15th and Carson

[rdj]

How have the neighbors reacted to this project?

[SXSW]

Two different designs for the same project.

Agreed, the top one is much better and suits the neighborhood of craftsman homes

The bottom one reminds me of the low income apartments on 11th by Renaissance.  Hopefully they go with the first design.  Do they face 15th with garages behind? 

[carltonplace]

How have the neighbors reacted to this project?

Immediate neighbors are mostly in favor, however there are factions in the association that have a history of shooting down projects like this. Remember the proposal in the empty lot at 21st and Cheyenne?

The bottom one reminds me of the low income apartments on 11th by Renaissance.  Hopefully they go with the first design.  Do they face 15th with garages behind? 

Yes, facing 15th with parking behind and beneath the living area

[saintnicster]

Two different designs for the same project.

Agreed, the top one is much better and suits the neighborhood of craftsman homes

Sadly, this means they'll go with number 2.  Can't go about having conformity, can we?

[rdj]

Sadly, this means they'll go with number 2.  Can't go about having conformity, can we?

I believe they've chose the top option.  I would consider it a modern twist on the Craftsman style.

Tulsa says it wants dense, to the sidewalk, walkable development, without building a truly multi-story building hard to get much denser on this lot.  Hope the negative folks in the area are drowned out by the folks for the development.  There is a similar project just across the street.

[rdj]

Board of Adjustment denied this project.  Owner is trying to reconfigure and resubmit.

[Townsend]

Board of Adjustment denied this project.  Owner is trying to reconfigure and resubmit.

Any chance you know why?  Not that I can do anything about it.  I'm just trying to dismiss my cynical side.

[rdj]

I was told the BOA thought it was too big of a building for the lot.  Again, we say we want dense development but our actions don't meet up with the words.

[TheArtist]

I was told the BOA thought it was too big of a building for the lot.  Again, we say we want dense development but our actions don't meet up with the words.

Who is this "We".  Some people want dense development, some do not. Those currently in power, do not.

Our main problem is lack of education.  Most people have no idea about zoning or that good "pedestrian friendly/transit friendly development" is for the most part illegal in Tulsa.  If they even know what that is, and again, most do not even know that there is a choice being made, by default, for them. That lack of understanding translates at the voting box into policies and decisions at city hall. 

[dsjeffries]

http://www.cityoftulsa-boa.org/Approved%20Minutes/2015/02-24-2015.pdf

Pages 6-11. The BOA does not provide text-searchable PDFs, and I don't understand why. It's 2015, for crying out loud, and the documents are clearly prepared on a computer. There's a signature verifying meeting minutes on the last page, but that should not preclude the document from being searchable. I have OCR software, so I've included the converted text below. It's interesting to read the comments by BOA members about upcoming changes to the zoning code. There are some who are ready for them, and others who are clearly not interested.

21812-Matt King

Action Requested:

Variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet (Section 403.A, Table 1); Variance to reduce the setback from the centerline of East 15th Street from 70 feet to 40 feet (Section 403.A, Table 1); Variance to increase the building height from 35 feet to 40 feet (Section 403.A, Table 1). LOCATION: 1445 South Carson Avenue (CD 4)

Presentation:
Matt King, King Architectural Solutions, 1513 East 15th Street, Suite B, Tulsa, OK; stated this case was continued from last month because of opposition to the request. Since then there has been a meeting with the neighborhood and the information provided clearly shows there is a significant hardship given the provided setbacks. This lot has been empty since the 19708, and he assumes it was a single family previously because there is a brick wall that faces 15th Street and has three sets of stairs. His client has asked him to design a four unit townhouse project for the lot. Mr. Henke asked staff if this case can be still be heard today because in the staff report the request is listed as a two or three unit structure. Mr. King stated that he does not exactly recall what was submitted but it probably was two or three units, but his client has determined that the structure needs to be four units. Ms. Moye stated that the request does not need to be readvertised because the number of units was not advertised to the public but the actual Variance request was advertised.
Mr. Van De Wiele asked if the drawing on page 4.18 was four units. Mr. King answered affirmatively. What was submitted since the last meeting is a builable unit with the current zoing. There is also a preliminary floor plan to show how the building is proposed for the site. The rendering of the building that was being displayed on the screen is not exactly what is being proposed but an image to show what the client would like to do on the site. He is trying to pull in elements from the architecture of the neighborhood. He knows this is a sensitive issue and he thinks it is important to adapt to the surrounding neighborhood so he tried to find images that were similar in character of the area. He thinks the house used to face Carson which was the front yard, and in
this case the ten foot setback would be the sideyard which is 15th Street.

Mr. Van De Wiele asked Mr. King to explain the diagrams on pages 4.15 and 4.16. Mr. King stated the image on 4.15 is what the client is trying to achieve while maintaining the ten foot rearyard and maintaining the ten foot side yard on Carson and on the alley while trying to vacate the setback entirely off 15th Street. He would like to maintain the brick wall on 15th Street as much as possible which would push the building back which means the loss of square footage. There will be rear entry garages which takes up 20 feet so all the living space for the tenants would be on the second floor hence the request for the additional height so there can be a sloped roof instead of a flat roof. Mr. King gave further description of the diagram rendering.

Interested Parties:
Demetrius Bereolos, 1929 South Cheyenne, Tulsa, OK; stated he is in oppostion in the granting of the Variances. Mr. Bereolos stated that in terms of relevant previous actions, the most relevant previous actions that are in Stonebraker Heights and in the nearby Buena Vista Neighborhood, all these actions have occurred since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan regarding setback variances, regarding centerline setback variances, and regarding height variances in the RM-2 zoning. In all the cases Variances were denied. In two cases they are dealing with a much larger lot on South Cheyenne the height variances and front yard setbacks were denied. In BOA-29519 a height variance in Stonebraker Heights was denied and the denial was upheld in District
Court on appeal. So the most recent actions of the Board dealing with this type of setbacks on a large than the subject property have been denied Variances. In regards to multi-family units in the area, going from 13th Street to 21St Street over to Boulder and Denver, there are 28 multi-story multi-family apartments and condominiums of varying densities and housing costs. The zoning code speaks about the spirit and intent of the code being a variety of dwelling types and premises, and he believes that the 28 multi-family dwellings in that corridor constitutes a sufficient number of multi-family units in
the area. If there were to be a random survey of 28 multi-story multi-family apartments and condominimums it will be found that a precious few of them want to build to the property lines as the applicant would like to do in this case. As to adequate off street parking, the code characterizes this development as Use Unit 8 which speaks to off street parking requirements being 1.5 parking spaces per one bedroom dwelling unit or two parking spaces per dwelling for two or more bedrooms. In the proposed site plan rendering it is still unclear whether there is sufficient parking because it is not sure how many bedrooms there are going to be per unit. He believes the applicant should clearly note that to allow the Board to make a decision regarding adequate off street parking.

Mr. Bereolos stated the lot is too small to support a multi-family development. In applications in 2012 and in 2013, on a lot that also adjoined an arterial corridor on South Cheyenne, a lot that was 8,600 square feet which is approximately a third larger than the subject property and the Board rejected variances. He believes the Board should also deny the variances on this significantly smaller lot. There is also a pressure of on street parking. The applicant does not recognize or provide for the detriment that would be caused by residents parking more vehicles than the assigned area might accommodate, and also by guest parking. The first on street parking within the 100 feet of the proposed development will not be available because of the driveways, and the
adjoining property has right-of-ways in front of it. If there were a casual survey performed on South Carson in a two block area there are about 30 parking spaces available, and at almost any occasion almost all of those spaces are being used by existing residents or by visitors. There is also no parking in the alley because of Section 522 in the Municipal Code. This proposed development will place significant pressure on the on street situation that occurs on South Carson. There is an issue of the quality of sidewalks, and from the submitted drawing there is no indication that the suggected curb cuts comply with city development standards. Stonebraker Heights, South Carson and 15th Street are part of what the Comprehensive Plan calls a downtown neighborhood, a neighborhood that is primarily pedestrian oriented. If the Variances requested are granted and the building is allowed to be built almost on top of the
property line on the south side it will have a negative impact on the quality of those sidewalks, and the curb cut on the west side will have a significant impact. The Comprehensive Plan is committed to making similar to this pedestrian friendly. This development goes against the notion of being pedestrian friendly. Mr. Bereolos would request the Board to deny the Variances.

Brent Garrett, 245 West 16th Street, Tulsa, OK; stated he is not opposed to the development of this property for multi-family use, but he is opposed to building something that is oversized fOr the lot. This property is located in the Carlton Place historic district and this area was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in September 2007. Initially the area was three blocks and over the years things have been razed for other development so what remains is the current 1 %: blocks of historic homes dating from the 1910 era. Mr. Garrett has several slides placed on the overhead projector showing the subject neighborhood. Mr. Garrett stated that the staff comments states that based on conversations with the owner, it appears the site will support two
residential units on two levels possibly three. This is confusing as to what is going to be built. Mr. Garrett stated that, to him, the Board case for 1522 South Carson is not relevant because it was a Variance to allow a kitchen to be built that did not extend beyond the existing structure. Mr. Garrett stated that parking is a big issue and when there is a structure that is large for the lot the question is where are the residents going to park even with two-car garages for each unit. The proposed two-car garages are for the residents not for the people that visit. He is not opposed to the multi-family unit being proposed but he does not see the hardship for the size of the proposed multi-family unit. He would ask the Board deny this Variance request at this time.

Fred Menge, 1441 South Carson Avenue, Tulsa, OK; stated he is the property owner of the subject lot. He purchased it with the intentions of future development. He renovated and upgraded the 1441 building, and it is fully occupied. At the meeting in January he was asked to continue his case so he could speak with the Riverview Association and he did. He provided drawings to the association at their February 10th meeting also. He spoke to the association for 45 minutes and they kept asking for more information, and he did what he thought was reasonable by telling them his intention
was to build a structure that is going to relate to the neighborhood. He has also met with the immediate neighbors, including a gentleman that lives in a condo across the street, and he was opposed because he thought the extra five feet in height would block his view. He posted everything, including drawings, on the Riverview Association bulletin board and no one has complained, nor has the immediate neighbors. He asks for the Board’s approval to have the opportunity to improve the subject lot.

Rebuttal:
Matt King came forward and stated that the Form-Based Code, for the Pearl District in particular, are in place for a reason; to make the area pedestrian friendly. The building was intended to come to the street for that reason, to enhance the relationship between the pedestrian and the tenant. He is not saying the building will come right to the property line because there must be access to the building given. The issue is not so much the width as it is the depth. His client has been attempting to provide the information without spending an enormous amount of money on services, when it may not be in his benefit. His client is trying to show that this is what it takes to make the site financially viable. He is trying to be as sensitive as possible to the neighborhood. Mr. King stated that reason for the two-car garage was to get the traffic off the street, but everyone in the neighborhood has visitors. Mr. King hopes the Board can see what his client is facing and approve the request.

Ms. Snyder asked Mr. King if the existing sidewalk would remain. Mr. King stated the sidewalk will not be changed, it may be improved as part of the project, but the intent is to take the existing cuts in the existing brick wall and create a landing that may have stairs going in both directions to circle the units making the brick part of the project. Ms. Snyder asked if the garages were coming off 15th Street. Mr. King stated they were not because they are rear entry garages. Ms. Snyder asked Mr. King if this was a historic preservation district. Mr. King stated it may be on the Historic Register but it is not HP zoned. Ms. Snyder asked Mr. King about the mention of the two or three units in the staff comments and asked if it was now a financial reason for the proposed four units. Mr. King deferred to Mr. Menge.

Fred Menge came forward and stated that when the project was started about six months ago he asked a realtor about the comps in the area, and that is how the conclusion of a four unit townhouse would be most reasonable.

John Nix, 1325 South Guthrie, Tulsa, OK; asked if the proposed project was going to be four two bedroom units?

Joanna Blackstock, 1235 East 24th Place, Tulsa, OK; came forward to answer Mr. Nix’s question. She stated that she is Mr. Menge’s realtor. Depending on the Variance allowance and where the setbacks need to be for the garages will determine the amount of bedrooms. it will probably be two bedrooms with a living space like the majority of Cherry Street, but the three bedroom is not the goal. The goal is the number of units.

Mr. Van De Wiele asked staff if this project was the type of project the City is leaning toward especially with the changes that will be coming in the zoning code. Ms. Miller stated that this is a downtown neighborhood and the new code proposes no parking requirements in downtown neighborhoods.

Matt King came forward and stated this is preliminary. There are still a lot of processes the project must go through to receive approval. Curb cuts and things like that will be dictated by regulations in zoning. There is still a long way to go.

Comments and Questions:
Mr. Van De Wiele stated that this type of development makes sense to him, whether it is too much for the lot or not, it certainly feels similar to the development that was proposed on 21St or 23rd and Cheyenne. Obviously the need or desire to have more units because the better a person is financially, but that is not for the Board’s consideration. This type of project seems to be what the new code will be pushing for.

Ms. Snyder stated that she does not see a person wanting to build a single house on the subject property, but this project is different than the one that was proposed on Cheyenne because the entry was off the street. To her that project was on a street that is similar to an ingress ramp to the Riverside, and 15th Street is not like that even though it is busy. She thinks this project is what is coming in the future.

Mr. Henke stated that what this property has going for it is that the owner owns the lot to the north. An argument could be made for some of the Variances, but his concern is 15th Street and the alley and how this project will be adequately parked. This is not Boston or Chicago, a person can’t just hop on the ell or hall a cab. People in Tulsa drive cars and where are they going to park those cars?

Mr. Tidwell stated that he likes the development and likes the looks but the intensity of the development is too much for the neighborhood. He can not support this project with four units.

Mr. White agrees that this is the type of project coming in the future because there are some very interesting things going to happen in the zoning code for devleopments similar to this, however, the change is not here yet. He sees too many parallels between this application and the application for the project at 21St and Cheyenne. This project is not as severe but it is not much less. He thinks it is too intense for this particular location.

Board Action:

On MOTION of WHITE, the Board voted 3-2-0 (Henke, Tidwell, White “aye”; Snyder, Van De Wiele “nays”; no "abstentions”; none absent) to DENY the request for a Variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet (Section 403.A, Table 1); Variance to reduce the setback from the centerline of East 15th Street from 70 feet to 40 feet (Section 403.A, Table 1); Variance to increase the building height from 35 feet to 40 feet (Section 403.A, Table 1); for the following property:

LT 36 BLK 2, CARLTON PLACE, CITY OF TULSA, TULSA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA

[LandArchPoke]

So basically they are all saying this is the way of the future of our zoning code... but we are going to deny it. What? Am I missing something?

[TheArtist]

Now just to be clear. The new comprehensive plan does not change any zoning.  There have been determined people fighting against it sneaking in this and that while those supporting it have gone to sleep just assuming things, so that the whole thing has been watered down in reality no zoning will have changed once this is in place. They have worded it so that people "suppose" changes in zoning will happen upon adoption, but that is not what will happen.

I have to hand it to them. The wording is exquisitely well done to make it sound like we are getting new zoning and new policies enacted.  But it's pretty much a dog and pony show. All that work and all those years.

[LandArchPoke]

Now just to be clear. The new comprehensive plan does not change any zoning.  There have been determined people fighting against it sneaking in this and that while those supporting it have gone to sleep just assuming things, so that the whole thing has been watered down in reality no zoning will have changed once this is in place. They have worded it so that people "suppose" changes in zoning will happen upon adoption, but that is not what will happen.

I have to hand it to them. The wording is exquisitely well done to make it sound like we are getting new zoning and new policies enacted.  But it's pretty much a dog and pony show. All that work and all those years.

I've looked over the new proposed codes and I kind of disagree, and don't see the doom and gloom that you are portraying. The easiest way to change, is to not change anything. This is exactly what New York City did when they updated their zoning. They created new zoning, and then upzoned several areas around subway stations to allow higher density development. This is the easiest way to calm many people's irrational fear of change is to say nothings changing, we are just adding new options (which is what is happening). They are allowing decreased (some zoning no parking requirements) which I can't see how this is bad? The mixed-use zoning essentially fills the hole of formed based codes and will allow denser, street oriented development.

What is so wrong about the proposed zoning code updates? Do I think it could have been more forceful in re-writing everything? Sure, but I think you'd have a lot of uneducated people protest (similar to what happened in the Pearl) then we would be stuck in the same place for years to come. Once these new zoning types are adopted, used, and are successful - then we can slowly get rid of obsolete zoning with much less opposition. Just my opinion though.

[AdamsHall]

I've looked over the new proposed codes and I kind of disagree, and don't see the doom and gloom that you are portraying. The easiest way to change, is to not change anything. This is exactly what New York City did when they updated their zoning. They created new zoning, and then upzoned several areas around subway stations to allow higher density development. This is the easiest way to calm many people's irrational fear of change is to say nothings changing, we are just adding new options (which is what is happening). They are allowing decreased (some zoning no parking requirements) which I can't see how this is bad? The mixed-use zoning essentially fills the hole of formed based codes and will allow denser, street oriented development.

What is so wrong about the proposed zoning code updates? Do I think it could have been more forceful in re-writing everything? Sure, but I think you'd have a lot of uneducated people protest (similar to what happened in the Pearl) then we would be stuck in the same place for years to come. Once these new zoning types are adopted, used, and are successful - then we can slowly get rid of obsolete zoning with much less opposition. Just my opinion though.

Pretty much agree.  Without having studied the fine detail, this appears to be a good compromise position.

[TheArtist]

I've looked over the new proposed codes and I kind of disagree, and don't see the doom and gloom that you are portraying. The easiest way to change, is to not change anything. This is exactly what New York City did when they updated their zoning. They created new zoning, and then upzoned several areas around subway stations to allow higher density development. This is the easiest way to calm many people's irrational fear of change is to say nothings changing, we are just adding new options (which is what is happening). They are allowing decreased (some zoning no parking requirements) which I can't see how this is bad? The mixed-use zoning essentially fills the hole of formed based codes and will allow denser, street oriented development.

What is so wrong about the proposed zoning code updates? Do I think it could have been more forceful in re-writing everything? Sure, but I think you'd have a lot of uneducated people protest (similar to what happened in the Pearl) then we would be stuck in the same place for years to come. Once these new zoning types are adopted, used, and are successful - then we can slowly get rid of obsolete zoning with much less opposition. Just my opinion though.

I think where my hang up is is this.  We "want" certain types of "forms/results" in an area and imagine that we want an area to be pedestrian and transit friendly, but are still not zoning for it.  

Our current zoning says you must build to be "auto friendly", and thats the result we get.

The new zoning will not say that you must build to create an area that is pedestrian/transit friendly, but you can build one property if you go through a process to get your properties zoning changed.  The property will not automatically have any new zoning in place on it, you still must "get" that zoning applied to it.  And if you wanted an entire area to be pedestrian/transit friendly, you would have to get all of those property owners involved and have them agree to the change?

You see, in my mind, an area will not likely develop a "pedestrian lively" reality unless there is a critical mass of that sort of development in the area.  One or two buildings up to a street in an area where the guys on either side can still build with parking lots in front, those pedestrian friendly businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage versus if they too just simply put parking in front.  However if you knew that the rest could and would follow in time, well then you could make an initial investment that would improve in time as well. Even in downtown, if my business were just a few more buildings to the south, or past a parking lot, I wouldn't have the business I have and would have failed.  My sales would be better if I were half a block north of where I am.  Pedestrians are finicky.  Trying to build a lively pedestrian "main street" type area piecemeal seems like an iffy proposition at best.

"Allowing" certain building types is different than "Requiring" them, especially when everything around is the opposite.  

I was in Dallas a while back on a beautiful day.  It had been cold and nasty there for quite a while before.  We went out to look around the city in some areas that at first glance looked "pedestrian friendly" but there were no pedestrians.  All kinds of development, this area seemed to have what looked like all the parts, LOTS of housing, shops, restaurants, etc. built up to the sidewalks, but no pedestrians.  

People will often say that the pedestrian lively places evolved on their own over time.  True, BUT, they did not do so surrounded by hundreds of miles of zoning that said "you must build auto oriented development and can not build pedestrian lively developments".  In this type of situation, what you get at best is areas that "look" at first glance to be pedestrian friendly, but they are fake and are not pedestrian lively.

Those areas today that end up with lively pedestrian areas are ones that either have enough old stock from which to "get things started" anchor new development, or a large developer that can go in and create that critical mass all at once, OR that zone to have it evolve that way.  "Allowing" it will just end up with a hodgepodge of bleh. Even with all the development in the world like Dallas, you end up getting suburbia on steroids.  Density in and of itself will not likely get you a lively pedestrian corridor (I can look at some areas of our own downtown and show you examples of that).  Density up to the sidewalk will not in and of itself get you a lively pedestrian corridor.

Picture.  Ocean of auto centric zoning, then in a small island of an area you say "we will now allow this or that".  Whats going to happen?  That auto centric nature will still impede its "wants" onto that area.  This is even apparent in our own downtown where you currently can build pretty much whatever you want.  But we still haven't said "We want this street to be X and have zoned for that" like other cities have, and then get. All it takes are a few developments here and there that break up a pedestrian friendly street, to destroy the competitiveness of that corridor. Look at parts of main street downtown and how certain developments went in and ripped up the old fabric and have now created a street that is going to be very hard to make lively again. All the fountains, flower pots and benches in the world won't fix that. How can an area that is currently auto centric, develop to be pedestrian centric when basically its mostly auto centric development and say the first one or two pedestrian centric buildings go in?  Won't they be at an even greater disadvantage and face greater hardships?  How is that going to "show people how these things will work?"

We are still not saying we want lively pedestrian streets in this area and then requiring it, like we require lively auto streets and use zoning to make it happen. We will be like so many other cities who "get the parts here and there" but then sit back and scratch their heads wondering where all the pedestrians are and why they don't have them like those cities and areas that have zoned for that do. Helloooooo!