PRESERVEMIDTOWN.com

[pmcalk]

I don't like the website, either.  I think that equating bad infill development with terrorist threat levels is distasteful (though I am not crazy about the whole "color warning" thing anyway).  Still, I think most people when they get passionate about something tend to go a little overboard.  I know I am guilty of that sometimes.  Having heard RM's battery/toy lecture, I know he can do the same sometimes.[]

[RecycleMichael]

I am clearly over the top in my speeches, but my website information is not.

But that point is well made. I probably turn some people off to my cause because to them, I sound like a preacher screaming on a downtown intersection.

There must be some self-help book I can read that would make me normal, but nobody will help me find it.

[Rose]

Boo,
You summed it up well.  

Waterboy,
You were close re: my being a realtor -- so what?

But, I'm not sure what you found condescending about what I said.  

I do agree about changing the laws and not attacking the property owner who is following the quidelines and just wants to build a house.  It would be great if we were all on the same page.  That may be a pipe dream.

There is a home in Mapleridge that is for sale.  In it's day it was beautiful.  My realtor showed it to me and I was shocked at the condition.  It appeared to be a good buy -- under $500,000.  Unfortunately it needs close to that to bring it back.  The condition scared me off!  Since it is on 2 lots, it will probably come down.  I doubt the people selling it care as long as they get their money back.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by 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).

What I meant by "the requirement for the Core Area as defined in the Zoning Code" was precisely that.  For some reason, most likely lost to memory to all members of the TMAPC and to nearly everyone else in Tulsa (except perhaps for Charles Norman), a dwelling in Tulsa is required to have a minimum area of 400 square feet, and that area must be a square itself.

Here is the definition in the Zoning Code:

quote:
Title 42
CHAPTER 18

DEFINITIONS

Section 1800. Definitions.

Core Area: Core Area shall mean a contiguous habitable floor area, under roof, irrespective
of interior walls, at least 20 feet by 20 feet in size.

Of course this excludes townhouses narrower than 20 feet from being allowed as dwelling units in Tulsa.  That's a shame, because a 16 foot wide townhouse, if properly designed, can be a wonderful dwelling.  I think the definition of "Core Area" ought to be changed, but as it is, it would prevent the construction of a dwelling on a 25 foot wide lot.

I don't remember the exact size of the lots I once owned, but I think they were 25 feet wide and 142 feet deep with no alley, and abutting a 60 foot wide non-arterial street.  The zoning district was RM2.  Applying Tulsa's splendid Zoning Code to one of these non-conforming lots would result in a buildable area 15 feet wide by 122 feet long, and a land of area of 4,300 square feet.  The lot area would be 3,550 square feet, which would not meet the minimum requirement for a lot with a single-family dwelling in an RM2 district.  

Non-conforming lots are addressed in Section 1404 of the Zoning Code:

quote:SECTION 1404. NONCONFORMING LOTS

A. In residential districts on any lot filed of record on or before July 1, 1970, or on any lot of record in a subdivision approved by the Planning Commission, or on any lot of record for which a recorded instrument of conveyance bears the endorsement of the Planning Commission and such lot is nonconforming by reason of failure to meet lot area requirements, a single-family detached dwelling may be erected without complying with the required lot area, land area per dwelling unit, or livability space per dwelling unit; provided however, livability space per dwelling unit shall not be less than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. If an existing lot as described above is nonconforming as to lot width and is a corner lot, a single family detached dwelling may be erected without complying with the required side yard which abuts a public street, provided however, such side yard abutting a public street is at least five (5) feet wide and provided that garages which are accessed through this side yard abutting a street are set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet.

Let's suppose the owner of a 25 foot by 142 foot lot wants to build a 400 square foot Mini-Mansion on the lot.  Assume the size of the dwelling unit to be 15' x 26'-8".  Let's also assume that the owner wishes to park two of his four Alfa Romeos on a 153 square foot portion of the lot which is to be paved with a hard surface, dust-free material capable of withstanding normal weather conditions without substantial deterioration.

The resulting livability space would be 3,550 square feet (the lot area) minus 400 square feet (the area of the detached single-family dwelling) minus 153 square feet (the area of the two required off-street parking spaces).  The livability space would be 3,550 - 400 - 153 = 2,997 square feet, which would far exceed the minimum of 200 square feet of livability space required.  The livability space would be 84% of the lot area (2,997/3,550).

Assuming the 15 foot wide Mini-Mansion to be constructed in the middle of the lot:

Front yard setback:  57'-8", which is greater than the 10 feet required.  Check.

Rear yard setback:  57'-8", which is greater than the 10 feet required.  Check.

Side yard requirement:  Each 5 feet.  Check.

Lot area requirement:  Exempt by Section 1404.  Check.

Land area requirement:  Exempt by Section 1404.  Check.

Livability space requirement:  84% of the lot area, which exceeds the 50% minimum required by Section 1404.  Check.

Off-Street parking space requirement:  2 all-weather material (unlike the dusty parking lot south of the Blue Dome) spaces provided, which meets the minimum.  Check.

Core Area requirement:  20' x 20' is the minimum allowed, so a 15 foot wide dwelling would not meet the minimum.  

Unless there is some exception to the Core Area requirement somewhere in the Zoning Code (and I wouldn't be too surprised if there is), a 25' wide non-conforming lot would be too narrow for the construction of dwelling meeting the requirement for Core Area as defined therein.

However, a dwelling with 6 inch thick exterior walls could be built on a non-conforming lot as narrow as 31 feet wide in an RM2 district, and the mere possibility of this happening in Tulsa ought to be cause for PreserveMidtown's grave concern.

It's worth a blue teardown alert level, at the very least.  [:O]

       

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk


I wouldn't judge them solely on their website.

But their website is the subject (and title) of this discussion topic -- and I don't have much else on which to base any judgment.  I have noticed only one of the yard signs.  The first time I saw the sign, it wasn't in a yard at all -- it was in the right-of-way of 16th Street.  That makes it public property and illegal, no matter what PreserveMidtown has printed on Post-It notes based on incorrect information from Neighborhood Inspections.  

The signs have "PreserveMidtown.com" on them, so I assume that the primary purpose of the signs is an advertisement for their website.  At first glance, their website rubs me the wrong way with its silliness.  I went to their website in earnest, looking for sincerity and substance.  After seeing a fence built literally right up to the curb at 13th and Lawton, and after spending a considerable chunk of my time in an effort to convince doubting City officials that the fence actually did exist, I was curious to know where houses are being built right up to the curb in Midtown Tulsa (as is stated in the masthead of PreserveMidtown.com).  For all I know, and especially after my rather unpleasant experience with evasive City officials and employees regarding the fence built right up to the curb at 13th and Lawton, developers very well could be building houses right up to the curb somewhere in good ol' (boy) Tulsey Town.  If their statement is an exaggeration, fine.  Then what is meant by the phrase "right up to the curb" in their opinion?  Does that mean close to the curb?  If so, how close?  When I say that I saw a fence built right up to the curb at 13th and Lawton, I mean it was built right up to the curb.  I am not exaggerating one tiny bit.

I've asked a simple question.  So far, you are the only person who has attempted to answer it, and you are guessing maybe they mean something like the Metro Lofts on Troost.  If PreserveMidtown expects to convince the City Council to change the Zoning Code, then they had better read and thoroughly understand Section 204, Section 1404, and the definition of "Lot of Record" in Section 1800 of the Code.  When dealing with the City Council, with land use attorneys (such as you-know-who), and with the TMAPC, it is better to be precise and factual than it is to be vague and exaggerative.  If they can't answer my simple question, then I don't have much hope for their success in the Francis Campbell Meat-grinding Room.  

At this point, I'd say their website is vague and exaggerative, especially their home page.  While some of the posted articles are interesting and informative, they also are mostly general in scope instead of specific to Tulsa.  I was somewhat amused by the "Tulsa World takes notice" post from July 28th.  Talk about going to the experts:  World Publishing is most certainly a leading authority on the subject of teardowns and inappropriate infill in Districts 4 and 9.      

[booWorld]

Alfa Romeos...now how did spell check miss that one?

Anyway, I hope my calculations are correct...

[Rose]

Really!  Tulsa World -- Remember when Lorton tore down that old Deco house so he could build France next to Cascia -- with a wall higher than anyone else could get approved by the city?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Have you had a chance to drive by 30th & Detroit?

Yes, I did drive there to take a look.  There does seem to be a significant amount of infill on that block.

I've also been by the Lofts on Troost.  I'd estimate that they are about 26 feet from the curb of Troost Ave.  That neighborhood has a variety of setbacks.  The Arlington Arms were built at the corner of St Louis Ave and 14th St approximately 77 years ago.  That building is much closer to the curbs of both St Louis and 14th than the new Lofts are to the curb of Troost.

I've taken a quick look at the infill house at 27th St and Florence Drive.  It appears to be closer to the curb of Florence Drive than the existing house to the northeast, but about the same distance or a bit farther from the curb of 27th St than the existing house to the west.  Also, the new house doesn't appear to be sheathed in Masonite siding.

Lortondale was developed about 50 years ago on what had been a farm owned by the Lorton family.  The houses in Lortondale don't look anything like the Lorton house which they replaced.  The Lorton house actually looked more like the McMansions that PreserveMidtown criticizes than the Modern houses of Lortondale, except the Lorton house had huge setbacks and acres of open space around it.  Lortondale is a much denser development than the farm it replaced.  

I drove by the Terwilleger Peaceful Acres at 38th and Lewis.  I will need to read more about this case because I don't understand all of the issues there, and the lots in question are currently vacant.  Also, I don't understand Chris Halliwell's claim that the neighborhood plat is a mockery of urban planning.  According to the zoning map posted on INCOG's website, all lots abutting that block of 38th St are zoned RS-1.  The variation between the RS-1 and the RS-2 districts, in terms of allowed densities and setbacks, is not very significant compared to, for example, the variation between the RS-4 and RM-2 districts (which the TMAPC decided to intermix in my neighborhood in the 1990s).  I don't see the zoning of Terwilleger Peaceful Acres to be a "worst-case scenario" when there are far worse cases of zoning disparity in my own neighborhood.  Chris Halliwell's article fails to make that clear.  I think I'm missing part of the story.

I think the idea of conservation districts has merit.  Perhaps PreserveMidtown's efforts will bring about some long-needed changes in Tulsa's land use policies.  They have a very difficult battle ahead, because as energy and land costs rise, there will be increasing pressure to use the available land in Tulsa more intensely, not less.  Economic pressures will make it tremendously difficult to maintain low density suburban areas as they have been since the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.
 

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Have you had a chance to drive by 30th & Detroit?

Yes, I did drive there to take a look.  There does seem to be a significant amount of infill on that block.

I've also been by the Lofts on Troost.  I'd estimate that they are about 26 feet from the curb of Troost Ave.  That neighborhood has a variety of setbacks.  The Arlington Arms were built at the corner of St Louis Ave and 14th St approximately 77 years ago.  That building is much closer to the curbs of both St Louis and 14th than the new Lofts are to the curb of Troost.

I've taken a quick look at the infill house at 27th St and Florence Drive.  It appears to be closer to the curb of Florence Drive than the existing house to the northeast, but about the same distance or a bit farther from the curb of 27th St than the existing house to the west.  Also, the new house doesn't appear to be sheathed in Masonite siding.

Lortondale was developed about 50 years ago on what had been a farm owned by the Lorton family.  The houses in Lortondale don't look anything like the Lorton house which they replaced.  The Lorton house actually looked more like the McMansions that PreserveMidtown criticizes than the Modern houses of Lortondale, except the Lorton house had huge setbacks and acres of open space around it.  Lortondale is a much denser development than the farm it replaced.  

I drove by the Terwilleger Peaceful Acres at 38th and Lewis.  I will need to read more about this case because I don't understand all of the issues there, and the lots in question are currently vacant.  Also, I don't understand Chris Halliwell's claim that the neighborhood plat is a mockery of urban planning.  According to the zoning map posted on INCOG's website, all lots abutting that block of 38th St are zoned RS-1.  The variation between the RS-1 and the RS-2 districts, in terms of allowed densities and setbacks, is not very significant compared to, for example, the variation between the RS-4 and RM-2 districts (which the TMAPC decided to intermix in my neighborhood in the 1990s).  I don't see the zoning of Terwilleger Peaceful Acres to be a "worst-case scenario" when there are far worse cases of zoning disparity in my own neighborhood.  Chris Halliwell's article fails to make that clear.  I think I'm missing part of the story.

I think the idea of conservation districts has merit.  Perhaps PreserveMidtown's efforts will bring about some long-needed changes in Tulsa's land use policies.  They have a very difficult battle ahead, because as energy and land costs rise, there will be increasing pressure to use the available land in Tulsa more intensely, not less.  Economic pressures will make it tremendously difficult to maintain low density suburban areas as they have been since the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.
 

The problem on 38th (or is it 37th?) is that the original plat of that neighborhood had something like a 40' front yard setback.  Then in the 1970's, INCOG adjusted the zoning to RS-1, which allows for a 25' setback.  My actual footages might be off, but the point is that a new house being built there can be built much closer to the curb than the existing houses.

I'm not one opposed to infill, but I can see the point that the homeowners on that block are making....

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

The problem on 38th (or is it 37th?) is that the original plat of that neighborhood had something like a 40' front yard setback.  Then in the 1970's, INCOG adjusted the zoning to RS-1, which allows for a 25' setback.  My actual footages might be off, but the point is that a new house being built there can be built much closer to the curb than the existing houses.

I'm not one opposed to infill, but I can see the point that the homeowners on that block are making....

It's 38th St.  I think I'm missing part of the story.  Chris Halliwell's post mentions something about a mixture of RS-2 and RS-1 zoning.  According to the INCOG map, it's all RS-1.  The required front yard setback in an RS-1 district is 35 feet, not 25 feet.  

I'm not sure why the front yard setback couldn't be set by deed restrictions or some type of covenant for the subdivision.  After reading Chris's post on PreserveMidtown.com and driving the street, the case doesn't sense to me.

[pmcalk]

^I don't think the INCOG map is correct.  As I recall, the neighborhood, once they discovered that they were zoned RS-2, petitioned to be upzoned to RS-1.  By the time the case was heard, a developer had already petitioned to split a lot based on RS-2 zoning.  He, of course, did not want his property rezoned.  TMAPC recommended, and city council adopted rezoning to RS-1 of all the property on that street except for the one lot (now two).  The INCOG map doesn't seem to show that.

Private covenants are very hard to create, once a subdivision is sold off.  There was thought that terwilliger had convenants, but I heard that the court determined they weren't valid.  Covenants are frequently struck down in our state.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

^I don't think the INCOG map is correct.  As I recall, the neighborhood, once they discovered that they were zoned RS-2, petitioned to be upzoned to RS-1.  By the time the case was heard, a developer had already petitioned to split a lot based on RS-2 zoning.  He, of course, did not want his property rezoned.  TMAPC recommended, and city council adopted rezoning to RS-1 of all the property on that street except for the one lot (now two).  The INCOG map doesn't seem to show that.

Private covenants are very hard to create, once a subdivision is sold off.  There was thought that terwilliger had convenants, but I heard that the court determined they weren't valid.  Covenants are frequently struck down in our state.

I wonder what it takes to have INCOG actually create and maintain accurate maps of the various zoning districts in Tulsa.  Seems to me that this would be one of their prime responsibilities.

Do you happen to know if the two lots which are still RS-2 are on the south side of the street where the house at 2238 E 38th St was?  There is a vacant lot on the north side of the street also, but it appears to be a single lot.

I think the residents of Terwilleger Peaceful Acres are due accurate information from INCOG and the TMAPC.  I'd like to see some major revisions to our Zoning Code, but in the meantime, Tulsans need a Code which is stable and predictable.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

^I don't think the INCOG map is correct.

It sounds as though the Board of Adjustment has some maintenance to do.

From the Tulsa Zoning Code:

quote:
SECTION 201. OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED
The locations and boundaries of the various districts as defined herein shall be
established by ordinance and shall be shown and delineated on the Official Zoning Map of the
City of Tulsa. The Official Zoning Map shall be maintained by the Board of Adjustment of the
City of Tulsa, and may be divided into parts, and such parts may be separately employed for
identification purposes when adopting or amending the Official Zoning Map or for any
reference to the Official Zoning Map.


SECTION 202. DISTRICT BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION AND
INTERPRETATION
District boundary lines shall be described by legal description or by a map. When a
legal description is used, the boundary line shall be deemed to extend to the centerline of
abutting streets and shall be so designated on the Official Zoning Map. When a map is used,
district boundary lines shall be established by dimensions, property lines, recorded lot lines, or
the centerline of abutting street, alley, or railroad rights-of-way, as the same were of record at
the time of adoption. In all cases where there is doubt as to the exact location of district
boundary lines, the same shall be determined by the Board of Adjustment.

Come on, Board of Adjustment members!  The residents of Peaceful Terwilleger Acres and all Tulsans deserve to have an accurate Zoning Map (assuming that the map is inaccurate or outdated as pmcalk suspects).  How else are we supposed to obey the Zoning Code if we don't know where one zoning district ends and another begins?

[booWorld]

I've heard that Mayor Taylor is looking for Tulsans to serve on authorities, boards, and commissions.  According to INCOG's wesite, the terms of 3 of the 5 members of the Board of Adjustment expired in May.  If the Zoning Map is indeed outdated and if the current Board of Adjustment members are not willing to maintain that map, then I suggest that some PreserveMidtown members who are actually willing to serve on the BOA submit their names to Mayor Taylor's office.

[booWorld]

I'm not associated with this event, but I received this announcement yesterday:

PreserveMidtown in association with The Coalition of Historic Neighborhoods of Tulsa

is pleased to announce our first forum and panel discussion

Taming the Teardown:  A Moratorium to Save our Heritage

Tuesday October 16, 2007, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm

All Souls Unitarian Church, 2952 S. Peoria, Tulsa