All right, good afternoon.

It is 102.

Let's call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the City of Tulsa Border Adjustment Meeting Number 1381.

But before we begin, we're gonna 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 is heard from protestants or interested parties, the applicant may be allowed time for 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 located 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 a submittal for a new permit application.

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

When addressing the board, please state your name and address for the record.

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 all electronic devices.

And if there are not any questions.

Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

Thank you, Nathan.

So we're normally a board of five volunteers.

So as you can see, we're only four today.

So in order for your case to prevail to be approved, you're gonna have to get three yeses.

So if you wish to have a continuum on your case, I mean this is your chance to request a continuous.

Otherwise, we're gonna move on to agenda item number one, which is the approval of the minutes of meeting 1380, April 14, 2026.

Do we have a motion?

Do we have any comments?

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion to approve minute meeting minutes from meeting number 1380 to Tuesday, April 14th, 2026.

Second.

We got a motion.

We got a second.

Mrs.

Williams.

Yes.

Ms.

Stalver.

Yes.

Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

I'm also gonna say yes.

So the minister meeting has been approved.

So let's move on to agenda item number two, BOA 23980.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, item number two has been withdrawn by the applicant.

All right.

So the item has been withdrawn.

So let's move on to agenda item number three.

BOA 24026.

BOA 24026.

Location is 1601 South Trenton Avenue.

Applicant Kevin Calstrom with Kazar Holdings is requesting an appeal of the decision of the Tulsa Preservation Commission to deny a historic preservation permit application.

Um just for the board's information.

Our order of operations does shift a little bit on these.

Um because this is an appeal, we will first hear from Felicity Good, who's our interim preservation officer.

She will present the decision that was made by the preservation commission.

Uh then you will hear from the appellant before you move into your decision.

Um and then just as a reminder, um the appeals process for the board provides the board of adjustment all the powers of the administrative official.

In this instance, it is the preservation commission in either upholding the original decision of the preservation commission or overturning that decision.

Um the code does say the board may affirm or upon concurring vote of at least three members reverse wholly or in part or modify the decision being appealed.

In acting on the appeal, the board of adjustment must grant to the official's decision a presumption of correctness, placing the burden of persuasion of error on the appellant, meaning the appellant's burden of proof is to show there was an error in the decision that was made.

So that's for all of your information, but um first we will hear from the preservation commission staff.

Thank you for those details.

So please come on.

Excuse me.

Also, want to um just add to that that um the uh the decision being appealed may be reversed or wholly or partly modified only if the board of adjustment finds that the administrative official aired.

Okay, thank you.

May I have your name?

Your advice, please.

Uh yes, Felicity Good, I'm with the planning office 175 East 2nd Street, suite 480.

Um, and I'm a senior planner here in the preservation in the planning office and also staff to the preservation commission in my role as the interim historic preservation officer, like Nathan said.

Um so the this request is an appeal of the preservation commission's decision to deny a historic preservation permit application at 1601 South Trenton Avenue for the expansion of a fence located within the street yard.

Um so this property is located in the Swan Lake Historic Preservation Overla.

Is a type of zoning district, like local zoning district, it's guided by the zoning code that requires property owners to obtain a historic preservation permit for most exterior work that is done to their property.

Um and that does include landscape features like fences that are located within the street yard, which is the area between the house and the street.

The preservation commission under the zoning code has the authority to review and make decisions on HP permit applications.

So last summer our office was notified that a six-foot-tall privacy fence at this property was expanded within the street yard on the north side of the house, um, which is along 16th Street.

The house faces west onto Trenton Avenue.

There was an existing fence already there that enclosed the backyard, and it terminated at the rear northeast corner of the of the house.

Um and so this new portion of the fence now covers most of the north facade, um, including obscuring all of the windows along that side of the house.

Um, and it terminates kind of just east of the um the chimney on that side.

So no historic preservation permit was obtained for this work, so we passed this along to code enforcement when we received the report.

Um code enforcement issued a notice of violation in December, and then the HB permit application was submitted in February.

Um so this was reviewed first by the HP permit subcommittee and then they forwarded it along to the preservation commission on March 5th.

The preservation commission reviewed and decided to deny the application.

Section 70.070F of the Tulsa zoning code, it outlines the standards and review criteria for HP permit applications and gives specific factors for consideration.

Um the beginning of this section says in its review of HP permit applications, the preservation commission must use the adopted design guidelines to evaluate the proposed work and must to the greatest extent possible strive to effect a fair balance between the purposes and intents of the HP district regulations and the desires and needs of the property owner.

Um the preservation commission, they did both of these things.

Um first they cited sections G.1.1 and G.1.4 of the unified design guidelines in their denial of the application.

Um those are listed in your staff report on page 3.2 if you need them.

Um guideline G.1.1 is kind of a general guideline for landscape features that calls for retaining and preserving historic landscape features through repair.

Um guideline G.1.4, though, is the guideline that specifically applies to fencing.

Um it says use fencing materials that are consistent with the historic fencing founded along the same street and within the district.

Chain link fencing, wire fencing, vinyl fencing, or any fencing that blocks the view of structures is not allowed.

Um so this clear this fence clearly blocks the view of the north side of the structure, which is the basis of their decision.

Um so during the HP permit subcommittee review before it went to the full commission.

Um, the committee members discussed several potential options for alternative treatments of the fence, um, including maybe moving it to the south side of the house to still accommodate like a dog run, which is what the owners owner had said the um purpose of that fence area was.

Um, the other option was reducing the overall height of the fence to allow a little bit more visibility of those windows along that facade, which are um you know some of the character defining features of the house.

Um and so the the subcommittee they they preferred to complete a second review after the applicant made revisions before passing it along to the full commission, but went ahead and sub and passed it along with no recommendation to the full commission after because of the applicant's upcoming travel and work schedule.

Um I think with the um with the expectation that the applicant would make revisions before the preservation commission meeting the following week.

Um so the preservation commission then reviewed the application the following week.

The um applicant hadn't made any revisions that had been discussed at the subcommittee meeting, so they were presented just with the fence as it currently exists, six-foot-tall private privacy fence as shown in the photos.

Um so commissioners again kind of discussed several possible options for ultimate or for alterations, but pre being presented with no alternatives um or revisions to the proposal, they denied the application, finding it inconsistent with those sections of the unified design guidelines.

Um so there is a copy of the minutes in your um staff report if you would like it for review.

It's on page 3.27.

Um but overall the preservation commission, they followed their procedures, reviewed um the application as outlined in section 7070 of the zoning code, um, attempted to find alter um alterations or alternatives to accommodate the owner and they base their reviews on the unified design guidelines, which is what they're tasked with doing.

Um happy to answer any questions you have as well.

Thank you.

All right, so are those options still available for the applicant?

I mean, for the owner.

Yes, if a if an application is denied, the owner basically has two options.

The first is um they can appeal the decision to you all, um, or as the a second option, they can make any any amended proposals and resubmit those to the preservation commission as a new HP permit application.

So yes, they could they could amend their proposal, make some changes and resubmit it.

Do you know when the fence was installed?

I believe it was last summer sometime.

I think our office um sent it over to code enforcement in July.

So I um sometime around July.

Are there any other properties?

I mean, like covering the side of the structure, like this one in the same.

There are very few.

Um so I did kind of look around Google Street View on every every street in Swan Lake, um, and I found about six total in that in the whole neighborhood.

Um so four of those I couldn't find any information about an approved project um for the fence at those houses.

Um and among those, I think two of them were right on Peoria as well.

So, like the fence was covering just the edge of the district along Peoria.

Um there was one fence that I saw that was approved in 2018.

Um, and then another one was a very similar situation as this one where the fence had already been constructed, and the preservation commission approved it with the condition that the height of the fence be lowered a bit a lot, like where it runs along the house.

So you mentioned about the reduction of the heights.

Uh what's that number?

So I think that's what the the commission struggled with.

They didn't really they weren't sure, they didn't really land on a number.

They asked the applicant to provide you know some drawings showing you know what the appropriate might height might be in comparison to where the windows were.

Um so I think some numbers that were thrown out though were maybe four or five feet, um, depending on you know the slope of the site, how high up the the windows are, things like that.

Any question?

No questions.

No questions.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

So I guess we move on to now the order of the appellant.

Yep.

Okay.

The owner of the property.

Okay, please stare your name and your address, please.

All right.

Um my name is Kevin Kalstrom.

The address of the home is 1601 South Trenton Avenue in Tulsa.

Okay.

So what happened?

Well, uh it's my ignorance and not understanding against the uh the guidelines of uh you know the what that meant, but yeah, so I continued in the extension of the fence that was existing to cover that area of the home that was on the side yard to create an area for the the homeowners, the renters to be able to use for you know, put away a dog or have they have small children, they can have a place where they can you know feel secure because once you open that gate in the back, you open the the door uh for the garage or the driveway and it exposes the whole backyard.

So I built that so you they could have a place where they could, you know, work and and you know, put the dog away or if they're in the backyard and utilize the space better.

It was just kind of a an area that wasn't really being utilized, and um so I just continued it was 30 foot, uh continued the same height style exactly the fence that was there existing.

And um, yeah, I didn't know or realize there was an issue or problem with anything, so we just did a small area for the fence, and that was my understanding is that was normal.

So but um, you know, then I was a pro, so I got a letter in the mail saying that you know I needed to go before the uh board to talk about the fence.

And so I did that.

We talked about the fence, they gave us some couple different options to maybe lower it or maybe make it more transparent, you know, talking about the aesthetics of the side of the home that you can you know see the windows basically.

Um my understanding is that uh uh homeowner at 1608 South Trenton.

It was the person that called in that complained about the defense and wrote in a letter.

I don't know if that's an evidence or not.

Okay.

Basically, this the person uh said that they couldn't no longer see into the windows of the home.

And subsequently, I found out that that person was a convicted sex offender, and it's served time for that, and you know there's small children in this home, so I had concerns my tenants about that as well.

Um I did a lot of research and drove around the neighborhood.

I own two homes in the neighborhood, so uh I do care about the place.

I've been in this in their area for a very long time, and I took a lot of pictures of subsequent fences that are in the same situation, you know, corner lots with six foot, seven foot tall, eight foot tall fences that uh you know are just like mine.

So my understanding is the president has already been set as far as what the design is, and I have pictures of all that.

These are you know, fences that are on homes that are just like that.

I can look at the colour.

Okay, you can handle Aaron, she can put them up on the screen.

Yeah, these are all we got tons of them.

Uh I was uh I've been called by several neighbors in the neighborhood about the situation with the fence and our uh sliding in my side just for the safety of the children and there and that you know the for the resident.

And I spoke with that person directly, so um our oldest properties in Swan Lake.

Yes, they're all within uh literally two blocks from that house.

How long do you own the property?

Uh for three years.

I own another house on Rockford as well.

That fo that fence is like seven or eight feet tall.

Were you opposed to their suggestion of reducing it down in height?

I wasn't until I found out the situation with the neighbor, honestly.

No, I I felt like I wasn't given enough time to put submit drawings and put anything together that was uh you know substantial.

So I you know, it was like had that meeting then the next week was the hearing.

So I was told to basically tell them to put up drapes, and that would be good enough.

Take the fence down and put a drapes anything else.

That's it.

Uh I have letters to submit a letter from a neighbor.

I don't know if that's there or not.

Uh we did receive one letter of support from Michelle Davis.

If that was the letter you were at least uh, yeah.

Okay, yeah, it's in the packet on three point two nine salon.

Karen, did you get anything from Karen?

No, I don't think so.

So uh instant it's from Karen.

She's the one that made me aware of the situation.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I'm sorry.

Can you state again were the concerns about this neighbor brought up in the first hearing?

No.

Okay.

Nobody knew anything about it.

Just that the gentleman sent in a letter, and then I was approached by this lady, contacted by this lady to let me know what's going on.

But yeah.

Thank you.

I just wanted to make clarify that that was new information in the case.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So let's see if there's anyone that would like to speak on BOA 24026.

Please come up.

Please provide your name address, please.

My name is Deanne Paisley.

Um my address is 1530 South Trenton Avenue.

I live Caddy Corner from this house.

And my concern is the truth.

And he chose not to.

That is the truth.

And secondly, the fence that he's describing, and believe me, I see it every day because I live right across the street.

That from the backyard, there is no gate in that fence.

So then the new fence was added, the light wood.

There is no access to that part of the fence.

So it's not a dog run.

It's not a place for children to play.

The house is a rental.

Who knows who could be living there at any time?

Um so like I said, the truth.

I want the truth to come out as to why this fence was put up.

And also, as a person who lives in a preservation district, we have rules.

Um we have things that have to be done properly.

And I have to obey the rules.

If I'm going to want to build a fence on my property, or change a door, or change a window, or do anything to my property, I have to go before the preservation commission and tell them what I'm gonna do and make it right.

Um and I think that should be the rule for everyone.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions.

No, thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Chip Atkins.

I live at 1638 17th place.

I own my husband and I own the house at 1531 South Trenton Avenue have since 1980s.

Um I'm longtime um owners of historic properties immediately to the north, which I've quoted.

I maintained since 1980s.

I also served as a neighborhood representative on the subcommittee of preservation, where I worked directly with the applicants to ensure a compliance with historic preservation.

I'm here to urge the board to uphold the toss of preservation denial of the fence expansion of 1601 South Trenton.

The applicant proceeded with construction after being explicitly told a COA was required by me.

I went over and told the construction people that they needed to get COA.

They ignored me and says this is our property, we can do what we want, and I'll tell the owner, is what I was told.

And they continued.

Uh with these, but the requirements were ignored.

Construction of the fence was approved without was constructed with our approval.

They only contacted the preservation commission after the fact, once the violation was already done and in place.

This is a procedural violation, not a misunderstanding.

When you buy a house in a historic neighborhood, you are notified when that paperwork that you have to get a COA.

This is nothing new if you buy houses.

And he says this is his third house in the neighborhood.

So right there tells you something that is either not reading the paperwork or ignoring it, one of the two.

I don't know.

That's his decision to do.

Allowing a variety under these circumstances would reward noncompliance and undermine the legal authority of the historic preservation code.

The request fills legal standard for our variances.

Under Tulsa zoning law, a variance may only be granted when the applicant demonstrates a unique land-based hardship.

The applicant has not done so.

The only justification offered involves dogs, yet no factual record has been provided regarding what type of dogs, how many, what specific behavior or safety concerns exist, what the existing already approved fence is adequate.

We have not seen any gates.

This is a picture of before the fence went up that you have in front of you.

As you can see, this is a solid wall there to the east of the house.

That wall is from my understanding is still standing without a gate in it.

So this is a fenced-off courtyard in this area, from my understanding as of last week.

Personal preference, convenience, or the fact justification does not meet the statutory burden for a variance.

The fence violates multiple mandatory historic preservation standards.

The Swan Lake Historic Preservation Guidelines and the residential info guidelines that specifically prohibit front yard and street facing side yard fences, encroachments that alter historic spatial patterns, and obstructions on corner lots, which must remain visually open.

The expanded fence at 1601 violates all these provisions.

It disrupts the historic openness of the corner lot and materially alters the streetscape.

The expanded fence creates unresolved access and safety issues as well.

The newly enclosed area raises fundamental question.

How is this area assessed for maintenance, utilities, or emergency responses?

No access plan has been provided to you that we have seen.

A variance cannot be granted when the basic fundamental safety and issues remain unanswered.

The preservation denial was correct, consistent and legally required.

These are discretionary factors.

There are mandatory criteria that I have to follow every time I do something on a house.

It's something I chose.

Is what I'm hearing from me.

Grandless variants would create a dangerous precedent.

If the board approves this request, it will signal to every property owner in the historic district that you may build first and seek approval later.

You may disregard the COA process.

You may alter historic streetscape without consequences.

This would erode the enforcement of historic preservation code and jeopardize the integrity of the historic district in Tulsa.

Conclusion.

As an immediate neighbors at 1531, South Trenton, and as neighborhood representative informed the applicant of the COA requirement before construction, we respectfully request the board affirm the Tulsa Preservations Commission decision to deny.

On some of the the pictures that he showed were pre-existing fences that were done before historic preservation was done.

I know the one at 17th and St.

and Trenton on the corner that was done back in the 80s when they built the house originally.

So most of the houses, the fences were prerexisting, they showed, but not all of them.

And not all of them are on corner lots.

That's the other thing I noticed too.

Corner lots does make a big difference according to the preservation code, and we have taken consideration, and we do make consideration with everybody.

We just don't deny a fence just because it's on a corner lot.

We tried to make every way we can to make it work for the homeowner.

So question.

And so when at what point do you notice that the fence was built, and do you have direct contact with uh with the owner?

I did have direct contact, direct contact with the uh contractor who was putting the fence up that day.

I went over and told them when they first started digging the holes that they needed to get a CLA and the guy basically said we're gonna do this anyway.

We're this our property, we can do what we want.

That's what the contractor told me, the people doing the fence.

So I don't know who I don't recognize this guy from from being over there.

So it's not no, I have not spoken to him personally.

Okay.

Any more questions?

Or thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So this chance for you to say something else to respond to any other questions or yeah, thank you.

Um so just uh just a few things that I wanted to touch on.

Um so um, like the applicant sort of discussed, um, the issue with the neighbor was really not discussed at the preservation commission.

That wasn't information that they had to consider as far as his needs or desires.

Um the preservation commission did express an openness to um consider alternatives to the fence design that would maybe be a compromise um or something um like that, but um just were not presented with any um and then most of the the photos that were shown um I think were all included in kind of those previous permits that I had described or um that I found a lot uh around the neighborhood, with the exception of maybe a couple, which um chip just mentioned are not corner lots.

Um so if a street's located outside the or if a fence is located outside of the street yard behind the face of the house on those interior side yards, um, those are not subject to review.

Um, and so that doesn't really apply in in the situation.

Um but overall, I mean I would just assert that the preservation commission they they followed their guide, they followed the rules that they have and their guidelines um and also you know made a decision based on the information that they had at the time.

So any of these short questions.

Oh, I'm sorry, I did want to just add to though that the um the owner has been like good to work with.

As soon as he got a notice from um from code enforcement, he invited us out for a site visit, and we talked through options, he submitted an application and everything.

So um, so yeah, that that process has been good.

I think that he's been you know working towards a resolution this whole time.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so that's gonna let us move into discussions.

So any thoughts, guys.

I mean, to me the guidelines are very clear.

Then no fencing should block the structure, especially that one point one point one four.

Right, yeah.

I mean, it seems like it spells it out pretty well.

And if we go back to what um staff, legal staff indicated for the review criteria.

Um I mean, I don't see that the administrative official um erred in there.

Yeah.

That's purely what our review here situation is.

So yeah, I agree with that.

I am very sympathetic to the new information.

Um, but unfortunately, that's not what is here before us.

So we have to decide if there was an error in the the case the first time around, and I don't believe there were any errors.

I would personally like to see this go back with a new application, maybe some modifications and the new information of why they're doing this, because I do think that um anyone uh sitting in that seat would would want to have that information and the why and be sympathetic to uh working on solutions that could be achieved to uh make both parties happy.

Okay, Mrs.

Williams.

Um I believe I'm inclined to agree with everyone else at this point.

I would like to see them represent something with the lower fencing or something like that.

You know, this is a historical community, and um I think that when you plan to purchase or rent or whatever in a community like this, that it's upon you to learn all of the ins and outs of what happens with this community.

It's like when you go out of town and you travel and you're driving and you get pulled over and you say you didn't know what what the drive what the uh limit was the same.

There's no ignorance of the law here.

So you can't claim that here, but I do think that there is a path.

Let's you know, get it back, and you said you worked well with the owner.

I would love to see it work out.

Uh I also believe that if there's something nefarious in this neighborhood that this community is tight enough that they know kind of what's going on in their community too, and I think that they would be on board to remedy that if that were the case.

I'm not saying it's not, but I'm just saying maybe work a little bit more together to to find out what's going on with that because that is a serious matter if you've got somebody that's looking at kids.

All right.

Sounds like we have consensus.

So do we have a motion or do we have any additional comments?

I'll make a motion.

Uh Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment 24026.

I move to affirm the administrative decision by the Tulsa Preservation Commission and Historic Preservation Permit application number HP 0742 2026 to expand defense in the street yard finding the Tulsa Preservate Tulsa Preservation Commission acted appropriately in the denial of HP 0742 2026.

We have the motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

You got a motion, we got a second.

Yes.

Ms.

Williams.

Yes.

Yes.

Also wanna say yes.

So the decision has been confirmed.

All right, so let's move on to agenda item number four BOA 24029.

BOA 24029.

Location is 3536 East 23rd Street South.

Applicant Lindsay Floyd with Kimber Holmes is requesting a variance to increase the allowable floor area of a detached accessory building in the RS3 district.

All right, please come up.

Good afternoon.

I'm Lindsay Floyd with Kimber Homes.

Um we're requesting a 94 square foot increase to a detached um building in this neighborhood.

This particular home in this um in this neighborhood has a sloping um that causes a lot of drainage in the back corner of the yard.

Um so the only way in this area to really get proper storage that keeps the integrity and the beauty of the neighborhood, also the lot um is by increasing the floor print of the garage area because this is an addition.

Um so a car of this era can fit in there because the the current garage sizes are extremely small.

So um, and then also be able to have storage um for lawnmowers and such, and then a room for tools and and things.

So um, in order to fit everything in there, um, and because of the way of the sloping of the yard, the drainage and everything, there's no way to put an additional shed on the property.

Um, all of this additional area would be going into the space of the homeowner's yard.

Um, and it it's uh looks and and all the feel of everything to it would go really well with the home and the neighborhood.

How much more are these are you requesting?

94 square feet.

94 square feet.

Have you talked to the neighbors?

Uh no, we have not talked to the neighbors.

All the neighbors are really good.

The owners, the owners back there, and they're all really good friends.

Um they again, it's not going into anybody else's space.

Um, it would be going more the 94 square feet would be going in his yard.

So, in a sense, it'd be like since he can't do the shed, it'd kind of be like the sheds added into the new garage space.

Because it would just be soaking wet all the time whenever we have rain.

So you may have already said this, but can you repeat when the original structure was built with the house?

Um, from what the records that we pulled up, it's like 1940s, somewhere around in there.

I mean, it's it's long ago.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah.

This is gonna be just one story.

Okay.

Yep.

To fit a typical family sized vehicle in a one car garage with storage added on.

What is the size of the existing it is uh six uh sorry, it is twenty two.

Basically, we're just adding on sixteen feet on the right side of it.

So let me see if I have that.

So 27 feet is what we're requesting, and it's 16 feet add on the that, so it's currently at 11 feet wide and 22 feet deep.

And the door size, I believe, is six feet wide, you can't even fit a car in there right now.

So this is not a new shed, this is an expansion of the existing exactly the current uh concrete foundation on that to make even this little building level is I believe uh 13 inches thick because that of the way that the yard slopes is uh driveway existing yes, okay yes.

So the water comes down the driveway, goes in front of the existing building and goes down into that corner, and there's no there's no alley behind his home.

So it's just drainage and electrical pools.

So the access also it yeah, it's very limited.

Can you reinstate on the hard shape again?

Yeah, it it's the storage being able to get a get a garage in there, right?

And then it's the drainage um the the backyard, if there was to be like a shed to be able to have storage of even 90, even a 10 by 10 shed or whatever would be impossible to put on the property because of the way that the water drains, um, it's just soaking wet in the back right corner of his yard.

Um so that's why we're wanting to add it on to the uh the separate garage, the proposed garage, um, to make enough space to fit a family-sized vehicle in there, and then also all the tools and yard equipment and such.

Any other questions to the update guy?

All right, thank you.

All right, in case uh VOA 24029, do we have anyone that would like to speak on this case?

Please scope for seeing none, so we'll move on to discussion.

This one's pretty simple to me.

Um being that the structure being renovated predates the modern zoning code.

We see this quite a bit.

Cars have changed uh a a little bit here and there since the 1940s, and um understand the need that it's no longer a working garage and the need to have a working garage.

So I would say I am for this.

Um both the topography of the property and that the structure being renovated predates predates the modern zoning code as the uh hardship.

Yeah, I think I saw me so I'll do some calculations.

Uh have you concerned about the how to get to the 500?

Yeah, you have to reduce 4.27 feet off.

So that's that's what I wanted to your essentially to be more or less compliant with zoning your 23 by 22.

Okay.

Which is big enough for two cars, but I mean it's probably not big enough for the additional workshop space they're wanting.

Okay.

All right.

Um staff question.

Um so if if they were to do a separate shed, that would also be considered an accessory structure, correct?

That's right.

So it would be the accumulation of all of that to get to the square footage, correct?

Yeah.

So it doesn't really matter about the drainage per se, because you're still just going over what the zoning code says you can.

Yeah, I I don't know where they looked at other locations for like a shed or anything like that, but the the square footage is a cumulative regulation.

So even if it's two buildings, it's the same square footage allowance.

So okay, thank you.

So for that, um the hardship doesn't seem valid to me.

I mean your zoning code sets the square footage.

Um I don't I don't think I will vote no on this.

Yeah, wasn't sure 100% of the hard shape.

That's what I wanted to see what kind of calculation you came up with, the four-and-hour percent uh feet in reduction.

Which I mean to me, yeah, that's uh that's almost taking the whole width all the way down to the door on one 4.13.

So sorry, is there a size that you would be more comfortable with?

Um what the zoning code dictates, which was what 500 square feet so I think I think she stated um original size was roughly 242 square feet.

Um so that would have given them 258 additional square feet of accessory building, whether that was in a separate structure or the addition.

Um, but that's where the excess came from.

In the addition, they've they've gone beyond the 500 to the 594.

Right.

Okay.

Well Ms.

Stoffer, what do you say about the hardship?

And you well stay there.

Yeah, I just uh understood the hardship to be that they needed to fit modern cars in a garage.

Um but I wasn't um I wasn't paying attention to the 500 versus the 594 square feet.

So I guess my question to the applicant would be why do you need the 94 extra square feet?

Would that be okay if we bring the up again one more time?

Sure.

Really, it's to have adequate space, so um the vehicle for one vehicle to go in and then be able to pull over lawnmowers and stuff on the right side, and then in the back is a room for additional tools and and such.

So the garage is a workable space is a workable space.

Um so we laid it out like this because well, and of course we can't have an extra shed um out in the yard because of drainage.

That's not an option, um, because it would just be stopping wet in there all the time.

Um and then doing the doing the design like this um adds the uh it's just that's that's what would be it would make it the most workable because it's a it's a hardship not being able to store everything, you know.

No none of the neighbors want a bunch of stuff out in the yard or things being stored, right?

So that would devalue the neighborhood.

So um the homeowner is wanting to put everything inside this area, um, and that's why the additional four feet um would really would really be a blessing to be able to have that to keep it looking well.

Um and again, this this would only be going into his yard.

Um it's not expanding, you know, anywhere anywhere else.

So does that answer your question?

Sort of sort of not quite.

I mean because this is larger than just a two-car garage.

Uh well, like the current the owner has a um, I mean, not that this matters, but he has a a a bronco a Ford Bronco, and it there's no way he could get another car, because another full-size garage door extending that all the way across.

Um, I don't believe two cars, I mean it would be a tight, tight, tight, tight fit, and you could not get any tools in there if you had that.

So it it there's just no storage.

That's really why he's I mean, the one car garage with storage was was a good viable option.

Well we're struggling right now is on the hardship rigor.

What you say doesn't really support the increase of the 94 square feet, so uh and that's where we're having a little bit of issues.

Okay.

Okay.

The drain, I mean the biggest reason why we wanted to put it all together in this building is is because there's for space purposes.

I mean, you can only we can't build anything out in the yard because of the drainage issues, because that's just stopping wet all the time, and in order to have an adequate enough space to store everything, keep the integrity of the neighborhood and all of that, it would be best to have it that size to make sure that you know there's you know nothing else.

I I didn't know we could go talk to neighbors and tell you guys this first time we've ever done anything like this.

So we I didn't know we could go talk to neighbors about it, but um yeah, I mean sometimes they come here as you can see, but yeah, I mean what you you say is a little bit self-imposed.

It's a personal need not much in the lot being unique or because you need the extra ninety-four square feet.

That's what we're trying to get there.

I see the well the extra four feet definitely makes it to where it's usable because we can't use even if even if we cut it down, let's say we built a 400 square foot garage, you know, added on to that one made it 400 square feet.

We still have no viable place to put the other hundred square feet in the yard because it's not it's not usable because of the drainage issues and the way that the lots are set up.

Um so it's very limited.

I guess the drainage issues make sense, but they don't make sense of why you need an extra hundred square feet.

Yeah, the drainage is more for the location that okay, we just have to place it right here because there's a drainage issue, but uh the square foot is something different.

Okay, okay.

To me, this is not related to the drainage issue.

Okay.

So that's why we're that's what we're struggling with.

I see.

Um yeah, for storage for I mean, it's just it's really is just to keep the the lot integrity of the lot in good order in a sense, because we're trying to keep everything inside and not have stuff out in the yard like some other neighbors do, which make it look really tacky.

Um so the the space the layout on the design is what accomplishes everything.

So and and again, I was explained from the planning department that if there is draining issues or problems with the lot that that's when we request the variants to to get it larger um so that everything can be adequate uh for the space to be able to put a vehicle in there that will fit um and also equipment, uh yard equipment and and such.

So um I mean when I want to look at 4.7 uh that property is probably the only one that has the the largest accessory building in the back.

I mean can you see anything the neighbor across the street?

Because I think they have a really big garage across the street.

The other properties, I mean, they seem to be uh fairly small buildings.

Okay.

Can you tell me the dimensions again?

Um 20 uh 22 deep by 26 wide.

So what we're requesting.

Oh, seven, sorry, I don't have the paper in front of me.

I apologize.

Yeah.

And just looking around at neighbors and seeing how big their garages are, um, that calculation is based on the size of that house as well.

So that's really what we're looking at is the calculation is based on the size of the principal home for a reason.

So I'm trying to look at it every angle for you.

It makes sense why you put it all together.

Yeah.

That's not the issue.

It's just the why why the additional square footage and uh the case for that.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, let's continue our discussion.

Yeah, I was trying to look up two car garages.

Yeah, two car garage sizes and what a square footage did you get there.

Yeah, but still a large standard garage is 24 by 24, which is 576 square feet.

But I would I would still be inclined to support this based on modern garage modern cars and the the need the size need for modern garages, but I understand that uh we might not be in agreement here.

Okay.

Hey, what about Ms.

Williams?

I'm in the middle.

Okay.

So would you like to got someone in the back there that uh can you come to the mic?

Moving out of discussion.

Okay, well, we're a little bit out of order here, but yeah, go ahead, put about your name and your address.

I'm sorry.

Uh my name is Alex Lewis.

I'm the homeowner at 3536 East 23rd Street.

I've been in the house since 2020.

Um that that garage has never been usable.

Um I I and I haven't always had a big car.

Uh I had a you know, small sedan the when I moved in or when I bought the house.

Um and you know, I just thought it was time to maybe look into having a space to put my car, especially during you know, the hail and tornado season.

Um in addition to that, I have a lawnmower, I have power tools, I have things that um were taking up all of the garage before that.

Um so with the addition of adding a vehicle, I needed a place, a dry place to put all of that equipment.

Um so it wouldn't be sitting in the yard and under a tarp or something like that.

So the main reason that we want to add on that space is for safe storage of all that stuff because the way it is, you know, built in the 40s, it was either or so.

That's the main reason for the additional the additional space.

Thank you.

So from what I hear, so you're not I'm a maybe.

Maybe you're maybe I mean yes.

So here's uh I mean I certainly get the the need for larger than what is existing, but I mean zoning code sets that, and I'm not really hearing a good reason why from a variant standpoint a hardship that makes sense to me.

So just because I have more stuff than what zoning code will allow me from a square footage standpoint to store in a accessory building is not really a hardship that I find valid.

Okay, this is one of those cases that we have possibly two yeses and two no's so I don't know if a continuous will probably help if we got a that's what I would suggest.

Um probably asked the applicant to bring a revice catch so we can see I mean how these storage will look meeting the five hundred square feet versus the five ninety-four.

I'd like to say that, yeah.

That's fine.

That's what you guys want to do.

That'd be okay for the continuance.

If we continue to the next meeting, you might also have uh five members up here.

So the chance for another vote to go either way.

Um I like to see it in a sketch you're showing the 500 square feet versus the 594 so we can compare and make a better decision.

So the next uh agenda meeting is on.

See that's now in May.

May 12th.

So I'll also add there's some data just by quick Google search that is helpful, just at like garage sizes these days versus what they were in the 1940s that you might want to look at.

Okay, can I have a are we okay with continuance?

Um Mr.

Chair, I move an uh BOA case.

What is this?

24029.

Is that what this is?

That we do a continuance to the next meeting on May 12th.

Second.

We got a motion, we got a second Mr.

Hell.

Yes.

Ms.

Stolfer?

Yes, Ms.

Williams.

I know also gonna say yes.

So this meeting has been continued.

So let's move on to agenda item number five, BOA 24030.

BOA 24030.

Location is 1212 East 45th place south.

Applicant Justin De Bruin, Wallace Design Collective is requesting a special exception to allow a large indoor assembly and entertainment use in the CS district to permit an expansion to the Tulsa Ballet.

All right, so applicant present.

Yes, please.

Good afternoon, Justin DeBruin, Walls Design Collective.

So the Tulsa Ballet has existed at the site for over 20 years.

It's an established educational and um cultural institute within this community.

The reason that we're here before the board is that we have made a request for a 600 square foot vestibule canopy addition on the north side of the ballet.

Uh this is really for functionality and all weather safety for those entering and exiting the building.

The um by expanding the footprint, the Tulsa Planning Office looks at the the conformance on the site.

The underlying zoning is correct as CS commercial shopping.

However, a um special exception is required for the assembly use that's already existing on site.

So what we are attempting to do is bring this whole site up into conformance with uh the requested special exception.

With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Okay, before we start with a question, I know Mrs.

Stoffer she has to recuse on this case.

So it's all it's only gonna be the three of us.

Are you okay with that?

We'll see.

Well, if one of us says no, then it's a no as well as it sounds like we'll have an opportunity to continue if it's going south.

You may speak up on that point.

I'd rather not continue for the sake of our client.

Uh and the timing on these permits.

Okay, we just we we just want to bring it up for the record.

Okay, so um 608 square feet.

So how long did you say that ballet's been there?

Uh it's been there over 20 years, so the early 2000s when it was established.

If it's helpful, I'll add that it the surrounding zoning is the same.

It's all commercials along Peoria with uh institutional school use to the west.

You guys have any questions?

I don't know.

All right, no question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, in case I BOA 24030.

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

See no.

We move on to discussion.

I live in this neighborhood.

Um farther away than dictates that I would have to recuse, but I mean, there's it's been here forever.

It's they're a good community.

Yeah.

I mean, absolutely.

It seems more administrative than easy.

Any comments?

No, I agree.

Do we have a motion?

I will make a motion.

Uh Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24030.

I move to approve a special exception to allow large greater than 250 person capacity indoor assembly and entertainment use in the CS district for the conceptual plan shown on page 5.9 and 5.10 of the agenda packet.

The board finds this 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 public welfare.

We got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Yes.

Also gonna say yes of the application has to be approved.

All right, so let's move on to agenda item number six, BOA 24032.

BOA 24032, located east to the southeast corner of East 36th Street North and North Mingo Road.

Applicant Mark Capurn with Wallace Design Collective is requesting a special exception to permit a high impact manufacturing and industry use in the IM district.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mark Capern with Wallace Design Collective 123 North Martin Luther King Jr.

I'm number two of the Wallace clan here today.

And I think what I would like to point out is the comprehensive plan designates this area as employment, and that's exactly what we're trying to do here.

Um the reason why we have the reason why I'm here before you today is that we have a special exception.

I think that typically what I see in the code when something is a special exception, it's for an area that might need a little bit more discernment per straight zoning if you're near a neighborhood or you're near something that could cause problems, and this board has the opportunity to say, well, maybe not in this particular case.

Well, in this particular case, I think um if you look at the aerial um our adjacency is not much.

What we have is um a warehouse distribution site to the east.

Of course, we have the airport or excuse me to the west, the airport farther to the west.

We have uh the highway further to the east, and besides that, it's mostly just um industrial warehouse and manufacturing and mostly just vacant, really.

Um I do have um Greg Kent here with us today.

If you have any questions on the actual use and what that entails, but really I'm here just to see if you have any questions.

Yes, uh space engine testing facility, right?

Yes.

Can we have a little more details on I mean what that entails uh hey good afternoon?

Greg Kent.

Uh I'm the senior project manager uh with Agile Space Industries for this project.

Um what we're doing is we're building a facility that tests small maneuvering thrusters.

So when we start saying space rocket testing, it's not what you may typically believe in when you see on the TV, it's engines that are about this big.

Um and what we're doing is generating a vacuum inside the building inside another test chamber to fire that engine so we can test it as if it was in space.

Um the industry has discovered that when you don't do that, the opportunity for errors to creep in uh that Boeing even experienced earlier this year, and so we're we're meeting that need.

Um the first the first test is again small.

We're not planning on everything is self-contained.

Um, and then we'll be able to run those tests for longer durations to ensure that that that uh system operates like it's supposed to when it gets to altitude.

How many people do they usually uh run those tests?

Um so that's a really good question.

Um we're kind of at the beginning of that.

Right now, uh our headquarters is in Durango, and so you could have as many as 20 to 30 people.

Um we're not that aggressive right now.

Our first test is planned for September of 27.

Um right now we've got five people with uh two more coming on, and then once we get that uh that project, the the phase one A done, then you'll start seeing an opportunity to probably increase the number of employer employees in that area.

How big are those small engines that you mentioned?

So literally uh the one that we're planning on testing first is about that big.

They're small.

Um the force that comes out of them is very small.

The propellant that's used is uh the same.

That's it's one propellant, not a combination, so it's it's very small.

Um, there's about 24,000 square feet that's planned for this area with a future of doing some production facilities, but again, we're we're we're crawling before we walk before we run.

Are there any plans to you use?

I mean the actual engines, I mean for testing or the uh actual sizes, or what those the actual sizes are the actual size.

So this yeah, I want to make sure.

So the engines that we're talking about go on the s on satellites.

Um they're small.

I mean um the the actual test chamber that they go in is about three by three by three cube that isolates that engine so when it's being run, um it's it's self-contained, protected, the exhaust is all captured before and and is scrubbed before it's uh vented, so it's uh incredibly safe.

Our headquarters has two of these test chambers in Durango.

Um and there's some other stuff that we have planned, like when you look up there, you'll see like an operations building, there's a fabrication shop that's eventually planned for that area, but but our first step into this is to make sure that we have uh testing capability.

Okay.

Um our primary sponsors for this right now is uh the Department of Commerce, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, um, and ODAA, which is the Oklahoma Department of Aerospace and uh Aeronautics.

Okay.

Are your are your tests being done in what is I mean being called the test lab?

Are they inside that or are they outside?

No, they're inside.

Okay, yeah.

So basically in the test building, um, which is kind of hard to see on that particular rendering.

It's kind of middle of there, yeah.

Yep.

Oh, I get a pointer.

You gave me a pointer.

Uh right there, that area.

Um this area here is more of an operations.

So what happens is we will get a either one of our own engines or an engine from a third party, like Boeing or Lockheed.

We'll enter this facility, we'll set it up, it goes across into this test facility, and then once it goes into a test bay, then that then there's a test chamber inside a test bay.

It's enclosed in there.

We do all the connections for data acquisition, control, and then all of the control and all the data exists in that operations building.

So there's a lot of effort to set the engine up in a configuration that the customer or agile wants to use.

Everybody backs away, everything's enclosed twice with secondary containment, and then we'll run that engine uh in that test chamber.

So again, the engines are I mean, they're about this big in a test uh chamber that's about three by three by three cubed.

And then walk us through the what the pump scrubber building.

Yes, so in order to test that engine, we want to test the engine in a vacuum.

Um that's been learned a couple ways on what not to do.

So, like if you'll refer to like Boeing Starliner earlier this year, we we left three astronauts uh at the space station because the system had not been tested at a vacuum.

So the pump scrubber building, we have a series of either five to ten pumps, dispend depending on how low we want the vacuum to get.

Right now we're aiming for a vacuum of around 120,000 feet up altitude.

That's connected that sucks all the air out of that three by three by three cube, and then the engine is fired inside that vacuum.

Now, what happens is the exhaust from that engine then comes through that same area that the pumps are evacuating the atmosphere from, and so we capture that through a scrubber that we get all the particulates and everything that's that is a result of that uh exhaust from that rocket uh scrubbed before it's then any of the air is ventil ventilated out.

Okay, very interesting.

And what we've offered um to this body to anybody, we're we will we can come and do an off-site and present exactly what we're doing.

You can show rockets uh that are being tested, and we're happy to make that available to anybody that wants to hear it at some point.

I want to bring my grants here.

We want to go.

Can I bring my grandma?

Absolutely.

Um we're happy we've held a couple of these out at the Tulsa Aaron Space Museum just as an open house.

Um this is new for all of us, um, but it's exciting.

Yeah.

Awesome.

All right, any more questions?

All right, thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, okay, so BOA 24032.

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

See no.

We'll move on to this question.

I have no issues.

Rosman, you set up that.

Uh, will you will you let me know so I can join you?

So yes, I'll make sure you're invited to send you that in fact.

Yeah.

Okay.

Do we have a motion?

Sure.

I moved to approve.

Uh Mr.

Um Chairman and VOA case 24032.

I moved to approve a special exception to permit a high impact manufacturing and industry use in the IM district for the conceptual plan shown on page.

Let's go to the 6.7, 6.9 and 6.10 of the agenda packet.

The board finds that the requested special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and the antenna code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

Got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Yes.

Williams.

Yes.

And also yes.

So the supplication has been approved.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Alright, so let's move on to agenda item number seven, BOA 24033.

I don't know if you meant to recuse from item six, but you skip two.

Yeah.

Oh shoot.

Well, they're happy they're not going to be able to do that.

That's okay.

It was approved.

Okay, got it.

I was like, dang, she's not everybody.

All right.

We move into item seven.

Yes.

Okay.

BOA 2403.

Location is 1601 East 15th Street South.

Applicant Mike Thedford with Wallace Design Collective requesting a variance to reduce the required 10-foot street setback in the CS district.

Good afternoon.

All right, good afternoon.

Say the best for last on the Wallace guys.

Is that in a Wallace staff meeting over here?

Mike Fedford, uh Wallace Design Collective 123 North MLK Junior Boulevard in Tulsa.

Um this one is um it's a teardown of an existing structure.

It's a gelato building.

Um it's really there's really nothing um too different that's as far as the footprint goes, it's gonna be slightly larger, but generally it's the same location, same site.

Um it's within a condo development, so it's a percentage unit share development that was established back in the late 70s.

Um the existing structure is was built in 78, I believe.

Um there's been multiple remodels, but um the there's a zoning line, there's a CH zoning line that is 80 feet from center line, goes right through the back of the building.

So we've got CH in the front and CS in the back.

And there's about 25 feet, if you can zoom in on the northwest corner of the building, that yellow section right there.

It is non-conforming.

Previous building was non-conforming as it was built.

Um, but the zoning was established.

I'm not sure.

I think the zoning map map was actually established in 76.

Um, so here we are.

We've got a rebuild of a structure that's gonna be considerably nicer.

It's gonna be a a restaurant.

Umers here if you want to know details.

Um but uh we're really kind of just trying to continue on with uh a restaurant business on Cherry Street, which is in my opinion, um a good addition to what's already there.

So do we get free Pixar?

No, you know that's where I was.

Last time you said that last time, so question.

So how big is is it now this building compared with the old building?

Um square footage-wise, I think it's probably do you know a square footage?

It's good.

It's gonna be about five feet deeper.

Uh Jim Bausch from Andalini's 1548 is 15th Street.

Uh it's not terribly bigger, it's it's that we it needs to be expanded to hit the minimum square footage that we need for for the customer chairs, and we're unable to expand to the south where there's about 15 feet worth of frontage, mostly because there's a setback that was put in for potential road uh expansion on 15th, which is pretty much impossible anyway, but right.

So the only place where we can is into where our our current you see those parking spots there.

It's actually one single parking spot where we're where we park our delivery truck.

So we're expanding into our existing property uh according to our percentage of the shopping center, and the the west property line is in that setback as well as the being in CS rather than I mean half the shopping center is really in CS and it's their CH is businesses.

So we need to expand from that line up three feet, and it encroaches on it, and that's that's really all it is.

So the existing structure is already non-conforming.

Are you reusing any of the existing structure to for the expansion?

I would love to.

Uh it's been built on so many times that it's got three slabs on it, so we have to take it down in order.

The the new structure, I don't know if you have the picture of it, but it's it's a pretty grand building.

We're attempting to do uh a Michelin level restaurant here, so it has to look apart, and uh I'm told the slab is just not able.

That's that's what we're building.

Um the existing slab is just not able to pull it off.

If you remember, it used to be MyFit Foods, and then prior to that it was two separate furniture businesses that had a wall separating it, so it it's been through a lot of history.

Okay.

How do you talk to the neighbors to uh all of them?

Uh I don't know if there's anybody here to talk against it.

Uh but yes, we have all the property owners within the space had to vote on it, and they voted yes.

Uh if you recall when I came before the committee uh probably about six months ago, we we were moving this is our existing prep center.

We were moving it to sixth street.

I needed to get a variance for that, so we spent three and a half million dollars doing that.

We're gonna spend five and a half million dollars doing this, and the only thing that's stopping us right now is is roughly three feet.

I did I did get a call from the property owner to the north um Cherry Street Villas, and she had nothing but positive things to say.

How much of a relief are you asking?

Uh if you go back to the drawing, 10 food.

It's it's from the 10 foot setback down to three, roughly plus or minus.

So I guess that counts as seven.

So I'm sorry, I misquoted that.

Mr.

Tedford, can you discuss the hardship on it since it's a variance?

I don't know that we really dug into that on that.

Sure.

Sure.

I I would say that uh, you know, based on the existing arrangement and the approved previously approved uh site plan and uh structure, the way it was built and approved by the city of Tulsa and modern zoning code applied.

Um I would say that the hardship is that you know we want to continue on with an improvement that is needed in this area and and is not gonna be a detriment to the neighborhood.

But I you know, as far as the the hardships, it's existing conditions.

Um I guess you might say physically, the slab, you know, not being able to just use the same structure based on the previous uses, um and uh you know the condo development agreement that has been a recorded document, which is considered similar to a plat and covenants, it lays out everything that was approved back in 78, I believe.

That was approved by the city when at that time.

So and that that designated all the locations and the percentages of being roughly the same.

Um I think yours went up a little bit with this because of the expansion, but they were in agreement with that, yes.

So basically, if you have to move that building seven foot in more, that's gonna probably affect your parking too.

Well, in in this example, that parking is for a delivery vehicle that will be non-existent because it will be going to the sixth street.

So it for the shopping center itself, it gains about half of a spot all the way across from east to west.

Okay.

Any more questions?

Mr.

Williams?

Yeah.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, in case uh BOA 2403, do we have anyone that would like to speak on this case?

Let's move on to the discussion.

Nathan on the other side of Trenton.

Did that facility also have to get a variance?

Because I would assume they're also split in the same half of it, CH, half of it, C S.

I believe on the west side of Trenton there is actually a PUD.

Okay.

Um yeah.

So the PUD was used for the development on the west side of Trenton to probably modify the setbacks at the time that was approved by the council.

Gotcha.

But to your point, I I would say like the proposed setback in this application would be consistent with what was given on the west side of Trenton.

Because I think that building is built to the street.

And consistent with what's already there.

Right.

I really don't have any issues with it.

Um it's a nice looking design.

Um what the what's the hardship specifically though?

How do how do we say it?

Um this means in a multiple soning.

So on 7.16 that they have the hard shape.

Yeah.

I want to say I'm saying yes, but how do I say I'm saying yes, but how do I say yes?

I mean, there's probably something to the existing facility being split in zoning.

Certainly unique.

Yeah, I mean the site is unique.

So unique.

Would you like the applicant to well?

Does it have anything to do with the unique uh uniqueness of the lot?

It is, I mean it's a multi-building lot.

Combine uh soning.

Unique design of the lot for that dog, huh?

What about unique zoning configuration of existing building?

Yeah, go, yeah.

Oh you see, then now you're gonna make me read the whole scene.

Yeah, we sure are.

Let's go sold.

I shouldn't have said it.

Yes, that that sounded perfect.

Oh Lord, one of the long ones.

Um Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24033.

I move to approve variance to reduce the required street setback in the CS district from 10 feet to three feet for the conceptual plan shown on pages 7.10 to 7.11 of the agenda packet.

The board finds the hardship to be the unique zoning configuration of the existing building.

In granting the variance, the board finds the following facts favorable to the property owner and have been established that the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the subject property would result in unnecessary hardships or practical difficulties from for the property owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out, that the literal enforcement of the subject zoning code provision is not necessary to achieve provisions intended purpose, that the conditions leading to the need of the requested variants are subject to the subject or are unique to the subject property and not applicable generally to other property within the same zoning classification, but the alleged practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship was not created or self-imposed by the current property owner, that the variance will to be granted is the 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 impose the purposes, spirit, and intent of the zoning code or the comprehensive plan.

We have a motion.

Do we have the cycle?

Second.

Ms.

Williams.

Yes.

Ms.

Stolfer.

Yes.

Mr.

Hale.

Yes.

And also going to say yes.

Your application has to be in approved.

So let's move on to agenda item number eight.

BOA 24034.

BOA 24034.

Location is 5425 East 11th Street South.

Applicant Alexis Enriquez is requesting a variance to increase the permitted sign area for a dynamic display sign and a variance to permit a dynamic display sign within 200 feet of a residential district.

So I'm applying for two different exceptions.

One from the distance to the uh uh a LED sign uh must be 200 feet uh away from a residential.

But uh has I'm I'm actually a very proud uh owner of a piece of Route 66.

Uh and I have tried to improve the property, and I'm also a general contractor, so I stick to the real regulations uh uh and uh so uh applying uh when uh when I bought the place uh I didn't know much about signage.

I know anything about I know about residential construction, but signage I just knew that if it was uh LED that uh because of the brightness uh need needed to uh be uh there has to be a permit behind it.

So I knew that going into it.

Uh uh however I did not know about the size and being uh on a commercial high traffic zoning, I did not know that that uh it would be affected by residential zoning, especially being route 66, a very uh high traffic area, historic area.

Uh so but uh on the first point uh being away uh uh the unique conditions being uh to the north is if yeah, right there.

Uh to the north uh sorry to the northwest, the lot, the back of the lot, uh that's the one that is impacted.

No other residential areas are impacted.

Uh and again, that's the back of the of the house.

And uh and there's another picture that will show a picture going that way.

Uh there is a canopy, a building, another building, a tree, and a shed uh actually in the uh in their property, and uh so you so there is no lighting or uh any it won't create any issues.

Uh it'll it'll be a different picture uh if you uh you guys can uh it's a different one.

Uh sorry, thank you.

I appreciate I think it's one of the first, yeah, right here.

So if uh uh if if you if if you scroll a little bit to the right, uh so yeah, so so look it's looking to the right corner right there.

That's uh that's an aerial picture from the signage uh looking into the residential house.

Those two buildings on the left side, they're they're commercial uh their commercial buildings.

Uh so the one that you can't see behind what you can see, a little red uh building that's actual commercial building uh that is to the next lot.

Uh so uh you cannot even see the shed or the tree.

You can barely see the tree.

So that's one exception that we're asking that we're allowed to do it more in sign.

So this is not a billboard.

So a billboard is something that uh I guess you guys are uh guess probably no, but uh a built billboard is more uh uh interact interactive uh for the purpose of advertising for third parties.

Uh uh this is just really uh uh has has uh has a has I see it uh and says I believe the public will see it.

This is more and more in sign uh uh signage instead of the older vinyl sightings, so has uh the business changes, uh we don't have to see deter deteriorating signage.

Uh it just can be updated.

So we we are not allowed uh uh under this permit.

Uh we're not allowed to advertise for third parties, or uh and also we only plan to run like static uh uh just uh signage for a business or seasonal, like every three or four quarters just changing based on the season.

So one of the things that actually we're planning for this year, put their like the happy birthday to a route 66 for the 100 year anniversary, uh, or just and lay on just keep like weather or something like that because uh uh uh uh we want that's the reason we want to get the extra space, but uh uh for the better of the route and the public, uh and that's moving to uh item number two, the size of the signage.

So this is sitting on a one point uh I believe uh one and a quarter, I mean I'll check my information.

weather or something like that because we want that's the reason we want to get the extra space but uh uh for the better of the route and the public uh and that's moving to uh item number two the size of the signage so this is sitting on a one point uh I believe uh one and a quarter I mean I'll double check my information uh sorry yeah it's sitting in uh uh uh one one point two eight acres uh so if uh uh it uh if we were to divide this uh in small lots we we could probably get the sum of the uh of the uh this the signage that we're asking for but uh one of the things that we decided to go big with this signage uh uh was for safety reasons so so the way uh Route 66 uh sits in it's a two lane with two bike bike lanes so uh there's a hill and and that one uh there's other images where you show that the the actual uh uh the view of the like that was the driving view the one that she showed earlier so there is so the the this is one from the east side coming from uh Sheryan towards Yarrell so we say in between Sharon and Yale so this is traveling uh west uh and this is about 200 and and and 30 feet there's a hill and and as you can see there's another hill after the sign this uh this is halfway to the uh I'm sorry this is uh halfway to the to the other hill uh uh our property is sitting right in in the middle of two different hills uh so with two bike lanes a 35 mile per hour uh uh uh uh street uh it's about four seconds for a person to drive and see a sign so we has we're uh we are trying to build uh a multiple business there it used to be an old gas station that was abandoned for many years uh ever since uh uh we purchased it uh we have put in there a so uh uh so we have three businesses uh we have a uh a dealership uh we have a food trailer uh uh dealership and we also have uh my construction uh business uh uh so we do home remodels so that's our uh or headquarters for all all three this is yes uh uh if you go up here yes so this is looking going actually uh east so that the the sign uh and actually uh because I was not aware of the size of the sign actually on both pictures the sign is already up there uh we have not turned it on uh we just turned it on for testing because I I wanted to get the approval before we actually went live uh no complaint has been actually from we talked to all the neighbors uh and from and we actually got a lower prices and we actually went there and told them that uh about the limitation the two limitations that that we encumber the that uh that I just assume for being in commercial high traffic uh zoning and being route 266 I did not uh you know I got ahead of myself but of course I wanted to get it there uh wanted to get all the permits and everything before uh going live or make any correction that that was needed uh so like I was saying for safety reasons if if a person is going down here uh uh either way uh unfortunately there's two hills to the side and on the left side there is this uh uh there's this high voltage uh power lines uh that make the post so frequent that when you look at when you drive in your angle it blocks the view of the sign so you actually have to be very close to the sign to see the sign uh so to allow multiple business to see the the sign uh is a short period of time and what we don't want I mean what we looked for was like base on uh for the safety for the people driving there and also for appearance uh uh for but to uh uh we wanted something that looked uh good for uh for route 66 but at the same time was safe uh based on uh the the topography the topography of of the land uh so uh so uh so those are the two things that we request in one is that uh uh the uh how's how close we can be to a residential area and then the size of the signage to be uh uh uh larger than usual and considering the the size of the property uh uh uh and how many buildings are there and uh and we're expecting uh to build and have more businesses there all right do you have pictures of the you said you design is already installed yes okay do you have picture of the sign uh uh yes actually we got sketches but uh

All right, do you have pictures of that?

You said your designs already installed.

Yes.

Okay, do you have picture of that the sign?

Uh uh yes, actually.

We got sketches, but uh so yes, so this is the sign, and this is just testing one uh it goes all the way to up there.

So there was a uh there was pricing there, a bunch uh actually one of the old uh all the other pictures you can see a picture for like five years.

Uh I think we uh before from Google Earth that was there.

Uh uh was like how deteriorate the sign was.

And actually uh uh uh unknown to me uh uh there was a complaint for a neighbor uh last year of how bad the signage was, and that complaint got closed as we finished uh closing the sign.

Uh the inspector came by the property, and we thought uh he was coming to ask questions or take pictures about uh the discs coming together because we don't know the process the first time we've been in the port adjustment, and he actually came to close that uh new uh complaint.

He looked at the sign, of course the sign was not on, it's just it just black LED that's showing, and he said it looks good to me, and the inspector uh left.

And uh the next picture there is actually the the the new instance.

So that's the yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's a new sense uh that was placed last year and was closed this year.

Uh again, uh we we were not aware that uh this was uh uh uh was affect uh the this was going on that there was that somebody complaining about the signage looking so bad last year.

I mean it was constituential that we were just had the budget to uh to get a a sign.

I mean we we thought about going by no one uh uh different ways, but in the past we just saw those with the sun, the wind, many factors in Oklahoma, they just don't last.

I mean they they're they're just not uh we have in different businesses, and it just so we already bought the the signage, and at the same time we start going through the application, and that's where we find out uh there were these uh issues.

Uh no nobody has complained or or we're not here because uh there were any complaints.

Okay, what's what's the height of those legs?

I mean it looks like I mean from the picture looks like 20 much higher than 20 what you show in the uh that you showed.

There are 20.

Uh 20 feet.

20 feet from grade to the bottom of the sign, or uh to the I think the uh the pole might be over uh yeah to the sign, yes.

So the 20.

You say 20 feet from the grade to the bottom of the sign?

Yes, and I I'll have to come back.

And they are not the 20 feet higher.

No, no, no, no.

I'm sorry, sorry, sorry.

Uh all the whole structure, and and actually the sketches are there.

Uh uh uh uh sort of 8.10 shows total height 27.7 feet.

Oh 25, it's it's 25.

Uh we're trying to go 27, but then we found out actually for we had to stay at 25, so it's 25.

We we tried we were trying to go higher, but we don't we're not asking to go over the 25 limit.

So it's a 25 limit, uh, and that's where we're staying at.

Okay, so the legs are probably about okay, seven foot height.

Uh so the code sets a maximum height for a freestanding sign at 25 feet.

They haven't asked for any relief of that.

So even though this exhibit shows 27.7, they would have to comply with 25 feet.

Yes, and that's what we want.

We want to stay on that.

Uh that's why we've not changed or wanted that because uh with the weight and the wind and everything, we looked again and we decided that we didn't want to go higher uh for safe same thing for safety issues, uh safety, uh looking with it with the uh instructor engineers.

I mean uh uh I'm not an structure engineer, but uh from what I see in the picture me looks skinny legs big sign.

Uh you have any I mean the who design uh I mean uh the sign who build it.

Uh uh I don't have it with me.

uh for safe same thing for safety issues uh safety uh looking with it with the uh structure engineers i mean uh uh i'm not an structure engineer but uh from what i see in the picture me looks skinny legs big sign uh do you have any i mean uh who design uh i mean uh the design who build it uh uh i don't have it with me i i I could I could send it uh uh yes I did run uh uh I did run it through uh the signage company that we we bought it from uh uh they calculated that and we brought this spectrum of the three uh there's a core this is a core inch tubular uh uh legs and uh so we take with we they took all that into consideration the the tubular steel how the thickness of of the steel uh or the gauge or uh uh and on the size and the weight of the of the sign and the the wind ratio where we're located at well here's what I'm strolling so uh this in the picture I'm sorry to interrupt no go ahead okay so this in the picture is 108 is not a hundred and uh uh is actually uh this isn't a picture uh how about it it's actually the less uh because one we find out that what we needed uh we actually back back uh it's 108 yes 108 square feet so it just application was a little bit higher uh because the panels that we have but once we got it going and everything we readjust it to 100 and and eight and and and that's what we we would like to stay there.

So is that sign already anchored to the ground or I'm sorry?

Is it sign already anchored to the ground?

To the ground?

Yeah if it's already set.

Yeah so the yeah so uh it used there used to be a this is a print six pretty existing structure that was there uh so yeah so uh uh it will you go to the uh uh the the picture where it shows where I take uh a few years ago I think yeah so this is the this is the the old sign structure I believe this is one uh about the time maybe someone complained about how bad deteriorant look the sign uh so it used to look like this we just put panels in the structure but before putting the panel panel in uh we check uh the weight rating the wind rating uh uh power and all those things that we need to get there uh uh so actually we're uh a little we're uh I think uh 80% uh from from where we could be at even with the the the the the wind ratio and has uh has a property owner and has inventory that I have there uh I've been when there's a storm I actually go there and look and it it is uh uh uh being in buildings and seeing how much wave things have uh and actually I was up there uh helping my guys uh uh working on the sign so you do think about it uh like is this is this correct and then you go back to engineering and say yes this this this this uh sway is allowed uh based on the wind factors uh uh there's no sway on uh uh uh non-wind situation so uh when there is wind situation there's like a uh one inch sway on the top uh uh at the most but it does not feel when when you're up there that one inch does not feel like one inch it feels like the thing is falling but it's it's it it is within engineering uh recommendations what's what's the height of the sign that is in front of us right now uh eight does that eight uh probably like ten uh and that's estimating just for my my my my background does uh the one the uh are you saying about the the the the one that has the signage with the red and or the or the white all the way to the top of the structure oh it's the same one is the same same structure nothing has changed on the structure the only thing it changed was uh removing the old uh uh plastic and vinyl and uh and uh ballasters and all the old stuff that was there and just adding LEDs so this is three times the size that you're allowed um why does it need to be so big again for safety uh uh uh for safety so when we have businesses and we have multiple businesses trying to announce uh it if if somebody's driving Route 66 coming either either east or west wherever route they're going uh with uh the bike lanes uh being there uh and sometimes people uh you know just looking at and moving out of the road it uh the at 35 miles per hour based on where you can start seeing the signs you're looking about you got a four second window so what what we're asking for is for safety based on on how the the the topography is in the land uh uh I actually uh in a way it's a lot safer safer than when we were there when it used to be four lanes back then when we purchased the property uh that has uh help out a lot uh with the the the the new bike bike lanes uh uh but

So what what we're asking for is for safety based on on how the the topography is in the land.

Uh uh I actually in a way it's a lot safe to safer than when we were there when it used to be four lanes back then when we purchased a property.

Uh that has uh help out a lot uh with the the new bike bike lanes.

Uh uh but but even then just driving and looking at and being distracted uh through a uh a sign that you cannot read, uh then that's what we're asking.

That we we believe it'd be the uh the best as you can see right there, you can see one, two, three, four possible there were five signs at one point in there.

Are you projecting any animations on the signage or no?

And we're not allowed uh and we're not project, we're not uh we were thinking and and we'll have to ask.

We we wanted to just put like a clock, maybe uh for some of the space, uh, but uh we're not allowed to have any animation other than every so often, but we're not uh we're not big corporations, so we don't have time to manage doing this.

Uh so we just want standing and and again it was mainly for uh uh we're I was looking at going vinyl, and we done this in the past, and it just rips off and just the sun just eats it away.

The UV, I mean we I try uh doing uh uh clear UV coating and it does with the rains and the wind, and just it's Oklahoma mean uh uh we we know we get the coldest weather and the highest weather here with no mantles around the wind just picks up really fast uh and it just tears the sign uh the conventional signage.

So it's so again this is not a billboard, it's just a uh uh uh uh LED sign that will be fixed.

Nathan, for a non-dynamic sign, what's what would his square footage allowance and um would it be an issue for that being that close to uh our district?

No, the R district prohibition is solely for the dynamic display.

Um if they only have one sign in the CH district, they get two square feet per linear foot of frontage, which based on the assessor looks like they have about 135 feet of frontage, so roughly 270 square foot of signage would be allowed if there was one freestanding sign.

Any more questions?

Thank you.

All right, in case BO824034, do we have anyone that would like to speak on this case?

See no.

Let's move on to discussion.

This is this is hard because I understand why someone would want to invest in LED, like that it lasts longer, like that'll make sense to me.

I get that.

Um but really the size of this, and there's a limit on the size on a dynamic display for a reason.

Um and I actually think the opposite of kind of what was described.

I think that they it's because they can be so distracting.

And so I think that this would be more distracting than helpful.

Um potentially and hazardous.

I I just that's a really really large dynamic display.

Um and I think again repeating myself here, but there are limits for a reason.

And I just don't see the a compelling argument for why it needs to be so big.

I it pains me that it's already been purchased.

I hate that.

Yeah, I mean I understand why the location was picked because you're reusing the existing structure from the previous sign, but the previous sign was not dynamic, and so it was allowed to be that close to residential from what it sounds like.

Um yeah, this is just too big.

I can't I can't get behind either variants personally.

Ms.

Williams?

Well, I mean, sometimes uh we learn by mistake.

Does he want to bring it back and get it down smaller?

Um I really don't know that that would help, but yeah.

It's it's not the size of the sign or the location of the sign, it's that it's dynamic display.

Right, and it's a lot going on down there, especially with that bike.

Yeah.

And we've had these before where they're trying to um advertise or you know, they're trying to have a sign for each business, and I sympathize with that, but I also think that uh the dynamic display that's just too much.

It's yeah, and the only the only argument to be made for its location is reusing the structure.

There's so much frontage there that you could easily get to the distance required.

Um the square footage, but another square footage.

No, you'll never get anywhere.

I mean without a variance, you won't get to that with dynamic um.

Yeah, to be clear, the the variance about the location of the sign is not as um that one's fine to me, but it's the size of the diamond dynamic display.

But I can't get behind.

Yeah.

Well, no, no, we're really in discussion.

So thank you.

Um we have a motion.

No, we won't do that.

I want you to do it.

Oh, why are you gonna make it better at it?

Oh, okay.

I want to be a good parent.

I want to be Mr.

Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24034.

I move to deny a variance to increase a permitted sign area.

Well, do I have to do the whole thing or just no, you can just read the requests and then cite a reason basically hardship or whatever.

I move to deny the variance.

Uh the board finds the hardship not to be sufficient.

You might you want to indicate both?

Yeah, to both variances.

Oh, to both variances, okay.

I move to deny both variances.

The board finds the hardship to not be sufficient.

Second.

We've got a motion, we're gonna cycle.

Uh yes.

Ms.

Williams.

Yes, Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Also gonna say yes.

The application has been denied.

Let's move on to the last case.

So that I agenda item number nine, BOA 24035.

BOA 24035.

Location is 1048 East Young Place North.

Applicant RCJ Designs LLC is requesting a variance to reduce the required 20-foot street setback in the RS4 district.

Thank you, Nathan.

Good afternoon, I'm back.

Uh, my name's Jesse Stringer with 8 Point Creative, representing RCJ.

My address is 1428 South New Haven Avenue, Tulsa.

All right, last but not least of the day.

Okay.

Uh my client's property is located in the sunny slope edition.

This is a plat uh from 1919.

The parcels, there were about 40 parcels, and they were platted rather large, about a hundred and twenty-nine feet wide by a hundred and fifty feet deep.

You can imagine over the last hundred years, they have all been um subdivided and and split into different uh configurations.

Many of them were cut in half long ways, north to south.

This is one of the few lots within this plat that was uh broken up into three parcels.

It was cut in half north to south and then cut again.

So we are the uh east half of the north half of lot six there.

Uh when they did the lot split, and I am not sure when that lot split occurred.

I'm imagining that it did predate zoning because they created a lot that is smaller than the minimum RS4 requirements.

So that's really why we're here today requesting a variance to build a house on this property that still matches the surrounding architecture, but it is uh sl very very slightly about a foot overlapping into that 20-foot setback.

It is still set back even further than the other houses in this area.

A lot of the property on the south side of East Young Place is actually just raw land, undeveloped, and I'm imagining it's because of that rather large right-of-way, um, making some of these smaller parcels kind of unbuildable.

Right now, the buildable footprint for this parcel with the rear setbacks and that right-of-way setback is about 20 feet wide.

Um by, I'll give you the exact dimensions here.

It's about 20 feet wide by 55 feet long, so it's a bit of an awkward building footprint.

Uh we are staying for the most part within that uh buildable area, but as I mentioned, the front part of this house is slightly over that 20-foot building line.

Our designers did uh make this as small as possible.

We have the minimum requirement for bedrooms that make a house sellable minimum size for the living room, a single car garage that's a very tight.

We shrunk this down as tightly as we could still have the three-bed two-bath house that's in high demand in this area, but um even still we are a little bit over that building line setback.

Because the lot is only 70 feet uh in length, which is significantly smaller than most RS4 lots.

That's what we are claiming as our hardship, that it is a uniquely small lot.

The lot to the south is uh a little bit larger, so I'm not sure why, but they did not cut these evenly.

So this likely won't be an issue for the southern lot whenever it does get built on, but for this house, just that extra five feet, we wouldn't be here right now.

So um it's a shame that they split it unevenly.

That's why I suspect that maybe that lot split occurred uh pre-zoning in this area.

Um so that is our variance request, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about this project.

So what's the square footage?

Sorry, what's the square footage of the lot?

Yes, so the square footage of the lot, let me pull this up.

I want to give you the right numbers here.

There we go.

So the lot is uh 70 feet in length and 64 and a half feet wide.

Um and the house itself is 31 feet in uh uh depth.

I think if you move over on the left side of the drawings one of the it shows the square footage of the lot somewhere.

Yeah, go up a little bit, isn't it?

Yeah, there we go.

Thank you, sir.

There's a tiny, so basically no backyard.

Yeah, that's almost half the size of a normal lot.

Yeah.

With the minimum RS4 lot being 5500, it's still 500 square feet less, which doesn't sound like much, but that would make up the difference that we're overlapping that building setback line.

I wish it was split evenly, then we wouldn't have this issue.

You guys haven't heard from anyone in the neighborhood?

Uh we haven't heard anything from neighbors.

Um, I wasn't sure if people would show up today.

So um we don't really have a lot of neighbors.

There's a lot of uh vacant land nearby, so and this owner does also own the property in the rear, and his plan, assuming this goes well, is to also build on that.

Um since that lot's bigger, we should be fine.

There shouldn't be any variance request with that property.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

All right, so in case BOA 24035.

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

No.

Let's move on to these questions.

I mean, that's uh unique lot size for sure.

Um to be a modern home this probably the least really needs uh again.

It's not they're not asking for a large house.

It's 1300 nice and very modern garage.

Simple.

This is pretty straightforward for me.

Somebody else is gonna have to do the motion this time though.

I don't I don't mind, but I'm just writing down the 9016.

We we will wait.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24035.

I move to approve a variance to reduce the required street setback in the RS4 district from 20 feet to 18 feet seven inches per the conceptual plans shown on pages nine point one zero through nine point one six of the agenda packet.

The board finds the hardship to be a uh very unique um and uniquely small lot.

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

A that the fiscal 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 if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out.

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

C that the conditions leading to the need 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 impair user development of adjacent 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.

Do we have this like second?

We got a motion.

We got a second, Miss Williams.

Yes.

Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Mrs.

Dalford.

Yes.

Also when I say yes, your application has to be approved.

All right.

So this is the end of the uh agenda.

Do we have any comments on the board?

Nothing.

So it is 308.

This meeting is take it.