Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fellows urge incremental zoning changes, faith‑based housing and ADU reforms to close Tulsa’s housing gap
Summary
Urban Leaders Fellowship presenters told Tulsa councilors a focused set of incremental zoning changes — an opt‑in overlay for faith‑based organization redevelopment and expanded by‑right ADU rules in targeted residential zones — could accelerate housing supply.
Presenters from the Urban Leaders Fellowship briefed the Tulsa City Council on housing findings from a seven‑week municipal policy fellowship and urged a set of incremental zoning changes to speed housing production.
Leah (fellow) and her partner Jack told councilors the city faces a roughly 13,000‑unit housing gap and that much of the city’s vacant residential acreage is zoned for single‑family development, limiting opportunities for missing‑middle and multifamily housing. The presenters recommended two targeted, high‑impact changes: a voluntary zoning overlay to make it easier for faith‑based organizations (FBOs) to redevelop their land for affordable housing, and expanded by‑right rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in selected residential zones.
On faith‑based redevelopment, presenters said Tulsa has more than 2,000 acres of land owned by religious organizations, largely in single‑family zones, and that declining congregation sizes and rising maintenance costs make redevelopment an opportunity for some institutions. They proposed an opt‑in overlay that would tailor building and permitting regulations for FBO sites that choose to participate; examples cited from other cities included cottage communities and technical assistance or priority lot assignments.
On ADUs, presenters said ADU special‑exception requests to the Board of Adjustment consumed about 15% of that board’s caseload in the prior year (20 cases, 32 agenda items), that none of those requests were denied, and that the average process took about three weeks or 1.6 board meetings. Presenters suggested allowing ADUs by right in targeted residential categories (for example, RS‑3 and above) to reduce administrative burden and speed construction in neighborhoods with demand.
Councilors asked about community engagement and potential NIMBY opposition; presenters emphasized a community‑led approach and cited successful, incremental zoning changes in South Bend, Ind., while warning that rapid, large‑scale rewrites can provoke litigation, as was raised for Austin’s Code Next example. Several councilors asked for more granular maps identifying particular blocks and overlay candidates; presenters said maps and data used in the presentation are available through the partner “Flintlock Labs/Town” preapproved permitting work and in the fellows’ materials.
Councilors also raised faith‑based questions, including ensuring services are not made mandatory for residents of FBO‑developed housing and that projects be inclusive of people of all faiths or none. Presenters and councilors discussed infrastructure and utility lead time as additional constraints on redevelopment.
