CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES of Meeting No. 782

Tuesday, October 12, 1999, 1:00 p.m.

Francis F. Campbell City Council Room

Plaza Level of City Hall

Tulsa Civic Center

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT

MEMBERS ABSENT

STAFF PRESENT

OTHERS PRESENT

 

 

 

 

Cooper

 

Arnold

Prather, Legal

Dunham, V. Chair

 

Beach

Parnell, NBH Insp.

Perkins

 

Stump

Ackermann, Zoning 

Turnbo

 

 

 

White, Chair

 

 

 

                                                          

The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of the City Clerk on Friday, October 8, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., as well as in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices.

 

After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

MINUTES:

        On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 3-0-1 (Dunham, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", Perkins "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE the Minutes of September 28, 1999 (No. 781).

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Case No. 18488

      Action Requested:

        Variance of the required parking from 285 spaces to 173 spaces to permit the expansion of a sanctuary to 9,954 square feet for Parkview Baptist Church. SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5.  COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Use Unit 5, located 5805 South Sheridan.

 

      Presentation:

        The applicant, Mitchell D. O'Donnell, submitted a site plan (Exhibit A-1) and stated that Rev. David Willets, 8212 South 73rd East Avenue, will make the presentation for the church.  Rev. Willets stated that he is the Sr. Pastor at Parkview Baptist Church located at 5805 South Sheridan.  Rev. Willets mentioned that a few years ago the church considered relocating.  The church decided not to move because of the positive relationship with the neighborhood.  Rev. Willets mentioned that they would like to expand the seating in their sanctuary facility within the next few years.  If the church expands, they would have a problem meeting the parking requirements.  Rev. Willets stated that their neighbors the Woodland View Shopping Center, presently lets the church use their parking lot to accommodate their Sunday morning attendance.  Rev. Willets submitted a signed, good-faith agreement (Exhibit A-2) stating the shopping center's approval of the agreement.  Rev. Willets asked the Board to count the parking spaces in the Woodland View Shopping Center that is adjacent to the church property in order to satisfy the parking requirements for future expansion.  Rev. Willets informed the Board that if, for some reason, the parking spaces were to become unavailable, the church is committed to shuttling their members from other parking lots nearby. 

 

      Interested Parties:

        None.

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Ms. Turnbo asked Rev. Willets if the agreement is a lease agreement?  Rev. Willets replied that it is a Revocable Parking License Agreement for 99 spaces. 

 

        Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if, in the event the agreement is canceled, the church will provide the necessary parking elsewhere?  Rev. Willets replied that the church will provide the parking from other lots and shuttle the congregation to the church facility. 

 

        Mr. White asked the applicant if they have met with the neighbors?  Rev. Willets replied that they have not met with the neighbors in person but the church mailed out a letter to the neighborhood explaining what the church is proposing to do. 

 

        Mr. Dunham inquired as to how long the church has been using the parking on the shopping center lot?  Rev. Willets replied that they have been parking there officially for several years.  Unofficially, for about 15 years per a verbal agreement.

 

        Ms. Turnbo asked the pastor when the church anticipates building the new sanctuary?  Rev. Willets stated that the parking issue is the first step.  They realize that there is a time limit on any approval and if they do not start construction within that time period they will submit a new application. 

 

        Mr. White asked Staff if the 285 spaces figure is based on the expanded sanctuary?  Mr. Beach replied affirmatively. 

 

        Rev. Willets mentioned to the Board that the church leases a building adjoining the shopping center parking lot and they have a financial lease agreement that provides them 10 spaces there, in addition to the 99 spaces. 

 

      Board Action:

On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE Variance of the required parking from 285 spaces to 173 spaces to permit the expansion of a sanctuary to 9,954 square feet for Parkview Baptist Church. SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5.  COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements – Use Unit 5, subject to the church maintaining a written agreement for parking in the area to provide the necessary parking spaces for the sanctuary expansion, on the following described property:

 

That part of the SW/4 of the SW/4 of Section 35, T-19-N, R-13-E of the IBM, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, more particularly described as follows:  Beginning at the NW/c of the said SW/4 of the SW/4 of said Section 35; thence N 89°58.8276’ E along the N line of said SW/4 a distance of 408.38’; thence S 0° 13.5000’ E a distance of 504.88’; thence due W a distance of 408.38’ to a point on the W line of said SW/4; thence N 0° 13.5000’ W along the said W line a distance of 504.74’ to the point of beginning.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18500

Action Requested:

Variance of the required 60’ setback from the centerline of Memorial to 56’. SECTION 1221.C.6. USE UNIT 21.  BUSINESS SIGNS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, General Use Conditions for Business Signs – Use Unit 12 OR an interpretation of the centerline of right-of-way of Memorial, located 3150 South Memorial.

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Mr. Beach informed the Board that the applicant has requested a continuance (Exhibit B-1) to November 9, 1999.

 

      Board Action:

On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to CONTINUE to the meeting of November 9, 1999. 

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18509

Action Requested:

Variance of maximum display surface area of a sign from 150 square feet to 307 square feet. SECTION 604.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 5 and a Variance of the requirement of constant light to allow an electronic message center. SECTION 604.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 7800 South Lewis.

 

      Presentation: 

        The applicant, Brian Ward, 9520 East 55th Place, submitted a site plan (Exhibit C-1) and stated that Victory Christian Center would like to construct a new sign.  The current sign was installed as a temporary sign.  Victory Christian Center has approximately 1,400 lineal feet along Lewis Avenue.  Mr. Ward explained that the electronic message center is similar to what is on the Oral Roberts property down the street.  Mr. Ward submitted photos of the sign and the property (Exhibit C-2). 

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Ms. Perkins asked Mr. Ward if they will remove the old sign?  Mr. Ward replied affirmatively. 

 

      Board Action:

On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 3-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Variance of maximum display surface area of a sign from 150 square feet to 307 square feet. SECTION 604.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS – Use Unit 5 and a Variance of the requirement of constant light to allow an electronic message center; finding that the Board had approved a similar sign at ORU which is across the street and to the south SECTION 604.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN OFFICE DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, per plan submitted and subject to the removal of the existing sign, on the following described property:

 

S/2, NE, SE, less E 50’, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18523

Action Requested:

Variance of the required rear yard from 25' to 15' in an RS-1 District to permit new construction. SECTION 403.A. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Bulk and Area Requirements in the RE, RS, RD, RT and RM Districts – Use Unit 6, located 2600 Block of 33rd Street East of Birmingham Avenue.

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Mr. Beach informed the Board that the applicant has requested a continuance.  The request was not timely. 

 

      Presentation:

        The applicant, Jack Arnold, 7318 South Yale, Tulsa, OK, stated that he is the architect for the homeowner. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Mr. White asked the applicant to explain his reason for the continuance request.  Mr. Arnold replied that they are trying to get some input from a landscape architect.  Depending upon the outcome, they may not need all the relief asked for. 

 

        Mr. White asked the interested parties present if it would be a problem to continue the application for two weeks?  The protestors stated that they would like the case heard today since this will be the second request for continuance. 

 

        Mr. Arnold mentioned that he could present the case to the Board today. 

 

      Additional Comments and Questions:

        Jack Arnold, 7318 South Yale, Tulsa, OK, informed the Board that he has been speaking with the protestors of this case and he would like to withdraw his application.

 

      Board Action:

        Withdrawn by Applicant.  No action taken.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

NEW APPLICATIONS

 

Case No. 18524

        Action Requested:

Variance of the allowable size for an accessory building from 750 square feet to 1,800 square feet. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6 and Variance of the required rear yard maximum coverage. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, located 3732 South 27th West Avenue.

 

      Presentation:

        The applicant, Park Dudley, 3732 South 27th West Avenue, submitted a revised site plan (Exhibit D-1) and stated that he would like to move the accessory building to the north side of the property.  Mr. Dudley explained that it would allow him to have a back yard and would relieve the need for the variance of the required rear yard coverage.  That would leave 75' east and west of backyard space

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Mr. White asked the applicant how far north he wants to move the building?  Mr. Dudley replied that the building will be 10' from the property line.  The building will face north. 

 

        Mr. Beach asked Mr. Dudley how close the building will be to 37th Place?  Mr. Dudley replied 35'.  Mr. Beach asked the applicant how large the building is and he replied that it will either be 30' x 50' or 30' x 60'. 

 

        Mr. White asked the applicant what the purpose of the building is.  Mr. Dudley stated that the building will be utilized as a garage for an antique truck and a woodworking hobby.  There will be no commercial activity in the building.

 

        Mr. Beach informed the Board that according to the new plan (Exhibit D-3), the applicant needs to move the building south 10' to meet the setback requirement from 37th Place.  It will occupy 300 square feet (less than 20%) of the required rear yard and he does not need the relief on yard coverage. 

 

      Interested Parties:

        Martha Wright, stated that she and her husband have lived on the property directly west for 33 years.  Ms. Wright stated that she is opposed to the building because it is too large and will block the sunlight from coming into their house. 

 

      Applicant's Rebuttal:

        Mr. Dudley explained that the previous building placement would block the neighbor's entire yard so he decided to move the building towards the front.  Mr. Dudley submitted photos of the neighborhood (Exhibit D-2) showing other residences with detached garages and many of them do not meet the Zoning Code requirements. 

 

        Mr. Stump reminded the Board of a hardship requirement on the size of the structure.  Mr. Dudley stated that he recently moved from a 1,700 square foot house to a 1,000 square foot house with no garage or shed.  With all of his garage type hobbies he needs a garage of this size. 

 

        Mr. White asked the applicant how tall the building will be and Mr. Dudley replied 12' in the front and the peak is 16'. 

 

        Mr. Beach asked the applicant if he is proposing to reduce the size of the building to 30' x 50'?  Mr. Dudley replied affirmatively.  Mr. Beach stated that the size will be 1,500 square feet instead of 1,800 square feet. 

 

        Mr. Stump pointed out that most of the other accessory buildings in the area are smaller than 750 square feet.  Mr. Stump stated that the 30' x 50' building is about the size of a seven car garage. 

 

        Mr. White stated that moving from a large residence to a small one is a self-imposed hardship. 

 

      Board Action:

On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to DENY a Variance of the allowable size for an accessory building from 750 square feet to 1,800 square feet. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions – Use Unit 6 and Variance of the required rear yard maximum coverage. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions, on the following described property:

 

Lot 1, Block 26, Original Town of Red Fork, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma

 

 

Comments and Questions:

Mr. Beach stated that the applicant, Mr. Park Dudley, has requested reconsideration (Exhibit D-3) and submitted a redesigned plan for the proposed garage.  Mr. White stated the protestors are no longer present. 

 

Mr. Beach informed the Board that they may reconsider the case now without the protestors being present or they may postpone the reconsideration to a new meeting date and give notice to those protestors. 

 

      Board Action:

On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", Cooper "abstentions”; no "absent") to RECONSIDER Case No. 18524 at the meeting of November 9, 1999 and new notice shall be given to the interested parties present. 

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18525

Action Requested:

Special Exception to allow a mobile home in a RM-1 district. SECTION 401.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Variance to permit a mobile permanently. SECTION 404.E.1.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, located 2024 North Joplin.

 

      Presentation:

        The applicant, Roberta Reser, Route 2 Box 275, Catoosa, OK, submitted a site plan (Exhibit E-1) and stated that they would like to put a mobile home on the subject property. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if they plan to have skirting and tie downs?  Ms. Reser replied affirmatively.

 

        Ms. Reser explained to the Board that personal hardship kept them from acting on the previous approval in 1995.  That approval has since expired and they are applying for exactly the same thing. 

 

      Interested Parties:

        Mr. Stump stated that he received a call from Councilor Turner's office, District 3,  reiterating his objection to mobile homes in his district. 

 

      Board Action:

On MOTION of DUNHAM, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to allow a mobile home in a RM-1 district. SECTION 401.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9 and a Variance to permit a mobile home permanently. SECTION 404.E.1.  SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, REQUIREMENTS, subject to the mobile home being tied down and skirted, per plan submitted, on the following described property:

 

Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, Original Townsite of Dawson, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18526

Action Requested:

Special Exception to allow one single-family dwelling per lot in a CH zoned district. SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, located South of SE/c East Latimer & North Quaker.

 

      Presentation:

        The applicant, Gary Casteel, submitted a site plan (Exhibit F-1) and stated that he is the Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity in Tulsa that owns the two subject lots.  Mr. Casteel mentioned that there is not a commercial building on the entire block.  All the lots are utilized as residential single-family lots.  Mr. Casteel stated that Habitat for Humanity is currently building two other houses in the neighborhood. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Ms. Turnbo asked if the plan submitted will be used for both lots?  Mr. Casteel replied affirmatively.  The houses will each be about 1,100 square feet.

 

      Interested Parties:

        None.

 

      Board Action:

On MOTION of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to allow one single-family dwelling per lot in a CH zoned district. SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 6, the houses must meet the RS-4 yard requirements, on the following described property:

 

Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, Capitol Hill 2nd, a Resub of Lots 1 & 2, Block 4, Capitol Hill 2nd, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18527

        Action Requested:

Special Exception to allow office use (Use Unit 11) in a RM-1 zoned district. SECTION 603.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, located 3404 East 33rd Street.

       

      Presentation:

        The applicant, Chad Stites, 1918 East 51st Street, submitted a site plan (Exhibit G-1) and stated that he would like to use part of a single-family residential dwelling formerly used as a daycare.  Mr. Stites proposes to take the westernmost house and using it as a residence with approximately 300 square feet to be used as a small office. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Mr. White inquired about whether or not this office would be classified as a "home occupation"?  Mr. Stites replied that he would not reside there, his handicapped daughter would.  He would be able to be close to her during the day and get some work done while there. 

 

        Mr. Beach stated that the resident has to be the one conducting the business and since his daughter would be living in the home it is not classified as a home occupation.  

 

        Mr. Stump reminded the applicant of the parking requirements and he stated that he would have no problem meeting the requirement. 

 

      Interested Parties:

        None.

 

      Board Action:

        On MOTION of TURNBO the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to allow office use (Use Unit 11) in a RM-1 zoned district. SECTION 603.  BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 11, subject to the office being limited to 300 square feet, on the following described property:

 

The W 70' of E 140' of the W 160' of N 120', Block 23, Albert Pike Sub., City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18528

Action Requested:

Special Exception to permit a mobile home in a CH District. SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, located 13454 East 11th Street.

 

      Presentation:

        The applicant, Steve J. Melton, 17301 East Admiral Place, Tulsa, OK, submitted a site plan (Exhibit H-1) and stated that he owns the subject property.  He bought the property in 1995 and the mobile home was existing at that time.  The request is not for a new mobile home but for one that has been existing for over 20 years. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Mr. Dunham asked Ms. Parnell what precipitated the application?  Ms. Candy Parnell, Code Enforcement, stated that her office is doing a "sweep" in the 11th Street area from 129th to 145th East Avenue.  They are taking down some vacated buildings.  She was checking zoning in the area and this property came up.  There were some problems with Mr. Melton's property in reference to junk cars and other trash and weeds.  In researching the property, she could not locate a permit for the mobile home. 

 

      Interested Parties:

        Bob Johnson, 15324 East 13th Street, stated that he is the President of the Tower Hills Neighborhood Association.  Mr. Johnson is opposed to the application.  For the past ten months the neighborhood association has been working with the City to clean up the area from 11th Street to 129th and 145th East Avenue.  They have asked various businesses to voluntarily to clean up their businesses.  When the business has not done so voluntarily, Code Enforcement steps in.  Mr. Melton's business is becoming an eyesore along 11th Street and it looks like an auto salvage.  Mr. Johnson urged the Board to deny the application.

 

        Mr. White asked Mr. Johnson if he has any problem with the mobile home.  Mr. Johnson replied affirmatively. 

 

        James Martino, stated that he is a member of the Tower Hills Neighborhood Association.  Mr. Martino submitted information packets (Exhibit H-2) relating to the subject property.  He explained what the packet contained including the location of the various photos.  Mr. Martino is concerned about where the lateral line are located because the entire property is on septic and the cars cover most of the property. 

 

        Mr. White asked Staff if the CH zoning allows auto salvage?  Mr. Stump replied negatively.

 

        Councilor Art Justis, District 6, stated that he is opposed to the mobile home.  Councilor Justis reiterated that they are trying to clean-up the area and this property is an eyesore.  Councilor Justis asked the Board to deny the application. 

 

      Applicant's Rebuttal:

        Mr. Melton stated that he does not own the business he owns the property.  The property is leased to the auto repair business.  Mr. Melton informed the Board that the auto repair business has taken care of the complaint and cleaned up their business. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Ms. Parnell mentioned to the Board that the problem with CH zoning is that vehicle storage is allowed and you can have vehicles that are being repaired.  Ms. Parnell stated that she has had several conversations with Alan Jackere, City Legal Department about what the time frame is that a vehicle awaiting parts can stay parked.  They have not come to a clear answer about that problem.  Ms. Parnell stated that this business is not pretty but it does not have the appearance of an auto salvage. 

 

        Mr. Dunham asked the applicant if the mobile home is being used as an office or a residence?  Mr. Melton stated that the man he bought the property from lived there and it is currently utilized as a residence. 

 

        Ms. Perkins asked the applicant about the septic system and the lateral line?  Mr. Melton replied that he is not sure where the septic system is because he has not had any problems with it. 

 

        Mr. White stated that this property is a single pocket of CH zoning in the area.

 

        Ms. Turnbo feels that the mobile home should be moved out and the sweep is a good idea to clean up an area.

 

      Board Action:

        On MOTION of TURNBO, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to DENY a Special Exception to permit a mobile home in a CH District. SECTION 701.  PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS – Use Unit 9, finding that it is injurious to the neighborhood, on the following described property:

 

N 165.5', E 198', NW, NE, NW, less E 25' for street, Section 9, T-19-N, R-14-E, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18529

        Action Requested:

Special Exception to allow a 6' wrought iron fence in the front yard - increased from the allowable 4' fence. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards, located South of SW/c East 45th Street & South Columbia Avenue.

 

      Presentation:

           The applicant, Sanjay D. Meshri, 4420 South Columbia Avenue, Tulsa, OK, submitted a site plan (Exhibit I-1) and photos (Exhibit I-2).  Mr. Meshri stated that he would like to put a wrought iron fence around the two properties.  There is a pond on the property and the fence would protect the pond.  The property is relatively flat and there are no grade changes.  There are four properties in the area that have similar fences.  Mr. Meshri stated that the property is 35,000 square feet and the fence will be 880' linear feet.  The problem that the variance applies to is an area of about 140' on two different properties. 

 

      Comments and Questions:

        Mr. White asked the applicant if any of the variance pertains to the cul-de-sac area on 46th Street?  Mr. Meshri replied yes, a small section.

 

      Interested Parties:

        None.

 

      Board Action:

On MOTION of PERKINS, the Board voted 4-0-0 (Dunham, Perkins, Turnbo, White "aye"; no "nays", no "abstentions”; Cooper, "absent") to APPROVE a Special Exception to allow a 6' wrought iron fence in the front yard - increased from the allowable 4' fence. SECTION 210.B. YARDS, Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards, per plan submitted, on the following described property:

 

Lot 6, Block 1, Birmingham Terrace 2nd and Lot 2, Block 10, Villa Grove Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

 

*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.

 

Case No. 18530

        Action Requested:

Approval of an amended site plan of a previously approved plan (BOA 16661 & BOA 16462) to add room addition on north end of dwelling, located 12833 East 35th Street South.

 

      Presentation: