PRESERVEMIDTOWN.com

[booWorld]

Where are those houses built right up to the curb?

[Rose]

Chris-
Forget the location of the signs -- we've seen those.  WHERE ARE THE HOUSES built right up to the curb?
Rose

[waterboy]

The same place the wmd's are. Why don't you guys stop boring us with the same question over and over and stick to the issues of inner city re-development. Like how we're all going to get rich by tearing down our period homes and how stupid Maple Ridge people are.

[booWorld]

The statement about developers building houses right up to the curb is topical because it is on the Preserve Midtown website.  The link is included in the first post of this thread.

The subject is Preserve Midtown.  I avoid those topics which I think are boring.  Anyone who is bored by my questions isn't forced to read them.  

It's a simple question.  It ought to have a simple answer.  I haven't strayed from the topic.  

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

The statement about developers building houses right up to the curb is topical because it is on the Preserve Midtown website.  The link is included in the first post of this thread.

The subject is Preserve Midtown.  I avoid those topics which I think are boring.  Anyone who is bored by my questions isn't forced to read them.  

It's a simple question.  It ought to have a simple answer.  I haven't strayed from the topic.  

Never said you strayed. The question has been asked numerous times and apparently they don't feel obligated to answer. That is boring. Do you have issues that you can discuss or are you intent on avoiding a real discussion? Simple question.

I asked another simple question earlier a couple times and it was not answered by teardown enthusiasts. I'll ask it in a different way. What Southside, gated housing edition would allow me to teardown two of their existing, style conforming homes and replace them with one Lortondale gravel flat top roof, 1200ft home then price it at $75 per foot? The answer is ...none. But you want come into our existing neighborhoods and convert them to your view of suburban lifestyle and expect us to welcome you with open arms?!

[booWorld]

I'm not the one avoiding discussion.

This topic is not boring to me at all.  It goes to the heart of some of TulsaNow's principles regarding land use.  I'm glad that tim huntzinger started this discussion.

Please note the fitting title of the topic:  PRESERVEMIDTOWN.com.  At a glance, it's easy to see that this particular thread has something to do with that particular website.      

By clicking on the link to the Preserve Midtown Tulsa website, I found the following sentences:

quote:
The tapestry of Tulsa's neighborhoods is threatened.

Interesting...I wonder who thinks this is true and why.

quote:
Developers dwarf and devalue our homes when they build oversized houses to boast of ever-greater square feet.

Which developers?

Oversized houses by whose standards?

Developers devalue whose homes how?  Offhand, I'd think it would be the reverse.  If a developer built a house (however hideous or gigantic) of greater value next to an existing house of less value, then I'd think that the new house would bolster the value of the smaller existing house.

quote:
They exploit a 36-year old citywide zoning mistake, flatten homes, split lots, and build houses right up to the curb.

What citywide zoning mistake?

Where exactly are homes being flattened?  How many have been flattened and when were they flattened?

Are developers splitting lots?  How often has this happened and where?  There is a process for requesting a lot split.  Are developers getting special treatment in this process?  Should the process be changed, and if so, how?

Where are houses being built right up to the curb?  I'd love to see those houses.  I haven't noticed any houses in Tulsa built right up to the curb, but I did see a fence a few years ago built very close to the curb at Riverside and Lawton.  When I called the Mayor's Action Center to report a fence being built on public property, the Action Center receptionist questioned me, saying that there was no way that what I was telling her could be true.  She was insistent that I was either wrong or lying to her.  I was neither.  After taking measurements from the curb to the fence, I drew a detailed map to scale and hand delivered it to Mayor LaFortune's office.  It took some time, but eventually the fence was removed.

At this point, Preserve Midtown doesn't have much credibility in my book.  Their accusations are vague and their goals are ill-defined.  I'm not sure what their geographic definition of Midtown Tulsa is, and I'm not certain exactly what they are trying to preserve.  Their tactic of placing signs in public streets, regardless of what someone at Neighborhood Inspections happened to tell them, is illegal.  I've seen only one of their signs, and it was on public property as I mentioned in a previous post.  Today I noticed that the sign had been moved to private property.  

The very first sentence of the very first post of this topic said that these signs are popping up all over Midtown.  If so, do illegal signs popping up all over a neighborhood tend to devalue its homes?  I would think so, but maybe not.

I'm trying to be part of the discussion here.  Otherwise, I wouldn't have taken the time to post.  For anyone who is bored by my posts, here is some quick advise:  If you see my moniker, then don't bore yourself by reading the words to the right of it.    

[pmcalk]

^BooWorld, I'll try to answer a few questions, though I am not affiliated with PreserveMidtown.  First, it's important to recognize that many older houses were built long before our current zoning code, which establishes the setbacks, frontage, etc.... for each differently zoned residences. Many of these homes were built with larger side and front set backs.  When a house is rebuilt, neighbors are upset that the traditional setbacks are not followed, though legally they don't have to be.  Thus, the feeling that the new houses dwarf the neighborhood.  Again, I would encourage you to drive down Detroit between 30 and 31st.  Several of the large, multi-garaged houses replaced smaller, one story bungalows.  They sit further forward than the rest of the street, and the side setbacks are much less than the original houses.  

Lot splits occur very frequently, and yes there is a process, but it is very cursory.  As long as you have the required frontage/bulk requirements on the resulting two, you can legally split the lot.  Unfortunately, many (probably most) people don't know what residential category their neighborhood falls into, and hence their frontage (and other bulk) requirements.  Until they start seeing lots split, they don't realize their neighborhood is prone to such.


As for the zoning mistake, I believe they are referring to the zoning provision dealing with nonconforming lots, which allows for houses to be built on lots that don't meet zoning requirements, if they didn't meet the requirements at the time the zoning code was adopted.  However, many older neighborhoods were originally platted with small lots (MapleRidge has 50'), the idea being that builders would buy up several lots upon which to build.  Legally, the city currently sees each one of those small plats as a non-conforming lot.  Even though a single house may have existed on two or three 50' lots for 75 years, and even though the zoning code might require more frontage, a developer is legally entitled to tear down the house, and divide the lot into three "non-conforming" uses, and build three new houses.

As for increasing/decreasing the value of the neighborhood, the jury is still out on that.  While it seems to make common sense that more expensive houses will increase the value of the neighborhood, the National Register has made some very good arguments that the teardown phenomenon is actually a manifestation of increased property value, not the opposite.  And as teardowns become prevalent in a neighborhood, the homeowner's investment in his or her home becomes worthless, since the only value is in the land.

I don't know what they meant by houses built to the curb.  The Lofts over on Troost are pretty close.  Some people love them, some people hate them.

I appreciate that you are simply asking questions.  I wouldn't dismiss the group, though.  It contains many thoughtful, concerned citizens.  Many people in midtown are very frustrated at the number of houses torn down in their neighborhood.  It may seem a little reactionary, but most grassroots efforts are.

[Rose]

A non-conforming lot is a lot that existed prior to the zoning change.  It is not a lot created by a lot split.  

It would be unfair to take away existing rights of a property owner.  Some houses were built on one lot and have side yards that are legsal lots.  The house is torn down and two houses built - one on each existing lot (non-conforming in some cases).  What is wrong with that?  

A couple of weeks ago a relative told me that she had heard that a lady living in the Utica Square area had approached a developer because she wanted to sell her house.  She knew it was going to be worth more for the land than it would have been for her old house.  It will soon be torn down and something much nicer will be put in its place.  It will probably sell during construction -- rather than sit there on the market for a year or more.

That is the reality of it and I don't think that can be changed.  The "preserve" signs are junky looking.  I think that group should tour all the run down houses for sale in midtown and clue in.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Rose

A non-conforming lot is a lot that existed prior to the zoning change.  It is not a lot created by a lot split.  

It would be unfair to take away existing rights of a property owner.  Some houses were built on one lot and have side yards that are legsal lots.  The house is torn down and two houses built - one on each existing lot (non-conforming in some cases).  What is wrong with that?  

A couple of weeks ago a relative told me that she had heard that a lady living in the Utica Square area had approached a developer because she wanted to sell her house.  She knew it was going to be worth more for the land than it would have been for her old house.  It will soon be torn down and something much nicer will be put in its place.  It will probably sell during construction -- rather than sit there on the market for a year or more.

That is the reality of it and I don't think that can be changed.  The "preserve" signs are junky looking.  I think that group should tour all the run down houses for sale in midtown and clue in.

You a realtor@? Or just involved in pimping for the builder/developers? Your remarks are so telling and so condescending. If we'll all just let you clean up our old, junky, run down neighborhoods and just clue in to the new reality....

Sell it sister!

edit: Then can we tour all the rundown houses south of 61st?

[izmophonik]

The reality of this is pure economics.  You're not going to talk anyone into fixin' up their 84 year old home (I own one) if it is going to be cheaper and more profitable for them to tear it down.  I'll take hard cash over "feeling good" and giving the 'Preserve Mid-Town' movement a big group hug.  I am personally remodeling my home but I'm keeping it like it is.  I'm not doing it for any reason other than economics.  I'll make more money on it by keeping it original than tearing it down.  For some, it is the opposite and more power to them. It seems that most people really care about the "Preserve Mid-Town" movement are folks who live in 'nice' old homes.  If I was one of those people I might feel differently..but I'm not.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Rose

A non-conforming lot is a lot that existed prior to the zoning change.  It is not a lot created by a lot split.  

It would be unfair to take away existing rights of a property owner.  Some houses were built on one lot and have side yards that are legsal lots.  The house is torn down and two houses built - one on each existing lot (non-conforming in some cases).  What is wrong with that?  

A couple of weeks ago a relative told me that she had heard that a lady living in the Utica Square area had approached a developer because she wanted to sell her house.  She knew it was going to be worth more for the land than it would have been for her old house.  It will soon be torn down and something much nicer will be put in its place.  It will probably sell during construction -- rather than sit there on the market for a year or more.

That is the reality of it and I don't think that can be changed.  The "preserve" signs are junky looking.  I think that group should tour all the run down houses for sale in midtown and clue in.

I will agree there are some properties in the area that have alot of deferred maintenance.....But as far as your statements of houses sitting on the market for a year thats uncommon for properties that are priced right and correct location.....i.e. not on a main street such as 31st and Yorktown......

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

When a house is rebuilt, neighbors are upset that the traditional setbacks are not followed, though legally they don't have to be.  Thus, the feeling that the new houses dwarf the neighborhood.

So PreserveMidtown is upset with developers who are abiding by the Zoning Code?  Seems to me the focus should be on getting the law changed, not trashing developers who are obeying it.

quote:Lot splits occur very frequently, and yes there is a process, but it is very cursory.  As long as you have the required frontage/bulk requirements on the resulting two, you can legally split the lot.  Unfortunately, many (probably most) people don't know what residential category their neighborhood falls into, and hence their frontage (and other bulk) requirements.  Until they start seeing lots split, they don't realize their neighborhood is prone to such.

Again, this seems to be a case of PreserveMidtown's mis-directed anger toward developers instead of the zoning requirements.  If developers are receiving preferential treatment, then I can understand PreserveMidtown's concern.  But if developers are splitting lots according to the standards for the applicable zoning districts, then the standards themselves are the issue, not the developers.  One problem I have with our current Zoning Code is the huge disparity of allowed density amongst the various residential districts.  For example, the differences between the setback and density requirements for the RM2 and RS4 districts are remarkable, but the TMAPC has recommended a hodge-podge of rezoning in my neighborhood which has placed RM2 districts directly adjacent to RS4 districts.  Time and time again, I have volunteered to work with the TMAPC to develop finer gradations among the residential districts but to no avail.  My offers have either been ignored or refused.  When I've taken vacation time to attend TMAPC meetings, I've been treated with extreme rudeness by INCOG staff and by one former planning commissioner in particular.  I know some of the people who have signed the PreserveMidtown petition, and I think they also have been frustrated by the TMAPC and our current land use process.

quote:As for the zoning mistake, I believe they are referring to the zoning provision dealing with nonconforming lots, which allows for houses to be built on lots that don't meet zoning requirements, if they didn't meet the requirements at the time the zoning code was adopted.  However, many older neighborhoods were originally platted with small lots (MapleRidge has 50'), the idea being that builders would buy up several lots upon which to build.  Legally, the city currently sees each one of those small plats as a non-conforming lot.  Even though a single house may have existed on two or three 50' lots for 75 years, and even though the zoning code might require more frontage, a developer is legally entitled to tear down the house, and divide the lot into three "non-conforming" uses, and build three new houses.

I see this as big problem, and I think it stems from definition of "Lot of Record" in Section 1800 of the Zoning Code.  I suppose that lots platted after 1970 would need to conform to Section 204, but that lots platted prior to 1970 could be split according to the provisions of Section 1404 A.  Is there more to the problem than that?  I imagine that most Tulsans would think that if a parcel consisting of several lots of record or portions of lots had been titled since at least 1970 as a single piece of real property, then the parcel could not be split unless the split would result in two or more parcels which each met the minimum lot requirements for the district.  At one time, I owned some property west of downtown which consisted of 25 foot wide lots.  I did not notice any single lots being used for new homes, but that might have been because a house built on a lot that narrow could not have met the side yard requirements and the requirement for the Core Area as defined in the Zoning Code.  I don't see any exceptions in Section 1404 A for a relaxation of the Core Area requirement.  I think PreserveMidtown's efforts would be better spent in trying to get the City Council to close loopholes such as this one instead of giving out signs with pre-printed Post-It notes outlining incorrect and illegal placement guidelines.

quote:As for increasing/decreasing the value of the neighborhood, the jury is still out on that.  While it seems to make common sense that more expensive houses will increase the value of the neighborhood, the National Register has made some very good arguments that the teardown phenomenon is actually a manifestation of increased property value, not the opposite.  And as teardowns become prevalent in a neighborhood, the homeowner's investment in his or her home becomes worthless, since the only value is in the land.

I'd say the jury is still out.  The value of real property is a combination of the value of the land itself and the value of the improvements built on that land.  While the pressure to tear down may increase in such a situation, it would be because the overall value of the land and its improvements had risen to a level in which the improvements were expendable.  The homeowner's investment in his or her home would not be worthless.  This process has happened many times in Tulsa as land has been transformed from prairie to farmland to low intensity residential use to higher intensity residential use, and then in some cases to commercial use.  With our current zoning codes and land use policies, I don't see much hope for PreserveMidtown in preserving Midtown (and I'm not sure what that means).  Infill is very likely to occur.  Change is inevitable.  PreserveMidtown can't rely on current mechanisms such as HP overlay zoning to prevent inappropriate infill.

quote:I don't know what they meant by houses built to the curb.  The Lofts over on Troost are pretty close.

If those lofts are built within the required front yard for the district, then that's one thing.  If they are built over the sidewalk near the curb line of Troost, then that's another.  My guess is that those lofts conform to the required setbacks to the district, but I could be wrong.  After seeing the fence being built very near the curb at Riverside and Lawton, I would not be totally shocked to see a house built near the curb somewhere in Midtown.  If this is actually happening, then it ought to be simple enough for someone associated with PreserveMidtown to post some addresses.

quote:I appreciate that you are simply asking questions.

Thanks.  It's nice to know that I'm not boring everyone with my questions.

quote:I wouldn't dismiss the group, though.  It contains many thoughtful, concerned citizens.  Many people in midtown are very frustrated at the number of houses torn down in their neighborhood.  It may seem a little reactionary, but most grassroots efforts are.

I haven't dismissed the group, and I know some of those concerned citizens.  I'd love to know the number of houses which have been torn down recently in Midtown.  How many?  Where?  When?  Mapping the destruction would help PreserveMidtown detect patterns and to formulate a defense plan.
 
Their website does seem to be too reactionary.  The YouTube link to a McMansion Attack cartoon is silly.  The yard signs are annoying.  The plea for monetary donations is a turn-off.  The campaign is relatively new, so they have a chance now to get specific about what's going on in Midtown.  I want to read about actual trends in Tulsa, not ambiguous accusations.  

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:As for the zoning mistake, I believe they are referring to the zoning provision dealing with nonconforming lots, which allows for houses to be built on lots that don't meet zoning requirements, if they didn't meet the requirements at the time the zoning code was adopted.  However, many older neighborhoods were originally platted with small lots (MapleRidge has 50'), the idea being that builders would buy up several lots upon which to build.  Legally, the city currently sees each one of those small plats as a non-conforming lot.  Even though a single house may have existed on two or three 50' lots for 75 years, and even though the zoning code might require more frontage, a developer is legally entitled to tear down the house, and divide the lot into three "non-conforming" uses, and build three new houses.

I see this as big problem, and I think it stems from definition of "Lot of Record" in Section 1800 of the Zoning Code.  I suppose that lots platted after 1970 would need to conform to Section 204, but that lots platted prior to 1970 could be split according to the provisions of Section 1404 A.  Is there more to the problem than that?  I imagine that most Tulsans would think that if a parcel consisting of several lots of record or portions of lots had been titled since at least 1970 as a single piece of real property, then the parcel could not be split unless the split would result in two or more parcels which each met the minimum lot requirements for the district.  At one time, I owned some property west of downtown which consisted of 25 foot wide lots.  I did not notice any single lots being used for new homes, but that might have been because a house built on a lot that narrow could not have met the side yard requirements and the requirement for the Core Area as defined in the Zoning Code.  I don't see any exceptions in Section 1404 A for a relaxation of the Core Area requirement.  I think PreserveMidtown's efforts would be better spent in trying to get the City Council to close loopholes such as this one instead of giving out signs with pre-printed Post-It notes outlining incorrect and illegal placement guidelines.

I presume by "core requirements" you mean total area per dwelling units, which does not have to be followed in a non-conforming lot (nor the livability requirements).  However, I believe (for the most part) you have to follow front and side yard set backs, which might explain why no one would build on a 25' lot (nothing would be left).

quote:

quote:I wouldn't dismiss the group, though.  It contains many thoughtful, concerned citizens.  Many people in midtown are very frustrated at the number of houses torn down in their neighborhood.  It may seem a little reactionary, but most grassroots efforts are.

I haven't dismissed the group, and I know some of those concerned citizens.  I'd love to know the number of houses which have been torn down recently in Midtown.  How many?  Where?  When?  Mapping the destruction would help PreserveMidtown detect patterns and to formulate a defense plan.
 
Their website does seem to be too reactionary.  The YouTube link to a McMansion Attack cartoon is silly.  The yard signs are annoying.  The plea for monetary donations is a turn-off.  The campaign is relatively new, so they have a chance now to get specific about what's going on in Midtown.  I want to read about actual trends in Tulsa, not ambiguous accusations.  

As for your other comments, I believe that their main focus is upon changing the zoning code.  First, they want to close the loophole that allows non-conforming lots to be used for multiple houses, even though only one has been built in the past.  Second, they want to allow for neighborhoods to adopt conservation zones.  While you could tinker with the setback, bulk requirements in the zoning code, each neighborhood is different, particularly those older ones.  They would like for neighborhoods who so choose to define their setbacks and heighth restrictions.  To do so, they must convince people in power that they have support.  And the way they go about getting people to come on board is to create reactionary websites.  Personally, I don't see them attacking developers so much as showing the worst examples they can find of infill.  It's just how you motivate people.  I wouldn't judge them solely on their website.

As for mapping out actual trends, that costs a lot of money.  Somewhere, they do have to solicit money, if they want to get their word out.

Have you had a chance to drive by 30th & Detroit?  I believe there has been around 5 houses torn out and rebuilt this year.  To me, 5 houses on one block is a lot.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
...To do so, they must convince people in power that they have support.  And the way they go about getting people to come on board is to create reactionary websites.  Personally, I don't see them attacking developers so much as showing the worst examples they can find of infill.  It's just how you motivate people.  I wouldn't judge them solely on their website.

That is good advice.

I should take it. I really respect and like the people I know involved in this group, but the website words have kept me from embracing them. I felt bad when one of them offered me a sign at a neighborfest and I said no.

I read the website and agreed with BooWorld. The over the top language on it scared me away from joining a group filled with folks that I believe in.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
...To do so, they must convince people in power that they have support.  And the way they go about getting people to come on board is to create reactionary websites.  Personally, I don't see them attacking developers so much as showing the worst examples they can find of infill.  It's just how you motivate people.  I wouldn't judge them solely on their website.

That is good advice.

I should take it. I really respect and like the people I know involved in this group, but the website words have kept me from embracing them. I felt bad when one of them offered me a sign at a neighborfest and I said no.

I read the website and agreed with BooWorld. The over the top language on it scared me away from joining a group filled with folks that I believe in.

Why? It hasn't stopped you from joining  the Kathy Taylor glee club. Transformational? Make Life Better? It doesn't get any more over the top than that. You make this too easy. You can't play Double A, cause I ain't the one.