CVS at 15th and Utica

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Speaking of pharmacies in the area, I saw a permit for a pharmacy at 2516 E 15th St:
https://www.buildzoom.com/property-info/2516-e-15th-st-s-tulsa-ok

That is just southeast of the 15th & Lewis Reasors.

Does anyone know anything about this? I had heard something medical was going in but thought it was a dentist.

[Tulsasaurus Rex]

Speaking of pharmacies in the area, I saw a permit for a pharmacy at 2516 E 15th St:
https://www.buildzoom.com/property-info/2516-e-15th-st-s-tulsa-ok

That is just southeast of the 15th & Lewis Reasors.

Does anyone know anything about this? I had heard something medical was going in but thought it was a dentist.

Could be this: http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21230.0

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Could be this: http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21230.0

Bingo!

That makes the CVS even more redundant and unnecessary!

[cannon_fodder]

That makes the CVS even more redundant and unnecessary!

I have no stake in any pharmacy, for or against.  But the sales tax argument is so much stupid noise. What... is someone going to go to St. John's or Hillcrest and then drive 10+ miles to get out of Tulsa to go to a pharmacy unless there is a CVS on this corner?

Within one mile google lists 10 pharmacies. Lets pretend 50% are fake (which they aren't, but not all are public) and that 3 more only sell to albino Australian Aborigine Oiler hockey players from the Northwest Territory. There are still 2 pharmacies within a mile. If CVS doesn't move in, someone else will snatch up a great location for something.

I don't want to tell CVS not to go in, but caving isn't called for either.

[JoeMommaBlake]

If the city wants to be able to demand specifics regarding design standards, we have tools in our zoning code that allow us to do that.

If we wanted a Cherry Street design overlay that stretched from Peoria to Utica that called for zero lot line, up to the curb, no pole sign, red brick, transparent glass, minimum parking, minimum building height, etc., we can do that. I would support an overlay in that district.

We do not currently have that, however.

One of the primary problems with this site from a legislative standpoint is the conflict it creates amongst the citizenry.

Some consider it a win that the store is built up to the sidewalk, with brick, with parking in the rear, with the drive-thru hidden, etc., and are happy with the compromises made by the developer.

Some would've been fine with a traditional, stucco wrapped, placed at the back of the lot, parking in front, pole sign out front design and would've just been glad to have been able easily walk to the pharmacy.

Some demand a multi-story building with two real floors and less parking with the entrance on the corner. They don't care that there's a CVS inside, only that it's part of a mixed use building.

Others don't care how it's built as long as it's not a pharmacy.

You see, the target is moving all over the place with this one. The developer has changed the plan 6 times to meet requests made by INCOG staff, Planning Commissioners, neighbors, and me... and there are still people mad. And as I said, some of them are mad about the use. Some are mad about the lack of a second floor. Some are mad that the entrance isn't on the corner. Some believe it will create a traffic problem. Some are just mad.... and some are perfectly fine with it.

Even in this thread, there's no consistency. Is about the number of pharmacies? Is it about the exterior design materials? Is it that it isn't dense enough? Is it about taxes?

If Quik Trip, at 11th and Utica had accommodated the neighbors, professional planning staff, and City Council the way CVS has with this development, we'd have been singing their praises and celebrating the win, and that was in a neighborhood with much more restrictive elements than the Utica Corridor SAP. I like it that our standards are being raised here, believe me. Nobody in elected office has fought harder for these things than I have. I was thrilled to complete the Utica Corridor SAP and then the zoning code update, both of which I was involved directly.

To act like Cherry Street is this beacon of originality that needs to be preserved at all costs is disingenuous, considering a person standing at this intersection will be looking at a couple of banks, a Panera Bread, a Phillips 66, a Ghengis Grill, and a Chipotle. For Crying out loud. There's a CVS in the french quarter. There's a CVS in every urban commercial district of note that I've ever been to. It didn't destroy the integrity of the district. It gave those people a place to buy the types of things people buy in pharmacies - the last second birthday card, diapers, milk, deodorant, toothpaste, halloween candy, and yes, a prescription.

If someone is going to make the case to me that it shouldn't be there, it's going to be a struggle at this point. That design is a remarkable improvement over the typical CVS, it's up the curb, it's 35 feet tall, its parking is in the rear, it's made of brick with windows. It's an urban CVS. Nope, it's not a five story mixed use building with underground parking. No, it's not the absolute best project for that site. I've had to weigh, as an elected person, the lengths to which I'll demand a developer go to transform the project into the best possible use. I feel it's appropriate to demand that they make the project the best that it can be and that it respect the plan. I don't feel like we, as elected people, should ask that the entire nature of the project be altered when we don't have a regulatory system in place on the front end. It's bad form to have developers go through an entire process of design and development, thinking the rules are one way, only to veto their project at the end because it's not an entirely different and more desirable project. This is one of those areas where all nine councilors probably see things differently. This is one of those human things where personal judgment comes into play on a case by case basis. Remember, my argument is for predefined regulations that are more strict and that allow all sides to understand the rules before engagement.

If we want to enforce the ideal, we have to regulate it and communicate it prior to the application process. That's why we're implementing the river corridor overlay. It would have been much easier with the REI developers to produce quality outcomes if the regulatory guidelines were in place when they first came to the table. Bouncing developers around from board to board, city staff person to city staff person, councilor to councilor, all with different ideas, just muddies the waters and frustrates developers. It's stupid.

So, if we want, as a community, to say that our most valuable districts and corridors deserve a higher level of regulation, I agree. I support it. I fought harder than anyone to include these overlays in the zoning code. I just don't support us making up standards on the fly after the developer has already started the process. Small Area Plans are not adequate substitutes for enforceable guidelines and regulations. They are meant to inform the regulation and communicate community intent.

In this case, the suggestions of the SAP and the end product do not appear to me to be out of sync. As this is the subjective part of the debate, our only option, no matter where we come down, is to agree to disagree.

I believe our SAP has served us well in this regard. I believe INCOG staff and I were able to use the SAP to produce better outcomes on the site, not through regulation, but through communication of the community intent. I'm disappointed that some of the neighbors do not feel I've listened or represented them well. I'm even more disappointed that they've accused me of corruption and of not caring about the plan. I maintain that I'm doing my best to listen and to represent the best interests of all of my constituents and that they'd be hard pressed to find anyone in elected office that supports our planners more and who cares more about land use issues. I've spent the last five years working on these things and have become quite well-versed in land use policy and the politics surrounding it.

My belief the land use issues are the most important issues with which we deal on the City Council is not universally held at City Hall. Hopefully others in elected office and in higher ranking staff positions will continue to realize the value of such things, as nothing shapes our city like the way we allow it to be developed. Regardless, I will continue to advocate for smart, progressive land use practices and for the written policy that supports them.

Thanks.

[cannon_fodder]

Thank you for the insight Blake, always informative and useful. Even if I don't always agree with you, I always respect your opinion because it is well thought out.

My main take away: the small area plan is a guideline, but it is not a mandatory guideline like a zoning code or an overlay. Something many people know, but gets lost in the discussion too often (I'm definitely guilty here). It certainly makes sense from a developers perspective to complain about moving the goal post. And, it makes sense from a community perspective about being frustrated that the plan isn't being met. CVS had made moves - but neighbors and development wonks want the area plan met.  The source of your frustration was well articulated.

That said, I hope no one is against CVS simply because it is CVS. Even if there was 50 right there, it is their decision to put their money on another pharmacy. Yes its a chain, but just because I prefer Joe Mommas doesn't mean Dominoes shouldn't be welcomed downtown too. My point was that if they chose not to go in, we aren't losing an essential service or likely any tax revenue.

We are in total agreement that the zoning, not just the small area plan, needs to be updated. CVS can meet the small area plan if they want, they've done it before. As you mentioned, there are CVS's in the French Quarter:





By why spend the extra money and deviate from your standard business model unless the zoning code says you have to?

[PonderInc]

Thanks, Blake, for taking the time to contribute to the discussion. You are the first and only city councilor I can remember who actually "gets" urban design and the importance of land use decisions.  No other elected official has been a stronger advocate for walkability, transit and intelligent urban design.

For anyone who did not sit through the years of meetings related to updating our zoning code, you have no idea how hard Blake worked to include regulatory tools to help enhance and protect neighborhoods.  This was an epic battle because of the power and connections of a lot of old-school developers who have no desire to change how they've done things for the past 50 years.  (The lame-i-tude of the current administration was a huge factor, too.)

It is important to distinguish between plans that conceive of a vision for an area, and the regulatory tools that enable and enforce that vision.  A small area plan is the first step.

Thanks to the existence of the character overlays which were included in the new zoning code (thanks to people like Blake), we do have a regulatory tool to make that vision a reality.  However, overlays cannot simply be applied to private land without action from the landowners themselves, or by the city council with the backing of a strong majority of area property owners.  This is an appropriate limitation to protect property rights.  We all know the terrible history of redlining, rezoning and "urban renewal" where black communities were destroyed with the stroke of a pen--without their consent and without representation at the table... or even the right to vote.

As much as I'm on the side of neighborhoods, PlaniTulsa and small area planning, I think you have to be reasonable and recognize that Tulsa is doing something new and important here.  For the first time in memory, INCOG staff is asking developers to meet the intent of the SAPs.  Members of the TMAPC are saying: "You either have a plan or you don't.  If you have a plan, it should be taken seriously."  We have started to push back and demand quality, not just rubber stamp every crappy proposal to come along.

All of these things have made this proposal significantly better than the original design.  SIGNIFICANTLY.  No, it's not perfect. Rome, as they say, was not built in a day.  Twelve-year-olds can't play in the NBA because they haven't had time to learn the skills and grow into their abilities.  Tulsa is finally growing up and demanding better things.  We are developing self-worth and higher standards.  We are learning to walk.  We want to run.  It's a process.

I'm as impatient as anyone to see Tulsa "get it."  I'm worried I'll be old/dead before we actually reach our potential.  I hate it when we hold ourselves back due to inertia and fear.  But I'm excited by a lot of positive energy right now.  I think we're on our way.

[PonderInc]

PS: I'm quite certain Cannon Fodder meant "insight."

[carltonplace]

We might quibble about the need for a pharmacy in this location but I think most of the regular posters on this forum are generally in agreement that we support form over function, and smarter parking and transportation options for these small areas. If CVS wants to build here I'm fine with that, they've done the market research to know if they can compete here. But if or when they leave this spot, smart construction will allow a new use without total demolition and rebuild to suit. Smart construction will fit nicely into the fabric of Cherry street. 

[DowntownDan]

Thanks Blake for your insight and openness on this issue.  I hope that you don't allow the bad arguments to drown out the valid ones.  A lot of us know that traffic and crime and "too many pharmacies" and hatred of national brands aren't things the City Council can regulate.  There will always be neighbors that want to argue and it's their right to do so at an open meeting.  A functional second floor I think is equally as important as the build to zone bringing it to the corner.  I know the city probably can't require the property owner to lease office space but I think the city can press the small area plan's statement about buildings being "two stories".  I don't think its a measurement, it means two floors in relation to density.  Even if it's not rented out immediately, or ever, it's more than aesthetics.  The small area plan calls for denser development along the corridor and it should be a two story building.  CVS can be the only tenant if that's what the property owner wants but the option should be there in case the market changes or if CVS for whatever reason doesn't last long term at that location. To me that's about city planning consistent with the small area plan.

[Bamboo World]

The developer could change the proposal 60 more times, but there would be at least a few angry people, regardless.

For various reasons, most Tulsans aren't interested or concerned about land use and zoning.

The developer is asking for a revision to Tulsa's zoning map, namely, a major amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development which would allow for:
1) bringing the corner Conoco station property into the existing PUD;
2) razing (or otherwise removing) the existing house on 15th and the existing office building on Utica; and,
3) constructing a new CVS store on the combined, enlarged property.

Tulsa's Zoning Code is based around promoting the general welfare of the public.  The purpose of Planned Unit Developments is to allow for more flexible, innovate land use, subject to public review and approval by the City Council.

When a developer asks for a special category of zoning, it's not unreasonable for the public or for the City Council to expect a special, higher-quality development in return.

In my opinion, the existing PUD is better than the proposed amended PUD.  The existing PUD incorporates several existing small-scale buildings and small-scale parking areas, plus some mature landscaping.  To me, whether or not a CVS (or any other drugstore) is built on that particular corner isn't the issue.  It's not important.  The northeast corner of 15th and Utica would be a good location for a drugstore, no doubt.  But the Phillips 66 corner would be a good location for a drugstore, too.  The Arvest corner also would be a good drugstore location.  And the Stillwater National Bank corner would be a good location, as well -- in fact, it once was:

Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

I think most of us here on the forum, most Tulsans, and most of the City Councilors would agree that the existing single-story Conoco store development is unattractive.  The most recent CVS proposal (I've seen) would be a visual improvement to the very corner itself, but it's not a simple "crummy old convenience store/brand new drugstore" trade-off.  The CVS proposal would make the actual street corner look better, but would make the properties to the north and to the east worse.  In my opinion, the issue needs to be evaluated with that totality in mind.  In pains me to think that Tulsa might lose another historic house and a two-story brick office building in order to gain another ordinary single-story drugstore.

I'm not angry about the CVS proposal.  I was very disappointed in the 11th & Utica QT case, but I'm not angry about it.  Life's too short.

The planning commission even agreed that because CVS sells drugs and milk and greeting cards, it's a mixed use building.  The small area plan isn't worth the paper it was written on to those who are charged with implementing it.

What irks me the most about these types of zoning cases is to sit through hours and hours and hours of meetings and work sessions about urban design and zoning, only to face silly arguments about how a building set back farther from the street, with an enlarged parking lot surrounding it, is more "pedestrian friendly" than the building it replaced.  As I wrote in a previous post, selling three different products in a single building doesn't make it a "mixed-use" building.  If the TMAPC honestly thinks that, and if the City Council believes that, then we're hopelessly lost.

In this particular case, what's on the site now (a couple of two-story buildings and a single-story building) is better aligned with the Comp Plan, the Small Area Plan, and the intent of the original PUD than the proposed CVS development is.  The City Council can't demand that a two-story CVS be constructed.  That's not fair.  But the Councilors can rightfully say to the developer, "You're asking us to amend a long-approved PUD.  We have approved a Small Area Plan for that neighborhood, and within that approved plan, two-story buildings and mixtures of uses are preferred in that location.  You're asking for our permission to change the zoning to allow you to remove a couple of existing two-story buildings from the property.  You're proposing a single-story building.  That's contrary to the Small Area Plan."

The intersection of 15th & Utica could be developed in a variety of ways.  It has been developed in a variety of ways.  At one time, there were gas stations on three of the four corners:

Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

And, in my opinion, the design of the DX station was clean and Modern -- much better and more interesting than the current Conoco store building:


Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

As I see it, the intersection has been a mess for decades.  The most enduring features might be the utility poles and overhead power lines.    

[JoeMommaBlake]

Downtown Dan,

Thank you for your reply. I am grateful for the dialogue and remain convinced of the validity of your quite solid arguments and observations. It appears you may be alone in your ability to see the big picture and to make specific requests with a legitimate basis and without losing yourself in your feelings. It also helps to refrain from accusing me of corruption, apathy, or ignorance, as I am none of those things.

You're also correct that the behavior and poor arguments of your cohorts are making the conversation difficult for all of us.

Hopefully, things will go better moving forward.

As for the comments about milk and toothpaste constituting mixed uses, you're correct, Bamboo. That's ridiculous. I can't imagine that anyone on the council believes that. Your post just now may be one of my favorites in the history of this message board. Right on the money in a number of ways. I appreciate the insights. Also, I like pictures.

[Bamboo World]

As for the comments about milk and toothpaste constituting mixed uses, you're correct, Bamboo. That's ridiculous. I can't imagine that anyone on the council believes that. Your post just now may be one of my favorites in the history of this message board. Right on the money in a number of ways. I appreciate the insights. Also, I like pictures.

Thanks, Blake.  In the Beryl Ford Collection, the B1177 through B1183 series, plus A3025 and A3026 all show 15th & Utica, looking from various directions.

[Conan71]

Downtown Dan,

Thank you for your reply. I am grateful for the dialogue and remain convinced of the validity of your quite solid arguments and observations. It appears you may be alone in your ability to see the big picture and to make specific requests with a legitimate basis and without losing yourself in your feelings. It also helps to refrain from accusing me of corruption, apathy, or ignorance, as I am none of those things.

You're also correct that the behavior and poor arguments of your cohorts are making the conversation difficult for all of us.

Hopefully, things will go better moving forward.

As for the comments about milk and toothpaste constituting mixed uses, you're correct, Bamboo. That's ridiculous. I can't imagine that anyone on the council believes that. Your post just now may be one of my favorites in the history of this message board. Right on the money in a number of ways. I appreciate the insights. Also, I like pictures.

Blake, expanding upon a point Boo made, many of us are frustrated for the following reasons:

Tulsa has spent millions over the years on consultants and studies for corridor plans, small area plans, and master plans, yet it seems as if we continually ignore the recommendations and conclusions of those results.  Why do we keep throwing money down rabbit holes for out of state consulting firms if all we are going to do is ignore the conclusions?

Citizens have been asked for their input on corridor plans, small area plans, and master plans only to feel like their input was marginalized or completely ignored.  Plani-Tulsa is a prime example.

I recognize there is a real need for people with development experience to sit on the BOA and TMAPC.  However, it seems as if those boards have been  top-heavy with development and commercial real estate people or bureaucrats who have served far too long and who have tended to favor the developer in the past.

The current mayoral administration shows a serious lack of economic sophistication when they point to new retail development as some sort of a windfall when all it is doing, for the most part, is shifting sales tax collection points.  How many people do we think drive from Jenks, Owasso, BA, or Bartlesville to spend $100 or more at the new Trader Joe's?  Don't get me wrong, TJ is a nice amenity to have, but essentially, every dollar I spend there is simply money I'm not spending at Reasor's, Whole Foods, or Sprouts.

I'll grant that Costco may be a really good draw and will, by location, import a good deal of sales tax from Bixby, Jenks, and BA residents so long as it is not simply scavenging existing customers from the two Sam's locations in Tulsa.

If retail growth was really the economic bonanza it is made out to be, Tulsa's revenue growth wouldn't look so flat over the last 30 years while our infrastructure needs and costs have gone up.

We have got to move our funding functions from being so sales tax dependent.  John Fothergill and I have talked about this and I'm aware there is some movement within City Hall to this end.  What, as citizens, can we do to try and get the legislature to listen to us to allow cities to chart a different course for operations funding?  I would seriously love to hear your opinion on how this can be done.

[patric]

Thanks, Blake.  In the Beryl Ford Collection, the B1177 through B1183 series, plus A3025 and A3026 all show 15th & Utica, looking from various directions.

Thought the Old English-style stores there looked neat.  Anyone remember a giant bull on the SE corner?