Many Brookside resident homeowners, business owners  and  city Urban Design staff meet together over several years to complete  the  Brookside Infill  Study Plan.  It was completed in May, 2002 and  “action  taken” in December, 2002.  However, it was never adopted into the  current  zoning plan.  We are providing copies of the residential infill  part of  this plan for you to read and study.  Ask your city councilor why this plan was not enacted into  our current zoning plan.  View the Design Policies for the infill here.

You can still have some influence in the construction process by helping the city monitor that the builder is compliant on building regulations.

1. You have the right to check the demolition and building permits at the city permit office, 111 S. Greenwood.  These permits should be acquired by the builder before the action begins. 
2. A building plan should be on file with the building permit.  You can get a copy on request, 596-9656 or online https;//secure2.cityoftulsa.org/TimeLine3/planreview.aspx  Check the plan to make sure the house being built is the one that was permitted.  Report any discrepancy to the Mayor’s Hot Line, 596-2100 & to the Permit Office, 596-9656.
3. If the builder does not take adequate measures to stop run-off of silt and debris from his site, please call the Mayor’s hot line, 596-2100 and Scott Van Loo, 591-4379 to report. 
4. Continue reporting the lack of erosion control until it is corrected.  Silt is the biggest contributor to storm drains backing up and flooding.
5. Call the Mayor’s hot line anytime you see someone empty paint or other debris emptied into the storm drain, 596-2100.  This is an unlawful act.  Get a license number.
6. Contact your city councilor about any of the above problems.  They need to know what is happening in their district!

Clogged storm drains are a major factor contributing to neighborhood flooding.

These are good ways we can protect our neighborhoods.

The Conservation District Ordinance for Tulsa is under review by the TMAPC.

If enacted, a Conservation District would have to be adopted by an organized neighborhood to be enforceable.  The neighborhood would decide what characteristics of their neighborhood they would like to maintain.  A Conservation District Ordinance is a tool that neighborhoods can elect to use.  The city will not force neighborhoods to become a Conservation District. 

A Conservation District will allow an organized neighborhood group to ELECT to set limits on issues like setbacks, structure heights and open space requirements that are compatible with the existing homes in that neighborhood.

A Conservation District does not regulate aesthetics of homes.

Communities routinely make investments and create land use policies that affect property values for the greater good. Regulating infill development is no different. It affects the quality of life and character of the community at large.  Although some may frame the issue as an intrusion on the property rights of the owner who wants to sell or knock down their house and build something new, it is important to remember that it works both ways.  Teardowns affect the property rights and investments of neighbors who have to live with the results.  With property rights come responsibilities.

The highest and best use does not always mean the most profitable use imaginable.

Go to the following Batesline website to listen to Michael Bates discuss Conservation Districts with Darryl Baskin on 1170 AM radio KFAQ.  Learn more about this new idea for Tulsa land use planning.                                                                      http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/03/neighborhood-conservation-distri.html

Author: Brian L . Freese, AlA Editor and Tulsa architect

 Downtown Tulsa was recently the recipient of a distinctly inauspicious award, when earlier this year Preservation Oklahoma placed the entire Tulsa Central Business District at the top of their annual 11 “Most Endangered Properties list. The public announcement of the 2005 list was highlighted in a full-page article in the February 1, 2005 issue of the Tulsa World.  POk has been assembling and publicizing this list for over 10 years and bases it on a similar model used by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The publication of this annual list holds up to the public eye those buildings and properties of intrinsic significance that have suffered such long term neglect and abandonment that their continued existence is perilous, and their destruction is often imminent. This action, in turn, exposes any parties planning the demolition of such properties and also galvanizes communities to take action to ensure the preservation and successful  reuse of those properties. 

Given that Preservation Oklahoma’s annual list has, to date, mainly named individual buildings, their identification of our entire downtown core emphasizes the gravity of our downtown’s ongoing dismemberment. lf the news of our downtown’s dubious new status were not enough of a blow,then the deafening silence that has followed has been even more damning. Very little public acknowledgement has been made by any of our local politicians, nor from our various city and urban development entities, nor from any of our local citizen groups and the protests following the announcement from a small group of concerned individual were largely ignored.  One can only infer from such an visible inaction an overwhelming apathy and ennui to this issue throughout our city, or that this is considered by many –elected representatives in particular– to be a thorny and unpopular issue.

In fact, this is perhaps one of the best and most critical of all times to embrace this as an opportunity with substantial reward. Alternatively, to ignore the issue at this of all times will surely cause the ultimate demise of our urban landscape, even with our planned new downtown facilities. What we are talking about here is a fundamental urban planning issue that may quite literally determine the success or failure of our citizen-approved Vision 2025projects slated for downtown Tulsa. The new structures and infrastructure intended to help spark our urban redevelopment will materially effect our downtown’s urban fabric–its vehicular flow, its overall infrastructure, its appearance, its visual impact—such that they become in themselves tools of urban planning.  Any effort devoted to an urban revitalization is in effect an urban planning effort.   Effective downtown building preservation is the first and simplest component of effective urban planning.  Every city has its own unique character that distinguishes it from every other city.  That uniqueness is found in the geography, climate, natural amenities, citizens, and itshistory and development made physical and real in the structures of commerce,government and entertainment built over the generations of time. Tulsa has its own very unique character embodied and best revealed in its own downtown buildings. Tulsans know well our city’s proud legacy of one of the country’s most extensivecollections of American Art Deco architecture (even with our abysmal record ofchristening so many with a wrecking ball).  We virtually defined that era with ourarchitecture.  For this city and its citizens to meekly allow the ongoing denuding of our downtown’s irreplaceable character with certainly severely compromise our very best efforts to breathe new life in our downtown.  The new arena, renovated convention center and other planned downtown improvements will most assuredly not reach their intended mark of affecting any turnaround if they are sitting in the middle of a vacant, fractured and dismantled urban core, and robbed of the foundation of elegant older structures that best tell the story of Tulsa’s history and growth. 

During the city’s process of selecting the design team for the Vision 2025 arenaand convention improvements, Mayor LaFortune issued a mandate that expanded the scope of work for the winning team to include the development and presentation of a comprehensive long range master plan for downtown Tulsa, which was called the Mayor’s Challenge.  ln a 2003 interview I conducted with our mayor, he intelligently suggested that the master plan should include the identification of all older downtown buildings of significance within the Interdispersal Loop, and a proposed use of any that are vacant or in disrepair and deemed of sufficient importance to be saved. Disappointingly, the Mayor’s challenge has yet to be realized.  However, when it was still alive, Cesar Pelli, the world-renowned architecit in charge of designing the arena, was asked what he would suggest as a first measure in a comprehensive downtown master plan for Tulsa. His response was to put an absolute moratorium for three years on any further building demolition until such a master plan was completed and codified. So, where do we go from here? Here are a few thoughts and suggestions fromone avowed brickhugger:·        Tulsa’s public officials, politicians and citizens need to absorb the gravityof  POk’s  announcement. Preservation Oklahoma is one of a feworganizations that are the litmus paper that exposes often discomfitingtruths in our culture and in this case in our own community.·       Our elected and appointed representatives in charge of the Vision 2025    process must include in our efforts t e development of a current singledocument comprehensive downtown master plan that incorporates allconstruction improvements either confirmed, planned or envisioned andall existing buildings within the lDL, denoting current use and, if currentlyabandoned, denoting possibilities for future use.·       Attractive state and local tax credits to encourage the adaptive reuse orImprovement of buildings meeting the criteria of historic, architectural orother significance should be made available.  This will enhance the economic viability of rehabilitating older vacant buildings over scraping them for more surface parking.·       Tulsa must adopt a document of tough protective regulations for allBuildings within the lDL, as many other cities have done with success—regulation with sharp teeth– and a designated review board to considervalid exceptions much like the Board of Adjustment that reviews potentialvalid exceptions to the local zoning ordinances. Much could be accomplished in this regard by allowing the Tulsa Preservation Commission more authority to  operate within its original ordinance.Currently there are a scant few protections of any kind for any buildingsWithin the lDL, thus allowing any building owner or developer the right totear down any downtown building regardless of its size, beauty, orarchitecturally significance and that can happen without triggering so muchas a preliminary review by any municipal body.·       All citizens who are impassioned to see and/or participate in creating this kind of paradigm shift should write letters to the Mayor’s Office, or better yet, to our local newspaper.  Our elected representatives and downtown development entities will be forced to take notice when citizens are voicing their concerns and anger in a public forum. Preservation Oklahoma is the latest of many entities sending Tulsa an S.O.S. and we will only expose our ongoing willful ignorance if we continue to look the other way. We and our elected bodies and their appointed boards have vapidly allowed for too long the unchecked dismemberment of the spirit of our downtown and it is time—and an excellent time– to adopt some intelligent and balanced measures to preserve the remaining fraction of our built history.  At a time when all of us have committed our own tax money to rebuilding our urban core, it is utterly senseless that we allow a clear path for anybody to destroy any building within the urban core as they please without question. lf Tulsa is truly committed to a revitalized downtown, we must couple the positive new construction efforts underway with a committed public/private partnership to preserving the remaining valuable urban fabrlc and seeking alternative uses for those buildings in danger of being demolished.  If we do not, all we may have to show future generations is a 10 volume set of Tulsa Art Deco books with beautiful photographs of what we used to have!

Everybody who has been through Midtown Tulsa lately has seen it…home teardowns, a proliferation of empty high dollar lots, two and sometimes three oversized McMansions or Snout Houses[1] going up where once there had been one modest or even upscale home, and houses that simply don’t fit the existing neighborhood.  On rare occasion, the home being torn down is dilapidated beyond reasonable rehabilitation, but in most cases the home being demolished is perfectly good older, and sometimes historic, housing stock.

This accelerating remaking of parts of Midtown Tulsa (generally thought to include the area between East 11^th Street, East 51^st Street, Riverside, and Yale) is attributable to a number of factors that include: (1) rising land values in the midtown area; (2) the City has reached its city limits in the more desirable areas for residential development, and must look to infill redevelopment for new housing construction; (3) well-to-do individuals who are tired of the long commute from their big South Tulsa homes and who want to recreate their suburban, automobile-centered home in the heart of the City; and (4) aggressive marketing by real estate speculators and builders to create a market for oversized, high dollar houses in midtown.

 What’s Wrong With the Current Trend in New Residential Infill Development? 

So, if there are buyers for these new and bigger homes on smaller lots, what’s wrong with this trend?  Isn’t this just the free market at work?  Many Tulsa residents say there is plenty wrong with it and the National Trust for Historic Preservation agrees with them.  Indeed, in 2002, the National Trust designated “Teardowns in Historic Neighborhoods” to its list of 11 Most Endangered Places.

  What are the costs of this unrestrained glut of oversized McMansions in Midtown Tulsa?  Here are a few: 

• The fabric, character, and beauty of one of Tulsa’s greatest resources — midtown neighborhoods — are being eroded like a rapidly spreading cancer. 
• Some – but sadly, not all — of the oversized McMansions being built in Midtown neighborhoods may be otherwise beautiful homes in a more open setting.  But crammed onto lots that are far too small to accommodate their bulk, they become unsightly and overwhelming.  A good example of this phenomenon is on East 26^th Street from Yorktown to Zunis.

• The teardown/McMansion craze is destroying cultural and social diversity in Midtown by demolishing affordable middle class and even upper middle class homes in favor of McMansions that only the rich and near rich can afford.  Take a drive through the area between East 22^nd and 26^th Streets and Lewis and Harvard Avenues.

• The building of enormous homes on small lots cuts off air circulation and light to their more diminutive neighbors, destroys trees in the urban forest, and creates storm water run-off problems for neighboring homes. 
•   The City loses historic housing stock that is a fundamental part of Tulsa’s history and development.  Once gone….it is gone forever. 
• The oversized homes being built consume excessive amounts of dwindling natural resources to heat, cool, and light them,  Teardowns put toxic materials like asbestos, chlordane, and lead paint into the urban air, soil, and sewer system.  Teardowns and McMansions are definitely not “green.” 

Those who argue that the current trend of residential infill redevelopment increases urban density and supports a more walkable, livable urban environment are ignoring the reality of the redevelopment taking place and oversimplifying what is needed to create their vision of the 21^st century urban center.  Replacing a more modest home with an oversized home does nothing to increase urban density, promote less use of the automobile, or add to urban livability.  Houses that are built to accommodate 3 or 4 motor vehicles are merely adding to the glut of urban automobiles.

It takes infrastructure to create the 21^st century walkable city, and this includes improved public transportation and the development of nearby town centers like Brookside and Cherry Street where an array of services and goods are available within walking or biking distance of neighborhoods (Form-based Codes, anyone?).

Likewise, those who assert that private property rights trump everything else still have one foot in the nineteenth century.  The concept of land use zoning is itself recognition that the regulation of urban land use is necessary for orderly development.  The time has come for neighborhoods to be an integral part of the land use planning that charts their own destiny – a process from which they have too long been excluded in favor of developer interests.

How Developers Are Able to Manipulate the Zoning Rules

How has this attack on the integrity and beauty of Midtown Tulsa been possible?  There are essentially three strategies employed by land speculators and builders.

1.         The Simple Teardown.  This method is straightforward.  A developer acquires a lot, obtains a demolition permit from the City (available simply for the asking without any meaningful review criteria), tears down the existing home and typically replaces it with a much larger home that is out of scale and character with the neighborhood.  A variation on this process is for a land speculator to acquire the property, tear down the home, and “flip” the property to a South Tulsa builder who then constructs a South Tulsa suburban giganta-house.

2.         The Teardown and Lot Split.  Developers particularly look for properties where the existing zoning classification will permit the lot to be split as a matter of right.  For example, a 150-foot wide lot in an RS-2 zoning district can be split into two lots, because RS-2 lots need only be 75 feet wide.  Such lot splits can be obtained without any notice to the neighborhood, without any opportunity for a hearing before the Planning Commission, and without any review criteria that would consider harm to the neighborhood.  The developer will then demolish the existing home and replace it with two much larger homes.  These larger homes are crowded onto the split lots such that their mass and scale is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.

3.         The Teardown and Non-Conforming Lots.  This method for cramming ever larger homes onto ever smaller lots is the unintended consequence of a zoning ordinance (Section 1404 of the Tulsa Zoning Code) that was designed to protect homeowners from being harmed by zoning rules passed after their homes were built.  It is essentially a “grandfather” provision for those whose homes were built before the current zoning designations were put in place.  For example, in an area that was originally platted with 50-foot lots before a Zoning Code existed, but which is now zoned RS-2 (requiring 75-foot lots), a homeowner who had built on a 50-foot lot would ordinarily be required to obtain a zoning variance to rebuild if his home were destroyed by fire.  The zoning ordinance in question permits the homeowner to rebuild without a variance, even though his lot is now non-conforming under the present day zoning classification.

As a matter of history, however, many homeowners who built homes in some areas of Midtown before a Zoning Code was adopted in Tulsa often built them on 2 or 3 lots, so that properties that were platted as 50-foot lots were actually developed as 100 to 150 foot lots.  An example of an area that developed in this fashion is the neighborhood lying between East 22^nd and East 26^th Streets and Yorktown and Lewis Avenues, immediately to the east of Cascia Hall School and Temple Israel.

 Developers have discovered that the zoning ordinance in question provides a “loophole” in the law that permits them to tear down a home and then rebuild on the originally platted, but now non-conforming lots.  The result of this practice is to jam enormous homes onto lots that were never designed to accommodate homes of such mass and bulk. 

One of the most illustrative examples of this loophole at work may be seen at the northeast corner of East 24^th Street and Yorktown Avenue.  At this location, there had been a perfectly good older home built on three originally platted lots measuring 50, 50, and 41 feet respectively.  Subsequent to the construction of the home, the area was zoned RS-2.  A developer bought the property, tore down the home, and is now boasting that the property will be the site of three new residences, even though only one residence would be permitted under the current zoning classification.  Other examples include East 30^th Street and Utica and East 26^th Place and Terwilleger.

Ultimately, land speculators and developers have been able to pretty much do as they please with infill development because the rules were originally developed by the good ol’ boys for the good ol’ boys.  The Infill Development Task Force convened several years ago to study issues of infill development, for example, was dominated by developer interests and their lawyers.  Moreover, there has been a virtual vacuum in leadership on this issue at City Hall. This lack of leadership will only change when neighborhood interests rise up and demand action from their government. 

What Can Be Done to Fix the Problems Created by Unregulated and Unrestrained Teardowns, Lot Splits, and Infill Development?

The problems of McMansionism are not unique to Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Indeed, cities and communities from coast to coast have already been wrestling with these issues for more than a decade.  From large cities like Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta to mid-sized cities like Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham, and Oklahoma City, city governments have installed a variety of strategies to preserve older neighborhoods and combat the ills of the teardown/McMansion craze.  These include the creation of neighborhood conservation districts and the development of neighborhood stabilization plans.  The approach that is right for Tulsa will ultimately be the product of discussion among city leaders, neighborhood interests, and builders, but any such approach must provide neighborhoods with tools for preservation.  The problem is that city leaders have not even convened this discussion.

The Historic Preservation Zoning Overlay presently available in Tulsa is cumbersome, weak, and not suited for every neighborhood.  There are many older midtown neighborhoods that would not be considered “historic,” but should nonetheless be preserved as a part of the mosaic that gives Midtown Tulsa its beauty, charm, and diversity.

Here is a proposal for bringing equity to infill development:

1.         Close the loophole in Section 1404 of the Tulsa Zoning Code that allows developers to build on multiple non-conforming lots after they’ve torn down the existing home.  This provision should be reserved for those who want to rebuild on a non-conforming lot when their home has been substantially destroyed by fire or natural disaster.

 
2.         Subject residential lot splits to meaningful review by the Planning Commission, including a consideration of harm to the neighborhood.  Lot splits can presently be obtained administratively without any notice to the surrounding landowners and without any public hearing to review whether or not the lot split will be detrimental to the neighborhood. 

3.         Enact the enabling legislation for the creation of Conservation Districts and/or Neighborhood Stabilization Plans.  For a variety of reasons, many neighborhoods worthy of preservation may not meet the criteria for Historic Preservation zoning.  Conservation Districts and Neighborhood Stabilization Plans are related methods for achieving such preservation.  Conservation Districts are generally designed for the preservation of existing dwellings and design.  Neighborhood Stabilization Plans typically focus on mass and scale rather than design.  The Dallas Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay ordinance, for example, permits individual neighborhoods to select from a “menu” of criteria such as dwelling height, setbacks, lot coverage, garage location and orientation, and percentage of the front yard that may be paved.  With either a Conservation District or a Neighborhood Stabilization Plan, a majority of the neighborhood would have to seek approval through the existing planning and zoning process, which involves review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council.

4.         Impose a temporary moratorium on residential lot splits and teardowns in Council Districts 4 and 9 until the enabling legislation for Conservation Districts and/or Neighborhood Stabilization Plans is enacted.  These Council Districts are singled out because they contain the neighborhoods that are most at risk for teardowns, lot splits, and residential building that doesn’t fit the neighborhood.  A review process can be included to permit teardowns during the moratorium if the structure is dilapidated or blighted.  Other cities and towns have used this approach, including the City of Nichols Hills in Oklahoma City.

To be sure, there are larger issues to be considered in the long run, such as the possible adoption of form-based codes or the creation of a Tulsa City Planning Commission staffed by City employees.  And, of course, the updating of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is already underway.  But, neighborhoods – particularly Midtown neighborhoods – need relief now!  If relief from the lot split/McMansion trend is put off much longer, it will be too late.  These four strategies will provide that relief before it’s too late.

 What Can I Do Now to Help Preserve Midtown? 

You are not alone in your desire to preserve Midtown neighborhoods from the teardown/McMansion craze.  Thousands of Tulsans living both in and out of midtown want a voice in the future of their neighborhoods.  Right now, the focus is on Midtown Tulsa because it is presently at the greatest risk for teardowns and lot splits.  Preserve Midtown is a group that has formed to give you that voice.  Preserve Midtown was born in the crucible of a legal battle between the residents of East 38^th Street just to the west of Lewis and a land speculator and builder who has torn down two homes on the street and obtained a lot split on one of the lots.  The battle on East 38^th Street is a microcosm of the war now raging throughout many Midtown neighborhoods.

Neither Preserve Midtown nor anyone else who believes that neighborhoods should have a voice in their future is opposed to appropriate infill development.  Preserve Midtown, however, believes and proclaims that developers should “build homes that fit the neighborhood.”  If you believe as we do, then join with us to carry that message to City Hall.  We need your knowledge, your efforts, your numbers, and your contributions to be successful in this endeavor.  Put a Preserve Midtown sign in your yard to publicly show your support for its goals.  Sign the online petition for a temporary moratorium on residential lots splits and teardowns. 

Author: Steve Novick, Attorney and Preserve Midtown Board Member

[1] /        McMansion is a term that has come to describe an oversized or supersized home, typically built out of proportion to the lot upon which it sits.  Snout House is a term used to describe houses whose multi-car garages jut out in front of the house toward the street or homes that are substantially out of line with neighborhood home setbacks.

NOVEMBER 21, 2007
Conserving Midtown’s Neighborhoods
BY MICHAEL D. BATES
Posted at the Urban Tulsa Weekly.
Read the full text of the article here:
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A18457

More than 50 years ago, the Chamber of Commerce posted signs around town to designate a route they called the “Tulsa Tour”. The winding path took visiting motorists through the tidy, tree-lined neighborhoods that gave Tulsa the confidence to call itself “America’s Most Beautiful City.”

Today, those same neighborhoods are at risk of losing the character that made them worth bragging about. People with more money than good taste are buying classic homes in Midtown neighborhoods, tearing them down, clearing the lots of trees, and building suburban McMansions on the empty lots.

Article Posted at Preservation Online.
Read the full text of this article at:
http://www.nationaltrust.org/magazine/archives/arc_news_2007/112107.htm

It all started with a little old lady’s house and a few red signs.

In the suburban St. Louis town of Kirkwood, Mo., 80-year-old Helen Ballard’s 1924 Tudor revival was being sold to a developer with plans to tear it down for a larger house.

It was the last straw for neighbors like Tad Skelton, who had watched eight houses fall for new ones in one of the town’s two national historic districts. Skelton and others planted red plastic signs in their yards, protesting the teardown trend. Today 550 front yards in the town of 27,000 display the “Protect Historic Kirkwood” signs.

“They misled the woman. That’s what really put people off,” Skelton says. “Instead of one letter to the local newspaper, these signs were there day after day. You couldn’t forget about it.”

full text at the Tulsa World.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleID=071204_7_A24_spanc07414

One aspect of my vocation as a fine artist is to paint commissioned portraits of Tulsa homes. I particularly enjoy painting the historic homes and admiring the craftsmanship and details of their design.

Most recently, I was commissioned to paint a charming home on 38th Street, but was shocked to find a case of “infill” building gone very wrong on this beautiful street. A builder was planning to build new homes much closer to the street and much larger than what complemented the neighborhood. The neighbors understandably objected, but the builder had no interest in being a good neighbor, and so lawsuits were filed.

Nancy Harkins, Tulsa