CVS at 15th and Utica

[dsjeffries]

There are examples of good designs from around the country. Here are a few:

Carmel, Indiana (a suburb of Indianapolis)
No corner entrance, but gets some other things right.




North Kansas City
Seems to be doing fine with an entrance on the street corner and one by the parking lot...




Tempe




Lakewood, Ohio (a suburb of Cleveland)
Not two stories, but gets some things right.




Kansas City
What they apparently did to the existing storefront windows is bad, but they kept the corner entrance, and guess what...Where's the parking lot? Where's the drive-thru? Will people walk all the way to the corner?

[Bamboo World]

What a steaming pile of dung this has turned into.

When this issue goes back to the City Council, I think it ought to be rejected for the following reasons:

1.  What's there now is better aligned with the Small Area Plan than the proposed CVS development is.  There are three buildings on the site now, two have true second floors, one is a historic house.  The existing parking areas are relatively small compared to the proposed parking, and they're separated by some landscaping.  There's a mixture of uses on the site now:  office and commercial retail.  The proposed CVS store will be one single building, one single story, one single use: retail.

2.  The CVS proposal is contrary to the following PlaniTulsa Guiding Principle for Land Use:  "Future development protects historic buildings, neighborhoods and resources while enhancing urban areas and creating new mixed-use centers."  The proposed CVS would not protect historic buildings.  It would destroy one.  It would not create new mixed-use on the site.  It would destroy the existing mixed-use and replace it with a single-use building.

3.  The CVS proposal runs contrary to another Guiding Principle:  "New buildings meet high standards for energy and water efficiency while delivering high quality spaces and architectural design." 

4.  The CVS development review process, so far, has been at odds with a third Guiding Principle:  "Once adopted, city-wide and neighborhood plans are funded, implemented and monitored for performance."

5.  The CVS proposal raises conflicts with a fourth Guiding Principle:  "Development and zoning policies are easily understood, workable and result in predictable development."

6.  The CVS proposal, as approved by the TMAPC, and if approved by the City Council, would be inconsistent with a fifth Guiding Principle:  "Residents have a voice in solving their community's problems today and are a part of planning for tomorrow."  When the residents had a voice in crafting the Small Area Plan, addressing the problems of single-story, single-use buildings, they thought they were planning for tomorrow...

7.  The CVS proposal, if approved by the City Council, would be the polar opposite to the intent and spirit of a sixth Guiding Principle: "City planning and decision-making is an inclusive and transparent process."  Mixed-use doesn't mean single-use.  A building where milk and drugs and greeting cards are sold is not necessarily a mixed-use building.  A two-story building is not a single-story building.  Protecting historic buildings doesn't mean razing historic buildings.  High quality architectural design doesn't mean a bland, run-of-the-mill standard corporate box, even if it's "customized" by slapping a "Pearl District" or "M.B. Cherry St" logo on it.  Implementing adopted neighborhood plans does not mean ignoring adopted neighborhood plans.           

[davideinstein]

I've been to that one in North Kansas City. I thought the design was great.

[TheArtist]

When this issue goes back to the City Council, I think it ought to be rejected for the following reasons:

1.  What's there now is better aligned with the Small Area Plan than the proposed CVS development is.  There are three buildings on the site now, two have true second floors, one is a historic house.  The existing parking areas are relatively small compared to the proposed parking, and they're separated by some landscaping.  There's a mixture of uses on the site now:  office and commercial retail.  The proposed CVS store will be one single building, one single story, one single use: retail.

2.  The CVS proposal is contrary to the following PlaniTulsa Guiding Principle for Land Use:  "Future development protects historic buildings, neighborhoods and resources while enhancing urban areas and creating new mixed-use centers."  The proposed CVS would not protect historic buildings.  It would destroy one.  It would not create new mixed-use on the site.  It would destroy the existing mixed-use and replace it with a single-use building.

3.  The CVS proposal runs contrary to another Guiding Principle:  "New buildings meet high standards for energy and water efficiency while delivering high quality spaces and architectural design."  

4.  The CVS development review process, so far, has been at odds with a third Guiding Principle:  "Once adopted, city-wide and neighborhood plans are funded, implemented and monitored for performance."

5.  The CVS proposal raises conflicts with a fourth Guiding Principle:  "Development and zoning policies are easily understood, workable and result in predictable development."

6.  The CVS proposal, as approved by the TMAPC, and if approved by the City Council, would be inconsistent with a fifth Guiding Principle:  "Residents have a voice in solving their community's problems today and are a part of planning for tomorrow."  When the residents had a voice in crafting the Small Area Plan, addressing the problems of single-story, single-use buildings, they thought they were planning for tomorrow...

7.  The CVS proposal, if approved by the City Council, would be the polar opposite to the intent and spirit of a sixth Guiding Principle: "City planning and decision-making is an inclusive and transparent process."  Mixed-use doesn't mean single-use.  A building where milk and drugs and greeting cards are sold is not necessarily a mixed-use building.  A two-story building is not a single-story building.  Protecting historic buildings doesn't mean razing historic buildings.  High quality architectural design doesn't mean a bland, run-of-the-mill standard corporate box, even if it's "customized" by slapping a "Pearl District" or "M.B. Cherry St" logo on it.  Implementing adopted neighborhood plans does not mean ignoring adopted neighborhood plans.            

Very well said.  Please send to your city councilor.

So who is on this TMAPC and why did they approve this development?

[LandArchPoke]

I'll add something to chew on. Cannonfodder you had looked up the sq. ft. of the building to be torn down and thought it would be interesting to see if we'd loose any tax value even if we are adding sq. ft. with a CVS.

The proposed CVS is 13,301 sq. ft. (unless this has changed with the past revision?)

The total buildings to be torn down is 11,536 sq. ft. on 43,450 sq. ft. of land
Current taxes - $30,887
Current taxable value - $2,087,500

CVS @ 21/Harvard
13,146 sq. ft. building | 52,049 sq. ft. land
Current taxable value - $1,981,000
Current taxes - $29,311

CVS @ 41/Harvard
12,779 sq. ft. building | 66,047 sq. ft. land
Current taxable value - $2,609,400
Current taxes - $38,616

CVS @ Admiral/Sheridan
13,439 sq. ft. building | 73,734 sq. ft. land
Current taxable value - $2,712,700
Current taxes - $38,840

So let's average these and apply it to the proposed CVS

$2.71/sq. ft. of taxes per sq. ft. of building
$0.56/sq. ft. of taxes per land

So if apply these two, the new CVS will produce between $26,905 (based on land ratio) to $36,097 (based on building ratio)... so we could assume an average of those two at $31,501 in property taxes per year.

So in reality we will probably get about $1,000 more a year in property tax/taxable value. Keep in mind, this is for a BRAND NEW building as well - these other building are producing this value at an average age of 52 years. What will this CVS be worth in 52 years if it barely will produce more value at year 1? Is this good business for the city? Is it good business for our schools? No.

Not only is it bad business for our tax base, it doesn't align with the small area plan like others have stated very clearly.

[davideinstein]

Pretty sure a CVS between two major hospitals would bring in more revenue compared to a run down gas station. If not then we need to seriously reevaluate how we tax property in this city.

[LandArchPoke]

Pretty sure a CVS between two major hospitals would bring in more revenue compared to a run down gas station. If not then we need to seriously reevaluate how we tax property in this city.

Sadly based off what the other CVS are taxed in Midtown/Central Tulsa it won't. I would agree that the way we tax a lot of property in the city makes very little sense. A good example would be the refineries. In reality they are some of the most expensive facilities in the State of Oklahoma and they pay probably the lowest ratio of taxes and its because of the way they are assessed. It baffles me.

[RecycleMichael]

Pretty sure a CVS between two major hospitals would bring in more revenue compared to a run down gas station. If not then we need to seriously reevaluate how we tax property in this city.

Sales tax revenue has to be higher for a pharmacy than a gas station and a small office. I think the city will be ahead on that point. But doing things just for sales tax can lead us to become Plano Texas with no soul. Nobody wants that for Tulsa.

The location is ideal for a pharmacy. CVS is the 35th largest business in the world with 7,800 locations including 12 already in the Tulsa area. They know what they are doing and are very successful with lots of loyal customers. There should be a pharmacy on that corner.

But it is not unreasonable to ask for a better design. This corner matters to many people. They have done everything citizens can do to try to make it what they want it to be. Someone has to listen.

I just wish this same passion occurred anywhere else in Tulsa. It is hard for someone who doesn't live in mid-town to care this much about this corner when if this CVS was being built three miles in any other direction none of these people would speak up.  

[LandArchPoke]

Sales tax revenue has to be higher for a pharmacy than a gas station and a small office. I think the city will be ahead on that point. But doing things just for sales tax can lead us to become Plano Texas with no soul. Nobody wants that for Tulsa.

The location is ideal for a pharmacy. CVS is the 35th largest business in the world with 7,800 locations including 12 already in the Tulsa area. They know what they are doing and are very successful with lots of loyal customers. There should be a pharmacy on that corner.

But it is not unreasonable to ask for a better design. This corner matters to many people. They have done everything citizens can do to try to make it what they want it to be. Someone has to listen.

I just wish this same passion occurred anywhere else in Tulsa. It is hard for someone who doesn't live in mid-town to care this much about this corner when if this CVS was being built three miles in any other direction none of these people would speak up.  

With sales taxes, yes it will bring in more revenue. About $130,000 per year in sales taxes more if it hits sales of $400/sq. ft.

But what if that office building was renovated into a restaurant and that gas station was bought by say Apple or a another name brand retailer that built a true urban format store there - it would bring in way more revenues in sales taxes than a CVS.

How this should be evaluate is are we increasing value on this corner - and we are clearly not.

Frankly we shouldn't be allowing anything less on this corner than what is being built on a mere 2 blocks away. I'm sure the Car Wash Site development will blow this CVS out of the water in sales taxes collected - so if that's what we are after, this development will fail at this as well. It will fail at increasing property taxes too.

[swake]

No sales tax on most prescriptions.  Most sales from this store will be exempt.

[Breadburner]

No need for this shithole on that corner.....

[patric]

How this should be evaluate is are we increasing value on this corner - and we are clearly not.

Frankly we shouldn't be allowing anything less on this corner than what is being built on a mere 2 blocks away. I'm sure the Car Wash Site development will blow this CVS out of the water in sales taxes collected - so if that's what we are after, this development will fail at this as well. It will fail at increasing property taxes too.

I have relatives in another town that went thru this -- CVS wanted a corner property where a historic restaurant stood, to put the most generic, boxy light-polluted design in their folio on. 
Its refusal was a slam-dunk, and could have been derailed at many levels.  There was no public support (the area was surrounded by pharmacies) yet the project was approved and the restaurant torn down with amazing speed, so obviously there is more to their strategy than the needs of the community.

[Conan71]

Pretty sure a CVS between two major hospitals would bring in more revenue compared to a run down gas station. If not then we need to seriously reevaluate how we tax property in this city.

All it will do is shift sales tax collection from other pharmacies in the area.  It's a zero sum game in this location.

How does everyone keep missing this one immutable fact of sales tax shift?  Unless there's new money to spend in the area, we simply change the collection points.  I'm not aware of pharma-tourism being a big deal in our state. 

[carltonplace]

This intersection is already a mess, the last thing we need to add is to make it a worse mess like the Walgreens/Reasors mess at 15th and Lewis.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

All it will do is shift sales tax collection from other pharmacies in the area.  It's a zero sum game in this location.

How does everyone keep missing this one immutable fact of sales tax shift?  Unless there's new money to spend in the area, we simply change the collection points.  I'm not aware of pharma-tourism being a big deal in our state. 

I am amazed that city leaders and others often ignore (or pretend to ignore) this fact. Even with REI (which will have some regional draw), the majority of business will just be siphoned off from the dozens of other existing outdoor stores.

The mayor touts new tax revenue but it is usually just taking more of what's there, essentially taking business from other existing places. Huge national chains are great at this. This is why Walmart decimates communities. CVS will further take away from Reasor's/Walgreen's pharmacy and grocery sales.