Opinion ID: 163795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The City's Denials

Text: 22
23 Prior to the Planning Commission's April 26, 2001, meeting, Farhad Daroga, the City's Planning Director, prepared an Agenda Packet setting forth the background information concerning SP-149. In particular, Planning Director Daroga discussed the degree to which SP-149 conformed with the Zoning Ordinance. In his report, Planning Director Daroga made the following observations: (1) SP-149 did not conform to the Zoning Ordinance's setback requirements; (2) SP-149's proposed site was zoned AR-1, a transitional-zoning category, and under applicable law no new use could commence on the tract until appropriate conventional zoning was obtained and the site had been platted; 6 (3) an alternative suitable site existed for U.S. Cellular's proposed 120-foot monopole tower, located one-half mile from SP-149's proposed site on the east side of County Line Road; and (4) SP-149 did not include a landscape plan, as required under the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Planning Director Daroga recommended that the Planning Commission deny SP-149. All members of the Planning Commission received a copy of the Agenda Packet. 24
25 On April 26, 2001, 7 the Planning Commission considered SP-149. At the beginning of the hearing, Planning Director Daroga addressed the Planning Commission and discussed the findings contained in the Agenda Packet he had prepared. Planning Director Daroga recommended denying SP-149, stating that the application does not meet the minimum setback requirements, which is 120 percent, and the property is zoned R-1, the zoning code calls for discouraging cell towers in residential-zoned districts. 8 Later in the hearing, Planning Director Daroga noted that there were several alternative sites within one-half mile of the proposed site and an existing tower just over one-half mile away suitable for co-location. He presented no evidence relating to the adequacy of these sites. 26 Following Planning Director Daroga's opening remarks, Kevin Coutant, an attorney for U.S. Cellular, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Coutant stated that SP-149's primary objective was to enable U.S. Cellular to provide coverage on the Creek Turnpike, in anticipation of increased demand. During his presentation, Mr. Coutant attempted to address several of the concerns raised in the Agenda Packet and in Commission members' comments, including questions relating to: (1) the Zoning Ordinance's setback requirements; (2) alternative sites; (3) the Zoning Ordinance's prohibition against new uses in transitional-zoning areas; and (4) the City's general policy disfavoring the construction of cellular towers within single-family residential areas. 27 Concerning the setback issue, Mr. Coutant argued that, under a fair reading of section 18.14, SP-149 complied with the Zoning Ordinance's setback requirement because the property along the south border of the East Avenue property was zoned for agricultural use rather than residential use. 9 28 With respect to the prohibition against new uses on transitionally-zoned property, Mr. Coutant requested that the Planning Commission approve SP-149 subject to subsequent rezoning. Mr. Coutant suggested that it made little economic sense for U.S. Cellular to incur the costs associated with obtaining the zoning change before the City approved SP-149. 29 Finally, Mr. Coutant asked Doyle Groat and Keith Sachs, two U.S. Cellular engineers, to respond to the concerns regarding alternative sites. In addition to Mr. Groat's general comments, Mr. Coutant referred the Commission to the coverage map, which U.S. Cellular had attached to its SP-149 application. Mr. Coutant explained that, in addition to providing coverage on the turnpike, which he had previously characterized as SP-149's primary objective, U.S. Cellular's decision to locate SP-149 on the East Avenue property was based on the fact that this location would enable it to achieve a multiplicity of objectives, including in-building penetration at Northeastern State University's Broken Arrow (NSU-BA) campus. 10 When Planning Director Daroga inquired whether U.S. Cellular had considered co-locating on the existing tower close to the NSU-BA campus, Mr. Sach responded: Yes — well, yes, we've considered that.... [I]t won't give us the type of service coverage we're — we're wanting not only for the [NSU-BA] campus but also for in-vehicle coverage along the turnpike section we'll be going in. U.S. Cellular offered no evidence to substantiate Mr. Sach's statement. 30 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny SP-149. The City Manager, Michael D. Kadlecik, then forwarded the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Mayor and the City Council in a report dated June 18, 2001. 11 31
32 On June 18, 2001, the City Council held its hearing on SP-149. During the hearing, City Council members expressed three primary concerns: (1) SP-149's noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance's setback requirements; (2) SP-149's impediment to residential development on and around the East Avenue property, in light of the Zoning Ordinance's setback requirements; and (3) the existence of alternative locations. 33 At the hearing, Mr. Coutant again appeared on behalf of U.S. Cellular. In addressing the City Council, Mr. Coutant discussed the concerns voiced at the earlier hearing before the Planning Commission. On the setback question, U.S. Cellular agreed to relocate the position of the tower on the proposed site, in order to conform with the Planning Commission's interpretation of section 18.14's setback requirement. 12 34 Mr. Coutant also responded to the Planning Commission's concerns about impeding residential development on the East Avenue property and the surrounding land. Initially, Mr. Coutant noted that our landlord, the owner of the property, is comfortable with the consequences of the impact of [the] tower on the entirety of that radius ... and his analysis suggest that this — this is a good utilization of his property. Mr. Coutant also disagreed with the Planning Commission's interpretation of section 18.14's setback requirement. Under Mr. Coutant's interpretation, the Zoning Ordinance did not prohibit residential construction within a 120-percent radius of a telecommunications tower; rather, it prohibited only tower construction within a 120-percent radius of residential construction. In other words, according to Mr. Coutant, section 18.14 placed a burden on [telecommunications providers] ... [but did] not prevent residential development around the tower. 35 Mr. Coutant next addressed the Zoning Ordinance's prohibition against new uses for transitionally-zoned property and again requested that the City Council conditionally approve SP-149, subject to U.S. Cellular securing the necessary conventional zoning and completing the platting. Specifically, Mr. Coutant stated, we understand and nod to the fact that your code does contemplate rezoning, but would ask for approval subject to that condition. 36 Finally, with respect to the availability of alternative sites, Mr. Coutant again referred the City Council to the coverage maps attached to U.S. Cellular's SP-149 application while attempting to address City Council member's specific concerns. 37 Following this hearing, the City Council adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation and denied SP-149. On July 17, 2001, Planning Director Daroga, on behalf of the City, sent written notification of the City Council's decision to U.S. Cellular, as required under article VIII, section 18.16 of the Zoning Ordinance. The letter set forth the following four reasons 13 supporting the City Council's denial: (1) U.S. Cellular's proposed tower did not meet the Zoning Ordinance's setback requirements; (2) U.S. Cellular's proposed site was zoned AR-1, a transitional-zoning category, and under applicable law no new use may commence on land until appropriate conventional zoning is obtained; (3) U.S. Cellular's proposed site was zoned AR-1, a designation similar to the R-1 single-family residential designation, and applicable law prohibited telecommunications towers with heights in excess of 50 feet on any property actually used for a single-family residential purpose; and (4) other suitable sites existed for U.S. Cellular's proposed telecommunications tower, specifically, an existing tower one-half mile north of U.S. Cellular's proposed site. Planning Director Daroga enclosed the following supporting materials with the letter: (1) the Planning Commission's Agenda Packets, dated March 22, 2001, and April 26, 2001; (2) the City Manager's report to the City Council, dated June 18, 2001; (3) the minutes of the Planning Commission's hearings on March 22, 2001, and April 26, 2001; and (4) the minutes of the City Council's hearing on June 18, 2001. The letter concluded with the following: If you wish to pursue a site for a telecommunications tower in the vicinity discussed, we would be glad to work with you and your clients and suggest additional sites within this area.
38
39 Planning Director Daroga also prepared the Agenda Packet for SP-150. In his report, Planning Director Daroga recommended denying SP-150 for the following reasons: (1) SP-150's proposed site was zoned AA-1, a transitional-zoning category, and under applicable law no new use may commence on land prior to the applicant obtaining appropriate conventional zoning and the completion of platting and site-plan review; 14 (2) the City Council had approved SP-150's proposed site for A-1 zoning, towers are normally discouraged in A-1 zoning districts, and U.S. Cellular had not presented clear and convincing evidence supporting its application, as required under the Zoning Ordinance; (3) at least two alternative suitable sites existed for U.S. Cellular's proposed 240-foot tower, one located one-half mile south of the South Oneta Road property and another located one and one-half miles southwest; and (4) SP-150 did not include a landscape plan, as required under the Zoning Ordinance. The report also noted that the Cambridge Estates subdivision bordered SP-150's proposed site to the north and west and stated that [a] 240-foot high tower adjacent to single-family homes is not a desirable land use. All members of the Planning Commission received a copy of the Agenda Packet prior to the hearing on SP-150. 40
41 On April 26, 2001, the Planning Commission held its hearing on SP-150. Planning Director Daroga presented a brief overview of SP-150 and gave his recommendation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coutant again appeared on behalf of U.S. Cellular. 42 Mr. Coutant first addressed the two alternative locations noted in the Agenda Packet. According to Mr. Coutant, neither site would ... give nearly the coverage that would support the location of a new facility or give the best benefit to the most citizens of the community. Mr. Coutant offered no evidence in support of this conclusion. Nor did the supporting materials for U.S. Cellular's SP-150 application address the technological or financial feasibility of either of the alternatives mentioned in the Agenda Packet. 43 Next, Mr. Coutant stated that the transitional zoning issue raised in the Agenda Packet was moot under his reading of the Zoning Ordinance, since the City Council had approved the South Oneta Road property for conventional zoning. Mr. Coutant went on to state, however, that regardless, [U.S. Cellular] would certainly entertain and — and be pleased to have an approval that had conditions that — that zoning had to be changed. 15 44 With respect to the Zoning Ordinance's policy statement disfavoring tower construction in A-1 areas, Mr. Coutant conceded, [n]o, that is exactly what your code says, and no, I — I can't disagree with that. Mr. Coutant also stated: 45 I would just suggest that because of the matters that have been presented and — and the need for service and the fact that this in one tower takes care of quite a broad area for the foreseeable future without imposing, in this sense, needless construction of multiple towers to provide the same range of service is — is a application that overcomes the [clear and convincing evidence] burden that you suggest. 46 Following Mr. Coutant's statements, six Broken Arrow residents spoke in opposition of SP-150, voicing concerns related to the tower's aesthetic impact. 16 In addition, at least two residents wrote letters to the Planning Commission strenuously objecting to SP-150. One resident spoke in favor of SP-150. 47 At the conclusion of the hearing, Planning Director Daroga stated: 48 Staff recommends that SP-150 be denied due to improper zoning and the zoning ordinance discouraging towers in the A-1 district. A-180 foot tower 17 adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood and their recreational area which comprises of the recreational amenities back there is an inappropriate use — land use in a — this site. This site is surrounded on three sides — or four by residential usage. 49 The Planning Commission then voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council deny SP-150. The City Manager forwarded the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Mayor and the City Council, in a report dated June 18, 2001. 18 50
51 On June 18, 2001, the City Council held its hearing on SP 150. During the hearing, Council members posed various questions to Mr. Coutant, who again appeared on behalf of U.S. Cellular. 52 Vice-Mayor Tony Petrik asked Mr. Coutant whether U.S. Cellular had prepared maps indicating the coverage a 100-foot tower would provide. Vice-Mayor Petrik presented other City Council members with photographs of a 100-foot camouflaged tower on church grounds in Sapulpa, Oklahoma. 19 Mr. Coutant indicated that U.S. Cellular had not prepared any such maps. In fact, Mr. Coutant stated that U.S. Cellular would not consider a 100-foot tower. 20 53 Several protesters appeared at the June 18, 2001, hearing. One citizen, Shelly Schaede, presented a petition disapproving of SP-150 signed by about 70 residents of the neighborhood bordering the South Oneta Road property. 54 As the hearing proceeded, City Council members expressed increased interest in the possibility of a 100-foot camouflaged tower. Councilman Wade McCaleb suggested postponing the Council's vote on SP-150, so that U.S. Cellular could consider such a modification and provide the City with a coverage map for a 100-foot tower. 55 Mr. Coutant initially dismissed the suggestion, stating: Gentlemen, excuse me. I ... appreciate the — the spirit of compromise that — that is suggested by the motion. I mean, we ... brought it down to 180 feet because that's ... the lowest that — that accommodates the need. Later in the hearing, however, Mr. Coutant indicated that U.S. Cellular would consider a 100-foot camouflage tower. The City Council then concluded the meeting and agreed to hold another hearing on July 16, 2001. 56 On July 16, 2001, the City Council held its second hearing on SP-150. At the outset, Planning Director Daroga noted that U.S. Cellular had submitted no additional information in response to the Council's June 18, 2001, request for additional information on the possibility of a 100-foot camouflaged tower. 57 Ms. Kelly Knopp Balman appeared on behalf of U.S. Cellular. Initially, Ms. Balman addressed the City Council's earlier suggestion of a 100-foot camouflaged tower. Ms. Balman stated: U.S. Cellular has discussed a 100-foot tower with their engineers and with the business personnel with respect to the economic aspects as well as the engineering needs of the cell network, and we have determined that the 100-foot... tower will not meet our needs. Ms. Balman submitted no evidence in support of this conclusion. 58 Mr. Groat, a U.S. Cellular engineer, also appeared on behalf of U.S. Cellular, to discuss the technical aspects of SP-150. Although Mr. Groat provided some explanation of U.S. Cellular's siting process, he offered no reports or other evidence to support U.S. Cellular's proposed site. Thus, U.S. Cellular's initial application packet and its attached coverage maps were the sole materials U.S. Cellular submitted to the City Council in support of its application. 59 At the conclusion of the July 16, 2001, hearing, the City Council voted unanimously to deny SP-150. On July 20, 2001, Planning Director Daroga sent a letter to U.S. Cellular on behalf of the City, confirming the City Council's denial, citing the following reasons: (1) U.S. Cellular's proposed site was zoned AA-1, a transitional-zoning category, and under applicable law no new use may commence on land until appropriate conventional zoning is obtained; (2) U.S. Cellular's proposed site was conditionally approved for A-1 zoning, and applicable law discourages tower construction in such areas and requires clear and convincing evidence of the applicant's need to construct within such area; (3) other suitable sites existed for U.S. Cellular's proposed telecommunications tower, including towers available for co-location; and (4) U.S. Cellular provided no materials in response to the City Council's request that U.S. Cellular consider a 100-foot camouflaged tower for the site, despite the fact that the City Council provided U.S. Cellular a month to do so. 60 The letter indicated that the City Council reached its conclusion based on [U.S. Cellular's] submittals, the Planning Commission recommendation, findings by the City Council, and the fact that all possible alternatives and the Zoning Ordinance were not followed. Planning Director Daroga enclosed the following supporting materials with the letter: (1) the Planning Commission's Agenda Packet, dated April 26, 2001; (2) the City Manager's reports to the City Council, dated June 18, 2001, and July 16, 2001; (3) the minutes of the Planning Commission's hearing on April 26, 2001; and (4) the minutes of the City Council's June 18, 2001, hearing. The letter concluded with the following: If you wish to pursue a site for a telecommunications tower in the vicinity discussed, we would be glad to work with you and your clients and suggest additional sites within this area.