There are a number of zoning code changes on the agenda for next Wednesday's Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission meeting.
That link will take you to a PDF with all the proposed amendments. Most of it looks pretty reasonable so far. What's missing, what I'd like to see, is a rationale document, describing the reason for each change. As you read it, feel free to post a comment with your reactions, concerns, and questions. There's also a forum topic about the proposed zoning code amendments at the TulsaNow forum.
UPDATE: You'll find comments from Homeowners for Fair Zoning here.
Comments (6)
While I think such a document would be nice, it obviously isn't required here and I'll even go far as to say you'll never see one unless it is forced, because people don't like having the inner workings of their professional judgement exposed.
Posted by Joseph Wallis | March 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Posted on March 17, 2006 11:48
The first thing that caught my eye was Section 400 A 3:
The word "churches" was crossed out, and "places of worship" was inserted into it's place.
I would like to see a document of rationale for that change.
Posted by meeciteewurkor | March 17, 2006 4:59 PM
Posted on March 17, 2006 16:59
Mee, it makes more sense as you read down further. "Places of worship" is defined to include churches, synagogues, parsonages, rectories, parish halls and other buildings used for religious activities. By itself, "church" might be read to exclude church-related buildings.
Posted by MichaelBates
|
March 17, 2006 8:27 PM
Posted on March 17, 2006 20:27
jumping the gun again, ain't I?
See, I'm kind of like Glenn Beck. I see conspiracies in everything.
:)
Posted by meeciteewurkor | March 17, 2006 10:48 PM
Posted on March 17, 2006 22:48
The folks who live out here in the North Tulsa 23 square miles are very concerned about these issues as we feel we are about to be swallowed up against our desire. The problem for me is that I don't know enough about the "jargon" used to really understand how it will affect us. Does anyone know the name of a person that we could contact for further explanation?
Posted by Jan Thomas | March 17, 2006 10:53 PM
Posted on March 17, 2006 22:53
Regarding your view that the proposed zoning code amendments appear to be reasonable, please take note that the proposal allowing the BOA to waive dwelling height restrictions is merely license for the proliferation of McMansions throughout the city. This is a bad amendment.
Posted by Steven A. Novick | March 18, 2006 8:24 AM
Posted on March 18, 2006 08:24