CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, May
22, 2001, 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
|
Dunham,
Vice Chair |
|
Beach |
Jackere,
Legal |
|
Cooper Turnbo |
|
Butler |
|
|
White,
Chair |
|
|
|
|
Perkins |
|
|
|
The notice and agenda of said meeting was posted in the Office of INCOG, 201 W. 5th St., Suite 600, on Friday, May 18, 2001, at 2:00 p.m., as well as at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair, White called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit an outdoor flea market in a CG district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS – Use Unit 2, located 2626 W. Skelly Dr.
Mr. Beach announced that this case was continued from a previous meeting
in order to correct a legal description.
Staff received the legal description too late and notice has been given
for the June 12, 2001 hearing.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Continuance to the meeting on June 12,
2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit under Use Unit 5, private school, athletic
facilities, buildings and fields in the OM and RM-1 zoning districts. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS and SECTION 601.
PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE DISTRICTS – Use Unit 5; a Variance to
permit the minimum of 700 off-street parking spaces for the 2,800 seat capacity
football, soccer and track stadium bleachers to satisfy the combined off-street
parking requirements for the football, soccer and track stadium and the existing
baseball and softball fields.
SECTION 1205.C. USE UNIT 5.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SIMILAR USES, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Requirements; and a Variance to permit a part of the off-street parking spaces
required for the football, soccer and track stadium bleachers to be located on a
lot other than the lot containing the stadium. SECTION 1301.D. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, located E side of
S. Wheeling, N of E. 78th St.
Charles Norman stated that this case was continued to today to work out agreements with a developer of a residential project immediately north of the Victory Christian football/soccer complex. They have been unable to complete the written part of their negotiations. They jointly requested a continuance. There were no other interested parties at the prior hearings and there are none present today.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Continuance to the next meeting on June
12, 2001.
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of March 27,
2001 (No. 815).
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE the Minutes of April 10,
2001 (No. 816).
MINUTES:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board
voted 4-0-1 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; no "nays"; Cooper
"abstained"; no "absences") to APPROVE the amended Minutes of
Case No.18323, March 23, 1999 2001 (No. 769).
Action
Requested:
Variance of maximum height for a
fence in front yard from 4’ to 6’ along E. 36th St. SECTION 212.A.2. SCREENING
WALL OR FENCE, Specifications – Use Unit 6, located 3458 & 3460 S. Atlanta
Pl.
Presentation:
Mr. Beach stated the case was continued to today, but he has not received
a site plan, and the applicant is not present. The case would be to continue it again
or deny it without prejudice. A
fence was erected along 36th Street in violation of the height
restrictions on fences in the front yard.
Interested
Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Mr. Jackere advised the Board that the case is nearing the ninety-day
limit for Board action
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to DENY
the Variance of maximum
height for a fence in front yard from 4’ to 6’ along E. 36th St.
without prejudice.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required landscaping to substitute other plantings. SECTION 1002. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS and SECTION 1003. ADMINISTRATION – Use Unit 5, located 1706 N. Madison.
Presentation:
The applicant, John Purdy, was not present. Mr. Beach reminded the Board that since
the last meeting staff has met with applicant regarding the landscaping
plan. Mr. Beach believes that the
applicant knows what the requirements are now. He suggested that the case be continued
one more time, and stated other issues that have come up also.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Dunham,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to Continue
Case No. 19043 to the meeting on June 12, 2001.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Case No. 19048
Action
Requested:
Variance of required number of parking spaces from 616 to 599 to permit an existing apartment complex. SECTION 1208. USE UNIT 8. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AND SIMILAR USES – Use Unit 8, located 8028 S. Wheeling.
Presentation:
The applicant, Don Haslam, 502 W. 6th Street, stated he
is the attorney for the Lakes Apartments, LLC. He stated that when they were in the
process for re-financing, they received a zoning site report from the Planning
and Zoning Resource Corporation in Oklahoma City. The conclusion was that there is
not enough room on the property to re-stripe and add the extra seventeen parking
spaces. He understood that
the deficiency has been there since it was built in the early 1980’s.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper asked if the applicant thought the lack of parking spaces was
intentional or an oversight. Mr.
Haslam felt sure it was an oversight.
Mr. Jackere asked who consulted and decided that re-striping would not
help. Mr. Haslam replied that the
Lakes Apartment LLC is owned by Case Properties and they consulted with the
on-sight manager. Mr. Jackere
suggested that the spaces might be oversized, so they have too little
information to know what is needed.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On
MOTION
of Turnbo,
the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays";
no "abstentions"; no "absences") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19048 to the meeting on June 26, 2001, and bring the measurements of
the parking spaces, and a plan for reconfiguration of the parking lot.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to permit 190’ high monopole communications tower for
school and co-location with telecommunication companies. SECTION 301. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN THE
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT -- Use Unit 4, located N & W of NW/c of E.
71st St. & Mingo.
Presentation:
John Moody, 7146 S. Canton Ave., stated he represented Union
Public School and the Hemphill Corporation. He submitted the list of factors
with responses (Exhibit A-1) for a communications tower. The Union School District decided to
develop their own transmission network for telephone, computers, etc. The Hemphill Corporation in exchange for
a lease of the site for the tower will construct the towers at no cost to the
school district. The towers will be
engineered for collocation of other companies. This will be a substantial economic
benefit to the Union Schools. The
height of the proposed tower is 190’ monopole to serve the Union School and
Sprint PCS needs for collocation.
The tower would be more than 250’ from the nearest adjoining R district
and structures. The nearest
existing tower to the south of Sam’s is not available or adequate for
collocation. The surrounding uses
are ball fields, parking and heavy retail commercial uses. The topography is level, with the only
treed areas on the northwest corner of the subject tract. There will be two antennas initially
with capacity for four more antennas.
The utility buildings would be designed in such a way that they will not
be visible behind the planned landscape screening. Ingress and egress would be provided
through mutual access easement already in place. The tower is needed to provide service
to Union High School and to fill a coverage gap for Sprint PCS. The site is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and the most likely future development of the area. The tower would be secured by a
six-foot chain link security fence, one-foot barbed wire on top and Duraslat
fiberglass fillerstrips, and screened by landscaping.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White asked if there would be a need for more towers. Mr. Moody indicated there might be a
need for another tower to communicate with the system, and one other tower has
been approved. Mr. Moody
introduced Lee Snodgrass with Union Public Schools. Mr. Snodgrass stated that each
school has antennas on the roof for the present system. They are currently considering a
redundant system with a tower at the sixth grade center, but he does not
anticipate any of the other schools requiring a tower at this time. Mr. Cooper asked if the applicant
had a map to show the Sprint PCS coverage and gap in the area. Mr. Moody did not have the radio
frequency map. Mr. Moody stated
that they did hold meetings with the neighborhood residents to discuss any
concerns. Mr. Cooper expressed
concern that the tower is site specific and if they had a need for another
tower, it is possible that it might not be approved.
A site plan and letters from the school and Sprint were submitted to the
Board (Exhibit A-2, A-3, and A-4).
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special Exception to permit 190’ high
monopole communications tower for school and co-location with telecommunication
companies, per plan submitted and finding that all the required factors would be
met, on the following described property:
N 400’ of the
SE/4 SE/4 all in Section 1, T-18-N, R-13-E, IBM, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of lot area from 9,000 sq.
ft. to 8,867.03 and 8,853.97 sq. ft.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6; a Variance of land area
per dwelling unit from 10,875 to 10,635.22 and 10,835.78 sq. ft. SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance of required 75’ lot width to 71’4” to
permit a lot split in an RS-2 district.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 2420 S. Owasso
Pl.
Presentation:
Pat Fox, 320 S. Boston, Ste. 1710 withdrew the request for
variance of lot width. They
desire to obtain a lot-split. There
has been a historical precedence for this type of lot-split in the
neighborhood.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. White noted that the lot
width was reduced on the northerly lot and the balance was on the southerly
lot. Mr. Dunham noted that the case
had been advertised incorrectly.
The case could not be heard for this reason.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of
Turnbo, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper
"aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to CONTINUE
Case No. 19074 to the meeting on June 26, 2001 to allow time to
re-advertise.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the allowable size of
an accessory building from 750 sq. ft. to 2,064 sq. ft. SECTION 402.B.1.d. ACCESSORY USES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, Accessory Use Conditions -- Use Unit 6, located 7725 E.
25th Pl.
Presentation:
David Boley, 7725 E. 25th Pl., stated that he proposed
to build an accessory building but needs relief because it exceeds the 40% of
the principle residence. The permit
office could not determine the square footage of his house, but he stated it is
2,562 square feet. He has a 264
square foot pool house, and 317 square foot garage. He plans to tear down the garage if the
variance is approved. The building
is for a workshop, to store a boat, utility trailer, lawn and garden equipment,
and wood working tools. He added
that his property is one and a fourth acre. He submitted a packet with an
architectural drawing, photographs and other items (Exhibit B-1, B-2). He stated it would meet zoning code
requirements.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked about the stairs.
Mr. Boley replied the stairs are to a four-foot area for storage of
furniture and boxes. Mr. Dunham
noted that the plat of survey indicates the frame garage will be removed and
asked if any other building would be removed. Mr. Boley responded that he didn’t plan
to remove any more buildings. Mr.
Beach informed the Board that the applicant has not asked for enough
relief. The carport was not
figured into the square footage when the application was made. Mr. White informed Mr. Boley that he
could reduce the square footage for which he requests relief or ask for a
continuance to advertise for more relief.
Interested
Parties:
Charles M. Madden,
7705 E. 25th Pl., stated he is opposed to the application because the
property would have two structures the size of a home and it would detract from
the neighborhood. He felt that it
would set a precedent for more structures and decrease the value of the homes in
the neighborhood.
Robert
Peters,
15 E. 5th St., stated that he was representing several interested
homeowners in the Johanson Acres.
He submitted a petition of opposition (Exhibit B-3) to the application,
containing approximately 60 signatures from 30 homeowners in the area. They believe it will have a
negative impact and not be in harmony with the aesthetics in the
neighborhood. They believe any
hardship would be self-imposed.
Kurt Minnick,
7748 E. 24th, stated his backyard is adjacent to Mr. Boley’s
backyard. He stated the new
building would be very visible to the neighbors.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Perkins asked if the neighbors opposed the large metal barn that is
located to the east of the subject property. Mr. Minnick replied that he had taken
measures to communicate opposition to that structure also. Mr. Beach reminded Mr. Minnick to
contact Neighborhood Inspections if he feels there are code violations.
Interested
Parties:
Keith Conduff,
7735 E. 25th Pl., stated that the barn they are referring to is his
and it was built with a building permit.
He added that it is 750 square feet and complies with the Code.
Randy
McCollum,
7724 S. Canton, asked if it would have plumbing and sewage facilities. Mr. White responded that there are no
plans for plumbing or sewage.
Applicant’s
Rebuttal:
Mr. Boley,
stated that the building would look like his residence and he does not want his
property to decrease in value. He
pointed out that though he has a chain-link fence, there are trees and
considerable vegetation that screen his yard.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr.
Cooper noted if this structure were an addition to his house it would be
permitted by right.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Cooper, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance of the allowable size of an
accessory building from 750 sq. ft. to 2,064 sq. ft., finding a lack of a
hardship.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special Exception to allow a private gun club (Use Unit 2) and an indoor recreational facility (Use Unit 19) in an IL zoned district. SECTION 901. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 2/19; and a Special Exception for approval of an amended site plan (BOA 13755), located 5849 S. Garnett Rd.
Presentation:
V.M. Piland, 1660 E. 71st St., stated he is the
architect for the owner. They
propose to expand the size of the firing range.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked if this would include the repair of guns. Mr. Piland replied that it would include
everything as before the application.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Special
Exception to allow a private gun
club (Use Unit 2) and an indoor recreational facility (Use Unit 19) in an IL
zoned district; Special Exception for approval of an amended site
plan, per plan submitted today, finding that it will be in harmony with the
spirit and intent of the Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
Lots 1 and 2,
Block 2, 6000 Garnett Park Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of required front yard of
30’ down to 24’ in an RS-2 district.
SECTION 403. BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 6; a Variance to allow
three dwellings on one lot of record.
SECTION 207. ONE
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING PER LOT OF RECORD; and a Special Exception to allow a
mobile home in an RS-2 zoned district.
SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES
PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1201 S. 119th E.
Ave.
Presentation:
William Webb, 1201 S. 119th E. Ave., stated that the
existing residence has an entrance on the north side, and the address is from
119th on the west. The
City of Tulsa plans to reconstruct the drainage on the north side of his
house. He proposes to construct a
covered entry and a two-car garage on the west side of his house. He moved a mobile home on the property
in 1987.
Comments and
Questions:
Ms. Turnbo asked about the one story stone and frame dwelling, if it was another home between the existing home and mobile home. Mr. Webb replied that the small house was originally the second story of the big house before it was moved from another location. He added that it was roofed as a separate dwelling.
Interested
Parties:
There
were no interested parties present who wished to speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 4-1-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance of required front yard of 30’
down to 24’ in an RS-2 district, per plan submitted today, finding the existing
home and the City will be making drainage improvements on the north, causing
owner to relocate the direction he enters his garage.
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Variance to allow three dwellings on one lot
of record, finding it would cause substantial detriment to the public good or
impair the purposes, spirit, and intent of the Code, or the Comprehensive
Plan.
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins "aye"; Cooper "nay"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
DENY a Special Exception to allow a mobile home in
an RS-2 zoned district, finding that it would not be in harmony with the spirit
and intent of the Code, and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare, on the following described
property:
A tract of land
Beg. 355’ W and 845.68’ S of the NE/c NE/4 NW/4 thence W 280’; thence S 100’;
thence E 280’; thence N 100’ to a POB, Section 8, T-19-N, R-14-E of the IBM,
City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of the required side yard
setback from centerline of Norfolk from 45’ to 30’ to construct a carport on the
existing dwelling. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; and a Variance to allow a detached accessory building
in the front yard. SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located 1103 E. 35th
Pl.
Presentation:
Jeff Kraemaer, 1103 E. 35th Pl., proposes to put in a
two-car detached, aluminum carport in the front yard.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Dunham noted a former one-car attached garage on the house.
Interested
Parties:
David Paddock,
1101 E. 34th St., with Brookside Neighborhood Association, stated
they do not have an objection to the side yard setback. They do object to an accessory building
in the front yard.
Gabrielle W.
Jones,
1123 E. 36th St., stated she was not clear about the Code. She wanted clarification that a
detached carport is called an accessory building and requires a variance. She also questioned a single driveway
and a two-car carport. Ms. Turnbo
responded that he has to have all-weather surface to park his
car.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0 (White, Dunham,
Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no "absences") to
APPROVE a Variance of the required side yard
setback from centerline of Norfolk from 45’ to 30’ to construct a carport on the
existing dwelling, finding the size of the lot to prevent putting carport in
another place; and to APPROVE a Variance to
allow a detached accessory building in the front yard, for an open carport only
and not to waive the all-weather surface under carport, on the following
described property:
W 62½’ of S/2 Lot 1, Block 2, Amended Plat of Peoria Gardens Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception to allow an office (Use Unit 11) in an RM-2 zoned district. SECTION 401. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 11; and a Variance of the required rear and side setbacks
from 10’ to 5’1” (on all). SECTION
403. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN
THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, located W of NW/c E. 21st St. & S.
Boston.
Presentation:
John Walton, 1546 Swan Drive, stated
he is the architect on the project.
They proposed to build a two-story office building on the rear of the
property. Paul Corey wants to
preserve the Leonard-Chase-Ritz house. They propose to preserve the brick
and woodwork of the front façade of that house for the front façade of the new
office building.
Interested Parties:
Robert Collins, 6708 S. 67th
E. Ave., stated he owns the property to the east and north of the subject
property, and he has no objection to the application.
Comments and
Questions:
Mr. Cooper noted the staff comments mentioned the landscape
requirements. Mr. Beach pointed out
that the site plan did not meet the landscape requirements. Ms. Turnbo asked about the required
parking spaces. Mr. Walton replied
the requirement is for ten spaces, one handicapped space. Mr. Cooper asked for the hardship. Mr. Walton responded that preserving the
front façade for historic preservation.
Mr. Dunham added the small size of the tract and the surrounding uses are
not residential.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception to allow an
office (Use Unit 11) in an RM-2 zoned district; and a Variance of the required
rear and side setbacks from 10’ to 5’1” (on all), per conceptual site plan, that
all landscape requirements be met, finding the hardship to be the size of the
lot and the adjoining properties are not being used for residential purposes, on
the following described property:
West 62’ Lot 23
and 26, Block 1, Boston Addition, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Special
Exception for a Use Unit 4 “utility facilities” in an OL zoned district. SECTION 601. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED IN OFFICE
DISTRICTS -- Use Unit 4, and a Variance of one-story height limit in an OL zoned
district to two-story for enlargement of existing building. SECTION 603. BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS IN THE OFFICE
DISTRICTS, located 5303 E.
71st St. S.
Presentation:
Barbara Larson, 5929 N. Main, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, stated she is an architect representing Southwestern Bell. They propose to expand the existing
southern most building up one story for switching equipment.
Interested Parties:
There were no interested parties present who wished to
speak.
Board
Action:
On MOTION of Dunham, the Board voted 5-0-0
(White, Dunham, Turnbo, Perkins, Cooper "aye"; no "nays"; no "abstentions"; no
"absences") to APPROVE a Special
Exception for a Use
Unit 4 “utility facilities” in an OL zoned district; and a
Variance of one-story height limit in an OL zoned district to
two-story for enlargement of existing building, on condition that the relief is
only for the southern most building, finding the hardship to be the size of the
lot, per plan, on the following described property:
Beg. at the SW/c SE/4 SW/4 Section 3, T-18-N, R-13-E, thence N 00º00’34” E a distance of 1,321.04’; thence S 89º50’27”E a distance of 329.98’; thence S 00º00’43” W a distance of 1,321.12’ to a point on the S line of Section 3; thence N 89º49’38” W a distance of 329.93’ to the POB, City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.
Action
Requested:
Variance of 3’ requirement from property line for an accessory building down to 17”.