PLANiTULSA Clarifies Stance on INFILL

[PonderInc]

I've heard that some folks are worried about how the scenarios will impact historic and healthy, older neighborhoods.  After a quick glance at the scenario maps, one might assume that development will engulf historic neighborhoods, or healthy single-family neighborhoods close to downtown.

I was happy to find more detail about this issue on the PLANiTULSA website, which clarifies the difference between good and bad infill, and shows "areas of stability." 

http://www.planitulsa.org/whichwaytulsa/background/changestability

"Mapped areas of stability include environmental areas such as rivers, creeks, floodplains, parks and open space; single family neighborhoods; and historic districts."

New growth should target areas that "will benefit from new investment and revitalization, such as undeveloped land, struggling commercial corridors, vacant lots or vacant and underutilized nonresidential sites."

"We will also respect areas of stability and historic significance, such as single-family neighborhoods."

I'm glad to see this policy documented on the PLANiTULSA website.  Just wish that the statement was made more clearly on the surveys, so people won't vote against a scenario based on fear of infill.

[patric]

An example of bad infill would be 14th & Lewis, where a big chunk of neighborhood was condemned by the city simply because a reailer wanted the location.  The business climate then changed and the retailer bailed out of the building.

[Rico]

Just received the following notice via email.
This sounds like you may be able to hear some different opinions on infill, both now and for the future.

Does anyone have an agenda or list of speakers for this?

I have always thought you must involve both sides of this issue, under one roof, to make a substantial change as to the way things are done.




Land Use Education & Communication Task Force
                       Come and Hear What the Building Community Has to Say!

If you are interested in what solutions the building community has for communicating to resident property owners about development that is happening in your neighborhoods,
please attend the Land Use Education & Communication Task Force

Notice the Day and Time Change from Previous Meetings:

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 4:00 PM

City Council Conference Room, Room 411

[PonderInc]

Rico - This topic belongs in a different thread.  There are a couple:

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=12837.0

and...

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13183.0

However, since you brought it up...

The Land Use Education and Communication Task Force has been meeting for a couple months, and has included many different voices in the discussion: neighborhood leaders, developers, INCOG, residents, citizens with bright ideas, City Planners, etc, etc.

They've already had meetings with presentations by Julie Hall (who's on the task force, and is involved in Who Owns Tulsa), and Preserve Midtown (meeting earlier this week).

The discussion has been insightful and I believe the participants sincerely want to see progress that will make the system better for everyone.  You can read all the minutes, and see presentations from all the meetings, if you are interested.

Read before you leap.

http://www.tulsacouncil.org/news.php

[pmcalk]

Ponderinc, I agree that the information on the website helps somewhat, and it's good to know that the consultants are thinking about areas of stability/areas of change.  However, I am still confused, in particular with scenerio D.  On the one hand, they say that most single family neighborhoods are "areas of stability", but on the map, you see quite a bit of "new growth" concentrated in areas like Swan Lake, MapleRidge & Florence Park (maps here:  http://www.planitulsa.org/files/scend-1000px.jpg).  How are we going to get significant new population growth (on top of what is there) while maintaining the existing single family homes in built-out neighborhoods?  How much density can we really achieve if we are only looking at under/non-utilized lots?  If we focus on the arterials, what will that mean to some of the historic homes along 21st Street? 

When you look at the detailed scenerio map for scenerio D (found here:  http://www.planitulsa.org/files/scend-dev-type.jpg), the first thing I notice is that FlorencePark appears to be redeveloped into a much more dense neighborhood.  I understand that these are not zoning maps, but hypothetical develpment scenerios.  But what I don't see answered are are the tradeoffs.  If I like scenerio D, and vote for it, does that mean I am voting to redevelop Florence Park?  Can we achieve the benefits of scenerio D without significantly affecting established neighborhoods? 

I'll admit that I haven't read the entire website for PlaniTulsa, and I am hoping that I can figure some of these questions out.  I hope that people don't vote to quickly, without considering the consequences of their vote.

[Theron Warlick]

pmcalk,

John Fregonese, the lead consultant, describes these scenarios as crash-test dummies.  They are facsimiles with a very important purpose, but they are not plans.  These generalized development scenarios are relatively easy to study and compare, both visually and statistically, and they are detailed enough to begin to allow the transportation planners to design and test viable transportation systems.  But they are "big idea" comparisons, not plans. 

That is not to say that details are not important at this stage, they most certainly are.  We are constantly "zooming" in and back out again (e.g., with the small area workshops, the aforementioned areas of stability vs change), because the small ideas are needed to help understand and create the big picture.  For instance, the ideas from the East Tulsa workshop and the citywide workshops led to this...

And by repeating this "town center" concept again in the north and southwest, and testing the transit connectivity, you end up with Scenario C.  Then Tulsans get another chance to tell us "Which way...."

It goes back and forth, a little like watching a tennis match.  As Tulsans provide ideas and call out preferences, things get refined.  Let me belabor the tennis analogy by saying we're just beginning the second set; the match is not over.

You are certainly not the only one to ask why blobs of purple are shown on historic areas.  The practical reality is that, to show each scenario with lot-by-lot detail, we would essentially be writing three different plans (Scenario A is really just a continuation of the existing plan), and it's not in our scope or budget.

So, for now, the response is exactly as PonderInc describes, i.e. to post the Areas of Change and Areas of Stability page and let Tulsans know that we'll be layering that back in as the plan progresses.  Note that I am not saying, "Trust us."  We have statistical surveys, workshop data, interviews, and plenty of existing districts and plans that clearly describe a shared desire to preserve historic assets and neighborhoods.  And we also have a large citizen team providing oversight.  They have taken this same data and developed guiding principles to keep us on track as we move forward.  This is from their principles and I think it's plain:

Tulsans have said they want a city where newcomers can move, buy a home and join the community. Future development should protect historic buildings, neighborhoods and resources while also enhancing urban areas and creating new mixed-use centers. There should be pockets of density for a more livable, pedestrian-friendly and cost-efficient community.

I hope this clears it up for you, and I recognize that it won't clear it up for everyone.  So, if you please, keep your ear to the ground and let us know where we need to be and who we need to talk to.  Thanks.

   

[pmcalk]

Thanks, Theron.  I figured that someone smarter than I would answer the questions.  But I still am a bit puzzled.  Even though I understand that this is not lot by lot specific, the consultants have gathered quite a bit of specific information for each scenerio--from how much impervious area will be covered to how many more people will ride the bus.  They have already identified the areas of change vs. areas of stability.  Have they not calculated, in scenario D, whether there are sufficient areas of change to absorb the population/job growth?  If, even in scenario D, there isn't any intention to redevelop established neighborhoods, why would the consultants put out maps (two different maps) that show new growth in established neighborhoods?  Won't that affect the outcome?  There are many people in Tulsa that are both environmentally-minded and historic preservationist, and it worries me that they will feel torn with scenario D.  I don't know that everyone will read the entire website; instead, I am sure there will be quite a few that will only look at the map, and panic that their neighborhood would become the primary site of all new growth.

[TURobY]

It is also important to note that a lot of growth can occur on the outer edges of the neighborhood (main streets concept). So, the interior of the neighborhood maintains his historic look, while the outer edge is redeveloped into mid-to-high density. That's exactly what we discussed at the TU small area workshop. The houses in our neighborhood (Renaissance) are well maintained and have that historic look. But, the street-facing properties all around our neighborhood could be better utilized. Several fast food joints could instead be mixed use commercial and residential, etc...

[Theron Warlick]

Thanks, Theron.  I figured that someone smarter than I would answer the questions.  But I still am a bit puzzled.  Even though I understand that this is not lot by lot specific, the consultants have gathered quite a bit of specific information for each scenerio--from how much impervious area will be covered to how many more people will ride the bus.  They have already identified the areas of change vs. areas of stability.  Have they not calculated, in scenario D, whether there are sufficient areas of change to absorb the population/job growth?  If, even in scenario D, there isn't any intention to redevelop established neighborhoods, why would the consultants put out maps (two different maps) that show new growth in established neighborhoods?  Won't that affect the outcome?  There are many people in Tulsa that are both environmentally-minded and historic preservationist, and it worries me that they will feel torn with scenario D.  I don't know that everyone will read the entire website; instead, I am sure there will be quite a few that will only look at the map, and panic that their neighborhood would become the primary site of all new growth.

pmcalk, we don't have a plan yet.  The consultants can and have calculated things like future lane miles and impervious surfaces.  But those items do not necessarily track with land area consumed by development.  A four-story building can have the same amount of impervious surface as a single story.  A road can serve 2,000 or 20,000 people.

I recognize your concerns, but again, they are asking us (Tulsans, not me) to weigh in on the big ideas.  Whatever the survey tells us, the resulting plan will be developed with respect historic resources.  That's clear.  You can help get this message out.  If you have ideas about who we need to meet with, please contact me.

[MichaelBates]

An example of bad infill would be 14th & Lewis, where a big chunk of neighborhood was condemned by the city simply because a reailer wanted the location.  The business climate then changed and the retailer bailed out of the building.

The store (now Reasor's) is not within an urban renewal area. It's my understanding that Albertson's acquired the property parcel by parcel without city involvement. The city was involved only to the extent of approving the zoning and the construction plans (including stormwater detention under the parking lot) and vacating the street.

The City did use eminent domain for the Albertson's at Pine and Peoria.

[MichaelBates]

It would be helpful to have those detailed maps available in a larger format and with the ability to see individual layers -- separate views of types of development -- because many of the colors are very close to one another.

As for Florence Park, that looks like "Small Lot Subdivision," which is what's already there. Still, I'd have thought that Fregonese's models, using the "areas of stability" as a mask, would have filtered out anything showing new development over a single-family neighborhood.

[PonderInc]

In looking at the survey, I don't see a way to show my support for a particular scenario, while re-affirming my desire to preserve/protect older/historic homes and buildings.

If there were a comment section, even a short one, I could add a codicil to my vote, confirming my desire to protect and preserve Tulsa's unique character, history and architecture....along with my preference for the "centered city" concept.

While I am reassured by statements that established/healthy/historic neighborhoods will be off limits to incompatible new development, I would like to be able to confirm that very clearly with my "vote."  (So that my vote could in no way be misconstrued or misinterpreted at a later date.)

I agree with pmcaulk that people might be so worried about historic neighborhoods that they won't suppport a scenario that otherwise makes good sense.

To clear this up, it might be worth meeting with all the neighborhood associations (or sending out an email to their leadership) that are in the "purple" areas.  Reaching out to COHN and/or Preserve Midtown would also probably be a good idea.

[patric]

The store (now Reasor's) is not within an urban renewal area. It's my understanding that Albertson's acquired the property parcel by parcel without city involvement. The city was involved only to the extent of approving the zoning and the construction plans (including stormwater detention under the parking lot) and vacating the street.

The City did use eminent domain for the Albertson's at Pine and Peoria.

I dont recall what authority was used, but that the neighbors werent given a real choice.
Also, for Albertsons to buy up all those parcels with the very likely chance that some homeowners would decline an "option" to move wouldnt make any sense, because Albertsons might have ended up waiting years before the holdouts relented or died off.

[waterboy]

Actually Patrick I remember from my travelling salesman years in NE Oklahoma seeing a quaint little home surrounded by a grocery store parking lot.  Apparently Safeway could not buy it at any price and proceeded to work around them and wait for the heirs to sell it. I think it was in Muskogee. Anyway, not unheard of.

[TheArtist]

What are the stages of this process? Lets say we vote and get either C or D or a combo of both that seems to be the predominant "winner" which says, this is the direction we want. Whats next? Do we then go to a more detailed step and work out how to more precisely apply that particular scenario, as in where the infill is to go etc.? Is PLANiTULSA tasked to facilitate that step as well?