D. and Charlotte Roberts, 15727 N. 104th E. Ave.,
Collinsville, Oklahoma, submitted a map to the Board (Exhibit B-1). Mr. Roberts pointed out the creek
that crosses the properties in this area.
Lot A has a steep decline to the creek, which has made it difficult to
sell. The creek at this point is
20’ across and 8’ to 12’ deep. They
now have a buyer, but the buyer only wants the land to the west of the
creek. Mr. Roberts asked for a
lot-split to connect the rest of Lot A to Lot B, as there will not be any
development on Lot B. A site plan
was provided (Exhibit B-2).
Interested
Parties:
William J.
Webb,
15635 N. 104th E. Ave., stated he was speaking for himself, Ted
Clark, 10323 E. 156th St. N, and Kay Bayouth, Jr., 15642 N.
104th E. Ave., all of Collinsville, Oklahoma. Mr. Webb submitted a letter with six
signatures (Exhibit B-3) of landowners in objection to the application. They are opposed to any more
subdivision. The applicant
previously obtained a lot-split of Lots A and B.
Stacy
Bayouth,
15642 N. 104th E. Ave., Collinsville, Oklahoma, expressed concern
that this would set a precedent for more lot-splits, and overcrowding.
Ted
Clark,
10323 E. 156th St. N., questioned the validity of the survey
submitted to the Board. His
objections were the same as previously mentioned.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Roberts noted that Mr. Clark lives on the smallest lot formed by a
lot-split. The Bayouth’s
property is now within the fence line of Collinsville. Mr. Webb stated that he could not see
across the creek. Mr. Roberts does
not plan to remove the natural screening of trees. Ms. Roberts stated the first two
signatures on the list of protestants, both own less than two acres, and the
third neighbor that signed, scratched his name out.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 4-1-0 (Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; Alberty "nay"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance
of lot area from required 2 acres to 1.02 acres on Tract A and to 1.01 acres on
Tract B; and a Variance of land area per dwelling unit from 2.1
acres to 1.14 acre on Tract A and to 1.01 acres on Tract B in an AG zoned
district to permit a lot split, as presented, with condition for a tie-agreement
to connect Tract B to the tract to the north, and that Tract B not be split
separately or become a building site, finding the hardship to be the division of
the property by the creek, on the following described property:
Parcel 2A: A tract of land situated in the E/2 SE/4 SW/4 of Section 18,
T-22-N, R-14-E, more particularly
described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at the SE/c SE/4 SW/4 of Section 18,
T-22-N, R-14-E; thence N 00°04’52”
W along the E line of the SE/4 SW/4 a distance of 938.08’; thence due W a
distance of 246.65’ to the POB; thence continuing due W a distance of 303.00’;
thence S 00°34’22”
W a distance of 155.26’; thence S 86°56’17”
E a distance of 304.99’ to the POB; Parcel 2B: A tract of land situated in the
E/2 SE/4 SW/4 of Section 18, T-22-N, R-14-E, more particularly described as
follows, to-wit: Commencing at the SE/c SE/4 SW/4 of Section 18, T-22-N, R-14-E;
thence N 00°04’52”
W along the E line of the SE/4 SW/4 a distance of 753.33’ to the POB; thence
continuing N 00°04’52”
W a distance of 184.75’; thence due W a distance of 246.65’; thence due S a
distance of 171.54’; thence S 86°56’17”
E a distance of 247.26’ to the POB, both in Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Use Unit 2 fire works stand, in a CH zoned
district for five years, June 15 through July 6. SECTION 710. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located NE/c W. 57th St. & S I-44.
Presentation:
Lonnie Bassee, 5401 W. Skelly Dr., stated they propose to have a
fireworks stand with the same plan as approved last year, from June
15th through July 6th for the next five years.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to allow
Use Unit 2 fire works stand, in a CH zoned district for five years, June 15
through July 6, 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 13, 14 and that part of Lot 7, described as: Beg. at the SE/c of
said Lot 7; thence W along the S line of said Lot 7, a distance of 62.00’;
thence N 36°41’E a distance 103.80’ to a point on the E
line of said Lot 7; thence a distance of 83.30’ to a POB, Block 1, all in
Bozarth Acres, a subdivision in Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Use
Variance to allow automobile restoration and rebuild vintage cars as a hobby in
an AG zoned district. SECTION
310. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 17, located 1004 E. 76th St.
N.
Presentation:
Robert Utley, 1004 E. 76th St. N., Sperry, Oklahoma,
asked for a use variance to do his hobby of restoring old cars. He stated the main request is to get his
driveway and parking area to be grandfathered in as it has been there since the
1940’s. The drive is covered with
some chat, some asphalt and a concrete entrance. Mr. Utley stated he has been in trouble
for having cars stored on the property.
He stated that he has a building permit for a pole barn and is gathering
materials to build it. He submitted
photos, a zoning clearance permit, and a Tulsa County Code Violation Notice
(Exhibit C-1, 3 and 5). He stated
he has ten cars that he uses that are tagged and insured.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty stated that in 1995 the Board denied his application, it went to court
and the court upheld the Board’s decision.
Mr. Alberty asked what he has done to comply with that action. Mr. Utley stated he used two acres
surrounded by trees to place the cars.
Then he received a notice of complaint and he moved the vehicles closer
to his house, intending to build something to store them. He added that he had not built a
structure, but he is preparing to build a pole barn. Mr. Alberty asked how many cars he
had. Mr. Utley responded there are
50 to 60 cars. Mr. Alberty
commented that what the applicant may consider an avocation others consider a
salvage yard. Mr. Alberty asked if
he was asking to keep all of the cars.
He replied no, but he really wants relief for the drive and parking
area. He added that he does not
sell car parts, and his auto repair shop business is in town. Mr. Alberty asked how many cars he is
asking to keep. Mr. Utley responded
that he was told he could have three operable vehicles on his driveway at one
time, on an all-weather surface.
Mr. Hutson asked what would be the limit of the number of cars he could
live with in total on the property.
Mr. Utley replied 50 cars, and all but ten or twelve would be in the pole
barn.
Interested
Parties:
Russ
Roach,
1420 E. 20th, stated he was representing family who live and own
property adjacent to the subject property.
The family asked him to speak because of his qualifications, being
nationally certified in city planning, a licensed real estate broker and a
Certified General Appraiser. He
considered fifty cars more than a hobby. He noted that there is no industrial
zoning west of the railroad track presently. He stated this would double the
industrial zoning use within that square mile with one application. It would substantially alter the
character and future for all the land uses in that area. This activity discourages good
residential maintenance and improvement.
Homeowners find they cannot sell for the value of the structures, and
eventually sell for the land itself or rent it out. He asked that if the Board decides to
approve the application that they restrict the number of cars to a single digit
number.
Richard
Bales,
3251 S. 143rd E. Ave., stated he was representing Tulsa County Parks
Department. The County acquired the
railroad right-of-way that borders the property about three months ago. He came as an interested party more than
in opposition. The Parks Department
has been given direction to clean up and maintain the right-of-way. A proposed trail is planned in the
future. Mr. Alberty asked the width
of the right-of-way. Mr. Bales
replied that it is about 50’ on each side.
Glenna
Long,
7128 N. Peoria, stated that if this was the only such activity they might not
have come before the Board. She
pointed out that over the years they have tried to get the County to help the
community of Turley and stop the deterioration. She indicated that it is now beyond
repair. She submitted a petition
(Exhibit C-2) in protest that stated they do not object to business that would
benefit the area but they object to activities that resemble the numerous
salvages in existence. She stated
it is an agricultural area and they desire it to remain agricultural. She asked the Board to deny this
case. She expressed concern that
this type of storage causes weeds, rodents and pollution. She submitted photos (Exhibit C-4) of
nearby properties cluttered with junk appliances and vehicles to emphasize the
impact on the neighborhood.
Maxine
Capps,
7140 N. Peoria, informed the Board that the properties she and her sister, Mrs.
Long, own have been family owned all of their lives. She stated the applicant came to the
Board a few years ago for a variance for the same property to allow him to store
cars. He had already moved in
several old cars and hid them in a grove of trees. The case was denied and the Board asked
him to remove the cars. To her
knowledge he did not move the cars and has moved in many more cars since
then.
Edith
Houk,
1101 E. 76th St. N., Sperry, Oklahoma, described the property as an
eyesore in plain view of her property.
She was in agreement with the complaints already mentioned.
Louise
Fancher,
1101 E. 71st St. N., stated the water drains off the subject property
and floods 76th St. N. and Peoria.
Dale
Cooley,
2012 E. 146th St. N., Skiatook, Oklahoma, stated he is a co-owner of
a parcel of land that abuts the subject property on two sides. He pointed out that the violations of
the Board’s past decisions continue in this community. He urged the Board to consider the loss
his family has experienced in the value of their property.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Pam
Utley, stated she
is Robert Utley’s wife and resides at the same residence. She indicated that the interested
parties could not see their property.
She added that they take pride in their property and community.
Mr.
Alberty commented that the Board considers a use variance very sparingly. It is a power the County Board of
Adjustment has that is not shared by cities. This is essentially the same application
as the previous case, in which the court upheld the Board’s decision.
Board
discussion ensued.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
a Use Variance
to allow automobile restoration and rebuild vintage cars as a hobby in an AG
zoned district as presented, finding a lack of hardship; the application is
essentially the same as the previous case, in which the court upheld the
decision of the Board; 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:
E/2 NW NE & W/2, SE NE & that part NW NE NE & SW NE NE &
SE NE NE & NE SE NE lying W of Ry., Section 36, T-21-N, R-12-E, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
1968
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 30’ frontage on a public street to 0’ for lot
split. SECTION 207. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED – Use Unit 6,
located SE/c of W. 43rd St. & S. 61st W. Ave.
Presentation:
Stuart Arnold,
4403 S. 61st W. Ave., stated he asked for the variance for a
permanent residence. The easement
of 61st W. Ave. exists, but the road does not go through.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked Mr. Arnold of his intentions for the rest of the property. He is in the process of platting the remainder of the property. He informed the Board that this was the initial development and it will be part of the plat. He intends to dedicate full right-of-way. Mr. Alberty stated the Board needs verification of the easement for roadway.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to CONTINUE
Case No. 1968 to the meeting on July 16, 2002, requiring the applicant to submit
a preliminary plat application, regarding the following described property:
Access Easement: The E 30’ of the following tract of land: E/2 SE/4 SW/4 NW/4, Section 29, T-19-N, R-12-E, Tulsa County, State of OK; and the W 30’ of the following tract of land: Tract A1: The N 200.00’ of the S 526.00’ W 450.00’ SE/4 NW/4 of Section 29, T-19-N, R-12-E of the IBM, less and except the N 6.00’ of the E 14.22’ thereof; AND Tract B: the N 200.00’ of the S 266.00’ W 450.00’ of the SE/4 NW/4 of Section 29, T-19-N, R-12-E, of the