CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
January 9, 2001, 1:00 p.m.
Francis F.
Campbell City Council Room
Plaza Level
of City Hall
Tulsa Civic
Center
MEMBERS
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT OTHERS
PRESENT
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Prather,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Thursday, January 4, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., as well as at the City Clerks office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach stated the applicant has withdrawn, finding there is no need for more relief.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach stated the applicant has withdrawn this application.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr.
Beach stated the applicant has withdrawn this application.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr.
Beach stated an Interested Party made an untimely request on January 8, 2001 for
Continuance to January 23, 2001.
Comments and
Questions:
Chair
White asked Mr. Beach what reasons were stated for the Continuance request. Mr. Beach replied the Interested
Parties stated that they did not receive timely notice of the hearing, and that
the sign was not placed properly.
Chair White asked the applicant if a Continuance would be a problem for
him. Mr. Raskin responded that he
followed proper procedure for application, advertisement and notification, and
that the sign was placed properly.
Mr. Beach stated that notices were mailed out on time, December 28, 2000;
one was sent to one of the Interested Parties requesting Continuance. The Chair stated that the case would be
heard in order as on the agenda.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
the Minutes of December 12, 2000 (No. 809), as amended.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit a Bed and Breakfast Inn in an OL zoned
district. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL
USES PERMITTED IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS Use Unit 2, located 1819 E.
15th St.
Presentation:
Darrell Brown, 7204 E. 90th Pl., submitted a site plan
(Exhibit A-1) to the Board.
Comments and
Questions:
Chair
White recalled the legal description was in question last time. Mr. Brown pointed out Lot 17 only would
be used for the Bed and Breakfast.
Mr. Dunham asked about the sign that needed approval. Mr. Beach stated that the Code specifies
that the Board approve the size, type and location of all Bed and Breakfast
signs. Mr. Brown responded that the
sign plan is not available yet. He
requested that a sign plan be approved according to the maximum requirements of
the Code.
Mr. Cooper arrived at 1:17 p.m.
Mr.
Dunham stated the requirements for the benefit of the applicant, no larger than
5 x 5; no taller than 6; no closer to the front property line than 5; and
within 20 of the center of the property.
Mr. Brown indicated that was agreeable.
Interested
Parties:
No
interested parties wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to permit a
Bed and Breakfast Inn in an OL zoned district, per plan presented, and a sign be
permitted no larger than 5 x 5, illuminated by constant light, no taller than
6, no closer to the front or south property line than 5, to be located within
20 of the centerline of the property, on the following described
property:
Lot 17, Block 3, Terrace Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback requirements for parking and structure parking.
SECTION 1302.B. SETBACKS; a Special Exception for church use. SECTION 401.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 5; and a Variance
of height limitation from 35 to 51. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 4102 East 61st Street.
Presentation:
Before presentation, Jim Goodwin, 624 E. Archer, asked a few
questions regarding concerns of an interested party that Mr. White would need to
abstain. He submitted a letter
(Exhibit B-2) from 1994 regarding the White Surveying Company doing work on a
project on this property.
Discussion ensued and Chair White abstained on this case. Mr. Goodwin also informed the Board that
the sign of notice was not placed on the subject property. Mr. Prather stated that this matter
could be heard at this time or at the time for Interested Parties. Mr. Dunham stated that the applicant
could present while legal researched the issue of the sign placement.
Kevin C. Coutant, 320 S. Boston, asked for the case to be tabled
until this issue was decided. He
had submitted a packet to the Board, including the site plan and photographs
(Exhibit B-1).
Mr.
Dunham stated the Board would hear the next case.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required parking of 9 spaces to 8 spaces. SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES,
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, located 6287 E. 38th St.
S.
Presentation:
Lynn Coye, 6287 E. 38th St. came before the Board to
present her application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if she was seeking approval for the existing parking. Ms. Coye replied in the affirmative.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance of required
parking of 9 spaces to 8 spaces, finding the hardship to be the size of the lot
and the building is existing, on the following described
property:
The W 75 of the S 225
of Lot 1, Block 1, Wilmot Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback requirements
for parking and structure parking. SECTION 1302.B. SETBACKS; a Special Exception
for church use. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use Unit 5; and a Variance of height limitation from 35 to 51. SECTION 403.
BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 4102 East
61st Street.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Prather, informed the Board that the sign would need to be placed properly for the Special Exception but would not be required for the Variances. Mr. Coutant explained to the Board that the Special Exception previously granted did not cover the property in question. After discussion it was confirmed that the sign had not been placed on the property involved. Mr. Coutant asked for a Continuance rather than to present the Variances without the Special Exception at this time to avoid unnecessary confusion. Mr. Goodwin responded that he would give written notice to the Board to waive any further objection to the notice issue, once it is placed properly for the next hearing.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins,
Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White "abstained"; no "absences") to CONTINUE
Case No. 18923 to the hearing on January 23, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required side yard in an RM-2 district from 10 to 5 to
permit four duplex buildings on four lots. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Use Unit 7. Duplex Dwelling, located
W. 51st St. Ό mile W of S. Elwood Ave.
Presentation:
Dennis Hall, 4948 S. Union, stated they have property zoned RM-2
and split into 4 lots. He stated
they want to build duplexes and the property meets the requirements for RD
zoning. He added he wants to reduce
the side yard setback requirements to conform to RD zoning.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach stated that there is insufficient parking space. The parking for each duplex must be
side-by-side not end-to-end. Mr.
Hall responded that their plan is to provide side-by-side parking for each
unit. Mr. White asked if the 11
setback from the new property line would be a problem for the driveway
parking. Mr. Beach replied that
would not allow enough room for parking.
Mr. Hall assured them there would be plenty of depth and would move
everything back
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance of the required side yard in an
RM-2 district from 10 to 5 to permit four duplex buildings on four lots,
finding the hardship to be the zoning would allow greater density than what is
proposed, on the following described property:
Lot 3: The W 65 of the
W 440 and the W 24 of the E 60 of the W 125 of the W 440 all in NE/4 lying
N of the right-of-way of I-44, Section 35, T-19-N, R-12-E of the IBM, City of
Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Lot 2: The E 36 of the E
60 of the W 125 of the W 440 and the W 43 of the E 61.5 of the W 186.5 of
the W 440 all in NE/4 lying N of the right-of-way of I-44, Section 35, T-19-N,
R-12-E of the IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. Lot 1: The E 18.50 of the E 61.50 of
the W 186.5 of the W 440 and the E 61.5 of the W 248 of the W 440 all in
NE/4 lying N of the right-of-way of I-44, Section 35, T-19-N, R-12-E of the IBM,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for a mobile home dwelling in a CH zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 9, located 4120 E. Admiral Pl.
Presentation:
Paul Padgett, 4120 E. Admiral Pl., stated he desired approval for
a mobile home on his property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if this was the property behind the fence. Mr. Padgett replied that it is behind an
8 privacy fence. Mr. Dunham stated
that there appeared to be a mobile home on the property now. He replied that was correct. Mr. Dunham asked if he was seeking
approval for a mobile home already on the property. Mr. Padgett responded that was
correct. He stated that they have
had electrical engineers, and inspectors.
They have been approved on everything including plumbing, site plan, and
pad. Mr. White asked how long it
has been in place. Mr. Padgett
replied it had been there for three months. Mr. Padgett stated that when he found
out that he needed Board of Adjustment (BOA) approval, he stopped all activity
until the hearing.
Interested
Parties:
Dwight Jones,
4109 E. Admiral Boulevard, stated he has a lot behind the subject property on
the south. He stated that he had
lived in the area since 1945 and watched the development. He was concerned about anything that
would change the land use from something other than the CH zoning. He protested mobile homes in particular
and residential use also.
Chair
White stated that he had a letter of request for Continuance (Exhibit C-1) from Councilor Roscoe
Turner, though it was untimely.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if this was a mobile home or a pre-manufactured building. Mr. Padgett responded that it is a
manufactured home. Mr. Dunham asked
if the type of fence used was within the Code. Mr. Beach replied that the fence met
Code for a CH zoned district. Mr.
Cooper asked why the applicant felt it was necessary to live on the business
property. Mr. Padgett stated that
he has a recording studio, and does commercials for television and radio. He does not cater to the public and so
he does not need a sign. The fence
was for security for his business equipment and his family. He and his wife had hoped to have the
business running well enough to get a home at another location. Mr. Cooper asked if they see this as a
temporary situation. Mr. Padgett
responded that they do plan for it to be temporary. Mr. White asked if the house has a
foundation. Mr. Padgett stated that
it does have a foundation. Ms.
Perkins asked why he came to the BOA if the foundation and everything was
already done. Mr. Padgett replied
that in response to safety concerns brought to his attention by the electrician,
he discovered he needed to go before the Board.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Turnbo, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception for a mobile home dwelling in a CH zoned district, for a period of five years, 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 5, of the Resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, Block 1, and of Lot 1, Block 2, Rodgers Heights Subdivision to Tulsa County, Oklahoma, now an Addition to the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, less and except the N 29.25 previously conveyed to the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required 25 rear setback to 90 for addition to
existing garage. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 6, located S of SW/c E. 45th St.
& Columbia Ave.
Presentation:
Danny Mitchell, 4111 S. Darlington, stated he was the architect
for the project. He described the
setback problems. He suggested that
the owners would be open to a tie-agreement if needed.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Beach pointed out information in the packet from the original plat, and showed
in comparison to the current lot, that the lot appears to have been split at
some time.
Interested
Parties:
Herman Myer,
4605 S. Columbia, indicated that major renovations have been done on the
interior and exterior of the house.
He stated that this is the second application to the BOA on this
property. He added that he does not
know what the plans for the property are, and so he does not know whether he
should protest. He suggested that
it would help if the applicant would inform the neighbors of the plans so that
the neighbors could know how to respond to the applications. He suggests since the project has been
so long that the applicant should present the whole project to the BOA and deal
with it all at one time.
Richard
Gilmore,
4500 S. Columbia, stated that he had not planned to protest. He is in agreement with Mr. Myer that it
would help to know what the project is, so they can determine how it is going to
affect the street and neighborhood.
Sue
Wilson,
4545 S. Columbia, stated she does not understand what is being requested, and
was interested in more information.
Mr.
Mitchell described the intent was to expand the garage from a compact two-car to
a four-car garage. He stated that
during the necessary absence of the owner the large interior projects have been
accomplished. The applicant wanted
to make a change in the plans, which required this application.
Pearl
McLain
stated that she was the owner of the property directly south of the subject
property (no address given). She
informed the Board that she had owned her land for many years. She pointed out that the houses behind
her were built over a ravine and were now higher than her property. She stated her concern for stormwater
drainage. Mr. Beach informed Ms.
McLain that this issue was not in the BOA jurisdiction.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Mitchell stated that when they seek the building permit, they would have to meet
the requirements of the Stormwater Management Department. Mr. Mitchell stated
again that the owners were willing to sign a tie-agreement. Mr. Beach reminded him that one lot is
in a PUD and if they chose to have a tie-agreement, then the PUD would have to
be amended to include the other lot.
Mr. Cooper asked for the hardship to be stated. Mr. Mitchell replied the size and
configuration of the lot. Mr.
Cooper asked what prevented him from keeping it at the non-conforming standard
that exists. Mr. Mitchell indicated
there was not enough depth on the property. Board discussion
ensued.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 2-3-0 (Dunham, Cooper "aye";
White, Turnbo, Perkins "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance of the required 25 rear setback to
90 for addition to existing garage, finding there is not a satisfactory
hardship. Motion failed for lack of
three affirmative votes.
On
MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") for
Reconsideration of the motion and vote on Case No. 18946.
On
MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance of the required 25 rear setback to
90 for addition to existing garage, finding there is no hardship.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of setback from 50 to 49 to permit an existing
encroachment. SECTION 703. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 11, located E. 21st St. & S.
Garnett.
Ms. Turnbo stated she would abstain.
Presentation:
Brad Beasley, 100 W. 5th St., Ste. 800, stated he
represented the owner of the subject property. This is an existing structure, a medical
clinic. Mr. Beasley stated the
request and reason for the application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked if this was for title clearance. Mr. Beasley replied that it was. Mr. Dunham asked if it was to approve an
existing condition. Mr. Beasley
replied in the affirmative.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested parties who
wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-1(White, Dunham, Perkins,
Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; Turnbo "abstained"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance of setback from 50 to 49 to
permit an existing encroachment, to correct an existing condition, on the
following described property:
Lots 14, 15, Block 2, 21 Garnett Place, a Resubdivision of Part of Lot 1 and Lots 2, 3, Garnett Plaza, an addition in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No.
18948
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a detached accessory building (carport) in the front
yard. SECTION 402.B. ACCESSORY USES
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions Use Unit 6; and a Variance
of front building line requirement of 25 down to 5.3. SECTION 403.A. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE,
RS, RD, RT and RM Districts, located 11503 E. 7th
St.
Presentation:
Betty Reynolds, (no address given), stated that she and her
husband went to get a permit to build a carport and they were told to, go ahead
and put it up. She offered to give
the persons name. She stated that
after the carport was built someone from Public Works asked if they had a
permit. She added that they
returned to the permit office, paid the fee. She stated they were informed they could
pick up their permit in a couple of days, but they were given a letter of
denial. Ms. Reynolds stated that
they went to INCOG to make application and paid the fees. She submitted a letter of petition with
neighbors signatures, and photographs of the carport (Exhibits D-1 and
D-2).
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
White asked when the carport was built.
She replied that it was built in November, 2000. Mr. White stated that there are other
carports existing in the neighborhood.
Mr. White checked with Mr. Beach regarding the attachment and physical
support of the carport. Mr. Beach
responded that it qualified as a detached carport.
Board
discussion ensued. Mr. Cooper
stated that he would request the City Council to look at this issue in their
work program for 2002. He indicated
that better communication could avoid unnecessary confusion and expense. Ms. Perkins and Mr. Dunham pointed out
that the applicant did everything she was supposed to do.
Interested
Parties:
Mr.
White noted that the Board has petitions signed by eleven neighbors signatures
of approval of the application.
There were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance to allow a detached accessory
building (carport) in the front yard; and a Variance of front
building line requirement of 25 down to 5.3, finding there are other carports
in the area, there are no protests and the neighbors that would be most affected
are in support of the application, on the following described
property:
A part of Lot 17, Block 8, Western Village, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, more particularly described as follows: Beg. at the SW/c of Lot 17, Block 8, Western Village; thence N 78Ί51.5 E on the S property line of Lot 17, a distance of 68.0 to the SE/c of Lot 17; thence N 11Ί08.5 W a distance of 120.0 to the NE/c of Lot 17; thence S 78Ί51.5 W a distance of 61.30 to a point; thence S 7Ί56.60 E a distance of 120.19 to the POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case
No.18949
Action Requested:
Special Exception to permit a monopole cellular tower and accessory uses
in an RS-1 district. SECTION
401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Unit 4, located E of NE/c E. 36th St.
& Lewis.
Presentation:
Mr.
Beach pointed out that the application is for a cellular antenna to be located
on an existing power pole, and accessory uses in an RS-1
district.
Dennis Fox, 522
Colcord Drive, Oklahoma City, OK, a municipal lawyer in the State of Oklahoma,
stated he represented Sprint.
He stated that Robert Crain is the site acquisition specialist, and
present at this hearing. Mr.
Fox stated that this pole is within 150 of an existing PSO tower with an
antenna. He reminded the Board that
the case regarding that tower went on to court, and the court found in favor of
the Board of Adjustment (BOA). He
submitted a site plan and photographs (Exhibit E-1 and E-2). He described the proposed antenna as a
treetop antenna to be placed on an existing 75 power pole.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham asked if they could collocate with the existing tower. Mr. Fox replied that structurally, they
could not collocate because they would need ten feet of separation and the
proposed antenna needs to be at the same height as the existing antenna. Mr. Fox stated that the need for this
antenna is for adequate coverage.
He submitted a grid (Exhibit E-3) showing the area
coverage.
Robert Crain, pointed out the areas, on the grid map, lacking
coverage because of the hilly topography of the area. Mr. Dunham asked about the ground
facility for this antenna. Mr.
Crain showed the Board where the cabinets would be located in a notched area in
the fence. The cabinets would be
about 5 x 6. PSO and Sprint have
a working relationship with a master lease agreement in place to collocate on an
existing power pole, which fits their needs structurally, where available. Sprint proposed to put the cabinets in
that spot with a privacy fence and landscaping for screening.
Mr. Fox reviewed each of the
following eleven criteria, stating Sprints response to each for this
application. The height of the
existing pole is 75 and with the antenna it would be no more than 85; the
proximity of the tower to residential structures would be in excess of 230 to
280, residential district boundaries abutting all sides and an existing tower
is 50; Nature of
uses on adjacent and nearby properties are: a power station on north, a SWB
station on south and fire station on southwest; surrounding topography is hilly
and rolling; surrounding urban tree coverage and wooded in the general area;
existing power pole; the antenna proposed has three sides and two antennas on
each side, and the proposed pole would not accommodate collocation; the 5 x 6 cabinets would be surrounded
by an 8 stockade fence around a 20 x 20 leased area; proposed ingress and
egress would be off of 36th Street; the need for a communications
tower within the immediate geographic area to provide an acceptable level of
communications service to the area was demonstrated by maps and requirement by
federal mandate to provide full coverage; the size of the tract is 453 x 135,
and most likely there would be no future development other than utilities. Mr. Beach stated the landscaping
requirements, and Mr. Fox replied that they do not want a variance from any of
the landscaping requirements, and Sprint plans to comply. Mr. Beach asked if they would need to
remove any existing trees. Mr. Fox
responded that a few evergreens would be removed but they would replace
them.
Chair White out at 3:35.
Interested
Parties:
Sheila Brunton, 3507
S. Lewis, stated that she lives directly north of the PSO station. She stated that she has contacted PSO
multiple times by letter, phone, and in person regarding the need for better
screening and landscaping at this site.
She added that the response was that they indicated it is one of the
better PSO sites.
Chair White
returned at 3:37.
Ms.
Brunton stated that in 1998 AT&T proposed to put an antenna on the existing
pole. She complained that the
landscaping that was planted was poorly tended, and some trees died. She indicated that it as
unsightly. Ms. Brunton also pointed
out the elevation of the site makes it even more visible.
Bonnie
Henke,
3449 S. Atlanta Pl., stated that she and her husband sent a letter of protest
that is in the agenda packet. She
complained that promises made by the prior applicant have not been kept. Ms. Henke pointed out that there are
several residents within the 300 radius that did not receive notice of this
case. She submitted photographs to
the Board (Exhibit E-2).
Frank
Henke,
3449 S. Atlanta Pl., stated he has been before the BOA many times regarding this
site. He protested the application
for reasons of safety because 36th Street as a bicycle route, and
also that PSO has no information regarding the wind strength of the power pole
foundations. He added that the BOA
had been informed in a previous case that these poles were designed as
anti-climbing poles. Mr. Henke
stated that the electrical apparatus are within ten feet of the ground and can
easily be climbed.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dunham commented that the power pole and equipment is an existing
condition. Mr. Henke responded that
it was not an existing condition, because an additional box was placed on the
pole with metal bands. Mr. Henke
noted that this AT & T pole is the only location in Tulsa that does not have
a safety fence around it. Ms.
Turnbo asked if he was going to ask PSO to remove the existing tower because he
feels they are not safe. He replied
that he has not contacted them, but he intends to. He stated that in his opinion this is an
extension of a non-conforming use.
Applicants
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Fox pointed out that Sprint is putting up this antenna because of the federal
mandate to provide adequate coverage.
He stated that the best place to put a new antenna is on an existing
pole. He assured the Board that
Sprint would do whatever necessary to landscape and maintain it. Mr. Fox considered the power lines to be
the biggest safety issue and yet they were going to remain. He stated they are simply trying to
blend in with the existing conditions.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception to permit a monopole cellular tower and accessory uses in an RS-1 district, finding: height of the existing pole is 75 and with the antenna it would be no more than 85; the proximity of the tower to residential structures would be in excess of 230 to 280, residential district boundaries abutting all sides and an existing tower is 50; nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties are: a PSO power station on northeast, a condominium on northwest, a SWB station on southeast and fire station on southwest, and RS-1 to the north and east; surrounding topography is hilly and rolling; surrounding urban tree coverage and wooded in the general area; existing power monopole; the antenna proposed has three sides and two antennas on each side, and the proposed pole would not accommodate collocation; the 5 x 6 cabinets would be surrounded