41st & Harvard - Christmas Tree Lot

[Gaspar]

I think it's common sense.

If the demographic shows that the property will yield a 89% chance of 1.88 on the dollar profit if lease/sold to CVS vs. say a 50% chance of 1.89 on the dollar for another type of development, what do you think the developer is going to choose?

What do you think his lender is going to grant?

FOTDAOXRIPTOUT was exactly correct in his previous post (I can believe I just said that). 

If the developer were to put a dense walkable center on this corner, the market may exist to support it somewhat.  He would need to do some significant demographic study on his own dime to support his leasing and sales.  Even then he would be at significant risk.
 
If the developer were to put a CVS or Wallgreens here he is guaranteed profit, and his lenders are guaranteed profit.  Furthermore the retailer/fast food chain/box store will perform and supply the demographic study to his lenders at no charge to him (it's just part of what they do).  He can then use that information to build the financially appropriate retail to surround, support and feed off of the anchor.  The anchor is also going to dictate, to a large part, parking arrangement, drive through space, and access.  He could still choose to invest more in creating a denser environment, but why take the risk?

Developers, and more importantly banks, want to make money with as little risk as possible. 

So the balance is, to make as much money with as much density and aesthetic as you can.  This corner, at this time, is what it is. 

[jne]

Anyone heard anymore info about this development.  It looked like nothing was happening at all, but I've noticed a little bit of progress on the site.  I heard there was a neighborhood meeting coming up with the developer?  Anyone know about this?

[cannon_fodder]

They have done some pretty serious dirt moving and placed the required erosion abatement barrier around the site as well as placing survey stakes everywhere. Steps and expenses they are unlikely to take unless they were moving forward with at least part of the project.   But I have no inside info on the plans.

[Townsend]

As fast as they seem to be moving they might have the lot ready for christmas tree sales by this season.

HO HO HO

[PonderInc]

Wait, isn't this site a PUD?  And don't PUDs allow for the type of development that many, including myself, on this forum want (i.e. higher density development that has a mix of uses and is pedestrian friendly)?  Unless my idea of PUDs is way off base, then what is to stop developers from developing the type of development we want right now, anywhere in the city?  Is the underlying zoning preventing it?  Is it perceived lack of demand?  Someone please tell me why? 

Ah, yes.  The PUD...

Here's the supposed purpose of the PUD according to the Tulsa Zoning Code:

SECTION   1101.    PURPOSES
The purposes of the Planned Unit Development are to:

A.   Permit and encourage innovative land development while maintaining appropriate limitation on the character and intensity of use and assuring compatibility with adjoining and proximate properties;

B.   Permit greater flexibility within the development to best utilize the unique physical features of the particular site;

C.   Permit creative land use design;

D.   Provide and preserve meaningful open space;

E.   Achieve a continuity of function and design within the development.

How are PUDs ACTUALLY USED in Tulsa?

We use them to create generic, big box developments in inappropriate areas.  And we use them to convert residentially zoned land into commercial parking lots (by "shifting the underlying zoning around"). 

Because our developers have learned how to game the system, and our planning commission and City Council lack the knowledge or political will to enforce the real purpose of the PUD (perhaps in part because of the terrible precedents that have been set in the past?), it essentially turns the intended purpose of a PUD on it's head. 

The "Tulsa PUD"...

Gives the developer greater flexibility to create non-innovative developments in inappropriate locations; it allows them to disregard the underlying zoning, without requiring any extra quality: "creative land use design," "meaningful open space," "compatibility with adjoining and proximate properties," sensitivity to historic areas, etc, etc from the developer.

Yes, there are some layers of risk and possible delays that the devloper may face.  But generally, it's worth it to get what they want (Generic, national-chain, template-built, suburban developments wherever they fancy) while making few, if any, substantive concessions.

Even when a developer comes forth with an actual "innovative" design (think Jamie Jaimeson's Village at Central Park, which basically recreates a traditional neighborhood in an area where the traditional neighborhood had been destroyed), the Planning Commission may exert its short-sightedness, and lack of understanding of the goals of a PUD.  According to Jamie, their big hang-up with his development (which exceded every standard of the PUD's stated purpose) was that it DIDN'T INCLUDE ENOUGH PARKING!

Sigh.

With visionaries like this...

[PonderInc]

Anyone heard anymore info about this development.  It looked like nothing was happening at all, but I've noticed a little bit of progress on the site.  I heard there was a neighborhood meeting coming up with the developer?  Anyone know about this?

There was a "meeting" with a small handful of neighbors before the detailed site plan was approved.  No concessions were made, as far as I know.  (Several of us who care were out of town at the time of the meeting.)

When the detailed site plan came before the TMAPC, I raised two issues.  1. The wattage of the lighting is too bright (more than double the recommended wattage for their chosen light fixtures...which will create a lot of glare for drivers, pedestrians and neighbors). 2. Their parking plan included 10 more spaces than required by our ridiculous parking standards.

The TMAPC asked the developer if they would "consider lower wattage bulbs" and they said yes.  ("OK.  We considered them.")

They also said that they couldn't require the devloper to reduce their desired parking, according to the PUD ordinance.  (Which makes no sense to me.)  However, Michelle Cantrell suggested that parking requirements for PUDS be re-evaluated at a later date.  Perhaps we will see some positive change on this topic in the future.

[patric]

The TMAPC asked the developer if they would "consider lower wattage bulbs" and they said yes.  ("OK.  We considered them.")

A toothless lion roars.

The drug chain is determined to use "Moth-effect Marketing" to lure customers to the brightest store on the block.  Of course they know they are way over the IES recommended practice for light levels, that's how it works.

Maybe someday TMAPC will adapt some limits from the works of those expert bodies to put a lid on businesses that use glare as advertising, but until then, we have to be diligent to keep those all-night lights out of the windows of the people who live there.

[FOTD]

Because of recent changes by banksters regarding credit and construction loans, you can be sure there will be a CVS store and nothing else on this site for many moons.....

[jne]

A toothless lion roars.

The drug chain is determined to use "Moth-effect Marketing" to lure customers to the brightest store on the block.  Of course they know they are way over the IES recommended practice for light levels, that's how it works.

Maybe someday TMAPC will adapt some limits from the works of those expert bodies to put a lid on businesses that use glare as advertising, but until then, we have to be diligent to keep those all-night lights out of the windows of the people who live there.

I assume your referring to the 'sling shot' method.

[PonderInc]

Because of recent changes by banksters regarding credit and construction loans, you can be sure there will be a CVS store and nothing else on this site for many moons.....

This is one of my concerns...especially since most of the landscaping won't be installed until the rest of the lots are built.  (Of course, all the parking will be installed for the entire 9 acres--without the landscaping.  That will look classy.)  In the mean time, the owner apparently doesn't feel the need to mow next to the street.  I like the two-foot tall weeds next to the street to remind me what an improvement this is for our neighborhood.

[Conan71]

This is one of my concerns...especially since most of the landscaping won't be installed until the rest of the lots are built.  (Of course, all the parking will be installed for the entire 9 acres--without the landscaping.  That will look classy.)  In the mean time, the owner apparently doesn't feel the need to mow next to the street.  I like the two-foot tall weeds next to the street to remind me what an improvement this is for our neighborhood.

I would imagine they will keep up the mowing and lanscape.  I think it will still look better than a dormant Xmas tree lot 10 1/2 months out of the year.

[PonderInc]

"It is not goodness to be better than the worst." - Seneca

Or, as Cannon Fodder would say (lawyers...)

"Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem."

I made lousy grades in Latin class, but did fairly well on the mottos quizzes, b/c I needed extra credit.

[jne]

So the grass continues to grow... I called the number on the sign about a month ago and asked that they could please tend to the overgrown grass and I got a "mmm hmmm..click"  What nice manners.

[Red Arrow]

Never challenge worse.  -  Bill Cosby (I think)

Just as soon as you say things couldn't possibly get worse, they do.

[PonderInc]

So the grass continues to grow... I called the number on the sign about a month ago and asked that they could please tend to the overgrown grass and I got a "mmm hmmm..click"  What nice manners.

You can call the Mayor's Action Center and log a complaint: 596-2100.

Or you can submit a complaint for tall grass and weeds online:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/reporting/high-grassweed-violations.aspx

The owner got the PUD he wanted from the City, but hasn't cut the grass all summer.  Classy.

(Since he just wants to lease to national chains who will build on site, he pockets the cash and they do the work.  Apparently, this hands-off approach includes minor upkeep like mowing.)