REI

[BKDotCom]

Sears is closing at 21st and Yale.  Hey REI! Here'a a nice location you could use! And, we've got all the stupid parking you could ever want there.  (My dad took me to the Sears parking lot to practice driving on ice, back in the 80's.)

Bingo.
I've been at a loss for what could go in the giant vacated Sears or Macy's at 41st and Yale. 
REI could fit either of these spots.

[Conan71]

Business as usual.  Bynum same as Dewby.

And to accompany today's reality...a little stroll back in time with The Who.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMD_W_r3Fg

Actually no.  I give GT a lot more credit than that.  This is unfinished business the previous administration had gotten us legally encumbered in which it does not appear he could simply say: "This is off the table".

He may be saving face and hoping this will die or perhaps there are some very real demands of the developer, which if met, might be a decent development.

GT is a pretty common sense guy.  My view might be slightly prejudiced since he and Anna America were the first two city councilors who publicly said they were unlikely to support the zoning change which could have made the mall on the western flank of Turkey Mountain a reality.

Considering there's still no dirt turning in Jenks for Simon, I still think that whole incident was a ruse to smoke Horizon out of this market.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Actually no.  I give GT a lot more credit than that.  This is unfinished business the previous administration had gotten us legally encumbered in which it does not appear he could simply say: "This is off the table".

He may be saving face and hoping this will die or perhaps there are some very real demands of the developer, which if met, might be a decent development.

GT is a pretty common sense guy.  My view might be slightly prejudiced since he and Anna America were the first two city councilors who publicly said they were unlikely to support the zoning change which could have made the mall on the western flank of Turkey Mountain a reality.

Considering there's still no dirt turning in Jenks for Simon, I still think that whole incident was a ruse to smoke Horizon out of this market.

I hope so.  I have great hopes for his administration.

[cannon_fodder]

The hearing is set for 10 AM tomorrow morning, not exactly going out of their way to set it for a time when more citizens could attend.

[patric]

The hearing is set for 10 AM tomorrow morning, not exactly going out of their way to set it for a time when more citizens could attend.

The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority sold the property to UCR Development on Aug. 11, 2015, for $1.465 million with the stipulation that the anchor tenant specialize "in the sale of high-end sporting goods and outdoor merchandise."
https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/three-images-and-a-few-words-sum-up-flap-over-proposed-development-at-71st-st-and-riverside-drive/


Original plan.  The latest one actually has trees.

[cannon_fodder]

Here is the agenda:
http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/meeting_detail.php?id=MXB8HB62152017121219

01.
Call to Order 15-1023-1

02.
Presentation by the Mayor and his representatives about proposed development on 8.8 acres owned by the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority (TPFA) located at the southwest corner of 71st and Riverside.
(CD-2) [CC 2/21/17] 17-124-1

03.
Consider a motion and vote to enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S. Section 307(B)(4) to discuss pending litigation in case of Immel et al v. TPFA et al, Tulsa County District Court Case No. CV-2015-00902, for the purpose of allowing confidential communications between the public body and its attorney. [CC 2/21/17] 17-125-1

04.
Exit the Executive Session discussion of pending litigation in case of Immel et al v. TPFA et al, Tulsa County District Court Case No. CV-2015-00902. [CC 2/21/17] 17-125-2

05.
Consider Resolution declaring that an 8.8 acre tract owned by TPFA located at the southwest corner of 71st and Riverside is not necessary for public use, abandoning public use of the property, endorsing the proposed sale of such property by TPFA to be developed for retail and restaurant purposes, and agreeing to receive sales proceeds and committing such proceeds to improvement and maintenance of Helmerich Park. (CD-2) [CC 2/21/17] 17-126-1

06.
Consider Resolution approving the allocation of economic development funds (Fund No. 6014) in an amount not to exceed $570,000, to assist in construction of public infrastructure improvements related to the development of an 8.8 acre tract at the southwest corner of 71st and Riverside subject to the conditions and restrictions of a proposed infrastructure development agreement between the City and North Point Property Co. [CC 2/21/17] 17-127-1

07.
Adjournment. 97-399-1

The new proposal:

The proposal to be reviewed by councilors Tuesday includes multiple changes from the first proposal, including: more landscaping, such as berms along the perimeter of the project at 71st Street, Riverside Drive and the trail system. The parking lot has been divided into smaller areas not to exceed 50 spaces and the parking areas are to be separated by 12-foot-wide sections of landscaping.

Also added were access points to the trail system, complemented by native landscaping features.

The REI building has been redesigned to provide the structure with more transparency to enable passers-by along Riverside Drive and the Arkansas River trails system to see inside the store as opposed to looking at opaque walls.

The development is not required to meet RDO standards because the project plan was approved by the city before it implement the RDO standards. However, the development was modified to meet or exceed many of the RDO standards.

The city is now proposing that all $1.465 million in proceeds from the sale of park of the park be poured back into it to pay for improvements and that new volleyball courts be built on the park property — not at a separate location.

https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/three-images-and-a-few-words-sum-up-flap-over-proposed-development-at-71st-st-and-riverside-drive/

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ok.   So I was right about Bynum and all the other commissioners.

[ZYX]

Well, it isn't perfect, but it is significantly improved over what was originally proposed. I'd like to see a rendering of what they envision as far as "transparency" along the trail, but the increased landscaping and less concrete is much, much better.

I like the entrances into the trail system, and I like that the developer is willing to add parking to accommodate trail users, but 200 extra spaces?? I really don't see that many being needed. Maybe cut that down by 100 or so and save some land from being paved over.

Overall, I'm not totally opposed. (I'm maybe slightly biased because I'd really love to see REI here.)

[DowntownDan]

Will they install mature trees, or those little rinky dink baby trees that'll take 40 years to actually look like full trees?  My guess is they'll go the cheapest route possible and it'll still look terrible like an ocean of parking.  I think there should be a city ordinance requiring any and all parking lots of a certain size to include large mature tree scaping for every x amount of spaces.  None of those teeny stick looking crap they put in every suburban cookie cutter front yard.

[Bamboo World]

I think there should be a city ordinance requiring any and all parking lots of a certain size to include large mature tree scaping for every x amount of spaces.

Tulsa's Zoning Code is an ordinance with parking lot landscaping requirements intended to help soften the visual impacts of parking lots and to provide shading.  See Sections 65.040 and 65.050 of the Code.

Mature trees are expensive and difficult to install.  Most likely, rinky dink baby trees will be planted.  Generally, smaller trees are much less expensive and have a better chance of surviving than transplanted "mature" trees.  

I agree with your guess:  The developers will probably go the cheapest route possible with landscaping, and the corner of 71st and Riverside will look like an ocean of parking.

[cannon_fodder]

City Council meeting starting now, you can only view it in ie Explorer with MS Silverlight:

http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2


Started by addressing timing - today was the only day available where every city councilor was available.  Then went on to say they MAY take action today, but they are not obligated to take action today. Kudos Anna America for addressing that straight away.
     
Changes to rules for public comment:  waiving 30 minute comment limit and extending time limit for comments. 

Mayor presentation, QT from council, then public comment.

GO.

[cannon_fodder]

Thus far, Bynum is hitting all the right notes.

Neither side is a villain.  Developers don't hate Tulsa. Opponents don't hate all development. Court is a win or lose proposition for both parties.  If we opponents win, Helmerich park remains underutilized and Tulsa adds to a reputation of hard to do business there. If developers win, we get a stock development that backs up to the river.  [I'm summarizing, these are not his words]

Resolution through closed doors or the courts is not what we want. I didn't want City council to see the plan in the paper before I could present it to you (directed to council).  Understand concern with timing, if you want to hold off on a vote - that's fine. I wanted the agenda to allow action if you felt it appropriate.  We need resolution sometime soon, but not necessarily today.

Now presenting the plan:

[cannon_fodder]

New plan:

Parking shielded by grassy berms.
Coffee chop at the corner.
Windows facing the river.
Restaurant and REI abuts the trail, not back of building.
Landscaping dividing parking.
Reorient buildings to shield service area.
150 trees.
Less parking spaces than concept plan in river corridor.

A better plan and fits with master river corridor plan.

All of proceeds from the sale, ~$1.5mil, goes back into Helmerich park.  Wants to raise matching funds, developer is donating $100k matching funds towards that goal.

Placing development on 71st corner instead of the center of the park because 71st is a retail corridor, Riverside Drive is not. Fits with the plan.
[displayed some new drawings of the proposal]

Sales price - smart people disagree, he didn't negotiate the price. But this is the highest price offered for this land.  Contract has been signed, little he can do without legal consequences and/or reputation of City in deal making.

Uses 1/8th of the park.  7/8ths of the park will benefit. $15mil increase in property value.  $20mil in retail sales.  Not taking sides, trying to pick the best path forward.

Action items
1) Vacated/abandon the plans. Not saying it needs to be done, that's a legal question.  But bringing it to the council is the right thing to do, whether it is required or not.
2) Authorize economic development funds for infrastructure. 

[swake]

Thus far, Bynum is hitting all the right notes.

Neither side is a villain.  Developers don't hate Tulsa. Opponents don't hate all development. Court is a win or lose proposition for both parties.  If we opponents win, Helmerich park remains underutilized and Tulsa adds to a reputation of hard to do business there. If developers win, we get a stock development that backs up to the river.  [I'm summarizing, these are not his words]

Resolution through closed doors or the courts is not what we want. I didn't want City council to see the plan in the paper before I could present it to you (directed to council).  Understand concern with timing, if you want to hold off on a vote - that's fine. I wanted the agenda to allow action if you felt it appropriate.  We need resolution sometime soon, but not necessarily today.

Now presenting the plan:

Thanks for doing this Cannon

[cannon_fodder]

Councilor questions:  [again summarizing all of this]

Lakin:  What improvements would sale funds go to. Could be...
Bynum:  Up to the council and citizens.  Could be better volleyball courts, dog park, pond in the master plan, etc.   [not  mentioned, but COULD be simple  mountain bike paths through the area!)

Also will likely need a new traffic light on 71st, just after the bride.


Cue: $1.5mil sales price?  Aren't we spending $500k on infrastructure?  [this was touched on earlier]
Bynum: Yes and no.  Plan is to use economic development fund to pay for the infrastructure, freeing up the $1.5mil available for recreational improvements. Estimate cost is $570k for infrastructure.  [America pointed out, if infrastructure exceeds this number...developer is on the hook for the difference]


America: Hazards of traffic from a safety perspective, if it seems unworkable off of 71st other options?
Bynum: Could be changed to Riverside if the 71st entrance is dangerous or doable from traffic engineer staff, not the developers call alone.

America: People often commit to landscaping, but results don't match drawings. Save mature trees, good sized trees, and make sure we have a guarantee that landscaping is appropriate.
Bynum: Yes.  It is in the resolution.  If this is not done, site is not "vacated."  Not crossing our fingers and hoping.  [there is a formal exhibit making it part of the resolution[

America: What if REI backs out or developer sells the land... how do we know we are getting what we approve?
Bynum's staff: there are safeguards that will come in during the contracting phase
Dodson: What if they sell in 10 years and a super wallmart wants to move in, once retail it is retail, right?
Legal Department: RDO & PUD standards are in place.  But, a grocery store wouldn't be prevented. But it would still have to be in compliance with the design standards. Site plan approval is still a requirement, but depends on how big the proposed changes are. If same building but a different retailer - no approval required.  15 year lease required in the draft.
Blake: We shouldn't put in contract language saying you can't have this tenant or that tenant.  Fine in the begging, but you can't have the language that you can't ever change tenants, etc.
 [ongoing discussion - but once it is sold, it can be anything retail so long as it meets the zoning/site plan requirements]