CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
September 25, 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 |
Boulden,
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 Friday, September 21, 2001, at 11:30 a.m., as well as at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach announced that the applicant has withdrawn Case No. 19048. The applicant discovered a way to
re-stripe the parking lot and comply with the required number of parking spaces.
Action
Requested:
Mr. Beach announced that the applicant has withdrawn Case No. 19194.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Turnbo, the
Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
Dunham, Cooper "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of August
14, 2001 (No. 824).
On MOTION of Turnbo, the
Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions";
Dunham, Cooper "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of August
25, 2001 (No. 825).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a tent revival in a CS zoned district for 2001, 2002 and 2003 for three months each year. SECTION 1202.A. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Description -- Use Unit 2; and a Special Exception of the all-weather surface parking for off-street parking on property during activity. SECTION 1202.C. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Use Conditions, located 2602 N. Lewis.
Presentation:
Maurice James, applicant not present. The case was tabled to later on the
agenda.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow required off-street parking spaces on two lots
other than the lot containing the use.
SECTION 1301. GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 11, located SE/c E. 14th St. & S. Denver
& SW/c E. 14th St. & S. Carthage.
Presentation:
Joe Coleman, 610 S. Main, Ste. 200, stated he was representing his
architectural firm. He stated their
request for parking on two lots other than the one containing the use.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked if a tie-agreement would be needed. Mr. Beach replied that a tie-agreement
would be appropriate for all of their lots.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 3-0-0 (White, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Dunham, Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to allow
required off-street parking spaces on two lots other than the lot containing the
use, subject to a tie-agreement, 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:
Lots 2, 3, 4, 5,
6 and 11 less a tract described as follows: Beg. NW/c; thence E 15’; thence SW
to SW/c of Lot 11; thence N to POB, Block 1, Campbell Addition, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
The applicant was not present. The case was tabled to later on
the agenda.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to exceed the permitted display surface area for a sign in an AG district. SECTION 302.B.2.b. ACCESSORY USES PERMITTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, Accessory Use Conditions -- Use Unit 12, located 6841 S. Memorial Dr.
Presentation:
Mike Moydell, 1221 W. 3rd, proposes to put up a pole
sign to be seen from Memorial.
He submitted a site plan (Exhibit B-1) to the Board. He pointed out that there are
seven or eight other pole signs in the area.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Beach commented that the maximum height allowed is 20’. He asked Mr. Moydell what height he
planned. Mr. Moydell indicated that
he needed about 30’ in height because the property is about ten feet below the
street. Mr. Beach responded that
the applicant did not ask for relief for the height and that would require
advertisement. Mr. Dunham stated
the application is for 137.3 square feet, and asked what the maximum permitted
under the AG zoning. Mr. Boulden
asked for the hardship. Mr. Moydell
replied that the property is so far below the street level.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; no
"abstentions"; Cooper "absent") to APPROVE
a Variance to exceed the permitted display surface area of 138
square feet for a sign in an AG district.
SECTION 302.B.2.b, finding the property is about ten feet below the
street level, and the AG zoning, and to CONTINUE Case No. 19198 to
advertise for relief on the sign height to the meeting on October 23, 2001, on
the following described property:
Lot 1, Block 2,
Tract B, Woodland Hills Mall, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of height requirement of 40’ to 47’ for a pole sign. SECTION 1221.E. USE UNIT 21. BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, CG, CH, CBD, IL, IM, and IH Use Conditions for Business Signs -- Use Unit 21, located 7436 E. Admiral Pl.
Presentation:
Mike Moydell, 1221 W.
3rd, stated this application is regarding an existing 47’ pole sign
for Taco Beuno that has been in place since the late 70’s or early 80’s. They would like to replace it with a
sign of the same square footage of surface area and at the 47’
height.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked if they are trying to make it visible to Admiral or the
expressway. Mr. Moydell replied
they want it visible to both. Ms.
Perkins asked why not shorten the pole and keep the surface size. Discussion revealed that the height
limit is 31’ based on the location of the sign.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who 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 DENY
a Variance of height requirement of 40’ to 47’ for a pole sign,
finding a lack of hardship.
On a corrected MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Variance
of the height requirement from 31’to 40’ for a pole sign, finding it would be
consistent with other signs in the area appear to be in the 40’ range, on the
following described property:
E 236.40’ of the
W 531.40’ of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Tommy Lee, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow automobile repair and detailing in a CS zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 17, located 2711 E. Admiral Pl.
Presentation:
Robert Keeler, 2711 E. Admiral Pl., stated he is the owner of the
subject property. He is speaking
for the business owners that propose to increase the size of their car lot. Mr. White explained to Mr. Keeler that
the Board could hear the case for Lot 16 but not for Lot 17, because it would
require rezoning for Lot 17.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked what type of repair would be done there. Mr. Keeler replied it would be minor
repairs and detailing cars on the lot.
Ms. Turnbo asked if the work would be done inside. Mr. Keeler referred the question to one
of the owners.
Antonio Flores, 9733 E. 5th Pl., and Gerardo
Romero, 7466 E. 3rd St., the two business owners stated their
name and address.
Interested
Parties:
Maria Barnes,
2252 E. 7th, stated she is the President of the Kendall-Whittier
Neighborhood Association. She
expressed her concern that the lots are all fenced together and indicated it
would be difficult to inspect or monitor the different uses allowed. Mr. Boulden asked if there have been
complaints about the number of cars on the lot. Ms. Barnes replied that there have been
some complaints to the task force about too many cars and inoperable
cars.
Comments and
Questions::
Ms. Turnbo asked how many cars are on the lot. Mr. Flores replied there are about 40
cars on the lot. She also asked how
many are inoperable. He replied
that all of the cars are operable.
He submitted photographs and letters of support (Exhibit A-1 and
A-2). Ms. Perkins asked about the
surface material of the lot. He
replied that it is asphalt.
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 allow automobile
repair and detailing in a CS zoned district, on the conditions that all car
sales and or repair and detailing be confined to Lot 16; a fence separating Lot
16 an Lot 17; no car sales, repair or storage of vehicles be permitted on Lot
17; all cars offered for sale must be on an all-weather surface, all repairs and
detailing be done within a garage or enclosed building and no inoperable
vehicles to be stored on the premises; and no outside storage, 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:
Lots 16 and
17, Ozarka Place, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow indoor soccer facility in an IL zoned
district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 19; and a Variance of the all-weather surface for parking
on a portion of the tract. SECTION
1303.D. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, located S of SW/c E. 56th St. & S.
Garnett Rd.
Presentation:
Mendy Ward, 7912 E. 31st Ct., submitted an aerial
photograph (Exhibit C-1) of the area.
She stated the request for relief for an Indoor-Outdoor Soccer
Facility. She stated it would be
compatible with the area. It would
be inside an existing industrial building.
It would be used primarily in the nights and evenings. The City of Tulsa owns adjoining
property with a water retention area for floods.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked about the number of parking places. Ms. Ward replied there are about 40
paved parking spaces. She added
there is also parking on compacted gravel.
Mr. Dunham asked how many people maximum they would expect at a
time. Ms. Ward replied that 200
would be the maximum they expect at any given time. Mr. Dunham informed her that since they
have not asked for relief the parking requirement would be 134 spaces. Mr. White asked about the 20’
panhandle. Ms. Ward stated there is
an existing paved drive to the office building.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present 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 Special Exception to allow indoor soccer
facility in an IL zoned district, 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; and to CONTINUE Case
No. 19200 to the meeting on October 9, 2001 to hear the Special Exception of the
all-weather surface for parking, on the following described
property:
Block 1, Garnett
Place, less E 200’, S 300.49’ and less N 20’ thereof, City of Tulsa, Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow a swimming pool in a required front yard. SECTION 210.B.6. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards -- Use Unit 6; and a Variance for a 6’ privacy fence in the required front yard. SECTION 212.A.2. SCREENING WALL OR FENCE, Specifications, located 10118 S. Marion Ave.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach reminded the Board that a variance of the fence height can be granted by special exception, with no hardship finding required.
Donald Partridge, 10118 S. Marion Ave., stated he is doing
extensive landscaping in the backyard and in the front yard. They propose to put in a swimming pool
in the front yard. He added that it
is very narrow in the back and the building line makes it almost impossible to
put a pool in the backyard. He also
mentioned there is a creek that runs through the west portion of the
property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked if part of his land was in the floodplain on the
southeast corner. Mr. Partridge
replied that the creek runs on the west side of the property at a lower
elevation than the driveway.
Interested
Parties:
Richard Wells, 10115
S. Marion, stated that if they move the fence out toward street it would
obstruct the view of traffic. He
added that children play around that area.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham confirmed with Mr. Beach that the applicant is allowed to
build a four-foot fence in front of the 35’ building setback line, at the
property line.
Interested Parties:
Carol Swinson, 10106 S. Marion, stated she lives north
behind the applicant’s house. She
suggests that he put his pool on the west side where he already has a privacy
fence rather than in the front where a fence would block their view from the
driveway.
Applicant’s Rebuttal:
Mr. Partridge stated that the trees block the view as much as a fence
would. Mr. White asked for the
hardship. Mr. Partridge replied the
variance is the six-foot drop of elevation on back of house.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance to allow a swimming pool in a required front yard,
finding it would cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the
purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive
Plan.
On
MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY a Special
Exception for a 6’ privacy fence in the required front yard, finding
that it would not be in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and
would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a tent
revival in a CS zoned district for 2001, 2002 and 2003 for three months each
year. SECTION 1202.A. USE UNIT
2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
USES, Description -- Use Unit 2; and a Special Exception of the all-weather
surface parking for off-street parking on property during activity. SECTION 1202.C. USE UNIT 2. AREA-WIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES, Use
Conditions, located 2602 N. Lewis.
Presentation:
Leonel Robless, 1520 Richardson, Dr., Richardson, Texas, stated he
proposed to have a tent revival for two to three weeks per month for the months
of September, October, and November in the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham tried to confirm with the applicant that it would not exceed
21 days per month. Mr. Robless
responded that normally they do not last longer than 21 days. He added that they would like some
flexibility on the number of days.
Mr. Dunham asked what hours they would use the tent. Mr. Robless replied 7:00 p.m. to 10:00
p.m. Mr. Dunham asked the applicant
if he had seen the restrictions for approval that were made in 1998. Mr. Robless replied in the
affirmative.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present 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 Special
Exception to allow a tent
revival in a CS zoned district for 2001, 2002 and 2003 for September, October
and November each year, on condition that the revival not exceed 21 days in any
one month period, hours of operation be from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., public
address system restricted to interior of tent with no outside speakers; and a
Special Exception of the all-weather surface parking for
off-street parking on property during activity for the same periods, 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:
N 436’ of the S
486’ of the E 340’ of the SE/4 SE/4, Section 19, T-20-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa,
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a paint booth within 150’ of an R zoned district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 17, located 766 N. Lewis.
Presentation:
Antonio Flores, 9733 E. 5th Pl, stated he would
interpret for the applicant, Gilberto Bojorquez, 766 N. Lewis. Mr. Flores stated there is a body
shop on the property and they want to put in a paint booth.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham noted that the closest house is more than 150’ from the
property. Mr. White asked for the
type of paint booth. Mr. Flores
replied that Mr. Bojorquez is purchasing a paint booth from Car Mart, but he
does not have the specifics on materials and dimensions of the booth. Ms. Turnbo asked the name of the company
that would put in the booth. Mr.
Flores stated it is Auto Tech.
Interested
Parties:
Maria Barnes,
2252 E. 7th St., stated she is the President of Kendall-Whittier
Neighborhood Association. She
stated that she would like some proof that the booth will be installed at this
site, and that it meets EPA standards. She added that they have no
objection as long as those requests are met. She also requests there are not a lot of
cars parked on Lewis.
Board
discussion ensued.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Flores stated that the booth has been purchased and it will be
delivered with receipts and paperwork in three to four weeks.
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 allow a paint booth
within 150’ of an R zoned district, with conditions that it be a factory
installed, that meets all EPA regulations and City of Tulsa codes, 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:
E 80’ of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1, Cherokee Heights Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the allowable one-story
to 25’ to ridge and 18’6” to plate and to allow a two-story building (accessory)
in rear yard. SECTION 210.B.5.
YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards -- Use Unit 6, located 2660 E.
66th St.
Presentation:
James Boswell, 1305 E. 15th St., Ste 201, stated he is
the architect for the owners of the project. He stated that the detached carriage
house is not in the required rear yard, but 30’ off the rear property line. He added that the project was started
about two years ago prior to the revised zoning code in July. He stated they have contacted the
neighbors and they had no objections.
The second story would be a mother-in-law suite, with a bathroom and no
kitchen.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present 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 allowable one-story to 25’
to ridge and 18’6” to plate and to allow a two-story building (accessory) in
rear yard, with conditions that it be for one family, no kitchen facilities in
second story, and not to be rented out, 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:
The E 150.00’ of
the W 496.00’ of the E ¾ of the S/2 N/2 NE/4 SW/4 AND the E 10.00’ of the W
15.00’ of the E 165.00’ of the W 825.00’ of the S/2 N/2 NE/4 SW/4, all in
Section 5, T-18-N, R-13-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow Use Unit 25 (roofing contractor) in a CH zoned
district. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 25; and a Special Exception to waive screening on north
property. SECTION 701. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS, located 1411 E. 3rd St.
Presentation:
Jim Lane, 8 S. 109th E. Pl., stated he bought the
subject property with a 350 square foot metal building existing. He proposes to remodel the
interior of the building and put stucco on the building front with metal
panels. He plans to construct a
wrought iron fence around the front and place a 4500 square foot metal building
on the east side of the existing building for a sheet metal shop. They also do roofing of residential
homes.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham noted there were no overhead doors, and no access to the
alley. Mr. Lane stated there are
two doors on the south side and one on the east side. The new metal building will adjoin the
existing building on the east side.
Mr. White abstained from Case No. 19204.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Perkins, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; White "abstained"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to allow Use Unit 25
(roofing contractor) in a CH zoned district; and a Special Exception to waive
screening on north property, with condition that no vehicular access be
permitted from the alley to the building, 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:
Lots 14, 15 and
16, Block 15, Lynch and Forsythe’s Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Determination whether a proposed
use of the hereinafter described property as an establishment serving
intoxicating beverages and having multiple dance floors, one of which exceeds
1000 sq. ft. in area, is a night club or other use contained within Use Unit
12.A. Adult Entertainment Establishments or is a dance hall or other use
contained within Use Unit 19. Hotel, Motel and Recreation Facilities as set
forth within the Tulsa Zoning Code; and if the proposed use is determined to be
a dance hall or other use contained within Use Unit 19, Hotel, Motel and
Recreation Facilities, then the Board shall consider whether or not a Variance
of the required setback from a residential district should be granted; and that
the Board may make findings upon which the Board based its action of March 13,
2001 in Board of Adjustment Case No. 19012, located E of SE/c of E.
66th St. S. & S. Memorial Dr.
Presentation:
Roy Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 501, stated he was
representing Graham Brothers Entertainment (GBE) of Tulsa, LLC. He stated the history of this case
is that it came before this Board for a Special Exception to permit a nightclub
use, Use Unit 12.a, located 150’ from a residential district. He clarified that the 150’ as
applied to a use unit 12.a, refers to lot boundaries as opposed to the distance
from the building, and it was approved.
He added that the neighborhood association appealed the case to district
court. The opponents raised the
question that the use as it was proposed is a Use Unit 19, dance hall, as
opposed to a Use Unit 12.a, night club.
They also raised the question that no findings were made by the Board in
the minutes. Mr. Johnsen formally
requested findings from the March 13, 2001 hearing from the four members that
were present; and he submitted a list of proposed findings (Exhibit G-1).
Interested
Parties:
Greg Crawford, 900 OneOk Plaza, asked that findings for the Board
Action on March 13, 2001 be more specific than what Mr. Johnsen suggested. He indicated that Oklahoma
law requires more specific findings.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Boulden stated that the law does not necessarily require specific
findings. He stated he would not
have any objection to the findings as suggested by Mr. Johnsen on behalf of
GBE.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham,
Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; Turnbo "abstained"; no "absences") to make
findings upon which the Board based its action of March 13, 2001 in Board of
Adjustment Case No. 19012, that the approval of the Special Exception
to permit a nightclub use on a lot,
which is within 150’ of R zoned land, with conditions there be no outside
speakers or activity other than parking on the parking lot, security personnel
in parking lot for the hours of operation, 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Wednesday
through Sunday, and an 8’ masonry wall on north boundary, was based on the
findings 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.
Presentation:
Roy Johnsen stated the second issue of the case is coming back to
the Board from the court on remand.
The issue is whether the business falls within Use Unit 12.a or Use Unit
19. He submitted a packet of
exhibits to the Board (Exhibit G-2).
He quoted his summary of the proposed use as a business which is limited
to adult patrons 21 years of age and above, which sells and serves intoxicating
beverages and low point beer on the premises, and which has a floor show and
provides music, with multiple dance floors, one of which exceeds 1,000 square
feet in floor area. He pointed out
the floor plan in the exhibit that includes three different dance floors, with a
total dance floor area of 2,370 square feet. He quoted the Zoning Code regarding the
inclusion or exclusion of a principle use within a Use Unit, stating the Board
of Adjustment will make the decision.
It states that a use specifically listed in a use unit shall not by
interpretation be included within any other use unit. He further pointed out that U.U. 19 is
described as a commercial amusement establishments, ordinarily not requiring
large sites, which have use characteristics permitting their location in or near
development commercial trade areas.
He notes that dance hall is included in the list of uses. The code defines a dance hall as a
commercial establishment open to the general public, which provides a dance area
of 1,000 square feet or more; and night club as a commercial establishment open
at night to the general public, usually serving intoxicating beverages and or
low point beer, having a floor show and providing a space for dancing. He indicated that both use units appear
to apply, but in his opinion it most closely fits Use Unit
12.a.
Interested
Parties:
Greg Crawford, stated that Mr. Johnsen presumes ambiguity in the
Zoning Code. Mr. Crawford
understands the code to define any facility with a dance floor in excess of
1,000 square feet is considered a dancehall, and should have a 300’ setback from
a residential neighborhood.
He called the Board members’ attention to the packet of exhibits he
submitted (Exhibit G-3). Mr.
Crawford points out there is no ambiguity, that it is clearly under the
definitions in the code, a dance hall.
He asked the Board to consider the more restrictive language, requiring a
300’ setback.
Comments
and Questions:
Mr. Dunham asked Mr. Boulden if the size would be the most important factor to consider. Mr. Boulden replied that each part is an important factor. Mr. Dunham asked in which use were the other local dance halls over 1,000 square feet placed. Mr. Boulden indicated that most such establishments do not specify a use unit in a request, so they are probably found in both use units. Each use unit has unique problems that it can create within a district or in compatibility with adjoining districts.
Frank Speiglberg, 9032 E. 67th St., stated he lives in the Burning Tree Subdivisions and he is the attorney for the neighborhood association.&