The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

PLANiTULSA Small Area Plans

Meeting tonight


Tuesday
February 28, 2012
Greenwood Cultural Center, 322 North Greenwood Avenue
 
Doors open at 5:30pm, Program from 6:00-7:00pm, Q&A to follow (http://www.planitulsa.org/files/sapthreeplanmap.gif)

http://www.planitulsa.org/ (http://www.planitulsa.org/)

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/news/news-stories/2012/small-area-plans.aspx (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/news/news-stories/2012/small-area-plans.aspx)

Let me know how this goes.

I was let down by this meeting.

I left feeling as though there are changes being made due to outside forces coming late to the game.

Have developers come in saying they don't like what the previous meetings had turned out?

The small area plan by St. Johns makes me think a certain someone got to put his ideas before everyone else.

I hope I'm wrong.

I am not sure what previous meetings you are referring to Townsend, but all I can tell you is that the public process for these Small Area Plans is modeled after the PlaniTulsa public engagement process, and by all accounts, that was as inclusive a planning process as this city has ever seen.  That meeting, on Feb 28, was a kick-off...the public engagement hasn't begun yet.  The only conversations we've had with St. John and Hillcrest consultants have been about how they will participate in the city's planning process, what our expectations are in terms of transparency and in scope.  They basically told us the same thing they told you at the meeting at Central Park.  They appear to be honest brokers, and have no reason to believe otherwise.  
 
It's my hope that we won't jump to conclusions or solutions before we get into the planning in earnest.  And, keep in mind, technically there are already plans in place for this and all of the other planning areas, which were established during the Comp Plan Update...so there are already building block recommendations as well as stability and growth recommendations in place.  The SAP process is designed to zoom in on a specific area, and first things first, examine the existing conditions, which include that plan update, and verify those maps and recommendations.  

I would also encourage you all to understand and care that there are two other Small Area Plans being done at the same time as the Utica Corridor, each with different issues than this one.  You should take a drive on N. 36th Street sometime.  That district deserves and will recieve as much attention as Utica will.  Same goes for Southwest Tulsa.

So much for community planning.  The council just voted 5-4 to allow Quick Trip to put in whatever they want regardless of what the Pearl District's Small Area Plan allows.  Once again it seems corporations have more rights than real people.

Exactly. What the council did last night was void the hard work and countless volunteer hours of neighbors trying to have a voice in the future direction of their own neighborhoods. Jack Henderson's incomprehensible ramblings about wanting a QT in north Tulsa, insulting the Pearl District and then asking Jamie Jamieson for help on his own Small Area Plan were asinine. But they paled in comparison Councilman Mansur's incoherent babble.

He seriously compared Small Area Plans and the Comprehensive Plan to a Biblical story about harlots being forced to split a newborn child in half (1 Kings: 24-25, yes, I looked it up), and then ranted about how George Washington was a small business owner that didn't want government interfering with his business.

The complete disregard for the desires of the Pearl District Association was appalling. I was perhaps most disappointed by the actions of Phil Lakin, who refused to recuse himself from voting in this matter due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Cadieux, the owner of QT serves on a board with him. As Bob Edmiston, the city attorney, explained, it's completely at the discretion of the individual councilor as to whether they should recuse themselves... Then made it a point to say that outside of the board on which Cadieux and Lakin serve, that they're really good friends. (!)

The arguments put forth by QuikTrip were less than compelling. They include:
"Look at 15th & Denver. You just can't get more urban than that." Failing, of course, to mention that this proposed siteplan is almost twice the size of 15th & Denver's store. And the notion that the 15th & Denver store is "urban" is a fantasy statement.
"We've closed a lot of stores in Tulsa that look outdated. We want to always look modern, no matter the cost." So they're proud of how many stores you've abandoned and left empty because the other side of the street corner works better for them now. And that they'll do whatever they can to get their way without regard for the surrounding neighborhood.
"We've made many concessions to the TMAPC and Council. Look, we even built a four-foot wrought iron fence along the periphery to create a street wall." A wrought iron fence does not a street wall make.
"We're not actually closing 10th street; we're opening it up." Complete insanity.
"We welcome area residents to drive through the parking lot to get to 10th street." Cutting through parking lots is illegal.

When it came to certain provisions in the 6th Street Infill Plan came one of the most important statements of the night: "That just won't work for us."

I'm proud of Blake Ewing for speaking out so passionately and logically against this. I'm proud of the citizens who spoke in opposition to this plan. And I'm proud of Karen Gilbert and G.T. Bynum for trying to go back to the compromise table and find a workable solution for all parties.

But I am ashamed of the sheer ignorance on public display by a majority of the Councilors last night, and I'm concerned for the future of our city. It's clear now that citizen input is worthless, planning guides are worthless, and that corporations will do whatever it takes to win over ill-educated council members by threatening to leave the community. If it had been any other company asking for this amendment and street closure, it would likely have been denied. But this was QuikTrip, beloved, innocent, homegrown QuikTrip.

As a city, we've turned into development whores. We'll let businesses do whatever they want, even at our own detriment and in complete opposition to what citizens and neighborhoods want, in order to appear to be pro-business and easy an easy place to develop.

I agree with Blake's manifesto from a long time ago: Tulsa needs to grow up and start acting like a real city.

I believe Ben Franklin once said that for democracy to work, a country must have an educated populace, but I think he only got it half-right; in order for democracy to work to its fullest potential, we must also have educated elected officials. That's something we're sorely lacking at the moment.

Will they remove the old QT or will there be an abandoned building left next door to the new one?

In this case, they're closing off 10th street and tearing it out, building the new store where 10th street currently is, tearing down the old store and in the process, filling close to 90% of this 80,000+ sq ft lot with concrete and asphalt.

Do the build plans have all sorts of trees and bushes that will never be planted?

Can anyone else think of when the last time was a developer was allowed to remove a street which was not a part of a city or county flood mitigation, road/highway project, or public use project (i.e. BOK center, PAC, or a school/university development)?

I may be wrong but this has got to be unprecedented outside of the IDL.  QT really should try and be a better neighbor instead of marrying themselves to a particular business model then telling a neighborhood association and urban planners to go love themselves if they don’t like it.  Sorry, that’s really poor corporate citizenship.


And some sort of lighting arrangement which will cause patric to have a seizure.

I'm so sad that I was right about this.  I'm really really sick of progressive urbanites being given only as much room to move as it doesn't really make any difference.  As soon as we get something done where Tulsa might really change, we get bitchslapped and told that we are inhibiting freedoms.  I haven't concidered moving in a long time.  Now I'm open to it.

P.S.: has everyone forgotten the Ali Babba and the 40 theives comment?

Yes, and it was actually one of their arguments that they're complying with the Small Area Plan. Their real estate manager said, "Look, we're even planting trees along Utica, and really trying to meet the Plan's guidelines."

FYI, here's the PUD application submitted by QuikTrip: http://www.tmapc.org/tmapc/PUD-588-A.pdf (http://www.tmapc.org/tmapc/PUD-588-A.pdf)

And Conan, you're right; the taking of public land and public infrastructure for private use does set a dangerous precedent.

It's missing some important requirements, such as a lighting plan with an ISO-footcandle plot.


http://www.countyoftulsa-boa.org/Documents/applications/11-18-09-NEW%20Standard%20Elements%20PUD%20and%20CO%20DSP.pdf

"Lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged as to shield and direct the light away from properties within an R District which do not contain uses for which the parking is being provided.
Shielding of such light shall be designed so as to prevent the light-producing element of the light fixture from being visible to a person standing in an R District."

Verification of section 1303-C may be through the use of the recommended "PUD and CO District Exterior Lighting Standards" outlined below (not required but recommended), or through application of the Kennebunkport Formula, also outlined below.
The applicant shall submit a separate photometric plan in sufficient detail to evaluate its conformance with the general lighting standards of the attached (below) "PUD and CO District Lighting Standard" policy as adopted by INCOG.  The photometric plan shall include:

A. A scale drawing of the site with all outdoor lighting locations shown;
B. Fixture specifications, including catalog cut-sheets or generic standards;
C. Lamp type and size;
D. Fixture mounting heights, mounting orientation, and tilt angles if applicable;
E. A representative point-by-point illumination array for the site showing property lines and off-site lighting impacts (a photometric plan);
F. Elevation views of each differing parking lot and building mounted fixture showing over all height of the fixture and light angles to the front and rear of the fixture. 
G. Canopy lighting shall use recessed fixtures with diffusers that do not extend below the bottom of the canopy surface.

I don't think that was ever taken care of on the new store at 15th and Denver.

That's the difference between QT and, say, Kum & Go...  
the latter doesn't have to be forced to conform to zoning standards   EVERY   SINGLE   TIME ...

Their new store at 21st & Sheridan?  Recessed outdoor lighting, and they didn't even have to be told.

So who makes the better neighbor?

I feel your passion. I used to hope that TN was the group that would educate about and actively promote good urban development.  I hope you have better luck with them than I did.  I was very frustrated when I mentioned at one of the meetings what QT was going to do in the heart of Brookside against the Brookside plan.  Ripping out old, pedestrian friendly buildings and creating a larger, non-pedestrian friendly gap, against all the work the people there had done to create the Brookside Plan and build up this valuable area of the city by making it better with new businesses that fit what we love about Brookside.  But anyway, nobody on the board seemed concerned, one actually looked right at me and laughed in my face saying they liked what QT was doing there.  That felt like someone stabbed me with a knife in the gut. They later said I should have brought it up during the meeting, but to what end?  They expressed their opinions before hand.  I was shocked, and hurt by that.   Needless to say it's one of the reasons I left TN for I didn't feel that they were really doing anything.  I am glad they are working on creating a Running of the Bulls event, but I would really hope they would also go back to what I thought were the roots of the organization to eductate (the counselors for instance) and participate in promoting good urban development (and even protest against bad urban development).  

It's my hope that as an organization, we can live up to our mission: "TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."

We can take some comfort by the close vote.  I doubt it would have been close in prior councils. 

Councilor Ewing continues to impress me.

I was disappointed with the QT development on Brookside as well.

Considering the inability of even the city councilor and TN member to stop QT it may be the right course for TN to step back and do something other than fight a huge corporation.  I spent a lot of time with the Planitulsa meetings and sadly feel as though it might've been a waste.

The Bull Run event seems a great way to move TN forward and help people discover things Tulsa has.

He’s far exceeded my expectations for his job performance thus far.  He really has become a great asset to the city in many ways.

If you want to see Blake in action, go to TGOV (http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=918) and begin watching the debate over this issue at 1:01:00. I was up until 2:30 this morning watching it. I'm glad Blake spoke out.

By the way, there will be a discussion about the Pearl District at the next Tulsa Urbanist meeting, next Monday night.

"Panel discussion on the Pearl District
Our Monday meeting will feature a panel discussion on the Pearl District and small area planning with City Councilor Blake Ewing and members of the Pearl District Association. It should make for an interesting discussion! We'll be meeting at Crafton Tull at 6pm on Monday as usual. We'll be keeping the normal meeting part to the first 15 minutes, and the discussion for the remaining time."

I recall the TMAPC vote on The Pearl District expansion was tabled in favor of workshops to better inform intrested (or misinformed) parties and the issue would go back before commitee on June 6. Any word on the workshops? Or did the 11th & Utica QT vote spell disaster for the Pearl District expansion and thereby kill the workshops? 

Is this an open meeting?