REI

[cynical]

When they announced the Luby's closing, they said the site had already been leased to Planet Fitness.

It looks as though they're trying to match the parking lot look of the Luby's across the street.

Speaking of Luby's...are there plans for that?  Strip mall with a Kum & Go out front?

[LandArchPoke]

I wonder what UCR's  stock holders (as they are owned by CBRE Group) would think if they knew that they turned down a TIF to help maximize profits because they were "just to far down the road". To me that's an insane amount of arrogance that has no place in business. They should have at least had the conversation.

I wonder what REI would think if a petition was started telling them this design is crappy and they are taking advantage of one of the great natural assets of our city and paving over outdoor recreation (volleyball courts - which have no firm location of where they will be replaced) in order to pave it over with parking. What a great way to entire the home state of REI's CEO.

[Townsend]

When they announced the Luby's closing, they said the site had already been leased to Planet Fitness.

Thanks.  This intersection should be more than this. 

[davideinstein]

seems like a good location for an REI

Yep.

[sgrizzle]

I was upset about this in January. Nice of everyone to join me on the dark side, we have cookies.

[Townsend]

I was upset about this in January. Nice of everyone to join me on the dark side, we have cookies.

I looked.  You weren't alone in January.  It looks like others had doubts and called what would happen.

I, for one, am super excited about another enormous heat island for that intersection.

Soon, Burger King can just cook their burgers outside off the asphalt heat.

[PonderInc]

If you look at the concept drawing, it looks like they're already planning for a drive-thru restaurant. So Burger King can cook on a grill, and folks can idle their cars on the heat island...

You've heard of "Rails to Trails."  Now we've got..."Parks to Parking Lots!"

[Mgsports]

Sheels would also be nice.

[sooneralum2012]

Not sure why they don't look at the lot north of lubys at the Peoria/riverside intersection, just south of the apartments.  I know it may not be ideal next to those apartments, but it would a GREAT thing for that lot and that part of town in general.

[sgrizzle]

Not sure why they don't look at the lot north of lubys at the Peoria/riverside intersection, just south of the apartments.  I know it may not be ideal next to those apartments, but it would a GREAT thing for that lot and that part of town in general.

I feel like they will find Hoffa before anything gets built there.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Tulsa City Council approves amendment clearing the way for REI to come to 71st and Riverside

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsa-city-council-approves-amendment-clearing-the-way-for-rei/article_b2c26a75-1af6-5f59-83b3-376b5eabcced.html

BY CASEY SMITH World Business Writer | 5 comments
The Tulsa City Council at its meeting Thursday approved a change in a land use plan that clears the way for Recreational Equipment Inc., known nationwide as REI, to come to Tulsa at 71st Street and Riverside Drive.
If REI were to build on the 12.31 acres in south Tulsa it would be the outdoor recreation store's first location in Oklahoma.
A spokesman for the national sporting goods retailer said that at this time REI has not signed any leases in Tulsa.
"We have not signed a lease in Tulsa and do not have anything to announce at this time," Michael Ferris said.
At their meeting Thursday, councilors approved an amended resolution offered by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission Plan that changes the designation of the land at the southwest corridor of Riverside in the city's comprehensive plan.
The amendment changes the designation of the 12.31 acres from "Park and Open Space" to "Mixed-Use Corridor." It also amends the land's designation on the Areas of Stability and Growth map from "Area of Stability" to "Area of Growth."
The Tulsa World previously reported that City of Tulsa officials were negotiating to lease the valuable Riverside Drive land for a major development centered around REI.
The property runs alongside the Arkansas River and has volleyball courts and a section of River Parks Authority trails that would be affected by the development.
The World reported in January that the agreement for the development would shift the trails closer to the river. The volleyball courts would also be relocated.
The agreement would likely be a long-term lease of the 12 acres with eyes on the remaining land in that area — about 50 acres — to be improved in the eyes of other developers.
The entire 60-acre property — known as Helmerich Park — has a fair market value of more than $24 million, according to the Tulsa County Assessor's website.
Tulsa City Councilor Jeannie Cue represents Council District 2, where the land that's designation was changed is located.
Cue says that council members were told that the development their zoning decision Thursday paves the way for would include REI.
"We were told REI is coming in, and we think that would be great for Tulsa," Cue said.
However, Cue said it is very important for the council to hear residents' feedback and concerns about development.
She said they want to make sure that the city is protected while plans for river development evolve and while plans are made to move the volleyball courts that the development would displace to "possibly even a better place" on Riverside.
"We want to try to, if possible, to not really make any plans for development until we get all of these things in order in the next eight months, hopefully sooner," Cue said.
Cue emphasized that it is important to consider what residents have to say about any development and to maintain green space, something that is very important to many Tulsans.
"It's very important to this council to get residents' support and buy-in and to listen to their concerns and get their ideas," she said.

Horrible news... So the City Counsel COULD have done something but intentionally went against the will of the people.

A sentiment I've heard over and over recently is: I guess the Tulsa city leaders want Tulsa to be full of fat people driving to big box stores. That's what people think of Oklahoma. This kind of development cements that for the future.

[dsjeffries]

Tulsa City Council approves amendment clearing the way for REI to come to 71st and Riverside

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsa-city-council-approves-amendment-clearing-the-way-for-rei/article_b2c26a75-1af6-5f59-83b3-376b5eabcced.html

Horrible news... So the City Counsel COULD have done something but intentionally went against the will of the people.

A sentiment I've heard over and over recently is: I guess the Tulsa city leaders want Tulsa to be full of fat people driving to big box stores. That's what people think of Oklahoma. This kind of development cements that for the future.

Not true. The City Council's hands are tied, and the map update is merely a procedural vote to make the comp plan map match what the TMAPC has already approved. The TMAPC commissioners are the ones who had/have a say-so in this, and they already approved the conceptual plan. This article leaves out quite a bit about the process and fails to mention that the Council took a stand on the issue in their last meeting or that even if they didn't approve the map change, it would happen anyway. More to come soon.

[Conan71]

Not true. The City Council's hands are tied, and the map update is merely a procedural vote to make the comp plan map match what the TMAPC has already approved. The TMAPC commissioners are the ones who had/have a say-so in this, and they already approved the conceptual plan. This article leaves out quite a bit about the process and fails to mention that the Council took a stand on the issue in their last meeting or that even if they didn't approve the map change, it would happen anyway. More to come soon.

My understanding of the zoning change process is TMAPC makes a recommendation to the Council, then the council approves or disapproves the change and has final say on the matter.

At least that is what I learned with the whole proposed Turkey Mountain development.  Is this different?

[cannon_fodder]

Please educate us on the best ways to influence zoning decisions like this!

I'm not per se against trading parkland for development... But I'd like to see the resulting development NOT be a 6 acre asphalt lot.

[PonderInc]

My understanding of the zoning change process is TMAPC makes a recommendation to the Council, then the council approves or disapproves the change and has final say on the matter.

At least that is what I learned with the whole proposed Turkey Mountain development.  Is this different?

This is different because it was a land use map change, not a zoning change.

The land was already "zoned" as a PUD back in the 70's.  (Nope, they don't expire!)  Because the PUD was in place, the development was only considered a "minor amendment" to the PUD, which does not require/involve the City Council.  (Major amendments to a PUD DO require council approval.  Because this didn't represent a massive change to what was allowed in the old PUD, this was considered a minor amendment.)

What the Council voted on was a change to the "Land Use" map which is supposed to represent the vision of the Comp Plan.  The land use map gets updated typically concurrently with any zoning changes that impact it.

The land use map shows a broad category of how we envision the land should be developed: downtown, parks and open space, main street, regional center, town center, neighborhood center, etc.  It's supposed to be a guide to the Planning Commission to show the overall vision of the city's long-range planning & development.  (I can't say that they particularly respect it.  They're very comfortable "spot zoning" / making one-off changes and doing whatever a developer wants, regardless of the comp plan.  But staff recommendations do consider this.) </end rant>

The zoning map, on the other hand, shows how each particular parcel is zoned: single-family residential, multi-family residential, office high/low, commercial shopping, PUD, etc.

So in this case, our Planning Commission failed to require the developer to provide something better than the average crappy suburban development.  (They also failed to stand up for INCOG staff recommendations, which were ignored.) And they rubber stamped the minor amendment to the 1970-whatever PUD.

This left the City Council with the administrative step of updating the Land Use map to reflect that decision.  They initially voted no on it, just out of consternation with how the entire process went down (city selling park land for development without involving the council, etc).  However, it was sort of pointless to vote no on this, b/c it wouldn't change the outcome.  So after they made their point, they went ahead and voted to update the land use map.