River Corridor Zoning

[pmcalk]

Of course, there are already numerous river threads, but I thought this one deserved a new one.

quote:Now is not the time to talk about creating a river development authority, Mayor Kathy Taylor said.

Instead, the city needs to focus on establishing river corridor zoning guidelines for the 17-mile stretch of the Arkansas River in the city to encourage development, she said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070225_Ne_A1_Taylo70447

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070227_Ne_A14_River34041

Thoughts?  What should the zoning contain?  How should INCOG proceed?

[Double A]

Sounds good, but this should be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, not separately.

[PonderInc]

While I understand the desire to incorporate this into the comp plan, I don't think river zoning needs to wait.  Just like a neighborhood infill plan could be incoporated into the comp plan, I think a good plan for the river would dovetail into the overall comp plan.  

In fact, if the river really is key to Tulsa's future, then it only makes sense to make it a priority, and start there.  I wouldn't want to wait 5 years (for the comp plan) for river zoning to be approved...the river could be totally destroyed by then.  Let's start today, get it right, and get it done.

[RecycleMichael]

I hope we can have zoning that states what is desired, not what is prohibited.

[Double A]

I hope we have both. What we want and what we don't.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

While I understand the desire to incorporate this into the comp plan, I don't think river zoning needs to wait.  Just like a neighborhood infill plan could be incoporated into the comp plan, I think a good plan for the river would dovetail into the overall comp plan.  

In fact, if the river really is key to Tulsa's future, then it only makes sense to make it a priority, and start there.  I wouldn't want to wait 5 years (for the comp plan) for river zoning to be approved...the river could be totally destroyed by then.  Let's start today, get it right, and get it done.

I worry that this will overshadow and divert resources away from the Comp Plan Update. I don't want to see the rest of the city get screwed because everybody is focused on the river.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

While I understand the desire to incorporate this into the comp plan, I don't think river zoning needs to wait.  Just like a neighborhood infill plan could be incoporated into the comp plan, I think a good plan for the river would dovetail into the overall comp plan.  

In fact, if the river really is key to Tulsa's future, then it only makes sense to make it a priority, and start there.  I wouldn't want to wait 5 years (for the comp plan) for river zoning to be approved...the river could be totally destroyed by then.  Let's start today, get it right, and get it done.

I worry that this will overshadow and divert resources away from the Comp Plan Update. I don't want to see the rest of the city get screwed because everybody is focused on the river.

Well you could wait... In the meantime you could have a 17 mile stretch of B*tt Ugly..........
With a capital B & U.......! Highlighting Riverside Drive...

This is something that should have caught the attention of the City decades ago... The time is right for this to happen... You have an Administration and Council that understands these priorities.......

Take full advantage of this..
[}:)]

[pmcalk]

Actually, we already at least have the fundamentals of a recent river comprehensive plan which was developed through public hearing, and paid for through Vision 2025.  http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm.  Though Phase II is ongoing, we do have the beginnings of a blue print.

It is important to remember that the plan is the vision--what zoning does is simply provide a road map for getting there.  The Mayor has not asked the TMAPC to revisit the plan for the river; she has simply requested studying the zoning code to determine the best strategies.

I imagine that the Comp plan will proceed similarly--first, we will begin a dialogue of how we envision our great city.  Only after we reach consensus of that vision will we then begin to focus on the best method of reaching that vision.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

While I understand the desire to incorporate this into the comp plan, I don't think river zoning needs to wait.  Just like a neighborhood infill plan could be incoporated into the comp plan, I think a good plan for the river would dovetail into the overall comp plan.  

In fact, if the river really is key to Tulsa's future, then it only makes sense to make it a priority, and start there.  I wouldn't want to wait 5 years (for the comp plan) for river zoning to be approved...the river could be totally destroyed by then.  Let's start today, get it right, and get it done.

I worry that this will overshadow and divert resources away from the Comp Plan Update. I don't want to see the rest of the city get screwed because everybody is focused on the river.

Fair concern, but the mayor asked the TMAPC to work on the river zoning, not the city planning department handling the comp plan update. Makes some sense, since the river stuff seems purely zoning right now, which is right up the TMAPC's alley. Also a natural extension of the INCOG river master plan, so it makes sense to keep it in that camp.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Actually, we already at least have the fundamentals of a recent river comprehensive plan which was developed through public hearing, and paid for through Vision 2025.  http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm.  Though Phase II is ongoing, we do have the beginnings of a blue print.

It is important to remember that the plan is the vision--what zoning does is simply provide a road map for getting there.  The Mayor has not asked the TMAPC to revisit the plan for the river; she has simply requested studying the zoning code to determine the best strategies.

I imagine that the Comp plan will proceed similarly--first, we will begin a dialogue of how we envision our great city.  Only after we reach consensus of that vision will we then begin to focus on the best method of reaching that vision.

The incog plan is what gives me nightmares.  Take a look at what they have as an example of possible development on the west side near downtown. Its not urban, its not on the river but set far back from it, there is no attention to the possibility of it ever becoming urban because it does not have a walkway along the river with buildings fronting it, etc. etc.  They don't even follow any notion of what most people would envision for that area.  And why should they, why should anyone? They prove that there is nothing to stop any sort of development or have a plan that would take into account that area evolving into an urban style development.

The incog plan was thought up in a completely different environment.  During a time when the mindset was that just about any type of development would be good.  The mere thought of having something, anything, along the river was great. The Channels may have been a fisasco in many respects but it did open peoples eyes to the fact that we should have something urban on the river in that area, that it should be something great for Tulsa, not a trifle like Jenks has and like incog envisions.  

While many aspects of incog are still valid, some need a drastic rethink.  71st and riverside I think is fine.  Like the West riverside drive area near 41st that they envision. But the area downtown, complete flop.  And the only way to ensure that area does not turn into a "Riverwalk". Is to zone it as high density development with the proper set-backs and so forth.

Right now even the incog plan can't be enforced.  A private property owner could build another Kum n Go wherever they have the property and the will to do so, even right in the middle of where the incog shows something else.  Only zoning and some sort of form based codes can have some positive influence.

[Chicken Little]

Every one of you guys makes sense, and I'm  seeing some consistency.

You generally want zoning tool:

1.  that tells you what we want, not what you can't do.

2.  that does not deliver the same 'ole B*tt Ugly stuff you can find in any suburb in this country.

3.  that is urban, pedestrian-friendly, and form-based, as opposed to use-based like our present zoning.

Smartcode has already worked through all of this.

pmcalk is absolutely right.  The River already has a plan, and you need to rezone those development sites along the River in ways that will ensure the plan is carried out.

Basically, the Zink and Crow Creek areas look similar.  Fairly urban and dense, pedestrian-friendly, structured parking, mixed-use, etc...like you guys want.

I think that the PC should seriously consider adopting the free Smartcode by title like we do our building codes.  Then they could rezone these land areas to something like a T5  Urban Center Zone.  Smartcode is already in v. 8.0; these guys have thought out a lot of stuff already: roadways, parking, landscaping, building scale, materials, etc.  If Tulsa were to adopt it, they wouldn't even be in the first 20 cities.  

There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.  I'm telling ya, it'll work.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Every one of you guys makes sense, and I'm  seeing some consistency.

You generally want zoning tool:

1.  that tells you what we want, not what you can't do.

2.  that does not deliver the same 'ole B*tt Ugly stuff you can find in any suburb in this country.

3.  that is urban, pedestrian-friendly, and form-based, as opposed to use-based like our present zoning.

Smartcode has already worked through all of this.

pmcalk is absolutely right.  The River already has a plan, and you need to rezone those development sites along the River in ways that will ensure the plan is carried out.

Basically, the Zink and Crow Creek areas look similar.  Fairly urban and dense, pedestrian-friendly, structured parking, mixed-use, etc...like you guys want.

I think that the PC should seriously consider adopting the free Smartcode by title like we do our building codes.  Then they could rezone these land areas to something like a T5  Urban Center Zone.  Smartcode is already in v. 8.0; these guys have thought out a lot of stuff already: roadways, parking, landscaping, building scale, materials, etc.  If Tulsa were to adopt it, they wouldn't even be in the first 20 cities.  

There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.  I'm telling ya, it'll work.

Hear, hear.  Easy and effective -- not too shabby for gubment work.

Though, I wonder . . . wouldn't the river corridor potentially cross several "transects," from urban core near downtown, potentially even to a rural or natural transect in the bottomlands and floodplains to the south?

[Kiah]

From the SmartCode web site:

"The SmartCode supports these outcomes: community vision, local character, conservation of open lands, transit options, and walkable and mixed-use neighborhoods. It prevents these outcomes: wasteful sprawl development, automobile-dominated streets, empty downtowns, and a hostile public realm. It allows different approaches in different areas within the community, unlike a one-size-fits-all conventional code."

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

Though, I wonder . . . wouldn't the river corridor potentially cross several "transects," from urban core near downtown, potentially even to a rural or natural transect in the bottomlands and floodplains to the south?

Sure. The 71st area is different.  That T5 would be inappropriate for that area.  So you could use another "transect zone" or create a "special district zone".  

[akupetsky]

Whatever zoning approach is decided upon, I hope it will prevent uses like the car wash proposed at 101st.(http://www.incog.org/TMAPC/Agenda/Tmapc%20Agenda.htm).  Car washes & gas stations--Tulsa sure knows how to use its river wisely.  Maybe there is a market need for it, but when it comes to the river, which is a major city resource, the city needs to be careful about allowing "one-off" uses that will become the norm or will prevent other uses that will be more valuable to the city, its quality of life and its reputation.  It's time for the city to get moving on a unique zoning code for the river parks area to prevent having to address these one-off uses.