Oklahoma City Board of Adjustment 01-04-2024

all right good afternoon it's 1:30 we have a quorum let's call the meeting to order um Cindy we're up to minutes everybody look at the minutes ready for a motion on the minutes motion to approve the minutes from the December 7th 2023 meeting okay got a motions or second second Motion in a second C your notes all right minutes rece uh next continuances Cindy what do you have we have item number 11 case number 15490 deferred till January 18th 2024 is there anybody here on that one do we have the motion motion to defer item number um 154 15490 until December January 18th second a second cast your votes all right that one's continued uh are there any requests for continuance from the public does anybody have one they need to move okay no consent dockets asend it if you'll call the first one please we have item number one case number 15501 request of gns sign services on behalf of Oklahoma Healthcare reality reality Corporation for variance to sign regulations located at 3,300 Northwest Expressway hello my name is Cameron gleon I am with gns sence Services located at 1634 Southeast 23rd Street Oklahoma um in short in the uh the nature of this request uh is for a hospital who is zoned residential four and with the allowance of only one ground sign or one wall sign at a maximum of 100 square ft uh we do not believe this is adequate enough signage for the hospital um to explain the package we have two signs that are going to be on the uh northeast side of the uh of the new building of the Heart Hospital and then two signs that are on the south side of the heart hospital that are uh that will be identifying the two entrances while the two signs in the Northeast will be identifying the hospital itself uh we believe that the signage that we proposed uh is large enough and the minimum requirement that we require that we believe is necessary to be able to uh navigate to the hospital safely um with the eight Lane divided Northwest Expressway uh traffic and uh with that I am open to any questions that you might have questions comments from the board okay I don't wait a minute okay this is you Mr yes okay never mind um I don't have anybody else signed up to speak on this one so anybody want to address the board on this application all right if there's nothing else from the board think we're ready ready for a motion motion to approve case number 15501 for the purpose that meets the statutory requirements or the for the requested variance I second and motion in a second car your votes okay you're approved thank you case number two I'm sorry item number two case number 15505 request of orbit homes in construction for a variance to the front yard setback located at 2008 Northeast 14th Street hello I'm Johnny Maciel orbit homes uh in construction uh 2916 Kyle Court your application employees I um had to apply with a variance this is my first time ever doing one um it was brought to my attention I submitted all documents to the city everything was approved um house built went through all the proper inspections approved um got the certificate of occupy went to sell the home and when during the uh survey uh for the mortgage company they found that we had an encroachment and then I had to go through the necessary steps of applying for this not just this one but also built one next to how was this measured so that you have a 10 foot encroachment well when I when I called the city and I asked them where would where do I build line and the instructions was a little bit unclear and we did have a a uh survey done um this is I don't have a way of explaining that but it was told to me to measure from the street and go from there and then measure 25 ft back from there well I did that and obviously that that didn't didn't work so long story short I I come to discover that actually that that build line is actually from the actual property line on the survey um I've built several houses before uh and I usually line them up with the houses that's that are next door and in this case there was no houses next door and uh it's it's a mistake questions comments from the board and I don't have anybody signed it did you want to ask question even the houses to the to the east it it it lines up with them that houses to the east yeah further the there's there's an empty lot to the east of one and then further down the street yeah it sits a little bit in front of those and if you look at one across the street it actually looks like it's about 25 ft from the actual curve itself so yeah but it doesn't look out of place either those houses do not look out of place I don't have anybody signed up to speak on this one is there anybody want to address the board on this application all right nothing else from the board I think we're ready for a motion motion to approve case number 15505 for the purposes that it meets the statutory requirements for the requested variance second and a motion in a second pass you votes this one's approved thank you item number three case number 155 six a request of orbit homes and construction for variance to the front yard setback in the R1 single family located at 2012 Northeast 14th Street again I assume the information is the same this okay uh well you're welcome to repeat it if you want but you don't have to there any other questions comments from the board a quick comment are you planning on building other homes in this addition as well well um yes I'm actually have built um I'm actually building one on the east lot in the East End of the corner I lined it up with the houses and it's in the proper space so um unfortunately those I did uh and these I started a little later on I got so it's yeah it yeah I built in that neighborhood as well and they are properly yes ma'am okay um there's another one that I I'm actually in the process with the owner to do and this problem won't happen again but we we have an encroachment issue on that but it's not in this neighborhood okay thank you anything else from the board and I don't have anybody signed up to speak on this one does anybody want to address the board on this application all right I guess we're ready for a motion motion to approve case number 155 506 for the purposes that it meets the statutory requirements for the requested variance second got a motion in a second C your votes all right you're approved again item number four case number 15500 request of Williams box foran Bullard on behalf of LNP 9400 Broadway Extension LLC for a variance to the temporary moratorium um on the acceptance of new applications to allow construction of freestanding signs for a proposed PUD location located at 9400 Broadway Extension good afternoon David box 522 call CT drive here on behalf of the applicant this is a bit of a unique application in that we're not asking you for a specific size you may recall I had a similar application for the half development that is just out of the picture to the South it would be on Wilshire uh what we're asking for is a variance of the moratorium to allow our PUD to move forward and allow the size of the sign the placement of the sign and all of those things to be determined through the legislative process through Planning Commission with Mr Noble and his associates and ultimately city council um when you think of a large scale Redevelopment like we propose here at the corner of Broadway Extension in Britain 200 square feet for signage when you could have so many tenants so many buildings and a really meaningful intense development simply does not allow for that type of development to move forward when you're thinking about leasing it to tenants Etc so what we're asking to do is to to vary the moratorium again that doesn't decide the size of It ultimately the plan commission city council will decide it but without the variance we can't move forward with that piece of the process so much like we did on the development called the half uh we're asking for a similar accommodation here to move forward in the legislative process happy to answer any questions anything from the board on this one so the type of sign and the size of the sign will be brought to the Planning Commission yep it's a PUD determined and so all of that will be you know written in the Pud yeah in fact I think it's this time next Thursday we can argue about it so this is just a variance in order to get the Pud to advance not next week anything else from the board and nobody signed up on this one does anybody want to address the board on this application okay guess we're ready for a motion motion to approve case number 15500 for the purpose that for the purposes that it meets the statut statutory requirements for the request variance my word second okay Motion in a second cast your votes you're approved thank you item number five case number 15502 request of Johnson Associates on behalf of Med Park real estate for variance to building faade and Architectural regulations in P 280 located at 6200 North Martin Luther King Avenue good afternoon Mark zit out with Johnson and Associates on behalf of the applicant uh before you is a project that you saw at your last meeting uh we talked about driveways at that meeting uh since then in reviewing the Pud there was another item that required a variance which was uh a limitation on the use of a metal facade uh that's also found in the overlay district for uh this portion of town so before use this request to allow for the metal to be used on this project uh there's the site plan before you there's a series of buildings that'll be constructed all using an architectural metal for many of you you may recall an application about 12 months ago where we sought the use of metal for a storage facility a little further up I35 there was discrepancy in the code and in the current materials that are used is what is unced metal and untreated metal currently this is not the metal that the code envisioned back in the 70s and 80s when it was drafted when you go around town you see this blue metal it's not been maintained not worn well particularly in this weather and this climate so since then uh technologies have changed significantly as are the Coatings that are applied to these metal buildings which is why you've seen so much of it used recently around town uh you've seen it on red Solo pup and the Chism Creek development and drey's uh at the half project that you just uh David just mentioned is also using it as did the bar K on the river which is in a design review District so the use of metal buildings has become more prominent as has been accepted throughout the city including in design review districts and so what we're asking for is to permit uh the construction of these buildings you can see the renderings on the screen the one one of the key reasons why we have chosen this material is the goal is that this project will be very popular and very successful the use of metal allows for uh expansion without disruption to the project it's one of the benefits of using this type of product and material and so with that happy to answer any questions we do have a letter of support in there from the adventure District we've spoken with other neighbors that are supportive of it uh so with that happy to answer any questions we would ask for your approval today questions or comments from the board I don't have anybody signed up on this one is anybody want wants to address the board on this application guess we're ready for a motion then motion to approve case number 1552 for the purposes that it meets the statutory requirements for the requested variance our second have a motion in a second cast your votes you're approved thank you item number six case number 15499 is an application for special exception to allow Home Sharing for Felicia Pringle Durant at located at 601 Glen clove place I'm um appearing here for Felicia Durant give us your Joey and give us your address please for the address is 5629 North Classen the um the address of the subject property here pull that back up is a 60001 Glen Cove Place okoma City 73132 all right tell us a little bit about your application and the game plan the application is for Airbnb um she has applied for the uh for the Airbnb I've got the uh the rules here the quiet hours um open for any questions that you guys may have on the subject property questions or comments from the board was there any protest on this I don't have anybody signed up to speak does anybody want to address the board on this application let's just make some adjustments to the application then you said you had the rules for quiet hours what were they yeah quiet hours are 11:00 p.m.

To 7 a.m. okay I'd like to make an addition to a maximum of four cars okay and then a one-year exception I'm going to modif by the quiet hours to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. say again 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for the quiet hours okay you said 10: p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and then what you mentioned something a minute ago I four four car maximum in the driveway four car maximum and then you said one other thing oh the exception would just be for one year oh one year okay I think the application says 12 months okay I'd rather give him a year I think we're ready for a motion all right motion to approve case number 15499 for the purposes that it meets the statutory requirements for the requested exceptions subject to the um rules and self-impose rules in the application with the following modifications maximum number of cars shall be four hours are adjusted to be 10 p.m.

To 7 a.m. and this shall be for a term of one year second a motion in a second cast your votes thank you you're approved item number seven case number 15503 is a renewal application for Nathan Cruz to allow Home Sharing located at 13 3128 Green Valley Drive hello I'm Nathan Henderson on behalf of I'm here on behalf of Nathan Cruz just looking to sneak uh seek renewal noticed you're ask suggesting asking for 10 people this is says three bed two bath how are you going to get 10 people in I think he put it for both sides it's another it's another case all right yeah and this is a renewal I do remember when they came and there was a lot of protests on on the original and so you must have been operating all very well pretty good um and I think originally if I remember correct it was 10 10 occupants per duplex but do you do you know that it's set up for that um count two beds two four six and then one two I would say it's set up for uh at the most eight okay we can adjust the application for that so there's three bedrooms two people each is there a additional bed somewhere yeah it's two additional uh futons that lay back so the original application was approved at 10 guest the first time yes I'm I'm yeah this is my first year under doing his property uh but last year he did say it was 10 okay okay anything else from the board questions comments it's it's got a really big driveway but I still would like to maximum number of cars to be five okay and since then we've also put no parking signs at that uh curb next to the mailbox it's a long curb right there to go by here a lot so perfect see this it's operated for a year has it been rent it out for up to eight people yes it has during that time okay I didn't see any protest the only one signed up to speak is Nathan Henderson that's me um does anybody want to address the board on this application okay I think we're ready for a motion this is a renewal um so I guess we will do it for a term of three years so let you know uh motion to approve case number 15503 forther purposes that it meets a statutory requirements further requested special exception um subject to the requested um self-imposed guidelines in the application with the following modifications maximum number of five cars shall be for a term of three years and the maximum number of guests shall be reduced from 10 to 8 second okay we have a motion in a second cast your votes approved item number eight case number 15504 is a renewal of special exception of Nathan Cruz to allow Home Sharing at 4045 Thunderbird Drive same situation situ okay and you're still the only one signed up to speak yes anything from the board on this one like to make the same adjustments to the application five cars five cars eight person maximum okay and a three-year exemption the other side has uh two extra futons so that can accommodate 10 yeah but we already did that to eight oh I see you said okay not a problem and anybody want to address the board on this application okay ready for a motion motion to approve case number 1554 for the purposes that ADM the statutory requirements forther requested special exception uh with the following modifications this shall be for a ter of three years maximum number of cars shall be five and the maximum number of guests shall be reduced from 10 to 8 second Motion in a second pass you thank you're approved thank you item number nine case number 15496 is an application of Michael Duncan and Samantha Duncan to allow Home Sharing at 1811 Northwest 18th Street hello Sammy Duncan 1811 Northwest 18th tell us a little bit about your application I'm sorry what I said tell us a little bit about your application I'm looking to use my previous home as an Airbnb I noticed you have maximum number of guests eight with three bedrooms how'd you get to eight thinking about putting twin bunk beds in a room for kids so that would be four kids and then I have a king bed in the master and either a queen or a king in the second bedroom questions comments from the board is this for the main house yes and then there's a garage apartment behind it that's right but that's not included in this no I for the time being I'm going to keep the garage apartment for my mother okay the house is a three-bedroom two bath yes with the half bath downstairs so two and a half all right we had a couple of protests did you see those I did yes do you have a chance to speak to any of those folks no okay um is there one anyone here on this one nobody sign up to speak on this one does anybody want to address the board on this application so seeing this is the first time this has been up for for this permit uh I would a one-year ex exception is what we usually have done okay uh I want to limit the cars to four okay no off street parking all in the driveway else from the board is the room that you're going to have four beds in is that how big is that room I think it's a good siiz room I think you could fit a queen easily when I measured it for a king it would feel a little tight for a king bed if you put a dresser and nightstands so I think it would fit either you know the twin bunks or a queen but they're all nice siiz bedrooms upstairs I had used it for one of my kids previously you're when you say bunk are you talking about doing a queen bunk like a no probably just little bitty twin ones or else there wouldn't be enough room like in between for your nightstands and dressers and that kind of thing anyone want to address the board on this one okay if there's nothing else from the board I think we're ready for a motion motion to approve case number 15496 for the purposes ad me statutory requirements for the special exceptions with the following modifications this shall be for a term of one year a maximum number of cars shall be four no on street parking and I think that's it second have a motion in a second cast your votes your approved thank you item number 10 case number 15 is an appeal of Richard D on the decision of an administrative official regarding the interpretation of a use unit excuse me 82 50.4 community recreation restricted okay can everybody hear me all right yes okay I'm uh Rick Dow I'm uh uh uh president of D properties uh our company owns a number of properties downtown uh some of which are involved in the current dispute uh also I was the past president of the um um Park Plaza District Association which is a district that existed for many years between the central business district and the Midtown district and it we were absorbed into the um Central business district uh about four years ago so anyway I do have some familiar with the are and and I'm quite familiar with the nature of businesses and kind of what they want and what their problems are so I'm here there's going to be three of us here today I'm going to give you just a general overview of who's going to be speaking and what the subject for discussion is and kind of what the problem is and what we hope you can do for us and U uh Paul penley will be giving you a a a history of kind of how we got to where we are and then Mike Berman will will present the the audio disc that shows the basis upon which or at least a lot part of the evidence in which uh decisions have been made by other boards regarding this matter okay so first of all let's define the problem I've always been told that when you deal with officials working for the government or people such as yourself I have to define the problem and then tell you what I expect you to do about it that's you know within the legal framework of what you can do so let's define the problem okay the problem in short is that we have a an individual uh with that Mr Box is represent in that rented a building in on Fifth Street and uh in between uh if you guys have looked at the map I think it's in between Walker and Hudson and it had been an office building previously and so the owner rented it to some people of I think it's called the dog park and um they set up something that was in line with um zoning uh uh 83 .11 which is operating a um a boarding house for dogs or Veterinary Clinic so forth but that the activity is carried on exclusively indoors not Outdoors however much to our shrin uh when they started construction and uh one of our people next door uh no as what they were doing and that they were going to have an outdoor dog park he pointed out to them that that isn't legal under the zoning that you have to operate with in nature of the business that you have and so at that point uh a kafu started of sorts and Mr Box senior not the current Mr box but I guess it was his father um represented uh it turns out the city could not issue a permit to have an outdoor dog for them to do what they were doing without changing the zoning so U Mr boach senior then helped the individuals start applying for a change in zoning and uh anyway uh it was obvious from Mr boach Senor that they weren't getting anywhere with the Planning Commission that there was no way this was probably going to be approved and they just dropped the thing so the rest of thought well I guess it's done the people will keep the dogs indoors and we won't have a problem well it turned out that the city ignored the fact that they were uh not obeying the zoning requirements of the zoning ordinances which they were supposed to be operating in and uh the dogs kept barking and we thought what's the heck's going on so we started complaining to the city why don't you do something about this We complain and complained complain they never did anything and finally we had enough and the city was forced this was three years after the fact to issue a citation to the dog park that they were operating illegally so again we went through a rezoning thing this time there were actual votes taken so um it turns out that I think it's U 62% I can't remember the exact percentage here I had it on some notes but basically it's about 70% of the people in the surrounding area the properties in the surrounding area is defined by the area when you go to get something reson were opposed to the thing because the dogs were making all kinds of Racket and driving people crazy and reducing property values because it was hard to lease anything and so the thing started again went to the downtown design interview they voted um 6 nil to not recommend that use in that particular location uh then it went to the Planning Commission which again voted 6 nil that it shouldn't be that it was incompatible with that area now then we and at that point it was going to the city council the meeting with the city council was delayed by Mr Box Jr um once and then the second time he just dropped the case so we thought well we're done but the dogs were still barking so we thought what is going on and then I found out once to man grin that the city staff had somehow LED Mr Box to believe that they could just continue as they have been legally under a different zoning thing which is I think well Paul can mention the specific he's going to be talking about that but there there's a zoning uh uh think I I think it's I've got I think it's U uh 8250 D4 point4 that allows for uh General Recreation stuff for example you can have a public basketball court a public uh tennis court and things like that and that's a a a use that's authorized under the dbd zoning so the idea was well could they put a dog park under that and evidently the city staff thought yes they could but one thing I should mention is if you read that part of the of the uh in other words if you read 85.4 it doesn't mention dog parks public private or any dog parks at all in there so it's rather arbitrary for a city to make a decision that that there is a zoning place that he can go that is permitted so obviously it's not necessarily I mean most of the time when we pass ordinances and I help draft the ordinance that the downtown design review works with because I've been on the Urban Design commission for eight years and and I know that it's very difficult to design an ordinance to cover every possibility that happens and so you come to a time that somebody or some organization is going to have to amend it the most difficult thing to do is to have it go back to the city council and change it but but we have shortcuts when it creates a problem that uh you can avoid that and so one of them is the city can just make a decision and say look our interpretation is X this is what you can do or what you can't do and then the if if some other party with in this case us don't like the decision City make we can go to the board of adjustment you guys have a right to amend what the city had to say so what we're saying is that somehow implicitly the the city decision should have been and the note that should have been given to Mr Box was in this particular location even though we have said that you can that you know dog park public dog parks could conceivably be in in in 850.000 your particular case the answer is no and the reason is when it mentions in that in that particular 8504 it says that it must serve the surrounding area it must serve the surrounding area and that it must be a public dog park and so of course our argument is well first of all how can it be serving the surrounding area if two groups of uh Commissioners 12 and to appointed by our elected officials have unanimously said that it is totally incompatible with that area to have dogs of any sort Outdoors because it's surrounded by office Bas it's got an apartment building right next to it who by the way was one of the protesters so so basically what the city in our view should have said because Mr bnks oftenly is misinterpreted because if you look at the letter that he sent he feels like they can proceed with exactly the business they're currently operating based on what the city's told them and then when I visited city staff I found out that well they'd already started a permit under the uh uh downtown design review and downtown design review has absolutely no prerogative whatsoever with regard to use which means they can only consider is there anything you're doing with the building like the size of the fence that's incompatible in design with the surrounding area well obviously I would think you could put a fence up that's going to keep downtown design review happy then the next thing you'd have to do is get a fence permit they're not going to be authorized to ask a question about use that's already been litigated through the Planning Commission and through the downtown design review that no this isn't a place to do it so in our view what the city should have done is said yes we think that a a dog park that's public can be authorized but not where you are because it's not serving the public interest now now we come so that's our problem now you're going to see why it is that these people these 12 Commissioners voted unanimously that this is not a place to have dogs outdoors and you're going to hear a tape and you'll see why surrounding the area surrounding the protesters if you look at this and you should have this in your packet what this is is it's from the um from the county assessor that assesses the value of all of the buildings As We Know Town it gives you their appraised value the appraised value of the buildings that have protested what's going on here is $20 million in my view I used to be a professor of Economics the effect that the delorious effect that this dog parking has had on leasing has probably reduced the value of those buildings by at least 30% that's a loss of 6 million doll now we have a deal here and that is that the problem with the dog park could be easily solved as I've mentioned by just enclosing the dog park I'm a general contractor I could probably enclose a thing for 50,000 and it would they wouldn't even need a change the zoning or we wouldn't be here or alternative leg just walk the dog so there's an easy solution to the problem in terms of the applicant that's trying to that Mr Box is representing however in our case unless this is rectified we've got an insoluable problem and loss now we come to what we're asking you to do and what I think legally you can do I think you should reiterate the pronouncement that in this particular example for this particular location this is not a place that we should have either a public or a uh private dog park it just it because that's already been litigated and that doesn't mean that someone could start one somewhere else in the area that doesn't have these problems that there's no protest for example we do have a dawn park that is operating under this uh 850.000 it's had no complaints I'm aware of so there's no problem so it's not that you're ruling out the possibility that somewhere in the central business district you can engage in this kind of activity it's just not in that particular spot now let's go to and by the way I'm not a lawyer and I'm doing this pro bono for everybody in the area so forgive me if I'm not my legal speak is appropriate so what I did was is I just looked at the the ordinance that governs your prerogatives and I saw something that really got my attention here and uh I don't know if you can see I don't know what paragraph This is but and this is right out of the city ordinance and it says that it says that the board shall specify the reason for granting or denying an appeal considering all appeals from rulings made under this chapter blah blah but I'll get to it it says to determine the effect of the proposed change to public streets upon the public safety from fire and other hazards upon and relating to public health safety Comfort convenience or order and the general welfare with the people of the city and it also mentions the effect on adjacent property values so therefore I think that you do have the prerogative to make a statement here that finally after three and a half years puts this thing to rest so I guess the next person I'm going to have is Paul pendley unless you have any questions of me specifically regarding this matter because I will come back as a summary at the end and but if you've got any questions right now or uh I've made something that maybe isn't clear just I'm all ears here questions comments from the board okay okay you want Paul pendley next pardon you want Paul pendley next yes Paul afternoon my name is Paul pendley I live at 1200 Northwest 85th and I want to talk about why we are here today and I'm going to do that by giving you some background some of which Mr D Ori went over but I'm going to do this in order on March 12th 2020 Mr Box's client applied for a building permit with the proposed use of a dog kennel the plan submitted with that application had no indication of an outdoor play Kennel Dog Run area the plans for that by the way are in the packet code review approved those plans requiring quote remodel as per approved plans and permit BLC 2020 0619 was granted on May 6 2020 with the use code animal sales and services kinnel and Veterinary restricted that code is defined as providing kennel and vet services within a enclosed building on July 16th Mr Box's client applied for rezoning Spud 1244 to allow outdoor dog runs currently prohibited by zoning within the downtown business business district on October 11th they submitted a fence drawing to ddrc without an application for review and approval you can see that in the ddrc file dtca 20- 0073 that fence was never approved on October 20th 20120 during the ddrc meeting held by Zoom due to covid restrictions I'm sure you all remember that heard Spud 1244 application there was ven Venit and overwhelming opposition to the rezoning by the neighbors of 415 Northwest 5th which is the subject property and the ddrc voted 3:1 to recommend the Planning Commission hear those comments made by the protesters at their next meeting Mr Box delayed that scheduled Planning Commission meeting twice before withdrawing their application on September 20th 2020 on sept September 25th 5 days after they submitted a or I'm sorry a supplemental building permit was issued that's BLC 2020 d06 567 with the same land use codee no outdoor dog runs allowed the altered building plans again showed no indication there would be any structure enclosure fenced area or otherwise that would show an outdoor dog area two days later a fence contractor applied for but did not complete review and thus was never issued a fence permit yet a stockade fence was installed nonetheless on the 16th of October 20 certificate of occupancy with the same use code strictly for indoor operations was issued and then for the next 3 years the surrounding neighbors had made numerous calls complaints about incessant dog barking on the 10th of March 2023 the city finally issued a citation in an effort to stay that violation Mr Box applied for a new Spud Spud 1535 and at the July 20th 2023 ddrc meeting they again heard overwhelming opposition disput 1535 and the ddrc voted unanimously not to forward a recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission at the subsequent Planning Commission meeting all these facts that I have recited all of which are public record all of this timeline was presented along with the opposition of the neighbors and again by unanimous vote the Planning Commission voted against the Spud citing quote incompatibility with the neighborhood Spud 1535 was introduced at city council hearing set for September 12th of this year after a continuance it was withdrawn by Mr Box citing quote upon further review it has been determined that a dog park is permitted under use unit 5982 .4 Community restricted those are the facts that's the timeline that's all public record now at every step of this process Mr box has claimed that the city made a mistake through some method tcid or otherwise they told his client that they could have outdoor dog facilities within the dbd zoning he has intimated at every meeting that there is a potential liability on the part of the city because of this yet in every meeting I have not seen one piece of evidence supporting that grievance evidence entered into record at ddrc Planning Commission as well as here this very board has contradicted that claim the initial building permit shows no outdoor dogplay area if you have been given permission to build something why don't you have it in your building building plans why is it not on your supplemental building plant in Mr Box's December 29th letter to this board he claims they applied for a spud first but withdrew because the building permit 2020 01 619 was issued which rendered the rezoning application unnecessary that is backwards and false they submitted plans which were in compliance with zoning and the use permitted by BL L DC 202 0619 but once they got their certificate of occupancy they erected an illegal fence they put down Turf over the black top parking lot and proceed to operate illegally in defiance of the law and for three years the surrounding stakeholders have endured and begged for Relief we thought this issue would be decided once and for all before the city council however Mr box has decided to exploit the vague language of 59- 825 .4 of the municipal code covering community recreation restricted to try and turn a private for profit dog kennel into a public dog park so why are we here we're here because of this on October 31st 2023 planning department staff received a verbal inquiry from David box and Caitlyn Turner of Williams box fi fore and Bullard PC regarding which use classification a public dog park would be and a request for the history on Midtown muts at 49 West Parkplace on September 21st 2023 staff responded to the inquiry via email stating that use unit 59- 8250 point4 community recreation restricted could be applied to a public dog park staff also confirmed that use unit 8250 point4 is permitted in the downtown business district and I want to emphas ize this next point from staff's response to Mr Box subject to the use unit standards and all other applicable requirements and restrictions provided for in the municipal code and that there may be other licenses and permits required to legally establish the proposed use and of course a certificate of approval from ddrc is required for any exterior changes to the building yet Mr Box in his own words and his own support according letter to this board that is in your packet says this the Oklahoma City Planning legal and development services department have reviewed and analyzed the subject property and its corresponding use on numerous occasions and in great detail it is the opinion of the city's professional staff that the use operating at 415 Northwest Fifth Street is one that is permitted by right under 59- 8250 point4 Community restrict Recreation restricted and that this is the same un use unit that permits other Outdoor Dog facilities within the downtown business district and one that is applicable in this instance to allow continued operations of this necessary establishment that is a direct contradiction of the letter Sarah Welch sent to Mr Box he asked a generic question under what use unit does a dog park belong and she a generic response Community restrict or community recreation restricted at no point did staff adjust quote subject property in its corresponding use and they did not say it is applicable to continued operations those operations are illegal they are not permitted for that they do not have an occupancy permit for that they do not have a spud they have an illegal fence they don't even have Gras they are a private business trying to skirt the letter in the spirit of the law through misinterpreting and misusing City staff's words and they have misrepresented the events leading to this point this board must put an end to this revise your advice to Mr Box instruct him that they cannot continue to break the law inform him that they are not and have never been a public dog park and saying that they are now does not change almost four years of Damages wasted time energy to the surrounding neighborhood I thank you for your time and I welcome any questions you may have questions or comments from the board okay I've got a couple other people signed up to thanks speak um Kelly work I see you want to address go ahead uh Mr chairman yes my name is Kelly work and with your permission I would uh request to speak f foll ing the other speakers that you have uh listed to speak on this matter okay Mr D do you have anybody else you want to okay you'll have to step up to the microphone so make a record we sent a copy of the tapee and the video if you could play that because I know Mr B will want you to hear that because that is really the evidence we presented to the both the Planning Commission and to the downtown design review I'm not sure if there if someone here on the staff knows how to load that thing on your screen I don't uh well I sent pet I well is it over here somewhere because I sent it over here it was one of our attachments it's a video little thing it's only about three or four minutes yeah yes uh I got here a little bit late here's my uh request to be heard but my name is Mike barryman my address is 426 Northwest 5th Street which puts me immediately across the street south from from the subject property so I won't uh rehash anything that's been said here already but I am probably one of the the most familiar with what goes on day to day uh at the at the subject site I just want to I've had the building that I'm in now for 26 years we bought it when Oklahoma City was kind of coming back from the bombing and uh so I'm really proud to be a part of our our our city and and its rebound over the last 25 years but uh just being there dayto day with the with the issue at hand the barking dogs and so forth over the last three years has been very problematic and you know without rehashing everything that's been said which I'm very familiar with the process and things that we've been through because we've all been here through all of those ddrc hearings all the Planning Commission uh usually our protesters are here in Mass but what I did to kind of frame the issue is just got up on my building from time to time with a a simple camera that you know you can buy a Target to videotape what goes on across the street on a daily basis and then had that tape edited down just compressed it down just a one and a half minutes so it wouldn't take up a lot of your time and and bore you to death but I just wanted you to see the kind of the magnitude with your own eyes of what the problem really is and why we're so up in arms and have been for for the last three years about trying to get something you know accomplished on this I I think I think that's [Music] it [Music] a [Music] uh the only thing I'd like to add is that there isn't anything enhanced about that video at all like I just took it with a regular camera the sound has not been enhanced it's it's what you hear right across the street so I'll stop there any questions I could answer for anyone anything from the board thank you all right Mr Dell do you have anybody else that you want to present or anything else before I call on box just a kind of an enclosing comment I just want to say this that basically what we have here I hope that you can see is that if if we were starting over again with that ordinance if we were doing everything knowing what we know now about this when you have 12 appointed officials saying this isn't a good idea to put this thing there something has run a muck now the question is when something run a muck is there any way with the process we have in place to deal with it because obviously this is creating a problem this is something that shouldn't have happened um and so that's why I think you're our last stop here as to just hitting things in the right direction and I realize this is going to be hard for you um but I hope you can help us okay Kelly do you want to speak now or you want to be rebuttal pre okay Mr Box your yeah real quickly David box 522 callt Drive Kelly is here on behalf of the applicant the normal course of things all of those that are here on behalf of the applicant go surely Mr work knows that is he's always here on the opposite side of me and goes second so it would be highly unusual for Mr work to be able to bookend it he's here on behalf of the applicant they go first okay Mr Box is incorrect I'm not here on behalf of the applicant okay the application I don't think he's on my side I'm not here on behalf of the application okay yours just said you wanted to address the board yes sir okay I'll you not here in support of the appeal is what he just told the board let's recall that when he gets up here to speak so my name's David box 522 call Cord Drive I represent the tenant that oper Ates this facility um this has been a lengthy process unfortunately for Mr Noble this is I think now the second time he's had to endure this discussion so this particular discussion is a very unique discussion it is not a question of whether or not barking dogs are appropriate there it's not a question of whether or not that you unit is appropriate there what the applicant here has done he has filed an applic ation asking you to tell staff that their analysis of the code is wrong the question as to whether or not the use is appropriate or barking dogs are appropriate here is one of zoning if we did not possess the use unit necessary to have this operation that is when you would argue about appropriateness of a use that discussion doesn't happen within the confines of the board of adjustment you guys hear appeals special exceptions variances the planning commit and city council is who hears appropriateness of uses so let me clear one thing up in the letter that I think is perhaps causing some consternation on the staff level when I referenced that the staff email for Miss Welch on September 21st um authorizes the current use we understand that we have to modify the outdoor portion a private facility which is what it has been is not allowed a public dog park so we will have to modify this open it to the public we understand also that there are perhaps permitting issues with fences and turf those things happen within the confines of a ddrc application we have to get a CA we understand that when someone files an appeal like they've done here it stays everything nothing can move forward nothing can happen the status quo is stayed until the pendency of this appeal so at the conclusion of this hopefully you agree with staff and say that a public dog park is permitted under that use unit again I don't even know that we're really talking about this specific site what they're asking you to do is say that globally a dog park a public dog park is not permitted under this use unit regardless of this site so if we look around downtown there has been other applications of public dog parks this is the use unit that historically the city has allowed to operate a public dog park in if you look to the north the Midtown I think it's Midtown muts which is just North of fastor Hall a public dog park that's where the our inquiry started I kept asking the question how does Midtown muts operate how does Midtown muts operate because their zoned in the same manner as my client's property is owned they didn't seek any approvals before ddrc Planning Commission or city council the reason being a public dog park is permitted under the use unit listed in what's in your staff report the 82 50.4 that is the use unit that the staff has historically placed a public dog park in I didn't hear any evidence from any of the applicants as to why staff's analysis was wrong they complained about the use they complained about the process they complained about how many times they've had to come here but the reality is you are here sitting in an appeal in which you have to have evidence to say that staff's analysis is wrong they didn't present you with any of that the reality is they just don't like the use there perhaps I understand that but the fact remains that the use unit is a permitted by right use on this piece of property permitted by right means something it means you get to do whatever that use unit is subject to getting appropriate permits and Casa or whatever it is in the downtown area but no evidence was presented to you for you to say that globally staff's interpretation of a public dog park being consistent with this use unit is wrong that should end the analysis right there they can complain all they want but that's what they're asking you to do you're not here on a reasoning application you're not here to approve this use they're asking you to invalidate staff's interpretation of the ordinance that has historically been applied two public dog parks and again we understand we're going to have to go get ca for fences we're going to have to go get ca for Turf I'm not going to launch into the lengthy discussion that Mr Noble's already heard as to why we're here mistakes were made on both sides staff and my client we had permits we were told one thing and and things consistently changed and finally we got to the point where I asked that question as to what use unit is a public dog park the response was 82 50.4 if you look in the zoning code 8250 4.4 is a permitted big p in the zoning table what that means is my client by law is expressly permitted to operate all use units that fall under the 8250 point4 now does it say dog park no does the municipal code have an exhaustive list of all uses that exist no they are generic in nature there would there be no way to ever encapsulate every single use unit that might be needed and so the municipal code is generic we rely on professional staff to come up with their interpretation as to what this specific use is and where does it fit within the zoning code staff historically has said this use a public dog park per is permitted under 8250 point4 IND of story so we would ask you to deny the appeal because they provided you no evidence as to why staff's analysis is wrong and happy to answer any questions questions from the board comments from Mr Box I guess my co-counsel Mr work is now going to speak to you well Mr D no you got to step up to the microphone please if it's okay with you can I just briefly respond to what Mr Box said go ahead okay first of all let's just look at the situation about evidence okay first of all if you read 8504 point4 which we pointed out it says it should be it says it should be serving the serving the public in the surrounding area so the evidence I think is self-explanatory it's not serving the public and surrounding area when you have two commissions that said it clearly is not so you do have evidence to say it's not fitting in that category because it's clearly not serving the public in that area the next question is is this is this a public facility that they're operating the one that he mentions and the only one I'm aware of operating in the downtown area is the mut Park and that thing is not a person's business it's just a piece of land that someone wasn't using that said you can use as a dog park whenever you want to so the public can just walk in there you probably saw that these people are operating a business there and you can see the number of dogs that are on that little plot of land how in heaven name could you call a private business operating there a public dog park it's absurd I don't know what Mr Bon must think we all have a very low IQ you want to respond yeah I don't I don't have any inclination as to anyone's IQ in the room uh but again we have to make modifications to the way that the facility is is currently oriented we have to open it to the public that's what we intend to do once the appeal is done and the stay is lifted it may even mean that we have to close off the door that exists in the building that opens to the outdoor area so it is a pure open to the public dog park no different than Midtown muts it's not just a piece of land it's a fenced in area if you're familiar with it they have a fence it's not just a big field where dogs just go everywhere it's a fincon area that is a dog park that's exactly what this will be subject to approval by the ddrc of our fence but it will be open to the public not just use for the next door neighbor which is the kennel your turn thank you Mr chairman and members of the board my name is Kelly work and I am an attorney here representing uh Mike and Shauna barryman who own property located at 426 Northwest 5th Street uh my law office address is 105 North Hudson suet 304 and the uh as you all know the um jurisdiction of the board of adjustment includes uh variances and special exceptions uh and then this third category which you see far fewer of which is appeals from determinations of the uh Planning Department officials or building officials so the matter that is before you in connection with this particular appeal concerns the that latter category so this is an appeal from the determination of the planning department uh that was brought by uh Mr Dow and uh and that is the issue of course that is before you and as the staff report notes um the planning Department's interpretation in this matter was not intended to apply to a specific address uh again the planning Department's interpretation was not intended to apply to a specific address they were uh asked the inquiry what use unit under the city's zoning ordinances would a dog park fit into that was the inquiry that was presented to the planning department um they responded after some thorough review uh to that inquiry and and they said as set forth in the uh email that U it was sent uh to um Caitlyn Turner and and Mr Box Miss Turner is Mr Box associate uh and in that email uh Miss Welch planning department director just responded to the inquiry and said that the uh use unit uh 59- 82 5.4 which is the community recreation restricted use unit could be applied to a public dog park that was the only determination that was made by the planning department now I think the reason why you're seeing this level of concern from The Neighbors on this property at Northwest Fifth Street is because the um owner of the dogghouse the use there at 4:15 Northwest Fifth Street and their representative Mr Box sought to mischaracterize that interpretation to have been one to say this use unit at 4:15 Northwest 5th Street is a permitted use at this location that is what was in included in Mr Box's letter to the neighbors when the applicant withdrew the Spud application they said well this is not necessary because a determination has been made that this use is permitted at this location by the staff and again in his letter addressed to the board of adjustment just last week Mr box made that same representation that the staff had made the determination that a dog park use was permitted at 415 Northwest fth street that is not correct but I think that's the reason why you're seeing this response and this level of concern because that is how it's being characterized uh by the um the dogghouse the user of the this property at Northwest 15th Street or Northwest Fifth Street and um their representatives um but as you all know your review and determination in connection with this appeal is limited to a review of the determination that was actually made by the planning department which was what use unit under Oklahoma City zoning ordinances does a dog park fit fit into that was the question the way that Oklahoma City zoning ordinances are designed is that all uses are included under the various use unit categories so when you're determining where does a particular use go under the use unit categories the way the ordinance is designed is it has to go somewhere because the ordinance states that all use units are included in the following use Unit C categories so what the staff did when they were presented with the question where does a dog park go a public dog park they determined that it could go within the community recreation restricted use which although it doesn't reference public dog park it does include outdoor uses such as tennis courts basketball courts other public parks so that was the determination that was made by the state staff responding only to that inquiry generally and so what we would ask what I would ask is that if you are inclined to affirm the determination by the staff that a public dog park could go into the community recreation restricted use unit that you confirm and make it clear that that interpretation is not intended to apply to a specific address as is stated in your staff report that's the only issue that is before the board of adjustment today is this appeal from the determination by the staff what use unit category does a public dog park fit into that was the determination that was made they didn't make any determination with regard to 415 Northwest fth Street or to any other specific address as they state in their staff report so if you're inclined to affirm the staff's determination we would just ask that you clarify and make it plain that that interpretation that determination is not intended to apply to a specific address I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have questions comments from the board okay those are all the folks I have signed up to speak wait a minute David I'll go ahead real briefly I agree absolutely with Mr or it has nothing to do with the specific address it's the global question of whether or not a public dog park is permitted under that use unit irregardless of a specific address what we're asking you to do to is to affirm globally that that use unit is permitted under or excuse me that use is permitted under that use unit subject to all of the things that we have to also get approved by the ddrc fencing the turf all of those things and that it is in staff's determination a public dog park so I agree with Mr work we're not here about our address we're here about that spec that Global question which has historically been the way staff feuded we would ask that you to a deny the appeal and affirm the way that staff is historically viewed it okay Mr come on back up okay first of all let me just say this this problem you're faced with is is is not quite what's been outlined by either gentleman this is one problem you have with with lawyers I found okay first of all let me just say this the city staff and this is what brought me into this thing the city staff in fact the ladies right here has told me unequivocally that the the the the the in other words the way things are right now is the city staff is approaching the problem the city staff is evidently interpreting the statement from the zoning exactly the way Mr Box did in his letter to you so they're allowing the applicant to proceed with getting a fence permit and going through Urban Design neither one of those outfits are allowed to consider issues of is this a proper thing to be doing in this particular location which means that they will be granted the permit and we will they will be doing this forever so so the thing is the only Avenue that we have at this point is you guys and I was given that information by Mr Barker who is the uh legal the person from uh the legal office that that stays with the urban with the downtown design review that you're it so basically what's happened is Not only was Mr Box Maybe by some statement she made that she didn't make public Mr Box CU and you saw in the letter he assumes that they can just do what they're doing right now and just keep doing it the city staff is proceeding as though he can do what he's doing because when they get that fence permit the other thing they can do this forever and there's nothing we can do about it that's what I've been told by the legal department of your own City so basically the only recourse we have is right here and basically what happens is we're wanting you to in this case you got to remember that the city staff does not have to report to us any decision they make or who made it we just have to guess this is the only piece of document we had so we're asking you to really so when you say does this thing have a right to go first of all there is nothing in the ordinance that with that f 850.000 the extreme and nobody seems to really know what they're doing unfortunately if for us it seems the city has an incentive to avoid liability for Mr Box and we're getting thrown under the bus so all legal twitting aside the real situation here is to consider yourselves is this a place to put that should the city have made a stronger statement to Mr Box and to its own staff so that they're not proceeding as though everything is hunky St okay this will be the last call David you got anything else you want to say what he asks you is absolutely outside your your purview to make a determination as to whether or not the use is appropriate at this address is is not what this appeal is it's not what becomes before the board okay Kelly anything else you need to add yes okay then we're done do we have question questions from the board I've I've got a few okay um and first I want to start U with the applicant uh I do agree that uh what we're here today to review is the decision that was made by staff and and we're limited to just that um that being said um the statement was made earlier that we don't have uh we don't list every single us it's not an exhaustive list and I agree with that but what is understood is that every use we have has to fit in one of these use codes has anyone on your team or or in your your group of of protesters uh identified an alternative use that you would say would be more appropriate than the one that staff has offered up because by definition the way that I interpret this staff could not have made the wrong decision unless there was an an alternative use that was better for a dog park to fit into has anybody come up with what that alternative use would be because it has to go somewhere I think the verbal response was no I don't think we any of us here disagree that a public dog park if it's got a fallender use unit goes under that one what our concern is there's we have many concerns but one of our concerns one of the ones that you do have the power to address is to amend the recommendation Mr Welch gave to Mr box if you want to say that's the use unit if you want to go through all the bells and whistles of converting a private business into a public dog park which he admits Are Legion uh then do it but until such time as he gets his CA he gets his fencing permit he takes care of the turf the egress and Ingress problems the building problems the zoning issues the fact that they'll have to get another address for the park right can't have the same address for the building and the park we got a whole list of things are they going to continue operating like this is a public dog park that this use unit is allowed as is right now and that is what we're asking you stipulate that the advice she gave him was generic had nothing to do with this building close down the operation that they're doing as it is right now stop the barking dogs and if they can pass all the hurdles bureaucratic and otherwise through the ddrc and the Planning Commission through review then what else can we do right they've done everything the right way and by code okay okay one last last call here's a problem we have here in a nutshell I have it it seems like we have a real tangle here I have been advised by City staff that there is no process in which to adjudicate the issue of can this dog park is it is it to the advantage of the city to have that dog park in that specific place and I was told that the only outfit we could go to that could adjudicate that is you guys now so so basically at this point we're in a situation and which seems like a rather peculiar situation to me you can do all the legal speak you want is that we have something that is creating a public nuis that is reducing poverty values that is creating a real problem here and by the way you do have a right to review ordinances maybe what we should do is get a continuous and revise our request to say that we're requesting for you to actually um for for example take public dog park it doesn't Define what a public dog park is it doesn't Define what's public public and what's private it's not defined anywhere in the ordinance Mr Bo says well they're going to be what by doing this little finagling they're doing they got a private business is going to work as a public dog park well prove that he isn't there is no specification so we have such a law that's so vague in other words if we could make the argument look you're not running a public dog park you're running a private business and that's not what that zoning thing you're trying to fit into says there's nothing in the ordinance that that I can read that specifies how do I Define what's a public dog park and what's a private one you just have to come up with your own mind so the question is who is going to L litigate for example whether that's a public or private dog park that they're moving in there when I've asked the the uh the uh uh the Mr Barker he says well that's uh nobody so that seems kind of strange I mean so here we have a vague law and when we have a vague law vague ordinance in this case that's what you have the board of of adjustment for to look at a vague law and make a decision that's something you have City staff for to make a decision the law is vague it doesn't Define how we Define what is a public dog park clearly they're not in my view operating a public dog park they're operating a private business which is specifically prohibited in the zoning now who's going to adjudicate that if you guys don't evidently nobody will so they just proceed as though it's been defined so what we have here is a city has implicitly made a decision is not only interpreted by Mr Box it goes far beyond that little sentence you got there that's made them think they can proceed that they do in fact running their business which is a private business can be classified as a public dog park where did they get the evidence for that talk about evidence huh did they just make it up I mean let's face it the real problem here isn't what kind of fence they put around this thing the real problem here is this reducing property values by millions of dollars if the city makes a habit of doing this we're not going to have much City this is going to set an awful president so so the thing is are you going to allow this tort to continue forever I mean for example you've got to realize that the city does not have to report to the public what they're deciding and what they're doing who's deciding it who they've talked to Mr Box probably has more connection of a city than I've got I would think since he appears appears here every other day so he probably can to read their mind and they read his and no telling what they've told him or decided so we're in a awkward position as we're so basically what I'm saying is the cities should have made a pronouncement in this in this issue given all of the litigation we've had that they did not make she should have made a more specific pronouncement now you have a right to amend her pronouncement it says that in your ordinance that CS you you can you can take what she said and said well she should have said something a little more specific and I think you've certainly got grounds to do that because either that or you tell me or someone tell me how we because obviously if something is happening here that shouldn't be happening in other words a public dog a private business being called a public business to fit in the slot and nobody's making a decision well how did we figure that out H who's supposed to do this who is supposed to determine in that ordinance is in there for the public that this is something for the public purpose in other words if this is serving the public in the area evidently no one's going to l this how could it possibly when you look at 8504 it says that this public thing you're doing a basketball court whatever must be serving the surrounding area now Define that what is the surrounding area is the area of protest which is virtually unanimously against this thing the surrounding area I mean who litigates it who decides that it's not decided any it's not in the ordinance we've got some we've got an ordinance that's so unclear and so vague on everything of what is a public park first of all there's nothing in the ordinance that even says this that's that that even defines what what a public park has to be or what you call a public park because in other words if you have a private park that isn't a public park you have a slot to go in namely the one where you're not allowed to have your dogs barking Outdoors so they do have a slot to go in the question is if they can go in a different slot they're saying they can well on based on what there is no based on anything I mean youve put citizens in a situation if things are so vague and so undetermined and it's not clear what the process is to get to Justice okay now I think we're finished does anybody on the board have a question or a comment can we hear from staff sureair I I think I guess the question the big question that I have is is when it pertains to the decisions that were made and so can I get clarification on whether it was just a decision that the dog park uh falls under this use code of 8250 point4 and that's it or is there a separate decision that was made after that which is also that um the current configuration is applicable as a public dog park uh Sarah Welch planning department the decision made was twofold it was number one what you see know as a dog park and number two is that use allowed in the downtown business district the dbd um there has not been a decision from staff that how they're operating is the um community recreation use unit that would have to be established a change of use permit would be needed and they'll have to go through all the other any license and uh downtown design review processes to establish the the use and that will that is when it will be determined whether or not the current configuration is setup can meet that that you standard just one moment my colleague is wanting to clarify are you are you um are you know the assumption that the downtown design Review Committee would be the ones to um authorize the use no not NE necessarily regardless of if it can be done administratively or done through some other body uh my question is uh to the point that was brought up uh the decision specifically as it pertains to whether or not that particular location can meet that use that process that has not been determined okay but and when will that process be determined that would be determined in my opinion through the the building permit process I mean so development services would review it and then make a determination on whether or not change of use yes and I'm I'm assuming at that point they'll give recommendations as far as access so that the public can access it and be able to to meet those requirements correct yes so up to this point so so what I'm hearing is that if this does not qualify as in its current condition qualifies as a public par we have a business a private business operating against its attended youths or what it's allowed to operate as at that location there there are three there are three uses that we've discussed on this site one is allowed in the dbd that allows the indoor kennel uh when is not allowed has outdoor runs um and then the third one which was the subject of this inquiry is can can it be community recreation a public dog park in my opinion they have yet to establish the public dog park use so it's not the indoor kennel part of the business that is in violation it's the outside it's the Outdoor Dog Run is there not a way put a moratorium on that use and pending all the various licenses I would I would I'm looking towards our attorneys I don't think it would be within this board's riew to put a moratorium on a zoning case or a zoning um use unit but I would defer to my attorneys I mean I I agree that we are one question before us but at the same time we're allowing a business to operate illegally partially during this time it seems like okay I I don't think any of our votes have to do with is 415 Northwest Fifth operating legally or illegally no I agree I I I agree as to what our vote is but I'm I'm trying to address the concerns of the applicants here that we continue to have this outdor portion being used in violation of what the current license is well I think that's code enforcement so yeah I just want to ask a really quick question because my understanding is that we are here to affirm reverse or modify what you guys have already determined is that correct correct thank you okay any other questions comments from the board okay are we ready for a motion I I just have a question for David for your client what what are your plans in terms so if I I want to make sure I don't misinterpret what you're saying I'm under the impression that you all are planning to make modifications to the site to meet this use of being a public park that's correct Park we're going to have to go through permitting we've already been told we have to go through ddrc a public hearing on the turf question um and so whatever permitting staff tells us we have to do to meet the definition of a public dog park is what we will have to do to be properly permitted so yes this determination is just this use unit is a dog park staff will then tell us to be a public dog park here's all the things you have to do to meet our requirements that's what we will do is that outdoor space still currently being used from day to day it it is I mean once when they file the appeal there's a stay issued the stay keeps the status quo as is until there's a determination we have been working with staff and understand that we're going to have to get them materials for the turf likely go to a public hearing we have to present them materials for uh the fencing materials so it's a lengthy process to become compliant with whatever it is staff tells us a public dog park is is an alternative solution to seize operations as to that outdoor portion pending getting all those qualifications so we'll talk to staff that is wildly outside the purview of what the vote is here today I mean we're we're happy to talk to staff if staff believes that we are in violation today they of course have the ability to issue a citation immediately well I don't think that's outside of the pby for today because one of the one of the decisions that the applicant is challenging is the decision that staff has has made a decision that this dog park would can priv privately privately owned dog park can operate under the zoning under this use code so that's one of those items which is why I asked staff if it was just the use generally or if it was the use as well as a decision that this meets that use they haven't made that decision the only inquiry before you is whether or not globally a dog park public is permitted under that use unit irregardless of what happens at 4115 Northwest Fifth or fifth or anywhere else in the City that's the question so I understand that but where are you guys receiving the authority to operate as you are currently well I I don't know we haven't been cited so the applicant assumes that you're receiving that Authority from staff which is another thing that they're asking relief from is that staff is making the decision that they're allowing them to operate that which brings it into the purview of this board so the real well no that that is absolutely not within the purview of the board as to current operations on site the only thing that they filed an appeal on is whether or not staff was wrong in their decision that a public dog park fits under this it's the the nature of the appeal document that I have before me says Sarah wilch of the city zoning department made a decision that the dog park at 4:15 Northwest fth Street would qualify as a privately owned public dog park under the current zoning so that's that's Mr Dow's own that look at the staff report this is Mr Dow's Works no I understand that but in his application he's required to outline the nature of his appeal because that's what we're limited to we can't we can't review anything outside of that appeal so anything that he wants us to review that could possibly be overturned he'd have to State here and what I'm simply saying is that he's he's alleged all of those things here that he wants us to review as far as a basis to to modify or to to turn this out he can allege whatever he wants and and I'll defer to your city's to the attorney's office but the the only thing that is properly before you regardless of his allegations is whether or not a public dog park fits under that use unit it doesn't matter what he alleges what is before you what the code authorizes is an appeal of the determination of the administrative official the determination that's here before you is a dog park fits into this zoning category period into story all the other grievances all the other allegations perhaps we get cited tomorrow by code enforcement because the manner in which it's operating is not a public dog park we will have to work through you know staff and Code Compliance to get there to be considered public under what they believe it is but I would like the city attorney's office I don't know if r or stepen to confirm nothing about the current operation nothing about what we're doing is subject to review today and and so if if Council will weigh in on it I guess my question um condensed down would be what constitutes the notice of appeal is it not all of everything that they submit because it states that that's what we review is the the items contained in the notice of appeal it's everything that was submitted by the uh appealing party what uh look at your attachment nature of appeal that first paragraph says Sarah wel of the city's zoning department made a decision that the dog park at 4:15 Northwest Fifth Street would qualify as a privately owned public dog park under current zoning and then it sites 8250 point4 uh the allowed uses under current zoning of the area in question and then look at the email that's in your packet from Sarah Welch and what it says um we've reviewed your inquiry we can confirm that this US unit could be applied to a public dog park so that is a decision that you have to make could you say that one more time I'm sorry no well I mean this I think it's important because what the what the staff report says is appeal of Richard Dal of the decision of an administrative official regarding interpretation of use unit 8250 point4 community recreation restricted there's no mention of an address there's no mention of current operation at that address it's strictly does a public dog park fit under that use unit and and I believe in the email there was never mention of an address right so it it had to do with would it would this apply or could it apply and that's what the board has to decide um in response to Mr dal's appeal um his question terms on that if that's what you determine the would and the could so are we supposed to look outside of what they're asking for in the application no if you were to look at the Four Corners of the document that you've been presented his question ask would this his uh the and I know that every time we've talked about a dog park in a zoning application the use unit's always been 82 50.4 or even a dog daycare so so the so the the use applies to the dog daycare or a outdoor dog par so yes so you would look um look at the email that's exhibit a also look at the the nature of appeal that was filed and make your determination based on the question asked and what staff said an email that is the subject of this appeal so when I when I review that the way that I interpret this is that there's one issue which is if it's the appropriate use unit and then there's a separate issue which is the determination that's been made regardless of what's being said here now I'm talking about specifically what is in the application um and and I guess I don't know if it's appropriate to get clarification from the applicant as far as what was intended by this but that sure seems to be so the the thing that is is before you are those two things actually the email itself which is exhibit a and then attachment nature of appeal which describes the appeal from exhibit a the email so if you compare those two if you determine that they are the same you have a decision to make if you determine that one says what use unit could be applied and what use unit was applied then you have a decision to make either way you have a decision to make okay we need more lawyers go ahead absolutely if you don't mind one more hopping in here uh Steven Barker Municipal counselor's office um to to kind of try and help follow up uh clarify as far as what's a question or at least in my opinion what's in question today um I I think the nature of appeal document that Reed is referencing from the uh appellant this address the 415 Northwest 5th sure that's the property owner but I think more generally if you look at that is made the decision that a dog park not the dog park I think the applicant is just generally referring to this property in the way it's currently operating as a dog park whether or not that's operating lawfully or not that it's code enforce issue but I think generally speaking the the appellant is referring to this facility as a dog park whether that I'm taking that address to mean the zoning District right so the downtown the dbd not just this specific address again kind of that broader the dbd so one is a dog park should that fit in the 8250 point4 use unit classification and two as as Miss Welch in her uh testimony stated is that use unit authorized or permitted in the code in the dbd zoning District that that's how I would confine it I Miss T would you agree with that I mean I think that's effectively what we're getting at now whether or not again you've heard a lot of things whether or not that's a good idea or whether or not it's good for business there's a lot of other things but I think generally speaking what's been appealed is is Miss Welch right that a dog park fits into 8250 point4 and secondly is 8250 point4 a permitted use in the dbd where 415 Northwest F Street is zoned right and that does take it further not that does take it a little bit further and that is something that you have to consider uh but please be sure that as you consider it you're considering all of the information that you've been provided but the question of course which is what is that exhibit um the N nature of appeal that's on your screen um and also the thing that was appealed from which is exhibit a so comparing those two things look at what was appealed from look at what was said and then whatever determination you make is the appropriate one and so the record is clear when you're saying exhibit a you're referring to my December 29th 2023 letter I am referring to um yes Thursday September 21st 2023 thank you and that's the email from Sarah that and that is exhibit a that's what was appealed from yes right okay anything else from the board one quick thing um so 88250 point4 does not list what community recreational items are does it specifically does it say dog parks swimming pools it doesn't say dog none of that stuff right so it says typical uses thank you and I read through it as well too so okay okay are we ready for a motion I am but I can't make a motion and y'all can go from there um I would like to moot motion that we deny case number 15489 given the fact of staff's report that we heard earlier today based upon that and and only because we are here here to make a determination of what that report revealed so that's my your motion is to deny the appeal and uphold the city's yes it is decision okay to deny the appeal we have a second second got a motion and a second so if you vote Yes you're voting to side with the city staff interpretation and deny the appeal you say that right yes pretty close yes okay Motion in a second cast your votes I lost my voting the pain didn't come up oh I'm not an attorney all right there you go cast your votes okay the appeals denied all right we deferred number 11 anybody have additional items no board committees board members have comments Municipal counselor citizens to be heard all right nobody stepped up we're ready to J

As found on YouTube

Contact Us