COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
January 15, 2002, 1:30 p.m.
|
Alberty,
Chair |
Hutson |
Butler |
West,
County Insp. |
|
Tyndall |
|
Fernandez |
|
|
Walker |
|
Stump |
|
|
Dillard,
Vice Chair |
|
|
|
The notice
and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W.
5th St., Suite 600, Thursday, January 10, 2002 at 2:07 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 Walker, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty,
Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no
"absences") to APPROVE the
Minutes of December 18, 2001 (No. 259).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
Action
Requested:
Applicant requests a Reconsideration:
Variance of lot width from 200’ to 165’ for lot-split L-19313 (Tract
A). SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; a Variance of lot area from 2 acres to 1.47
acres (Tract B). SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS; a Variance of land area from 2.2 acres to 1.95 acres if
roadway dedication is required on 171st Street and Yale Avenue (Tract
B). SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS; OR in the alternative a Variance of Section 208 to allow
2 dwellings on 1 lot. SECTION 208.
ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF RECORD, located 4705 E.
171st St.
Mr.
Alberty stated to Mr. Oakley, attorney for the applicant, that the Board already
took action on Case No. 1917. Mr.
Alberty explained that a decision for reconsideration is based on extenuating
circumstances, or new information that was not presented to the Board at the
time of the hearing, the Board may choose to reconsider the case, otherwise the
Board Action stands.
Presentation:
Stephen Oakley, 222 W. 8th St., stated he was
representing, the applicant, Linda Crockett and her husband Leonard
Crockett. It has come to their
attention that if the right-of-way dedication were used it would involve 20’ of
the existing house, including a carport and bedrooms. Mr. Oakley added that the County
Engineers are willing to recommend less of a dedication of right-of-way so that
the house, swimming pool, and carport are not impacted.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty responded that the Board already has this information, and asked if Mr.
Oakley had specific measurements required by the County Engineers. He provided a site plan (Exhibit
A-1).
Jay Stump, INCOG, made a point of order, that before the Board
considers the new information, they need a motion on whether to reconsider the
case or not.
Mr.
Walker asked what would be different from the decision made on December 18,
2001. Mr. Alberty replied that by
the Board Action in December, the full dedication of 60’ would be required,
which would destroy part of the home in the right-of-way. They have talked to the engineer, and he
has agreed to reduce the right-of-way so it would not include the home.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Tyndall,
to Reconsider Case 1917, the Motion
Died
for lack of a second, and will not be reconsidered.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 250’ monopole cellular transmission
tower on property zoned AG. SECTION
1204.C.3.2. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES
– Use Unit 4, located at the Tulsa State Fairgrounds/Expo Square.
Presentation:
Kelly Balman, 320 S. Boston, stated she was present for Kevin
Coutant, representing Hemphill Corporation. She asked for a continuance to February
20, 2002, stating they have not finalized the details of arrangements with the
Fairgrounds Authorities. A letter
of request from Ms. Balman (Exhibit B-2) was submitted to the Board.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Walker, Tyndall, Alberty, and Dillard “aye”; no “nays”;
no “abstentions”; Hutson “absent”) to CONTINUE
Case
No. 1919 to the meeting on February 20, 2002.
Parent
Tract: A tract of land described as the E/2 SW/4 SE/4 of Section 9, T-19-N,
R-13-E, of the IBM; Lease Area: A tract of land contained within the SE/4 of
Section 9, T-19-N, R-13-E, of the IBM, being more particularly described as
follows: Commencing at the NE/c of said SE/4; thence S 89°56’12” W
along the N line of said SE/4, a distance of 2,568.38’; thence due S a distance
of 293.00’ to the POB; thence due E a distance of 100.00’; thence due S a
distance of 100.00’; thence due W a distance of 100.00’; thence due N a distance
of 100.00’ to the POB, containing 10,000 square feet or 0.296 acres, more or
less, all in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for the installation of two AM radio towers. SECTION 310. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 4, located 2603 E. 56th St.
N.
Presentation:
Bill LaFortune, 2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated he was
representing Clear Channel Radio for a special exception for two radio
towers. The location is just east
of Lewis and west of Birmingham and on the north side of 56th Street
North. The current zoning is AG and
is surrounded on the north by County RS, on the east by County AG, on the west
County RS. To the south of the
property is City RS-3 zoning. The
current use of the site is two existing radio towers, which are much larger than
the two proposed towers. He
submitted photographs (Exhibit C-1) to the Board. At the last hearing there were some
neighbors concerned about health issues regarding electromagnetic
radiation. He informed the Board
that he asked an expert engineer to come to this hearing with a statement to
affects or lack of affects and to answer the Board’s questions.
Jack Selmeyer, a consulting radio engineer, stated he practices in
McKinney, Texas, and came on behalf of Clear Channel. He described the existing towers as 215’
in height and the two proposed towers would be guyed towers of 180’ for KTBZ
with 25,000 watts during the daytime.
He stated that the Federal Communications Commission is responsible for
enforcing the National Environmental Policy Act. The FCC provides guidelines for such
towers. The plans for these towers
exceed the minimum requirements for fencing distance and safety issues. He assured the Board that the
electromagnetic radiation from these towers at the nearest edge of the property
would be very minimal. He stated
that the electromagnetic field of an electric blanket would be many times
greater than that at the fence line of these towers. He submitted a printout of this
information to the Board (Exhibit C-3).
Mr.
LaFortune pointed out that these are AM radio towers and the signal emanates
from the towers, therefore it is not possible to add on to the existing
towers.
Interested
Parties:
Darlene Morgan, 4969 N. Trenton, stated she was representing her
mother-in-law, Julia Morgan, 5540 N. Lewis. She already has interference with her
phone, computer, and television.
She is also concerned with the health issues related to the radio
towers. Mr. Alberty asked if she
still had concerns about the health issues after hearing the engineer. Ms. Morgan stated that they would still
be concerned about the interference on her phone and electronic equipment.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
LaFortune stated he discussed this with the interested parties and informed them
that within the first year the company must address any complaint made. Mr. Walker commented that he would not
want to approve more towers if the existing towers are causing interference that
cannot be fixed. Mr. LaFortune
stated that the towers have been on the site since the early 1900’s. Mr. LaFortune asked Troy Langham to
speak to the issue.
Troy Langham, 1508 S. Owasso, stated he is the local engineer for
Clear Channel. He stated that it
has been found that the problem of interference is not the emission of a signal
that causes the interference but the design of consumer electronics that is
picking up the signal. He offered
as a corporate citizen to help this interested party find solutions, even though
the period of responsibility is past.
He added that they have phones at the towers and they have no problem
with interference. Mr. Langham
stated that it may require a better phone than she has now. Mr. Dillard commented that he
experienced this problem once before and it was a matter of correcting the
wiring in his home.
Mr.
LaFortune reminded the Board that the first time they heard of the problem was
at the last hearing. He offered to
continue this case and deal with the problem before the Board decides.
William Larry Underwood, 5613 N. Lewis, stated he lives just west
of the towers. He stated that he
also has the problems with interference on his phone, television, radio, and
computer. He submitted information
copied from the internet regarding health issues (Exhibit C-2) and considers
them to be a real concern. Mr.
Alberty asked if he would be interested in talking with the applicant to find
solutions. Mr. Underwood replied
that he would be interested in discussing the problems with someone from Clear
Channel.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
LaFortune stated that the FCC policy has studied these problems and has excluded
the issues concerning consumer electronics from the responsibility of radio
stations and towers. He added that
Clear Channel has already made a commitment to this Board to meet these
individuals to help solve their problems.
Mr.
Walker commented that he has studied these issues and found that no one has been
able to prove any direct connection to the health issues, but it has not been
proven that there may be some affect.
He was in favor of Clear Channel helping Mrs. Morgan.
Mr.
LaFortune requested a one-month continuance to February 20, 2002 to meet with
the interested parties present.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dillard,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, and Dillard “aye”; no “nays”;
no “abstentions”; Hutson “absent”) to CONTINUE
Case No. 1927 to the meeting on February 20, 2002.
The E/2 of the SW/4 SW/4, less and except the W 12.00’ of the N 330.00’
and less and except the N 30.00’ of the W 648.00’ thereof for roadway, Section
5, T-20-N, R-13-E of the IBM, according to the U.S. government survey thereof,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow an existing church on the property to obtain a
building permit for an addition.
SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5; and a Special Exception for
church uses. SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, located, 1519 S. 81st W. Ave.
Mr.
Alberty noted a letter from the City of Sand Springs recommending approval of
the application, with no objections.
Presentation:
Bennie Benge, 808 S. 12th St., Broken Arrow, stated he
was representing the Harvest Times Assembly of God Church. He added that they want the special
exceptions to get a building permit.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked if he has shown his plans to the County Inspections office to find
out if this is all the relief he will need. Mr. Benge replied he has not.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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
Special Exception to allow an
existing church on the property to obtain a building permit for an addition; and
a Special Exception for church uses, subject to the plan
submitted, 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 7, Billington Acre Tracts and the N 15.00’ of Lot 11, Block
7, Billington Acre Tracts, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required side yard from 15’ to 9’ 6”. SECTION 430. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 1220 S. 262nd W.
Ave.
Presentation:
James Armbruster, P.O. Box 523, Cleveland, stated he is the
contractor for the applicants. They
want to construct an addition to the end of the house. He added that the applicants own the lot
with the house, the lot beside and the lot below it. He pointed out that there is not another
place to add onto the house because of the topography and lot lines. The applicant owns the property that
would be encroached.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked if the lot on the north is vacant and does he have plans to
develop it. Mr. Armbruster replied
that it is vacant and he has no plans to sell it.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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 of required
side yard from 15’ to 9’ 6”, finding the hardship to be the applicant owns the
properties, and the addition 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 7, Block 2, Cimarron Run Addition, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a church use and accessory church uses in an
AG-R zoned district. SECTION
310. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 5; and a Special Exception to allow two
manufactured buildings for temporary class room space. SECTION 1420. NONCONFORMING USE OF BUILDINGS OR
BUILDINGS AND LAND IN COMBINATION, located 11516 N. 123rd E.
Ave.
Presentation:
Jerry Elwell, 12111 E. 90th St. N., Owasso, stated he
is the pastor, representing Covenant Bible Church. They propose to place two
pre-fabricated buildings on the property.
When they applied for the special exception, INCOG could not find any
relief granted for church use of the property. He submitted a copy of old Board of
Adjustment minutes (Exhibit D-2) to show the relief was granted for church
use. He explained that the church
building has no education or nursery space and they would like to provide these
pre-fabricated buildings for that purpose until they can add on to their
building. A map was also provided
(Exhibit D-1).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked if the application were approved on a temporary basis, would they
remove the temporary buildings after construction of an addition to the
building. Rev. Elwell replied that
they would remove the temporary buildings.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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
Special Exception to allow
two manufactured buildings for temporary class room space, for a five-year
period, as shown on the plan as Phase I, finding it will be in harmony with the
spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described property:
A tract of land situated in the NW/4 NW/4 NE/4 of Section 8, T-21-N,
R-14-E, of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, being more particularly
described as follows; Beg. at the NW/c NE/4 of Section 8; thence S 288.73’;
thence E 633.6’; thence N 288.7’ to point on N line of Section 8; thence W
633.74’ along the N line to POB, less the N 30’ for roadway easement.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 208 to allow two dwelling units on one lot of
record. SECTION 208. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF
RECORD – Use Unit 6, located 402 S. 71st W. Ave.
Presentation:
Larry McCollough, 402 S. 71st W. Ave., stated he would
like to convert a stick built 20’ x 24’ storage structure into a house for his
mother. He wants to put in a
kitchen and bathroom.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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 of Section
208 to allow two dwelling units on one lot of record, finding it is an existing
structure to be converted to a house, 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:
The S 15.00’ of the N 25.00’ of Lot 20, Block 5, Twin Cities
Sub-division, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, is restricted from being
transferred or conveyed as above described without including the S 75.00’ of Lot
20, Block 5, Twin Cities Sub-division, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma unless
the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, or its successors, according to
law, approves such conveyance or transfer.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
1932
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for Use Unit 25 in CH for light manufacturing. SECTION 710. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 25, located SW/c Southwest Blvd. & Skelly Dr.
Presentation:
Dow
Bushyhead,
2442 W. Skelly Dr., stated he wants to move his existing business to a new
location. The lot is vacant and he
plans to construct a new building.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty noted that the property is surrounded by moderate industrial. Mr. Dillard asked the nature of the
business. Mr. Bushyhead replied he
sells industrial hose and it is an extremely light industrial
manufacturing.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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 Special Exception for Use
Unit 25 in CH for light manufacturing, 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:
Beg. at the SE/c SE/4 NW/4 NW/4 of Section 33, T-19-N, R-12-E, thence N
along the E line of the SE/4 NW/4 NW/4 a distance of 302.6’, thence W 25.00’ to
a point intersecting the right-of-way of the Tulsa/Sapulpa highway, thence SWly
along and parallel with said highway right-of-way a distance of 228.30’, thence
SWly to the S line of the SE/4 NW/4 NW/4, a distance of 244.39’, m/l, thence E
along the S line of the SE NW NW a distance of 376.50’ m/l, to the POB, 1.422
acres, m/l Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Case No.
1933
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required lot average width from 200’ to 187’ (Tract
2). SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; a Variance of the required land area (Tract
1) from 2.2 acres to 2.17 acres SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS, located 10022 E. 135th St. N.
Presentation:
Robert
Hicks,
10022 E. 135th St. N., stated he purchased the property with plans to
divide it for his children to build a stick built home. The street was dedicated with the full
50’ of right-of-way. He stated that
they discovered in previous cases this was not calculated.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty noted that even Mr. Hicks structure is built within that same
right-of-way. Mr. Alberty commented
that it seemed rather excessive because the survey shows the existing home is
47’ from the property line, and an additional 50’ of right-of-way. Mr. Alberty
also noted that the only need for this application is the 30’ panhandle because
the actual width is 300’.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties 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 of the
required lot average width from 200’ to 187’ (Tract 2); and a
Variance of the required land area (Tract 1) from 2.2 acres to
2.17 acres, as presented, finding the size of the tract and small panhandle, 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 property
described as follows:
Existing undivided tract: the E/2 SE/4 NW/4 NW/4 of Section 31, T-22-N,
R-14-E, of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the U.S.
Government survey thereof, less the N 50’ thereof. Proposed Tract 1: The S 290.67’ of the N
340.67’ W 300.00’ E/2 SE/4 NW/4 NW/4 of Section 31, T-22-N, R-14-E, of the IBM,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
Proposed Tract 2: The E/2 SE/4 NW/4 NW/4 of Section 31, T-22-N, R-14-E,
of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the U.S. Government
survey thereof, less the N 50’ thereof and less the S 290.67’ of the N 340.67’
of the W 300’ thereof.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Case No.
1934
Action
Requested:
Special Exception permitting in a CS district Use Unit 17, Automotive and
Allied Activities, excluding overnight campgrounds for recreation vehicles. SECTION 710. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 17, located N side of W. 9th St., E of N.
175th W. Ave.
Presentation:
Charles
Norman,
2900 Mid-Continent Tower, stated he was representing the applicant, Dennis
Rankin. He proposes to operate a
horse and livestock trailer dealership for Featherlight Trailers on the subject
property. He pointed out the good
location next to an expressway and a western outlet store. The existing business is in favor of
this application. He pointed out
that the business is appropriate for the area. He also stated that the use is permitted
in a CS district by special exception.
They believe they are able to meet all of the requirements for the
use. They have excluded the use of
an overnight campground, finding it would not be appropriate for this
business. Mr. Norman pointed out
that Lot 4 was not included in the site plan. Mr. Rankin has the option to buy Lot 4
in the future and they would be willing to submit that property on an amended
site plan. The outdoor lighting
would be directed down and away from other properties. The hours of operation would be daytime
only.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty stated that the City of Sand Springs took no action on this application,
but did make a few comments. Mr.
Norman responded that he spoke with Bob Wolfram and Sand Springs had no
objections. Mr. Alberty
stated that the Board did not need a site plan including Lot 4 until they
propose a use on it. Mr. Stump
asked if they would be willing to restrict the use to just the sale of the
trailers, with no automotive or truck sales. Mr. Norman responded they do not need
approval for auto or truck sales, but they would include sales of
accessories. Mr. Rankin specified
that no trades of autos or trucks or any vehicle would be accepted.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no
"nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special Exception permitting
in a CS district Use Unit 17, Automotive and Allied Activities, excluding
overnight campgrounds for recreation vehicles, as presented, with conditions for
horse trailers only, no auto or truck sales, 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 2, 3, and 4, Block 3, Wekiwa Hills, a subdivision in part of the W/2
of Section 6, T-19-N, R-11-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Item No. 12.
Discussion on
Proposed Amendments to Tulsa County Zoning Code
&n