QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard

[mrB]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle
Sounds to me like the owners wants to put in a styrofoam and stucco strip mall and collect rent.

I rechecked their sign today and it said 'Retail Shopping Center Spring 2008'. I guess they better get busy. Take a look at picture 2 at the following link for a conceptual drawing of the reworked center.
http://listing.loopnet.com/15539282

[patric]

The current application for the PUD is at
http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/pud-756.pdf
and those exhibits DO NOT include the required lighting plan (which is to demonstrate how they intend to comply with zoning).

I dont know what other shortcomings (if any) may exist in this application, but I do know they should not be granted a PUD until they show what their intentions are for their outdoor lighting.

If such a plan is on file, it should have been included in these exhibits.

[PonderInc]

quote:Originally posted by mrB

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle
Sounds to me like the owners wants to put in a styrofoam and stucco strip mall and collect rent.

I rechecked their sign today and it said 'Retail Shopping Center Spring 2008'. I guess they better get busy. Take a look at picture 2 at the following link for a conceptual drawing of the reworked center.
http://listing.loopnet.com/15539282

Ooohh....a little Owasso "neighborhood" commercial center.  

Bring the shops up to the sidewalk and put the parking in the back, and my only complaint would be the cheap design.

The thing about Harvard is that it has the potential to be so much better than it is.  There are still residuals of the old neighborhood shops.  In most places, the setbacks aren't horrendous (especially as you go north).  The main problems on Harvard are: an obscene amount of signage; too little landscaping; too many curb cuts to make walking safe for pedestrians; and too many overhead wires.

If commercial infill develeopment made any attempt to return the area to pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, it would be a huge success. (In line with Cherry Street, Brookside, etc.)  I think this is especially possible north of 21st...but also south to 41st as well.

[patric]

QT just bulldozed the houses and the photography shop, so they seem to be moving right along.

[patric]

There is a public hearing for the "Super-QT"
Nov 5 at the downtown library auditorium.

http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/QuikTrip.pdf

TMAPC staff are recommending approval despite the absence of a required lighting plan (to show how the new lighting wont be a nuisance to the neighborhood they are encroaching on).

What gives?  The "Scottsdale" drop-lens lighting QT wants to use wont conform to code, so they are just not making it a part of the record?

It's not like QT's in other parts of the country cant figure out how to comply.  Anyone in that neighborhood group know what the plan is?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by patric

There is a public hearing for the "Super-QT"
Nov 5 at the downtown library auditorium.

http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/QuikTrip.pdf

TMAPC staff are recommending approval despite the absence of a required lighting plan (to show how the new lighting wont be a nuisance to the neighborhood they are encroaching on).

What gives?  The "Scottsdale" drop-lens lighting QT wants to use wont conform to code, so they are just not making it a part of the record?

It's not like QT's in other parts of the country cant figure out how to comply.  Anyone in that neighborhood group know what the plan is?

i'd like to help you here, but for the life of me I can't find anywhere in the subdivision regulations where a lighting plan is a required item of final consturction plans for the final plat.  minor subdivision plats have to meet all of the final plat requirements which in turn have to meet all of the final consturction plans, but no where in there is a lighting plan singled out.  I think it is buried somewhere else in PUD design regs.

it is going to be hard to bring this to the surface, and even when you do they'll just say it will adhere to the KenneBUNKport formulas and leave it at that.  fighting light pollution is an uphill battle.

[Pebbles]

I drove by the QT in question today and from what I could see of the current construction is that the pad abuts one home, which had a temporary high wall erected.  And to the west of it is an auto repair shop (even more fitting, break down at the gas station... just push your car to the repair shop!).  Overall it seems the impact to the area will be minimal.  It will certainly relieve traffic congestion by providing an extra point of entry/exit.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

fighting light pollution is an uphill battle.

Fighting any sort of nuisance introduced into your neighborhood is an uphill battle, but that doesnt mean those neighborhoods should just bend over and take it because a developer or corporation has clout.  Even the Exxon Valdez considered a product of "progress" at one time.

Who knows why every PUD approved by TMAPC requires a lighting plan except for this one?  It's a mystery to me too.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Pebbles

Overall it seems the impact to the area will be minimal.

When you allow bright light to travel along the horizon, it affects more than just the house next door.  

Thoughtful selection and installation of shielded lighting is an effective way to illuminate a property without illuminating every other property around, and shielded fixtures are often no more expensive than their high-glare counterparts.

If your goal is to use glare and sheer intensity as a marketing tool to attract customers, you shouldnt be surprised if the neighborhood is less than supportive.

[Pebbles]

If there were houses to the west of the pad instead of the car repair shop I would say the impact would be more severe.  As it is there isn't.  

I wholeheartedly support having the lights designed in the manner that is shielded, not only horizontally but vertically as well.  All one should see is the parking lot and nothing else around it.  I am sure it can be done.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by inteller

fighting light pollution is an uphill battle.

Fighting any sort of nuisance introduced into your neighborhood is an uphill battle, but that doesnt mean those neighborhoods should just bend over and take it because a developer or corporation has clout.

uh yeah, thats pretty much what I've determined is the way it happens in this town.  Show me one example in the last 5 years where neighborhoods actually won.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

Show me one example in the last 5 years where neighborhoods actually won.

Not this round, for sure.

I found out from INCOG that Quik-Trip got the lighting plan approved only by omitting data from the worst fixtures in their plan (the glare-bomb "scottsdale" lights with the dome-shaped prismatic refractors)
http://www.lsi-industries.com/media/specsheets/pdf/scottsdale_pet.pdf

They plan to use 32 of these at 320 watts apiece.  That's 10,240 watts (they only reported 368 Total Watts on the application) for around 100,000 lumens total.   And that's only just the canopy.

The application that was presented Oct. 1 had misleading information and should not have been approved, but that's what QT gave TMAPC.

A member of staff wrote me that they have notified the engineer for the proposal, and told him that drop lenses will not be acceptable (as they were not the type of light TMAPC thought it was approving).

[PonderInc]

Don't they have to have a "Technical Advisory Committee" meeting after the PUD is approved?  Perhaps, this is where the lighting should be addressed.  How does the neighborhood get invited to such a meeting?

[carltonplace]

This brings up an interesting thought. How often do these bait and switch scenarios (real, imagined or accidental) occur? I know of one where the perimeter of a residential area was rezoned to heavy office and the neighborhood approved the change based on the site plan that included appropriate screening and landscaping. The building was built, but the screening and landscaping never materialized.

What recourse do neighborhoods have when this happens?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

This brings up an interesting thought. How often do these bait and switch scenarios (real, imagined or accidental) occur? I know of one where the perimeter of a residential area was rezoned to heavy office and the neighborhood approved the change based on the site plan that included appropriate screening and landscaping. The building was built, but the screening and landscaping never materialized.

What recourse do neighborhoods have when this happens?

they are only "accidents" when they get caught.  These slimeballs are just getting more brazen/sloppy.

I hold INCOG as responsible as the engineer.  It WAS THEIR JOB to demand to see everything in the plans.  360 watts?  PUH lease...you'd have to be brain dead not to raise a red flag at that.