Lexford Park (formerly First Christian Church)

[BronchoSilverback]

There is a CUP-26 overlay but I believe that just allows for the operation of the school, and very limited use of the amphitheater.

Can anyone explain what a CUP-26 overlay is? Thanks.

[Pete]

Can anyone explain what a CUP-26 overlay is? Thanks.

CUP = Conditional Use Permit

26 is just the unique # given by the city planning department for this particular CUP.


Bascially just allows for special uses that are outlined in a planning document. For example, in R-1 you can only have single-family housing, but here there is a school, large parking lots and a small office building.

[BronchoSilverback]

Thanks. So the CUPs are board approved exceptions to the zoning that are deemed to be in the public interest or for the benefit of the neighborhood.

To affirm your earlier point, a CUP allowing an amphitheater and church offices is one thing, but a change in zoning from R1 to allow major commercial development adjacent to Crown Heights is a whole other kettle of fish. I attended one of the meetings, years ago, at the Will Rogers Theater where Grant Humphreys presented his proposal for that space. As you can imagine, it was well-attended, and there was not an overly-warm reception to that high-density plan.

I live in Edgemere Park, and part of my back yard abuts the vacant lot across 36th street from the Egg Church, where there has recently been excavation for the construction of an office building. Prior to that development, there was a proposal for development of several condo units on that plot. They sought a variance (one of the 2-story units would have been too close to a house on 36th street--code prohibited a height in excess of 1 story), but I opposed it and the variance was denied by the Board of Adjustment. I'm not a real estate attorney, but I have a law degree so I did some legal research and drafted a pretty thorough brief in opposition to the variance sought. I tried to get backing from the City HP department as the parcel is adjacent to an HP neighborhood, but they wouldn't touch it. Only one other neighbor attended and testified in opposition to it. (The office building that is going on the plot now is a much more favorable option. And as there was no zoning variance needed by the developer for the project, I had no recourse against it.)

So I guess my point is if someone like myself who isn't politically connected can defeat a variance sought by a well-known architect who had previously served on the HP commission, I'm optimistic about the future of the Egg Church and its development.

[Pete]

^

All true but remember they could still tear it down without any city or public involvement.

Many is the time that happens and the new owner just lets a vacant property sit there, until people finally cave. Or they sell to the next developer who delivers what seems to be a compromise.

[onthestrip]

Things that might help save it is not fighting every single proposed development in the area leaving no option for the developer but to go the cheap and easy route of demolishing everything and building something simple.

[BronchoSilverback]

^

All true but remember they could still tear it down without any city or public involvement.

Many is the time that happens and the new owner just lets a vacant property sit there, until people finally cave. Or they sell to the next developer who delivers what seems to be a compromise.

Yes, there is certainly that potential, especially if the purchaser is an out-of-state developer or speculator with no community ties. But I'm speculating, albeit mixed with hope, that the odds for those scenarios are slim given the sum of the factors here: high profile, architecturally important building, its location adjacent to an established HP neighborhood, the fact that much of the plot is zoned R1, etc. You'd think these factors would make a developer/speculator pause in taking those approaches. And the public involvement is growing--there's in excess of 5000 signatures for an online petition, a rally scheduled, etc. With regard to city involvement, as the article mentions, Shadid is taking it up at the next meeting, but securing 7 votes is a high bar.

[Urban Pioneer]

I can’t reveal any details but I am cautiously optimistic and hopeful about the situation. Undeniably, all of the recent activism has helped change the dynamic. It is still the wish and desire of the majority of the congregation that the buildings be preserved.

[Ed Shadid]

There is a theoretically possible historic preservation tool which, while never been done before in OKC (Skirvin similarities aside), could be utilized in the First Christian Church case. Historic Preservation is one of the criteria in the Local Development Act which allows for the creation of an increment district (TIF).

http://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/...20&%20engr.pdf

Criteria for establishing a TIF include:

Contains findings that:
a. the project area or district meets at least one of the
following criteria:
(1) is a reinvestment area,
(2) is a historic preservation area,
(3) is an enterprise area, or
(4) is a combination of the areas specified in
divisions (1), (2) and (3) of this subparagraph,

b. the improvement of the area is likely to enhance the
value of other real property in the area and to
promote the general public interest. It shall not be
necessary to identify the specific parcels meeting the
criteria

where a "historic preservation area" is defined as: "Historic preservation area" means a geographic area listed in or nominated by the State Historic Preservation Officer to the National Register of Historic Places, an historic structure or structures listed individually in or nominated by the State Historic Preservation Officer to the National Register of Historic Places,
with such area or structure being subject to historic preservation zoning, or for purposes of ad valorem tax exemptions provided for in subsection D of Section 860 of this title, a structure subject to historic preservation zoning. Rehabilitation undertaken in an historic preservation area shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, latest revision, in order
to be eligible for the incentives or exemptions granted pursuant to Section 860 of this title;

The First Christian Church has already been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Converting a church to private development would result in a substantial increase in property tax and the increment could be utilized for development costs. There are other ways the City could assist with bridge financing (CDBG grants/loans, GOLT bond funds etc) but this is a situation where TIF utilization is particularly well suited and could provide for community benefit or "general public interest" (one of the primary rationalizations for TIF creation).

[BronchoSilverback]

There is a theoretically possible historic preservation tool which, while never been done before in OKC (Skirvin similarities aside), could be utilized in the First Christian Church case. Historic Preservation is one of the criteria in the Local Development Act which allows for the creation of an increment district (TIF).

http://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/...20&%20engr.pdf

Criteria for establishing a TIF include:

Contains findings that:
a. the project area or district meets at least one of the
following criteria:
(1) is a reinvestment area,
(2) is a historic preservation area,
(3) is an enterprise area, or
(4) is a combination of the areas specified in
divisions (1), (2) and (3) of this subparagraph,

b. the improvement of the area is likely to enhance the
value of other real property in the area and to
promote the general public interest. It shall not be
necessary to identify the specific parcels meeting the
criteria

where a "historic preservation area" is defined as: "Historic preservation area" means a geographic area listed in or nominated by the State Historic Preservation Officer to the National Register of Historic Places, an historic structure or structures listed individually in or nominated by the State Historic Preservation Officer to the National Register of Historic Places,
with such area or structure being subject to historic preservation zoning, or for purposes of ad valorem tax exemptions provided for in subsection D of Section 860 of this title, a structure subject to historic preservation zoning. Rehabilitation undertaken in an historic preservation area shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, latest revision, in order
to be eligible for the incentives or exemptions granted pursuant to Section 860 of this title;

The First Christian Church has already been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Converting a church to private development would result in a substantial increase in property tax and the increment could be utilized for development costs. There are other ways the City could assist with bridge financing (CDBG grants/loans, GOLT bond funds etc) but this is a situation where TIF utilization is particularly well suited and could provide for community benefit or "general public interest" (one of the primary rationalizations for TIF creation).

That sounds promising. Would the City and surrounding neighborhoods be able to have a strong hand in what the development would look like?

[David]

That's a really interesting idea, assuming it can find enough buy-in to pass the city council.

Also, welcome to the board Dr. Shadid.

[Harbinger]

I'm at the rally, and it's a decent turnout. Anyone else from OKCTalk here?

[Pete]

[Pete]

Church hires attorney to oppose zoning change

As we were first to report last week, First Christian Church appears to be poised to sell to a new owner who plans to fully demolish the iconic church.

The news set off a wave of concern among preservationists and a protest was held at the church -- located at NW 36th and Walker -- this Wednesday in an attempt to raise community awareness and to place pressure on the church and potential buyer.

Councilman Ed Shadid has placed an item on next Tuesday's city council meeting to vote on starting the process towards historic landmark designation. If the resolution passes by simple majority, there would be an 180 day moratorium on demolition while the historic landmark process proceeds.

If the resolution does not pass at the next council meeting, two other city bodies have the same power. Either the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission could vote by majority to start the process which would trigger the same 180 day moratorium against razing the buildings.

OKCTalk has learned that if the resolution does not pass at city council, the Historic Preservation Committee will vote on the same matter at their next meeting in early April.

Regardless of which group passes the measure, it would later come back before the city council for final approval.

If council passes the final historic landmark status, any owner would be required to get prior approval from the city's Historic Preservation Commission before it could be significantly modified, including full or partial demolition.

On Wednesday, the same day of the protest, attorney David Box submitted the following letter to the city council and mayor, stating the church is opposed to the rezoning.

By expressing opposition by the current owners, the final rezoning will now be required to receive 7 affirming votes among the 8 council members and the mayor. Without stated such opposition, the resolution would only need a simple majority to pass.

The move seems to underscore the intention of the church to sell to a new owner who plans to make major changes to a series of buildings that has been a landmark since its completion in 1956, where the city itself promoted the egg-shaped structure as the “Church of Tomorrow”.

As we reported on February 22nd, Shadid received a call from a church board member who told him they were under contract with a buyer who intended to demolish the main structure.

Since the property falls outside any of the city's various design districts, as things are today complete demolition could occur without public notice or any type of review.

City council will discuss and vote on the historic landmark resolution on Tuesday, March 12th.

[BoulderSooner]

i have been told that there are not 7 votes on the council to pass the historic resolution

we will see on tuesday ..

[Pete]

i have been told that there are not 7 votes on the council to pass the historic resolution

we will see on tuesday ..

Actually, I updated the article with more info.

On Tuesday, council just needs a majority to start the process which will cause an immediate 180 moratorium on demolition.

But utlimately, due to the legal objection of the church, the council would need the 7 votes to formally pass the histroic landmark status.

[BoulderSooner]

Actually, I updated the article with more info.

On Tuesday, council just needs a majority to start the process which will cause an immediate 180 moratorium on demolition.

But utlimately, due to the legal objection of the church, the council would need the 7 votes to formally pass the histroic landmark status.

wow interesting .. thanks for the update

[okatty]

That is a great drone shot of the Church / property in your post above.

[T. Jamison]

If the City Council passes this measure, or the Historic Preservation Commission or whoever, I imagine there would be a good argument for Inverse Condemnation. The City would be taking a property right from the First Christian Church, and they have the right to Just Compensation.

[TheTravellers]

In his chat today, Lackmeyer said they'd hire Box, not surprised. Also, he was pretty much condemning the congregation/church for being greedy, not having any respect for the community, and condemning the buyer for staying secret. Quite a few folks saying "just sell it and bulldoze it already". Very strange opinions on his chat today about it.

[BoulderSooner]

unless an angel buyer comes forward soon i am afraid that this will end up in court and perhaps limit the ability of the City in the future

[chuck5815]

I think the Takings argument isn’t necessarily the strongest here, but it will certainly be interesting to see how it plays out.

[T. Jamison]

If the market value of the property before the resolution is greater than the market value after, the City has essentially damaged the property. They extracted value from the property for the public good without Just Compensation. I think there is a pretty fair argument. The City could be on the hook for the difference in these two values, not the entire property.

[Dob Hooligan]

If the market value of the property before the resolution is greater than the market value after, the City has essentially damaged the property. They extracted value from the property for the public good without Just Compensation. I think there is a pretty fair argument. The City could be on the hook for the difference in these two values, not the entire property.

Let's get in the weeds and ask: Value to who? And for what purpose? Who is being harmed by some "loss in value" as an individual? Could I suggest that this preservation action by the City is protecting an aging congregation who has ownership and is being taken advantage of by a developer who has no understanding of, or interest in, the eternal vision of the original Disciples of Christ builders who's Church of Tomorrow is as relevant and transformational now as it was in 1955ish?

[mugofbeer]

I've outlined a couple of times on here that not only is this a one-of-a-kind building on its exterior, but the perhaps one-of-a-kind cooling system for the dome could be a valuable lesson for green buildings in the future if anyone else were so bold as to try it. I know of no other building that uses such an evaporation system.

[Ed Shadid]

mugofbeer: Will you please expound on these thoughts and help me understand how the evaporation system works and the lessons we could potentially extrapolate for green building?