All right, good afternoon, and welcome to the City of Tulsa Border Justin Meeting Number One Three Eight Seven Eighty Swan O Four.

Let's call this meeting to order.

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

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 a rebuttal, not to exceed ten 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.

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 Tulsa Planning.

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 revisions in the same manner.

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

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

At this time, please silence any electronic devices.

And if there are no questions, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you, Nathan.

So let's move on to agenda item number one, which is the approval of the minutes of meeting 1386, July 7th, 2026.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve the minutes from meeting 1386 on July 7th, 2026.

We got a motion.

Do we have a second second?

We got a motion, we got a second.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

Mr.

Hill.

Yes.

Ms.

Stallfock?

Yes.

I'm going to upstain or what's not in the meeting.

So let's move on to agenda item number two, BOA 24069.

BOA 24069.

Location is 8621 South Memorial Drive.

Applicant 8.

And a special exception to increase the allowed fence height of four feet within the street setback.

Hi, good afternoon, Jesse Stringer, 8.1428 South New Haven Avenue.

Yes, so we are back.

This is a property that they inherited that at the time of purchase was already established as a church.

So they have been utilizing all the existing buildings and all the existing parking lot as is.

So since day one of purchase, they have been extremely limited on the amount of parking they have.

Right now they're drastically below even the required parking count from the day they purchased it.

Now the parking requirements are even a little bit more lenient, but still they they're barely meeting it.

So right now, um, with their proposal to put in a security fence, they would need to go around the existing parking lot and follow the already existing campus outline.

Unfortunately, a portion of that fence, which I've bubbled in red, would be within the statutory right-of-way.

The rest of the proposed security fence is within their property line, outside of the utility easement, and outside of the right-of-way.

But there is a decent chunk of the fence that would be within that right-of-way, which is in the uh ODOT's parcel.

We have contacted ODOT many months ago and let them know of this.

They have told us in writing that they have no problem with this.

As long as the city is okay with it, we could proceed forward with construction.

Um today we are asking for a variance based on the problem parcel that they have inherited.

This is just how it was constructed.

It was platted before a very large right-of-way even existed.

Um, so that's why the parking lot is so close to memorial, which you don't really find on a lot of properties in that area.

Um the main reason they're wanting to construct a security fence is they are having issues with folks wandering up on to campus.

A lot of campuses in Tulsa, whether it's union or broken arrow, the way that their schools were designed are to face inward.

So the buildings themselves form kind of this barrier.

With Regent, it's not so much the case.

They have grown significantly over the last 10 years.

About 10 years ago, they went from being a K through eighth grade school to now a K through 12th, all on one campus.

Seniors and kindergartners share an auditorium, they share a cafeteria, so everyone is parking on this campus, which has made it a little bit difficult to find ways to navigate putting up a basic security fence versus what other schools would try to do.

I'm happy to answer any questions you all have.

Okay, you probably answer the first question that I have.

So there's no any licensing agreement with the state of Oklahoma.

Um, not that I'm aware.

Okay.

How many gates?

Uh so the gates are a phase two project.

I did include the master plan in this just to help you all, but they're not planning on putting in actual security gates at the driveway entrances until probably 2028.

Um, just because that's a whole nother cost.

They're private schools, they have to raise money for those types of things.

Uh but there would be two gates that are technically outside of their property line if this were approved.

And what is your hardship?

So our hardship statement is that this particular project has a unique relationship with the memorial because of the date it was platted.

The right-of-way did not exist at the time that all of this was constructed, and they kind of purchased a problem, which worked for them when they were, you know, you know, eight through twelve, minimal students, minimal staff, but now that they've grown so much, it's been a little more challenging for them to constantly have security and making sure that the children are safe in between classes, lunchtime, during sports sporting activities.

You went into it a little bit.

How much parking is existing versus how much is required?

Um so right now we have just under a hundred and fifty spaces, and that is including the high school as well.

Um which is dramatically below what is required.

So losing any spaces would cause a whole nother problem.

Where right now it's an inherited issue, so no one's concerned.

But if we were to shave off this part of the parking lot and still construct a fence, we'd still have to be here asking for the variance for it to be above six feet.

But now we're kind of opening a can of worms where we're really highlighting that we are below our parking requirements.

I'm actually working with them to um create some additional parking throughout the site as an entirely separate project to help address that, but even still we're we're just barely making it.

Um what's the maximum height?

Other fence, six feet?

Six feet, that's correct.

It's other ones showing on two point seventeen.

So open metal fence, right?

Yeah.

Yes, that's correct.

Um we want it to look like a classic really nice rod iron fence that you would see in maybe a RE district, um, just because that's the type of folks who who live around here, it's very common for the type of houses that are in this area.

So we want it to look very nice and reminiscent of that, but also deter anyone who's trespassing with ill intentions.

Okay.

So the main the main purpose of the fence is security during the day while kids are in the tittends.

That's correct.

Is all of the parking used while that is happening during the day?

Because you mentioned a lot of parents come park on grass.

This was last meeting.

Yes.

Um so uh pretty much all of the parking is used constantly just by staff, parents dropping children off, coaches who come in to coach.

Uh right now they are maxed out.

I have visited the school during hours, and I found uh cars parked in the grass, cars parked uh along the curb where they're not supposed to be, just because there's no parking available.

Um so that is an issue.

Uh initially our goal was to just bypass the parking stay along the property line, but the school let me know that's a no-go.

Every single spot is being utilized all the time.

Did you did you look at moving this that little screening wall in between the two angled parking spaces?

It wouldn't have all of it behind the security, but you've got the two back to back angled over within the property line.

Uh could you say that again?

I apologize.

Well, so I don't have a pointer on me.

But um kind of essentially where your dimension line is inside the parking lot.

That's where the parking splits.

Did you look at possibly running the fence line there so it is within the park property line or that was our original goal was exactly what you suggested?

Um the issue is either way, we're going to have to sacrifice parking stalls in order to do that because there are quite a few right there along memorial.

Uh it's kind of hard to see on this map, but there's quite a few 90-degree angle parking uh directly abutting that that sidewalk.

That is currently where the entire staff parks to keep the rest of the parking that's closer to the school for parents and other staff that might need to park closer to other buildings.

So right now that is all of the staff parking.

Um you ran it over in between.

You could still keep the parking.

Those just wouldn't be within that secured area.

You just run the fence down the middle of the parking to the right.

Yes.

Um because there's parking behind that and and so on.

The drive aisles are about 20 feet wide.

Um typically is about 24 is what you want.

So though we've we've considered it, our goal is to also keep our cars safe as well.

We've had some pretty scary stories.

Um folks wondering just this past semester, a man walked up with a machete and was chasing little children.

So we've got a lot of very angry parents and very scared teachers who also want their vehicles to be safe.

Um so that would also be a goal is to also protect the vehicles as well, just to ensure break-ins aren't happening, or at least happening less frequently, and uh the on-staff security has time to go over and address the situation if someone is trying to hop the fence.

Yeah, all of this started because of a uh very scary scary people and several scary stories, one of people wandering on campus and parents rallying together to get some money to pay for a security fence.

Um, but this is the one problem spot.

I was just wondering, um, I don't remember if we talked about this last time or not, but there's the um single family home development to the west um across memorial.

Um have you communicated with any of those folks or because the fence would be kind of like right in front of their backyard?

Yes, I did talk to the headmaster recently about that, and he said I haven't heard anything from those neighbors.

Um apparently a lot of those folks are familiar with Regent School.

Either they had kids that go to school there or have since graduated and have always been very supportive.

So he said I I they they will speak up if they're upset.

And he said, I haven't heard anything.

So thank you.

And they've not been quiet about this.

They talk very openly to all the parents and anyone who asked.

So I I'm very confident that the folks who would be concerned know about it.

And they got a letter twice now.

So our first letter didn't include the special exception for the height variants, so we had to send it a second time.

So they've been notified several times now about this fence, and um nobody said anything yet, so any more questions.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um case BOE 24069.

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

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

I I see your point about I mean making the fence straight through the property line, but I think that's gonna I'm I'm I'm pretty sure people won't bark on the side they do that.

Sure.

It's doable.

Right.

And you don't I don't think you lose any parking if you put it if it comes over and you put it between the angled um I don't have any issues with the special exception portion for the height, that seems fair.

Um the fence right up on the on memorial seems excessive to me.

Um probably a no on that portion.

I mean, there's a lot of Tulsa public schools that is not completely fenced in either that are in rural areas, urban areas.

I mean, it seems like security is a common issue with schools, so I don't I can't support the variance.

Um I don't have a lot of questions.

I think last time, you know, we also went through a couple of uh thought processes and thought experiments.

Um I think there's uh at this point, unfortunately, not um a lot of viable options that meet their needs, and it's I'm not seeing it as something that is self-imposed.

Um so yeah, I don't really have a lot to contribute to the questioning.

So are you a yes on both uh sure?

Okay, I'm just trying to see where we go from from here.

So Ms.

Stoffer.

Um yeah, so the height I'm totally fine with, especially with the type of fence they're looking at.

Um, when I think about this from all different sides, like there had been someone with a machete outside my parents.

I mean, my kids' school as a parent, I would want that fence height um as a business owner.

I don't know how you ask half your staff to have their cars secured and half of them not to, and who you choose to do that.

So that seems icky.

If ODOT doesn't have a problem with it, then I don't I don't see many other options, and um that would be something that would be convincing to me if ODOT did not agree, but I think with that I could support both of these.

Okay, and I should have say these.

I mean, we're usually a board of five.

Uh that's what I was asking because we're only four today, so in order to the for the case to prevail, we're gonna have to have three yeses.

So with that, uh, I mean support too.

So anyone would like to do the emotion.

I'd be happy to make a motion if you'll just give me one moment.

Okay.

In Board of Adjustment Case 24069, I move to approve a special exception to increase the permitted fence height and the street setback from four feet to six feet for the conceptual plans shown on pages two point one six through two point seven of two point one seven, excuse me, of the agenda packet.

Um 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 public welfare.

I'm assuming we want to vote separately.

Or anyone to do both of them together.

This is probably okay.

Yeah.

So we got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We got a motion to we got a cycle, Mr.

H.

Correct.

Yes.

Uh yes.

Ms.

Stumas?

Yes.

Ms.

Stolfer?

Yes.

And I'm also gonna say yes.

So the special exception is approved.

So now let's move on to the variance.

Sure.

In Board of Adjustment Case 24069, I move to approve a variance to permit a fence within the street right of way.

For the conceptual plans shown on pages 2.16 through 2.17 of the agenda packet.

The board finds the hardship to be that the property was platted before the right-of-way, um, creating a unique circumstance for this particular property.

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

That the 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 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 or 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 use or development of adjacent property.

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

We have we have the motion.

Do we have a cycle?

Second.

We got a motion, we got a second.

Mr.

Hill.

No.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

Ms.

Stoffer?

Yes.

Also gonna say yes.

So the variance pass.

All right.

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

BOA 24070.

BOA 24070, located at 16416 East Admiral Place South.

Applicant JLTH development group, Michael Scarborough is requesting a special exception to allow a commercial vehicle repair and maintenance use in the CS district.

Is the applicant person?

Okay.

Please provide your name and your advice.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mike Scarborough with LTH Development Group.

My address is 110 West Camelback Road, Suite 100 in Phoenix, Arizona.

We're back before you again today to discuss the project.

GPM is the client that I'm representing, and they are proposing a card lock or fleet fuel facility at 165th and Admiral, so just south of the 44.

The surrounding area is largely automotive.

To the west of us is a semi-truck wash.

To the east of us is a fast food facility, north of us a fast food facility, and again north east of us, another truck wash.

Access to the property would be from Admiral Place and 165th.

The access on Admiral Place is a platted access point.

And the accessoph 165th is uh access at the back of the cul de sac that also provides access to the truck wash uh around the back of it.

As we met and talked with staff about the project, they indicated that because we are a fleet fuel facility that we fall under the minor automotive repair.

Uh I think that was the right terminology.

Um so they've indicated that this is a process we needed to go through.

And in those discussions, we talked about the fact that I believe a convenience store is an allowed use by right in this district.

And so while the use, I guess, is it is in question.

I think what we're talking about more is the uh use as it relates to the area, the surrounding area access is it going to be detrimental to the the surrounding public because of the fact that it's a fleet fuel facility versus a convenience store gas station.

And I can tell you that the number of trips that a fleet fuel facility gets is a fraction, like 10 12% of what a normal convenience store would get on a daily basis.

I can also tell you that the client chose a location based on its surrounding area and need in the and need in the area.

There's a lot of truck traffic in this area, a lot of uh worker type companies in this area that would benefit from this facility.

Part of the process as well was to reach out to the surrounding public.

Um we did get the notification list from staff.

We sent out letters to the public.

Um we got one phone call from this semi truck crazy or semi crazy truck car wash, I think is just to the west of us.

He was in support, just wanted to make sure that our access point along Admiral Way was coordinated and we weren't cutting off his access, which obviously we have no intention of doing.

At the last hearing, we had a neighbor show up as well who just wanted to clarify we're not doing any repair, and we are not.

And then he was very supportive.

So to date, we've received no negative review or comments from the surrounding neighborhood, and we've had two people in support, one by phone to me, and then one in person.

This project will not have a convenience store as we discussed.

It will, but it will also provide uh EV charging is another another benefit that would be added to this project.

So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

So what are the hours or parations at a 24-7 facility?

It would be 24 7, but typical fleet would be most people would be not be using it in the wee hours of the morning, it would be early but not late, is typical use of a fleet facility.

How many vehicle vehicles?

If this be if this facility got up to a hundred trips per day, which is roughly 50 in and 50 out, that would be considered meeting its normal uh volume.

It's very limited in the amount of traffic that actually comes in and out of these facilities.

Can you clarify what are the entrances for is that one on the south side and there's one on the north side, right?

Yes, sir.

At the north uh west corner, and then on the southern side on the on the uh radius of the cul-de-sac.

Okay.

Once the tanks are underground, uh, what happens if there's a leak found?

Is there a monitoring to alert the property owner or you know, like what happens in that case?

Yes, ma'am.

The technology that goes into placing a tank underground is is significantly better than it was in years past, and some of the horror stories we've heard from years past.

They're double-walled tanks first and foremost.

So you have to have two layers of a tank fail before you actually get a uh a release.

And then if there is a release, there are sensors in the tank um pit that sense it and automatically send off an alarm.

And I don't know, I believe it actually either auto-shuts it down or it automatically sends an alarm so it can be shut down.

So it the idea that there's a potential for a leak.

I can't I can't tell you that that's not a potential, but I can tell you that the technology today is so significantly better than it had been in the past that some of the concerns and some of the awful stories we've heard in the past, we don't have those happen anymore.

And so if I'm correct, you're the developer and the property management company or the operator is not here, and then the property owner is also not here.

So they would be receiving the notifications, I imagine.

The the operator would be receiving the notifications.

Okay.

The the the operators uh GPM, they are the number six largest convenience store fuel operator in in the US.

So while they you may not know that name GPM, they fly multiple flags.

This flag would be corals.

They also have a fast market, fast market.

They have different names all under the same umbrella.

So they are a large operator who is very familiar with operating fuel facilities.

Thank you.

Is there any rest area for the truckers at this facility or it just come and go?

No, sir.

There's no rest facility, there's no restroom.

There's not a place to buy a drink or a convenient or a little bending machine or anything like that.

It's literally meant for people who are needing to get gas that it's on a fleet account, get it and get going.

Okay.

Any more questions?

So once the tanks are under there, they they really don't come up, right?

And so then the land also becomes only usable as a convenience store or gas station or fleet facility operation.

And so that's where a lot of my concern also lies is once they're under there, then you're taking off a parcel from having any other use.

Um so just letting you know that's where my concerns come in, in addition to the environmental concerns.

If I can speak to that, um having done convenience store fuel facilities for the majority of my career, um, if the property were to be to redeveloped, then the tanks would be removed, and typically testing of the property is done immediately to confirm that there's no issues.

Assuming there's no issues, that absolutely the part property can be redeveloped in any manner that anyone sees fit.

If there are issues, then the underlying owner has to resolve those issues, sometimes in conjunction with the new development, and sometimes prior to new development.

But regardless, that parcel is not off the table for other development in the future.

It just depends on if there potentially becomes an issue what that looks like in terms of timing, but no, it does not take it off the table.

Yeah, I mean I totally understand there can be like environmental impact studies and there are uh um uh levers in place and that's an extra hurdle that a potential uh development would have, and so it still creates an additional barrier, even if technically it can happen.

Any more questions?

Right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, on case BOE 2407 zero, do we have anyone that would like to speak on this case?

See no, so let's move on to this question.

I don't have any issues with this.

Um, but I understand Mr.

Moss's concerns, but I I don't necessarily share them.

Um seems use adjacent to all of the other um companies around there.

So I'm fine with this.

Didn't know half a motion.

I'll make a motion Mr.

Chair.

Um and Board of Adjustment 24070.

I move to approve a special exception to allow commercial vehicle repair and maintenance use in the CS district for the conceptual plan shown on page 3.11 through 3.13 of the agenda packet.

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

We've got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

No.

Ms.

Stolfer?

Yes.

Mr.

Hill?

Yes.

Also gonna say yes.

This application has to be approved.

Right, let's move on to agenda item number four, BOA 24072.

BOA 24072, located at 1503 East 15th Street South.

Applicant Joel Slaughter with SWE Architects.

It's requesting a special exception to permit a sign in the right-of-way or planned right-of-way.

Good afternoon.

My name's Joel Slaughter.

I my address is 3202 East 21st Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Um we're developing that parcel at 1503 East 15th Street, basically known as Cherry Street.

We have a first floor tenant that is moving in, it's a restaurant.

Um they will be coming in, and their desire is to be seen on the street from down Cherry Street, not just right when you're in front of it.

So this so the um the solution is to place a blade sign that is perpendicular to the building that comes out into 15th street.

It will uh as designed right now, enter into the easement or encroach into the easement.

Um so today we're asking for a special exception to do that.

Um what I think everybody here knows where Cherry Street is, knows the the environment, knows the atmosphere, uh knows the scale of the buildings and and all that's going on there.

I think um the buildings that we've done down there blend in with that.

I believe this sign, if you go up and down the street, it's gonna blend in exactly with what has been designed there for the past 25 years and become exactly what Cherry Street is.

It's just a place to be, a place to see what's going on.

It adds to the environment, it adds to the um just the prestige of the of the district.

So I think it's just something that would be adding to what's already there.

Um also we just want to make sure that you understand that it is safe, it is above any kind of walking line or any kind of line where people are gonna be uh possibly bumping our head knocking into it.

Um no cars or trucks, it's far enough away from anything.

It is securely attached to the building uh structurally, yet it is going to be able to uh meet the standards of the city, which you're able to take it off if uh access to the easement needs to be done.

So I think we met the criteria, and I think it would be a nice addition.

So there you go.

Okay, questions.

Are these signs you like it?

Yeah, it will be.

Yes, it is.

I was I had to think about that.

I got a few things on my mind.

Sorry.

I gotta say I like tapas.

Oh, you like what?

Did you say topas?

Yes, so you saw reserves.

I saw okay.

Well, I'm not here representing them today, but that's okay.

We'll get that, we'll get that thing in there soon.

Topas at the top of the building.

That's right.

Hatch is moving downstairs today.

I represent hatch.

We'll probably come in sometime and represent reserve, too.

Any questions?

So we're not asking for more signage than allowed, we're just asking for correct.

Okay, correct.

Thank you.

Any question, Mrs.

Dilmas?

And this is only for the hatch sign that's on 4.13.

The uh the um the one that is going into the right-of-way, not the one that is above the entrance the one above the entrance.

Well, go back to that of the picture.

I think that's on the okay on the far right hand, far right hand side.

Believe it or not, that little protrusion goes out eight inches to the face of the easement.

That hatch sign is against the building and is with is it it is within our property, so we are not encroaching.

The only one we're asking for encroachment is at the corner, and it's the only one that is actually coming out into 15th street.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

No.

All right, thank you.

All right, okay, C BOE 24072.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak?

See no, let's move on to discussion.

I mean, I think you see examples of this all over town on Cherry Street, Brookside, um, downtown.

Seems common, uh, especially when you get into urban renewal where they're pushing the building towards the front of the property line and parking behind.

So I I have no issues.

Right.

Ditto again.

Uh-oh.

I know what's wrong.

So no, I think it I think it is really common in urban areas.

I think it's a nice way to do the signage.

Just very quickly seeing a little bit of uh continuity on our staff report that did mention the other sign.

Umder, could you yeah?

I I want to I was just gonna verify with you before we get into a motion that our staff report indicated that the um sign over the street did actually encroach.

Maybe it's just in planned right-of-way.

You said it was within the property boundary, but there is a we're not we are eight inches off the we are not in that that additional easement because if not, I wouldn't have been able to build it.

Oh, right, because you have a canopy that's already over thank you.

The closing sign is 3.9.

I think you're going around the specialist section says two signs.

It's talking about just clarification here.

We got the one that comes out into Cherry Street.

We're talking about the one that goes out into Rockford.

Okay.

That's that helps me.

Okay, thank you.

Since then, I'm going to turn to one of the developers.

Since then, Hatch has pulled that off, yes.

Or do we want to go ahead and get them both?

I mean, they don't need it.

Okay.

It is both then, yes.

On the corner, we want to come out into 15th Street and then go out into Rockford.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I appreciate that.

It's been a while since we submitted.

Is that because it's two signs, or is that because it's angled?

It's two signs.

It's on the corner.

Oh.

So we he we know he wants to do the one on 15th Street.

The one on Rockford has been in discussion, in and out, in and out, in and out.

And I think where we left it, we left it in just to keep our options open.

Yeah.

That's what we did.

Cool.

Yeah, that clarifies.

All right, thank you.

Sure.

Let's go back to this question.

So yes, two seconds.

As you can see on the screen here.

So it doesn't change my opinion.

Thank you.

Yeah, sure.

I don't know if that was completely missed.

I was I think I just confused myself too, but now I'm it all makes sense now.

Right.

So great.

So do we have a moja?

One second, I'm happy to do it.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24072.

I move to approve a special exception to permit two signs and the right-of-way or planned right of way.

Correct the conceptual plan shown on pages 4.12 through 4.14 of the agenda packet.

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

We got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Mr.

Dumas.

No.

Mr.

Hell.

Yes.

Yes.

Also gonna say yes.

This application has been approved.

Let's move on to agenda item number five, BOA 24073.

BOA24073.

Location is 1424 East 35th place south.

Applicant James Walker is requesting a special exception to increase the maximum allowable driveway width in the RS3 district.

And just as a point of information, um, you all were forwarded two packets of comments, one packet of support letters, and then one additional opposition that came in later today, so earlier today.

All right, please throw your name and address.

And I'd like to explain why I'm here from Houston.

I moved to Houston from England, you hear an accent, uh, 25 years ago, bought my family over.

They grew up in Houston, and then my daughter came to the University of Tulsa and then did a master's at OU, and I was a physician's assistant here in the city.

She's got married here, got a grandkid.

I've just recently retired.

So I bought this property that we're discussing two years ago.

Lovely little property two streets away from where they live.

And then you'll see in the story here that it turns out that there's not a planning permission for a wider drive to squeeze in a second car on the drive.

Uh that came up in March.

We've got 23 letters from the street saying they don't mind a tool like this.

Uh I do have a little PowerPoint presentation with some photographs on it, just to put some color in it.

You've heard the color.

So that's the building off Google Maps in 2017, and it's a traditional traditional house there, very narrow drive.

If you click on it, next one, you can see this is this is the property I bought two years ago.

And that little sneak off to get a second car in there to get the vehicle off the street, basically.

Uh much safer.

The house was upgraded, it looks great.

Uh, and is uh adds to the sort of uh Brookside vibe.

There's more photos here, and the bit we're discussing, and it'll come on to the next one, is actually about 10 square feet in front of the house coming out towards the road is the bit that I need exception on.

This is my submission, badly drawn.

But there was a pathway that I never knew existed, right?

This is this is all history to me.

Uh but you can see the photograph.

There's still a bit of grass and a little uh flower bed in the middle there.

So it's encroached by that 10 foot by about a foot uh wider than it should be.

And I've uh the city tells the planning commission that or department's been great, but I applied for permit.

I've gone and got a surety bond for a builder that doesn't exist for uh work that was completed four years ago.

Uh so I've been trying to get through the system, and this is the final place for common sense, I hope.

Uh so uh if you click on the next one, uh there we go.

About 10 square feet.

I've looked, we've walked up and down the street, about 75% of the homes on the street are wide driveways.

I mean, this is not in out or not in keeping.

Safety, the runoffs to the front of the house.

Uh construction completed years ago, and 23 letters of support.

So I hope you see the common sense in this one.

And then next slide, there was a comment from a guy this morning who I'm aware of.

Uh he there's water runoff, he's in the street behind.

Uh I don't want to get into all the weeds, no pun intended there with all of that.

Uh, but the runoff from the front of my house, I've got a video of it in the last rainstorm.

Runs into the drain that was put in there when they built the driveway, it runs forward.

That's a foot and a half height difference from the front of the house to the road.

There's only one place for the water at the front of the house to run.

Uh well, so I'll say no more.

That's the that's the story.

Any questions?

So, as I can see, I mean you had a lot of interaction with the neighbors.

I mean, we got a lot of comments from the neighbors.

Uh when was this expansion done?

Like you you mentioned that it was prior when you put it on.

I bought the house two years ago.

It was already done, and I understand that it was done in the summer of 2020.

Okay.

And asking the CD mean there wasn't any permits or anything.

What was the question?

Sorry.

There wasn't already permits or anything file with a CD.

No time there was.

I think that is therein lies the issue that it was unpermitted work at the time that was done before Mr.

Walker owned the property.

Um and so he's simply trying to remedy the the non-compliance at this point.

Yep.

Have you had a chance to see the letter that was opposed that?

This morning I did, yes.

That neighbor's not directly behind you, right?

Aren't they one over?

They're one over, but they bought the house behind.

Uh and then have their lands to the part of their yard is rightly behind behind mine.

Okay, gotcha.

And the runoff he talks about actually comes from what he did on that piece of land.

I can get into the detail, runs onto mine and then back onto his.

Yeah, no, I saw it.

But uh questions?

No, thank you.

All right, in case BOE 24073, do we have anyone that would like to speak?

Rachel.

Anyone please provide your name and address?

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Molly Cooley.

I live at 1413, East 35th Place.

We live across the street from the property.

And uh, we just wanted to speak on behalf of the neighborhood, uh, in support of Mr.

Walker.

His property is beautiful, and uh it would seem a shame to have to incur uh financial damages to tear up something that no one in the neighborhood on this street that we share with him has an objection to.

So we're just here to support.

All right.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

Anyone else I would like to speak on case BOA 24073?

See, no, and no, we have uh several letters of support.

And we have one in opposition, and that's in regard to the flooding.

Can we can we pull up the aerial on this?

Is it possible to zoom in?

No, I don't.

The letter as a that was opposed to it also mentions how the what was the exact wording.

Um shall I help you?

No, we're we're in discussion right now.

Until the addition of this concrete, which extends well into his backyard, pushing all those water to us.

I mean, I it it doesn't go well into the backyard.

Um I mean, I'm not really a civil engineer, but his backyard has way less paving than the pools next door, so I don't really think that that is creating the drainage issue.

Now maybe there is just a normal drainage problem there, but I don't see how the driveway had anything to do with this.

Um personally if he was asking for the entire driveway to be that wide, I'd be opposed to it, but it's very minimal relief.

Yeah.

Um and it does seem in character with the rest of the neighborhood.

So I hate to say it again, but ditto.

Oh right.

Ms.

Doomas.

Um yeah, I don't have much to say.

I think um we can see where, like Kevin said, is very minimal relief needed, and um yeah, I think especially since there's no opposition um from neighbors who are speaking directly to what is happening on the parcel.

Um then I think there's uh it's pretty straightforward for me.

I understand the neighbor has drainage concerns, has concerns, but I don't think they have anything to do with the case before us.

So that's yeah, I was gonna say that.

Yeah.

All right, so it looks like I got well.

Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment 24073.

I move to approve a special exception to increase the maximum allowable driver width from 30 feet to 31 feet eight inches in the street setback in the RS3 district for the conceptual plan shown on page 5.11.

The board finds that the request 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 have a second.

Second.

We got a motion, we got a second.

Yes, Mr.

Hell.

Yes.

And I'm also gonna say yes, so this application has been approved.

Let's move on to agenda item number six, BOA 24074.

BOA 24074, located at 6555 South Lewis Avenue East.

Applicant Lori Worthington is requesting a variance to allow more than one sign per street frontage in the OM district.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lori Worthington, 9520 East 55th Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74145.

All right.

What would you like to do?

I'm sorry.

What would you like to do?

We are hoping to install a pylon sign, get it some kind of advertisement closer to the road because of the way the building is set so much further back than the rest of the pro, you know, areas along there.

The fence for the country club is all the way up to practically the uh parkway or the I'm sorry, the sidewalk.

And then of course the apartment building is right there on the other side.

You can't really see the building until you get right up on it.

And they did do a lot combination.

Uh the ITM ATM was on its own lot at one point in time.

Uh so they're considering that as well a sign.

Now that they've combined all the lots, that is taking up all of the percentage.

So what is your hard shape?

The hardship is unfortunately because the building is set back so far, all of all of the surroundings were built up in front.

You can't see it whenever you go by anymore.

Before all the building was there before Southern Hills put up all of that shrubbery and everything, and it was never an issue.

The apartment complex, I'm uninformed.

I could not get an exact date whenever that was constructed.

But I do know that uh since the shrubbery it's been very hard to see.

Is there any other signs on the property at the moment?

Uh there is the uh signs that were shown there, uh the ITM ATM uh construction, and then the walled sign that I believe is on the south wall.

Or on the west wall on the south end, sorry about that, and then just the small logo in the center on the canopy.

That one.

Do you know when those were installed?

Uh I am gonna say maybe six or seven years ago.

It's been there for a while.

Was that before they did the lot combination?

Yes, it was.

So currently now there are three signs on the building.

Is that accurate?

Uh two, I believe.

And then one.

And then one on the ATM.

So I guess that's what I got.

My question is in the staff analysis, it says the variance is to go from one to four.

And we're counting this is one ATM, ITM is one.

And then with the logo credit union that's on the facade, that's two.

And then the logo above the address is three.

Okay.

And you're requesting the pylon.

One more.

Okay.

And so the ones that were installed recently, those are not in compliance.

Is that accurate?

Because if it's they should be.

They did receive permits.

Okay.

So we're going from three to four instead of one to four.

Is that essentially, yes.

So something I was gonna clarify.

I think the sample motion and and the staff report they I think they are allowed two signs because they have two street frontages currently.

So it's technically a variance of two allowable signs to their asking for four total signs.

Um they already have the three signs, and they're wanting to add one more, and it was caught in permitting that there was this deficiency.

And I think the third sign was added as Ms.

Worthington mentioned before the lot combination, which said that already was allowed there, and now that they've been consolidated onto one lot, they have three signs when they're allowed two, and now they're asking to add a fourth.

So as a clarification in your sample motion, and if you all are inclined to use it, it's it is going to be a variance from two allowable to four is what they're asking for.

Two to four.

Okay.

And the logo could be removed if you would allow the pylon sign.

That would remove it, get it back to the three signs.

Um that was just kind of an afterthought for energy uh for the credit union, and we thought it was a good idea, but the pylon sign would definitely be more beneficial for the credit union to have the advertisement that they need.

Is this sign lighted?

Yes, sir.

Okay, it is.

Internally only, it's not flashing or anything.

Um this building is only their energy one.

There's no any multi-tenant.

That is correct.

Okay.

Any more questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, case BOA 24074.

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

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

So Nathan, since the third sign was put on legally, and then they combine the lots.

Why wouldn't it be considered like existing nonconforming or so are legal non-conforming provisions require a change in the zoning itself?

If you combine two properties together and create a non-conformity, it's not legal non-conforming.

It's it's just typically you created a compliance issue at that point.

Generally during lot combination reviews, we check for items like that to address them before we allow the combination to go forward.

I don't I don't know the history about when this one was combined, but short answer is combining two lots and creating a non-conformity is not considered legal non-conforming.

So sometimes I will say I I understand I understand the desire to have a sign that can be seen from people driving by.

I do understand the desire for this particular sign.

Uh ditto.

I'm kind of I'm in the same boat, um, and especially since they offered us to remove one of them that you know per their own rationale is not visible.

So I'd be good with three and not four.

So in that situation, they remove the one right over the front entry that the little more of a marquee or whatever it is, not marquee, but brand mark, but gets me there.

Yeah, I could do that.

All right, love the discussion about signage.

Finally rubbing off.

Um yeah, I think especially with the applicant offering uh to remove um one of the signs, then that is easier to get to this is the minimum um relief allowed.

Yeah.

Minimum relief required.

So do we have a picture of that sign that we're gonna be asking to be removed?

Well, I don't we don't really dictate that, right?

We just move it from two to three and then they make the yeah.

I mean I think that that is one way you could handle it is if you just give them three as a number.

Obviously, I think their preference is to do the one that they've presented today and remove a different one, but it would basically leave them with three signs allowed.

So yeah.

All right.

Um I think I can make a motion.

Oh, I love Ebony doing the signage variance motion.

Mark it down.

Okay, so Mr.

Chair and BOA case 24074, a move to approve a variance to increase the number of permitted signs along the street frontage in the OM district from two to three per the we're not tying it to the designs.

We're tying it to a number.

I mean, you are you're not required to tie it to the conceptual plan.

I mean, but again, it's at your discretion if if you all want to make sure it remains just these particular types of signs, then you can certainly do that.

The the free standing sign they've talked about is on six point one three.

Okay.

So we are approving or making a I'm making a motion to approve the street frontage in the OM district from two to three.

Um per the conceptual plan shown on six point three six point one three point one three, yes, sorry.

Um the board finds the hardship to be uh recently uh join parcel um where the signs were installed prior to the uh joining of the parcels.

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

Sorry, we were it was a sidebar count.

We were just wondering about the sizes, but I think we're okay.

So okay.

Yeah, okay.

Um favorable to the property owner have been established, a that the physical surroundings shape and 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 the 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 or unnecessary hardship has 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 use or the development of adjacent property.

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

We got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

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

Hill.

Yes.

Ms.

Stoller?

Yes.

Ms.

Dumas?

Yes.

Also gonna say yes, this application has being approved.

All right, let's move on to agenda item number seven, BOA 24075.

BOA 24075.

Location is 2035 North Evanston Place.

Applicant Berseta Medina is requesting a special exception to permit a manufactured housing unit in the RS3 district.

Hello, my name is Burseda Medina, 2035 North Evanston Place.

Tosa Oklahoma 74110.

Okay.

Yes, what would you like to do?

Um I want to place a manufacture home in a lot that I bought in 2024.

Uh I know that to build a home is a little bit more expensive.

And I don't have the funds for that.

So a manufactured home is a little bit less for me.

And the other thing is just seven minutes away from my job, and it's closer to my children's um school.

I just moved from California two years ago.

So it's a starting point for us.

And I work here in the city.

So it's something that I want to um go here in Tulsa and see if we could build that home there.

How old is the mobile home?

I'm excuse.

How old?

It's a 2026.

Okay, so brand new.

Yes.

Are you familiar with any other um manufactured homes in that neighborhood?

Yes.

Where are those at?

It's actually two um houses away from where I'm gonna be putting mine.

Have you heard from the neighbors?

No.

They haven't said anything.

Um we actually get along with the neighbors that are gonna be next door from us.

They were actually using our lot as a parking lot because they don't have space for the vehicles.

Um then the neighbor the next door the neighbor in front of us, he was an older gentleman that just passed away.

We did get along with him.

We used to do his yard.

Um I used to live in the next door neighbor's well house.

I was renting there, and now that I bought this lot, I want to go ahead and move there.

It's uh double y double y.

Three bedroom, two bath.

Three bedroom per bath, yes.

What kind of peer insisting are they attaching the mobile home to the land?

Do you know?

I mean, what kind of foundation they're building?

We're doing cement on the bottom.

Yes.

Any more questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, case BOE 24075.

Do we have anyone that would like to speak?

Seeing none, let's move on to discussion.

It's a brand new oh yeah, go ahead.

Go ahead, Mr.

Chair.

No, no.

Uh go ahead.

Well, I think we're about to say the same thing from history.

It's a brand new um mobile home.

It looks very, very nice.

I think once they are placed and there's landscaping and such that you can't tell oftentimes between the homes on the street.

And so I have no problem with this whatsoever.

And yeah, that's where I sit.

Well, we found one to disagree on.

Oh no, for for the requests on these, I'm always looking in the neighborhood to see if there are any.

This one's tricky for me just because two doors down is one.

Um, but that's the only one I could find in the neighborhood.

I don't have any history on if that one is approved, how that one came about.

Um I don't feel like these houses are appropriate in neighborhoods where there are not a decent amount of them personally.

So I I can't support it.

Okay.

Ms.

Stumas.

Uh I think I see what you're saying, uh, Mr.

Hill, and um I don't know.

I think the density of the neighborhood for me brings into um like there are multiple typologies can be harmonious um in that neighborhood.

Um just looking at the aerials and understanding kind of some of the major intersections uh that I frequent.

And so um yeah, I don't have a lot of questions.

Um, and I think the answers that we've received, especially with the um newness of the manufacturer housing unit um really gets it there for me.

I might add that I might feel differently if the neighbors that received letters um came out to say something, but seeing that no one's here, no one has written in helps me.

All right, that we have a motion.

Um one second, I'd be happy to do it.

Uh Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24075.

I move to approve a special exception to permit a manufactured housing unit in the RS3 district.

Part of the conceptual plan show on pages 7.11 through 7.20 of the agenda packet.

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

All right, we got a motion.

Do we have a second?

Anyone?

Second.

Okay, we got a motion, we got a second.

No, Ms.

Dumas.

Yes.

Stoffer.

Yes.

Also, when I'll say yes, this application has been approved.

All right, let's move on to the last item of the agenda, number eight, boe 24076.

BOA 24076, located at 5112 South Harvard Avenue.

Applicant Maverick Group Incorporated, Natalie Diaz is requesting a variance to increase the permitted height of 25 feet for a freestanding sign in the CS district.

Obviously, I'm not Natalie.

Uh Natalie is seated there.

Uh my name's Casey Swallem.

I work for Olsen Engineering, civil consultant with Maverick.

Um, if anybody's familiar with what come and go was, those are now your Maverick locations around town here.

So we're back with a new proposed site um trying to expand the footprint here within town.

So a little specific on the site itself.

I think I forgot my address.

It's 550 St.

Louis Street, Springfield, Missouri.

Um anyways, the request is to basically increase from a 40-foot with an additional allowance uh pylon sign in the northeast corner of the site nearest the intersection of I-44 in Harvard.

Umcrease that from 40 foot to 60 foot to help address visibility concerns with drivers and passenger vehicles up and down the interstate.

Um this site is a little unique is where the off-ramp for eastbound along the interstate is past the site.

So the sooner you can grab their attention if you've got somebody traveling eastbound along the interstate, they've got the ability then to make those multiple lane changes to navigate to the off-ramp to then circle back to the site.

It's not as unique from the westbound, it's more of a typical you you locate the sign well in advance, you stay in your right lane, take your exit, then navigate to the site.

Um the screen here is the proposed sign in question.

So the sign will remain fully within the limits of the property, the pole base itself, as well as the pricing board, the limits of it, which I think are shown roughly at 30 foot on the site plan attached.

You can you'll notice that we are providing the additional setback allowance that would get us to the 40-foot number.

Um but with the constraints of the site and trying to s uh fit a feasible you know site with fluidity fluidity for the traffic and everything and all the the items located around the property.

Um we're kind of constrained to that 15 foot number.

Um there are abilities to maybe shift it a few more feet if if desired, but I think uh a good placement um is shown on the plan you have in front of you.

Um other than that, I'll just make a quick note.

I do believe that so a similar competitor QT on the north side of the interchange, just on the other side of the intersection, they do have an existing 60 foot sign that was convert confirmed with staff.

Um and then Hobby Lobby, who's our adjacent neighbor on the west side of us.

It does appear that they've got a t taller uh pylon sign as well, right off of 51st.

It looks to be in like the 50 to 60 foot range as well.

So we're just we're here to ask for something similar um to really put us in uh in a good position with that traffic along the interstate and to avoid any potential visibility concerns that might come with that.

So do you have any renderings or how this sign will look from highway 44?

So Maverick is in the process of finishing a what we're gonna call flag study.

They essentially go out to the site, they can put a boom arm up, and as you're traveling along the interstate, you can take snapshots, pictures along the interstate of where you're at on your route, and they can lay that onto a drawing and get that in front of uh basically put it in a visual.

Um from westbound, you know, we are kind of it down in the bowl just with the purpose of the the intersection there being under the ramp.

Um so that is a is a point I would like to point out.

We are losing, well, not losing, but we are 20 foot below the bridge, essentially a 44 over the Harvard intersection.

So not only are we kind of battling the the 40 foot limit, but we're battling basically the existing elevations just due to the being on the corner lot adjacent and intersection.

So um, but to answer your question directly, the we can follow up once we have that completed and get that in front.

Um those feel like really great um exhibits to have um in order to approve a variance.

Um just for me, the um the threshold of a variance is much um higher than the threshold for a special exception.

And um, like I can totally believe you that the opposing QT uh around the corner has the same sign and um but also like I don't know what the impact of having a 60-foot sign on this property um would look like.

And I'm very familiar with the property.

I used to work there in high school.

Freckles frozen custard.

Um and so I understand this is a pretty you know, like it's it's not common to have like this configuration of buildings, um low rise buildings right by the highway, um, at the major intersection.

And and so yeah, I understand this is a very unique location.

Um but being able to see the study that you're already undertaking feels like a I I will say we couldn't I can follow up probably pretty quickly and we get a hold of that and in front of the the board as soon as possible.

Um sounds like maybe a continuance as well.

Yeah, maybe a point of suggestion, maybe you can show or I mean meeting the the code and then what you guys asking.

Right, right.

Um I know it is hard to point, and we'd you know, if I was sitting in front of a computer, I'd pull up Google Earth and I'd show you the hobby lobby sign, I could show you a view along the interstate because that'd be the next best thing.

Like I said, it's a taller sign um than what I believe the 40 foot traditional allowance is.

And the in the view is pretty good from west bound or well, west of the site, but as you're traveling eastbound, it's it's an easy thing to depict.

It's above the other buildings, it's above the adjacent power lines that follow the right-of-way along 51st Street.

Um I did the same thing.

I mean, I I walked it down street view, and the QTs all along that corridor are certainly tall.

I don't think the Hobby Lobby one is that tall.

Uh okay.

But I mean I didn't get out there and measure it either.

So gotcha.

It just doesn't matter.

I don't and I don't know an exact measurement.

I I just assumed it was kind of in that 50 to 60 degree window or fi 50 to 60 foot window.

Well, also I mean the highways closer to the highest elevation uh that intersection there.

Oh, we'll always far to the west.

So my question, sorry, can you repeat again where it's supposed to be by right and then what you're how tall you're asking to go?

So I think uh at the base height with no additional setback allowance onto the property, 25 foot is the number.

Okay, but there is some stipulations in the sign code that can get us up to 40 feet with additional setback, which we are meeting with our current placement of the sign on the property.

Okay.

And then so essentially it goes from 40 foot to 60 foot.

Okay.

So you're asking to go to 16.

To match across the highway.

Yep.

And to yeah, to help negate the 20-foot elevation difference of the of the bridge itself.

Yeah.

So how long will you need for a continuous?

It looks like uh we'll want to see all those rain.

There means how long will you need like two weeks?

Uh it would be I know it was it was close to being wrapped up, so honestly, it could probably be something you could have in your hands before the end of the week.

I mean, would that be something to get back in here get back inside this building for this meeting, or would that be something to handle separately, I guess.

Our next meeting is on August 11th.

Oh, we'll see that.

Yeah.

Be the next opportunity.

Gotcha.

Is there 630?

Okay.

So we're we're looking at the flag, so it's it's complete at this point.

So we've I just don't have it a part of the presentation at this point.

Well, if we can take it over there and we can put it on the screen.

Okay.

And include it as part of the presentation today, and then you could I might be speaking out of sure, but you could email it and we could include it today as part of the exhibit.

Yeah, as long as long as we can email it to us, then we can add it to the record.

Sit saving the day here.

Okay.

Yeah, that's we can't zoom that much on that time.

It's like double zoom.

Yeah.

Zoom into the phone and then zoom on the phone.

Um while though while they're handling that, I guess a couple more details, like we are well aware of basically the allowed aggregate display area for signage.

So for what we're looking at, frontage for separate frontages, we are under the requirement here, um, still with a 250 foot 250 square foot display area.

Um and then we've got the total total number for for the full site kind of in mind as well as we lay out the other signs.

Um there were some renderings of of the sign and the building included.

Um I know you guys are pretty familiar with coming ghosts probably at this point, and they they will look a lot a lot alike, but Maverick, this will be the first start to finish new build for Maverick, I believe, in the Tulsa area.

So it'll have a little different feel to it.

So yeah, I can yeah, we're not in discussion yet, but I'm excited about something happening on this corner.

Yeah, sure.

Since my heydays scooping uh frozen custard, yeah.

There's something in there now.

Is it still freckles or no?

No, isn't that still freckles?

It's like a Baja blast or it's not the pineapple wet place.

Yeah, it is the pile.

Is it?

Yeah.

I mean, not as good as freckles, sorry.

Now I want ice cream.

Frozen custard.

Frozen custard.

All of the above on a hot day.

Whatever is available.

I knew we couldn't agree forever.

Wouldn't that be nice?

No, actually.

No.

That's good.

Are there any other questions or concerns I can address by just to fill the silence?

I think this will help a whole lot.

Yeah.

And just a little bit of waiting.

We're still we're still pretty good on time in here, we'll be better than you having to wait three weeks.

My trip from Springfield's not bad, but Utah is a little bit further.

So I guess they abandoned the idea of doing the indoor car wash at this one.

Do you remember that?

Yeah, remember that one.

They were they were in front of the square variants on a um billboard that was too close to another billboard across the highway.

Yeah.

Oh, because Ed needed.

Any other question to the applicant?

Uh I didn't know.

Just trying to get uh I think we're just waiting on that exhibit to come through.

Okay.

I've decided that technology doesn't like to be put on the spot.

It never works when we need it to.

Yeah.

The reverse of that, when I'm put on the spot with technology, I have to get my daughter involved.

So we're not going to talk about the age.

Sure.

Yeah.

But I think we're in agreement on that too, though.

We had to hire an 18-year-old kid to come fix a computer thing for on our son's computer the other day.

That's well.

Oh, your son can figure it out.

Well, he's 10, and it was like a password.

And my husband was just at Wits and he could not figure it out.

So this 18-year-old computer whiz came over and was like figured it all out.

It's humbling.

I guess we're gonna tell the audience the hundred thousand people that are watching that we're waiting on the all of our fans.

Yeah.

All right, here we go.

There you go.

There we go.

Well we're getting there.

We'll make do.

Let's kind of zoom down a little bit.

Yeah, so that now.

Oh gotcha.

Oh so close.

It is kind of hard to depict, but this is looking westbound along the interstate.

That the top map of the aerial.

You can kind of pick out where the number red number two is.

Yeah.

Um that's kind of where you're sitting along the interstate looking east.

So what you're looking at is a 60 foot sign there.

Yeah.

And right.

Oh.

I take it back.

Maybe the hobby lobby sign is that.

Yeah, I was gonna I was gonna point out the hobby lobby sign just to the right of that is is the next sign over.

Yeah.

It's deceptive because all of with that road being between the highway, like that access road is what, like four or five lanes?

Yeah.

It's pretty wide.

So kind of west.

Yeah, we're looking we're looking westbound now.

So this is a little bit closer um to the site.

But yeah, as you're sitting right here before the exit you want to take, obviously, you can fully pick out that sign and and make that decision.

Yeah, this is compelling.

Yep, sitting a little further.

Is this though?

Sitting a little further west along the you sitting a little further east here on the interstate here.

This is back further east.

Yeah, uh okay.

Yep.

Gotcha.

Then I believe that views a little bit further back west along the interstate, a little closer to the uh the next exit or interchange.

Yeah.

Okay.

Wow, I don't think we need to do a continuous.

So that was great.

I guess I don't have any further questions.

No, so thank you.

Thank you.

So case POA 24076.

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

If not, let's move on to this question.

Um yeah, those exhibit additional exhibits were compelling enough for me.

This is an odd intersection and with the the um oh with the road being between the highway and then the exit not being exactly on that intersection, or at least coming from one direction.

Right, uh, it's farther to the east.

Uh huh.

So you would need to see it in advance if you're gonna try to catch the other one, or you gotta make sure and catch it so you can get off there.

I don't know.

I just think it's it's a very different intersection, and I don't have an issue with this.

Especially seeing it next to the other signs on the on the road.

And they're not trying to make like something that's I I've seen I've seen much bigger asks actually.

So it's not a big low.

Alright so any more comments Ms.

Dumas I'm definitely not a fan of adding large uh over large signage um to the landscape.

Um but I think the um elevation difference and it being lower than the surrounding properties um helps me get there especially as there's something that's not um self-imposed as not something that is um really changeable in a practical way um so yeah all right do we have a motion um I can do it okay so uh Mr.

Chair and Board of Adjustment Case 24076 I move to approve a variance to increase the permitted height from 40 feet to 60 feet for a freestanding sign in the CS district for the conceptual plans shown on pages uh oh I didn't write that down.

Well um eight point one one through eight twenty just through eight point one two because the rest is like building floor plans and elevations yeah okay eight point one one through eight point one two and um the additional exhibits shown to us in the meeting today um the board finds the the hardship to be the elevation on this particular piece of land as well as the um configuration of the intersection that it sits on granting the variance the board finds that the following facts favorable to the property owner have been established a that the physical surroundings shape or topographical conditions of the subject property will 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 to be 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 will afford relief F that the variance to be granted will not alter the central character of the neighborhood in which the subject property is located nor substantially or permanently impair use or development of adjacent property and G that the variance to be granted will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes spirit and intent of this zoning code or the comprehensive plan.

We got a motion do we have a cycle second we got a motion we got a second Mr Stumas yes Mr Hill yes Ms.

Stuffer yes also gonna say yes this application has been approved thank you thank you so this take us to the end of the agenda do we have any additional comments from the board all right so it is record 2 33 p.m this meet is set abjourn.

So