►
From YouTube: Oklahoma City Board of Adjustment - October 1, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
To
our
board
members,
this
is
cindy.
Can
we
start
our
video
before
we
do?
Our
roll
call
make
sure
our
videos
are
on
sure,
which
I
know
yours
is
hi.
Hi.
A
A
B
C
A
C
C
C
On
the
computer,
click
raise
hand,
and
you
should
also
be
able
to
lower
your
hand
this
way
if
you've
already
been
called
on
or
if
you
inadvertently,
raise
your
hand
on
your
phone
you'll
press,
star,
nine,
the
staff
and
the
board
will
be
notified.
That
you've
raised
your
hand.
If
that's
the
case,
and
just
note
that,
if
you've
already
pre-arranged
to
talk
with
city
staff,
then
you
do
not
need
to
use
the
raised
hand
function.
C
C
If
we
call
on
an
item,
if
you
call
in
after
your
item
has
been
heard,
or
if
you
have
a
different
matter
to
discuss,
we
will
allow
you
to
speak
under
citizens
to
be
heard
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
When
you
call
in
staff
will
mute
your
device.
I
ask
that
all
participants,
except
for
board
members,
keep
their
sound
on
mute
until
they
are
recognized
to
speak
to
unmute
your
phone
press
star
six
board.
Members
will
be
allowed
to
ask
questions
or
make
comments
at
any
time.
C
During
the
meeting,
please
do
not
interrupt
board
members
while
they're
speaking,
because
we
need
a
clear
record
and
it
makes
the
meetings
go
by
much
faster
if
we
don't
have
multiple
people.
Speaking
at
the
same
time
before
you
begin
your
comments,
please
identify
yourself
by
stating
your
name
and
address.
C
C
C
C
G
One
application
one
request
for
continuance
today:
it's
item
seven
case.
Fourteen
seven,
eighty
two,
the
applicant
requests
a
continuance
to
november
fifth
meeting.
C
G
H
My
application
is
for
a
variance
to
the
setback
rule
when
I
was
initially
doing
my
planning
for
my
shop.
I
did
not
know
that
the
the
rule
was
behind.
There
are
many
other
houses
in
my
exact
area
that
have
built
next
to
them.
So
when
I
was
building
my
plans
getting
everything
together
right
before
I
was
about
to
go
up,
I
talked
with
the
planning
department
and
with
what
I
told
him,
he
said
everything
looked
good
just
need
to
bring
up
the
plans
that
was
the
thursday
before
kovitz
shut
everything
down.
H
So,
as
I
figured,
I
was
good.
I
figured
I'd,
buy
my
supplies
and
such
before
prices
or
shortage
of
supplies
in
general
started
framing
out
where
I
was
going
to
build
it
and
then
finally
was
able
to
get
a
hold
of
them
and
they
emailed
back
and
forth
the
plans.
H
And
that's
when
I
found
that
the
plans
that
I
had
chosen
were
not
to
code
the
only
other
locations
that
I
could
build
because
of
the
depth
of
my
property
and
how
far
setback
my
house
is,
would
be
on
a
very
west
end,
which
is
on
a
down
sloping
area
which,
if
I
build
anything
up
there,
the
runoff
would
end
up
running
into
my
house.
H
So
the
only
other
place
would
be
where
my
storm
shelter
is,
and
that
would
cost
ten
thousand
to
get
a
new
one
and,
however
much
it
would
be
to
have
that
one
removed.
H
Because
it's
yes,
it
is
it's.
It
sets
a
120
foot
from
the
front
of
the
road.
H
B
C
I
mean
I,
it
troubles
me
a
little
bit
that
you
went
ahead
and
bought
stuff
without
getting
the
approval.
I
mean
I
don't
you
know.
D
H
And
the
setback
is
going
to
be
10
foot
10
to
12
foot
behind
the
front,
so
it's
not
anywhere
in
the
front.
It's
offset.
D
Jj,
what's
the
pitch
and
the
code
supposed
to
be.
C
H
Yes,
sir,
I've
spoken
with
all
the
neighbors
within
the
area
had
a
chance
to
get
that
to
them.
They
said
if
I
brought
them
something
to
sign,
they
would
have
no
problem.
Actually,
I've
had
multiple
neighbors
that
one
helped
me
go
get
the
supplies.
H
H
The
only
place
I
could
put
it
is
basically
where
the
storm
shelter
is
other
than
that
I
could
put
it
in
the
backyard,
but
with
the
bit
of
slope
from
my
back
porch
to
about
20
foot
to
the
west
in
the
backyard.
It
goes
about
a
three
to
four
foot
pitch
up
to
the
property
line,
so
without
massive
ground
work-
or
I
guess
a
lot
of
drainage
problems
that
the
only
option
would
be
in
that
the
north
side
of
the
property.
G
Thinking
it
could
go
further
back
yes
behind
the
house
or
where
the
storm
shelter
is,
it
doesn't
look
like
it
would
fit
on
this
on
the
south
east
corner.
That's.
B
D
H
It
sits
up
what
two
and
a
half
three
foot
out
of
the
ground:
it's
not
a
flat
shelter.
It's
a
extruding,
shelter.
C
H
C
H
Also
in
some
of
the
documents
I
sent,
I
did
send
another
application,
it's
one
of
the
actual
houses
that
I
had
seen
that
gave
me
the
idea
of
how
to
build
mine,
and
that
is
right
in
flush
with
the
front
of
the
house
as
well.
B
C
C
Yeah,
okay,
I
mean,
I
think,
if
you
could
do
you
know
60
feet
from
your
property
line.
That's
20
feet
back.
That's
still,
I
think
getting
it
as
close
as
we
can.
If
you
wanted
to
come
back
and
confirm
that
or
if
you
think
that's
you
know
if
you're
prepared
to
do
that
today
or
something
we
can
talk
about
that,
but
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
thinking.
H
How
much
the
north
variance
25
feet
is
code
and
you're.
H
C
H
J
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
address
here
is
that
we
need
to
be
approving
if
we
approve
something
that
it
needs
to
be
the
minimum
necessary
to
help
you
achieve
what
you're
trying
to
do,
but
is
a
is,
is
the
least
amount
that
we
that
we
need
to
do,
and
so
I
just
didn't
see
an
exact
number
in
the
original
application
of
what
you
were
requesting
feet
wise.
So
to
make
a
motion,
I
just
I
wanted
to
verify
the
answer.
H
C
Yeah,
I
think
that
puts
it
there.
The
motion
would
be
you
know
it's
approved
so
long
as
it's
built,
no,
no
more
than
60
feet
from
the
rear
property
line.
Right
now
it's
drawn
up
at
81,
so.
F
F
H
No
ma'am,
I
was
just
saying
that
it
is
12
foot
from
flush,
the
the
two
houses
that
I've
actually
looked
at
their
design
and
how
they
built
theirs,
which
are
about
a
mile
and
a
half
two
miles
from
my
house
in
the
same
zone
area.
Theirs
are
one
is
flush
with
the
front.
The
other
is
set
back
in
the
the
manor.
I
want
it's
about
12
to
15
foot
set
back
from
the
house
front.
E
H
C
C
J
So
without
understanding,
then
I
would
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
the
application,
with
the
condition
that
it
not
be
more
than
60
feet
from
the
rear
property.
C
C
G
Item
two
is
case:
14
784,
request
of
gavin
baker
for
a
variance
to
permit
construction
of
three
homes
with
no
primary
access
from
an
approved
street
located
at
4604,
12
and
20
southeast
128th
street.
C
B
C
C
C
C
Okay,
we'll
wait
a
couple
of
moments
and
then
we'll
skip
on
to
the
next
item.
C
Okay,
we
won't
continue
this
item,
but
we
will
push
it
to
the
end
of
the
docket,
so
jj
wanted
to
call
the
next
item.
C
L
L
M
C
C
Oh
sure,
no
problem
just
wanted
to
introduce
yourself
my
name
and
address
and
present
your
application.
M
Yeah
this
is
this,
is
gabriel
baker.
The
address
there
will
be
4604
southeast
128,
and
this
variance
would
just
allow
me
to
build
on
the
three
five
acre
tracks,
with
just
a
five
with
a
private
easement
driveway
without
the
proper
furniture
requirement,
because
to
access
this
property
you're
driving
about
a
half
a
mile
of
gravel
road.
C
Okay,
you
do
mention
the
application
that
maintenance
you
need
to
work
with
the
property
owners
association
on
maintenance.
Did
you
want
to
address
that
point.
M
Yes,
I've
met
with
several
of
them
from
the
the
neighborhood
there,
and
you
know
they
have
a
little
bit
of
deed
language
in
their
stuff.
That
just
kind
of
puts
you
responsible
to
helping
paid,
keep
up
with
the
the
private
existing
gravel
road
and
yeah.
I
would
be
willing
to
definitely
attach
myself
to
that
to
help
out
with
the
road
and
everything
else,
like
everybody
else,.
C
Okay,
we
had,
I
think
several
people
signed
up
to
speak
and
and
some
protests
did.
You
want
to
address
any
of
those
protests
now
before
you
move
to
them.
M
M
M
M
L
M
C
Applicant
okay,
cindy,
if
you
wanted
to
call
on
the
first
person
on
your
list
that
has
that
signed
up
to
speak,
and
I
will
say
to
the
folks
that
are
signed
up
to
speak.
Try
to
well,
we've
got
a
clock
now,
but
try
to
limit
your
comments
to
three
minutes
and
if
you
can
group
your
comments
together
or
someone's
already
mentioned
your
comments.
Those
will
be
in
the
record.
So
you
know
try
to
keep
your
comments
to
unique
comments
that
no
one
else
has
mentioned
yet
but
cindy.
C
N
N
And
honestly,
I
think
that
this
would
be
the
best
use
of
the
property
free
homes,
I
think,
would
be
better
than
you.
L
N
There's
oil
filled
stuff
kind
of
around
us,
and
three
nice
homes
would
be
a
lot
better
than
an
oil
field
yard
or
you
know,
a
storage
unit
or
some
other
things
that
have
been
rumored
to
possibly
go
in.
O
O
I
think
that
mr
baker
has
worked
with
us
very,
very
diligently
to
get
us
to
approve
his
access
to
it
and
him
working
with
us
to
build
in
accordance
with
the
houses
out
here.
There's
no
small
houses
out
here:
they're
all
nice-sized
homes
and
we're
all
on
five
acres
and
he's
been
bent
over
backwards,
trying
to
work
with
us.
So
I
think
we
should
support
his
gravel
road.
I
have
a
gravel
road
running
down
the
side
of
my
house.
O
That's
been
there
ever
since
I've
lived
here
15
20
years
ago,
and
it's
not
going
to
change.
I'm
sure,
though
it
just
wouldn't
seem
right
he's
in
the
back
of
the
neighborhood
at
that.
So
you
have
to
go
a
half
mile
down
on
gravel
road
turn
left
and
go
a
quarter
mile
up
the
gravel
road
and
it
just
when
it
makes
sense
to
put
a
paved
road
in
there
when
the
rest
of
them
are
gravel
getting
back
to
there.
P
Yes
good
afternoon
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
My
name
is
paul
mcguire,
I'm
the
president
of
the
country,
country,
land,
neighborhood
association,
and
we
have
been
working
with
gavin
for
some
months
now
to
look
at
his
request.
His
request,
as
it
relates
to
us,
is
to
be
allowed
to
use
the
private
right-of-way,
which
is
country
lane
in
southeast
128th
street,
to
allow
him
to
access
properties
that
are
immediately
to
the
west
of
our
subdivision.
P
We've
made
one
such
accommodation
previously,
and
that
was
for
mr
baldridge
actually,
who
built
and
came
to
us
and
requested
the
same
success,
and
so
the
the
the
association
looked
upon
this
favorably.
P
P
It
is
that
a
gravel
road
access
or
frontage
to
his
properties
would
be
with
the
neighborhood,
and
it
is
my
opinion
that
most
of
the
residents
in
the
neighborhood
would
prefer
that,
or
would
certainly
be
in
favor
of
that.
I
think
what
you've
heard
from
at
least
one
protester
is
that
the
residents
would
not
be
in
favor
of
that,
and
that's
not
my
impression
at
all.
I
work
and
know
all
of
my
neighbors
quite
well,
and
I
don't
believe
that's
the
case.
P
In
fact,
we
had
a
meeting
with
gavin
back
on
june
30th,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
that
was
the
date
and
we
considered
the
question
of
whether
to
grant
him
access
and
of
the
members
who
are
present,
which
was
a
quorum
of
our
members,
a
two-thirds
majority
actually
favored
granting
him
access
understanding
is
that
his
plan
was
to
have
gravel
frontage
for
those
properties,
so
I'm
speaking
in
favor
of
the
application
and
and
hope
that
you
will
vote
vote
in
favor
of
it.
Thank
you
thank.
A
A
D
C
C
Okay,
cindy,
if
you
want
to
go
to
the
next
caller,
we
can
remember
mr
carrie
and
call
on
him
later.
A
C
Q
Okay,
hi,
how
you
doing
guys
good
I'm
dylan
terhune
I
live
at
or
I
own
property
at
12909
country
lane
be
directly
east
of
the
access
point
for
the
property
he's
requesting.
Q
I
going
through
the
all
of
the
paperwork
we
have
here
and
the
several
of
the
people
that
the
properties
back
up
to
the
new
road
he's
planning
to
put
in
we
have
talked
to
and
they
are
verbally
against
what
he's
doing
just
a
creation
of
dust.
That's
going
to
be
going
on.
Q
The
meeting
was
actually
on
june
20th
and
the
item
was
tabled
pending
gavin
come
back
with
some
more
information
to
what
we're
going
to
be
talking
about.
So
there
was
not
a
majority
vote
reached
in
that
meeting
with
that
being
said,
with
the
access
from
our
property
or
from
128,
my
property
is
the
corner
portion
right
there,
where
he
would
be
entering
into
those
three
houses,
those
three
subplots
and
and
my
all
of
my
paperwork.
Q
I
don't
have
any
reservation
of
easement
for
him
and
I
didn't
know
if
he
could
provide
something
with
a
reservation
of
easement
to
that
property,
and
that
being
said
I'll
just
very
strongly
against
the
amount
of
dust
that
would
be
kicked
up
and
I'm
not
willing
to
give
him
any
of
my
property
for
his
access
to
the
land
or
the
road.
He
wants
to
build.
Q
C
C
C
C
We'll
give
some
time
for
kevin
bacon
or
kevin
baker
to
see
if
he
can
get
situated.
If
not,
we
will
skip
him.
R
C
Well,
if
you
have
any
comments
on
this
case,
no
I'm
just
kidding
it
looks
like
well
cindy.
Are
you?
Are
you
through
the
list
for
this
case.
A
I'm
through
the
list-
and
I
do
show
that
robert
blackwell
has
signed
raised
his
hand.
S
Yes,
thank
you.
Can
you
hear
me
all
right.
S
Okay,
I
want
to
voice
my
strong
opposition
to
this
case.
My
wife
and
I
live
on
country
lane
13101,
it's
a
very
dusty
private,
gravel
road
with
a
neighborhood
self-imposed
trade
limit
of
15
15
miles
an
hour
that
we
do
have
to
try
to
keep
the
dust
down
our
residents
very
close
to
the
only
entrance.
S
That's
going
to
take
many
months
to
finish
the
construction
on
these
houses
and
we
have
to
live
with
the
consequences
of
the
dust.
My
suggestion
is
to
pursue
another
means
of
providing
us
access
to
these
properties,
maybe
off
sunny
lane.
I
don't
know
if
he
can
make
it
or
not,
but
if
you
should
decide
in
favor
of
mr
baker,
I
would
respectfully
request
the
board
to
mandate
the
same
requirements
and
restrictions
on
his
properties
that
we
have
listed
in
our
properties
abstracts.
B
C
C
Okay
is
the
applicant
on
the
line?
Yes,
I'm
here.
Okay,
if
you
want
to
address
those
comments,
and
particularly
I've
got
the
easement
issue
from
mr
turkey
and
several
of
the
protests
have
mentioned
to
possible
access
off
sunny
lane
road.
So
if
you
want
to
address
those.
M
Yes,
if
you
see
in
the
application,
I'm
I'm
not
requesting
or
needing
to
use
anybody's
property.
For
my
what
would
be
essentially
nothing
but
a
driveway
that
would
be
all
on
on
my
property
as
far
as
the
the
right-of-way
there's,
not
a
another,
reasonable
spot
for
right
away
that
I
know
of
off
sunny
lane.
That's
all
commercial
oil
field,
companies
that
you
would
be-
I
don't
know
they
probably
wouldn't
even
give
you
access,
but
you're,
going
to
be
driving
within
an
oil
field
parking
lot.
M
M
M
Of
the
property,
that's
all
low-lying,
there's
ponds
and
it's
a
big
like
swamp
down
towards
the
very
west
of
the
property.
The
existing
owner
of
the
property
has
been
accessing
the
property
this
through
this
road.
You
know
all
this
time,
I'm
not
I'm
only
actually
adding
would
only
be
actually
adding
two
houses
because
there's
already
one
existing
property.
There
that's
been
used
for
the
past,
20
or
30
years
or
maybe
longer.
C
I
think
the
primary
concern
with
some
of
them
is
the
dust
issue,
so
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
address
that
and
or
if
painting
this
would
be
an
option.
M
I
don't
feel
like
the
dust
is
gonna
be
any
different
than
it
is
today
I
mean
you're,
gonna,
add
a
few
cars,
but
it's
everybody's
road
out
there
as
gravel
and
then
as
far
as
paved,
if,
if
you
pave
it,
it
just
doesn't
seem
reasonable
to
me
because
you're
going
to
drive
a
half
a
mile
to
three
quarters
of
a
mile
of
gravel
a
paved
driveway.
M
B
C
Okay,
thank
you
board
members,
questions
or
comments
or
thoughts.
G
Yeah,
the
road
would
be
just
there
adjacent
to
the
the
east
property
line.
B
C
Comments
out
there,
I
you
know
some
of
the
objections.
I
don't
know
if
they're
necessarily
going
to
defeat
the
application,
because
the
decision
before
us
is
not
necessarily
whether
it
has
to
be
paved
or
not,
and
so
you
know
that
said,
I
think,
there's
there's
a
corollary
question
of
you
know
if
we
grant
it
and
it's
going
to
be
gravel,
what
problems
does
that
cause?
C
And
so
I
think
it's
still
a
thing
that
we
have
to
think
about
whether
if
they
agree
to
pave
it
or
require
that
they
pave
it
or
whatever,
but
the
variance
is
not
a
variance
between
paving
it
or
not,
so
that
you
know
that
goes
into
the
analysis,
and
I
don't
think
it's
you
know
we
don't
have
to
require
that
it's
paid,
but
I
do
think
that
that
would
go
a
long
way
toward
some
of
the
cohesiveness
of
the
neighbors
and
it
would
address
you
know,
virtually
all
the
concerns
of
the
neighbors
that
are
having
a
problem
with
this
dealing
with
the
dust
that
might
be
on
their
property,
particularly
the
neighbors
that
are
kind
of
on
those
corners
that
are
going
to
be
getting
a
lot
more
traffic
than
the
others.
C
I
think
they'd
prefer
to
have
that
paved.
So
you
know
I.
M
C
Hold
on
just
a
second
we'll
give
you
an
opportunity
to
talk
in
just
a
second
I'm
just
talking
to
the
board
members
right
now,
so
board
members,
that's
that's
kind
of
where
I
see
it.
I
don't
know
where
you're
kind
of
temperature
is
right
now
on
on
this
application,
but
those
are
kind
of
the
issues
that
I
see.
J
I
had
a
question,
maybe
for
jj
as
to
the.
Let
me
pull
this
back
up.
It
says
that
the
properties
were
previously
created
as
three
separate
five-acre
tracks
for
a
construction
of
a
home
on
each
track.
B
F
B
G
G
E
M
A
O
O
I
mean
to
the
west
of
our
main
section
and
I
just
don't
understand
them
being
upset
about
gravel
road
when
that's
what
we
live
on
mine
is
one
of
the
few
houses
that
has
a
concrete
driveway
eric
does
too
eric
has
a
concrete
driveway
and
I
believe
those
mine
and
him
are
the
only
two
melvin
sexton
down.
There
has
a
part
of
a
gravel
driveway,
but
it's
just
this
stuff.
The
people
complaining
about
that
dust
mainly
or
not.
You
don't
even
live
out
there.
I
live
out
there.
O
E
O
B
Q
Fantastic
yeah,
if
you're,
looking
at
the
current
diagram
that
we
have
here,
128th,
that's
my
property
right
there,
the
at
the
north
side
of
his
entrance.
Q
That
entrance
is
about
a
car
width
and
a
half
wide.
That's
what
I
mean
by
not
giving
I'm
not
going
to
give
him
any
more
property
to
make
that
entrance
any
larger.
With
that
being
said,
also
what
about
draining,
if
he's
planning
on
putting
that
road
directly
on
the
fence
line?
Is
there
not
a
buffer?
He
has
to
put
in
for
drainage
or
any
type
of
thing
like
that
or
t
allowed
to
build
just
right
on
the
fence
line.
L
Q
That's
a
question
for
the
board
and
then
also
on
the
other.
On
the
other
picture
you
guys
have,
or
it's
more
of
just
a
handwritten
drawing
at
the
bottom
off
sunny
lane.
It
says:
660
keep
going
right
there,
where
it
says
we're
seeing
sunny
lane
where
it
says:
660
that
is,
access,
there's
access
right
there
to
his
property,
pretty
much
right
where
that
line's
at.
B
Q
I
there
there
is
by
there's
a
business
owner,
the
w
m
you
can
see.
The
road
had
makes
like
a
little
sec.
That
road
actually
goes
all
the
way
back.
P
Well,
thank
you
again
so
just
addressing
the
board's
initial
question
about
whether
there
are
other
paved
drives
in
the
neighborhood.
There
are
a
handful
of
properties
that
have
paid
turn
ins
from
the
gravel
road,
but,
of
course,
the
full
gravel
road
country
lane
and
southeast
128th
street
are
gravel
the
other.
P
The
other
issue,
with
providing
ingress
to
those
properties
by
another
direction,
rather
than
the
existing
right-of-way,
is
that
it
would
remove
the
current
property
owners
in
the
subdivision
from
having
any
in
terms
of
the
manner
of
construction.
P
P
So
as
it
was
noted
by
one
of
the
previous
speakers,
we
all
have
language
in
our
deeds
that
bind
us
to
certain
covenants
and
restrictions,
and
just
as
we
did
with
mr
baldwin,
we
granted
him
access
to
it
right
away.
He
agreed
to
have
that
language
added
to
his
deed.
This
is
the
same
thing
we've
asked
of
mr
baker,
which
he
has
agreed
to
do
as
well.
P
If,
if
he's
required
to
provide
access
by
another
means
from
sunny
lane
or
or
russell,
if
he's
134th,
then
the
neighborhood
is
removed,
we
have
no
influence
and
and
pretty
much
anything
could
happen
on
that
property.
That
could
conflict
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
that's
not
something
we're
going
to
be
in
favor
of
I
I
once
again.
Let
me
just
back
up
and
say
I'm
speaking
for
myself,
but
I
feel
I
have
a
strong
sense
of
what
the
residents
in
the
neighborhood
feel.
P
We
have
a
strong
interest
in
ensuring
continuity
here,
and
that
includes
not
only
ensuring
that
language
is
in
the
deed
to
make
sure
that
so
forth
is
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood,
but
that
the
road
itself
that
accesses
those
properties
is
consistent.
So
once
again,
I
hope
that
answers
the
question
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
A
A
Yeah
I
can
he
sent
an
email
that
says
my
name
is
joe
carey.
I
would
like
to
speak
in
the
meeting
tomorrow
concerning
the
adjustment
request.
That's
connected
to
my
property.
I
am
protesting
this
adjustment,
along
with
every
single
property
owner
in
our
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
That's
what
he
submitted
by
email,
okay,.
C
Thank
you
that's
helpful,
so
I
think
his
views
have
hopefully
been
encapsulated
by
some
of
the
other
protestants
that
have
spoken
today
on
to
mrbara's
point.
There
is
under
the
favorable
considerations.
It
says
the
three
tracks
are
pre-existing
since
the
early
1980s,
but
were
not
provided
primary
access.
C
I
think
that
to
me
kind
of
tends
toward
an
argument
that,
for
some
reason
there
is
an
intention
to
to
provide
primary
access,
and
it
was
never
done.
I
assume
that
primary
access
probably
would
have
been
gravel
and
I
I've
got
to
think
that
this
consent,
this
configuration,
is
probably
consistent
with
how
it
was
intended
and
it
just
never
got
developed
and
people
kind
of
got
used
to
it
not
being
developed
that
way,
but
it
was
initially
supposed
to
be
developed
that
way.
It
looks
like
board
members
any
questions
or
comments.
D
C
C
Okay
and
I've
I've
cut
off
discussion
already,
and
so
we've
got
a
motion
in
a
second
to
prove
the
variance
in
case
number,
one,
four,
seven,
eight:
four,
the
reason
it
meets
the
statutory
conditions
for
variance
cast
your
votes.
C
P
C
T
T
However,
we
have
gathered
a
few
more
pieces
of
information
for
you,
as
well
as
some
photos
of
the
property
and
the
property
lines
itself,
and
we
have
submitted
a
new
floor
plan
for
you
guys
with
a
different
setback.
So
on
the
north
side
of
the
property,
the
original
setback
was
around
nine
feet
now,
we're
at
14
feet
nine
and
a
half
inches
and
then
on
the
south
side,
we're
at
eight
feet
two
and
a
half
inches
with
the
rework
of
the
floor
plan,
and
then
we
also
I've.
T
If
you
look
at
the
photo,
that's
up
on
the
screen,
you
can
see
the
side
yard
set
box,
but
then
you
can
also
see
access
to
the
back
of
the
property
from
that
back
road
and
then
on
the
north
side
of
the
property
that
that's,
where
that
drainage,
ditch
lies
and
about
20
feet.
Back
from
the
property
to
the
north,
you'll
see
that
in
the
other
photos
it's
a
whole
list
of
photos.
Yeah,
so
you'll
see
that
the
properties
next
to
the
12308
thelma's
way
have
a
significant
drop
off
of
minimum.
T
I
would
guess
about
20
feet,
and
so
it's
I
know
the
question
was
how
how
it
would
affect
the
north
side
property
owner
if
they
were
to
ever
build
there,
but
you
can
see
that
there
is
a
significant
drain
adjustment
right
there
and
so
just
wanted
to
present
new
information
for
you
guys
to
see
if
we
could
get
this
passed.
C
Okay
yeah.
I
appreciate
this.
This
is
much
more
clear,
at
least
to
me,
and
I
the
substantiation
there
on
the
on
the
north
side,
with
the
drainage.
Ditch,
I
think,
gives
me
comfort
and
the
fact
that
it's
now
only
really
about
a
10
foot,
variance
because
you're.
C
Okay
and
then
we've
got
the
letter
here
as
well
talking
about
that
property
to
the
south
that
it's
not
going
to
be
developed,
so
that
makes
me
feel
more
comfortable
as
well.
So
perfect
board
members
any
questions
or
comments.
C
A
V
I'm
the
property
owner,
I
think
caitlin
did
a
wonderful
job,
probably
not
a
lot
more
needs
to
be
said.
I
want
all
those
properties
on
monday
with
the
developer
colin
spencer
and
what
caitlin
said
about
the
north
property
line
as
absolutely
true.
According
to
the
developer,
there
is
a
drainage,
ditch
more
like
a
creek,
with
a
severe
drop
off
to
the
north
of
my
property,
so
anyone
that's
going
to
build.
V
There
would
have
to
be
at
least
30
feet
from
that
property
line
and
it
would
all
have
to
be
peered,
so
the
chances
that
they
would
build
close
to,
that
drainage
is
very,
very
limited
and
then
the
opposite
side
is
obviously
commons
area
and
we've
got
the
letter
from
the
developer,
indicating
it
will
never
be
built
on.
So
thank
you.
C
W
Good
afternoon
david
box,
522
call
cord
drive
cindy.
Could
you
display
the
the
photo
of
the
current
structure
so,
while
cindy's
doing
that
this
is
a
bit
of
a
unique
application
in
that,
if
you're
familiar
with
this
area,
it
is
kind
of
a
mix
of
different
zoning
categories.
Yeah
you've
got
your
traditional
single
family.
You've
got
r3,
you've
got
r2.
You've
got
some
office
now
that
front's
on
13th
street.
W
W
The
reason
I'm
bringing
it
up
is
this
area
of
oklahoma
city
is
designated
as
urban
medium
under
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
what
the
comprehensive
plan
tells
us
about.
Urban
medium
is
that
it
anticipates
development
at
higher
densities
and
more
intensity
than
you
might
find
in
other
parts
of
the
city.
In
other
words,
this
is
an
area
of
the
city
that
the
conference
of
plan
through
that
lengthy
process
has
designated
for
higher
levels
of
density.
W
It's
reflected
in
the
various
zoning
categories
that
exist
within
this
neighborhood,
the
the
image
that
you
see
before
you
is
the
original
structure,
and
it
is
a
four
plex
under
r3.
A
four
plex
is
a
permitted
use.
That
is
what
is
there
now
so
the
question
before
you
really
is
whether
or
not
the
applicant
should
be
able
to
remove
this
house,
which,
unfortunately,
through
years
and
years
of
neglect,
has
been
left
into
a
state
of
disrepair
and
rebuild
it
with
a
new
structure
that
would
allow
for
a
fourplex.
W
So
when
you
look
at
the
hardship,
I
think
it
is
that
we
have
two
things:
a
historical
use
of
before
plex
and
zoning
that
allows
exactly
what
we're
going
to
do
in
terms
of
density,
but
the
lot
when
it
was
created
is
only
50
feet.
Now
the
lot
was
created
prior
to
the
zoning,
from
all
the
research
that
I
can
find.
So
we
have
an
issue
that
is
created
not
by
our
own
fault,
but
by
something
that
came
in
after
and
that
being
the
zoning.
W
So
what
is
peculiar
about
this
property?
I
think
it's
what
I
just
described,
it's
that
you
have
the
historical
use
of
the
property
for
a
fourplex
and
a
zoning
category
came
into
being.
That
requires
a
lineal
frontage
that
we
simply
don't
possess.
It's
worth
noting.
If
you
look
at
the
zoning
map,
there
are
multiple
other
r3s
in
the
neighborhood
that
also
have
the
same
length
of
french's.
W
There
you
go
all
of
those
are
threes
that
are
single
lots,
likewise
lack
the
same
frontage,
so
relief
if
granted,
would
not
cause
substantial
detriment
to
public
good
or
impair
the
purposes
of
the
comprehensive
plan
back
to
the
conference
of
plan.
I
think
this
is
exactly
what
the
conference
of
plan
is
desiring:
increased
density
in
the
core
of
the
city.
W
What
the
conference
of
plan
is
trying
to
combat
is
the
the
you
know,
flight
to
the
suburbs,
the
more
development
that
we
have
out
of
the
suburbs,
the
harder
it
is
for
the
city
to
service
those.
It
makes
sense
for
the
city
from
the
policy
standpoint
to
encourage
density
within
the
core,
because
that
is
where
all
of
the
services
are
already
available
and
not
having
to
be
extended.
W
W
W
There
was
some
discussion
about
zoning
and
intensifying
the
use,
and
my
understanding
is
that
my
client
was
able
to
explain
that
you
know
we
aren't
seeking
to
intensify
the
use,
we're
simply
seeking
to
build.
You
know
a
new
house,
there
was
questions
about
parking
and
you'll,
see
that
in
your
protest,
that
is
before
you
and
perhaps
even
if
there
are
people
on
the
line
as
it
relates
to
parking
again,
I
would
just
emphasize
that
we
meet
the
parking
requirements
of
r3.
W
W
W
W
That's
new
okay,
so
what
we're
coming
back
with
is
something
that,
if
you're
familiar
with
the
area,
we
think
this
is
architecturally
in
line
with
what
you
might
expect.
It
looks
very
traditional.
This
is
a
very
old
traditional
neighborhood,
so
we
think
that
all
all
in
all
this
is
a
much
better
scenario
for
the
neighborhood.
W
If
we
accept
the
fact
that
there
will
be
a
fourplex
there
and
there
will
we're
simply
asking
for
the
relief
to
allow
us
to
build
a
new
structure
that
will
remedy
some
of
the
problems
that
exist
with
the
existing
structure,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
board
would
have
if
there
are
protesters
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
to
address
them.
After
that,
I
do
want
to
emphasize
for
your
consideration.
W
If
you
look
at
your
staff
report,
which
I
know
you
have-
staff
found
no
unfavorable
considerations
and
two
favorable
considerations.
So
with
that
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
My
only
kind
of
question
before
we
get
to
some
of
the
other
folks
that
wanted
to
speak
was
looking
at
this
zoning
map,
which
cindy,
if
you
wanted
to
bring
that
back
up,
maybe
just
to
make
it
easier.
I
agree
with
you.
I
think
you
know
this
has
been
there
long
before
this
was
zoned,
but
it
looks
like
the
you
know.
W
So
that's
what
kind
of
gives
me
pause?
Well,
I
mean
if
the
if
the
intent
was
to
make
it
single
family,
what
they
would
have
done,
is
zone
a
single
family
and
created
a
non-conforming
situation
so
that,
if
it
ever
got
rebuilt,
it
would
be
required,
then,
to
be
single
to
me.
I
think
it
cuts
the
other
way
if
they
wanted
it
to
be
single
family,
the
city,
when
they
introduced
their
zoning
ordinance,
they
would
have
zoned
a
single
family.
W
Historical
use
of
property,
but
what
you're
describing
is
is
something
that
does
happen
where
the
city
comes
in
and
zones
something
and
they
will
intentionally
zone
it
in
a
manner
that
they
believe
appropriate.
If
that
means
that
it
creates
a
non-conforming,
then
so
be
it.
In
fact,
the
non-conforming
can
continue
in
perpetuity
this
one
could
too.
We
just
believe
that
what
we
have
is
a
better
product
for
the
area.
W
The
non-conforming
rules
exist,
so
that,
if
you
intensify
the
use
or
if
there's
a
lapse,
then
you
know,
then
it
goes
away
and
there's
a
prescribed
way
in
which
that
happens,
and
there
are
situations
like
that.
In
fact,
when
I
work
for
the
city
attorney's
office,
my
very
first
trial
was
an
appeal
from
the
board
of
adjustment
on
a
non-conforming
issue,
and
so
there
are
intentional
ways
that
the
city
would
would
seek
to
to
get
rid
of
a
use,
and
here
it
would
have
been
to
zone
a
single
family.
W
So
this
is
just
an
oversight.
No,
it's
not.
I
don't
think
it's
an
oversight.
It
was
an
intentional
zoning
of
r3,
because
what
has
historically
been
there
has
been
a
quad
place,
an
oversight
would
have
maybe
been
single
family.
I
mean,
I
don't
think
it
was
an
oversight.
I
think
was
very
intentional.
C
W
I
I
think
they
didn't
have
a
zoning
category
to
perhaps
to
to
assign
to
it,
and
the
r3
just
happens
to
have
100
feet.
Perhaps
we're
giving
too
much
credit
to
the
decision
makers
at
the
time
as
to
whether
or
not
they
really
dug
into
the
weeds
as
much
as
we
think
that
they
may
have
when
they
were
considering
r3.
I
think
it
was
as
simple
as
this
is
a
quad
plex.
Let's
make
it
r3,
and
that
was
it.
C
Okay,
board
members,
any
questions
or
comments.
W
K
W
X
Hi,
yes,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes
great?
I
lost
my
clock
so
I'll
just
try
to
do
my
best.
We
submitted
a
lit.
I
live
in
the
house
immediately.
Next
to
318
we
submitted
a
letter
gathered
35
signatures,
32
different
houses
properties
and
a
lot
of
what
has
been
discussed.
We
agree
with
that.
A
lot
of
the
lots
look
very
differently
and
it's
kind
of
a
hodgepodge
of
where
these
r3s
are.
X
But
ultimately
we
believe
that
the
100
foot
width
rule
is
good
and
if
the
board
would
would
do
a
little
more
research
into
this
neighborhood
and
come
and
see
this
law
in
particular,
I
believe
you
will
discover
there
is
great
wisdom
in
it.
It's
a
vibrant
neighborhood
and
such
a
structure
simply
is
not
suitable
and
would
pose
significant
risks.
X
We
really
appreciated
the
opportunity
to
get
to
visit
with
the
owners
of
bad
apples,
so
they
could
share
with
us
that
plan
the
plan
that
they
believed
really
would
be
the
most
profitable
forum,
which
is
a
quad
plex,
but
I
believe,
having
bought
it
sighed
on
scene
they're
mistaken
a
proposed
eight
bedroom
complex,
and
I
give
two
quick
reasons.
This
proposed
eight
bedroom
complex,
has
every
likelihood
of
bringing
eight
vehicles
into
this
single
property.
The
north
side
of
the
street
is
already
not
allowed
to
park
by
the
city.
X
It
would
create
a
very
narrow
street
there's
about
13
14
kids
that
play
in
the
neighborhood,
so
street
parking
would
create
visual
hazards
and
pose
a
real
safety
risk.
The
la
and-
and,
as
you
said,
sir,
we're
not
talking
about
20
feet
that
it's
lacking.
This
is
half
the
width
required,
and
this
is
part
of.
I
think
the
wisdom
is
if
you're
going
to
accommodate
that
many
potential
parking
vehicles.
X
X
I
I
certainly
do
not
believe
a
parking
lot
is
part
of
what
the
city
has
in
mind
for
this
neighborhood
and
the
comprehensive
plan
of
higher
density.
I
think
post
covid
may
be
revisited.
The
the
zoning
issue
seemed
to
come
afterwards,
and
perhaps
maybe
the
zoning
issue
is
what
should
be
revisited,
but
it
is.
It
is
simply
not
realistic
to
think
that
eight
unrelated
tenants
would
coordinate
navigating
a
narrow
driveway
to
park.
But,
most
importantly,
it's
the
issue
of
precedent.
X
Most
of
them
don't
have
anything
on
them
and
of
those
that
do
this
is
the
only
property
that
has
historically
been
used
as
a
multiplex,
and
it's
been
used
in
a
very,
very
poor
manner,
with
revolving
door
of
residence
that
created
a
lot
of
opportunity
for
illegal
activity.
I
would
imagine
that
that
those
those
residents
weren't
executing
actual
leases
and
they
were
exposed
to
really
poor
living
living
conditions,
if
you
just
the
precedent,
really
is
not
the
fact
that
there
are
quad
plexus
here.
X
If
you
look,
two
doors
down,
homes
like
this
have
been
beautifully
carefully
restored
for
a
profit
to
the
developers,
and
we
appreciate
the
investment.
But
I
would
urge
the
board
to
consider
whether
or
not
they
are
standing
on
precedent.
Or
are
you
setting
a
precedent,
one
that
the
the
neighborhood
the
people
of
this
community
humbly
and
respectfully
but
overwhelmingly
oppose?
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
mr
harder,
and
did
I
hear
correctly
that
you're
speaking
on
behalf
of
all
these
folks
that
signed
this.
X
I'm
I'm
I'm
not
I'm
all
those
who
who
signed
it
are
are
certainly
agreeing
to
what
we
put
in
the
letter,
but
I
believe
others
are
joined
to
speak,
and
so
I
would
not
speak
for
them
if
they
want
to
add
something
different,
but
certainly
those
35
who
signed
the
letter
are
in
agreement
with
what
we
what
we
stated
there.
Okay.
C
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
and
everyone
else
watching.
That's
why
I
I
tend
to
give
people
a
little
bit
more
time
than
three
minutes.
If
they're,
representing
kind
of
a
group
of
people
rather
than
having
the
entire
group
speak,
we
have
one
person
speak,
and
then
they
get
a
little
bit
more
time.
So
that's
why
we
kind
of
allowed
you
to
go
over.
C
X
Well,
I
don't,
I
don't
believe
they
are
replacing
the
same
structure.
There
was
before
and
again
look
at
the
precedent
of
other
properties.
This
is
a
historic
looking
home
and
just
two
doors
down
there.
X
While
I
appreciate
the
desire
to
invest
and
beautify
the
neighborhood,
I
I
I
don't
believe
that
that
is
actually
maintaining
what
this
neighborhood
is
and
what
it,
what
it
will
has
every
opportunity
to
become.
C
P
C
X
Well,
it's
it's
dramatically
different
because
again
I
I
based
upon
what
the
that
apple's
told
us
you
know
their
desire
was
to
basically
maximize
their
investment
to
be
able
to
build
something
that
they
believe
would
be
nice
enough,
that
they
could
garner
higher
higher
caliber
higher
socioeconomic
status,
tenants
and
and
basically
what
they
told
us
was
you
know
if
we,
if
we
have
to
do
that,
then
we
would
have
to
you
know,
invest
most
of
our
resources
into
simply
bringing
the
house
up
to
livable
conditions
and
not
be
able
to
to
charge
as
much,
and
so
I,
I
think,
they're
just
simply
looking
at
this
purely
from
a
position
of
profitability
and
I'm
100
in
favor
of
making
wise
investments
but
but
and
and
I
I
enjoyed
getting
to
meet
and
talk
to
them,
and
I
am
very
well
aware
of
of
the
investment
that's
going
in
this
neighborhood.
X
X
But
it's
very
much
a
dramatically
enlarged
and
you
know
residential,
I
mean
multi-residential
commercial,
looking
property
with
a
parking
lot,
that's
a
significant
difference
and
and
the
property
that
is
there
quite
frankly,
is
better
and
has
a
better
future
opportunity,
because
we
know
that
that
these
properties
can
be
restored
and
and
and
made
into
beautiful
homes
that
people
want
to
buy
and
move
into,
because
we
just
welcomed
a
new,
a
new
family,
two
doors
down
three
weeks
ago.
C
R
R
I
say
that
because
there's
a
heavy
population
of
children
right
around
318,
northeast
15.,
and
so
I
also
wrote
a
letter,
and
I
will
refer
you
all
to
the
letter
and
thank
you
for
your
time,
and
I
also
want
to
say
that
appointments
bring
a
transient
nature.
We
got
strangers
and
we
have
to
worry
about
not
only
the
tenants
but
their
visitors
as
well.
They're
not
going
to
have
a
place
to
park
multiple
cars
on
that
street.
R
You
can
only
park
on
the
south
side
of
the
street,
and
so
we
just
we
just
don't
need
that.
We
just
don't
need
that.
I
Yes,
I'm
here
hi,
I'm
alan
bennett,
233
northeast
15th,
so
I'm
just
across
the
street
and
down
a
few
houses
from
the
applicant's
home.
I
want
to
just
bring
home
the
point
that
joel
started
both
in
the
in
the
staff
report
and
the
applicant's
comments.
I
sent
a
belated
protest
letter
today.
I
don't
know
if
it
made
it
to
the
board
or
not,
but
in
that
the
applicant
states
that
this
is
just
one
of
other
multi-family
homes
used
in
the
neighborhood
and
then
in
the
board,
recommendations.
I
Favorable
consideration,
point
number
two
says
there
are
other
multi-family
units
in
the
neighborhood.
This
is
not
true,
I
don't
know
if
they
didn't
do
their
homework
or
misleading
or
whatever
we
do
have.
You
saw
the
map.
We
have
15
r3s
in
the
neighborhood.
I
I
It
is
the
only
four
plex
on
an
r3
lot
in
our
neighborhood,
so
there
I
got
the
feeling
that
they
were
trying
to
convince
the
board
that
well,
you
should
allow
us
to
keep
or
honor
our
requests
for
an
adjustment
for
variants
because
there's
other
houses
in
the
neighborhood
doing
the
same
thing.
Well,
that's
just
patently
not
true!
There's
nobody
in
our
neighborhood
with
that.
With
that
multi
family
I
mean
they're,
all
single
family,
the
ones
that
used
to
be
four
plexus
have
been
converted.
I
I
If
you
haven't
read,
it
is
if
you
are
to
approve
this
you're,
actually
feeding
the
the
developers
or
you
know,
sort
of
fueling
the
fire
for
these
developers
to
come
in
to
buy
up
these
nine
lots
and
say:
oh
look
what
you
did
for
bad
apple
over
there.
You
allowed
him
to
have
a
reduction
in
his
100
foot
width
to
50
by
half,
and
so
you
should
allow
us
to
do
it
too
and
frankly,
as
nice
as
this
new
house
looks
it's
a
row
house
and
we
just
really
don't
want
row.
I
Houses
in
our
neighborhood
duplexes
would
fit
nicely
on
a
50-foot
lot,
even
a
triplex,
but
fourplex
is
just
too
much
building
on
too
small
of
square
footage.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
Y
Y
Y
I
was
notified
that
the
street
is
not
a
public
parking,
so
if
all
those
cars
get
the
parking
on
the
street,
that
leaves
us
no
alternative
but
to
call
action
or
down
9-1-1
and
have
those
cars
removed,
which
we
have
done,
and
we
do
still
do
when
cars
are
parked
illegally
on
our
street,
because
you
just
cannot
get
through
the
street
is
still
too
narrow
and
there's
no
way
to
park
in
the
back
as
it
is
standing
as
it
is,
and
if
you
are
to
make
it,
we,
you
leave
us
no
alternative,
but
to
continue
to
call
the
police
down
9-1-1
to
get
those
cars
removed,
because
there's
just
not
enough
room
on
that
street
for
any
type
of
four-plex
in
the
past
as
it
stands
as
it
is
living
in
that
area
since
1988
and
was
in
that
area
as
a
child
because
of
the
type
of
renters
that
was
placed
in
there.
Y
Y
Leave
the
street,
leave
it
there
for
hours
and
we
just
could
not
get
by
so
it's
the
street
is
not
a
public
parking
place
and
I
just
think
as
a
as
a
fourplex,
they
will
park
on
the
street,
it
will
block
the
street
and
it
will
become
a
hazard
with
the
children
that
has
moved
into
the
area,
and
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
Z
U
This
is
brian
sweeney,
I'm
at
325
northeast
15th
street.
I
will
be
adjacent
to
this
property
and
just
to
summarize
what
everyone
else
has
said,
you
know
if
this
may
not
intensify,
as
he
said,
the
use
of
the
property
as
is,
but
it
will
absolutely
intensify
the
traffic,
and
this
goes
to
speaks
into
the
logistical
and
safety
challenges
that
everyone's
talking
about,
and
I
mean
you
can
see
from
the
zoning
map
that
you
have
there.
U
The
fact
that
this
is
even
an
r3
in
the
first
place
is,
I
don't
know
how
that
came
to
be,
but
certainly
I'm
opposed
to
this
becoming
a
yeah.
B
AA
AA
I
want
to
make
a
couple
of
points
just
to
reiterate
the
fact
that
of
all
the
r3s
that
are
zoned
r3
in
the
neighborhood.
AA
This
is
currently
the
only
one
that
is
being
used
for
multi-family
a
multi-family
residents
and
also
want
to
make
the
point
that
this
ho,
the
the
home
was
not
built
as
a
four
plex.
This
is
a
single
family
residence
that
the
former
owner
chopped
up
and
basically
rented
rooms
out
of,
and
called
it
a
four
plex.
AA
So
it
has
the
footprint
of
a
single
family
home,
and
I
mean
really.
I
can't
imagine
that
we
can
squeeze
a
different
structure
in
there
with
a
huge
parking
lot.
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
mention
my
address.
I
live
at
317,
northeast
14th
and
my
backyard
backs
up
to
the
residents
in
question.
So
our
back
our
backyards
meet,
which
is
where
they
want
to
put
a
large
parking
lot.
The
I
can't
remember
the
man's
name,
the
bad
apple
owner
that
we
met
with
the
other
day
mentioned
10
cars.
AA
I
just
don't
do
not
see
how
that's
possible.
It's
not
a
large
backyard.
Even
eight
cars,
I
don't
think,
would
fit.
I'm
not
crazy
about
the
idea
of
my
backyard,
my
lovely
backyard,
backing
up
to
a
a
parking
lot,
but
anyway
I
I
think
I've
made
my
points
and
I
also
want
to
just
state
that
I
know
that
we're
zoned
or
our
neighborhood,
as
mr
box
pointed
out,
is
zoned
for
a
higher
density,
and
we
have
you
know
multiple
r2s.
AA
I
I
think
that
increases
density
already,
that
are
you,
know,
zoned
that
way
and
a
couple
of
things
that
are
being
used.
That
way
we
just
had
one
you
know,
get
approved
or
a
guy's
going
to
build
a
duplex.
We
have
a
duplex,
that's
just
been
built
on
walnut,
so
the
density
is
there.
You
know,
there's
an
apartment,
complex.
It's
been
there
for
a
hundred
years
on
on
14th
and
walnut.
AA
So
I
I
don't
think
that
this
is
a
good
use
of
the
space
and
from
to
go
from
a
hundred
foot
to
a
fifty
foot.
You
know
variant,
I
I
just
think
that's
too
much
to
ask.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
appreciate
it.
C
C
Maybe
someone
already
got
to
her
comment,
so
so,
mr
box,
if
you
want
to
address
any
of
those
comments,
sure.
W
So
I'll
start
with
parking
in
looking
at
google
earth,
it
looks
like
one
side
of
the
street
may
be
barking
off
limits
on
the
south
side
looks
like
there's
no
parking
to
corner,
but
again
I
think
parking
is
not
a
relevant
argument
to
this
discussion
in
that
the
r3
code
have
requirements
for
parking
and
we
will
meet
all
of
them
as
it
relates
to
precedent.
W
I
don't
believe
that
there
is
president
in
zoning
cases
or
board
of
adjustment
cases.
I
think
each
case
stands
on
its
own
merits.
Perhaps
my
job
would
be
a
lot
easier.
If
there
was
precedent,
I
could
just
point
to
the
last
time.
I
you
know
got
something
approved
and
sit
down.
It
doesn't
work
like
that.
If
there
is
any
presidential
effect
here,
you
have
a,
I
think,
a
very
unique
set
of
circumstances,
because
you
already
have
a
quadflex.
W
So
really
the
question
is:
can
we
build
what
we
think
to
be
a
more
compatible
looking
quadplex
and
get
rid
of
the
quadplex
that
has
just
been,
unfortunately
left
to
sit
and
just
left
to
disrepair?
There
was
a
question
about
the
design.
W
It's
really
not
it's
not
in
a
design
district,
so
I
don't
think
that
really
has
relevance
but
but
again
no
unfavorable,
considerations
by
staff,
and
this
is
going
to
be
a
quad
plex
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
concerns
stem
from
this
idea
that
perhaps
it
could
be
a
single
family
house
and
convert
it
to
that,
and
that's
just
not
what's
at
issue.
We
think
that
the
alternative
that
we
have
provided
is
a
better
case
scenario
for
the
neighborhood.
W
There
are
several
other
developments
going
on
in
the
neighborhood,
so
I
didn't
mean
to
impugn
the
neighborhood
by
saying
this
would
inject
life.
I
think,
frankly,
this
is
acknowledgment
that
this
is
a
very
desirable
area
for
people
to
live,
and
that's
why
this
particular
client
has
has
acquired
this
site
with
the
eye
of
building
a
very
nice
product
in
this
neighborhood.
In
hopes
of
attracting
you
know,
tenants
that
would
likely
be
students
or
residents
at
the
ou
health
science
complex.
So
with
that
we'd
ask
for
your
approval.
C
Yeah
one
one
kind
of
comment
on
that
point:
I
think
the
neighbors
aren't
entirely
out
of
line
by
just
having
the
opinion
that
they
would
rather
a
single
family
or
a
duplex
go
there
rather
than
a
quadplex
like
they
get.
They
have
an
opportunity
here
to
express
their
views,
while
this
is
being
built
up
from
the
ground
up
sure-
and
you
know,
while
that's
happening,
I
think
they're
within
their
rights
to
just
say:
yeah
we'd
rather
be
a
duplex
or
a
single
family.
W
No
yeah,
I
get
it,
and
you
know
these
core
neighborhoods,
which
I
live
in
one
I
live
on,
15th
and
walker.
You
know
these
core
neighborhoods
are
kind
of
unique
in
that
this
is
how
we
used
to
design
neighborhoods
for
generations.
You
know
it
wasn't
these
big
blocks
of
only
single
family.
If
you
look
at
my
neighborhood,
which
is
heritage,
hills,
you've
got
single
family
quad,
plexus,
triplexes,
apartment
houses,
you've
got
all
the
different
types
of
living
quarters
within
one
neighborhood.
That's
how
we've
always
done
it
until
about
this
80s
and
90s.
W
When
we
decided
well,
we've
got
to
have
multi-family
on
their
own
and
single-family
on
their
own,
and
I
don't
know
that.
That's
a
good
way,
I
think,
through
comp
plan,
do
planning
okc.
The
goal
has
been
in
these
core
areas
to
to
re-inject
that
into
them
that
there
is
benefit
in
having
different
types
of
people,
different
types
of
income
levels,
different
types
of
structures
all
within
one
area,
that
it
makes
a
more
diversified
and
more
whole
neighborhood.
C
Now
I
agree
with
you
there
I,
like
you,
know
all
kinds
of
different
developments
going
in
an
area.
I
think
that
adds
a
lot
of
value,
especially
from
a
city's
perspective.
I
like
that.
I
understand
people
that
want
a
big
front
yard
or
backyard,
and
I
understand
people
that
want
more
density,
so
you
know
I
I'm
different
to
that
cindy.
It
looks
like
we've
got
amy
back
with
a
hand
up
and
then
a
couple
other
comments.
I
did
want
to
mention
to
the
folks
on
the
line.
C
I
know
generally,
we
we,
you
know
earlier
in
this
meeting.
We
kind
of
went
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
because
we
wanted
to
flesh
out
a
couple
of
issues,
but
normally
we
don't
have
kind
of
a
back
and
forth
where,
if
mr
box
or
the
applicant
says
something-
and
someone
has
a
comment
on
that
thing-
you
go
back
and
forth
for
an
hour,
so
I
see
some
hands
up
that
have
already
been
up.
C
Z
Hi
everyone
thank
you
for
for
the
time
you
know
with,
with
all
due
respect
to
mr
box,
you
know
he
continues
to
indicate
that
this
would
simply
be
a
quad
plex,
replacing
a
quad
plugs,
but,
as
indicated
earlier
by
a
fellow
neighbor,
that's
really
not
the
case.
The
the
the
existing
structure
is
a
single
originally
a
single
family
home
and
in
that
size
of
a
footprint,
and
also
the
the
comment
about
you
know.
Z
So
previously
we
understand
that
there
was
no
unfavorable
consideration
by
staff,
but
I
believe
that
the
neighbors
have
brought
forward
information
to
you
all
today
that
maybe
you
are
not
necessarily
aware
of
previous
to
that
and
then
my
last
comment
is
cindy.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
bringing
up
that
application
board
of
adjustment,
the
that
map
of
the
neighborhood,
would
you
mind
bringing
that
up
really
quickly.
Z
It's
the
one,
I
don't
think
it's
the
zoning
one,
it's
the
one
that
has
the
layout
of
all
the
houses,
the
zoning
one
is
fine
too,
though
it
really
doesn't
matter.
I
wanted
to
show
something
on
that
map.
C
C
A
Z
There
you
go
that
one
right
there
that
one
right
there.
So
if
you
see
the
you
know
the
property
in
question,
my
house,
I'm
at
317,
northeast
14th,
is
immediately
south.
So
my
my
property
line
butts
up
there
to
the
south
of
this
particular
apartment,
proposed
apartment
or
quad
flex.
Z
If
you
see
the
the
my
backyard
there's
a
there's,
a
very
short
amount
of
distance
right
there
between
the
back
of
my
house
and
what
it
is
proposed
to
be
a
potentially
eight
to
ten
car
parking
lot
again
for
the
the
center
of
a
neighborhood.
X
Yes
and
I'll
speak
just
very
quickly,
because,
ultimately,
I
hope
what
you're
hearing
from
all
of
my
neighbors
in
this
community
is
that
we
are.
We
are
actively
seeing
this
neighborhood
grow
and
we
all
are
desiring
to
invest
into
it
and
help
it
to
grow
and
make
it
better.
X
Mr
box
made
the
point
that
that
these
cases,
don't
don't
depend
on
precedent
and
precedent
is
not
an
issue,
but
then
he
cites
trends
and
history,
and-
and
so
I
would
just
simply
say
that
if,
if
you
do
want
to
look
at
what
is
the
trend?
What's
the
history,
the
trend
in
the
history
is:
is
that
this
neighborhood
is
beautifying.
This
neighborhood
is
developing.
This
neighborhood
is,
is
growing
better
and
the
proposal
that
we
are
seeing
while
we
appreciate
the
desire
to
put
a
new
structure
that
would
be,
would
be
nice.
X
This
proposal
specifically,
is
not
going
to
not
going
to
continue
this
trend,
not
going
to
continue
the
recent
history
and
the
progress
of
our
neighborhood.
We
don't
question
the
the
way
it's
zoned
currently
or
the
ability
to
to
renovate
and
restore
that
property
and
use
it.
However,
the
owner
wishes.
X
I
I
do
believe,
though,
that
really
this
has
come
down
to
a
quadplex
or
a
quadplex
and
that's
their
their
decision,
their
their
their
position,
but
there
there
is
so
much
happening
in
the
neighborhood
and
the
proposal
that
they're
putting
forward
and
they
shared
with
us
graciously-
is
not
going
to
help
the
neighborhood
continue.
This
trend,
ultimately
there's
wisdom
in
the
100-foot
rule
and
all
the
objections
raised
show
there
is
wisdom
in
the
100-foot
rule
and
it
it
seems
that
it
would
be
misguided
to
ignore
the
wisdom
of
that
100-foot
rule.
A
R
Street
was
only
limited,
no
organ
on
one
section,
but
just
to
clarify
that
entire
street
from
to
the
styles,
there's
no
parking
on
the
north
side
of
the
street,
and
also
I
wanted
to
make
the
point
that
what
you're
intending
to
bring
we
already
have.
We
have
professionals
that
live
in
this
neighborhood.
We
have
doctors,
nurses,
an
engineer,
teachers,
all
sorts
of
people
working
people.
R
Another
thing
construction
brings
especially
a
large
job,
is
all
the
noise
we
work.
We
get
up
certain
time,
go
to
bed
certain
time,
we're
kind
of
construction,
weary
right
now,
we've
had
so
much
going
on
and
also
what
about
the
children.
C
Thank
you
and
that's
that's
helpful.
I
didn't.
I
did
think
that
the
one
side
of
the
street
was
blocked
off
to
parking
and
the
other
side
was
not
so
thanks
for
confirming
that,
mr
boxer,
can
you
follow
up
with
any
of
those.
C
L
W
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
clear,
though
you
know
we're
not
talking
about
size
of
lodge
like
the
city's
code,
allows
for
a
quad
plex
on
this
size
of
lot
right.
We
meet
the
minimum
lot
size.
It's
just
the
way
that
the
lot
is
oriented,
so
we're
not
seeking
to
increase
the
intensity
for
what
this
size
a
lot
was
deemed
appropriate
by
the
city.
It's
just
this
way
the
way
that
the
slot
happens
to
be
orient.
So
we
would
ask
for
your
approval.
J
I
have
a
comment-
and
maybe
mr
box
wants
to
respond
to
this
so
I'll,
just
put
it
out
there
now
and
I.
J
I
mean
a
lot
of
your.
Your
points
are,
are
resonating
with
me,
but
one
thing
I
actually
would
like
you
to
comment
on
is
I
understand
that
what
you're
saying
is
this
isn't
kind
of
increased
density
area?
This
is
the
intent
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
as.
J
That
that's
the
primary
concern,
particularly
if
it's
going
to
impede,
at
least
according
to
all
of
the
proposed
neighbors,
so
much
everything
from
parking
to
the
parking
lot
to
being
too
close
to
the
to
the
increased
density.
Even
though
it
currently
is
a
quad
class.
But
it
hasn't
been
used
that
way
for
a
while.
C
Really
quickly
here
I
think
maybe
your
speakers
are
on
and
so
we're
getting
a
bad
echo
that
I
can
somewhat
make
out.
But
it's
very
distracting.
C
C
Now,
we'll
just
have
to
deal
with
it,
it's
it's.
We
can.
J
Start
I'll
speak
up
a
little,
I'm
almost
done.
I
would
just
like
mr
box
to
address
that.
I
that
I
understand
the
intent
of
what
he's
saying
that
this
is
the
intent
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
I
guess
my
question
is
to
what
detriment
of
the
of
the
area
of
the
neighborhood
and
particularly
considering
all
these
concerns
that
the
neighbors
have
brought.
So
I'm
going
to
mute
now.
W
Sure
so
I
guess
we
just
agree
to
disagree
in
terms
of
the
detriment.
So
again
the
to
me,
the
parking
is
a
non-issue.
I
understand
no
neighbors
like
parking
on
on
streets.
We
deal
with
that
in
every
neighborhood,
my
neighborhood
neighborhoods
that
I'm
you
know
trying
to
get
zoned
or
joining
neighbors
worried
about
that,
but
again
we're
not
seeking
a
parking
variance.
We
are
going
to
provide
the
exact
amount
of
parking
prescribed
by
the
city
code.
So
I
don't
think
complaining
about
parking
is
a
legitimate
concern
in
this
application.
W
Given
that
we
are
going
to
do
what
the
city
tells
us,
we
have
to
do
in
terms
of
number
of
parking
spaces
and,
in
terms
of
you
know
the
density
I
mean
this
is
exactly
the
density
that
is
allowed
under
the
zoning.
L
W
We're
not
seeking
to
increase
the
density.
This
has
been
developed
in
this
manner.
For
a
long
time,
the
zoning
code
has
existed
as
r3
for
a
long
time,
presumably
as
long
as
everyone
that
has
lived
there,
and
so
when
they
sought
to
buy
their
house
if
they
would
have
looked
at
the
zoning
map
you'll
see.
Not
only
is
there
a
lot
of
r1,
but
there's
a
lot
of
r2
there's
a
lot
of
r3
spread
out.
W
The
south
side
of
this
block
is
lots
of
r3,
so
I
think
this
is
exactly
what
one
could
have
anticipated
would
have
been
built
there.
So
I
don't
see
their
concerns
as
I
don't
see
what
we're
going
to
do
as
causing
a
detriment,
because
I
believe
that
it's
exactly
in
line
with
what
the
zoning
allows
for.
C
G
The
way
it
sits
right
now
you
could
build
a
duplex,
but
for
a
three
or
four
family
unit,
the
100
foot,
lot
width
comes
into
play.
W
C
Yeah,
I
mean
to
me
it
upon
first
read,
and
this
is
more
so
to
the
board
the
board's
deliberation,
but
to
me
upon
first
to
read:
it
seemed
like
a
planning
commission
issue,
but
if
there's
not,
if
there's
no
relief
at
planning
commission,
I
don't
know
if,
like
even
a
spud
or
something
would
resolve
it,
then
maybe
we
did.
Maybe
it
is
an
issue
for
this
board.
So.
W
It
would
resolve
it,
but
because
it's
just
a
singular
issue,
I
think
if
I
went
and
sat
down
with
jj,
I
think
what
he
would
tell
me
is:
why
wouldn't
you
just
go
to
the
board
and
I
think
if
I
went
to
planning
commission,
you
know
you
use
spuds
and
puds
really,
when
you've
got
a
host
of
ordinances,
that
you
can't
meet
you're,
really
trying
to
either
mix
uses
or
create
something
so
unique
that
instead
of
coming
here
and
seeking
five
variances,
where
you
guys
tell
us
to
get
a
spud
they'd,
be
saying:
why
aren't
you
getting
a
variance
here
it
would,
it
would
appear
as
if
we
were
like
forum
shopping
under
that.
W
C
Yeah,
it's
a
it's,
not
a
clear
call
to
me,
but
you
know
to
me
just
initially
reading
the
application
and
even
through
this
meeting
it
just
felt
more
like
a
planning
commission
issue-
and
I
know
it's
only
one
thing
that
you're
trying
to
get
around,
but
it's
a
huge
thing
that
you're
trying
to
get
around,
and
it's
really
kind
of
to
me
fundamentally
changing
the
character
of
that
piece
of
property
and
in
the
surrounding
area.
C
W
Understood,
if
you
think
about
what
you're
doing,
though,
in
a
planning
commission
you're
seeking
to
change
the
use,
we're
not
seeking
to
change
the
use,
the
use
was
a
quadplex
and
it
will
be
a
quadplex
we're
not
seeking
to
change
the
use.
That's
why
you
go
through
the
legislative
process
when
you're
seeking
to
change
the
uses
allowed
or
the
nature
of
the
use
on
the
site.
That's
not
what
we're
doing
here.
The
nature
of
the
use
won't
change.
C
Yeah
and
it
I
it'd,
be
a
close
call,
I
think
either
way,
but
to
me
I
think
it's
getting
closer
to
changing
the
use,
and
you
know
obviously
it's
still
going
to
be
residential,
but
it's
a
quad
plus
plex
versus
what
everyone
around
it
wants
it
to
be,
which
is
single
family
or
maybe
a
duplex,
plus
the
parking
concerns
plus.
C
No
one
really
can
tell
me,
and
I'm
not
even
sure
why
this
is
r3,
which
seems
to
be
specifically
deliberated
on
being
r3
when
everything
else
is
r1.
You
know
the
other
r3s
in
the
area.
Don't
share
the
same
characteristic.
No
one's
really
been
able
to
explain
that
to
me.
So
for
all
those
reasons
it
just
feels
more
like
a
planning
commission
issue,
because
they
can
either
get
to
the
bottom
of
it
or
make
it
up,
because
that's
what
they're
able
to
do
on
the
planning
commission
that
we're
not
able
to
do
so.
B
C
W
What
I'd
say
like
planning
staff
would
even
say
that
we
don't
when
this
process
is
available,
we
don't
want
to
put
and
spud
the
whole
city
right
like
there's
a
very
clear
path
to
go,
seek
a
variance
here
when
it's
a
one
one
portion
of
the
code,
and
perhaps
we
disagree.
But
I
don't
see
how
the
parking
is
a
legitimate
concern.
B
C
If
this
is
a
board
of
adjustment
issue
that
I
don't
think
are
satisfied
here,
and
I
understand
that
you
disagree,
but
I'm
just
telling
you
that's
that's
kind
of
where
I
am.
If
it's
not
a
board
of
adjustment
issue,
then
that
could
all
be
dealt
with
by
the
planning
commission.
But
if
the
board
feels
like
we
need
to
decide
this,
I'm
not
currently
in
support
of
it.
C
The
board
cannot
vote
me
on
that,
or
we
can
continue
it
and
talk
about
what
things
might
need
to
be
changed
in
order
for
at
least
me
to
be
comfortable
with
it.
All
that,
against
the
caveat
that
I'm
only
one
board
member
so
the
rest
of
the
board
members,
do
you
have
any
questions
or
comments.
D
I
thought
I
was
on
board
until
I
saw
that
elevation.
That
was
the
first
time
I've
seen
that
it
just
seemed
like
a
pretty
large
four
plex
there,
david
replacing
what
is
now
kind
of
you
know,
a
pretty
small
structure.
It
seems
like.
W
So
it'll
be
the
same
height
it'll
be
the
same
massing.
It's
just
the
scale
that
you're
looking
at
it
may
be
different,
but
it's
again
it
meets
setback,
requirements,
height
requirements,
size
requirements.
It
may
be
deeper
in
the
back,
but
from
the
front
it
won't
be
altogether
different
and.
W
C
W
C
W
Well,
that's
what
I'd
ask
I
mean:
what
are
those
concessions
because
again
the
parking
for
me
is
just
I
don't.
I
don't
understand
the
concern
because
it
is
a
public
street.
I
think
one
side
of
the
street
you
can't
park
on.
I
think
the
other
side
of
the
street.
You
can.
I
drove
down
there
today
and
there
were
cars
parked
on
that
side
of
the
street.
It
is
a
public
street.
It
is
not
a
private
street.
It's
a
public
street
and
cars
parked
there.
W
W
I
haven't
heard
anything
specific
other
than
we
don't.
We
want
it
to
be
single
family,
and
while
I
can
respect
that
it
is
zoned
in
a
manner
that
allows
for
something
other
than
single
family.
But
if
there's
specific
things,
I
have
no
doubt
that
my
client
be
willing
to
to
listen
and
to
consider
them.
I'm
trying
to
talk
long,
so
my
client
can
respond
to
a
text
message
to
see
if
he
wants
to
continue
it.
W
V
C
Design
elements
for
variances
for
obvious
reasons,
but
if
the
applicant's
willing
to
do
it
to
a
piece
of
neighbors
and
things
like
that,
then
that's
something
to
talk
about,
or
maybe
the
board's
comfortable
with
it,
as
is
who
knows
but
board
members
any
questions,
comments
or
a
motion.
C
Did
you
want
to
maybe
kick
this?
I
think
we
have
one
more
agenda
item.
W
B
J
E
J
J
J
You
know
maybe
even
other
elements
of
the
statutory
conditions.
Is
this
an
unnecessary
hardship
and
is
this
the
minimum
necessary
that
can
be
done
to
relieve
that
hardship,
and
so
I'm
just
struggling
with
it
on
different?
If
you
want
just
some
feedback
from
board
members,
that's
mine,
and
that's
just
some
of
the
things
that
I'm
I'm
struggling
with.
As
far
as
the
statutory.
W
No
understood
yeah,
so
what
makes
it
difficult
is
that
it's
not
a
vacant
lot
is
that
it
already
is
a
quad
plex,
and
so
you
know
if
we
were
negotiating
with
the
neighbors.
You
know
it's
just
hard.
It's
hard
to
come
off
our
position,
given
that
it
already
is
a
quadflex
and
it
will
continue
to
be
a
quad
flex.
We
just
think
that
a
new
build
is
a
better
scenario
for
the
neighbors
we're
not
going
from
a
blank
slate
to
asking
for
a
quad
plex.
W
We
already
have
a
quad
plex,
and
so
it
makes
it
a
little
difficult
now.
If
there
were
subtle
things
we
can,
we
can
meet
with
the
neighbors
after
this
if
it
were
approved
and
try
to
work
with
them
on
final
design
things,
but
the
the
foundational
issue
of
quad
plex
or
not,
there's
really
nothing.
We
can
do
on
that.
You
know
because
we're
not.
We
can't
spend
the
money
on
a
new
build
to
lose
density.
The
numbers
just
don't
work,
but
you
know
I
underst.
W
I
understand
you
know
I'm
consistently,
whether
it's
in
front
of
this
board
or
planning
commission
trying
to
find
middle
ground.
This
just
happens
to
be
one
of
the
more
unique
cases
I've
had
in
that
we
are
asking
for
relief,
but
because
we're
trying
to
build
something
that
we
believe
to
be
better
than
it's
there,
because
what
we
want
in
terms
of
density
already
exists
today.
W
My
client
spent
a
lot
of
time,
removing
tenants
that
were
there
that
were
problematic
tenants
that
were
engaged
in
activities
that
we
believe
to
be
detrimental
to
the
neighborhood.
Some
of
the
activities
that
were
ongoing
within
the
structure
led
it
to
be
in
the
state
that
it's
in
and
that's
why
we
believe
the
better
money
served
is
to
build
back
a
a
very
nice,
attractive,
quad,
flex
and
kind
of
move
past.
The
problems
that
existed
within
the
structure.
D
W
Sure
for
sure,
because
some
of
the
activity
has
been
really
bad,
you
know
this
client
is
a
client
that
has
a
long
track
record.
This
particular
entity
that
owns
it.
Mr
prayer,
for
your
you
know,
for,
for
your
sake,
it's
it's
three
jacks
you've
seen
three
jacks
come
in
front
of
planning,
commission,
probably
every
single
time
here
recently
they
are
very
active
developer
in
oklahoma
city.
They
build
a
very
good
product.
They
do
single
family
multi-family
to
kind
of
run
the
gamut
of
it.
W
So
here
you
have
a
developer
with
a
stronghold
in
oklahoma
city.
That's
been
here
for
quite
some
time
and
we're
hoping
to
move
past
some
of
the
problem
issues
that
exist
existed
in
this
house.
My
client
does
would
like
a
vote.
He
did.
He
did.
C
Respond
yeah,
I'm
always
sympathetic
to
the
argument
that
when
there
are
this
many
protests,
you're
not
gonna,
get
everyone
on
board
even
by
talking
to
them.
So
I
understand
that
as
well,
but
you.
B
C
There
are
some
things
that
can
be
done
to
ameliorate
some
of
these
concerns.
If
we
take
a
vote
today,
I
you
know
I'm
a
fan
of
density
when
it
makes
sense,
but
I
could
not
support
it,
but
I'm
only
one
board.
Member.
E
This
is
kitty,
I'm
I'm
having
some
really
really
mixed
emotions
on
this
one
big
time,
even
though
I
heard
that
it,
it
is
a
four
plex
and
it
has
always
been,
but
it
seems,
like
I
heard
one
of
the
other
residents
say
that
when
it
was
originally
built,
it
was
a
single
family
home,
and
now
it's
sounding
more
like
which
I'm.
L
E
For
redoing
neighborhoods
and
building
new
homes
and
stuff,
because
it
ups
the
value
of
the
property
for
the
current
people
living
there.
But
it
seems
like
this
is
truly
more
of
a
business
than
it
is
a
residential
home.
And
I
think
that's
some
of
the
concerns
of
those
people
that
were
on
the
calls
earlier.
W
In
terms
of
business,
this
will
be
residential
in
nature
that
there
will
be
no
commercial
aspect
to
it.
It
will
be.
I.
C
E
I'm
saying
it's
their
feelings,
that's
what
I'll
be
getting
from
them!
That's
why
I'm
conflicting,
but
mr
box,
I
totally
understand
your
point
of
view.
That's
why
I'm
so
conflicted
with
the
neighbors
too.
W
To
that
point
we
could
build
this
as
a
single
family
home
and
run
it
as
nothing
but
an
airbnb,
so
we've
got
a
special
exception
or
or
a
rental
just
because
it's
a
single-family
home
does
not
ensure
that
it
is
owned
by
the
occupant
of
the
home.
It
you
know
just
doesn't
you
can
rent
any
anything
anywhere.
W
C
C
C
And
it's
not
approved.
Thank
you
well,.
C
City
staff,
I
think,
for
this:
it's
not
technically
denied
that
motion
just
did
not
carry
and
so
well.
First
I'll
confirm
that
that's
correct
is
that
correct.
C
AB
Was
the
motion
to
deny
I
mean
to
approve
that
failed?
So
now
you
have
to
have
a
motion
to
approve
and
see
what
happens
with
that
or.
C
C
AC
AC
We're
going
to
to
build
a
shop
and
the
the
the
property
it's
wider
than
it
is
deep.
So
the
the
shop
is
at
the
back
of
the
property.
It's
just
not
behind
the
house,
it's
as
far
back
as
we
can
put
it.
AC
AC
Yes,
the
pool's
already
there
and-
and
actually,
if
you
put
it
on
the
other
side
on
that
south
side,
there's
there's
another
house,
so
it
put
the
shop
almost
like
right
in
someone's
front
yard,
there's
some
trees
and,
and
so
then
like
where
we
have
the
shop
located.
Currently
the
neighboring
property,
they
have
five
greenhouses,
so
we're
kind
of
backing
up
to
where
this
is
it's.
Actually.
This
is
kind
of
where
it's
tucked
out
of
view
for
everyone
and
kind
of
backs
up
to
some
greenhouses.
C
Okay
was
there,
anyone
else
signed
up
to
speak
on
this
matter,
or
they
wanted
to
be
heard.
C
We
appreciate
you
coming
in
ahead
of
time
instead
of
building
it
and
then
asking
for
forgiveness,
which
we
get
it
looks
to
me
like
it
hits
all
the
elements
I
mean,
I
think
it's
a
peculiar
piece
of
property,
the
orientation's
very
unique.
I
think
you're
doing
your
best,
the
best
that
you
can
to
tuck
it
away.
So
I
can
support
it
board.
Members.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
questions,
comments
or
emotion,.
F
I'll
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
the
application
for
a
variant
for
the
reasons
that
it
meets
the
statutory
conditions
for
a
variant.
C
C
There
we
go
okay,
once
you're
able
to
cast
your
votes.
Please.
AC
G
C
AD
Yeah,
yes,
the
the
reason
why
we
are
here
is
because
we
are
applying
for
can.
C
I
stop
you
really
quickly
and
just
get
you
to
introduce
yourself
by
name
and
address,
or
else
the
city
attorney
will
come
after
me.
AD
Okay,
where
our
address
my
name
is
monica
linville
and
address,
is
11
427
north
may
avenue.
The
apartment
is
the
unit
8.
B
AD
Yes,
we
are
applying
for
the
home,
sharing
application,
we
fully
remove
the
remodel
the
apartment
and
we
are
intending
to
do
it
for
for
short
time
rentals,
but
no
actually
exactly
like
two
or
three
days.
We
want
to
do
it
a
little
bit
for
a
month
or
more
than
a
month,
but
the
reason
why
we're
applying
for
the
home
sharing
is
because
we
have
to
do
it
through
airbnb
airbnb,
requiring
the
home
sharing
application
and
have
that
all
day,
licensing
and
all
the
permit.
In
order
to
do
this.
C
Okay,
that
makes
sense.
I
was
looking
at
this
and
it
looked
like
you
wanted
to
do
the
longer
term
and
under
the
city's
code.
If
it's,
I
think,
longer
than
30
days,
you
wouldn't
need
a
special
exception,
but
I
guess
if
airbnb
is
requiring
it,
then
that's
why
you're
here
and
also
you'd
be
able
to
rent
it
for
shorter
periods
of
time?
If
you
wanted
to,
if
you
get
the
special
acceptance.
AD
Yeah
but
yeah,
if
yeah,
if
we
can,
we
will,
but
our
preference
is,
do
it
for
a
little
bit
more
than
a
month,
because
we
we
believe
that
the
people
won't
destroy
the
apartment
and
it
will
be
easier
to
maintain
and
we
just
spend
a
bunch
of
money
to
try
to
make
the
apartment
really
nice
and
look
really
and
up.
You
know
apartment.
So
I
wouldn't
want
the
people
to
just
go
for
two
or
three
days
and
just
kind
of
like
destroy
the
apartment.
AD
We
invest
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
on
on
the
apartment,
so
we
are
trying
to
target
executives
or
nurses
that
are
coming.
You
know
out
from
a
different
state
and
want
to
clean
a
nice
place
to
stay,
but
every
place
that
you
want
to
advertise.
They
require
the
home
sharing
license
now.
So
that's
what
we
are
applying
for.
It.
C
AD
At
the
beginning,
we
have
a
problem
with
the
parking
permit,
but
when
we
bought
the
apartment
they
don't
have
any.
They
don't
have
any
restriction
for
the
apartment.
They
don't
have
how
they
call
it.
They
don't
have
any
apartment,
they
don't
have
any
restriction
with
the
park
with
the
parking.
So
I
believe
when
I
bought
an
apartment.
At
least
I
have
one
parking
for
myself
but,
as
I
said
on
my
application,
now,
I'm
paying
for
an
apartment
that
I
already
got
my
parking
permit,
I'm
paying
for
one
more
additional.
AD
So
I
don't
want
to
bother
nobody
in
the
complex
so
now
I'm
paying
for
an
additional
one,
just
to
avoid
any
inconvenience
with
any
of
the
neighbors,
so
I'm
paying
for
one,
and
I
can
have
my
own
rules
and
restrictions
and
the
restriction
you
just
one
car
when
they
are
renting
the
apartment,
but
actually
I'm
allowed
to-
I
guess,
but
I'm
paying
for
one
just
to
avoid
any
problems
with
anybody.
So
I
got
my
my
tag
already.
AD
AD
C
AD
At
the
beginning,
they
were
concerned
for
the
parking
lot.
They
didn't
know
how
they
are.
We
are
going
to
do
it,
but
as
long
as
as
soon
as
I
explained
them
how
we
are
going
to
do
it,
they
were
okay
with
it.
At
the
beginning,
they
were
a
little
bit
concerned.
They
that
was
kind
of
like
a
misunderstanding.
AD
They
think
that
we
are
going
to
rent
the
apartment
for
different
people
at
the
same
time,
which
doesn't
make
sense,
but
that
was
my
fault,
because
I
didn't
explain
correctly,
but
now
that
that
issue
has
been
resolved
and
they
understand
how
we
are
going
to
do
it.
Everybody
is
okay
and,
and
they
accept
it,
and
they
gave
me
a
letter
accepting
that
they
gave
me
a
letter,
granting
me
permission
to
do
that,
the
home
owner
association.
So
I
I
believe
I
include
the
letter
and
all
my
paperwork.
C
Okay,
yeah
there's
usually
restrictions
against
subletting
or
using
airbnbs,
or
things
like
that,
and
so.
But
if
you
have
a
no,
I
mean
it's
not
required
for
our
purposes,
but
you
know
I
would
like
to
know
if
it's
going
to
cause
any
problems
later
on
down
the
line
and
it
sounds
like
it's
not
so.
C
Okay,
are
you
I
know
mr
voorhees
did
this
and
one
of
the
recent
special
exception
applications,
but
are
you
willing
to
accept
all
these
conditions
that
you
put
in
your
application
as
conditions
that
are.
AD
Specialized
you
can,
we
can
set
up
our
own
rules
and
those
are
my
rules.
You
know
it's
just
going
to
be.
If
a
family
is
going
to
stay,
it's
going
to
be
two
adults
and
two
children
or
we
will
prefer
you
know
an
executive
or,
like
I
say,
a
professional
or
a
nurse
that
wants
to
start
for
a
long
period
of
time,
because
the
apartment
is
located
close
to
two
hospitals.
C
Yeah,
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
if
we
put
this
into
your
special
exception
there,
in
addition
to
being
your
rules,
they're
a
condition
of
your
special
exception.
So
if
any
of
these
are
violated,
you
risk
being
in
violation
of
your
special
exception
and
getting
that
revoked.
So,
for
example,
you
put
no
smoking,
no
pets.
C
AD
No,
no,
we
we
are
going
to
advertise
it
like
that,
like
no
pet
and
no
smoking,
even
though
our
neighbors
smoke
a
lot,
but
when
in
our
apartment
at
this,
we
are
not
going
to
allow
them
to
smoke,
but
also
no
parties
or
events.
They
are
not
going
to
be
allowed
or
permitted,
and
you
know
that
that
are
our
rules.
AD
C
Okay
and
how
long
were
you
looking
to
get
a
special
exception
under
the
code
you
can
get
up
to
10
years,
but
we
haven't
granted
any
of
those.
Yet
the
most
we've
done,
I
think,
is
five
years.
C
Okay,
well,
the
last
question
I
have:
are
you
going
to
be
giving
all
these
renters
those
parking
passes
so
that
they'll
be
on
their
cars.
AD
It's
just
one
at
the
time.
So
when
we
are
renting
the
apartment
we
are
going
to
provide
the
parking
permit,
so
they
don't
bother
the
neighbor
and
we
were
going
to
restrict
just
one
car
at
the
time.
So
everybody
is,
I
don't
want
to
bother
nobody
trying
to
be
a
good
citizen,
so
I
don't
want
to
bother
the
neighbors
okay.
C
AD
C
C
Board
members
questions
comments
or
a
motion.
C
Okay,
I
should
say
I
don't:
have
anyone
signed
up
to
speak,
but
is
there
anyone
on
the
line
that
wanted
to
speak
on
this
application.
D
C
Okay,
we've
got
a
motion
in
a
second
to
approve
the
variance
in
case
number,
one,
four,
seven,
seven,
four,
for
the
reason
that
it
meets
the
statutory
conditions
for
a
special
exception
for
a
period
of
five
years,
once
you're
able
to
cast
your
votes,
please.
C
I
accept,
I
almost
asked
that,
but
I
suspect
not
because
mr
privet
didn't
say
anything
and
I
don't
know
that
they're
necessarily
essential
for
us
granting
them.
C
D
C
So
we'll
incorporate
the
conditions
that
the
applicant
has
imposed
on
themselves
in
the
application.
Do
we
need
to
re-vote
on
that.
C
AB
Trying
to
find
that
button,
yes,
you
do,
because
you
want
to
include
all
of
it.
You
want
her
application
to
be
approved,
including
the
conditions
that
she
indicated
and
that
were
a
part
of
the
motion.
C
Oh,
I
guess
it's
back
to
being
available
to
vote
so
now
it's
approved
with
conditions
to
approve
the
special
exception
in
case
14774
for
a
period
of
five
years
and
incorporating
the
conditions
imposed
by
the
applicant
in
the
application.