|
bacjz00
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: November 03, 2008, 07:17:49 pm » |
|
Lord, is this the thread that wouldn't die or what? Why are we still talking about a convenience store expansion on a Development forum?
Geesh...no wonder Tulsa has such low expectations.
Move on doodz.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
inteller
Guest
|
|
« Reply #76 on: November 03, 2008, 07:33:52 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by bacjz00
Lord, is this the thread that wouldn't die or what? Why are we still talking about a convenience store expansion on a Development forum?
Geesh...no wonder Tulsa has such low expectations.
Move on doodz.
it is not WHAT is being developed, it is about HOW it is being done. looking back through the TMAPC exhibit I see nothing about this last minute revelation....which means as usual INCOG is trying smooth things over with bull**** out of the public eye like their favorite "Letters of ASSurance" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
patric
|
|
« Reply #77 on: November 03, 2008, 07:58:57 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
This brings up an interesting thought. How often do these bait and switch scenarios (real, imagined or accidental) occur?
Hard to say. The applicant played the game to the letter but the information was bogus. To their credit, TMAPC has requested they correct their errors by submitting a new plan... It's not like QT doesnt know what they are doing when they design their stores, and if they can build them properly in strict zoning markets like Tucson they can certainly do it here. Moth-Effect Marketing with glary lighting just isnt acceptable in a residential neighborhood. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights." -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
|
|
|
|
inteller
Guest
|
|
« Reply #78 on: November 03, 2008, 09:15:23 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
This brings up an interesting thought. How often do these bait and switch scenarios (real, imagined or accidental) occur?
Hard to say. The applicant played the game to the letter but the information was bogus.
To their credit, TMAPC has requested they correct their errors by submitting a new plan...
i think you are giving TMAPC/INCOG WAAAAAAY too much credit. If they were truely submitting a new plan, it should have to go back through the same process as it did before..yet it is still on the agenda tomorrow and I GUARANTEE they will approve it "with assurances that everything will be taken care of". It is their favorite line. Nevermind the fact that there will never be a public hearing on the "new and improved plan". Why don't you go down there tomorrow and demand that there is a continuance until the new plan comes back through technical committee. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 09:17:55 pm by inteller »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pebbles
Guest
|
|
« Reply #79 on: November 03, 2008, 09:49:01 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
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.
Actually those new LED lights are quite effective. Perhaps that is what they are going to use. I am using an overhead LED strip and according to my KillAWatt meter it is using 1 watt right now and it is pretty bright. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
inteller
Guest
|
|
« Reply #80 on: November 03, 2008, 10:00:31 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pebbles
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
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.
Actually those new LED lights are quite effective. Perhaps that is what they are going to use. I am using an overhead LED strip and according to my KillAWatt meter it is using 1 watt right now and it is pretty bright.
haha, yeah.....when QuikTrip starts using LEDs is when cats and dogs start living together. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
patric
|
|
« Reply #81 on: November 03, 2008, 11:11:15 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pebbles
Actually those new LED lights are quite effective. Perhaps that is what they are going to use.
Their plan has been to use pulse-start Metal Halide.... ...but, since they cant use the 'scottsdale' glare bombs now I tried to be constructive by suggesting some fixtures that should be compliant with zoning, and among them is: http://data.nextrionet.com/site/idsa/specbull-1-1.pdfWould be kinda hip if they went with it, and they could milk the publicity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights." -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
|
|
|
|
Pebbles
Guest
|
|
« Reply #82 on: November 04, 2008, 12:14:38 am » |
|
I installed LED undercabinet lighting for a client and am hooked. I can't imagine what 360 watts of LED lights would look like. From what I have seen it would be the equivalent of ten 1000 watt lightbulbs... enough to light three QT car canopies.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
patric
|
|
« Reply #83 on: November 04, 2008, 10:56:41 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pebbles
I can't imagine what 360 watts of LED lights would look like. From what I have seen it would be the equivalent of ten 1000 watt lightbulbs... enough to light three QT car canopies.
Lets get some idea of scale. A 100-watt household incandescent light has a brightness of about 1500 Lumens. A 100-watt residential streetlight has a brightness of 9500 Lumens. The 32 lights QT is planning just for the canopy over the pumps weighs in at 100,000 Lumens. Overkill? Yes, it's to attract customers, but the only laws we have on the books in Tulsa right now deal with where light is aimed and not how bright it is. If we can keep that eye-level spill out of the neighborhood that would be a start, though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights." -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
|
|
|
|
inteller
Guest
|
|
« Reply #84 on: November 09, 2008, 01:32:41 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Pebbles
I can't imagine what 360 watts of LED lights would look like. From what I have seen it would be the equivalent of ten 1000 watt lightbulbs... enough to light three QT car canopies.
Lets get some idea of scale.
A 100-watt household incandescent light has a brightness of about 1500 Lumens.
A 100-watt residential streetlight has a brightness of 9500 Lumens.
The 32 lights QT is planning just for the canopy over the pumps weighs in at 100,000 Lumens.
Overkill? Yes, it's to attract customers, but the only laws we have on the books in Tulsa right now deal with where light is aimed and not how bright it is.
If we can keep that eye-level spill out of the neighborhood that would be a start, though.
so what did TMAPC do on this? Let me guess, they pushed it through anyways. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LongtimeTulsan
Citizen
 Offline
Posts: 47
|
|
« Reply #85 on: March 05, 2009, 09:41:52 pm » |
|
The TMAPC, with the exception of one commissioner, didn't bat an eyelash. Rubber stamped the project. Completely backed the development. Didn't look at any impact at all. Why is planning even in their job description?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #86 on: March 06, 2009, 07:17:10 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #87 on: March 06, 2009, 08:41:39 am » |
|
The TMAPC, with the exception of one commissioner, didn't bat an eyelash. Rubber stamped the project. Completely backed the development. Didn't look at any impact at all. Why is planning even in their job description?
In this instance, it is a long time Tulsa company with tons of sway and the teardown of properties that were hard for some people to love. It made it an easy choice for them. Though, I agree with your general assessment. If they wanted to approve it they cold have stipulated some of the items previously discussed. The building is well formed now. The new tanks will probably go in as soon as the building is finished being formed. Then I presume they knock the old one down for more parking? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #88 on: March 06, 2009, 10:27:40 am » |
|
In this instance, it is a long time Tulsa company with tons of sway and the teardown of properties that were hard for some people to love. It made it an easy choice for them. Though, I agree with your general assessment. If they wanted to approve it they cold have stipulated some of the items previously discussed.
The building is well formed now. The new tanks will probably go in as soon as the building is finished being formed. Then I presume they knock the old one down for more parking?
In these upgrades they build the new store behind the old one, then build larger gas islands, likely facing E-W instead of N-S. They will close the store for no more than 24 hours when they do the changeover. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1956packard
|
|
« Reply #89 on: March 07, 2009, 08:08:02 pm » |
|
ALOHA AND LAWZEE
Quick Trip has no propriety ie the Ipe Building renamed the Quick Trip Center and these psycho jumbo stores.
What does Quick Trip consider "Avarice"?
What does Quick Trip consider unfair or immoral business pratices ?
what does Quick Trip consider as the definition of a monopoly?
they have got to be kidding there turning the 21st & Harvard QT into
one of those overcrowded overpriced yuppi circus stores
Qt could do a lot better if the would just get rid of all their trendy-fad
merchandise and just concentrate on good products at good prices with good and fast customer service
Hey QT how about adding Icee machines there are hardly any in the city and what few their are; are out of the way and hard to find
ALOHA AND LAWZEE
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
