Alright, good afternoon and welcome to the City of Tulsa border adjustment meeting number 1385 is June 23rd.

It is one oh one.

So let's call this meeting to order.

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 is a sign-in sheet 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 will need to submit this documentation to the permit center as a revision to your current permit application or include the documents with your submittal for a new permit application.

If you submitted your permit through the online portal, please submit your revision 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 also being recorded for future airing on Tiga of Channel 24 Cable TV.

At this time, please silence any electronic devices, and if there are not any questions, Mr.

Chair.

Alright, thank you, Nathan.

So we're going to start with agenda item number one, which is the approval of the minutes of meeting 1383 May 26, 2026.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve minutes from May 26, 2026.

That is meeting number one three eight three.

Okay, we got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Got a motion.

We've got a second, Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Ms.

Stumas?

Yes.

Ms.

Williams.

Yes.

Ms.

Stafford?

Yes.

Also gonna say yes.

The minutes are being approved.

Let's move on to agenda item number two, which is the approval of minutes meetings 1384 June 3rd.

A June 9, 2026.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion to approve minutes from meeting 1384 from June 9th, 2026.

Got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We got a motion where you got a second.

Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Ms.

Williams.

Yes.

Ms.

Dumas.

Yes.

Yes.

And also going to say yes.

So the minutes are being approved.

Let's move on now to finish business agenda item number three.

BOA 24048.

BOA 24048, located at 1124 East 37th Place South.

Applicant Tanner Consulting is requesting a variance to reduce the setback requirement from unenclosed off-street parking areas to abutting streets in the OL district.

Okay.

Is the applicant present?

Okay.

Yeah, please come up.

I'm please provide your name and address.

Thank you.

Chair.

Board members.

My name is Eric Annyart.

I'm with Tanner Consulting at 5323 South Lewis Avenue in Tulsa.

We represent the owner in this application.

H.

W.

Allen Company.

I did provide a narrative justification with our initial application.

I do have a brief presentation that more or less touches on the highlights of that, but also goes into a few other details that I did not initially submit with the application.

The land was acquired in 1999.

It's part of a large land holding by the same owner.

It takes the block west of Peoria from 37th place south to 38th Street.

These of course, Brookside, the buildings are built up on the street, and the parking is behind.

That is the established development pattern for this area.

There were exhibits that were submitted with the application that showed the design intent at the time, and our application does generally follow that.

The initial site plan showed a 10-foot setback from 37th place south.

We're proposing 10.42.

So a little bit more than what was initially proposed.

The reason that we're here is there is a provision in the zoning code.

Whenever you abut residential zoning, there is a parking lot setback from the street, which I believe traditionally in other codes I'm familiar with.

Typically, you want to buffer the the actual residential district you're abutting, have a setback, but this does in fact require you set back from the street.

I think it does have a side benefit in most cases in that you typically would not want to be able to have a residential home that is able to see parking from the front or in front of their building.

So there was a house on this property.

The house and the improvements were demolished in 2025.

And our variance is basically going above and beyond what was initially proposed with that uh rezoning and optional development plan.

There was also an intermediate application through the city applic offices for building permit, and in that case, a different firm put those together.

They were only proposing one to two feet of setback, and they had a little bit of a different design.

They had about a seven foot, uh, I'll call it a an actual buffer for the residential house to the west.

Our application is proposing almost eight feet instead of only seven, and seven is the minimum per code.

Basically, we're achieving a increase in the setback as last proposed by pushing the parking lot south compared to what it was before.

There are other things that we are proposing that go beyond that as well.

We're also proposing a uh a hedge, a uh landscape buffer along the front that satisfies the S1 screen of the code.

In addition, we're proposing a screening fence along the 37th place as well.

The S1 requirement only requires one or the other, not both.

The basic justification for this application is our property is 137 feet deep.

That's the way it's been for decades.

And mathematically, you have a nine-foot wide parking space, divide 137 by 9.

You could get up to 15.

We are proposing 14 and 10 feet of buffer and a little bit of change beyond that.

Uh there is already a screening fence eight feet high on the west line that that buffers the house to the west.

It tapers down to about three feet as you approach the street, the last more or less 25 feet.

In the office district, the street setback is only 10 feet.

We can offer to extend that eight-foot height down to the last point that it can be eight feet, which is the 10-foot setback in OL.

Taper that down to 4 feet instead of the three that we have today, and extend that four foot around the frontage on 37th place south.

So these are all concessions that we are willing to offer to help mitigate the intent of the code, which is to make sure that number one, you buffer uh the house to the west, but also provide a the visual screen between the front house window and seeing any cars parked in the adjacent parking lot.

I do have a lot of other details.

Uh, I believe there may be other interested parties that want to speak on that.

So I'll, if if okay with all of you, I'll defer to later to bring those details forward if they're relevant to whatever comes next.

Do you have any questions for me?

I will do my best to answer it.

Yes, uh well, last time, one of the neighbor requested a continues because they didn't have their chance to review their package.

So do you guys have any time to discuss the?

I did discuss that briefly with uh Nate Nathan Lee after the meeting.

We talked a little bit about it, and I actually what he had said at the time was he wanted you all to continue our case to this meeting, the next meeting anyway, because the next door neighbor to the west couldn't be here.

And I'm not sure if that gentleman is here today or not, but that was what was actually the basis for the request to continue our application.

Okay.

Also, well, this is a variance.

I didn't hear anything about the hardship.

The hardship is that this it's an existing developed site, they have the they're zoned for a parking lot.

They would actually prefer as much parking as they can get because they're getting a lot of people from other developments to the north, not only patrons of those businesses but employees I'm told, are occupying spaces on the existing parking space parking lot, and that displaces not only customers that would be uh patronizing our businesses, but also the employees who need to park in the back.

That is a real and practical hardship.

They do need more parking.

They have a demonstrated need.

I spoke with the owner if he had his wishes, he would have more than just the 24 that we are proposing.

Not only that, we are losing at least six spaces just to be able to get a drive a drive in to the new parking area.

So there's a a net gain of 18, but the variance's not granted, we lose at least two more.

Which exacerbates the hardship that they already sustain.

Okay.

I also read uh that there are I mean there are some big large trees in in the lot.

So are you guys planning to remove some of those trees or on just this one lot itself?

The trees were, as I'm told by the owner, not in good condition, probably not safe, and so they had to be removed when the house was removed.

They did preserve a large, I think oak tree on the other part of the property to the east, and they've uh preserved that within a landscape island that that will remain.

Okay, and the fence is already constructed.

It is, and we are willing to extend that eight-foot section all the way to ten feet within uh thirty-seventh place.

Okay, and does the owner also owns the property to the east or also the south, or or this is a different order.

Yes, it's the same owner of this one and all the land over to Peoria and south along that frontage to 38th Street.

Okay, one more question for me.

Um there seems to be another parking lot uh right on the south side.

Is that parking lot also with the same type of fencing or that I'm not sure of?

That is an older one, but I can say that we're matching the the same pattern that has been established for several blocks in each direction with this new expansion.

Kind of fills a gap that would have been created when the house was there.

Okay.

Are you gonna be adding any lighting to the parking lot?

Uh there is lighting already.

Um it's my understanding in speaking with the owner that when some of the lighting was installed, the owner to the west did have a complaint that there was some light getting on to them, and they remedied that by shielding it, and the the doctor who owns the property to the west was grateful.

We will need to relocate lighting additionally, and we will do the same have the same treatment of the shielding of the lighting.

Any questions?

No questions.

Anything else?

Okay, your time.

Right.

Okay.

Going back to case BOE 2404A.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak?

And would you mind raising your hand?

How many people are speaking on this case?

We got two.

Right.

Please come on.

He can speak if he wants to.

And worth noting as he's headed up here that we have six letters of opposition.

Thank you.

Um, I'm gonna let my wife start.

Okay, I'm please support by your name and address for the record.

Okay, my name's Tracy Lye, and um I'd like to defer my time to my husband Nathan.

Is that okay?

And I also oppose.

Thank you.

My current address, 1615 South Madison, but I own the home at 1119 East 37th, which is directly across the street.

Okay, thank you.

So why do you oppose?

Because in the neighborhood, I don't want to look over, and my neighbor has cars parked in their front yard directly adjacent to them.

Right now, there's a four-foot fence right there, and I heard that you know you might extend it to eight feet part of it, but I think that even makes it look worse.

It looks like a big blank wall in somebody's front yard, and it just doesn't transition well from like business into residential.

And we're like right next, you know, we're right across the street from there, and I think it's a bad design, and I think you're doing this for two extra parking spaces, and that doesn't warrant the variance.

But my husband is a better speaker, so I would defer to him.

I just shared a slide.

Uh my name's Nathan Lye.

Um we also I also live at 1615 South Madison Avenue.

We also own the house at 1119 East 37th place.

We purchased it in 2008.

Uh it's where we started our family and owned and lived there until 2018.

Now we rent it.

We've we're on our third great tenant.

We enjoy having the rental there, it's a great property.

Um in the long run, you know.

When the day comes, we might downsize.

We've thought about holding on to this property because it might be where we want to live when we don't have a bunch of kids to look after.

So we are very interested in making sure this remains a very walkable neighborhood.

We enjoy we enjoyed when we lived there the proximity to restaurants and grocery stores.

So we understand that there's some give and take in these situations, but I I don't support this variance.

My wife hit the high points.

The I think I'm sharing an image.

You'll see in the image that it's from the landscape plan that was uh submitted with the variants.

That red section, that is the 25 foot setback that's expected for a parking lot within residential within 50 feet of a residential neighborhood.

So that is the space that's in contest.

You you should not be allowed to include per the current zoning code, you should not be allowed to include parking in that space.

That's to align the parking lot and any screening with the pro the homes that go down the street in that area.

So all your homes are set back 25 feet, the parking lot would be set back 25 feet.

Seems like a very reasonable request.

And it's important to note that we're really only talking about two parking spots.

There are 118 parking spots in the existing parking lot.

That's 1.4% of the total update.

So we're only talking about just a tick over one percent improvement for two spots, and that's causing what was it, six six residents to get upset enough to write an email to say we they don't support this.

I mean, I think that's uh enough to say on this as well to clarify that four foot-tall uh fence, it's an S1 screen.

Um, the applicant says it's an S2.

As I understand it, an S2 screen is used when you're trying to block um headlights like for drive-throughs, for uh uh yeah, for drive-throughs and such.

An S2 screen is actually requires both the physical barrier and a hedgerow, uh, is what I read.

They only included a couple pencil laurels.

The pencil laurels aren't even in the approved shade tree list.

Um there's not a shade tree anywhere along that uh what is it, the western line.

There used to be a pro con there.

Let me share a couple more things.

But you can see where that low four foot fence is in that lower image.

You know, an F-150 parked in one of those spots is gonna be right over that that wall with no extra screening to prevent that from happening.

This is um that's a view looking kind of easterly back at the property.

That's how it is right now.

You'll notice there are no trees on the lot, there's no house on the lot, there's no physical barriers to warrant this extra two spots.

In fact, during the uh optional development plan, there was an additional tree that was supposed to be saved.

Yeah you can have it this is the two the optional development plan next to the uh variance request landscaping you'll notice there's a tree on the western line that was supposed to be saved up a contrary that's been cut down and there's no plan to include it in the update because it's two spots I guess.

I think that is all I have to say at this moment and I do believe that the neighbor of this property um he did speak in opposite I mean he did email in opposition he was not able to be here he's a doctor.

They're actually listing the house right now for 885 thousand dollars.

So that's part of the reason maybe he wasn't able to come here.

They've been in the movement chance they've been trying to move for a while now that another property they're looking at they just listed the home so whoever's buying the house probably doesn't even know we're talking about it.

Which I think is kind of frustrating.

So that's all I have at the moment.

Okay.

And to the public I mean we'll apologize because normally we project everything on the screens here.

But if you're interested I mean they're projecting those images over there.

So you're not in opposition to the to having a parking just uh set back yes I I believe that the setback that the current zoning code requires should be enforced so that those two parking spots are not allowed to be there.

And I guess the other thing I forgot to mention is you'll notice that there's they show a tree that prevents a drive on the uh the layout there that was where a pecan used to be that pecan's not there anymore.

So there's no reason that can't be the drive to get to those parking spots on that western line because that tree's not there which we can go back to the other view and you'll see there's no tree there.

So there's a light post but he already mentioned they're gonna move the light posts but it doesn't really matter because these are self-imposed problems and those aren't reasons for a variance.

Okay.

Any questions you mentioned um a home that was for sale and that person not being here can you clarify what property you're talking about it's the neighboring property.

Okay.

We are across the street from the neighboring property.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

No questions it's the neighboring property whose driveway I shared the picture of with the screen and the fence and stuff.

We got that okay thank you.

All right on case BOA2404A do we have anyone else that would like to speak seeing no you may come back and rebuttal.

Thank you all again and uh thank you Nathan for the additional comments I do appreciate their concerns and I appreciate their perspective.

I did hear a comment that these trees that are proposed are not in fact shade trees they will meet the requirements and if they need to be shade trees we will certainly make that adjustment it's required in the optional development plan that they be so and I I could not tell you today the the species that it that it is but it will meet the requirements upon permitting I did hear Nathan point out that the owner sent in an email in opposition I've never seen that.

If staff has a copy I well I guess that is my question if staff has a copy if anybody has a copy of that email.

The uh owner has been in constant communication with the doctor that owns the land to the west.

Like I said before, he was cooperative with them on the lighting, which was their only concern, and the doctor communicated his thanks when they when they shielded it to protect that I believe that what we are offering to do, extending that eight foot all the way to ten feet within the right-of-way, and then increasing the three foot to four feet within that ten feet that you can't have it higher, and extending that four feet around gives you that give at least the intent and purpose of the buffering, making sure that the cars cannot be seen from the home, not only from the west, but also from the perspective of the truth of the street, and we also propose uh landscaping hedge on the street side of the fence, which will help not only buffer but beautify the the streetscape.

If there are any other questions that you all have for me, I will do my best to answer.

Well, I mean, I'm still struggling on the hardship.

Because to me it sounds more like financially motivating.

Um if you can try to convene this where the hardship is, so we can uh discuss that.

Mathematically, uh the lot is only one hundred thirty-seven feet, and a parking space is nine feet wide.

There is, according to the owner, the need for more parking than could actually be allowed here.

Is a practical hardship on the owner today not having enough adequate parking because of the displacement of would be patrons, displacement of employees, because other people from the joining properties are occupying spaces on our site.

So the loss of at least two more would be a practical hardship.

You're correct in that uh it would have an economic consequence, but actually constructing the parking spaces themselves costs money, does not save it.

Um, but also logically, just about any hardship whatsoever can be spun up into a economic consequence, they all do.

But ours is in fact a true practical hardship in the the number of spaces that can physically fit within the depth of the lot as it is today.

Any more questions?

I just have one question, and so um, you mentioned that there was a previous design that was approved, and it you're going above and beyond the previous approved design, but I'm not seeing in our packet a case.

Um, so maybe do you should you clarify like to whom that was submitted?

And that was approved.

I think C seven three six one in twenty seventeen.

So I can provide some clarification.

The the lot was rezoned to the OL with an optional development plan at that time, conceptual plans for the parking area were included with the rezoning request.

However, the planning commission and the city council and their authority of improving the rezoning are approving the OL district with the requirements of the optional development plan.

They are not relieving any other code requirements, and so it wasn't necessarily an approval of that plan, it was just an approval of a concept that parking could go on this lot.

Okay.

And I think one of the slides actually that was brought by the neighbor included that original plan from the optional development plan.

So a few things changed about this plan already.

One of the requirements of the rezoning was that they would not be given vehicular access to 37th place.

So you'll see like this plan that's brought to you today, does not have the driveway.

So this was really shown in in concept in support of the rezoning, but but was not approved as a an actual plan to move forward.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

Anything else?

Nope.

Right, thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

So now we're gonna move on to discussion.

Yeah, I mean, I you've already said it.

I don't hear a sufficient hardship.

I understand the desire by by the you know owner of a lot, and I certainly understand that parking is going to be allowed by right, but the additional spots, um, we need something more about the land, the the grading, like something of why spots have to go on that part of the lot, um, and I'm just not hearing that today.

Okay, Mr.

Hill.

I just have to put you in the spot better.

Where did you start?

Um, yeah, I mean I I agree.

I'm I'm struggling to see a hardship.

Um, there's there is providing more parking neighboring businesses using you know their their employees or their um customers using your parking lot is more on the line of um you need to regulate it yourself.

Uh uh think that that's really a hardship to me.

So yeah, I'm not for this one.

Okay.

Ms.

Williams.

Um I thoughts aren't in line with theirs.

There's just no clear hardship here.

You said the one?

Yeah, I think there are a number of difficulties and some additional annoyances.

Um, and when it comes to the zoning code, uh the definition of a hardship uh is not met in my eyes.

Okay.

Sounds like this would be deny.

Do we have a motion to deny?

Mr.

Chair, in uh BOA K is 24048.

Um would I move to deny a variance to reduce the setback requirement from unenclosed off street parking areas to abutting streets in the OL district from 25 feet to 10.42 feet.

We have a motion that we have a segue, second.

We've got a motion, we got a second, Mr.

Hill.

Mr.

Chair, which um would you like to add the recent?

Yeah, reasonable.

The denial.

Sure, yes.

Um so I move to deny a variance to reduce the setback requirement from unenclosed off street parking areas to abutting streets in the OL district from 25 feet to 10.42 uh feet um due to a lack of a hardship as defined in the Tulsa City of Tulsa zoning code.

Okay, we've got a motion.

We got a second, Mr.

Hill.

Yes, Ms.

Williams?

Yes, Stoffer.

Yes, Mr.

Dumas?

Yes.

I'm gonna say yes to this application that's been denied.

Let's move on to agenda item number four.

BOA 24058.

BOA 24058 location is 3139 South Florence Place.

Applicant Roger McKee is requesting a special exception to increase the maximum allowable driveway width in the RS1 district.

Okay, do we have the applicant?

Okay, please provide your name and address.

Good afternoon.

Roger McKee, Wesign Architects, uh 608 East Third Street, Tulsa.

Um I'm here on behalf of the homeowner asking for a special exception on a driveway width to increase it from uh 30 feet to 37 foot five inches.

The intention for this uh as far as the design goes, this is ranch acres.

Um predominantly a two-car garage um neighborhood.

Uh there are a few three-car garages in there, some of the newer homes, those that have been remodeled.

Um, several of those, which I included some of those pictures that are literally right down the street, do have driveways considerably wider.

Some of them with three individual car uh three-car garages, uh some of them with a little bit larger.

In today's world, uh most of our designs, especially if you get, you know, a higher-end custom home or a higher-end remodel, uh, a double door is 18 foot wide, a single door is nine foot wide, admin good as 27 foot.

If you do an offset frame, typically you're putting two feet on each side of that, that adds 44 additional four feet.

So that makes you 31 feet.

Um so our intention was actually to increase the overall street width of this house, uh, focusing more on horizontal than vertical, keeping with ranch style.

So we actually took those driveways to the very edge of the brick line as opposed to bringing them in.

So aesthetically, this kind of helps out from the street value, which faces literally right at the corner of Florence and Gary where they intersect.

So any questions to the update?

Can you um describe on the photos that you've provided where those houses are in relationship to this one?

So they are literally where 30 third uh and Florence intersect.

So they're actually one those two are caddy quartered from each other across the street.

And one of them has a three-car individual garage, the other one has a two-car with a widened parking spot.

I'm sorry, three cars, sorry.

The other one is a little bit further around the corner.

Um it's a little bit off, but the two that are most adjacent are actually a little wider than the other one.

The other one was not, I don't even think it's habitable yet because I think they're still under construction.

I don't have you here from the neighbors about this special exception.

We haven't heard anything as of yet, no, and I assume they've all been notified.

Any questions to the applicant?

No questions.

Okay, thank you.

All right, case BOA 2405A.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak?

See no?

So let's move on to the question.

I mean, I don't have any issues with.

Yeah, this seems to be a yeah.

It is a weird lot, they don't they don't have to have a hardship for a special, but it is a weird lot.

So, right.

Do we have a motion?

Um, I didn't get I will make the motion, but I didn't get printed copies of the exhibit.

What would you say?

So the civics that we're presenting to the what's the 4.11 okay, just got that.

Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24058.

I move to approve a special exception to increase the maximum allowed allowable driveway width in the RS1 district from 30 feet to 37 feet five inches in the street setback for the conceptual plan shown on page 4.11 of the agenda packet.

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

We got a motion that we got a circle?

Second.

Got a motion we've got a cycle, Ms.

Stuas?

Yes.

Stoffer.

Yes.

Ms.

Williams?

Yes.

Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Also gonna say yes, this application has been approved.

Let's move on to agenda item number five.

BOA 24059.

BOA 24059, location is 4103 South Yale Avenue.

Applicant Jeffrey Lord is requesting a special exception to allow large indoor assembly and entertainment use in the CH district to permit a gym slash fitness center.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name's Jeff Lord.

I'm the principal engineer with Inspire Engineering 10430 South Quebec Avenue.

Ultimately, the Creoaks, the building owners want to split the building up into separate units in order to get zoning clearance.

We need to get uh special exception approval for the gym that's been in operation and approved use for the last five years.

Is the gym expanding any or is it pretty much keeping the same?

It'll be the same.

So they're just splitting it and selling off a portion of it, or yeah, they want to sell it to different kind of condominium style.

Yeah, I think I was here when we first approved these gym a few years ago.

So let's see.

Do I get the Phillies hat if I go fillies?

Any more questions?

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, on BOA 24059, do we have anyone that would like to speak in this case?

See?

No.

Let's move on to this question.

I mean, I have no problem.

I mean it seems straightforward.

I mean, they're already in operation.

Yeah.

Seems procedural.

Mm-hmm.

Do we have a motion?

I'm glad to do it for the hat.

In BOA case two four oh five nine, Mr.

Chair, I move to approve a special exception to allow a large greater than two hundred and fifty person capacity indoor assembly and entertainment use in the CH district to permit a gym slash fitness center per the conceptual plan shown on pages 5.11 of the agenda packet.

The board finds that the requested special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and the 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.

Yes.

Ms.

Stoff?

Yes.

Ms.

Williams.

Also gonna say yes.

This application is approved.

Let's move on to agenda item number six.

BOA 24060.

Don't forget to leave my head.

BOA two four zero six zero location is one seven four zero one East 11th Street South.

Applicant Wanderan is requesting a special exception to amend a previously approved site plan to allow a horizontal extension of a building with a non-conforming street setback in the AG district.

Is the applicant person?

Okay, please come up.

I provide your name and address.

Good afternoon.

My name is Daisy Duran.

I am the daughter.

Um representing the property for 17401 East 11th Street.

Tosa Oklahoma 74108.

There was previous approval to extend the house addition 25 feet, but we are now requesting an additional eleven feet to the east side of the property with the intention to add additional living space needed to accommodate our large family.

Okay, so from that screen there.

So you're proposing to extend the property to the east.

Correct.

What's the additional square footage?

The additional square footage would be eleven feet.

I'm sorry?

Oh, it would be 11 feet.

Okay.

Add an additional eleven feet.

The full addition.

Oh, 36.

Is like 1,639 square feet over the as that's where I see it.

Okay, so is that gonna be like a another three bedroom?

One by the yes, they were planning to add additional rooms to accommodate our family.

Is the site plan on this accurate?

Um it showing the property line a lot closer.

Oh, okay, never mind.

Let's zoom down.

Okay.

Yeah, I think the the floor plan is a little deceptive, but the.

Yeah, it's right up next to it.

Yeah, okay.

And do you know when the house was constructed?

The one that is there right now.

At the moment I don't have the exact information.

Okay.

So on 6.11, um, there's probably a packet there.

So that portion of the house on the left, that's what's existing right now.

Yes.

Okay.

So you guys are building.

So we're just adding on to the east of that structure.

Okay.

And have you heard from any other neighbors?

We get along with our neighbors pretty good and have um gotten compliments on the aesthetic of the residence how it is now.

And that's what I could say for now.

Okay.

Okay.

Maybe I am not seeing it, but there is a the previously approved plan.

And I think we have that drawing here.

And from the previously approved plan.

Eleven feet from okay.

And so the previously approved plan doesn't have a special exception tied to it.

Is that accurate?

It did.

So in August of 24, the board approved this plan that we printed for you all today.

As you can see, this was hand drawn uh before I think they had ultimately hired the designer to do the plans for the new structure.

So there were a few modifications.

Whereas on the new plans that were drawn, you can see that it's actually existing was about 28, 3.5, and the addition is 36 foot one inch.

So really in total, the board approved a 60 foot wide structure.

The the new plans show that it's sixty-four feet four and a half inches in total.

And that extension or that addition is what is needing relief because the existing home is already placed in that setback.

Clear as much.

Thank you so much.

Um yes, we got a letter from one of the neighbors.

Uh Jason Henson.

I mean concerned about certificate of occupancy.

In regards to that.

Sorry.

Yeah.

In regards to that, the house has never been occupied, which is why we are waiting to extend the structure before we request that certificate of occupancy.

Any additional questions?

I will note that the assessor places the residential structure being built in 1950, the original structure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no, let's move on to discussion.

I don't see any issues with it.

Um there is the letter that talks about certificate of occupancy, but I think this is a question for him over there.

Does residential get certificate of occupancy?

I've had commercial where I don't they won't give me a certificate of occupancy just because it doesn't change.

So I don't think that's necessary.

Yeah.

So yeah, I'm fine with this.

I mean, also this property is only 1200 square feet.

Almost 20 acres.

So yeah, there's a large building behind it as well, but I don't think that's in question to the users.

We're all good, so I'll make a motion.

Please do.

Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment 24060.

I move to approve a special exception to amend a previously approved site plan to allow a horizontal extension of 36 feet one inch for a building with a non-conforming street setback in the AG district for the conceptual plan shown on 6.11 to 6.15 of the agenda packet.

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

Okay, we got a motion, we got a cycle.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

Mr.

Stolf.

Yes.

Ms.

Williams?

Yes.

Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Also, I'm going to say yes.

Do subjects being approved.

Let's move on to agenda item number seven, BOA 2406 wall.

BOA 24061.

Location is 1306 East 26th Street South.

Applicant American Dirt Boss Matthew Bueller is requesting a special exception to increase the allowed fence height in the street setback.

You see how pick up prison?

I was hoping they weren't so we could.

I'd answer.

I'm Carly Bueller, owner of American Dirt Boss and wife of applicant Matthew Bueller.

Um so the existing fence was an eight-foot wood fence with uh brick columns.

We're asking to extend it to 10 feet in height to help the road noise and also improve the security and you know aesthetic appeal for not only this homeowner but um all those nearby.

Apologies.

And do you provide the address for the records?

The address is 1306 east 26th Street South.

Thank you.

And I can answer any questions to the best of my ability.

Are there any other 10 foot fences around there?

I believe there are in the packet, I believe there's two pictures of at least two others in the nearby area.

Do you know where those are?

Um I did not.

That looks too.

But is that a fence or is that the back of the house?

I've always been confused by this one.

Is that drive down the street?

Not the fence, doesn't it?

Well, they look at the utilities.

I mean, I think you've got roof tying into it.

Yes, is on the location one block south on Peoria, there's an exception with the brick.

And then one block north as well.

I don't it doesn't have the exact address.

Yes, it has.

And is it in line height-wise with the one directly south that we're looking at?

South.

I believe it does end higher because the road goes out of slope, so one fence.

There is a a slight height disparity.

I don't have a picture, but the two feet in height do make a substantial difference in the road noise.

Um that was multiple comments by neighbors so far have approached and uh appreciated the aesthetic and the improvement to the sound.

We've actually had several stop by and ask for quotes so that they could do their own.

Any more questions?

No questions.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, case BOE 24061.

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

I don't have an issue with this.

And seen this fence?

I have not seen the actual fence that has been built.

Ten feet's excessive and not in character with the adjacent properties.

Um I mean that's I'm sorry that it's already built, but it looks very out of character.

It's just my opinion.

So it's at six now, is would eight be a problem?

Well, I don't think they need a I don't think they need permission to go to eight.

Oh really?

Yeah.

But it looks like we got a letter also board from my neighbor.

This is on the corner, back to the highway.

So no, not to the highway.

Backs up to the Peoria.

Any more comments?

Oh, I'm trying to look on uh maps and just see.

I mean, there are so many tall fences.

I can't say exactly what height, but and especially brick walls facing Peoria.

And she didn't say this as part of her comments, but I understand those are very narrow lanes, and I understand the need for a barrier there.

But you're bringing up a good point, Mr.

Hale.

I don't know exactly what height these the rest of these are.

Um, so the photo in our packet is not the exist, the one that has been built.

Is that what you're saying, Mr.

Hale?

I don't know, but I don't think so.

No, that's not a lot of work.

No, I think that's just uh just an example.

And that doesn't really appear to be ten feet tall.

Maybe it is, but we don't have any of pictures of it.

Trying to look because exhibit 7.4, that is the site photo, but that's from March of last year, 2025.

And so I think we're understanding that that is six feet.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

And an additional four feet is what they've built.

She said the previous fence was eight feet.

Okay.

So it's two more feet.

I mean I think there are other fences that are ten feet at at the um north.

Trying to place myself here.

Yeah.

Northeast corner of 31st and Peoria, that extremely tall wall that blocks off.

I mean, but that's what we're talking about.

I mean, well, and directly across the street, it looks like there's a six-foot fence, but it is at it starts on top of a retaining wall that looks to be like two feet.

Three feet, maybe.

So I mean uh to me, this is not out of character along Peoria to have tall fences that are blocking.

I'm not saying that I love that aesthetic, but just and if a difference of two feet is.

You should drive by it.

I'm assuming I have.

I drive this road all the time and it hasn't stood out to me, but that's.

It was just installed over the past couple weeks.

So I was I drive by it twice a day, could work.

Yeah.

Watching it being installed.

Do we offer your motion or any more comments?

What about Mrs.

Dumas?

Um I think peacemill, you know, this is a it's an easy uh like sure, why not?

And I think collectively it's a tougher.

Um yes.

Um I do think, you know, with the application that is in front of us, uh, does it seem injurious to the neighborhood?

No.

And then if 22 more houses along twenty-two more parcels along the uh road acts for the same thing, then driving down or walking, you know.

Some of us walk up or down Peoria does become like you're walking it uh more unhospitable for pedestrians and god forbid a bicyclist uh than it is right now.

Um so that's where for me the addition of two feet, then what is already permitted, um is not as straightforward as, you know, like sure, why not?

Um, so yeah, I'm kind of you know on the fence about because word when it continues to be more than one parcel here and there, it really does create a very different um user experience at a human scale.

So it sounds like no, we we're in discussion right now.

So it sounds like we may have two no's uh how about you, Ms.

Williams.

A maybe you stuffer?

I don't feel strong enough to make a motion at the moment.

I'm trying to find more evidence here, but anyone want to try to do a motion approving and see how this goes.

Maybe not everybody at the same time?

My concern is the precedent that we're setting.

My concern is the precedent may already be set, but that's what I'm trying to.

I'm driving down Peoria right now.

Hanging on it, and Google Maths looking.

But I mean, but that said each case is individual and does not set a precedent.

Okay, technically, sounds like you want to try to motion.

I'm just trying to think of myself too.

Okay, I know.

I mean my motion's gonna be to deny, so unless someone bills strongly for an approval.

Um I'll I'll make a motion to deny.

Okay, go for it.

Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24061.

I move to deny a special exception to increase the permitted fence heights and fence height in the street side set street uh side street setback from eight feet to ten feet.

We got a motion, do we got a second?

Second.

I had a motion we got a cycle.

Mrs.

Stuffer.

No.

Mrs.

Williams.

No.

Mr.

Dumas.

Yes.

Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

I'm gonna say no, the application pass.

Oh no, and you gotta make a motion to approve now.

Oh okay.

So now who wants to do the motion to approve it?

I make a motion to approve the fence in this case.

BLA case 24061.

Second.

Is that the full motion?

No.

Do you read the whole thing?

No, yeah, go ahead and put that whole thing.

Yeah, let's get your uh what's the concept page?

It's back here.

7.25.

Part of the conceptual plan shown.

Uh I move to approve the exception to increase the permitted fence height in the side.

Street set back from eight feet to ten feet per the per the conceptual plan shown on pages 7.25 of the agenda packet.

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

Do we need to uh the this is as constructed?

That's built.

I think it's up to you, but I don't think it's probably necessary.

Okay, so we got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

That motion we got a second.

Mr.

Hill.

No.

Ms.

Dulmas?

No.

Ms.

Stolfer.

Yes.

Ms.

Williams?

Yes.

And I also want to say yes.

The application has being approved.

Let's move on to agenda item number eight, BOA 24062.

BOA 24062.

Location is 815 South Utica Avenue.

Applicant James Buller with Ethos Architects is requesting a variance to reduce the required 10-foot street setback in the IM district and a special exception to amend a previously approved site plan for a community center designated as a governmental service or similar functions use.

Hi.

Welcome.

Thanks for your time.

These OS Architects uh representing the center for individuals with physical challenges.

And I am here to follow variants to my special exception to an existing special exception.

Um so we have two issues going on.

One is there is an existing storage shed, uh, and it's uh it's in a setback right now.

Um we discovered that so we're let me start with this.

We we're doing an expansion project for them right now, and um the site is really limited.

We're actually building a second floor on top of their existing building right now, so we're kind of have it we're forced to kind of expand upwards.

Um so we uh when we applied for the building permitted flagged this that there was a special exception back from 2006, I believe.

Um, and what they did then was they expanded part of the parking lot, and then since that happened, they went and installed this shed, and none of the staff that's there now knew that wasn't permitted.

Apparently it was but not permitted back then.

Um so we're just we just found out about this, so we're actually uh asking for a special exception to leave it where it is.

It's actually it's not a portable thing, it was actually anchored to the to the pavement, and there's some slope there, so the bottom skirting of this thing actually slopes and follows the grade.

Uh so for one, it it's not like we can just move this to a different part of the site and it would work, um, without a lot of modifications to it.

The other problem is there's not much site to move it to, um without giving up parking.

Um so that that's really the first issue is that this is inside a setback.

As far as we know, it's been there, I think, since 2012.

Is that 14?

Um I don't know that you've had any complaints about it, uh, to the point that we didn't know it wasn't permitted.

Um so we would add this to our permit set as an accessory building.

Um they just said this was the first step we had to take.

The other issues were kind of flagged in the permit process, and they would be a special exception to this special exception.

When they built the original building in 02, they only built half of the existing parking lot that's there now.

They came back, got an express uh special exception to expand that parking.

Um when they did that, one of one of the issues they did was they've got the the parking is running parallel to the building, which makes it pretty difficult for, especially for these members.

It forces you to get out of your car, walk all the way around, or somehow traverse all the way around to get to the entry to the building where uh we kind of feel like if you just park perpendicular, it kind of solves a lot of those problems.

Um that requires us to get rid of the landscape islands.

Um, and there are right now, there are two uh parking lot lights in these islands.

We have a scheme where we there are four perimeter lights.

Uh we would replace that the light heads on those, and um with a with a different light head that would project more light into the parking field, so we don't and we've included the uh photometrics for that.

Um there were they flagged some trees between the our district to the south, um, and there are actually trees there, they just weren't showing on our site plan, so we've included them on this current plan.

Um I think that's essentially all of the things we're asking for.

Um, I tried to borrow that guy's hat and wouldn't let me do it.

But I'm sure Wendy would love to come up here and tell you about how fantastic her organization is.

She's kind of chomping at the bit if you don't know about them.

But uh, really great organization.

Um I think they're benefit to the community, especially this part of town.

Um, right now that storage building, uh they store uh they have a trailer that they haul the uh accessible bikes to the river and they go right along river trails, um, and right now it's just stored in the shed, just because there's they've dealt with a lot of vandalism and uh theft in that area, unfortunately.

I don't know how to do this without the pointer and the I'm unclear as to which parking lot we're talking about on the site plan and to where the shed is on the site plan.

Oh, the one you're currently looking at under L2, yes, that is the proposed parking lot, the one that we were looking at at first.

Um, Aaron, if you'll scroll up, this is existing.

Okay, so it's facing a different way now, right?

So as he was describing, they're moving.

Is moving the parking spaces from being parallel with the building to going perpendicular, and then at the bottom right of the page, there's a small grade-in structure there that's sitting on the property line along Wheeling Avenue, and that is the subject of the variance request because it is sitting on the property line and in the setback that is required.

Okay, so that okay, and it's got like a on the site, it's like a red roof kind of over here.

Can you go to it on the aerial?

Yeah, for the aerial picture.

Sorry.

Okay, that's if you look at the eight-point, yeah.

That's up with the building on the right, okay.

Right over here.

Okay, thank you.

I was just having trouble placing.

I'm sorry.

I didn't I didn't know you weren't following me.

Normally you would have a pointer and you would just easily point that out to us, and it would just be smooth.

That's great.

Thank you.

Let me know if there's anything else you didn't understand about any of that.

So rotating the parking makes total sense to me.

Um I get that it makes it for an easier drop off pedestrian travel to the building.

If I'm understanding your site paying site plan correctly, you're proposing to remove all internal landscaping.

Yes.

There's not a scenario where any of that internal landscaping within the parking lot can work from a barrier-free world.

I mean, they can so one thing about their site is that there's a lot of contours and a lot of grade change.

Really anything that's kind of flat and paved out there is super valuable to them, uh and their members.

So the thought was, you know, maybe we can use this as like a program space.

They can find activities where they could do it out there.

Um I know we're showing the the wheel stops right now, uh, but we would probably get rid of those.

Just so they could free that lot up to do other things.

I mean, there they have another lot by the heart of speed gymnasium that they use for wheelchair softball.

Uh it's it's sloped and it's difficult.

Once you get beyond the infield, it's it slopes off a lot.

We did the best we could to get it as flat, but this is actually flatter and might be more beneficial.

Uh and if you've seen the site, like, they have some lawns, they have some uh trails and that kind of stuff.

It's just really it's hard to find some flat level spaces to do things.

So just for for clarification, and I apologize, I probably should have contacted you before, but the board's approval of the reoriented site plan as part of this exception is not relief from the code as it relates to landscaping requirements for internal parking lot landscaping.

Um have you have you all looked at how to meet those internal requirements from the code?

We could add trees around the perimeter if that's okay.

I mean, there is a process by which if if it's not strictly to the code, you can go through what's called alternative compliance through our office if needed.

Um I just wanted to be clear and on the record that the approval of this modified site plan is not relieving any of those landscape requirements.

Okay, so if it is determined that you still have to do some landscaping, um that may still come up during the permitting process.

Okay.

Can you speak up other house shaping for the setback breed option?

Yeah, the uh the shed really there's not another place on the site to put it for one.

Uh that doesn't, you know, take up parking spaces that are, and actually, any one we move it to or gonna take up parking spaces that are closer to the building.

Uh which is not ideal.

Uh the second is just the way it was constructed was, you know, it was a sloped uh parking lot, and they came and anchored all the posts to it.

I mean, we considered like can we just move this thing?

And it's really it's not as simple as just movement.

It's basically tear it down and build a new one.

Um how big is that storage?

Well, it's 20 feet by 45.

In this in the site plan, we're looking at or the aerial we're looking at, this area down to the south east corner that looks landscaped or or sodded.

Is that what's the topography in that area?

You you're probably not looking at the same thing we are.

What are you guys looking at?

I'm looking at myself.

You've got a packet right there in front of you there.

Yep.

And so that's where this came from.

So I think they're looking at the aerial.

It's page 8.11.

Okay.

I just was about to get there.

I've got.

Sorry, I'm with you.

What where what area are you talking about?

So the little pocket close to um, I think it's an apartment, or mid-rise apartment building over there, but there's a little pocket of green space.

Does it what's the topography in that area look like?

So I think that's where their horticulture program is.

Okay.

Yeah, they they use that for program.

Um, I know it sounds like everybody comes in here and says the site is full, but the site is really it certainly looks well used, yeah.

I mean nothing, I mean.

Really, we're doing a 20,000 square foot addition on top of their existing building.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any more questions?

I want to make questions.

Thank you.

Okay, BOA24062.

Do we have anyone else that I would like to speak in this case?

Please come on.

Please provide your name and address.

Yes, hello, I'm Wendy Freyleck.

I'm the chief executive officer of the center.

I'm representing 815 South Utica Avenue here in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104.

I just want to be very clear about the hardship because I think that's an important component of what we do at the center, right?

We're trying to minimize hardships for everyone that we serve.

We serve people with physical challenges, from people who have limb amputations to people who are quadriplegic.

That's who's coming to our site.

And when we talk specifically about this shed, I will be the first to say, I'm very sorry.

I did not know we did not have a building permit for this.

I am so so sorry.

I've been with the center for six years.

Um this site, we know it was on property as of 2014 because of aerial footage that we can find.

And you know, if I were to go back and question what happened, I know that the intent behind the building was always good.

I know that they put this building up because they were awarded funds to get a trailer, and this trailer is so important to many of the services we offer at the center.

I know Jim talked about us taking the adaptive cycles down to River Park Trail to take our guys riding, but this is also the same trailer we use to be able to commute across the region to take wheelchair uh wheelchair basketball chairs, wheelchair softball chairs, wheelchair tennis chairs, power soccer chairs, to be able to for our adaptive sports teams to compete around the region.

Like to have this trailer and then it not be in this shed, I guarantee you it would be stolen or it would be vandalized.

Whenever we leave stuff on our property, it's stolen or vandalized.

Vehicles, we can't park them anymore because the catalytic converters get stolen.

We um had to take off every plug outside our building because they were all vandalized.

We so desperately want to have a visual so whether people who are deaf come to our doors, they can see inside, and we know it'll get vandalized.

I know, I know that was the intent behind it, but I have to tell you that it's so important for our programming, it's so important for what we do, and it's so important for the people that we serve.

So I know that there were um Mr.

Hale kindly said, you know, I understand the parking lot and wanting to rearrange that, but I just wanted to be very clear that this shed is really important to what we do too, and it's really important to our members.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um thank you for your question and thank you for your uh what you guys do.

Anyone else that would like to speak on BOA twenty four zero six two?

See no, so let's move on to discussion.

This one's interesting to me because when we're talking about a hardship for this, that it makes sense that it needs to be at the furthest part of the site from the door because every car needs to be as close based just on who their clientele is.

That is very logical to me.

It makes a lot of sense.

Um, you know, when you look at how many handicapped spots they're trying to accommodate.

I just I don't know if that can technically fit into our that makes this logical sense in my mind as a hardship, but I don't um I guess I'm asking fellow board members how you see that.

Isn't that area sloped back there?

Um, that's what they said.

That's why they said we go to have to cut the right, yeah.

So the top topographical nature of that lot, they have to customize yeah, he has to custom they have to customize it.

So I don't know how to fix that.

I mean, you know that it's something that's I think I don't know what it would take to remedy that.

Oh probably support that.

I mean, say the topographical issue in the allocation um is already attached to the land, so what do you think, Mr.

Hill?

No, you uh you know me.

Yeah, we do.

Well, I mean, I as I commend the services they provide.

I think for me it's tricky because being the grumpy person that I am, uh no matter what I were to say, I mean it would come off bad.

So I mean if you guys see that there's a hardship there, um, I can I can get in mind that we'll miss this dualness.

Sure, I agree uh that the the topographical uh changes um, which they did include that exhibit on 8.18, um suggests that that is uh unique to the site and that placement is um not self-imposed.

I can see for what it's worth.

In twenty seventeen, there was another case on this property that approved zero foot setbacks, which is the same requests being asked today.

Um the board found the hardship at that time to be a combination of several different zoning districts on the site, um, some of which allow for zero setbacks, some of which that don't.

And so that was what was indicated in the record of November seventh, twenty seventeen.

Should have been right, just talking.

I'm ready.

Yeah, and it's RM3 L L.

So steel, yeah.

I am I am RM3 or L.

Okay.

That to me is sufficient hardship, and I would be willing to make a motion if everyone is done making comments, done with discussion.

Okay, Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24062.

I move to approve a special exception to amend a previously approved site plan for a community center designated as a governmental service or similar functions use per the conceptual plans on pages eight point one six through eight point one eight of the agenda packet.

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

Do you want to read both of them at once?

Yeah.

Additionally, I move to approve a variance to reduce the required ten-foot street setback in the IM district from 10 feet to 1.5 feet for the conceptual plan shown on pages 8.16 through 8.18 of the agenda packet.

The board finds the hardship to be um the multiple zoning districts on the site with competing requirements.

Additionally, the unique topography of the site.

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

A that the physical surroundings shape or topographical conditions of the subject property would result in unnecessary hardships or practical difficulties for the property owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience of the strict letter or 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 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 impaired purposes spirit and intent of this zoning code or the comprehensive plan.

We have a motion do we have a second second.

We got a motion we got a second Mr.

Yes.

Mrs.

Doom is Williams I also want to say yes the special exception the variance of being approved now let's move on to agenda item number nine BOA 24063.

BOA 24063 location is 3009 south eighty sixth east place applicant Darby Thomas and Jesse Powell are requesting a special exception to increase the maximum allowable driveway width in the RS2 district.

Sure.

Mike's sign up concept builders concept realty um our office 1236 South Lewis Avenue Tulsa.

All right to um do you all have any questions about I think it's pretty straightforward there's a there's a median in this there it's a corner lot there's a kind of an old curved median with a mature tree in it that's right at the rear of this driveway that where the house is that we're building the homeowner would like a little bit less a little easier way to get out and so this is just like a hammerhead turnaround that we're kind of adding so that they can kind of leave the driveway in a forward direction.

She can kind of back out of the garage and then move forward.

So how much relief are you asking okay for 32 45 three inches.

Yeah.

They're asking for 15 but three inches.

So this is for them to turn around that median is kind of weird huh I'm sorry that median is kind of weird right it is it I'm just like you're probably going to go through a lot more trouble to get that removed than for them.

And create a turnaround for yeah that's fair.

Yeah.

They you they kind of drew in the tree if you look at the street view it's a it's quite a large tree there too.

Will they be parking in this additional um paving as well or that's not the intended we didn't plan on this from the start.

She once we got the the house out there I mean they saw the original site plan but then she's the the female half didn't think she was going to be able to navigate that very well and so we talked to her about some options and this seemed like the easiest way to make her feel better about it.

There was a discussion about there's an existing driveway approach on the far right about making it a full circle drive I just figured again this would be a simpler way of doing it without as much driveway and just saving some yard I think that we'll probably have to take that other approach out.

I'm not sure.

Yeah, you'd probably end up having to get a special exception for that too, because then you're still in the street right away or the so back.

Yeah, I think the circle drive probably would have still brought you to the board for driveway width.

So and I do think they will require you to remove and replace the cards.

I think we're pretty much planning on that.

Yeah.

No questions.

Any more questions?

Okay, thank you.

All right, case BOE twenty four zero six three.

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

Seeing no, let's move on to discussion.

I mean that's a very odd shape.

This does seem like the minimal relief.

To get them safely in and out of there.

I was trying to look at the area of view of the area.

I don't see any other property that has that kind of extension.

But you also don't see any other properties that are backing out of that.

Yeah, it's backing out that way, yeah.

Especially facing 30th Street.

Yeah.

I mean I don't really like it.

Um, so a lot of concrete in the front yard, but I can see the need and the justification for it.

So but if the median weren't there, I would be a no on it, but I'm I'm fine with it knowing, seeing because I mean if you even if you do street view on it, like coming out of there, it looks narrow.

Um, all right, do we have a motion?

I can make a motion.

Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment 24063.

I move to approve a special exception to increase the maximum allowable driveway within the RS2 district from thirty feet to forty-five feet three inches in the street setback for the conceptual plan shown on page nine point one two of the agenda packet.

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

We got a motion that we got a second.

Second.

We got a motion, we got a cycle, Mrs.

Dumas.

Yes.

Yes.

Ms.

Williams, yes, Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Also gonna say yes to this obligation has been approved.

Alright, so this is the end of the agenda today.

Do we have any comments from any other board members?

I think so it is two twenty nine.

This meeting is abduar.