COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, March 20, 2001, 1:30
p.m.
|
Alberty, Chair |
|
Butler |
West, Co. Inspect. |
|
Tyndall |
|
Fernandez |
|
|
Walker |
|
|
|
|
Hutson |
|
|
|
|
Dillard, Vice Chair |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in
the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600,
Friday, March 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m., as well as at
the City Clerk’s office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair Alberty
called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION
of Tyndall, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”;
no "absences") to APPROVE the
Minutes of February 21, 2001 (No. 249).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to an AG zoned district for Use Unit 20, Commercial
Recreation – Intensive: Paintball Field.
SECTION 310. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 20; a Variance to permit 30
paved parking spaces; and an Appeal of Administrative Official’s Notice to stop
and remove all business activity and related equipment dated October 16, 2000,
located 12731 N. 118th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Diane Fernandez presented action requested. Mr. Taylor stated that he
had not seen the letter from Mr. West to the Board. He submitted a packet of information
(Exhibits A-1, A-3) He stated that his client hired a hydrologist to evaluate
and report on this property. He
informed the Board that Ray Jordan and Mr. West of the County Inspections office
requested an analysis in addition to the usual evaluation. Mr. Taylor stated that after talking to
the hydrologist and reading the analysis, he concluded that the paint ball land
would not have an adverse effect on the floodway.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked Mr. West to respond to the hydrologist’s report. Mr. West reported that the business is
in compliance and would not cause an adverse affect upstream or downstream. Mr. Walker asked about the structures
they were using on the grounds. Mr.
West replied that the engineers reviewed the hydrologist’s report and confirmed
that the structures used would not be a problem. Mr. Alberty commented that County
Inspections reserves the right to review any change in the plans of this
business. Mr. Taylor stated that
the neighbors surrounding the property except for Mr. English were in favor of
the application, and several were in attendance. He also submitted one letter of support
for the application and aerial photos of the property (Exhibit A-2, A-4).
Interested
Parties:
Jack English, P.O. Box 421,
Collinsville, stated that some of the structures are next to the fence and it is
not hard to see them when the foliage is gone. He submitted photographs (Exhibit A-5)
to show what he can see from his property.
He commented that before they moved items across to his side of the creek
he thought the creek would be a good barrier. He stated that now it looks trashy and
structures are plainly visible.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Taylor read the letter of support mentioned earlier. He listed the other neighbors who are of
the same opinion in support. He
stated that his client has the right to use his property if he is within the
Code. He stated that they have
discussed the application with Mr. English about screening, fencing and similar
topics. He stated that when
Mr. English was ready to build homes, his client would be willing to
screen. Mr. Taylor also reminded
the Board that his client asked for a Variance to permit 30 paved parking
spaces. He explained to the Board
that nothing in the Code regarding parking is applicable to the parking needs of
this type of business. He stated
that in the eight years of business they have never needed more than half of the
proposed space.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Walker, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to DENY a Special
Exception to an AG zoned
district for Use Unit 20, Commercial Recreation – Intensive: Paintball Field; a
Variance to permit 30 paved parking spaces; and an Appeal of
Administrative Official’s Notice to stop and remove all business activity and
related equipment dated October 16, 2000, finding that 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:
Special Exception to permit Use Unit 5 (children’s nursery) in an RE
zoned district. SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5, located 1424 S. 263rd W.
Ave.
Presentation:
Cathy Rainwater, 1424 S. 263rd W. Ave., Sand Springs,
Oklahoma, stated she has been running a Family Day Care Home since August. She submitted a packet of information
including, letters from the president and vice-president of the homeowners’
association, photographs, DHS license, and other letters of support. She stated that she keeps five
children, but DHS licensed her for seven children. She commented that Mr. West informed her
the county limits her to five children in a day care home.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked Mr. West about the Tulsa County Zoning Code on number
of children permitted in a day care home.
Mr. West confirmed that the Code only permits five children in a Family
Day Care Home, and only three children under five years of age are allowed.
Interested
Parties:
C.W. Damon-Jacobs, attorney stated that he
lives near the applicant and he uses her day care services for his child. He stated that she provides more
than a commercial service. He spoke
highly of her care and the cleanliness of the home. He was unaware of any traffic problem at
her home.
Jim Coleman, 26505 W.
15th, stated he is a developer in Eagle Ridge. He is opposed to the application because
the subdivision is restricted to homes only, prohibiting home business in the
restrictive covenants. He pointed
out that even though the president and vice president of the homeowners’
association of Cimarron Run signed letters of support, the other residents were
not polled regarding support or opposition. He stated that the property adjoining
the subject property belongs to him and several others. He submitted a petition (Exhibit B-2) of
neighbor signatures within 300’ of the subject property. He stated that the prospective buyer for
his house owns a day care and has stated that he does not want to live next door
to a day care home. He indicated
that she was running a business underground since August, everyone within 300’
protests it, and he has been calling Mr. West since August to get it this
far. He stated she uses a
sign. He added that a lot of people
could not come because they work, but a few were present.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Alberty gave a point of information that the Board is not bound by
the restrictive covenants of a neighborhood. He stated those are enforceable through
civil action.
Interested Parties:
Gay Rotramel, 1500 S.
263rd W. Ave., stated she lives across the street and did not realize
there was a day care home on subject property until it was brought to her
attention. She indicated one house
in the immediate area is empty and there appeared to be only two to three homes
within 300’ of the subject property.
She stated she was not aware of any traffic problems. Ms. Rotramel indicated her support
stating she considered the day care a great service for the area. She has only heard children laughing
twice, and no problems.
Amber Dunham, 1524 S.
267th W. Ave., stated she has been very satisfied with the day care
home. She has observed no traffic
problems. She recognized that
children in the neighborhood like to go over there and play with Cathy’s
children.
Ineta Nance, 1618 S.
265th W. Ave., stated her support of the day care home and
satisfaction with the care of her child.
Roger Rainwater, 1424 S.
263rd W. Ave., indicated they were unaware of the covenant when they
bought their property. He stated
that he just found out that the twenty-year covenant ran out in April, 2000, and
he does not know of a new one in place.
He stated he would rather children came over to play at his house than to
run around the neighborhood and get in trouble. He suggested that it would be even more
important to have a day care home in the area as new people move in, than to
have to try to find a day care in Mannford or Sand Springs.
Robert Zion,
1421 S.
263rd W. Ave., stated he lives across
the street and down one house from the day care, well within the 300’. He indicated that he bought his place in
the beginning of the development and there were a lot of restrictions on the
owners. He stated that this is the
first time in twenty-four years that they have ever had a problem. He felt that the day care home was
breaking zoning laws and covenant restrictions, and that it would hurt their
property values.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Ms. Rainwater stated that she did not know she was breaking any rules by
having a day care home. She
informed the Board that within the map she received from INCOG showing the 300’
radius are squares indicating the residents that support her day care home. This was (Exhibit B-3) showing
support. She informed the Board
that she checked with the INCOG office regarding the sign, to comply with the
Code. She offered photos to show it
is in compliance. She stated that
neighborhood children come over to play with her two boys, ages 11 and 12 years
old. They have a basketball goal, a
four-wheeler, and they play baseball and football in the yard. She added that the younger children in
the day care are in her home, and they go outside one hour in the morning and
one hour in the afternoon to play.
She commented there have been no complaints to the homeowner’s
association or to her. She pointed
out that she has a large circle drive and there are only four cars that pick up
children.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Tyndall asked where the sign is located. She replied that it is on the house
right by the front door. Mr. Walker
asked if they planned to move. She
responded that they started to sell the home, but they have refinanced and the
house was taken off the market about two weeks ago. Mr. Alberty mentioned that Mr. Rainwater
indicated the restrictive covenant has expired. She stated that she went to the
courthouse and found that the date on it has expired and no one has been able to
tell them if a new one has been taken to the courthouse. Mr. Tyndall asked about the hours of
operation. She replied 6:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., and sometimes someone will arrive fifteen or twenty minutes earlier
or later, Monday through Friday.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dillard, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to permit Use Unit 5
(children’s nursery) in an RE zoned district, allowing the existing sign and
limited to care of 5 children, 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:
Lot 9, Block 1,
Cimarron Run, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception Section 410 to permit Use Unit 5, Community Services
(emergency shelter) Transitional Living Center in an RS district. SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5 & 6; a Variance Section 208 to permit two dwelling
units on one lot of record. SECTION
208. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER
LOT OF RECORD; and a Variance to permit a detached accessory building of 1454
sq. ft. SECTION 240.2.E. YARDS,
Permitted Yard Obstructions, located 12827 S. 117th E.
Ave.
Presentation:
Micaela D. Godbey-Miller, 12827 S. 117th E. Ave.,
Broken Arrow, submitted a packet of exhibits including photographs (Exhibit
C-1). She refers to a second
residence on her property that under the Code is labeled an emergency
shelter. She would like to protect
the neighborhood from the use of that structure as emergency shelter, should
their ministry move and sell it.
She added that they never intend to use it for rental property, but
strictly for the ministry. She
asked Terry Ewing to speak for this application.
Interested
Parties:
Terry Ewing, 9252 E. 58th Pl., stated he is the founder
of Plumbline Ministries. He stated
that this ministry is intended to be an extension of local church ministries and
a counseling center. The counselors
function as pastoral counselors by referral from church pastors. They will not be treating
psychiatric patients or mentally retarded individuals. The housing would be for one individual
or one family of up to three members at a time, not a multi-family
dwelling. The resident would be in
counseling and accountable to the ministry.
Donnie Davis, 12716 E. 136th St. S., Broken Arrow,
Oklahoma, stated he is the associate minister in this ministry. He described his personal family
experience as recipients of the ministry.
He pointed out that this facility would provide safety, shelter, and
other help that may not otherwise be available.
Robert Roach, 11453 E. 128th Pl. S., Broken Arrow,
Oklahoma, stated that he does not live within 300’ of the subject property. He stated his concern that this facility
might cause a decrease in the value of surrounding homes. He also mentioned concern for how future
owners might use it.
Gordon Holmes, 12822 S. (inaudible), stated his objection to a
second dwelling on the property and the impact on the value of his home. He indicated that a second
dwelling would not be compatible with the neighborhood.
Rick Payne, 11743 E. 128th Pl., stated same concerns as
above.
Judy (inaudible), 11454 E. 128th Pl., Broken Arrow,
stated concern for children and families in the neighborhood. She stated there were a lot of
pedestrians and children playing outside.
She indicated that people going through divorce and similarly emotional
troubles are more likely to cause disturbances that could jeopardize the safety
of other residents in the area.
She commended the applicant for his efforts, but she thought it was not
the right location.
Bonnie Mitchell, 12807 S. 117th E. Ave., stated that
she and her husband have lived in Willow Springs for twenty-eight years. She stated that they appreciate the open
spaces. She stated the lots are not
designed for two dwellings; they have septic systems that require more space for
lateral lines. She was also
concerned about family disturbances.
Ruthie Wade, 11707 E. 128th Pl. S., spoke in support of
the application. She stated that it
is policy to place anyone in a situation where violence is a concern in Day
Spring Villa. They also do not deal
with drug addiction at this site.
She stated that she understands the neighbors’ concerns, and she would be
even more concerned about having a violent person living with her. She stated that she already has a
building permit for an accessory building that would be used for a garage,
storage and woodworking. The permit
is for a building slightly larger than the one in this application. Her daughter lives with her to help care
for her husband. She stated that
her neighbors next door, across the street, and others close by have been very
positive about the application but they could not be present. She has looked into sanitary systems and
decided that an aerobic system would probably be her choice.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Tyndall, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to DENY Special
Exception Section 410 to permit
Use Unit 5, Community Services (emergency shelter) Transitional Living Center in
an RS district; a Variance Section 208 to permit two dwelling
units on one lot of record; and a Variance to permit a detached
accessory building of 1454 sq. ft., 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 the required 30’ frontage on a public street to 0’ to get a
lot split. SECTION 207. STREET
FRONTAGE REQUIRED – Use Unit 6, located 20357 S. Peoria.
Presentation:
Jerry Shanns, 20209 S. Peoria, stated he gave his daughter and
son-in-law a five-acre tract with access easement.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked if the front portion of the property is developed. Mr. Shanns replied that it is not. Mr. Hutson asked about the
easement. Mr. Shanns responded it
has already been recorded on the deed for 35’ for ingress/egress, and
utilities. Mr. Alberty asked if he
planned to divide the land any further.
Mr. Shanns replied that he had no plans for further division of the
property. He further stated that
the property has been in his family for many years. Mr. Walker asked for the applicant to
point out the property lines on the map.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested
parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Walker, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a
Variance of the required
30’ frontage on a public street to 0’ to get a lot split, as presented, finding
that it is a family arrangement, the lot has substantial acreage, and 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:
W/2 SE NW NW,
Section 18, T-16-N, R-13-E, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit outdoor produce sales in an AG district. SECTION 310. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 2; a Variance of requirement for paved parking
to permit gravel. SECTION
1340.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS; Variance to 30-day period for temporary open-air
activities. SECTION 1202.3.A. USE
UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USES, Use Conditions, located: NE/c E. 131st St. S. & S.
145th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Diane Fernandez read the Action Requested, and added that there was a
previous CBOA Case No. 1384, with conditions for this property approved in
1995. Mr. Alberty asked if it was
expired and she replied that it was expired.
Randy Sullivan, 14555 E. 131st St. Broken Arrow,
Oklahoma, stated that he wants to continue having a produce stand at this
location, which was used for the same purpose for the last five years by a
previous tenant. He would also like
to sell a few flats (10) of flowers with the produce. He would like to use the property from
mid-April to Labor Day.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Tyndall asked how much of the property he would use. Mr. Sullivan replied he would use
the south twenty acres, to grow the produce and sell it on the corner of the
property as shown in the application.
Mr. Hutson asked if the conditions placed on the last approval were
satisfactory to him. Mr. Sullivan
responded that they were satisfactory.
Mr. Walker asked if there was a condition for selling only what was grown
on the property. Mr. Sullivan
replied that they sold produce grown at other sites also.
Interested
Parties:
There were no other
interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dillard, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to permit outdoor
produce sales in an AG district; a Variance of requirement
for paved parking to permit gravel; and a Variance to 30
day period for temporary open-air activities, with conditions: use permitted
from mid-April to Labor Day; 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., seven days per week;
subject to County approval for ingress and egress; gravel lot to be compatible
with the area; permitting the sale of potted flowers, for a period of five years
from April 2001, finding the use as presented to be appropriate per previously
approved Case No. 1384, on the property described as
follows:
W/2 W/2 SW/4 and
W/2 SE/4 SW/4 SW/4, Section 3, T-17-N, R-14-E, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit sales of produce in an AG district. SECTION 1202.3. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES – Use
Unit 2; and a Variance to 30-day period for temporary open-air activities. SECTION 1202.3.A. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Use
Conditions, located 7604 W. 51st St.
Presentation:
Rex Koelsch, 6324 S. 80th W. Ave., stated he plans to
grow produce and allow members to pick their own. He would like to be open from April
1st through October 31st. He would like to do this indefinitely
but if there is a five-year limit he would want the maximum time.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked if he lives on the property. Mr. Koelsch replied that he does not
live there yet, but he plans to build on the property in a couple of years. Mr. Alberty asked if he plans to sell
only what is grown there. He wants
to sell only produce he grows. He
plans to grow organically only. Mr.
Walker asked if the auto body shop nearby made any impact on him in any
way. He replied that it has not.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested parties
present who wish to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Walker, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to permit sales of
produce in an AG district; and a Variance to 30 day period for
temporary open air activities, for a period of five years, from April to
October, as presented, finding the growing/producing season is longer than 30
days and would be necessary to make fresh produce available to the public, on
the following described property:
NE NW & N/2
SE NW lying S of West 51st St. & W of line Beg. 150’ W SE/c N/2
SE NW & cont. N to S line road, less Beg. NW/c NE NW, thence S approximately
340’ E 90’ N 220’ E 80’ N 120’ W approximately 170’ POB, Section 31, T-19-N
R-12-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 30’ street frontage to 0’ in order to put a
dwelling on the property. SECTION
207. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED – Use
Unit 6, located 4922 S. 230th W. Ave.
Presentation:
Ron Huelsenbeck, 614 Terrace Dr., Sand Springs, Oklahoma, the
subject property address has changed to 4781 S. 230th W. Pl. He submitted an easement grant (Exhibit
D-1). He stated that he was trying
to clear the deed.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested
parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Hutson, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a
Variance of the required
30’ street frontage to 0’ in order to put a dwelling on the property, finding it
would otherwise be landlocked, and 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, for the following described property:
A tract of land
located in the W/2 SE/4 of Section 28, T-19-N, R-10-E of the IBM, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Beg. at a
point on the S line of Section 28, 850’ E of the SW/c SE/4; thence N 1209’ to
the POB; thence W 315’; thence N 771’; thence E 565’; thence S 935’; thence W
250’; thence N 164’ to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required lot area from 2.0 acres to 1.266 and the land
area from 2.2 to 1.563 and 1.44 acres to allow a lot split. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located 8301 E. 132nd St.
N.
Presentation:
Kathy Allen, 8301 E. 132nd St. N., stated she needs a
variance on this road front property to allow a lot split. She added that she would like to build
on the east end of her property in the future. She stated that she has contacted all of
her neighbors and no one had objections.
The PERC test has been done and approved. Ms. Allen indicated there would be about
1.25 acres for each piece of property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked if she has had the property surveyed. She replied that she was waiting until
after this hearing to obtain a survey.
He asked if she plans to sell part of the property. She responded that she would probably
sell part of it later. She stated
she has been cleaning up the property, removing old buildings, and planting
trees.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested
parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Walker, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a
Variance of the required
lot area from 2.0 acres to 1.266 and the land area from 2.2 to 1.563 and 1.44
acres to allow a lot split, finding the nature of the area is residential, this
use would be in character with the actual use of the land, and 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.
A 3.01 acre tract
of land situated in the NW/4 of Section 36, T-22-N, R-13-E of the IBM, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma, more particularly described, to-wit: Beg. at a point
N 00º07’30” E a distance of 317.12’ and due E a distance of 659.44’ from the
SW/c NW/4 of Section 36, thence N
00º07’30” E a distance of 198.96’ to a point; thence due E a distance of 659.44’
to a point; thence S 00º07’30” W a distance of 198.96’ to a point; thence due W
a distance of 659.44’ to the POB; Subject to a 25’ roadway and water line
easement on the S, subject to a 25’ roadway and water line easement on the W and
subject to a 10’ utility easement on the E.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow two dwelling units on one lot of record. SECTION
208. ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER
LOT OF RECORD – Use Unit 6, located 12526 N. Garnett Rd.
Presentation:
Thomas Peevy, P.O. Box 752, Owasso, Oklahoma 74055, stated he
bought five acres about 600’ west of the residence shown in the agenda
packet. The doublewide mobile was
on the property when he purchased the land. He did not realize at the time that he
needed a Variance.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked if he planned to occupy both. He replied that his daughter would live
in one and his shop foreman would
live in the other.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested parties
present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Tyndall, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a
Variance to allow two
dwelling units on one lot of record, subject to conditions to use tie-downs,
skirting, soil percolation test and all other permits, finding the owner wants
to keep the land under one ownership, on the following described property:
S 248.52’ N
497.03’ E 440.90’, Gov’t. Lot 1, less E 16.5’ thereof, Section 6, T-21-N,
R-14-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Use Variance to permit an auto dealer in an AG district. SECTION 310. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 6, located 14220 E. 93rd Pl.
N.
Presentation:
Darrell Boyd, 14220 E. 93rd Pl. N., stated he collects
and restores classic automobiles.
He stated that he has a 40’ x 60’ shop building that is toward the back
of his property. He added that he
was on a gravel dead end private road.
He contacted the nearby homeowners and developers to see if they would
have any objection to him keeping his autos in the shop building only. He informed them that everything would
be kept inside and he would see customers by appointment only.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked how many vehicles he anticipated having a one
time. Mr. Boyd responded not more
than four or five. Mr. Alberty
asked if he planned to pull any cars outside for viewing or hang flags or
streamers. Mr. Walker asked about
auto parts stored outside. Mr. Boyd
replied that no equipment or auto parts would be stored outside.
Interested
Parties:
Steve Compton, P.O. Box 397, Owasso,
Oklahoma, stated he was not really protesting but wanted to voice some
concerns. He stated he is the
manager of a development company.
He pointed out the areas that are being developed for single family
residential. He added that in the
near future these areas would be taken into the City limits of Owasso. He stated he wanted to be sure that
appropriate conditions were placed on the application, such as all vehicles kept
inside the building. He suggested
that a time limitation be placed on the approval for review and opportunity for
future residents to have some say.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dillard, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a Use Variance to permit an auto dealer
in an AG district, with conditions for maximum of five autos, all autos stored
inside only, limited to ten years, no employees but spouse and family, limited
to a 32 square foot sign on the west side, and customers seen by appointment
only, finding it would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or
impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive
Plan:
Beg. 661.41 W of
the NE/c SE NE, thence S 661.31 W 331.26 N 661.08 E 331.19 to the POB Section
21, T-21-N, R-14-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 30’ frontage on a public street to 0’. SECTION 207. STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED – Use Unit 6,
located 16920 N. 117th E. Ave.
Presentation:
Bob Eberle, 16919 N. 117th E. Ave., Collinsville,
Oklahoma, stated he proposes to build a home on his property. He pointed out that the paved road ends,
and he has a 50’ easement to the property.
He added that there is no county maintained road
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty asked if Garnett Road is open. Mr. Eberle replied that it is not open,
it dead-ends at the cul-de-sac.
Interested
Parties:
Don Able, 16829 N.
113th E. Ave., stated he owns the property just north of the subject
property. He wanted to know what
the applicant planned to do with the land.
He indicated that this application was not following the laws for
subdivision. He also indicated that
the applicant did not own the land.
Terry Ishmael, 16818 N.
117th E. Ave., stated that he owns 660’ of the easement that runs to
the cul-de-sac on the west side of the road. He stated that when he built his house
he contacted the County for specifications and help to put in the drainpipe, and
they stated they would not because it was a private road. He indicated that they just want to
provide a private drive for the other house and leave the County out of it for
maintenance.
Comments and Questions:
Mr. Alberty informed the applicant and interested party that the Zoning
subdivision regulations were written to give standards for these
transactions. The County Board of
Adjustment was created to prevent wildcat subdivisions, where land is subdivided
without the benefit of the County reviewing the subdivision, streets and roads,
based on county standards. He
stated that the previous owner had tried to circumvent the law to divide the
land without meeting the County standards. Mr. Ishmael stated they do not
know how to fix the problem, and asked the Board for information. He added that the previous owner split
off property several times, and now they are left with the mess. Mr. Alberty asked if he has a deed. Mr. Ishmael replied that he has a
deed. Mr. Alberty suggested
he might need an attorney to review the deed.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dillard, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to CONTINUE Case No. 1828 to the
hearing on April 17, 2001, to allow time to obtain a history on this property
from the previous owner.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow 180’ monopole cell tower and modification of
required 110% distance from AG zoned district. SECTION 320.2.A.4.(1) ACCESSORY USES IN AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions and SECTION 1204.3.C.7.(a) USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC PROTECTION AND UTILITY
FACILITIES, Use Conditions – Use Unit 4, located NE/c E. 116th St. N.
& US-75.
Presentation:
Roy Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 501, stated he
represented AT&T Wireless Services.
He stated they propose to place a 180’ monopole cell tower on the subject
property. He submitted a site plan,
photo, and the engineer’s report of coverage needed for this area (Exhibits E-1,
E-2, E-3). To the north are
agricultural uses and residential structures, to the south is a salvage yard, to
the east is a residence, to the west is agricultural and U.S. 75. Mr. Johnsen pointed out that on the west
side of U.S. 75 there is a major electric transmission line that is quite high
and very visible. The general area
would be appropriate for some sort of commercial use in the future and long-term
use is non-residential, which would mean no setback would be required. The surrounding topography is flat
and rare tree coverage.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Alberty stated that the 110% was considered to be an appropriate
standard and to vary it requires justification. Mr. Alberty asked if there was any
reason why the location could not be moved 200’ south to comply with the
standard. Mr. Johnsen suggested
that moving it to the west would be better than moving it south to the prime
portion of the property. Mr.
Alberty asked if there was enough room to move it to the west far enough to
comply. Mr. Johnsen indicated that
the location could probably be moved far enough west, though it may be
tight. The monopole design is of
galvanized steel, with nine antenna and capacity for collocation, storage
shelter at base is 12’ x 28’ on a 50’ x 50’ site, surrounded by 6’ barbed wire
fencing. Ingress and egress on new
gravel drive would be constructed to match existing grades to public road. Mr. Alberty stated that the twelve
factors for consideration have been addressed and may be summarized as
submitted.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested
parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Walker, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to allow 180’ monopole
cell tower and modification of required 110% distance from AG zoned district,
with condition that tower be located mid-way of east/west property lines,
finding all 12 factors to be met as submitted, on the following described
property:
The S/2 SE/4 SE/4
and the S/2 NW/4 SE/4 SE/4 of Section 4, T-21-N, R-13-E of the IBM, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 220’ monopole wireless telephone
transmission tower in 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, located 6035 W. 40th St.
Presentation:
Kevin C. Coutant, stated that he has spoken with interested
parties regarding concerns and lack of notice. He requested a Continuance to April 17,
2001 to look into these matters.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Walker, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to CONTINUE Case No. 1830 to April
17, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to construct a 120’ monopole cellular transmission
telephone tower on AG zoned property.
SECTION 1204.C.3. & 5.
USE UNIT 4. PUBLIC
PROTECTION AND UTILITY FACILITIES – Use Unit 4, located S of E. 106th
St. N., W of Mingo.
Presentation:
Kevin Coutant, submitted an exhibit packet with color photographs
(Exhibit F-1). He covered the 12
factors for consideration with the following findings: proposed tower is a 120’
galvanized steel monopole; in proximity to residential structures in excess of
300’, residential district approximately 300’, no existing towers in the
vicinity; surrounding uses on all side is agricultural; topography is flat,
minimal tree coverage; initially three slim-line antenna, and capacity to
collocate two similar antenna facilities; equipment building 12’x20’; ingress
and egress by 25’ access and utility easement east from N. Mingo Rd.; needed to
offload tower in Owasso, and provide system capacity in this area of town; tract
size 1,600 square feet, ‘parent’ tract 27.87 acres, probable development is
agricultural; and landscaping per Zoning Code.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested
parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Walker, the Board voted 5-0-0
(Alberty, Walker, Tyndall, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
no "absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to construct a 120’
monopole cellular transmission telephone tower on AG zoned property, finding all
twelve factors have been addressed as presented and met, on the following
described property:
N/2 NE/4 SE/4 NE/4, Section 13, T-21-N, R-13-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.
Date approved: ___________________________________
___________________________________
Chair