COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
December 18, 2001, 1:30 p.m.
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT |
MEMBERS
ABSENT |
STAFF
PRESENT |
OTHERS
PRESENT |
|
Alberty,
Chair |
Tyndall |
Butler |
West,
Co. Inspect. |
|
Hutson |
Dillard,
Vice Chair |
Fernandez |
|
|
Walker |
|
|
|
The notice
and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W.
5th St., Suite 600, Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 3:20 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 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
APPROVE the Minutes of
November 20, 2001 (No. 258).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
Action
Requested:
Applicant requested 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.
Presentation:
Ms.
Fernandez informed the Board the applicant requested a continuance for a
decision of reconsideration of Case No. 1917 on January 15,
2002.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
CONTINUE for a decision on reconsideration of Case No. 1917 on
January 15, 2002, on the following described property:
Tract A: the E/2 E/2 SW/4 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 28, T-17-N, R-13-E, of the
IBM, containing 2.5 acres more or less; Tract B: the S/2 S/2 SE/4 SE/4 SE/4 of
Section 28, T-17-N, R-13-E, of the IBM, containing 2.5 acres more or less, all
in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
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 Tulsa State Fairgrounds/Expo Square.
Presentation:
This
case was continued from November 20, 2001.
Kelly Bahlman, 320 S. Boston, requested a continuance of Case No.
1919 for Hemphill Corporation to January 15, 2002.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent")
to CONTINUE Case No. 1919 to January 15,
2002.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
NEW
APPLICATIONS
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a manufactured home in a RS zoned
district. SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, located 6502 N. Rockford.
Presentation:
Delbert and Sharon Kirk, 6502 N. Rockford, are the owners of the
subject property. Mr. Kirk stated
that when they purchased their land they noted there were other mobile homes in
the area and one on the property.
They discovered after they moved their mobile home on the property that
they needed a special exception.
There was no record of a special exception of the first mobile on the
property. Mrs. Kirk stated a
financial hardship. Photographs
were submitted (Exhibit A-3) to the Board. They found out the other
requirements for a mobile home.
They have improved the property and would like to obtain approval of this
application.
Interested
Parties:
Jerry
Kidd,
6510 N. Rockford, stated he has a doublewide mobile home in the
neighborhood. He submitted
photographs (Exhibit A-3). He
stated that he and his wife obtained a Special Exception limited to five years
to have a mobile home and build a stick built home on their property. They opposed a singlewide mobile
home indicating it would decrease the value of their property. Mrs. Kidd stated that the previous
mobile home and the current one on the subject property were moved in
illegally.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked if they were opposed to a singlewide. Mr. And Mrs. Kidd replied they would not
object to a doublewide or stick built home. Mr. Hutson asked if their application
was for a singlewide mobile. Mrs.
Kidd responded that it was for a singlewide for a temporary placement. Mr. Kidd stated that because of the one
protestor at their hearing, they reconsidered and put in a doublewide on a
permanent foundation.
Interested
Parties:
Charlene Burdick,
6513 N. Rockford, stated the applicants have been cleaning up the property. She added that she received no
notification that a mobile home was being moved in. She stated that she looked at the
property as a prospective buyer.
She lives in a mobile home on her own property and plans to build a stick
built home.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mrs.
Kirk responded that they bought the property for a daughter-in-law and
grandchildren. They would not have
purchased it if they had known they could not put a mobile home on the
land.
Mr.
Alberty noted the area is in transition, recognizing there are several other
mobile homes. He also noted the
interested parties live in mobile homes. Mr. Alberty stated that if a singlewide
for five years for Mr. and Mrs. Kidd was approved, it should be satisfactory for
this case. Mr. Walker was in
support of a temporary singlewide mobile home. Mr. West was notified that the mobile
home was moved in and he contacted the owners.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall
"absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to
allow a manufactured home in a RS zoned district, with conditions for a building
permit, DEQ approval for disposal of waste water, skirting, and tie-downs, and a
time period of five years, finding it will be in harmony with the spirit and
intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described property:
Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Phillips Farms, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow two dwelling units on one lot of record. SECTION 208. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF
RECORD – Use Unit 6; OR in the alternative: a Variance of the average lot width
in an AG district from 200’ to 180’.
SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS; and a Variance of the land area from
2.2 acres to 2.13 acres for a lot-split.
SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS, located 11620 N.
Yale.
Presentation:
Tracie Poland, 11620 N. Yale, Sperry, Oklahoma, submitted a site
plan (Exhibit B-1). She stated they want to move a mobile home in the back
yard. She stated they have
extended the lagoon to exceed required size.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked if they did not want to split the property. Mrs. Poland stated they were willing to
do whatever was needed to make it legal.
Mr. Alberty informed her they might not have enough frontage to split the
land without a variance.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow two dwelling
units on one lot of record, with conditions for tie-downs, skirting, DEQ
approval, and building permits, finding they would like to keep it under single
ownership, and there is not sufficient frontage to do a lot-split, on the
following described property:
Part of S/2
NE SE SE of Section 4, T-21-N, R-13-E, Beg. SE/c thence W to SW/c of said
parcel, thence N to the NW/c of said parcel, thence E 330.00’ to point on N line
of said parcel, thence S 300.00’, thence E 330’, thence S 30.00’ to POB AND the
S/2 NE/4 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 4, T-21-N, R-13-E, of the IBM, Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of Section 330 to reduce
minimum lot area from 2 acres to 1.42 acres. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; and a Variance to reduce minimum land area
from 2.2 acres to 1.6 acres.
SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS, located 1630 E. 163rd Pl.
S.
Mrs. Fernandez stated that this property is in the Glenpool fence-line, but Glenpool declined to hear the referral case.
Presentation:
Scott Hargis, 1650 E. 163rd Pl. S., introduced himself
to the Board.
Tasha Morgan, 1650 E. 163rd Pl. S., stated that they
would like to purchase a portion of property owned by Mr. Hargis’ sister. They already maintain the property, use
it for cattle and make payments on it.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty confirmed that they want a Variance for the reduction of the subject
property. Mr. Hutson asked about
access to the subject property. Mr.
Hargis stated there is a gate for access. Mr. Hargis submitted a site plan
(Exhibit C-1).
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion of Walker, the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance of Section 330 to reduce minimum
lot area from 2 acres to 1.42 acres; and a Variance to reduce
minimum land area from 2.2 acres to 1.6 acres, as presented, finding there are
other lots of similar size and it would qualify except for the AG zoning, on the
following described property:
A part of the SW/4 NE/4 NW/4 of Section 30, T-17-N, R-13-E, of the IBM,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, according to the U.S. Government survey
thereof, now known as Lot 3, Block 1, Faulkenberry Estates, according to the
recorded plat thereof being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg.
at a point 25’ N of the SW/c of said SW/4 NE/4 NW/4 of Section 30, said point
also being the SW/c of said Lot 3, Block 1, Faulkenberry Estates, thence N
0°08’48” W along the W line thereof for
233.85’, thence N 88°23’22” E for 265.82’, thence S 0°41’20” E for 240.71’ to the S line of said
Lot 3, thence S 89°52’02” W along the S line thereof for 268.01’
to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required lot width
from 200’ to 140’. SECTION
330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6; a Variance of required lot area from 2.0
to 1.5 acres. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS; and a Variance of required land area from 2.2 acres to
1.6 acres to allow lot-split #19322.
SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS, located 14022 E. 136th St.
N.
Mrs. Fernandez stated that the Collinsville plan for this area is low-intensity residential and Collinsville did not want to hear this referral case.
Presentation:
Melvin Flanary, 14022 E. 136th St. N., Collinsville,
Oklahoma, stated he wanted to split his property in two tracts.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked how they handle their sewage. Mr. Flanary replied that they had a soil
percolation test for a separate septic system. Mr. Alberty asked if the house
would be stick built. Mr. Flanary
replied in the affirmative.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Mr.
Alberty noted that the area is more commercial and industrial than
residential. He saw no problem with
density and if it was commercial or industrial the lot width would not be
relevant.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance of the required lot width from
200’ to 140’; a Variance of required lot area from 2.0 to 1.5
acres; and a Variance of required land area from 2.2 acres to 1.6
acres to allow lot-split #19322,
finding the general land use in the area has shown commercial and industrial, on
the following described property:
The W
140.00’ of the W 410.00’ N 520.00’ E/2 NW/4 NE/4 of Section 33, T-22-N, R-14-E
of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for a 190.00’ cell tower in an AG zone. SECTION 1204.3. USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES, Use Conditions and SECTION 310. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 4, located S of US-64, the alignment of the intersection of S. 185th E. Ave. & E. 171st St. S.
Presentation:
Terry Stowe, stated he is with Cingular Wireless and they propose
to place a cell tower near the south boundary of Tulsa County on the west side
of U.S. Highway 64. He submitted a
copy of their responses to the factors (Exhibit D-1) to be considered by the
Board. The proposed tower would be
a 190’ galvanized steel monopole with six flush and side mounted panel antennas,
and the capacity for two additional carriers. The nearest residential structure
would be the property owner’s residence, one quarter of a mile west. The nearest residential district or
group of houses would be a mile and one quarter north and east of the site on
the east side of the highway. There
are also some homes on the mountains on the northwest of the site about one-half
to three quarters from the site.
The nearest towers to the site are about two miles south and west. One tower is owned by OG&E, and one
owned by PSO. These towers are too
far to the west for the signals to reach across the river or they would seek to
collocate. The equipment building
which is 11’ x 20’ would be manmade exposed aggregate sand color rock design
fabricated off site. A six-foot
chain link fence with three rows of barbed wire above would surround the tower
and buildings. Across the U.S.
Highway 64 to the south and east is a previously worked sand plant, which is now
closed. On the east is undeveloped
land and the Arkansas River. On the
north, west and south of the site are steep mountainsides rising about 300’ plus
a few homes. There is a small,
privately owned airstrip running north and south near the visible house. The entire area is undeveloped with
numerous trees and few access roads.
Mr. Stowe stated the ingress and egress would be by the owner’s main
entrance and down an existing road on the property. The applicant needs this tower site to
provide an acceptable signal along the highway and river where there is no
significant signal. The leased area
is 50’ x 50’ and according to INCOG is not included in the Comprehensive
Plan. They do not plan to do any
landscaping because the ground level of the highway is six to ten feet higher
than the site, which is adjacent to the highway right-of-way. Mr. Stowe stated that they would be
willing to comply with any requirements.
He informed the Board that he spoke with an interested party regarding
opposition to the site due to the airport.
If the interested party had contacted him sooner he could probably have
worked out something.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty confirmed the elevations of the highway, tower and airport with Mr.
Stowe. Mr. Alberty asked why the
site would be a problem for the airport.
Mr. Stowe replied that the interested party was concerned with problems
that could be caused by wind shear.
Interested
Parties:
Dave
Davis,
601 S. Boulder, Suite 100, stated he was representing Mark Durham. He requested a continuance because there
are only three Board members present.
Mr. Alberty asked the Board if anyone was inclined to make a motion for a
continuance, and no motion was made.
Mr. Davis informed the Board that Mr. Durham asked that the location be
moved 300’ southeast of the current location because it interferes with safety
margins in approaches to the landing strip to the west. He submitted a case map (Exhibit D-3)
marked for exhibit to the Board. He
also submitted a letter from Mr. Durham to Mr. Stowe regarding this problem and
offered to pay for a new survey to have the tower moved. He indicated that the applicant has not
shown a hardship.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Hutson asked Mr. Davis if the interested party is willing to pay whatever
reasonable fees that Cingular Wireless states would accommodate the move. Mr. Davis replied that it depends on
what fees it would entail. Mr.
Hutson reminded him of the $5,000.00 mentioned the Cingular has tied up in the
project so far. Mr. Davis replied
that the applicant would be willing.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Stowe stated that the $5,000.00 is an approximate figure. He said there would be additional
expenses for such things as more roadway, and utility lines, because the
difference in the distance is more like 500’. He pointed out that Mr. Durham has not
filed his request with the FAA, or they would have found it during the
planning. He further stated they
don’t even plan to build until next year.
He stated he was sympathetic, but he also considers 300’ of airspace to
be an insignificant distance.
Mr.
Alberty noted the elevation differences of the tower and proposed airport. He was troubled that it is a proposed
airport, and the letter of request from Mr. Durham was dated just
yesterday. Mr. Walker stated his
support of the location as presented rather than closer to someone else’s
property.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker
to approve, Hutson seconded with an encouragement to the applicant, Cingular
Wireless to work out something voluntarily, considering the existing airstrip
and proposed strip, and that the interested party is willing to help with the
expenses. The Board voted 3-0-0
(Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception for a 190.00’ cell
tower in an AG zone, finding all the factors are met as listed in the
presentation, and 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:
Parent Tract: The NW/4 NE/4 lying S of U.S. Highway No. 64 right-of-way
and the SW/4 NE/4 NE/4 NW/4, and the SE/4 NW/4 less the S/2 NE/4 SE/4 NW/4, all
in Section 36, T-17-N, R-14-E, of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma;
Proposed Lease Site: A lease site lying in a part of the NW/4 NE/4 lying S of
U.S. Highway No. 64 right-of-way, all in Section 36, T-17-N, R-14-E of the IBM
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma; said lease site being more particularly
described as follows: Commencing at ¾” iron rod found for the NE/c of said NW/4
NE/4; thence S 01°12’20” E, on the E line of said NW/4 NE/4, a
distance of 663.94’; thence S 88°47’40” W, a distance of 573.69’ to a ½” iron
w/cap set for corner and the POB; thence S 42°18’36” W, a distance of 50.00’ to a ½” iron
rod w/cap set for corner; thence N 47°41’24” W, a distance of 50.00’ to a ½” iron
rod w/cap set for corner; thence N 42°18’36” E, a distance of 50.00’ to a ½” iron
rod w/cap set for corner; thence S 47°41’24” E, a distance of 50.00’ to the POB;
containing an area of 2,500 square feet or, more or less.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
1925
Action
Requested:
Variance of
average minimum lot width from 200.00’ to 165.00’ to permit lot-split
#19326. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 18600 S. Yale.
Presentation:
Danny
Myers,
5626 E. 186th St. S., propose to deed land to their children to build
on, but they are short on the frontage.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty confirmed that Mr. Myers has a 165’ x 660’ piece of property that he
wants to split in half. Mr. Alberty
noted that he does not have a problem with land area.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Hutson,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
APPROVE a Variance of average minimum lot width from
200.00’ to 165.00’ to permit lot-split #19326, finding it creates the same
amount of land area, and 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:
S/2 NW/4 NW/4 SW/4 Section 3, T-16-N, R-13-E, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Case No.
1927
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, Inc., with a request to install two radio
towers on the site. This is to modify their existing signal for an A.M. radio
station. He stated that he
and the applicant have met with interested parties regarding their issues with
the application. He asked for a
continuance of the case in respect to the interested parties and the fact that
there are only three Board members present.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked the interested parties if they had any objection to the
continuance, and they did not.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Walker,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (Alberty,
Walker, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Dillard, Tyndall "absent") to
CONTINUE Case No. 1927 to the meeting on January 15, 2002.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Item No.
11
Action
Requested:
Discussion on Proposed
Amendments to Tulsa County Zoning Code.
Presentation:
Mrs.
Fernandez asked that the amendments be postponed to the meeting on January 15,
2002 before a full Board.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Item No.
12
Action
Requested:
Approval of meeting
dates for the 2002 calendar year.
Presentation:
Mrs.
Fernandez presented the 2002 meeting schedule for approval. She pointed out that the February
meeting would be on Wednesday of the third week. She also pointed out that in May the
Room 119 is booked and we will meet in the Aaronson Auditorium on the regularly
scheduled date of the third Tuesday of the month.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:53 p.m.
Date approved:
___________________________________
___________________________________
Chair
TOP OF PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS HOME