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…

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.

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 Do we really want to prevent the Lovallo project from happening because of an outdated setback pattern in a tiny mixed-use urban district?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.”

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