COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
September 18, 2001, 1:30 p.m.
|
Alberty,
Chair |
Hutson |
Butler |
West,
Co. Inspections |
|
Tyndall |
|
Fernandez |
|
|
Walker |
|
|
|
|
Dillard,
Vice Chair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notice
and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W.
5th St., Suite 600, Wednesday, September 12, 2001 at 2:30 p.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 Dillard, the Board voted 4-0-0
(Alberty, Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Hutson
"absent") to APPROVE the
Minutes of August 21, 2001 (No. 255).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 207 requirement for frontage on a public street on a
lot used for residential purposes from the required 30’ to 0’. SECTION 207. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED -- Use Unit 6,
located 2700 W. 181st St. S.
Presentation:
Edward Allphin, P.O. Box 216, Bixby, Oklahoma, proposes to
construct a new home on the subject property. He stated that they have a 30’ easement
deeded by the property owners involved.
He added that it would be a privately maintained road. He stated that the property would remain
a ten-acre tract.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked Mrs. Fernandez for confirmation of the easement. Mrs. Fernandez replied that it was a
roadway/utility easement, and the County Engineer has not verified it yet. Mr. Alberty asked the applicant if it
has been filed of record. Mr.
Allphin replied that he was sure it had because it was included in the
abstract. Mr. Alberty asked if it
stops at the north part of the ten-acre tract or proceeds through the ten acres.
Mr. Allphin responded that it stops
at the south end of Tract 2.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty,
Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Hutson "absent")
to APPROVE a Variance of Section
207 requirement for frontage on a public street on a lot used for residential
purposes from the required 30’ to 0’, finding they have a 30’ easement as per
presentation, on the following described property:
N 1328’ E
660.47’, Govt. Lot 3, less N 660’, Section 3, T-16-N, R-12-E, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
An extension of the following for one year: Special Exception to allow a
church and accessory church uses (View Acres Baptist Church). SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 5; a Variance to allow existing church parking in the
required front yard. SECTION
1205.3.a.2. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY
SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Use Conditions; SECTION 1330.B. SETBACKS; a Variance of setback from
South 65th West Avenue from 85’ to 73’ to line up with existing
encroaching building. SECTION
430.1. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area
Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, and RM Districts; a Special Exception of
required screening fence for off-street parking areas on lot line in common with
an R district. SECTION 1340.E. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING
AREAS; and a Variance requiring off-street parking to be located on the lot
containing the use. SECTION
1320.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS,
located 2327 S. 65th W. Ave.
Presentation:
Mr. Alberty confirmed with Mrs. Fernandez that the extension requested is
because they did not act on the previous Board approval in the allotted
time.
Clint Ragland, 755 W. New Orleans, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, stated
that they had several complications that interrupted the processes in
preparation for construction.
Interested
Parties:
Don Corbly,
Melinda View, Texas, stated he was speaking for his mother Faye Corbly, 2360 S.
63rd W. Ave. He stated
that his mother owns the property that abuts the east boundary of the church
property. He and his sisters have
joint ownership subject to survivorship.
He submitted and affidavit of general warranty deed and ownership
(Exhibit A-1) and photographs (Exhibit A-2) to the Board. He described erosion of the land by
development of the church property, which has exposed gas lines and the utility
easement across the back of the property.
He stated that the grading of the church parking lot has raised the
elevation of their property by two to two and one-half feet at the far north
corner of Ms. Corbly’s property.
He indicated that the parking lot has eroded and crumbled against her
fence, causing damage and further water erosion. He added that moderate rains now flood
her property and make it unusable.
He stated that a tree on the church property fell across her fence and
damaged it. He informed the Board
that the church was informed of the damage and they did nothing to repair the
damage. He stated that they placed
some plastic film on stakes to deter the erosion. He requested that the work under this
permit be stopped until they repair the damage they have already caused. He also asked that the church
build a retaining wall to prevent further water drainage onto Ms. Corbly’s
property and repair of the fence before any other work proceeds.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked Mr. West, County Inspector, if he could revisit the
permit regarding these complaints, and add conditions to correct the
problems. Mr. West responded that
they have addressed the water run-off problem and recommended a detention
box. He stated they could review it
further. Mr. Corbly expressed
concern that during the time they are waiting for the construction to begin,
more damage will be done when it rains.
Interested
Parties:
Michael
Conner, 755 W. New Orleans, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the construction
manager, stated he represented Ragland Architects. He stated that they have identified
civil and architectural documents to alleviate all known problems. He added that this is the first he has
heard these complaints. Mr. Alberty
asked if Mr. Conner would be willing to meet with the property owners to work
out an agreement to alleviate the problems. Mr. Conner replied that he would
anticipate that Mr. Ragland, the owner of his firm, and other representatives
would meet with them as soon as tomorrow if needed.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Ragland if the property owners have made any
requests or called these problems to his attention. Mr. Ragland replied that they have not
contacted him. He stated that they
would like to correct these problems now that they know about them.
Robert Cannon, 4010 S. 68th W. Ct., stated he is pastor
of the church. He stated that he
was unaware of the fallen tree and the fence. He added that they did have one tree
that fell immediately at the back part, and a committee took care of it right
away. He informed the Board that
they would be glad to work with the neighbors any way they can. He indicated they are preparing a plan
to prevent erosion by water.
Mr. Corbly stated that his nephew spoke with Mr. Ragland one year ago at
a County Board of Adjustment meeting and at the church property regarding the
fallen tree, damaged fence and erosion.
The applicant has never contacted his family about these problems. He does not object to the applicant’s
project, as long as his family’s property is restored to the original
condition.
Mr. Ragland stated that Mr. Corbly may have him confused with the first
architect whose name is Ragsdale.
Mr.
Alberty explained the boundaries of the Board’s authority in such cases.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Hutson "absent") to APPROVE
an
extension of the following for one year: a
Special Exception to allow a church and accessory church uses
(View Acres Baptist Church); a Variance to allow existing church
parking in the required front yard; Variance of setback from South
65th West Avenue from 85’ to 73’ to line up with existing encroaching
building; a Special Exception of required screening fence for
off-street parking areas on lot line in common with an R district; and a
Variance requiring off-street parking to be located on the lot
containing the use, 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
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 200’ lot width to 185.46’ and 145.00’. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6, located W of NW/c E. 141st St.
& S. 193rd E. Ave.
Presentation:
Keith E. Millis, 130 W. Laredo Pl., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, stated
they have a five-acre tract from the original 40 acres owned by his wife’s
parents. Their son proposes to
build a home on this tract. He was
unclear as to why the City of Broken Arrow objected to his request.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty explained to Mr. Millis that the City of Broken Arrow is
strict regarding variances and they prefer the applicant seek a zoning
change. Mr. Millis reminded the
Board that they approved a lot split on a portion of this property for David and
Michael Kerr. Mr. Millis added that
all the neighbors around this tract are part of their family.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Tyndall,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Hutson "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance of the
required 200’ lot width to 185.46’ and 145.00’, finding it is a family compound,
and they do not wish to change the zoning at this time, on the following
described property:
The W/2 SE/4 SW/4
SE/4 of Section 12, T-17-N, R-14-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 207 to allow a lot with 0’ frontage on a public
street or dedicated right-of-way in order to permit a lot split. SECTION 207. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED -- Use Unit 6;
and a Variance of lot width to 116’.
SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS, located 5707 S. 161st W.
Ave.
Presentation:
Mrs. Fernandez stated that the City of Sand Springs did not hear this
case due to lack of quorum. Mrs.
Fernandez also explained there would be a lot split, the parcel on the east will
have access through the other parcel by a panhandle.
Mary Carter, stated her request. She stated that it would remain family
owned property and they plan to eventually build a 2,000 square foot home on the
southwest portion. She added she
would like to use the small house for a guesthouse and later give it to one of
her children.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Tyndall,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Hutson "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance of Section
207 to allow a lot with 0’ frontage on a public street or dedicated right-of-way
in order to permit a lot split; and a Variance of lot width to 116’, finding
that 157th does not go through and not well maintained, and 30’
panhandle provides access to 161st Street, on the following described
property:
The E/2 of S/2 of
W/2 of N/2 of N/2 of SW and S 30’ of W/2 of S/2 of W/2 of N/2 of N/2 of SW of
Section 32, T-19-N, R-11-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to Section 208 to allow two dwelling units on one lot of
record. SECTION 208. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF
RECORD -- Use Unit 9, located 14319 W. 18th Pl.
Presentation:
Mrs. Fernandez informed the Board that the City of Sand Springs did not
hear this case due to lack of a quorum.
Fred Shawger, 14319 W. 18th Pl., proposed to place a
small mobile home on his property temporarily for his elderly mother. He stated that he has contacted the
neighbors closest to his house.
They were willing to sign a petition in support of the application. He stated it would be on a private road
and it would only be visible to five homes.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked if there is a mobile home park to the north of the
applicant by the river. Mr. Shawger
replied that it is a mobile home park, and added there are other mobile homes in
the area. Mr. Alberty asked if he
has contacted the county for sewage.
Mr. Shawger stated he recently put in a new septic system, which they
approved.
Interested
Parties:
Shirley Shroff,
14202 W. 17th St., Sand Springs, Oklahoma, stated she lives on the
dead end road. She stated there is
another mobile home park across the street from her. She informed the Board that other
neighbors oppose the application and asked her to speak for them. Edith Coker lives on 18th St.
near the subject property and objects to the application. She had a letter from Brenda Giles, 1440
W. 17th St., who is opposed to the application. She mentioned a letter the Board
received from the Pattersons stating opposition. Ms. Shroff read a letter from the
Sizemores in support of the application as long as they meet the conditions
listed by the Sizemores. Ms. Shroff
expressed concern that the mobile home would lower her property value.
Mary
Meirs,
14101 W. 17th St., stated her opposition to a mobile home being so
close to nice homes.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Shawger submitted letters of support (Exhibit C-1) of the
application. He indicated
that the site for the mobile would be out of view of most neighbors.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dillard asked for the size of the subject property. Mr. Shawger replied 2.8 acres. Mr. Walker asked if they could see the
mobile from the street. Mr. Shawger
replied the mobile would not be very visible from the street. He added that he would be willing to
build a screening fence. Mr. Walker
asked if he would be agreeable to the conditions the Sizemores listed. Mr. Dillard asked if there was a horse
pasture and horse barn on the property behind the subject property. Mr. Shawger replied in the
affirmative.
Interested
Parties:
Shirley Shroff asked to speak one more time. She stated that she also objected to the
horse pasture and barn. She added that the site would be visible from all of the
immediate neighbors yards. Mr.
Walker asked if it would be more visible than the mobile homes to the
north. Ms. Shroff replied that it
would not be more visible. Mr.
Dillard asked if they purchased their home knowing the mobile homes were there.
She replied that her husband
purchased the property after the mobiles were moved in.
Mary Jane Meritt, stated they own the property on the dead end of
17th Street. She stated
they purchased their home from the owner of the mobile home park, when there
were only a few mobiles. They
understood that the owner planned to build their own home there. Ms. Meritt stated that it does reduce
the value of their home.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dillard,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Hutson "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance to Section
208 to allow two dwelling units on one lot of record, with conditions for
skirting, tie-downs, DEQ approval, building permits, mobile to be placed in area
closest to the owner’s home and opposite end of neighbor’s mutual property line,
on temporary basis as long as needed for the parent, not to be rented out to
other parties or family, not to be sold as a permanent residence, to be removed
when the resident no longer lives there, finding the property is large enough
for two dwelling units, on the following described
property:
Pt. Gvt. Lot 6,
Beg. 1555.01’ N and 132.00’ E SW/c SW, thence S 274.00’ E 398.17’ N 274.00’ W
398.17’ POB, less S 25.00’ for road, Section 9, T-19-N, R-11-E Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance from 30’ to 0’ frontage on public roadway. SECTION 207. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED -- Use Unit 3
(6 proposed), located 3700 S. Coyote Trail.
Presentation:
Charles Holladay, 900 OneOk Plaza, stated he was representing the
owner of the subject property. The
tracts are adjacent to each other and the same facts apply to Case No 1902 and
Case No. 1903. He proposes one
privately maintained 30’ roadway/utility easement to Coyote Trail to access both
properties. Mr. Holladay stated
that the reason for this location of easement is a course of least resistance
with naturally drained area, and would require less clearing. Constructing the road at this location
reduces the environmental and aesthetic impact.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty confirmed with Mr. Holladay that he is familiar with
subdivision regulations, and suggested that this could all be accomplished
through application for a subdivision plat. Mr. Alberty asked for the total
ownership of the client. Mr.
Holladay replied that his client has an estate northwest of the subject
property, probably most of the west half of this section. He stated that his client does not want
to develop the land for homes, and is not skirting the subdivision
regulations. Mr. Walker commented
that he has seen the developer’s sign advertising tracts for sale. He stated that it appears to be a
wildcat subdivision. Mr. Walker
stated he called this into County Inspections and found that they have already
turned him down because he applied for building permits. Mr. Dillard asked Mr. Holladay what the
sign says. He replied that he was
not sure, but he has seen a sign that says Don Decker Construction.
Interested
Parties:
Willa Heitfeld,
3916 S. 65th W. Ave., stated that her property abuts the subject
property for Case No. 1903. She
expressed concern regarding maintenance of the private road that the applicant
proposes. She stated that they
purchased their land because they knew the other property was land-locked. She
stated that in talking with the newest neighbor that moved a mobile home in,
indicated to her that Mr. Decker told him he planned to subdivide the
property.
Lynn
Sovel,
26909 W. 41st St., stated she lives where 41st St. meets
Coyote Trail. She stated they also
purchased their land because Mr. Decker’s property was land-locked. She stated that the property has deep
ravines and is heavily wooded. She
indicated that it would have to be cleared and leveled. She stated that it is a natural waterway
and she was concerned about where the water would flow. There is now a lagoon for the mobile
home causing added concern.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Holladay pointed out that his client could build a house without a subdivision
on the property mentioned by the interested parties. He stated that these lots are
ten-acre lots, and the fact that his client owns large pieces of property does
not mean it is a subdivision.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Walker asked what land-locked lots Mr. Holladay is referring to. He replied that tract one in case 1902
is land-locked because the section line roadway is not open. Mr. Walker stated that the property is
not land-locked until the lot is created.
Mr. Holladay agreed. Mr.
Alberty stated that it is a subdivision, no matter how many lots are
created.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Tyndall,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Hutson "absent") to DENY
a Variance from 30’ to
0’ frontage on public roadway, finding it would cause substantial detriment to
the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the
Comprehensive Plan.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance from 30’ to 0’ frontage on public roadway. SECTION 207. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED -- Use Unit 3
(6 proposed), located 3700 S. Coyote Trail.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty noted that Mr. Holladay requested this case be heard in
tandem with the previous case.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Tyndall,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Hutson "absent") to DENY
a Variance from 30’ to
0’ frontage on public roadway, finding it would cause substantial detriment to
the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the
Comprehensive Plan.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of minimum average lot width to permit a lot split from 200’ to
165’. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6, located 4446 S. 162nd W.
Ave.
Presentation:
Mrs. Fernandez informed the Board that the City of Sand Springs did not
hear this case due to lack of quorum.
The applicant was not present for this hearing.
Mr. Alberty tabled Case No. 1904.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a detached accessory building to be located on a lot
other than the lot containing the principal use. SECTION 240.2.E. YARDS, Permitted Yard
Obstructions; and a Variance of the maximum allowable floor area for a detached
accessory building from 750 sq. ft. to 1500 sq. ft. SECTION 240.2.E. YARDS, Permitted Yard
Obstructions, located 11911 E. 126th St.
Presentation:
Mrs. Fernandez informed the Board that the City of Broken Arrow heard
this request and recommended denial.
They were concerned about the structure being located in the 100-year
floodplain. The Broken Arrow
Comprehensive Plan designates this area as greenway or floodplain.
John Floistad, 11911 E. 126th St. S., Broken Arrow,
Oklahoma, stated this is the first he had heard of the Broken Arrow Board of
Adjustment decision regarding his request.
Mr. Alberty asked Mrs. Fernandez to provide Mr. Floistad with a copy of
the letter.
Mr. Floistad stated that the builder is aware of the elevation and plans
to build up the elevation of the garage.
Mr. Dillard informed the applicant that the lender will not make a loan
if even one inch of the structure is not one foot above the floodplain. Mr. Floistad stated that Lot 7 is where
the house is located and they want the accessory building (garage) on the other
side of the creek on Lot 8. He
pointed out that the septic system is directly behind the house and very large
trees around the house. They plan
to use the same materials on the garage as on the house so that it will look
nice. He requested 1500 square feet
for multiple collectible cars and a woodworking room.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked Mr. West, County Inspector, if these plans will satisfy
the code requirements. Mr. West
replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Walker suggested a tie-agreement of the two lots. Mr. Tyndall asked what percentage of the
accessory building would be used for a garage. Mr. Floistad replied that the majority
of the space would be garage. Mr.
Tyndall asked how many cars it would hold.
He replied four or five cars.
Mr. Tyndall asked what is in his garage at the present time. The applicant replied a motorcycle, yard
tools, and weedeaters. Mr. Tyndall asked if there would be auto repair or
sales. Mr. Floistad responded he
would be the only one repairing or restoring his own cars.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Hutson "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance to allow a
detached accessory building to be located on a lot other than the lot containing
the principal use; and a Variance of the maximum allowable floor
area for a detached accessory building from 750 sq. ft. to 1500 sq. ft., subject
to a tie-agreement, and that the property not be used for any commercial
business, and finding that it will not cause substantial detriment to the public
good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the
Comprehensive Plan on the following described property:
Lot 7 and 8, Block 1, Willow Springs West Addition, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
1904
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dillard,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Hutson "absent") to CONTINUE
Case No. 1904 to the meeting on October 16, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m.
Date approved: ___________________________________
___________________________________
Chair