15th and Carson

[PonderInc]

This is the sad state of Tulsa.  The BOA should have approved this with flying colors and been grateful for the chance to improve this site and Tulsa's tax base.  (OK, assuming they went with Option 1, which is terrific; not Option 2, which is fugly.)  This faces 15th street.  It's respectful (in scale and tone) of the historic neighborhood.  It's a couple blocks away from Boulder Towers--so nobody should say it's too much density.  It's surrounded by commercial lots.  It's EXACTLY the correct location for this type of development, and the design is great (again, Option 1).  This design is pedestrian-oriented (it's attractive, human-scaled, and the garage access is from the alley, it's not monolithic, it has balconies to add "eyes on the street", etc, etc). So why did this not get approved?  Crazy!

If the developer can't wait for the new zoning code, which would allow them to re-zone and build this "by right," they should just get a PUD and do their plan.  It's appropriate for the site, and it adds density, it's respectful of the neighborhood, and the pedestrian would enjoy their experience walking by.  It's actually a terrific example of what Tulsa needs.  And it would help people understand the benefits of adding density via a nice development in the right place.

[Conan71]

This is the sad state of Tulsa.  The BOA should have approved this with flying colors and been grateful for the chance to improve this site and Tulsa's tax base.  (OK, assuming they went with Option 1, which is terrific; not Option 2, which is fugly.)  This faces 15th street.  It's respectful (in scale and tone) of the historic neighborhood.  It's a couple blocks away from Boulder Towers--so nobody should say it's too much density.  It's surrounded by commercial lots.  It's EXACTLY the correct location for this type of development, and the design is great (again, Option 1).  This design is pedestrian-oriented (it's attractive, human-scaled, and the garage access is from the alley, it's not monolithic, it has balconies to add "eyes on the street", etc, etc). So why did this not get approved?  Crazy!

If the developer can't wait for the new zoning code, which would allow them to re-zone and build this "by right," they should just get a PUD and do their plan.  It's appropriate for the site, and it adds density, it's respectful of the neighborhood, and the pedestrian would enjoy their experience walking by.  It's actually a terrific example of what Tulsa needs.  And it would help people understand the benefits of adding density via a nice development in the right place.

Just one more example of how the city and/or it's planning arms ignore the smart development that study after study says we need.

[PonderInc]

The problem is not the city's planning department, and it's not really even incog staff. It's mostly the entrenched, uneducated, good ol boys who are appointed to the TMAPC and BOA. They are clueless and powerful. Sad.

[Conan71]

The problem is not the city's planning department, and it's not really even incog staff. It's mostly the entrenched, uneducated, good ol boys who are appointed to the TMAPC and BOA. They are clueless and powerful. Sad.

And I didn't mean to point my finger at city planners nor INCOG either.  I know people at both who are very innovative.  Looking at the slate of TMAPC members there's at least one who was appointed in 1984?  Seriously?

[carltonplace]

TMAPC should have approved this; there was no opposition from the neighborhood, just some comments and questions. If the developer and the neighbors are basically in synch then what is the problem?

I think the TMAPC should have to comment on the particulars to which they disapprove.

[rdj]

TMAPC should have approved this; there was no opposition from the neighborhood, just some comments and questions. If the developer and the neighbors are basically in synch then what is the problem?

I think the TMAPC should have to comment on the particulars to which they disapprove.

Did anyone from the 'hood show to support the development?  That would certainly help, I would think.

I don't know the specifics but from reading the minutes of the meeting (I wasn't there and haven't seen it on TGOV) the BOA was concerned about a ruling they made at 21st & Cheyenne.  Anyone know about that?

[carltonplace]

The neighborhood was represented and have had a few meetings with the developer. Mostly the neighborhood supports this project except for the usual few who think that single family homes are the only correct fit for infill. 

21st and Cheyenne was bitterly opposed by the adjacent homeowner who rallied the neighborhood against that project. But even then it had a a few dings against it.
First it was way too big for the lot and it bumped right up to the house next door.
Second, the only access was from 21st one way onto Cheyenne or into a small alley.

[Bamboo World]

The application was denied by the BOA, not the TMAPC.

I live in the neighborhood but did not attend the BOA hearing.  In fact, I didn't even know about the proposal until after the case had been presented to the BOA.  A neighbor who had gone to both BOA meetings told me.  According to my neighbor, the vote was as evenly split as it can be with the BOA:  40-60.

The proposal needed only one more vote to be approved. 

Also:  The BOA wasn't approving/denying a certain building style or appearance.  The applicant was seeking relief from a very large setback requirement along 15th Street, because it's designated as an arterial.  As I understand the case from my neighbor, the applicant was requesting no setback at all from the existing sidewalk/property line along 15th Street, instead of the required 35 or 40 feet or whatever it is. 

IMO, the applicant was asking for too much.  Requesting 10 or 15 feet instead of zero would have been more reasonable, and consistent with existing setbacks of the few buildings remaining along 15th Street in the vicinity.