Thank you.

All right, good afternoon.

And welcome to the City of Tulsa Board of Adjustment Meeting Number 1379.

But before we begin, we're going to have some brief comments from the city.

To conduct the public hearing in an orderly manner, we ask that you follow these rules and procedures.

Staff will announce the case and read the action requested.

The chair will ask if the applicant is present and if there are protestants or interested parties.

The applicant will be given time to present the case, not to exceed 15 minutes.

The board will then hear from interested parties or protestants.

Each party will be given time to speak, not to exceed five minutes.

Please do not repeat comments of previous speakers.

After the board has heard from protestants or interested parties, the applicant may be allowed time for a rebuttal not to exceed 10 minutes.

If you wish to speak in support or opposition to a case, please sign in before speaking.

There's a sign-in sheet here at the front desk.

Exhibits given to the board will be kept and made a part of the permanent record.

During the hearing, the board may ask questions of the applicant or interested parties at any time.

Staff reports for each application are available as PDFs on the Board of Adjustment web page at TulsaPlanning.org.

After the presentations, the board will vote to approve or deny the application.

If you are approved, staff will give you a copy of your case report following the hearing for your records.

You'll need to submit this documentation to the permit center as a revision to your current permit application or include the documents with your submittal for a new permit application.

If you submitted your permit through the online portal, please submit revisions in the same manner.

When addressing the board, please state your name and address for the record, and please direct all comments into the microphone.

A video of these proceedings is being recorded for future airing on TGov Channel 24 Cable TV.

At this time, please silence any electronic devices.

And if there are not any questions.

Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Nathan.

So we're going to start with agenda item number one, which is the approval of the minutes of meeting 137.8 from March 10th, 2026.

Do we have a motion?

Do we have any comments?

Mr.

Chair, I move that we uh accept and approve the minutes from the last meeting.

Um what was it?

March 10th, 2026.

Okay, we have a motion.

Do we have a second one?

Second.

We've got a motion.

We have a second.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

Ms.

Stolfer.

Yes.

Mr.

Hale?

Yes.

Is this Williams?

Yes.

Also going to say yes.

So the minutes have been approved.

So let's move on to agenda item number two, which is BOA 24013.

BOATER BOA24013 is located at the northeast corner of East 33rd Street, South and South Peoria Avenue.

Applicant Nathan Cross is requesting a variance to reduce the required 10-foot building step back from an abutting residential district.

Mr.

Chair, before we get into this one, uh I have to make a disclosure that someone from the applicant side attempted to reach out to me to discuss it from the previous meeting.

So thank you for disclosing that.

Council of course.

This variants will allow us to have additional spaces, which would with the goal of uh having all of the parking being underground except for surface parking above it.

So it would look from a parking perspective similar to what it looks looks like today.

Um what you're I think seeing here is the juxtaposition of the of the of the plan uh at as can be constructed currently under the zoning.

And um it's a representation of a version of what has been contemplated previously.

similar to what it looks looks like today um what you're I think seeing here is the juxtaposition of the of the of the plan uh at as can be constructed currently under the zoning and um it's a representation of a version of what has been contemplated previously uh the the developer has looked at this project from a number of different angles believe me and has concluded uh although it it it it is at greater expense and more um effort uh that doing subgrade parking is for uh both the development and the and the surrounding area the better deal for everybody involved uh and so what we've provided at the request of um some commissioners from the last meeting and what you're looking at now is a rendering of what like I said could be done uh and I don't would I wouldn't go so far to say as is what would be done if we couldn't get the variance but there would be an above ground parking structure if if the variance does not work out we have subsequently had a number of conversations uh and you guys may have seen some of the email traffic uh my client met with uh a group of neighbors and then I've had a number of conversations with Mr.

Joyce who represents the Johnstons who Ms.

Johnson spoke last time uh during the meeting last week I went out in the hall and spoke with the two two neighbors that were here had a great conversation and I certainly will not speak for them they absolutely uh deserve their opportunity to talk for themselves my impression of it is is that um the there is a shared agreement that uh not having a above ground parking structure is the is the preferred outcome here um that being said I covered the hardship the last go round uh it is an irregularly shaped parcel that gets thinner towards the top the existing zoning and I would say the desire of the city of Tulsa is to push the building to the front which in turn means that the the parking can only be in the back and the challenge that is presented from the surface parking is it's just simply not enough on top of the fact that this has been a scrutinized project very heavily from the neighbors previously and one of the frequent concerns that was voiced was neighborhood parking and so we're trying to not only provide additional parking for the development but also help minimize the on street parking in and around the development and I'll take any questions you might have okay thanks for the new grinder that's very helpful is steel on this southeast side I mean we're still maintaining the 10 feet right yes next to the house yeah we're not asking for relief there's no plan to to build within that 10 feet it is it it would it we would be held to that line it's only the shaded area and it's not even all of the shade well it's not even all of the shaded area this exhibit is the one that I presented last time is really the best exhibit this one I don't know if you can Aaron if you can do um 2.43 which has the site with dimensions it does reflect I believe the nearest point on the northeast corner is a three foot three inch dimension to the outside face of the wall to the property line um that continues down that easterly line um all the way to really where the where the property goes to the east and it's eight foot ten um at the southerly point there so the the variance request is limited to that portion of the underground parking thank you Nathan yeah remind me again so the proposed amount of parking versus what was required um the proposed number is do we well the so we talked about the required last time the required is is sort of hard to pinpoint because for the retail spaces on the ground floor they're too small to have a parking requirement under the current code the current number with this level anything under five thousand that's right if you bring if the office levels are divided up in a certain way they don't require a parking requirement we're trying to meet a practical need which most developers are in fact I would say frequently I've been in front of this board talking about wanting to have more parking than staff is is wanting because they don't like uh giant parking lots um and so uh it is we are trying to meet a a a practical requirement rather than a code requirement about 2.43 square feet if you if you'd like to speak I mean you're free to come off uh for your name and your address please yeah Ryan Correttz 401 South Boston Avenue suite 2850 Tulsa 74103 and uh parking is is about 2.4 per thousand square feet as it's with with the variance it's an extra 15 spaces that would be gained by the variants Mr.

Ryan Correttz, 401 South Boston Avenue, suite 2850, Tulsa 74103.

And uh parking is is about 2.4 per thousand square feet as it's with with the variants.

It's an extra 15 spaces that would be gained by the variants.

Mr.

Kurz, were you the one that spoke with the group of neighbors?

Yes.

On the back side.

Yes, that was me.

And and then we had Francis from Ethos as well as a representative from Crossland.

Can you um kind of summarize what what their concerns, what you guys discussed at that time?

Sure.

And again, they're here, so I know they're happy to speak to it, but uh I I think there was just a lot of um question as to what the project really was.

I think it was fake going into it and the depictions weren't enough before.

I think there was a lot of concern about uh how close it was to their houses and and how tall it was to their houses.

So after looking at the diagrams and understanding that where this started was above grade, and we've studied it further and and said we could go subgrade to uh not only not have a deck in their backyard, but also have more parking because we have more space since we can go under the building as well.

It was a very positive meeting once that was better better understood.

Okay.

I appreciate you guys adding all the additional information and and meeting with them.

Uh sure.

Yeah, that's always and and understandably from their side.

I mean, this project has changed quite a bit.

So you could you could see why there's confusion and concern.

So thank you.

Can you uh clarify or confirm?

So this would be mixed-use office and so retail on the ground level and then the everything else office space?

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

I know uh how many uh floors?

Three floors of office and then ground level retail.

Okay, so four total.

Yeah.

I write in the package, I guess, on the new package that you guys agree to add a new screening.

I mean towards the neighborhood.

I can I can speak to that.

I mean, the the existing zoning requires landscape screening of a certain dynamic.

I mean, and we can certainly talk about this, but it sort it goes into a little bit um the area where that we talked a little bit about last time, which is I'm not suggesting you can't ask questions, but we're talking about a very specific piece of this project.

The rest of the project has already been vetted and approved.

But that notwithstanding, the existing zoning requires a significant landscape buffer along the eastern edge that is uh at that time when it was presented and approved was designed to address concerns of of neighbors uh for screening perspective.

There's an existing fence there that uh the developer has agreed to improve or replace to to meet uh class A structure requirements or class A development requirements.

Yeah.

Which would be what?

What do you mean?

Well, I mean class A screening.

What do you what would it be?

Well, uh it I don't know what it would be.

I mean it it's I think it's gonna be at a minimum of fence that's very similar to the one that's there now.

We we would work with the neighbors on that.

It would be something consistent with what you would expect in a class A development that has not been determined yet, but we we've told the neighbors that we understand that's more impactful to them than it is to us, so we would work with them on what that is.

Just as uh point of information, the the code will require the installation of a a minimum six-foot high screening fence as well as the minimum ten-foot landscape buffer and the additional tree plantings that are already in the optional development plan.

Um it does look like at least based on this exhibit in front of us today, they've they've actually proposed 20-foot of landscape buffer um from the property line.

But so they're going above and beyond even those minimum requirements, but there would be no avoiding the need to have a full screening fence installed along with landscaping on that rear property line I don't I don't think uh I asked this these before.

What's the hours of operation for this parking garage?

Is that a 24-hour uh yes, the the intent for that garage would be during business hours it would be used for tenants and then after business after office business hours it would be open to the public for pay to park.

Okay.

All right, any more questions?

No question.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, um okay.

BOE 24013.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak on this case?

Please provide your name.

I'm going to try it, please.

Yes, Michael Joyce, the Michael Joyce Law Firm, PO box 5248 Tulsa 74152-0248.

Like to thank Nathan on behalf of my client to represent the Johnson's, which are uh immediately uh adjacent to the property.

Uh I wrote a lengthy letter which you all reviewed, I think, the last time uh we we had virtually no notice and no conversation prior to finding out about the project.

Since then, uh Nathan and I have had uh a number of good conversations.

Uh we've seen some uh uh additional developed plans.

So with the uh commitment and and the actual understanding that with regard to the Johnson's property, there's not going to be a variance.

So the 10 foot line will be maintained.

Also commitments that there'll be a class A screening fence uh through the property right now that it's kind of falling over, so we'd like to see that rectified sooner than later, but a consistent fence along both properties uh throughout there, and I'd like to see that at eight feet if possible, uh six feet kind of short for most folks.

Uh the landscape, obviously the ODP is uh gonna handle that, but uh we'd like to see that as beefed up as possible.

So we recently developed the Chick-fil-A site down the street, and we worked with the uh property owners and built a very nice uh fence and a really beefed up landscape buffer beyond that, worked with Nathan in that like so we'd like to see something similar to that, but with the understanding that we're not gonna have the 10 foot violated, that we're gonna have the fence uh significant screening, also that with the underground parking that there won't be any tiered or structured parking above ground as well.

We don't want both of those.

Uh but with that, and and I didn't put it in my email this morning, but in in talking with Nathan, also understanding that they're not gonna vacate or interfere with any existing utility service to the properties.

Uh obviously that would be problematic.

But with those understandings and agreement in place, uh, we're we're gonna remove our objection to the variance in the real estate business.

I like variances, they're good, they're necessary with appropriate measures taken in place to protect the public and the adjoining landowners.

And I think with these commitments, uh, we'll we'll support the request uh for the variance.

Yeah, thank you for you guys have meeting before this this meeting, so I mean that makes that all helpful.

So any questions?

No, thank you.

Is that anyone that would like to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

Hi, I'm Jody Rogers.

I live at 1318 East 32nd place.

Um it's the one in question.

Um I want to thank the developers for coming over to my house with our neighbors.

We had a really good discussion, and it was enlightening to see their perposal.

I guess uh the lesser of the two evils is the above ground parking or below.

I would prefer the below.

And we discussed fencing and trees, and I guess that's in discussion, and I hope that uh will be provided.

So I I'm okay with the zero variants.

Okay, thank you so much.

Anyone else that would like to speak on this case?

Please come forward.

I have one comment to make just to make sure it's not clear.

Are you already in discussion?

I'm sorry, yeah.

You you need to reborrow.

Yeah, if you need to answer any of those questions.

I don't want to take any more time, but I did commit to say it and I didn't say it because it got away from me.

Uh we the the we have made the commitment, and I will make it here today that with this variance we would not build an above ground parking structure.

That was yeah, that was something I was gonna ask.

Do you mind that that be added as a condition?

No, if that's allowable.

I don't know if that's even allowable because it's yes.

Um you can make it a condition of your variance.

Uh the only clarification I would add to that is if at a later date they determine they are not going to take advantage of the variance, the condition would not be applicable if they determined they were gonna comply with what the existing zoning already allowed.

Right.

But it can be a condition of your variance approval.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

May I I want to ask a question before you sit down.

Um our original request as stated in the in the packet was a 10 foot to zero foot request.

The plan that we looked at earlier has three foot three inches.

Is there a comfort level with how that motion is stated as it relates to the distance we we would prefer it to be up to zero only because there's shoring and we want to make sure that we don't impact adjacent properties with shoring uh requirements.

Okay.

But just for the board's purpose, I want to make sure our sample motion language was correct, but what's in the packet would be consistent with that.

And and as it relates to to that same point in the interest of making sure we don't create additional issues.

Um I think the actual request was for zero, right?

And without specification.

Uh and and so and I'm open to uh obviously I I think we all are the comments of both Nathan and Audrey about how to address that, not presuming we're going there necessarily.

That's you guys are still in have discussion, but the idea that we've given you an exhibit that shows one thing.

We're asking for zero just to ensure that we have some room for for shoring.

I don't have an exhibit that necessarily shows you zero.

And so, but we are not asking for zero all the way down the property line either.

And so I want to make sure that we properly do that to the point that everyone here is satisfied that the outcome is the thing that we've talked about running up to this meeting.

Yeah, that was going to be something I would mention on the sample motion limit it to kind of the area they're asking for, not the entire uh Yeah, I think that I mean I think that we can tie the the approval motion to the exhibit that we have.

That's what I was gonna say.

Um and making a reference to I'm crafting this in my head right now.

So like I wanted to put you on the spot.

Yeah, I guess so.

Saying in the motion that we're granting the approval to two to zero feet, subject to the conceptual plan that's 2.43 in your packet.

And I guess with the understanding that shoring and other things may be necessary in the space beyond the three foot three inches shown on the plans, um, but that this is the proposed outcome would be what was shown on the conceptual plans.

So I I think we can make the motion work for that if if if the board is inclined and wants to use the the sample motion that goes to zero feet.

You passed the test.

Yeah.

All right.

And we've got one question back here.

I don't know if we want to allow it or not.

No, I think we're we're we're back in discussion.

So all right.

So I I'm with you in that.

I mean wouldn't we allow the I cross the whole perimeter?

And I like to add the contingency.

I mean that condition to be anything above ground.

Yeah, I mean, uh I'm more comfortable with this certainly now than last time.

Yeah, definitely.

Absolutely.

Uh I mean we didn't have a whole lot to kind of base anything off of, um, and the neighbors were upset and hadn't been top two before.

So I think they're they sound more comfortable.

Uh I'm more comfortable with it myself.

Me too.

So yeah, if we if we put the condition of you know, no above ground or however we end up wording that I'm good with this now.

Okay.

So far.

Yeah.

I uh I mean I obviously studied that before I got here today, but all the visuals presented today were very, very helpful and and getting fully caught up in this.

Totally understand where the neighbors were coming from.

This is a very important district.

I'm sure that neighbors moved there to be adjacent to Brookside because that is a plus.

Um but when there's major changes happening, we we all want are concerned about that.

So really happy with the outcome here between the neighbors and the developer.

I think that's great.

And I'm stating this on the record so that people will take note because this is a really good example of that.

And I venture to guess that going below grade is more expensive.

I'm just gonna say that for the record.

And oftentimes we don't have developers that are willing to do that um for the sake of the neighborhood.

So I want to say thank you for that as well.

Um that's that's really cool that you're willing to do that for the neighbors.

So uh with that, I'm prepared to support a motion on this.

And I don't feel the need to have any conditions besides tying it to the plan in front of us, but so I'll let someone else present the motion and I'm happy to support.

Ms.

Sidomas.

Yeah, and so I think the plan in front of us does like stipulate that it can only reduce the variance at the top north east corner.

Um so I'm you know appreciative of uh all the thought that goes behind um you know we're our discussions and what we talked about a couple of weeks ago, and so I know this has been uh I think this is a really great example of while there is not a requirement for community engagement of projects or applicants that um at a certain scale.

I think this is thank you to the applicants for making that extra step and getting the neighborhood and the neighbors on board and just informed.

And so I I think you did uh great thing there.

Um it makes our work uh much more straightforward and what we are uh voting on.

All right, Ms.

Williams.

I did all my talking last time.

I'm good now.

Okay.

I think you know that.

Do we have a hard shape clear enough?

Who wants to volunteer for the motion?

It's a very unique partial.

I mean, I think are you gonna do it?

Sure.

We got it, Danny.

Okay.

Perfect.

All right.

Is it it's 2.43 all the way through 2.55 though, right?

About because that would take it through the engineering letter as well.

Yeah, I think that's the same.

Yeah, okay.

I think that that only covers the below grade portion.

The renderings above grade wouldn't be included in that.

So I wouldn't.

So that seems appropriate.

This is a long one again.

You got it.

Mr.

Chair, in Board of Adjustment 24013, I move to approve a variance to reduce the required building setback from an abutting residential district from 10 feet to zero feet per conceptual plan shown on pages 2.43 through 2.55 of the agenda packet, subject to the following conditions.

With the subgrade parking, there will be no multi-story above ground parking structure.

The board finds the hardship to be the unique property shape.

In granting the variance, the board finds the following facts favorable to the property owner have been established that the physical surroundings shape or topographical conditions of the subject property result in an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties for the property owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.

That literal enforcement of the subject zoning code provision is not necessary to achieve the provision's intended purpose, that the conditions leading to the need of the required variants are unique to the subject property and not applicable generally to other properties within the zone same zoning classification.

The alleged practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was not created or self-imposed by the current property owner.

That the variance to be granted is the minimum minimum variance that will afford relief.

That the variance to be granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair use or development of adjacent property, and that the variance to be granted will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the zoning code or the comprehensive plan.

Do we have a motion?

Do we have the cycle?

Second.

We got a motion.

We got a second.

Yes.

Williams.

Yes.

Mr.

Hale.

Yes.

And I'll also want to say yes.

All right, let's move on to agenda item number three, BOA 24014.

BOA 24014.

Location is 1017 North Greenwood Avenue.

Applicant Francis Wilmore is requesting a variance to permit more than one wall sign per public building entrance for a non-residential use in the RS3 district.

And a variance to increase the maximum display area of wall signs for a non-residential use in the RS3 district.

Just as another point of information, you all did receive updated signage information from the applicant in the email I sent today, but they're also printed in front of you.

We've also provided you with a revised sample motion that reflects the new dimensions and number of signs presented.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, and good afternoon.

Following our last meeting, I did have further discussions with our clients about what was kind of necessary signage.

And we've been able to kind of make some concessions in the fact that last time we were asking for a variance for two additional wall signs, along with the the uh uh uh allowable area to increase based on those two additional wall signs.

So in the updated information you have today, um we have removed one of those wall signs completely.

Um, so our variance request would only be for one additional wall sign beyond what would be uh mandated by code, um, and then the uh area associated with that sign.

Uh and that is as a result of us reducing the size of two other signs on the building.

So we changed from 12-inch font to 10-inch font with the other two signs that are on the building.

Um so those are in compliance as they stand today.

So the only request would be for uh sign D, um which is the the Tulsa City County Library sign on the south facing side.

So this faces Langston University, um, and we've included some dimensions on there of just kind of what the the distance is from where a motorist would be approaching to see the building, and kind of uh a chart that kind of relates that to the size of the letters uh to basically show that the distance that we're asking for kind of equates to the the two-foot height in those letters specifically.

And I I would just add that this it's a very large property, and that I think we wrote that in the hardship that it is a very large property to be a commercial development on a residentially zoned property.

Um we are limited to one monument sign per code, and so this would be our only south facing sign identifying the building as a library in this case, unless we went the route of doing the 20-foot-tall monument sign that we would be allowed to do by right, um, which I don't think is in the best interest of anyone.

I don't like that.

All right, so any questions?

Nothing.

Um I'd say I think last time we were having a hard time um going with a variance because right, one of the conditions of a variance is that is the minimum you know feasible, and so I think it's uh I appreciate you having conversations to bring down the square footage and like how much it's covering, and so I feel like that is much easier for us to then satisfy that requirement of this is the minimum relief that's necessary.

So thank you for that.

Mr.

Hull, I know you have some concerns last time too.

Yeah, I mean they they they've reduced the signage like we asked.

Um just just out of curiosity.

Your firm does a decent amount of libraries, and it seems like every most of them they go for special exception instead of rezoning.

Is it more of a timing issue on the rezoning, or what would be the rationale of special exception for this instead of timing expense, obviously for rezoning, it's just a lot more extensive process, and it opens up the potential for a lot more challenges in the rezoning.

Um and there's no advantage to rezoning beyond talking about a wall sign.

I mean, there's no other kind of building advantage to to rezoning a property.

Other we might be able to ask for a taller building in a situation like this instead of the 35-foot cap that residential would cap, but you know, that's not really in line with kind of the spirit of the neighborhood library.

Uh so when you go into it with the special exception in mind, uh you generally know that you're gonna have to also go in and request the signage variant.

No, it when we first start these projects early on, we don't know what the signage is request is gonna be.

Um, so I mean we I think we filed for the special exception probably four or five years ago at this point.

Um a lot's transpired from them since then.

Obviously, uh the the BOK sign being on the building is very important to this client.

This was the largest single donation by BOK ever in the history of the company, um, and so they want to make sure we honor that.

Um so we we just don't know up front what this the signage is going to entail at that point, or for that matter, what the city's going to interpret as facing a public street versus not.

Um we tried to have those conversations with the city on this project, and we basically were told to submit the signage as is, get it rejected, and come to you.

So thank you.

I will to further elaborate on the the rezoning question to um so at a staff level, we we look to the conference of plan as guidance on rezoning requests, which is not as not the same lens that we would look at a special exception.

For example, this particular property is is designated, I think, as park and open space from a land use perspective and would not support a rezoning to a commercial type uh designation.

So they would have been met probably with resistance even from our office if they had approached this and tried to rezone it to some type of commercial designation rather than maintaining the residential and and using the avenue of a special exception for this particular site.

Thank you, brother.

Any more questions to the update?

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Okay, case BOA 24014.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak on this case?

Seeing no.

Let's move on to discussion.

I know I missed some from the last meeting, but with what's in front of us today, this seems just fine to me.

It is a very large building, and the scale of the sign that they're asking for relief on seems fine.

So I'm willing to support this.

Williams.

Um they did what we asked, so I'm good.

Mr.

Hill.

Uh I'll copy what um Ms.

Williams said.

Ms.

Dumas.

No additional questions.

Perfect.

Okay, so do we have a motion?

Um I can make a motion.

Hardship though.

What what was discussed as hardship?

I guess it's right here.

Hold on.

The scale of the scale of the beautiful.

Okay.

And that's the minimum relief.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then which um what do you reference as the conceptual plans?

Because these aren't in the packet and they don't have numbers.

You can say conceptual plans presented today.

Yeah.

I think that they are.

If you scroll over, Aaron, is there they're dated, right?

So they have March 24th, 26.

Um, I see them.

So it gets added to the packet, correct?

Yes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

In Board of Adjustment Case 24014, I move to approve a variance to increase the allowable number of wall signs per public building entrance for non-residential use in the RS3 district from two to three.

Increase the maximum display area of wall signs for a non-residential use in the RS3 district from 32 square feet to an aggregate of 92.1 square feet per the conceptual plans presented to us today.

Um the board finds the hardship to be the scale of both the building and the property itself, and that this is the minimum relief required, or minimum relief that would suffice.

Um in granting the variants, the board finds that the following facts favorable to the property owner have been established.

A, that the physical surroundings shape or topographical conditions of the subject property would result in unnecessary hardships or practical difficulties for the property owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience of the strict letter, the regulations were carried out.

B that literal enforcement of the subject zoning code vision is not necessary to achieve the provisions intended purpose.

C that the conditions leading to the needs of the requested variants are unique to the subject property and not applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification.

D, that the alleged practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was not created or self-imposed by the current property owner.

E that the variance to be granted is the minimum variance that will afford relief.

F that the variance to be granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the subject property is located, nor substantially or permanently impaired use or development of jacent property.

And G, that the variance to be granted will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purpose of spirit and intent of this zoning code or the comprehensive plan.

We have a motion that we have this second.

Second second.

Okay, we got a motion.

We got a second.

Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Ms.

Williams?

Yes.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

Ms.

Stolfer?

Yes.

Also gonna say yes.

This application has to be up.

All right, let's move on to the last case of the date.

She's a VOA 24016.

BOA 24016.

Location is 129 East 18th Street South.

Applicant Chase and Erica Healy are requesting a special exception to allow a brew pub use in the CS district.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, Chase Healy 312 East 20th Street.

And so, yes, our request is there in the South Boston area to have what we refer to as a tap room or a small space for us to people to come and try and enjoy the beers that we produce.

The city really only has designations of commercial brewery or brew pub.

So brew pub fits what we're trying to do the most, although I think traditionally people associate that with a full-blown restaurant as well, which we won't be.

But it's our request to renovate the building that's an old gas station that's there in the neighborhood and turned it into a neighborhood destination for our business.

Um the slide.

The next slide kind of has some of the key bullet points for you.

Um if you're unfamiliar with American Solar and our location at six in Utica, um, we've been open since 2016.

Um both me and my wife live literally two and a half blocks from this location.

So for us, um we're trying to enhance the place that that we live and we'll be able to walk to it every day, much as our intent for everyone else that enjoys I think this modern urbanism that's occurring uh in our neighborhood with the addition of walkable businesses, schools, everything that's going on there.

Um so that's the goal is to create a family-friendly space uh that's suitable as a brew pub in the license we carry.

We're all ages uh in a space for families.

If kids can get ice cream across the street, the parents can have a beer next door.

Um that's our intent.

Uh the hours are listed here in these mirror the hours that we currently operate our other space.

We're not a late-night bar.

Um we're just a fun addition, I think, to the neighborhood.

And I will add that we previously were just 200 yards down the street.

I did this several years ago as well for the space uh right at the top of the intersection there at 18th in Boston.

So this is about 200 yards from the location we had prior to the pandemic.

So I'm sure you're from the neighbors, you know?

Yes, and and I did a little too late.

We got a couple photos.

So um on Sunday from one to two o'clock, we posted through all our social media and met with all the neighbors, and a good 20 or so showed up.

Um and I think their main concerns were um more business, you know, within an area that there are homes nearby.

And uh the benefit to us is that this space does come with uh around 21 parking spots where similar businesses have none.

Um and 10 o'clock on Friday and Saturday is as late as we intend to be open, so from a noise standpoint, I think that um our request is reasonable.

But those were the concerns that were brought to us, and I think everyone that came by um felt much at ease with um us going in with this concept after just being able to get those details from us.

It's worth noting that we've heard from several of them.

We have lots of letters of support here.

Um so that goes a long way.

I think that there was maybe around at least a dozen of them.

Yeah, because those were sent my way as well, and it was so kind of people to chip in.

But um, if you're familiar with our space at all at Six and Utica, um I think a big element of our business is community involvement.

We give to everyone support where we can, and we've created a space where people can hold their meetings, events, celebrations, and while that's really the intent of our big space that we've uh renovated at Six in Utica.

This really is a neighborhood spot, and that's that's the intent.

The big events happen in the big space because they can handle the capacity.

Yeah, and of all the letters, we didn't get a single one that was against it.

So I'm wondering if that was what I if I would have gotten those.

Well, you wouldn't afford to like well, I yeah, I didn't send any of them.

Those were all sent.

Okay.

But I was gonna say kudos to you for meeting with the neighboring neighborhood and giving them a chance to all give their feedback because it's clear that after learning about it and seeing this lovely rendering that they're all really supportive.

So nice job.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

No more questions.

You may have to see.

Thank you.

Okay, slower.

Okay.

Um BOA 24016.

Do we have anyone that will need to speak on this gate?

Please go forward.

Nathan Cross, uh, two west second street.

I think I said suite 700, that's our old address.

It's suite 600, uh Tulsa.

Uh I'm actually here to speak in support to the extent that that's necessary.

I represent uh Phoenix Cleaners who actually the people that own Phoenix Cleaners who actually own this and are in discussions with them.

And I'm only speaking to say that it's been uh the the Phoenix, the family that owns Phoenix Cleaners has been there for decades, and they have a very, very significant um uh routes, set of routes in that neighborhood.

And it's very important uh what goes in at this location.

And I can tell you, because I've been working on it for a while, this has been a challenge to fill this space in a way that that makes sense for both the neighborhood as well as doesn't increase parking problems uh and also presents something that uh is gonna be a a good addition to the business mix in the area.

So um uh I mean they're the property owner, and it's it's you know they're the ones that would be leasing this, so there's some self-interest, but they are very much in support of this concept, which is as evidenced as that we're to this point.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, anyone anyone else that wanted to speak on BOA 24 C016?

See no.

Let's move on to the discussion.

Uh I spend a decent amount of time in this neighborhood.

I think this will be a great addition and as evidenced by all the neighbors, uh, full support, I think.

Definitely happy to support this.

Yes, yeah, I mean it's it's a hundred percent fitting for what's going on over there.

Um I've seen some previous concepts for this lot um that were the scale seemed a little off for being right up next to a neighborhood.

So I mean I think this is pretty in line with with what's already kind of the mojo that's happening.

So I I like it.

Okay, yeah, I think it was a great move to post on social media since they already have a following and letting people know in the neighborhood like what's going on and um giving people a chance to ask questions.

So I think that's really smart, great job.

And um I can't wait to go by there.

And then we just have to work on that uh the whole construction um uh melee in the middle of the street.

Shame we don't think we don't get to have a sale.

Maybe we go there outside this meeting, huh?

Ms.

Williams?

Yes?

Wonderful.

All right, so this half a motion.

Brief moment.

Uh in board of adjustment case 24016.

I move to approve a special exception to exor.

It says special exceptions wise, so sorry.

No just keeping you on your toes.

It's good.

I'm passing the test though.

I just I move to approve a special exception to allow a brew pub use in the CS district per the conceptual plans shown on uh shown in our in the meeting today, presented to us in the meeting today.

The board finds that the requested special exception 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.

We have a motion, do we have the second one?

Second.

Yes, Ms.

Williams?

Yes, Mr.

Hill, yes.

Ms.

Stolfer?

Yes.

And also I'll say yes.

So this application has to be upward for vaccination.

So this is the last item with agenda.

That's incredible.

Yeah.

Wild out of the long agenda.

So any comments?

Any of these should be a comment, I have a question.

Did the signage application that was continued on the last one from 21st and Lewis did they cancel uh you are continued that to the next meeting.

So the next one.

Okay.

Yes, they're we gave them some additional time as they were trying to gather information on what was there.

So you'll see that at the next meeting.

Yep.

Gotcha.

All right.

If any more any more comments?

Okay.

So it is 153.

This meeting is said.

Wow.