REI

[PonderInc]

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.

It's best if you can check the TMAPC agenda every couple weeks, scanning for any issue that might be important.  Then it's best if you don't have a day job and can attend the TMAPC meetings at 1:30 on Wednesdays. Then it's best if you're an old-school, suburban-style developer (and possible business associate) who the TMAPC members will respect and listen to.

Other than that, I guess you'd have to work in the mayor's office. 

Or, perhaps, there should be an ordinance that states that when COT land is sold, it should be approved by the city council.  (Why does this not already exist?)

[Conan71]

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.

Thanks for the well-detailed clarification!

[patric]

https://www.readfrontier.com/hyperlocal-blog-opposition-to-proposed-rei-site-growing/

[PonderInc]

So the TMAPC unsurprisingly approved the site plan (it was in accord with the crappy PUD amendment they previously approved). Also unsurprisingly Mayor Dooey can't understand why this proposal is inappropriate for this site. (This is what you get when your go-to guy for urban design questions is Joe Westervelt.)

On the positive side, it appears there may be a deed restriction limiting the use of this land to park / recreational use for 99 years.

I believe the park land was donated to the city in 1991. A group of civic leaders and local companies donated half the money and the city parks dept ponied up the rest (I think! It's hard to remember a time when we (COT) still thought of the parks system as an asset not a liability.)

Also fun: former mayor Terry Young spoke adamantly against the proposed development.

The plot thickens...

[BKDotCom]

I read that "Bartlett is 110% in favor of the development."

Nuff said

[TheArtist]

I was unable to go to this meeting as the DCC meeting was at the same time.  Glad I went to the DCC meeting, lots of interesting stuff there at least.  But anywhoo, I had heard earlier that the TMAPC would likely approve the plan.  I do not know what else they could do as the development fit the legal parameters and all they were there to do was say yes its ok per the rules or no its not.  However did hear that some are trying to see if the City Council can go ahead and change the zoning on this parcel as well as what they did for the rest, and yes, also heard that there may be some strings attached to this land as it was donated and likely had some restrictions with what could be done.  Glad to hear that may be true. Odd that whoever was working on this (TPFA? or whatever the group is) for so long kept the potential development a secret and worked on it in private meetings and didn't know about the restrictions?  Really seems odd and or stupid to go through all of that for what I heard was quite a long time trying to get this development and didn't even have the legal rights to be selling the property.

[Conan71]

I was unable to go to this meeting as the DCC meeting was at the same time.  Glad I went to the DCC meeting, lots of interesting stuff there at least.  But anywhoo, I had heard earlier that the TMAPC would likely approve the plan.  I do not know what else they could do as the development fit the legal parameters and all they were there to do was say yes its ok per the rules or no its not.  However did hear that some are trying to see if the City Council can go ahead and change the zoning on this parcel as well as what they did for the rest, and yes, also heard that there may be some strings attached to this land as it was donated and likely had some restrictions with what could be done.  Glad to hear that may be true. Odd that whoever was working on this (TPFA? or whatever the group is) for so long kept the potential development a secret and worked on it in private meetings and didn't know about the restrictions?  Really seems odd and or stupid to go through all of that for what I heard was quite a long time trying to get this development and didn't even have the legal rights to be selling the property.

As far as the deed restriction, I would assume the city will simply do a land swap.  If the land donor is still around, maybe they will put their foot down if there really is a deed restriction.

As far as keeping this under wraps, it's classic Clay Bird, though he keeps invoking Tammy Fate's name.  She used to be the retail development director for Tulsa and moved away a couple of years ago.  He has brought her up during the Simon fiasco as well as this one as if he's scapegoating her for these hare-brained developments.

[Conan71]

Deed restriction seems to be a moot point:

But Jono Helmerich, speaking for the Helmerich family, said after the meeting that he had no doubt his father had donated the land to the city with the intention that it should be used to attract people to the river.

"He has always been an advocate of ... smart, enhancing public developments," Helmerich said.

"And our family just believes that this is something that could be of benefit to the river."

He said he and his family fully support the development.

"I've been around long enough to know that anything we can do to bring people to the river and enhance it, I think, makes a whole lot of difference to the city," Helmerich said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/plans-for-riverside-development-move-on-despite-opposition/article_4170b22b-f73b-53ea-89a4-2b918b11452d.html

[carltonplace]

This development is just flat wrong for this spot. Seriously, who thinks that 600 parking spots and a suburban eyesore facing away from the river is a good fit? Have any of these people ever been to other cities or countries? I would hate to see what their tappedout Springfields look like.


Think Small

[Townsend]

I used to support the water-in-the-river thing.

This development plan has changed that.

[Townsend]

Moving the volleyball courts a mile North...there were multiple murders right next to that park over the past few years. 

Will the volleyball players still want to be there?


REI on Riverside Clears Another Hurdle

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/rei-riverside-clears-another-hurdle

A plan to build an outdoors store on the Arkansas River is a step closer to becoming reality.

A Tulsa city-county planning commission is recommending the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority sign an agreement with retailer REI for a store at 71st and Riverside.

Former Tulsa Mayor Terry Young is among those against the development.

"In the area of the 71st Street bridge, there was never any expectation of anything but public recreation and preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land between Riverside [Drive] and the river," Young said.

While several people voiced their opposition at a Wednesday hearing, Mayor Dewey Bartlett is behind the store all the way.

"This mayor is 110 percent supportive of the approval and the implementation of this site plan, the concept and the implementation of the use as anticipated," Bartlett said.

The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority owns the land and has yet to approve the deal. The plan calls for a parking lot with nearly 600 spaces around several buildings totaling more than 50,000 square feet of retail space.

Former planning commissioner Bill Leighty disagrees with assertions the 27-thousand square foot anchor store won't affect the River Parks trail.

"Right now, they're going by open space, green space, and going by a building with a 30-foot wall is not quite the same thing," Leighty said.

If the store is approved, sand volleyball courts at 71st and Riverside would be moved a mile north.

[Ibanez]

Moving the volleyball courts a mile North...there were multiple murders right next to that park over the past few years. 

Will the volleyball players still want to be there?


REI on Riverside Clears Another Hurdle

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/rei-riverside-clears-another-hurdle

Hmmm, I thought maybe they would move them further South. North is a bad, bad idea unless there are Kevlar volleyball uniforms available.

[cannon_fodder]

Moving them north not only creates potential conflict (generally affluent kids going to a generally poor park to play could certainly lead to conflict, or it could be a good, but it seems doubtful that many residents in low income housing will join a vball league)  it also means paving more of that park for cars...

[Conan71]

Vehicle break-ins have been commonplace for years in the three parking areas in the vicinity of 23rd & Jackson.  I'm not claiming there's a definitive link to low income housing in close proximity to lots like this and stealing from cars, but I'm sure it's more than a slight coincidence.

[LandArchPoke]

Just for everyone's reference here is where REI is going in Oklahoma City:









I think everyone would agree this is what should be built on this parcel of land fronting the river. If REI is willing to locate in this in Oklahoma City there is no reason they wouldn't be willing to be incorporated into something like this in Tulsa on this piece of land. Unfortunate the City of Tulsa will now be losing out on a considerable amount of revenue because the developer is cover the vast majority of land with parking lots.