Redefining/Defining a Neighborhood
Oh my, oh my. I would not have wanted to be John Yoeckel today.
For those of you who don’t know John, he’s a well respected civic leader and a member of the city’s Board of Adjustment.
It’s his job to make someone very, very happy or very, very unhappy. Sometimes his vote, along with three other board members, can end up with both results.
Today was one of those days. And oh, how difficult it was to face disappointing either side.
On both sides you had top notch attorneys and well-known architects and urban pioneers.
Both sides represent residents of a MidTown neighborhood who clearly love their community, are doing everything to bring it back to life, and yet can’t even agree what to call it or what it should be.
Yeah, this was a fun case – and the stakes were nothing less than the redefinition of a neighborhood.
The neighborhood in question is defined as follows by the MidTown Association:
Located in the west central portion of MidTown, the Cottage District is characterized by older single family cottages and bungalows. This area contains Red Andrews Park and Municipal Gym, Emerson
School, and considerable amounts of vacant land.
So, let’s meet the two sides:
SoSA (South of Saint Anthony) Neighborhood: Architect Dennis Wells coined the proposed renaming of “the Cottage District,” noting its eclectic mix does not match its name. And indeed, long before this battle began I wrote a story noting the diversity of this neighborhood. Wells allies include architect Bryan Fitzsimmons, who like Wells has recently built a modern home in area that certainly isn’t your standard Dallas style suburban home in Deer Creek.
Cottage District: Randy Floyd and Michael Smith were pioneers in this neighborhood long before Wells and Fitzsimmons. They took a chance on a row of territorial era homes, and their renovations showed that the neighborhood once overrun with drug dealers and prostitutes was ready for a revival. And now for some history:If you go to Bricktown, there is enough urban fabric (brick warehouses) that one can say “this is the area’s character, here’s how it should guide designs for new construction and renovations.” Same can be said for Automobile Alley and the Asian District. But how does one judge the Cottage District/SoSA?Do we judge the area and set design guidelines based on the neighborhood’s original housing stock? That’s a problem for some because so many of the homes were torn down and left as either empty lots, or rebuilt as …
Modern Design Homes.
Yep, the neighborhood has plenty of it. The Classen Glen condominiums set the tone a quarter century ago and Fitzsimmons put an exclamation point on it with his own new home a few years back.
Then came Wells, and now comes yet another proposed modern home.The home, designed for Bill Lovallo by Fitzsimmons, is a two-story, 1,730-square-foot house that would sit atop a sloped lot at 825 NW 7. And while the home lines up with others on the street, a second level fronted with glass panels would face out closer to the street than most of the other homes.
Smith and Floyd argued at a November meeting of the Urban Design Commission that the project violated the neighborhood’s setback requirements. But Lovallo and Fitzsimmons responded that it was in line with at least one other home at NW 7 and Shartel.
That home, an older structure that went through a renovation deemed substandard by many in the neighborhood, was promptly declared an anomaly by Smith and Floyd as they sought to overturn the design committee’s ruling to the Board of Adjustment on Thursday.Smith and Floyd were represented by attorney Leslie Batchelor, who is also a well known innercity advocate and civic leader.
Lovallo and Fitzsimmons, meanwhile, were represented by high-powered and respected attorney Michael Laird, who is also no stranger to urban issues.
Watching the proceedings, I knew that John Yoeckel would end up being the first guy to show his hand. He spoke of his admiration for both sides, and then he announced his vote – he would uphold Randy Floyd’s challenge. He cited the city’s original zoning intent and setbacks as being more important than the anomaly at 829 NW 7.
Next up, board member Stephen Dobbs, who noted there is no allowance for exclusions of “anomalies.”The vote is 1-1. And the deciding vote is left up to Rod Baker, who was absent, and David Wanzer, who had to recuse himself due to ties to Fitzsimmons.
And so we wait for yet another day on this matter to be decided. And one can only imagine the fun John will have at the next downtown social.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Shane, I really think everyone’s intent is pure on this one. This is a case where you have two very different visions of what this neighborhood is and what is to become.
SoSA is NOT an historic residential district. It is a mixed-use urban district. Oklahoma City should be ashamed of yesterday’s performance by the Board of Adjustment.
The majority of SoSA occupants and the majority of OKC’s design community overwhelming support the exciting architectural direction of this district. It is a shame that one person on a crusade of unknown motivation can be allowed to obstruct this momentum; but it is a fact that excellent projects have been delayed and killed by that crusade. Other creative designers are looking elsewhere because they just don’t want to deal with the headaches.
The Zoning Laws for this area allow building right up to the property line, just like any other urban district. The overlay district (“Cottage District”) design guidelines require the setback to match that of other buildings on the same side of the street. The Urban Design Commission, after several meetings and very thorough review, correctly decided the setback line, and approved the project.
Oklahoma City has a chance to create a small, shining star of a district. Shame on John Yoeckel if he continues to support this irrational crusade.
I have a plain question on procedure – why was the BoA even hearing cases if only 2 members were present? I know that presents as 50% attendance, which may be a quorum, but that certainly isn’t enough to avoid a tie… Although, having only 4 members still doesn’t help that. If it’s not 4-0, 3-0, etc., does it not pass?
I agree with Dennis. Both sides are widely known urban pioneers and advocates, but what is the motivation to obstruct momentum on new structures going up in the area. Lovallo and others are trying to make this a more modern, mixed-use urban neighborhood. It appears Floyd/Smith want to keep it more suburban and neighborhood feeling. As a property owner on the same street, I’d like to see a little more activity/life brought to the SoSA neighborhood.
Dennis is right on the money! The UDC and the majority of neighbors all agree that the proposed house meets all the requirements. imo and being present at the BoA hearing this wreaks of an inside job and seems to me Wanzer should not have been the only one to recuse himself.
Is this really any different than any of Floyds other discussions of projects designed by other architects other than herself. The criteque by Floyd on any other architects work comes across as all other architects do not know what they are doing and that they should recognize that she is the only one whom understands whats really is happening and should bow to her vision and understanding.
Ben, I’ve known Randy for a decade or longer now and that’s NOT my experience with her. She isn’t afraid to speak her mind, but I’ve also heard her praise other architects’ work from time to time. I realize that most of the parties involved in this dispute are reading this post. My question to you is this – you’re turning what was a war zone into a viable neighborhood again. Are you really going to let this dispute ruin your future as a “community”?
My point is that the area in question is just that… an area of little continuity that raises the question of what this area should be. There needs to be areas close to downtown that can develop new housing designs and possibly new uses. That can not happen in the historic and/or conservation areas that are fairly intact. The area south of Saints has already changed from being a homogenous design area with many different uses. So in my opinion it makes sense to allow new ways of looking at the area for future redevelopment. How much would the area change if developer Dowell is able to develop his dreams of a high rise in this area?
Steve,
Transformations of war zones happen one small project at a time. Name one significant project in SoSA that has not been attacked by Randy Floyd. Just one…
Truces can be claimed, but the offensive has to cease in order for the dispute to stop. The good ship Lovallo has always been in pure defensive mode. When the fusillade stops, or the ship sinks, the dispute stops.
I won’t argue that Randy can be opinionated. But I do specifically recall her having high praise for the renovation at 712 N Frances by the late Phil Bewely.
Now, that having been said, I’ve come upon a facinating project that may or may not have inspired Bryan’s project with Lovallo… HINT: it involves another architect we all know who wasn’t shy about upsetting the neighbors!
Point taken.
And, it seems you might have identified a trend: Randy praises renovations and is only “opinionated” about new construction?
Dennis, all I can say is I’m truly intrigued by all this – and I have no doubt that as different as your visions are, both of you seem to have the best of intentions. In a world where neighborhoods are plagued with apathy and neighbors who don’t know each other, I’d say your neighborhood is blessed with riches.
Steve, I appreciate your neutrality on the subject, but I disagree that both sides “seem to have the best intentions”. I believe Mr. Wells vision is an inclusive one. I don’t think he objects to diverse architecture be it “cottage” or modern. If you’ll look to see who is the obstructionist here, you’ll see the face of Ms. Floyd. One has to question her motivation, perhaps financial. I personally think if the architecture doesn’t agree with her critical eye, she’s going to fight it. Either way, she has her own interests at heart…not the neighborhood’s.
Steve, my family and I own the 712 N. Francis residence of which you recalled Randy Floyd’s praise. We admire Randy’s architectural talent are also ardent supporters of Fitzsimmons’ Lovallo project. We feel incredibly lucky to rise each morning to sweeping skyline views in the home that Phil and his family renovated with such love and style. That deep affinity for our home and our neighbors makes the conflict over the vision for this neighborhood and what happened at the Board of Adjustment meeting all the more heartbreaking.
It makes sense that Randy had praise for the renovation of 712 N. Francis; like her homes on 7th, it was a RESTORATION, not NEW CONSTRUCTION. Though my home is not avant garde modern architecture, it was this eclectic mix of renovated homes, the striking ultramodern design of the Fitzsimmons residence and the new construction of the Wells’ modern home that captured us and made us believe that this was the neighborhood for us. A unique area in our city that would continue to draw in and nurture innovation. Other would-be buyers may have seen vacant lots and dilapidated homes. Instead, we saw pure potential for new, creative projects and the promise of continued momentum.
Now, the very spirit of innovation, creativity and progress that drew us to invest here is under arrest. Arrested development…stymied by outdated, poorly written, vague codes and a single crusader who has been successful enforcing a personal vision of restoration, preservation and complete uniformity onto a neighborhood that begs to be set free to reach its potential.
This argument is not really about guidelines and rules; it is about stopping the trend of the modern architectural design that has been set ablaze. I’m not buying the slippery slope argument that new design/construction that falls outside of cookie-cutter, mathematical uniformity will create chaos in the neighborhood. No one is advocating anarchy as it regards standards for new construction. That point is simply a red herring. The city attorneys (all of them) agreed that the proposed design for the Lovallo project was NOT in violation of existing setback provisions. The UDC gave its seal of approval. The neighbors (all but one) celebrated that the growth and momentum would continue and that another traffic-stopping piece of architecture would soon replace the desolate lot that was empty of everything but promise. Then, inexplicably, the Board of Adjustment slams the brakes.
As I sat on my balcony this morning enjoying coffee and reading this blog, I looked over at the empty lot where Bill Lovallo’s dreams and the magnificent potential of this neighborhood are held captive, and I just felt sad.
well hopefully the vote of the board of adjustment could possibly be overturned–through a vote of the council. Other developers have gone that course when they felt the need to. An most time won if they have the right group of supporters.
Ben,
The good news is the Board of Adjustment has to hear the case again, and vote. “There is no decision at this time,” because there wasn’t a quorum. The bad news is the one yea-vote will be absent next time! I don’t know if lobbying the Board is legal, but I’d like to think they’re reasonable people and some sort of effort should be made to educate them. (Maybe we should copy Beth’s message to each of the BOA members. Or send them all links to this blog!)
Actually, the one “nay vote” to strike down the appeal, thus upholding UDC’s decision will not be present at the next meeting.
I can’t claim to know anyone’s motivation, certainly not Ms. Floyd, but she certainly isn’t consistent. I grant you she has every right to speak her mind and stand up. How then does she justify the house she designed @ NW 30th in Edgemere? Having sat on the HP commission, she knows & has held people to those very stringent & clear guidelines. Why then did she disregard the specific HP setback rule of aligning with the adjacent neighbor? The house she designed is 10 ft further forward than the neighbor immediately adjacent, and is actually more forward than any other house on that same block.
But the project at issue is in the Cottage District/Sosa. Is she really trying to apply that HP standard to this NON HP area? The “Cottage District/SoSa” is heard by UDC but is held to Downtown District Design guidelines, which are not HP. Also, she is fighting for a “setback” that does not actually exist. The current code says new structures “shall” have the same set back as other buildings on the same block. The code never sets a specific distance from 7th street, nor a specific relationship with the adjacent building. City legal counsel has given their opinion that new structures in THIS area, should be no further forward or back than any current structures on the block. (yes the whole block) On this block the structures have set backs that vary quite a lot. The proposed project conforms to these Downtown Design district guidelines.
BTW, this proposed building is only 6ft in front of its immediate neighbor and well behind other houses on the same block.
Thus when UDC approved this project, applying the City Legal Cousels’ interpretation, they were correctly performing within their rights, and in accordance with their purpose.
You raise some good points…
I’m not familiar the approval of Ms. Floyd’s Edgemere project, but I have seen that house and I think it’s good architecture. It’s a very cool building with good composition and some pretty neat details. I also think it is out of character for Edgemere, but that’s a discussion for another time.
However the setback violation of that project is a curious subject. It has to bring to question Ms. Floyd’s legitimacy to obstruct progress in SoSA… or it at least suggests the presence of a double-standard. Maybe a variance was issued on her Edgemere project?
The SoSA setback rule is clear. The glaring hole in Ms. Floyd’s logic is that the subject regulation has no exception for “anomalous” structures. The BOA is not tasked with deciphering the intent of the regulation. (Talk about slippery slopes!) The BOA just has to consider the simple meaning of the regulation. The City Attorney’s office and the Urban Design Commission have already painstakingly done that! Their decisions are supported by the great majority of neighbors, as well as many other design professionals.
I don’t think the BOA is the proper authority for rewriting the setback regulation.
Steve, your HINT of another project is tantalizing, and hope you’ll be able to share soon! I do know though, that the inspiration of the Lovallo design was the culmination of months of discussion, passion and vision between the client and Brian F. While Brian will not be posting at all, and my obvious bias may not be well received, I do so appreciate the opinions of all those who have posted. This kind of dialogue, and the possibilities that come from it, are why I love living in the where and when that I do.
I for one, love all of the new designs in this small slice of downtown Okc, and hope for more unique architecture. This area would be just another forgotten neighborhood wishing for some kind of revitilization if it wasn’t for a couple of architects with dreams and visions. It will be another sad day in the progress of Okc if this project is denied.
It’s gratifying to see all the comments here, many from people that I don’t recognize as posting on the popular OKCTalk where many similar issues are often discussed.
Though the relationships between the 7 & Francis neighbors are a little strained . . . perhaps more than a little, I believe those relationships will not only survive, but be stronger for the struggle. This neighborhood has great character and will become all it can because of the talent and passion that has found a home in the Midtown Cottage District. I feel privlidged to live with these marvalous people and applaud my neighbor’s coming out in support of their beliefs. Our best days are ahead of us.
There are factually inaccurate statements and perceptions in some of the posts above. Below, I will give my opinions, state the facts as I know them and provide what I can to clarify the issues.
As I stated at the Urban Design Commission hearings, I believe that the organization of the homes in the Cottage District displayed a very recognizable setback pattern and believed that setback pattern was important; important enough to future redevelopment to defend. It is, however, simply not possible to properly discuss the set-back issue on this or any Internet forum, being designed as they are, and mostly used to disseminate snipits of information, comments and opinions.
Anyone that knows me at all is aware of my appreciation of a broad range of architectural styles that run the gambit from historical to hysterical . . . I love the Parthenon and I love the “Bob’s Home of The Big Boy” sign and a lot in between. To suggest, as some have, apparently because I live in a hundred year old structure, that I don’t care for the modern, couldn’t be further from true.
The Hook Residence designed by Randy Floyd located at 3101 North Harvey Parkway adheres to the platted setbacks, ordinances, building codes and every other technical point. It was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission on which Randy sat at the time, though she is no longer a member. She recused herself as is customary (and required) when any commission member has business before the commission. The project was presented by another architect she retained for that purpose. There have been numerous instances of this practice since the commission came into being. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about the decision or how it was made. The drawings and information provided far exceeded what is required.
All of the above is also true of Brian Fitzsimons’ design for the Lovello Residence except that there is less clarity about the appropriate set-back for the building and Brian did his own project presentation before the Urban Design Commission.
Two neighbors challenged the HP approval of the Hook Residence at the Board of Adjustment, but their challenge was not upheld. The lone dissenting vote was by Mr. Dobbs. The plans for the Hook Residence were reviewed and approved by the City and properly permitted. An anonymous call was received by the City last week suggesting the Hook Residence was forward of the set-back line. An inspector came to the site, took measurements and determined that the building was properly sited.
Four members of the Board of Adjustment were present at last Thursday’s hearing. David Wanzer recused himself leaving three to hear the case and cast votes. John Yoeckel made a motion in favor of the appeal, a second was made and the vote was two to one for the motion. Mr Dobbs voted against the motion. Though the motion in favor of the appeal received a majority of the votes cast, all motions must receive a minimum of three votes, which represents a majority of the Board. So, the case will be heard again at the next BOA meeting.
Both the Urban Design Commission and Board of Adjustment are quasi-legal in nature. Discussing an agenda item outside the hearing with any member of either body is deemed to be exparte communication and not permitted by statute.
Finally, I am of the opinion that the Hook Residence is one of the finest pieces or residential architecture in Oklahoma City, and we have a lot of fine residential architecture here. I hold the Fitzsimmons Nguyen home in the same high regard. They both came into being through the same trying, creative process and are both very important to their respective neighborhoods. Both are contemporary . . . one is the last built in an established neighborhood . . . one is the first built in a neighborhood seeking to reestablish itself.
Michael Smith
Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on
Michael, glad to hear you taking the approach of “peace will prevail in the end.” You all have a great neighborhood in the works, regardless of how this ends up. My best wishes to you all.
Michael I really appreciate your views on most things and enjoy reading how you practice “what you preach” – or Pray for!
Steve, I agree with you that we have a great neighborhood in the works. Michael, I agree with you that the Hook residence is one of the finest pieces of residential architecture in OKC.
Michael says that “the organization of the homes in the Cottage District displayed a very recognizable setback pattern,” and “that setback pattern was important; important enough to future development to defend.” (But why is that pattern important?) Okay… if we want to defend it then we have to write new regulations to defend it because the current regulations don’t.
The Cottage District is not an historic district, and the fact that something existed in the past is not necessarily a good reason to perpetuate it in the future. Thank God Bill Gates didn’t listen to those who said DOS was important enough to future development to defend… Thank God for the citizens of Oklahoma City who voted for MAPS in spite of the people who said things were good enough as-is. Et cetera. Do we really want to prevent the Lovallo project from happening because of an outdated setback pattern in a tiny mixed-use urban district?
What happens if the answer to that is “yes?” Here’s what happens:
The nature of this setback pattern is that the buildings facing the North-South (short) streets are closer to the street than those on the East-West (long) streets. The corner buildings on the short-streets therefore become anomalous buildings on the long-streets because they didn’t have to respect the long-street rules. According to “the” pattern these corner buildings are allowed to be proud of the inner buildings on long-streets. Because there is no regulation that defines what the anomalous corner setback is, one must now be written! This is what has to happen if this important pattern is to be preserved.
And this gets us back to the issue at hand… The existing setback regulation, confirmed by City Attorneys, ratified by the Urban Design Commission, and supported by the overwhelming majority of neighbors and design professionals, is ONE setback regulation. There is not a separate regulation for the corner lots. The regulation does not say: “…in line with other buildings on the block except those buildings a person wants to exclude.”
The City recently passed new zoning requirements for this area in hopes of encouraging more density. The main zoning is Downtown Transitional District 1 (DTD-1) which now allows property owners to build to the lot lines.
The overlay zoning that the cottage district is trying to superimpose should never supersede what the original intent of the new zoning is trying to accomplish. This area is not historical and if a talented architect believes that there is merit for a structure to be closer to the lot line, then so be it. This is what the entire downtown zoning is wanting to encourage.
Also, the Cottage District abuts directly to the Downtown Business District (DBD) of which is all but making it mandatory to build 3 story and to the lot lines. In my opinion the Downtown Transitional District 1 ( Cottage District is in) needs to be “Transitional” and not look like a suburban neighborhood next door to the density of DBD.
Chris,
The majority of SoSA is Zoned DTD-1, and the Eastern nub is DBD. You’re right; both these Zones encourage higher density and allow building to the property lines. The protagonists want to forget that the nature of this district is mixed-use urban, not historic residential (this district was submitted for consideration to become an official historic neighborhood but was rejected because it did NOT meet the criteria).
There are many do-loops in the Ordinances, and they are very ambiguous… they need fixing. No serious attempt has been made to actually fix them. One of these do-loops is the Overlay design guidelines requiring the setback to match “buildings on the same side of the block.” It apparently has precedence over the base zoning.
But even so, the Lovallo project abides by the overlay rules! That’s what makes the obstructionism so frustrating…
Beth, as a fellow neighbor/property owner, well said! Chris, you and Dennis make some excellent points on the new DTD-1 and making it a more dense neighborhood. I agree. We do not need to make it a surburban style historic neighborhood, just because that was it’s original intent. As stated, many vacant lots are in the area, and many of the existing structures are expendable or will be torn down. Very little is worth saving. Bring on the renaissance!
[...] So who will be absent at tomorrow’s Board of Adjustment meeting as it hears, again, the appeal by Randy Floyd to overturn approval of the Lovallo residence by the Urban Design Committee (see previous posts starting with this one). [...]
[...] A month or so ago, it appeared as if Randy Floyd might prevail in her appeal of the Urban Design Commission’s approval of the planned Lovallo residence. For background, go here. [...]
So, do Smith and Floyd think that their own property values will go down if the vacant lots are replaced by expensive high modern architecture? I’d like to get a feel for the motivation to challenge the building.
This has been a case to try and decide if this neighborhood will have new construction that matches and blends with the buildings of 90 years ago, or if new construction will be varied and modern. It is hard to justify using the original zoning intent of so long ago to determine what the area needs now.
I look at the inner city neighborhoods themselves as a patchwork- All those homes built so long ago are of many different styles. That’s the true spirit of the historic neighborhood IMO- Victorian next door to Mediterranean next door to Greek Revival… Next door to ultramodern?