COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday,
October 16, 2001, 1:30 p.m.
|
Alberty,
Chair |
|
Butler |
West,
Co. Inspections |
|
Tyndall |
|
Fernandez |
|
|
Walker |
|
Stump |
|
|
Hutson |
|
|
|
|
Dillard,
Vice Chair |
|
|
|
The notice
and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W.
5th St., Suite 600, Monday, October 15, 2001 at 11:30 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 September 18, 2001 (No. 256).
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS
Case No.
1910
Mr.
Alberty announced that Case No. 1910 was withdrawn.
Action
Requested:
Variance of minimum average lot
width to permit a lot split from 200’ to 165’. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6, located 4446 S. 162nd W.
Ave.
Presentation:
The
applicant, Tina Young, was not present.
The case was tabled to later in the meeting.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
NEW
APPLICATIONS
Case No.
1906
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit Use Unit 19 massage therapy in an IM
district. SECTION 910. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 19, located 10055 N. 56th
St.
Presentation:
Jay McCabe, 1516 S. Gary Ave., stated that he came before the
Board in January 2000 and obtained an exception. He followed through with his part but
the landlord did not take care of his legal responsibilities. Mr. McCabe has to move and has found a
new location.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Walker asked if this was a 20-acre site.
Mr. McCabe replied that he is only leasing 4,000 sq. ft. of a 27,000 sq.
ft. office. Mr. McCabe added that
they have 20 private parking spaces on the west side of the building, designated
by the landlord.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Walker,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty,
Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception to
permit Use Unit 19 massage therapy in an IM district, finding it will be in
harmony with the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following
described property:
Pt. of Block 2, Northeast Industrial District, Beg. at the SW/c of Block
2, thence E 995.00’ N 1955.55’ SWly 2184.70’ to POB, less S 10.00’ thereof for
street, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
Case No. 1907
Action
Requested:
Special Exception for a singlewide mobile home in an RS district. SECTION 410. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, located 813 E. 56th St.
N.
Presentation:
Kathy Baldazo, 6219 N. Gillette Ave., proposes to place a mobile
home on the subject property.
There are no other structures on the property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked about plans for sewer.
Mrs. Baldazo stated there is a septic tank and she is going to have it
tested. Mr. Walker asked if there
are other mobile homes near the subject property. She did not indicate any other mobile
homes. Mr. Walker asked her if she
owned the property. She replied
that she wanted to know if she could place a mobile home there before she buys
the property.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On Motion
of Tyndall,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty,
Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special Exception for
a singlewide mobile home in an RS district, with conditions for DEQ approval,
tie-downs, skirting, and building permits, finding it will be in harmony with
the spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood
or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
Prt. SE SE Beg. 753.00’ W and 387.70’ N SE/c SE, thence N 81.00’ W
430.30’, thence SW along E railroad right-of-way to a point 35.00’ N S line SE,
thence E 218.40’ N 5.00’ E 67.50’ N 347.70’ E 277.50’ POB, Section 1, T-20-N,
R-12-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to increase the permitted number of residents and out
patients from 150’ to 200’. Use
Unit 2, located at E. 61st St. N. & Cincinnati
Presentation:
Eric S. Grey, 13401 Railway Dr., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, stated
that the actual applicant is Southern Corrections Systems, Inc. He added that he is corporate council
for them. They propose to
increase occupancy to 200. In 1998
there were still cottages and the application for 250 was denied. In 1999 the cottages were removed and
one main facility was built. The
Fire Marshall approved the facility for up to 300+ occupancy. The residents are all female. They all work on crews or employed in
the community, and spend nights at the facility.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked what type of offenders live there. Mr. Grey stated that principally they
are non-violent offenders. Mr.
Walker asked if there have been increased calls to the sheriff or police
departments.
Tracey Hooks, stated she is the Administrator at Turley
Correctional Center. She
stated that since she has been there in excess of one year they have had no
calls placed to the sheriff’s department because of any incident that has
transpired at the facility pertaining to the inmates. She also stated that no law enforcement
involvement or incidents in the community are the result of the offenders.
Interested
Parties:
Elder
T. E. Jones, 4406
E. 61st St. N., stated that his property is across the street from
the facility. He had agreed to help
the organization to help the offenders.
He complained that they have not kept their promises. He informed the Board that the sheriff’s
office has been called. There are
four schools within one mile of this facility. He stated that it is not 100%
fenced. He stated that the eastern
portion of the property has not been cleaned since the facility has been
there. He visited the facility at
least four different times to communicate with them and was never able to talk
with anyone. He continued that at
all times of night there are cars, “walk-aways”. He offered to show the evidence of
trails leading away from the facility.
He complained that gates are not locked and there is not adequate
security. He stated there was noise
at night especially during the summer hours. He expressed concern for the safety of
the children. He also added that
the grass has not been cut on the eastern half of the
property.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty asked about the nature of the calls to the sheriff’s department. Mr. Jones replied that he complained of
the noise from parties at one or two o’clock in the morning outside at the
facility.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Grey was not sure when that occasion would have been. He responded that the employees come and
go on shifts. The residents do not
drive so they are not a part of the traffic and visitors come during the
daytime. He added that he has no
knowledge of complaints to the sheriff and has never had an incident involving
Turley that he could recall since 1999.
Mr. Grey pointed out that the inmates have children of their own that
come during visiting times. He
stated if we are concerned about the children we need to give these people a
second chance.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Walker,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty,
Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no
"absences") to DENY a Special Exception to
increase the permitted number of residents and out patients from 150’ to 200’,
finding 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, on the following described property:
The SW/4 NW/4, Section 1, T-20-N, R-12-E of the IBM, Tulsa County, State
of Oklahoma, less and except the W/2 NW/4 SW/4 NW/4.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Mr.
Alberty asked for Case No. 1912 to be taken out of order due to the expected
lengthy case to follow.
Action
Requested:
Variance to allow two dwelling
units per lot of record.
SECTION 208. ONE
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF RECORD – Use Unit 6, located 16510 E.
166th St. S.
Presentation:
Marcy Dawler, 16510 E. 166th St. S., Bixby, Oklahoma,
stated that the subject property of five acres has been in the family for the
past forty years. They currently
live in a little farmhouse, and they propose to move the grandmother into it and
place a doublewide mobile home on the property. She stated there are two other mobile
homes on either side of their property.
Comments and
Questions:
Jay Stump, INCOG staff member, noted that the lot width is only
317’ and would need to come back for a variance of lot width for a
lot-split. She added that she has
spoken with her neighbors and they approve.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Tyndall,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (Alberty,
Dillard, Walker, Tyndall, Hutson "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Variance to allow two
dwelling units per lot of record, with conditions for skirting, tie-downs, DEQ
approval, and building permit, finding there is sufficient land area for two
dwellings, and finding it will not cause substantial detriment to the public
good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or Comprehensive
Plan, on the following described property:
NW/c NE SW thence E 317.63’ S 715.10’ W 317.63’ N 715.40’ to POB, Section
26, T-17-N, R-14-E, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an additional roller coaster at Bell’s
Amusement Park/Expo Square. SECTION
310. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN
THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT – Use Unit 20, located N & E of the NE/c of E.
21st St. & Louisville.
Presentation:
Roy Johnsen, 201 W. 5th St., Ste. 501, was representing
the Bell family regarding the Bell’s Amusement Park. He stated the formal request is for a
Special Exception to permit Use Unit 20, which is commercial recreation and
includes fairground as a specific use in an AG district. He described the amusement park as an
institution and tradition in Tulsa since 1951. The Zingo roller coaster was built in
1967. There was a lawsuit brought
to enjoin the construction, but the District Court of Tulsa County declined to
enjoin the construction. The Court
did impose a requirement that the roller coaster not be operated after 9:00
p.m. This decision was modified a
year later to allow the roller coaster to operate during the State Fair as late
as the other mid-way rides. Mr.
Johnsen submitted a packet of exhibits (Exhibit A-1). The owners concluded that to keep
existing customers and attract new ones it was essential to add new
attractions. They went through the
Tulsa County Facilities Trust Authority to obtain a lease to provide six
additional acres to utilize for the amusement park. A requirement was made that they
construct and open a major attraction (roller coaster) having a value of over
two million dollars. He indicated
that it is a substantial monetary benefit to the fairgrounds to have the
amusement park and the new coaster.
Notice was sent to everyone in a 300’ radius of the entire
fairgrounds. The six acres will be
for parking and a roller coaster.
Mr. Johnsen informed the Board that Bell’s would relinquish two acres of
property for an additional 84 parking spaces. The plans include an eight-foot
screening wall along the west boundary along Louisville. He indicated that about 70% of the new
coaster would be either underground or in a tunnel. They believe this will decrease the
noise level. Regarding parking
during the fair parking is somewhat of a problem and the amusement park probably
does not impact that much one way or the other. There are some facilities that are to be
demolished and this will add about 260 more parking spaces. They have concluded after much study
that as a practical matter there is available parking during the course of the
year with the exception of two Saturdays of the fair, and July
4th. Wyle
Laboratories was commissioned by Bell’s to take sound readings in the
neighborhood at selected locations.
This is the same company that was hired by the airport. According to their study they do not
expect that the long-term change in the noise level after the installation of
the new coaster will be noticeable to the average person in the community. The noise study (Exhibit A-3) was
submitted. They expect an increase
of a possible 20% in traffic in the area.
The applicant has outlined sixteen proposed use conditions. The first condition is that the special
exception shall be applicable to the property described within the site plan
submitted (applicant exhibit A).
The second is the site shall be developed in substantial accordance with
the submitted site plan and the submitted elevations. The third is that the roller coaster
shall not be operated after 9:00 p.m. each day, except for the ten-day period of
the annual Tulsa State Fair for so long as other amusement rides at the fair are
operating. The roller coaster shall
be setback from the centerline of Louisville a distance of not less than 200’
and shall be setback from the centerline of 21st Street a distance of
not less than 230’. The maximum
height of the roller coaster shall not exceed 88’. The length of the coaster track shall
not exceed 3,400’. Not less than
79% of the length of the roller coaster track shall be enclosed excepting access
into and out of the enclosed areas.
The roller coaster track enclosures may be subterranean and or
constructed of metal, wood or concrete and may include a theme façade, but if
constructed of metal shall have an interior sound dampening finish equivalent to
or better than 3” vinyl faced fiberglass insulation. No internally lighted signage shall be
affixed to the west or south elevation of the roller coaster structure. Lighting of the west and south elevation
of the roller coaster structure shall be limited to flood and accent lighting
and fixtures shall not be directed toward residential properties. Not less than 204 all-weather surfaced
parking spaces shall be provided within the site and shall be connected by an
all-weather surfaced drive extending to the all-weather surfaced parking area
adjoining the north boundary of the site.
An eight-foot masonry or pre-cast concrete screening wall shall be
constructed and maintained extending from the north boundary to the south
boundary of the site and parallel to and 68 feet east of the centerline of
Louisville, excepting one point of emergency access, which shall have a solid
screen gate. If the City of Tulsa
will permit, the screening wall above described shall be extended south a
distance of 140 feet. If the City
of Tulsa will permit, access to the parking area west of Bell’s Amusement Park
will be provided from 21st Street across the adjoining property owned
by the City of Tulsa. The lighting
within the parking area shall be limited to shielded fixtures designed to direct
light downward and away from nearby residential property. The conditions above set forth shall be
complied with prior to the opening of the roller coaster to public use. An examination of home sales shown in a
realtor’s list (Exhibit A-4) shows property values show an increase in the last
few years. Mr. Johnsen found there
was support of the application in the neighborhood according to the Tulsa
World. Mr. Bell contacted the
residents of the neighborhood and found people in support. There were about twenty letters of
support written to the Tulsa County Board of Adjustment, five organization
letters of support and a petition (Exhibit A-5). He mentioned a letter from Sheriff
Stanley Glanz in support of how Bell’s Amusement Park is run. Mr. Johnsen noted that the Comprehensive
Plan from 1983 to 2000 time plan has passed; there is another plan from 1997 and
one from the University of Tulsa.
These plans are in agreement that the fairgrounds should remain where it
is and that Bell’s Amusement Park should be encouraged to remain in this
location.
Mr. Alberty announced a recess at 3:08 p.m.
Mr.
Alberty called the meeting to return to order at 3:15
p.m.
Interested
Parties:
J. D.
Clark,
1906 S. Jamestown, stated he was in support of the application. It was his opinion that worse things
could be located there.
Jono
Helmerich,
3111 S. Zunis Ave., stated he was present as Chairman of the Friends of the
Fairground Foundation, Chairman of the “4 to Fix the County Campaign”, and as a
concerned citizen. He stated that
Bell’s is essential to the success of the fairgrounds. The Bell family has been involved and
helpful to the community. He
implored the Board to approve the plan.
Randy
Pickard,
10051 S. Yale Ave., stated he wanted to address an issue of authority. He continued that the
Comprehensive Plan of 1983 to 2000 is the only one we have approved by the Tulsa
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.
In the District 4 Plan they approved for future development to be in
accordance with the adopted Expo Square Comprehensive Plan. This project is a Use Unit 20,
commercial recreation intensive and it only allowed by right in an IM or IH
district. This application is in
contrary to the only Comprehensive Plan adopted by the TMAPC. Mr. Pickard questioned why this
application was being considered without authority from the TMAPC other than
what it has adopted, which shows low intensity use for the west end of the
park. He noted that Big Splash is
shown on the Comprehensive Plan for Expo Square as high intensity, and
surrounded by light intensity plan development, when in fact is surrounded by
zoning districts CH, CG, and CS. He
noted that the staff report points out that the plan for the fairgrounds
designates the area in question for low intensity uses. He cited an Oklahoma Supreme Court
decision in Bankoff versus Board of Adjustment of Wagoner County, for the
principle, quoted an earlier case called VanMeter versus H. F. Wilcox Oil and
Gas Company. It stated that the
Board of Adjustment has the power and authority to decide special exceptions,
but cannot have unconfined, unrestrained freedom of action. It is not at liberty to depart from the
comprehensive plan embodied in the ordinance. Mr. Pickard stated that if he were in
court he would make a motion to dismiss or defer this matter for a full review
by the planning staff or the TMAPC.
He did not want the Board to rely upon noise studies and vague market
data, and other items that have just been delivered to the planning staff for
this Board.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Alberty stated that this Board is not bound by any comprehensive plan with
regards to their action. Interested
Parties can appeal the Board’s action to a court. A comprehensive plan is one of the
instruments that the Board considers with all of the other instruments. Mr. Alberty stated that the members are
volunteers for this quasi-judicial board.
He opened Mr. Pickard’s suggestion to the Board for comments or action
regarding a deferred hearing. There
were no motions offered by the Board members.
Mr.
Pickard submitted a packet of exhibits (Exhibit A-2).
Daniel
Graves,
1919 S. Jamestown, stated he lives at this address and he desires quiet at his
home, as do others. He complained
of noise from the amusement park that can be heard in his back yard. He stated that more noise would be
injurious to the neighborhood. He
was concerned that the sound study could not determine the noise from two roller
coasters in operation next to each other at the same time. He informed the Board that the newspaper
article mentioned earlier was an interview of a renter that lived on
Louisville. The reason there are
renters there is because the owners can’t sell the property. He commented on the 1995 case that
Mr. Johnsen referred to where an exception was made to allow the coaster to
operate after nine o’clock. He
stated that was not the purpose of the ruling. He noted that the applicants were trying
to keep the roller coaster open past nine o’clock and get rid of the first
injunction that kept them from operating past hours. Mr. Graves complained that the new
roller coaster would be bigger and closer to the residents. The allowance for Zingo to run after
hours was something that the neighborhood agreed to in a compromise. He contended that the park has
dilapidated. Mr. Graves reminded
the Board that a young boy was killed on a roller coaster because of bad
maintenance. He stated that he
filed a law suit for a family who’s three year old was run over by a golf cart
because they did not fix the brakes on the cart. He mentioned the foot traffic in the
neighborhood, which used to be families but now it is teens and people that do
not have a good purpose for being there.
He informed the Board that the applicants are not paying their water bill
currently. He discovered that they
are not paying the current surcharge.
He questioned how they were going to pay higher rent. He stated that it is no longer a family
park, but there are gang activities drawing police cars and helicopters once a
month at least. He reminded them of
race riots in the area, citing April 28, 2001 per an article in the Tulsa
World. Another roller coaster will
not attract families and young children but more teens and gang members. He calls for the applicants to fix up
the existing park before adding any more to it.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Dillard asked Mr. Graves when he purchased his house. Mr. Graves replied that he purchased his
home three years ago.
Interested
Parties:
Elliott
Charney,
1732 S. Louisville, stated he purchased his home in 1997. He has seen a lot of vandalism and some
arson on his street and the next one over.
He did not think that one aerial view of the area could be a determining
factor for parking needs because it varies so much. He also expressed concern for the
parking problems.
Margaret
French,
1544 S. Knoxville, stated she moved back to Tulsa about fifteen months ago. She noted a deterioration of the
attitude of the neighborhood. She
has already had an occurrence of vandalism in her garage. This would exacerbate the problem, not
alleviate it.
William
Bain,
1543 S. Knoxville, stated he purchased his home in 1991. He expressed concern for more
pedestrians with no good intentions.
His home was burglarized about two years ago during the fair. He was concerned about parking
problems.
Donna
Lind,
2211 S. Indianapolis Ave., stated they bought their home in 1998. She found that property values increased
in the area. She stated that she is
a realtor. She believes that
another roller coaster will discourage people from buying in the
neighborhood. Mrs. Lind added that
the closer you get to the amusement park the longer it takes to sell a
property.
Mike
Todd,
1923 S. Knoxville, Desiree
Daugherty,
1632 S. Louisville, Robert
Ewing,
1911 S. Jamestown, Penny
Kineman,
2133 S. Louisville, Larry
Teeter,
1914 S. Louisville, Ursula
Mueller,
1527 S. Knoxville, Patty
Barker,
3516 E. 21st Pl., Virginia
Rowe,
1607 S. Gary Pl., Missy
Baron,
2105 S. Louisville, expressed the same concerns and objections as listed above;
including the belief that the existing buffer would remain intact; concern
regarding proposed metal buildings; the existing dilapidated condition of the
park; incidents of crime; and the suggestion that the park be
relocated.
Bob
Purtam,
1636 S. Louisville, stated that it is too dangerous to allow his children to
play in their front yard. He
informed the Board that when he calls to make a complaint there is always a
dispute between the City and County over who has jurisdiction.
Scott
Trizza,
2626 N. Denver, stated he owns property at 1932 S. Louisville. He lived at the Louisville property
until recently as the third generation of his family to live there. He believes that the location is bad for
Bell’s Amusement Park. He stated it
was not the proper vision for the City of Tulsa.
Michael
Bates,
4727 E. 23rd St., asked if the Use Unit 20 was for the whole six
acres. Mr. Alberty responded that
Mr. Johnsen submitted a site plan.
He is subjecting his offer to the site plan, which means there could be
nothing but the roller coaster as presented today. Mr. Bates also asked that if they feel
the petitions have weight in their decision that they consider whether the
signatures are of property owners or renters.
Mr.
Pickard noted that the eight-foot screening wall would only screen fourteen feet
of the roller coaster. He commented
that the trees indicated on the fairgrounds site plan would not be an adequate
screening. He complained about the
proximity damage to the neighborhood by moving the park closer to the
residences. One of the problems he
identified as proximity damage was that in the area 250’ from Zingo between 1999
and 2001 there were no sales at the time of Tulsa’s best real estate
market. He pointed out that one
listing just south and west of Zingo shows the house had been on the market for
140 days, and the price was reduced to
$55.00 per square foot as compared to the $74.00 per square foot that Mr.
Johnsen quoted. Mr. Pickard also
noted that in the 250-400’ of the Zingo during the same time period had two
sales when the market was good and they got $40.00 per square foot. Mr. Pickard stated that 215 people have
signed a petition in objection to this application.
William
Rienriek,
1916 S. Knoxville, state he is the President of the Sunrise Terrace Neighborhood
Association. He added that has been
his permanent residence since 1939.
He stated there are many people who have lived in that area since then,
and many since 1951.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr.
Johnsen stated it seems that Bell’s is getting blamed for a lot of things. He commented that the fairground is a
large facility of 240 acres.
He reminded the Board that
the incident at 21st and Harvard that interested parties mentioned
was during rock concerts at the water park. He questioned the conclusion that Bell’s
caused all of these problems. He
agreed that some painting needs to be done, but it is the end of the
season. He disagreed that the park
is an adjudicated nuisance. Mr.
Johnsen commented that it is not uncommon for properties on the perimeter to
sell for less than those on the interior of the neighborhood. He reminded the Board that these have
been good neighborhoods. He stated
that the authorities hired professionals to do the landscaping. It does take time for the landscaping to
fully mature. Mr. Johnsen stated
the applicant simply added the landscaping plan to their site plan. He pointed out that the screening wall
would be built immediately, which would block the view of the parking area and
buffer the noise. Mr. Johnsen
pointed out that a good setback; landscaping and a wall should not adversely
affect the neighborhood. The very
authority that adopted the plan and sent it to the planning commission for
adoption has now entered into a lease to permit expansion. This is a reasonable expansion of an
existing use. All the studies that
have been done concluded that Bell’s should remain in this location. He stated that the Bell family has
operated this business for fifty years, and the coaster provides opportunity to
do improvements.
Mr.
Alberty stated that the Board of Adjustment has granted several special
exceptions to the fairgrounds. He
noted that the neighborhood objections are to existing use as well as the
expanded use. Mr. Alberty pointed
out that there are some changes to the physical environment in addition to the
proposed roller coaster. He spoke
favorably of the eight-foot screening fence and new landscaping for the benefit
of the residences living on Louisville.
He considered the noise to be a definite increase, but the noise and the
issue of height is negligible. He
did not think the loss of parking spaces was significant to influence his
vote. Mr. Hutson recognized that
wherever the park was located there would be neighbors with the same
complaints. He stated this is the
fairground for the community as a whole and he was supportive of the
application. Mr. Walker mentioned
that the park has been there for a long time and they have the implied right to
expand but he believed the right is mitigated to the amount of damage that it
may do to the neighborhood. Those
who came in opposition and have lived there a short time have probably taken
advantage of the decreased property values. He was concerned that this project could
cause additional damage. Mr.
Tyndall noted that by moving closer to the neighborhood it would create a larger
problem, but the additional screening would help. Mr. Alberty commented on the need to
consider the wider public interest for a community-based facility. He added that this is opportunity to
enhance the situation and make it better.
Board
Action:
On
Motion
of Tyndall,
the Board voted 2-3-0 (Tyndall, Walker, "aye"; Dillard, Hutson, Alberty "nay";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
a Special Exception to permit
an additional roller coaster at Bell’s Amusement Park/Expo Square. The motion died for lack of a majority
vote.
On
Motion of Hutson,
the Board voted 3-2-0 (Alberty, Dillard, Hutson "aye"; Tyndall, Walker "nay"; no
"abstentions"; no "absences") to APPROVE
a Special Exception to permit
an additional roller coaster at Bell’s Amusement Park/Expo Square, with the
sixteen conditions offered by the applicant in the presentation, and 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:
Part of the E/2 SW/4 Section 9, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows to-wit:
Commencing at the SW/c E/2 SW/4 of said Section 9; thence due E along the S line
of said Section 9, a distance of 63.93’ to a point; thence N 0º06’28” E parallel
with the E right-of-way line of S. Louisville Ave. a distance of 235.00’ to the
POB; thence continuing N 0º06’28” E parallel with the E right-of-way line of S.
Louisville Ave. a distance of 874.24’ to a point; thence due E a distance of
337.75’ to a point; thence S 0º10’05” W a distance of 874.24’; thence due W
parallel to the S line of said SW/4 a distance of 336.66’ to the
POB.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of minimum average lot
width to permit a lot split from 200’ to 165’. SECTION 330. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6, located, 4446 S. 162nd W.
Ave.
Presentation: