ABoT Vote Nowurbatulsaclassifiedsbutton
  TULSA METRO'S ONLY INDEPENDENT NEWSWEEKLY
UTW Reader Comments  |  Has Something Made You Mad? Tell Us!    
Home » Columns » OpEd
  RSS XML


Opposition to New Zoning

It's just the tip of the iceberg


BY BILL LEIGHTY

Consideration of the Pearl District's form-based code and its expanded regulating plan continues ad infinitum. Or does it? After several years of public meetings, planning commission work sessions, countless staff revisions and seemingly endless public hearings, it appears the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission has kicked the can down a dead end street.

There simply may be no place to go from here. Unless there is a serious turnabout by the planning commission, this plan will wind up like so many others in this town, unimplemented on a shelf in the back room somewhere. If that happens, there will be no winners and losers, only losers.



Nicole Vance

At this point, it is unknown exactly what will happen with the plan, but one thing is clear. The hostility towards this plan is just the tip of the iceberg and is symptomatic of a much larger and more ominous problem lurking beneath the surface.

It is not overly dramatic to characterize most zoning battles of importance as titanic struggles between commercial and business interests and neighborhood advocates. The fact is there is no level playing field and the iceberg always wins. Why is this, you ask? Because the weight given to the voices of those commercial and business interests is disproportionate to their actual value if the big picture is considered.

Let's review. For the past ten years a group of engaged citizens have been working to revitalize the Pearl District, a long neglected area near downtown roughly bounded on the north by I-244, on the south by 11th Street, on the West by the IDL, and on the east by Utica Avenue.

The fact is the conventional, suburban-style zoning code that exists in the Pearl District today is not suitable for the revitalization of an inner-city neighborhood. In most cases the existing code supports a development standard that is not easily achieved using the present building blocks (streets, blocks, lots, and form) of the neighborhood.

The high parking requirements, setbacks, and other rules designed to limit density and use are much better suited for suburban environments where land is plentiful.

For eight years it was clear sailing for the Pearl District Association and its neighborhood advocates. They worked with engineers and staffers at INCOG and the city planning department in a well-organized and highly publicized collaborative process to develop the 6th Street Infill Plan.

It is important to note that all of this progress came with little or no opposition. After all, small area plans are really just policy guides. Actual plan implementation comes only through changes in the zoning code which provide the tools for plan execution. That is why the 6th Street Infill Plan outlines the need for zoning changes by way of a form-based code to achieve the plan's vision and goals.

Since neither the City of Tulsa Planning Department nor INCOG had the necessary expertise to write a form-based code, TIF District funds were identified to hire a consultant to help out. For planning purposes, the TIF funds were restricted to a small area but the thought was always to expand it to the entire Pearl District, which represents less than one percent of Tulsa's total land area. This is a well-documented fact.

It was not until the plan was basically finished that opposition began to mount. Once the planning commission sent notices and scheduled public hearings, things started to heat up. Over the last six to 12 months, those opposed to expansion of the FBC, made up almost entirely of business interests, have organized a formidable force to be reckoned with.

The disparate influence of this group clearly illustrates a problem that has stifled the dreams of neighborhood advocates in Tulsa for decades. Vested interests have money, hire big time lawyers, organize, mobilize, obfuscate, cannibalize, and bully their way around until the voice the average citizen is barely audible if at all.

They get their way because they influence elected officials who make the critical appointments to boards and commissions that ultimately decide how development proceeds in our community. They are not above using fear and intimidation to scare people into siding with them, and they are not easily deterred.

The result is and has been an imbalanced planning commission membership heavily favoring commercial real estate interests. When important zoning matters come before the planning commission, the main players (like Hillcrest and QuikTrip in this instance) mobilize and go to work to protect their interests. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with that.

However, it is not alright for these businesses to completely disregard the interests of their neighbors and the larger community they share with them. Unfortunately and all too often, that is exactly what happens, as is the case with the Pearl District Form-Based Code expanded regulating plan.

On the one hand you have a group of hard working citizens who have worked for years to develop a "form-based" approach, based upon sound urban design principles, which would allow for increased development density, vibrant walkable neighborhoods, and a successful mass transit system.

This group is not trying drive out businesses or automobiles but to create a diverse neighborhood with a sense of place. Their voices have been all but drowned out because of these dominant businesses with deep pockets that appear to be interested only in advancing their own cause, regardless of how it affects their neighbors.

Let's not forget the proposed new regulations will not mandate change to existing structures but govern only new construction projects and extensive remodels. It does not require any business to change the design or use of its current building. Only new developments are guided by the new standards.

There are multiple reasons for people's resistance to change, including fear, uncertainty, lack of trust, and inflexibility. Some are so vested in protecting the status quo they never consider change, no matter how clear the benefits of change would be.

Right now things are not looking too good for the Pearl District. It appears the iceberg is about to take down another one.



Share this article:
 
Google Bookmarks  digg  Del.icio.us  reddit  Yahoo My Web  Newsvine  MySpace 

COMMENTS
2 comments posted for this article
William, tulsa
 4/ 3/2013 - 8:35am
   There are just as many costly restrictions in place with the current codes, actually more. Your simply "used" to the current codes. Take your replacing a "burned down building", or tearing down one and building new, or adding a new one to an empty lot, scenarios for instance. The current suburban style code requires that you have X number of parking lots per x number of square feet. For example when a developer wanted to build that new development where the Ghengis Grill now is on Cherry Street (that urban style development, up to the sidewalk, etc. was illegal) he had to go before the board to beg for an exception in order to not have to spend even more money to buy more property and tear down even more buildings around him in order to meet the parking requirements. Mixed use buildings, say rentable units above a shop, are also illegal. There are set back requirements, all kinds of costly requirements really if you want to add on or change use or build something new. Much of what is currently along 6th street now, if you tried to build it now, would be illegal under the current regulations. Expanding the old "urban style" fabric is illegal. Which imo has hampered growth in that area and will hamper good urban growth in that area in exchange for a different type of growth. Current zoning will not enable Tulsa to be able to develop good urban areas that will make our city competitive with other cities that can offer that. We offer great suburban style living for those who want it, and bravo, but we basically tell those people, and businesses, who want and expect good urban living and lifestlye choices to hit the road and go to another city. Trends are showing that more and more people are wanting good urban living/lifestyle options. Tulsa is hurting itself by making that, through our current codes, illegal.
   
   I think that Form Based Codes can make a positive difference, and I also believe that there can be some compromise changes made to this particular code to at least enable us to move forward. No matter what part of town we try to rezone for good urban living, no matter what "form" that takes, there will be people and groups that cry foul.
   
   For those who do protest the constraints of the Form Based codes, I would also really wish that they would also protest just as fervently the current codes and their constraints. But they do not. I would rather have highly deregulated zoning like in Houston, much less "government telling property owners what they can and can't do" than the current system which is just as onerous in that respect as the Form Based Codes, and makes the development of good urban areas illegal. Most are simply used to the current code (which again makes what was once legal to build in the Pearl District, now illegal) and not used to the ones they want to replace them with. Calling people names who want a different set of codes, and decrying "others dictating what someone else should be doing with their property", while at the same time NOT putting at least as much effort to get rid of the old codes which do exactly that! "dictate to others what someone else should be doing with their property", seems to at least be a bit shortsighted or at most hypocritical. They talk harshly of foolish utopians and their fanatic zoning ideas, while apparently not realizing that the type of zoning that exists there now wasn't always there. The type of zoning that is there now was added later, and the people who are complaining about utopian fanatics aren't raising a fuss about those zoning codes? Why don't they practice what they preach and at least work to get rid of the existing zoning requirements that also "tell people what to do with their property"? If you want to do that, I will be right there with you to help. I would rather have no zoning than the terrible zoning that is forced on the property owners there now.
   
   One example on exchanging one type of requirement for another, the old zoning requirement for a new Form Based one. Lets say you have a 4,000 square foot lot (just for a simple round number) and want to rebuild or build new. Currently you would either have to use part of that lot for parking, or purchase more land for parking (maybe even tearing out another existing building to do that, which again is forcing things to be more suburban than urban). But with this Form Based Code there are no minimum parking requirements, but there are however minimum floor requirements. So instead of say building your 4,000 square foot space covering the entire lot (then purchasing more property for parking or only being allowed to use part of the lot to build on and then the rest for parking, and not being able to build on all 4,000 square feet ) you build two floors of 2,000 square feet, and perhaps sell the extra space, the lot next door (thus getting more density and having a "finer grain, aka, smaller lots and more businesses etc." better pedestrian/transit friendly, urban styled area). Which requirements would actually cost the property owner more, or which is more "others telling people what to do with their property"? They are just different, requiring a new way of thinking, with plenty of research to show that over all they are less costly and are actually less about "telling people what to do" than the current zoning we have in place. The existing zoning is what your used to so seems "natural", but it is not "natural" and without required costs and constraints.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
Report this comment
Intelligent Observer
 3/31/2013 - 4:59pm
   Form-based codes make everything that isn't in the Form Based Code model legally non-conforming. That means that existing buildings that are not built right to the edge of the sidewalk with parking in the back, 12 feet high first floor with two or more stories of residential above--anything that is not built to this form is legally non-conforming. What does that mean? Usually it means that if those old buildings burn down or are damaged more than 50% they can't be rebuilt. It means that if you own one of those buildings and you want to make changes to it you can't get a permit. It means that if you lose your tenant for more than 6 months, in many cases, you can't reuse the building for the current use.
   
   Do you see why businesses don't want it? Why has it taken you all 10 years to plant some trees along your streets and water them? Why haven't you offered to paint old buildings in the city core? Why don't you have a parade, an art festival, without having to dictate what someone else should be doing on their property? You want a diverse neighborhood? Be diverse then. Make your 'sense of place.' This use of jargon and bullying is just a symptom of your 'go along to get along' bowing to the American Planning Association's order to implement smart growth as a panacea. Unless you indebt yourselves with redevelopment debt for 40 years you're not going to be paying for the infrastructure for this smart growth. Short sighted foolish utopians. Jackbooted fantasists. Fanatics.
   
   See, name calling isn't pleasant. Neither is your comment that those who oppose this plan are 'afraid of change and inflexible.' Wake up.
Report this comment

Post a comment




MORE BY BILL LEIGHTY
Stop Whining, Start Winning
Change needed to attract young professionals [April 10, 2013]
Saluting the Lorton Family
Thanks for the memories [March 20, 2013]
Full Circle ... Four Years Later
For Kathy Taylor, then and now [February 27, 2013]

My Profile | My Settings

Subscriptions Available at $124/yr.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.

We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.

If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150

Name:
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:

 

Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions

Powered by Gyrosite © Copyright 2013, Urban Tulsa Weekly   RSS