Randi's River Plan Meeting Thursday 01/25

[Double A]

This public meeting is scheduled for 8:15 a.m. Thursday in Room 315 of the Tulsa County Administration Building, 500 S. Denver Ave.

Meeting to discuss river plan process
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
1/21/2007


The leaders of several local communities have been invited to meet with Tulsa County commissioners Thursday to discuss whether an Arkansas River development authority should be created, and if not, what oversight mechanism -- if any -- should be implemented.

Randi Miller, the commission's chairwoman, has been advocating the creation of such an authority since last year. But less than two weeks ago, her fellow commissioner, Fred Perry, came out against a new oversight body.

Miller said Friday that it is essential that all parties involved in river development agree on an official evaluation and oversight process.

"If we're not going to have an authority, I need to know what we're going to do," she said.

The Arkansas River Corridor Plan includes a recommendation that a river authority be created, Miller said.

"If we now want to change that process after years of work (on the Corridor Plan), then we need to discuss what that process will be," she said.

Miller said that with the Corridor Plan, which targets seven areas along a 42-mile stretch for development, the review and approval process was clear: the proposal began with public input, and after several more steps -- including a technical review by the Indian Nations Council of Governments -- was presented to Tulsa city councilors and the county commissioners for their approval.

A similar oversight process should be required of all river proposals seeking public funding, Miller said.

The Tulsa Stakeholders, the private group behind The Channels, is asking for $600 million in public funds. The group took no public input on its proposal, but has given several public presentations outlining its plans. It has also agreed to go through the same review processes used to create the Corridor Plan. The $788 million proposal, which calls for the creation of three linked, livable islands between the 21st and 11th Street bridges, is before INCOG for a technical review.

Perry said Friday he welcomed the meeting with area officials.

"What I'm against is appointing some panel of nonelected officials" to select a river-development plan.

Once county commissioners, in consultation with technical experts and area leaders, come up with a plan, the creation of an authority would be appropriate, Perry said.

Then "you need an authority that can oversee it," he said.

Miller has invited the mayors of Tulsa and other municipalities in the area. She said INCOG's Jerry Lasker and Matt Myers of the River Parks Authority have also been asked to attend.

The public meeting is scheduled for 8:15 a.m. Thursday in Room 315 of the Tulsa County Administration Building, 500 S. Denver Ave.

Kevin Canfield 581-8313
kevin.canfield@tulsaworld.com

[TheArtist]

Question about river development........


Is there any type of zoning or designation for,  what type of structure, height, set backs, usage, where parking should be, whether facing the river or not, etc.   for development on the river in Tulsa?  Or is it just anything goes ( aka the Kum and GO).  I am especially interested in the area on the west bank near downtown. Are we going to have urban or suburban type development there? If the INCOG plan is a clue of what is possible for the are, there is obviously no rule for how far from the river development should be in that area.

If so or if not under whose watch or authority would something of this nature be?

I would like to go to that meeting but not sure if voicing a concern of this natur,e would be in its perview or that of any one of the participants and topics.

[Double A]

If you are able, by all means GO. Even if you can't get forum to voice your concerns, it'll be your best opportunity to have all the right people in the same place at the same time to seek answers to your questions. Tyranny thrives on the apathy of good people.

[Chris]

An update by anyone who goes would be much appreciated! []

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Chris

An update by anyone who goes would be much appreciated! []

Artist did get a chance to ask his questions as well as I did to voice my pithy remarks. I'll let him speak for himself. But as for my input it was well received. RecycleMike where were you?

As anyone who follows this process knows, when it comes to the River everyone is an expert! Randi Miller has taken the lead imo to make some sense of how development will proceed and under what oversight.

The room was populated with most all of the players and managers of each club. Political,Planning, Business and Regulatory. The new commissioners deferred to Randi's leadership though it is not clear that Perry understands organization charts very well or the general process that oversight has taken. Smaligo prefers to keep his input scant at this time. Fortunately this is only the first of several meetings to discuss how plans for the river will be analyzed, where the leadership of development will emanate, and who has input to the process.

Here is the bottom line imo. There is lots of private property along the river that at this time could pay only cursory attention to INCOG planning. There is no "official" approval process for plans like the Channels. The development efforts along the river are spread among various entities ranging from River Parks Authority, Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa, Sand Springs and Tulsa County. Any plan presented may run afoul of one of these entities. They all roughly follow INCOG planning but if you're talking a plan that effects more than one entity your job becomes quite complex. Sand Springs might like your idea, but Tulsa could apply considerable pressure if they didn't.  Who decides then?

This process is also heavily skewed towards "big bang" developers who understand the methodology and have big $$ to push their plans through. If you believe like I do that development is an aggregate process, that it is an accumulation of many smaller projects that generally lead to a "big bang" then this system won't work well.

It has been proposed that INCOG become the defacto authority that would analyze plans and recommend to the County Commission. They would have no powers of enforcement or contracting. Some of the players prefer no River Authority because they think they already have an edge in the process already. (Jenks didn't say much.) I daresay the Riverwalk would have been different and better had they undergone the scrutiny that the Channels have. For one thing its likely there would have been hard banks rather than the current ugly erosion prone banks. These players like the INCOG idea.

Bobby Lorton of RPA reinforced my belief that without an authority there are lands that will be developed outside of any oversight and there is widespread confusion as to who a small entrepreneur or constituent would take an idea to. Take it to INCOG? Fine if you have deep pockets or strong contacts. Most people don't know what it is or where it is. RPA gets alot of plans presented that are simply out of their sphere of operations. Lots of good ideas never get airtime.

There are a lot of issues with a Tulsa County River Authority that need to be discussed. This is a good start. Lots of well reasoned input from the audience and lots of positive talk.

[akupetsky]

Here is my problem with Ms. Miller's proposal--I understand the desire to maintain a cohesive development concept for the entire river.  However, development along the river doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as well.  How can we be sure that a committee consisting of the entire area will make appropriate decisions for what is appropriate at 21st & Riverside?  Or 41st, or whatever.  Is it more important to develope a cohesive plan for the entire river, or the specific city, of which the river is simply one part?  Should Tulsa be more focused on what it needs at 21st & Riverside, regardless as to how it fits in with the River in Bixby?  Obviously, we cannot disregard the rest of the area.  But from a balancing perspective, is it more important to focus on river compatibility with respect to the surrounding neighborhood, or with the river as a whole?  I suppose that given these two (perhaps competing) interest, INCOG would be the best situated.  I am not sure what another entity will do other than create more bureaucracy.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

Here is my problem with Ms. Miller's proposal--I understand the desire to maintain a cohesive development concept for the entire river.  However, development along the river doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as well.  How can we be sure that a committee consisting of the entire area will make appropriate decisions for what is appropriate at 21st & Riverside?  Or 41st, or whatever.  Is it more important to develope a cohesive plan for the entire river, or the specific city, of which the river is simply one part?  Should Tulsa be more focused on what it needs at 21st & Riverside, regardless as to how it fits in with the River in Bixby?  Obviously, we cannot disregard the rest of the area.  But from a balancing perspective, is it more important to focus on river compatibility with respect to the surrounding neighborhood, or with the river as a whole?  I suppose that given these two (perhaps competing) interest, INCOG would be the best situated.  I am not sure what another entity will do other than create more bureaucracy.

Each area can still input what is appropriate for their area. The authority would ostensibly be comprised of people with functional understanding of the needs of development anywhere along the river. It should be staffed with people like Engineers, architects, police, fire, USGS, Corps of Engineers, hydrologists etc. because the river bank has unique demands for development. What is appropriate for each area would be governed by the river corridor zoning that has been proposed. That is where the crucial planning is as Artist pointed out this morning.

Remember that INCOG plans are flexible. They are subject to change. That is why the Channels is going through this process to amend the plan for this use. Even so the process is not official if approved.

I think of an authority as solving many potential problems. I'll exaggerate for this purpose. Suppose an entrepreneur comes to the city of Bixby with a project for land that he just purchased along the river. He thinks it is perfect for a pig farm. Perhaps currently it is zoned to allow that. We'll stipulate. Of course the INCOG plan doesn't show any pig farms in its plan. But Bixby would like to increase its tax revenues, the zoning is correct, the man owns the land and no one has showed up with a plan for RiverWalk II so they OK it. Perhaps when the river corridor zoning was done, Bixby cleverly allowed for this use.

Broken Arrow ain't happy about being downstream of a pig farm and Jenks ain't happy about having it in sight and smell of their new lake. What are you going to do? It's appropriate for Bixby farm land, INCOG has no enforcement power and the county has its hands tied because there is no fair and balanced process for keeping development compatible, only a suggested plan.

We all know this pig wouldn't fly because of pressure by health department, county commissioners and influential neighbors threatening lawsuit. But frankly, that seems all that would stop it. Watch right now what is happening in Sand Springs with a mining company that wants to blast for minerals near developed areas. Or the controversy that sand mining caused in Broken Arrow near subdivisions. Its expensive and time consuming to take every non-compatible project to court.

Then keep this in mind. There are only three commissioners doing tasks for the entire county. Without some sort of oversight, advisory or authority you are asking them to review each plan from every foundation, entrepreneur, developer and loonie who walks in the door. They are not going to become engineers, hydrologists and economic experts so they will likely put it off to committees populated by no one you voted for anyway. Forget fair and balanced appraisals of proposals, there will be intense pressure to put sympathetic members on these temporary committees.

In the past I yelled to anyone within reach that the reason Riverwalk developed so fast was that it was private land. But that is a two edged sword. The oversight was by the city of Jenks. They were needy and they cut corners. The banks are not hardened, the access is poor, parking is crammed and there is no port or loading ramp for future use or rescue.

[PonderInc]

In certain mountain towns there are restrictions on buildings to ensure that they don't block the view of their most valuable natural assets.  

I certainly hope that we can move forward quickly to protect our cherished river/greenbelt from any more developments that are destructive or detract from the river.

I'm not opposed to river development.  Just those that are insensitive to the beauty (and our enjoyment) of our greatest natural asset.

[akupetsky]

I can see what your saying, and I agree partially.  Those things that effect the entire river should be decided by the entire river--whether its pollution, or something extreme like diverting the river in the case of the the Channels.  I would like some overview on those sorts of issues.  But more specifically to the land use--whether it should be highrises, or mixed use, or whatever--that to me is more localized, and should be decided at the city level.  Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Ms. Miller wanted an entity at the county level to pick & choose which development could proceed.  I am uncomfortable with an unelected, handpicked county association choosing whether they like the Branson development, or perhaps Mr. Hicks'.  Even the example you gave of Riverwalk, if the parking is a problem, isn't that Jenk's problem?  Do we really want a county level board dictating to Jenks how to design its parking?  And do we really think yet another board will eliminate bad parking decisions (or any other bad development decisions that we may not foresee)?  It seems that our government is very quick to create a new committee any time they perceive a problem.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

I can see what your saying, and I agree partially.  Those things that effect the entire river should be decided by the entire river--whether its pollution, or something extreme like diverting the river in the case of the the Channels.  I would like some overview on those sorts of issues.  But more specifically to the land use--whether it should be highrises, or mixed use, or whatever--that to me is more localized, and should be decided at the city level.  Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Ms. Miller wanted an entity at the county level to pick & choose which development could proceed.  I am uncomfortable with an unelected, handpicked county association choosing whether they like the Branson development, or perhaps Mr. Hicks'.  Even the example you gave of Riverwalk, if the parking is a problem, isn't that Jenk's problem?  Do we really want a county level board dictating to Jenks how to design its parking?  And do we really think yet another board will eliminate bad parking decisions (or any other bad development decisions that we may not foresee)?  It seems that our government is very quick to create a new committee any time they perceive a problem.

I understand your concern. I don't speak for Randi Miller. She may have a way different concept than I do. In fact, I think she isn't quite sure how it would work. Simply that some oversight is necessary. You make a good point about Jenks parking too. I guess I just think the nature of people is to not work together unless the framework dictates it. And if one part of the river is botched, it affects the whole region. We all contribute via v2025 so who protects us from a poor development made with our collective funds? Three commissioners?

I see this as an extension of the same thinking process that moves disagreements between states into Federal jurisdiction. I foresee bickering, pressure and insider influence on the process of analyzing future plans without it. But if it ends up just another cya kingdom we should pass.

[TheArtist]

I asked about the zoning thing and the guy from INCOG got up and, if I heard him right, said they were going to start working on a zoning plan for the river.  To me this zoning plan will be THE most important thing concerning development on the river.  

A zoning plan can say..  

This area is natural green space, do not touch.

This area is park space (usually acting as a buffer space between natural space and low level development)  This park space can only be used for development if approved by elected officials or a vote of the people.

Low and medium density "suburban type" development areas. Having such and such set backs, usages, facing river, etc. Appropriate water, utility, leve, shoreline hardening, street access, etc. will be eventually implemented in these areas.

High density development areas, "urban development".  With appropriate zoning requirements as well.

This way a potential developer can simply look at a map and know what he can build and where.  If its a major project like the Channels that would need to dramatically change the zoning code it would then need to go throught the process to have the code changed and the project approved, voted on etc.


As far as I can tell, as it is, if a person owns private land by the river its pretty much anything goes, aka the Kum and Go. So if someone were to now buy the concrete plant property and want to develop something on it, he could do it pretty much anyway he wants without regard to what type of development the people of the city would like to eventually have there. Appropriate zoning, and perhaps form based codes, would enable the citizens to have some say without stifling development opportunity and more importantly not ending up with a mish mash of developments along the river that don't compliment each other and and bring about the proper diversity of development we wish to have.

Now, how does one get on this new river zoning bandwagon?

[Double A]

Isn't the majority of the 42 miles of the river in the city of Tulsa? Just curious. Sorry I missed this meeting, glad to hear there will be more(hopefully outside of regular work hours so I might be able to make it.)

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Isn't the majority of the 42 miles of the river in the city of Tulsa? Just curious. Sorry I missed this meeting, glad to hear there will be more(hopefully outside of regular work hours so I might be able to make it.)

Tulsa has about a 1/4th. Figure 33rd West avenue to downtown at 3miles, Downtown to 81st at 8 miles and you have about 11 miles of the river within Tulsa. Sand Springs maybe 10 miles (dam area is not city limits). Broken Arrow/Coweta may have the most within their area. Jenks the least.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I asked about the zoning thing and the guy from INCOG got up and, if I heard him right, said they were going to start working on a zoning plan for the river.  To me this zoning plan will be THE most important thing concerning development on the river.  

A zoning plan can say..  

This area is natural green space, do not touch.

This area is park space (usually acting as a buffer space between natural space and low level development)  This park space can only be used for development if approved by elected officials or a vote of the people.

Low and medium density "suburban type" development areas. Having such and such set backs, usages, facing river, etc. Appropriate water, utility, leve, shoreline hardening, street access, etc. will be eventually implemented in these areas.

High density development areas, "urban development".  With appropriate zoning requirements as well.

This way a potential developer can simply look at a map and know what he can build and where.  If its a major project like the Channels that would need to dramatically change the zoning code it would then need to go throught the process to have the code changed and the project approved, voted on etc.


As far as I can tell, as it is, if a person owns private land by the river its pretty much anything goes, aka the Kum and Go. So if someone were to now buy the concrete plant property and want to develop something on it, he could do it pretty much anyway he wants without regard to what type of development the people of the city would like to eventually have there. Appropriate zoning, and perhaps form based codes, would enable the citizens to have some say without stifling development opportunity and more importantly not ending up with a mish mash of developments along the river that don't compliment each other and and bring about the proper diversity of development we wish to have.

Now, how does one get on this new river zoning bandwagon?

Yep great minds think alike.  Either that or she recognizes my keen intellect and piercing brilliance. []  I keep bringing it up and harping on it, zoning, zoning, zoning.  If you get that done right most of the current questions will answer themselves and development problems made easier. He who sets the zoning and codes will set the future growth patterns and determine what goes where, or doesn't, along the river.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070225_Ne_A1_Taylo70447

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I asked about the zoning thing and the guy from INCOG got up and, if I heard him right, said they were going to start working on a zoning plan for the river.  To me this zoning plan will be THE most important thing concerning development on the river.  

A zoning plan can say..  

This area is natural green space, do not touch.

This area is park space (usually acting as a buffer space between natural space and low level development)  This park space can only be used for development if approved by elected officials or a vote of the people.

Low and medium density "suburban type" development areas. Having such and such set backs, usages, facing river, etc. Appropriate water, utility, leve, shoreline hardening, street access, etc. will be eventually implemented in these areas.

High density development areas, "urban development".  With appropriate zoning requirements as well.

This way a potential developer can simply look at a map and know what he can build and where.  If its a major project like the Channels that would need to dramatically change the zoning code it would then need to go throught the process to have the code changed and the project approved, voted on etc.


As far as I can tell, as it is, if a person owns private land by the river its pretty much anything goes, aka the Kum and Go. So if someone were to now buy the concrete plant property and want to develop something on it, he could do it pretty much anyway he wants without regard to what type of development the people of the city would like to eventually have there. Appropriate zoning, and perhaps form based codes, would enable the citizens to have some say without stifling development opportunity and more importantly not ending up with a mish mash of developments along the river that don't compliment each other and and bring about the proper diversity of development we wish to have.

Now, how does one get on this new river zoning bandwagon?

Yep great minds think alike.  Either that or she recognizes my keen intellect and piercing brilliance. []  I keep bringing it up and harping on it, zoning, zoning, zoning.  If you get that done right most of the current questions will answer themselves and development problems made easier. He who sets the zoning and codes will set the future growth patterns and determine what goes where, or doesn't, along the river.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070225_Ne_A1_Taylo70447

I have two thoughts on her remarks. One, people keep referring to development "on the river" when they mean "on the banks of the river" or "around the river". It makes a difference.

Two, whether she is right or not, the county may still decide to either expand the current RPA or set up another authority. The need for river corridor zoning is a given and already being worked on by INCOG.

The RPA will most likely be expanded to include members from the other cities near the river as well as one developer rep. The effect is to dilute representation of the main engine for tax revenues and the city with the largest shoreline, Tulsa.