COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, May
15, 2001, 1:30 p.m.
|
Alberty,
Chair |
Tyndall |
Butler |
West,Co.Inspec. |
|
Dillard,
Vice Chair |
|
Fernandez |
|
|
Walker |
|
|
|
|
Hutson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The notice
and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W.
5th St., Suite 600, Friday, May 11, 2001 at 8:38 a.m., as well as at
the City Clerks office, City Hall.
After
declaring a quorum present, Chair Alberty called the meeting to order at 1:30
p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Walker, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
APPROVE the Minutes of April
17, 2001 (No. 251).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 220 self-supporting tower in an AG
zoned area within 242 of property zoned RS and OL. SECTION 1204.C.3. & 5. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES
Use Unit 4; and a Special Exception to allow a self-supporting tower of
galvanized steel lattice-work structure with three legs, located 6035 W.
40th St.
Presentation:
Kevin C. Coutant, 320 S. Boston, submitted a packet of exhibits
including the factors to be considered and photographs. The proposed tower is a self-supporting
220 tower. It would be
approximately 300 from the nearest residential structures, forty feet from the
nearest residential district to the east, with no existing towers in the
vicinity. The surrounding
properties would be open church land to the north, pasture to the east, open
church land to the south, and a church to the west. The surrounding topography is flat with
minimal tree coverage. The plan
includes nine Cellwave antennas near the top of the tower at 217 and provision
for collocation of two similar antenna facilities at 197 and 177. The initial building would be about 12
x 20. Ingress and egress would be
a 25 access and utility easement running south from the site to West
41st Street. The tower
is necessary to provide coverage in this area of town to avoid unavailability of
service. The tract is approximately
2,500 square feet within a parent tract of seven acres and probable development
would be a church. The exhibit
indicated that landscaping would be per Zoning Code. Mr. Coutant stated that he contacted Mr.
Harmon, the owner of the property to the east and Mr. Levy, his attorney. He supplied them with site maps, and
answered their questions. He
informed the Board that Mr. Levy authorized him to tell the Board they do not
object to this application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked if he had a letter from Mr. Levy. Mr. Coutant replied he did not have a
letter, that they just discussed this case yesterday and ran out of time for
obtaining documentation. Mr. Hutson
asked if the same person owned the OL property and PUD. He replied it is the same owner. He also explained that a large gas
pipeline runs north on the east side of the property line. He added that there would not be
development along that property line because of the pipeline. Mr. Alberty asked why they proposed to
locate so far to the east. Mr.
Coutant responded that was the churchs request, so it would not prevent future
use of the property for ball fields, and existing septic
tank.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall, Dillard "absent") to APPROVE
a
Special Exception to
construct a 220 self-supporting tower in an AG zoned area within 242 of
property zoned RS and OL; and a Special Exception to allow a
self-supporting tower of galvanized steel lattice-work structure with three
legs, contingent on receipt by staff of a letter
from the adjoining property owner that they have no objections to the tower,
that they understand the height of the tower and the type of construction of the
tower, 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:
SW/4 SW/4 SE/4
SW/4, Section 20, T-19-N, R-12-E, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Presentation:
Ms. Fernandez stated this case was continued from the last meeting for
additional information from the applicant.
The applicant has withdrawn the application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked Mr. West to investigate this injection well site, with
the assistance of the district attorney.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall, Dillard "absent") to Accept
the
withdrawal of the applicant.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow church use with related facilities, day care,
private school in an AG zoned district.
Ms. Fernandez stated the Board required proof of the lagoon permit,
further discussion on the school or daycare and whether they were in violation
of existing there, and proof from the fire marshal of compliance for the
existing structures.
Presentation:
Leonard Pirtle, stated he is the church pastor. He submitted the fire marshals
inspection list, and letter of approval, the Department of Environmental Quality
permit for the lagoon (Exhibits B-1, B-2, B-3). He submitted the water consumption
record (Exhibit B-4). He informed
the Board that the fire marshals list for improvements included a sprinkler
system expanded to the whole facility, which they had not been required to do
eighteen months before when they finished the third phase of construction. They established a time schedule for
complying with the fire marshal.
Rev. Pirtle stated there is no overflow, no raw sewage escaping at this
time. They are in the process of
getting bids for Phase II design and construction. He also mentioned the daycare
would be closing in two weeks, because they are expanding the school into those
rooms. They are planning to meet
with the City of Owasso to discuss connection with their sewer system. If this is not possible they will begin
construction on the lagoon in July.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Walker asked for the lagoon capacity, to which Mr. Pirtle replied
650,000, the next phase would be another tank of the same size, and it was
designed for a third tank, if needed.
Mr. Alberty asked if he wanted to exclude the daycare from the
request. He replied that they
wanted to leave it in so they could add it again in two or three years. Mr. Hutson asked what relief the church
has received to be in the AG district.
Rev. Pirtle responded that in 1992 the BOA approved church use and
nursery school, and in 1998 application was made for a special exception for
church use and accessory uses (Christian school and daycare). Mr. Alberty recalled that the Board
asked for more specific information and it was not supplied to the Board and now
they are making a new application for more relief. Mr. Pirtle responded that they have more
important information to offer also.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall, Dillard "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to allow
church use with related facilities, day care, private school in an AG zoned
district, per the conceptual plan, and with the conditions that future phases
for disposal of waste water, run-off, and any new plans must be brought before
the Board of Adjustment for approval, to currently refrain from opening the
school until facilities for the sewage system are designed, built, and approved,
on the following described property:
A tract of land
that is part of the SE/4 SW/4 of Section 9, T-21-N, R-14-E, of the IBM, starting
at the SW/c of the SE/4 SW/4 of said Section 9; thence N 88Ί4440 E along the
Sly line of said Section 9 for 390.00; thence N 01Ί1358 W and parallel with
the Wly line of the SE/4 SW/4 for 71.42 to the POB of said tract of land;
thence continuing N 01Ί1358 W and parallel with the Wly line of said SE/4 SW/4
for 1002.52; thence N 88Ί4437 E for 593.73; thence S 11Ί1259 W, parallel
with and 100.00 Wly of as measured perpendicular to the Wly right-of-way line
of US-169 for 372.31 to the NE/c of Lot 1, Block 1, Owasso Freewill Baptist
Church, thence S 88Ί4437 W along the Nly line of said Lot 1 for 453.47 to the
NW/c of Lot 1; thence S 01Ί1358 E along the Wly line of Lot 1 for 633.00 to
the SW/c of Lot 1; thence S 83Ί0202 W along the Nly right-of-way line of
US-169 W exit ramp for 60.30 to the POB of said tract of land; AND a tract of
land beg. at the SW/c of the SE/4 SW/4 of said Section; thence N 88Ί4440 E and
along the S line of said SE/4 SW/4 a distance of 175.93; thence N 1Ί15 20 W a
distance of 50.00; thence N 83Ί0152 E a distance of 215.16; thence N
1Ί1358 W a distance of 1002.52; thence S 88Ί4437 W a distance of 390.02 to
the W line of the SE/4 SW/4; thence S 1Ί1358 E a distance of 1073.93; to the
POB, AND a tract of land beg. at a point 1073.93 N of the SW/c of the SE/4 SW/4
and on the W line of said SE/4 SW/4 thence N 88Ί4437 E a distance of 983.75
to a point 100 W of and at a right angle to the W line of US-169; thence N
11Ί1716 E a distance of 74.14; thence N 3Ί1537 E a distance of 605.72;
thence N 1Ί1803 W a distance of
249.65; thence S 88Ί4437 W a distance of 1046.98 to a point on the W line of
said E/2 SW/4; thence S 1Ί1358 E a distance of 929.36 to the POB, all being
located in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a temporary 32 x 80 manufactured building
for the intended use for additional classrooms associated with the current
church use. SECTION 310. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT Use Unit 5, located SW/c E. 91st St. & Co.
line.
Presentation:
Jerry Ledford, Jr., 8209 E. 63rd Pl., represented the
New Heart Fellowship church. They
purchased the property from another church and within the last six months have
outgrown the space. They need
additional classroom space and propose to temporarily use a 32 x 80
manufactured building on Sundays and Wednesdays for a period of two years.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall, Dillard "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to allow a
temporary 32 x 80 manufactured building for the intended use for additional
classrooms associated with the current church use, on a temporary basis for a
period of two years, on the following described property:
E 317.5 of the N
343 of the NE/4 of Section 24, T-18-N, R-14-E less and except the N 60 and the
E 50 thereof, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Ms.
Fernandez stated that the applicant, Ronald Shipman, at 742 N. Willow St., asked
to be re-advertised because he supplied the wrong legal description to the
Board.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
1848
Action
Requested:
Variance to permit greater than one single-family residence on lot. SECTION 208. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF
RECORD; a Special Exception to permit mobile home on RS zoned lot. SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 9; and a Special Exception to waive time limit. SECTION 440. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 5760 S. 65th W.
Ave.
Presentation:
Bronson Watts, 5760 S. 65th W. Ave., stated he proposes
to place a mobile home on Lot A of his 5.5 acres for relatives to occupy. He owns all four lots and lives on Lot
B.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked for the type of sewage system to be used. He replied it would be a septic tank,
but they have looked into the possibility of connecting to the City of Tulsa
sewer system. It was determined
that the request for a special exception to waive a time limit was
unnecessary.
Mr. Dillard arrived at 2:25 p.m.
Mr. Alberty noted that the property is large enough to subdivide but the
owner chooses to keep the land under one ownership.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance to permit
greater than one single-family residence on lot; a Special
Exception to permit mobile home on RS zoned lot as a permanent dwelling,
with conditions of DEQ approval, tie-downs, skirting and a building permit,
finding the property is large enough to support a second dwelling, and 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:
A tract at SE/4
SE/4, Section 31, T-19-N, R-12-E of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma,
being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. 1290 N and 30 W of
the SE/c of section; thence W 1260; thence S 230 to the N line of the St.
Louis and San Francisco Railroad right-of-way; thence NEly along right-of-way
approximately 1263.90 to a point 30 W of the E line of the section; thence N
125.2 to the POB and the S 30 of the vacated street adjacent on the N thereof,
less the N 100 of the E 200 and S 30 of the vacated street adjacent on the N
side of said 100 x 200 tract.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 100 monopole wireless telephone
transmission tower on property zoned AG.
SECTION 1204.3.C. & E. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES, Use Conditions, located E. 111th St. S. &
145th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Kevin Coutant, 320 S. Boston, Ste. 500, stated this application is
for a 100 monopole for U.S. Cellular.
He submitted a packet of Exhibits (Exhibit C-1). He covered the factors specific to this
case. The tower would be of
galvanized steel, designed to accommodate three slim line antennas. Initially it would have one antenna and
could collocate two more. It would
be located approximately 330 from the nearest residential structure, and 525
from a residential district. There
are no other towers in the vicinity.
To the north and east is open pasture land zoned AG. To the south and west is residential
property zoned AG. The topography
is flat with partial tree coverage.
The building would be 12 x 20 with an aggregate rock exterior. There is a 25 access and utility
easement running south from the site to E. 111th St. S. The tower is needed to provide cellular
service in an area where there is inadequate service available and to provide
coverage for the extension of the Creek Expressway. The tract is approximately 2,500 square
feet on a 2.5 acres parent tract.
The probable development of the parent tract is large lot
residential. Landscaping will
comply with the Zoning Code.
Interested
Parties:
Sid
Sigler,
4800 S. Chestnut Ave., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, stated he lives directly across
the street from the site. He met
with the Board and homeowners in GreyOaks subdivision and they are opposed to
the tower. He met with the
Broken Arrow Planning Commission regarding this tower. The site is county land, but the
circumference is within the city limits of Broken Arrow. He indicated that they were
disappointed that it is proposed for a site zoned AG, which is in their plans
for a residential district. He
stated there are two cell phone towers within a half-mile to the east-southeast
on 145th and Aspen. As a
homeowner he would prefer to not have this in view of his porch and dining
room.
David Curry, 2405 W. Austin, Broken Arrow, stated he lives
directly north of the site. He
expressed his opposition to the application and desire to see the AG land used
for residential development. He was
concerned that the tower would discourage development.
Richard McMann, 5104 S. Chestnut Ave., stated he was concerned
that the tower would reduce the value of the homes in the
area.
Preston Stiner, 4333 S. Chestnut, stated that if it was under the
zoning code of the City of Broken Arrow, they would probably not allow at this
site because of the potential for residential construction. His concerns were as those
previously stated.
Ann Balis, 4333 S. Beech Ave., Neal Lapham, 2401 W. Austin,
were opposed to the application for the reasons stated above.
Doyle Grote, 1210 S. Detroit, Regional Project Manager for U.S.
Cellular, shared a story of a valuable home that was built near a very high and
visible tower. The point was that
the desirability of property near a tower is debatable. He reminded the Board that this is like
a street light without the side arm for the light, which would generate no noise
and no traffic.
The residents of the GreyOaks subdivision submitted a letter of
opposition to the Board. (Exhibit
C-2).
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Coutant stated that the PSO transmission line that runs along
111th Street is about 70 tall.
This tower has about a 500 setback from the front property line and more
than that from the neighbors in the subdivision to the north. It does not produce noise, trash or
traffic. He was familiar with the
Broken Arrow Zoning Code and they allow towers that are shown to be within the
guidelines. He indicated that the
applicant would be a good neighbor.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty stated that he listens very closely to the objections of
interested parties. He expressed
that he would have been more responsive to a protest from residents that live on
adjoining properties or within the radius of those notified rather than those
living far from that radius.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall "absent") to APPROVE
a
Special Exception to
construct a 100 monopole wireless telephone transmission tower on property
zoned AG, 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:
A tract of land
in part of the E/2 W/2 SW/4 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 28, T-18-N, R-14-E of the IBM
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows,
to-wit: Commencing at the SE/c of said E/2 W/2 SW/4 SE/4 SE/4; thence N
01Ί2418 W, along the E line of said E/2 W/2 SW/4 SE/4 SE/4, a distance of
524.05; thence S 88Ί3511 W, parallel to the S line of said E/2 W/2 SW/4 SE/4
SE/4, a distance of 47.50 to the POB; thence continuing S 88Ί3511 W, parallel
to the S line of said E/2 W/2 SW/4 SE/4 SE/4 a distance of 50.00; thence N
01Ί2449 W, a distance of 50.00; thence N 88Ί3511 E, parallel to the S line
of said E/2 W/2 SW/4 SE/4 SE/4, a distance of 50.00; thence S 01Ί2449 E, a
distance of 50.00 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 207 to permit
0 frontage on a lot for residential purposes from the required 30 to permit
new construction on an existing parcel.
SECTION 207. STREET FRONTAGE
REQUIRED -- Use Unit 6, located 4921 S. 149th W.
Ave.
Presentation:
John and Kim Mulligan, P.O. Box 701294, submitted a packet of
exhibits (Exhibit D-1). They
purchased the property several years ago.
They had an attorney and the title company, and they knew nothing about
this restriction or they would have dealt with it before purchasing the
land. The seller granted roadway
access easements from adjacent landowners, and the County gave them a house
number. They obtained a detached
garage permit from Tulsa County, and still were not informed of restrictions for
a house. John Mulligan stated the
City of Sand Springs informed them that they have frontage property on
145th, but the road does not come through yet.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty verified with Ms. Fernandez that the City of Sand Springs has
no objections to this application.
Mr. Alberty stated that not only does the applicant have easements file
of record but they also access 145th, which is an unimproved section
line road at this time.
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, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance of Section
207 to permit 0 frontage on a lot for residential purposes from the required
30 to permit new construction on an existing parcel, finding easements have
been provided that are filed of record, on the following described
property:
The S 440.13 N
880.26 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 29, T-19-N, R-11-E of the IBM, Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 207. requirement for 30 of frontage for residential
purposes to 0 on a land-locked parcel to permit lot-split. SECTION 207. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED -- Use Unit 6,
located 13924 S. 188th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Mike Kerr, 12822 S. 193rd E. Ave., Broken Arrow, stated
that the subject property was split off of his fathers property. He proposed to build a house, and
the County instructed them to go to the Board of Adjustment for a
lot-split.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked for location of the easement roadway. Mr. Kerr pointed it out on the map and
stated that the family wants to keep it a private road. Mr. Dillard asked for the width of the
easement and if it had been surveyed.
Mr. Kerr replied that it is a 20 easement and it has been surveyed.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall "absent") to APPROVE
a
Variance of Section
207. Requirement for 30 of frontage for residential purposes to 0 on a
land-locked parcel to permit lot-split, finding 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:
E/2 S/2 NE/4 SW/4
SE/4 and W/2 S/2 NE/4 SW/4 SE/4, of Section 12, T-17-N, R-14-E, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback for an accessory building from the required 85 to
43 from centerline of East 161st Street South. SECTION 320. ACCESSORY USES IN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS
-- Use Unit 6; and a Variance of Major Street and Highway Plan to allow the
accessory building in the planned right-of-way in an AG district, located 9805
E. 161st St. S.
Presentation:
Ms. Fernandez stated that the City of Bixby expressed concern about this
structure being permitted in the right-of-way.
Ken Binkley, 9805 E. 161st St. S., stated that he began
building without a permit. He
received a notice of violation and stopped building.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Walker asked if the structure was a pole barn style. He replied that it was a pole
barn. He submitted four photographs
(Exhibit E-1). He described
the topography and stated he wanted to place it so he would not have flooding
problems. He pointed out that a
mobile home and an existing business nearby are closer to the road than his
building. He stated that if
they widened the road there would be a lot of structures that would have to be
moved.
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, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Tyndall "absent") to DENY
a Variance of setback
for an accessory building from the required 85 to 43 from centerline of East
161st Street South; and a Variance of Major Street and
Highway Plan to allow the accessory building in the planned right-of-way in an
AG district, finding a lack of hardship.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a single-wide mobile home in an RS zoned
district. SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 9, located 2009 E. 73rd St.
N.
Presentation:
Bobby Webster, 2110 E. 73rd St. N., proposes to place a
mobile home to lease on nine acres.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked if there were other mobile homes in the area. He replied that there are two or
three.
Interested
Parties:
Jeff Kirkham,
1727
E. 73rd St. N., stated that this would be a second mobile home on the
property. He questioned how many
could be moved in on this property.
Maxine Eberhart,
7407 N. Victor,
stated
that a mobile home would depreciate the value of her home. She asked the application be
denied.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr. Webster stated that there is another mobile home directly across the
street from Ms. Eberhart on Victor.
He stated that he is a general contractor and that he upgrades all of his
property. He plans to paint and
skirt the mobile home.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Walker asked if there is a separate deed on the second home.