Local dentist fights TMAPC sidewalk enforcement

[sgrizzle]

From http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071030_1_A14_hTheP58503

quote:
Tulsa dentist questions sidewalk enforcement

by: KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
10/30/2007

The Planning Commission wanted her to build a new sidewalk, or pay an equivalent fee.


The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission's decision to begin enforcing a longstanding sidewalk policy has hit a bump in the road put there by a local dentist.

Kathryn Beller is questioning the procedures and logic that led to the Planning Commission rejecting her request to waive the requirement to have a sidewalk at her new office at 7711 E. 81st St.

"I feel their (the Planning Commission's) decision was based on black and white with no shades of gray," Beller wrote in a letter to Mayor Kathy Taylor. ". . . Their decision is a prime example of bureaucracy out of control."

The Planning Commission's Oct. 3 rejection of the waiver request came about one month after it had offered Beller an alternative: She could pay a fee equal to the cost to build the sidewalk -- estimated by the city to be $2,800 -- that would be put in escrow until 81st Street is widened, at which time the money would be used to construct sidewalks.

Beller wanted no part of it.

In her letter to the mayor, Beller says the Planning Commission was unable to answer basic questions about how the sidewalk escrow fund works.

"Legal council present on September 5th admitted that they, TMAPC, were on shaky ground because they had no answers to our questions regarding the 'sidewalk escrow fund,' " Beller's letter states.

She also says she's concerned about liability for injuries on the sidewalk and the city's estimated sidewalk fee.

"Let me inform you that I could pour this sidewalk for $1,700," Beller writes.

Planning Commission Chairman Chip Ard said that the fee-in-lieu-of-construction option was developed by the commission in the last year, but acknowledged it may not be formalized in any manner.

Ard said the commission sees the sidewalk fee as a constructive alternative in those instances when safety concerns or topography make the sidewalk requirement questionable.

It is rare, he said, that the commission would waive the fee. "If you can show us good reason that you shouldn't have to do it (put in a sidewalk), then we drop the fee-in-lieu of," he said.

Beller's case is just the second involving the fee-in-lieu-of-construction option.

City subdivision and planned unit development regulations have required sidewalks since the 1970s, but for years waivers have been easy to come by.

Ard said the commission is committed to enforcing the sidewalk regulations because "it's an important thing for our city to be walkable, and it helps everyone."

"If you don't start requiring sidewalks consistently, it's never going to happen," he said.

In her request for a waiver, Beller cites three factors: safety, the topography of the adjacent property to the east (which slopes into a creek) and the fact there are no other sidewalks on either side of East 81st Street between Memorial Drive an Sheridan Road save for the westernmost stretch at the Sheridan Road intersection.

Subdivision regulations state that topography and safety shall be considered when deciding on a sidewalk waiver, but make no mention of whether there are existing sidewalks in the area.

Ard said there were some gray areas in Beller's case but "no overwhelming need to waive" the sidewalk requirement.

Beller has also sought the assistance of her city councilman, Bill Christiansen.

Christiansen said he favors a comprehensive sidewalk policy, but called the proposed 73-foot sidewalk in front of Beller's property "the sidewalk to nowhere."

Christiansen said the fee option needs to be developed through the public process and adopted by the city council.

"In this instance, the bureaucracy let this small business down," he said.

City officials are working to arrange a meeting with Beller to discuss her concerns.

Beller's temporary certificate of occupancy expires Nov. 30.

"I don't know what they (the city) can do if I don't have" the sidewalk built by then, Beller said Friday.

[brunoflipper]

are the other properties on 81st between sheridan and memorial (with 81st frontage) commercial as well? if memory serves, on the you've got strip malls at either end of 81st and a church in the middle, an apartment complex and residential developments... so, the strip mall to the west and, i guess, the walmart market have sidewalks?... but the strip malls immediately to the east of her do not?

this is bull****, sidewalks to nowhere eventually get connected to somewhere... but you have to put them in up front or they'll never exist...
she sounds wacked. tell her to do another crown and shut the hell up.

"Beller's temporary certificate of occupancy expires Nov. 30.
"I don't know what they (the city) can do if I don't have" the sidewalk built by then, Beller said Friday. ".... ummmm, let me guess, not give you a permanent certificate of occupancy?

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

are the other properties on 81st between sheridan and memorial (with 81st frontage) commercial as well? if memory serves, on the you've got strip malls at either end of 81st and a church in the middle, an apartment complex and residential developments... so, the strip mall to the west and, i guess, the walmart market have sidewalks?... but the strip malls immediately to the east of her do not?

this is bull****, sidewalks to nowhere eventually get connected to somewhere... but you have to put them in up front or they'll never exist...
she sounds wacked. tell her to do another crown and shut the hell up.

"Beller's temporary certificate of occupancy expires Nov. 30.
"I don't know what they (the city) can do if I don't have" the sidewalk built by then, Beller said Friday. ".... ummmm, let me guess, not give you a permanent certificate of occupancy?

If she has a temporary certificate of occupancy and it expires, I imagine she could start being fined - something like $500 a day for occupying a building and not having a C.O. if memory serve...
She sounds like a real hag.  Just build the stupid thing, it's not like $1700 is a big amount in the context of building a commerical building!

[jackbristow]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

Originally posted by brunoflipper

this is bull****, sidewalks to nowhere eventually get connected to somewhere... but you have to put them in up front or they'll never exist...
she sounds wacked. tell her to do another crown and shut the hell up.


She sounds like a real hag.  Just build the stupid thing, it's not like $1700 is a big amount in the context of building a commerical building!

You guys are real good about spouting off about things you obviously know nothing about.  The article itself plainly states that the sidewalk doesn't make sense in this location.

Here's a look at it from Google maps:
Edit: I can't get all the link to be underlined for the complete link, so you'll have to copy and paste...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=7711+E.+81st+St+Tulsa,+OK,+United+States+of+America&sll=36.046206,-95.901278&sspn=0.002073,0.003616&ie=UTF8&ll=36.046228,-95.890989&spn=0.004147,0.007231&t=k&z=17&om=1

See for yourself and tell me why a sidewalk is needed in front of her building...unless they are putting in sidewals all the way down the street and connecting into the neighborhood the building is next to, it is pointless.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by jackbristow

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

Originally posted by brunoflipper

this is bull****, sidewalks to nowhere eventually get connected to somewhere... but you have to put them in up front or they'll never exist...
she sounds wacked. tell her to do another crown and shut the hell up.


She sounds like a real hag.  Just build the stupid thing, it's not like $1700 is a big amount in the context of building a commerical building!

You guys are real good about spouting off about things you obviously know nothing about.  The article itself plainly states that the sidewalk doesn't make sense in this location.

Here's a look at it from Google maps:
Edit: I can't get all the link to be underlined for the complete link, so you'll have to copy and paste...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=7711+E.+81st+St+Tulsa,+OK,+United+States+of+America&sll=36.046206,-95.901278&sspn=0.002073,0.003616&ie=UTF8&ll=36.046228,-95.890989&spn=0.004147,0.007231&t=k&z=17&om=1

See for yourself and tell me why a sidewalk is needed in front of her building...unless they are putting in sidewals all the way down the street and connecting into the neighborhood the building is next to, it is pointless.

You seem awfully well knowledge about who knows what. You can almost see my house in that picture. If the city plans sidewalks in that area and the regulations are for sidewalks in that area, you build one. It seemed to state pretty clearly that they are planning on widening 81st and adding sidewalks and that is why it is required. It doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing or have done in the past.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

If the city plans sidewalks in that area and the regulations are for sidewalks in that area, you build one. It seemed to state pretty clearly that they are planning on widening 81st and adding sidewalks and that is why it is required. It doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing or have done in the past.

The developers of Utica Place actually sued the TMAPC in an effort to avoid building a sidewalk along Utica Avenue.  They contended that since Utica Square and Cascia Hall did not have sidewalks, then they ought not be forced to install one.  Last I heard the suit was close to settlement.  Does anyone know how it turned out?

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

If the city plans sidewalks in that area and the regulations are for sidewalks in that area, you build one. It seemed to state pretty clearly that they are planning on widening 81st and adding sidewalks and that is why it is required. It doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing or have done in the past.

The developers of Utica Place actually sued the TMAPC in an effort to avoid building a sidewalk along Utica Avenue.  They contended that since Utica Square and Cascia Hall did not have sidewalks, then they ought not be forced to install one.  Last I heard the suit was close to settlement.  Does anyone know how it turned out?

Don't know how the Court case went, however, Cascia has a development planned for some of the vacant land to the North of the school.

They will be required to place sidewalks on that portion of Utica when they move forward with the development.

[pmcalk]

Nothing new with respect to the court case on Utica.  Interestingly, just like the dentist, the developer at Utica said that he shouldn't have build a sidewalk, because no sidewalks existed nearby (ie, a sidewalk to nowhere). Now that Cascia is building one, you'll have sidewalks along a good chunk of Utica, leading from a school to a shopping center.  You never know when property might be redeveloped, and, bit by bit, you start connecting sidewalks.  You have to start somewhere; if you don't require it today, you cannot require it tomorrow.  Or ever.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Nothing new with respect to the court case on Utica.  Interestingly, just like the dentist, the developer at Utica said that he shouldn't have build a sidewalk, because no sidewalks existed nearby (ie, a sidewalk to nowhere). Now that Cascia is building one, you'll have sidewalks along a good chunk of Utica, leading from a school to a shopping center.  You never know when property might be redeveloped, and, bit by bit, you start connecting sidewalks.  You have to start somewhere; if you don't require it today, you cannot require it tomorrow.  Or ever.

I am very glad the TMAPC is making these developers put in the sidewalks..

It will lead to a much more people oriented City....

[RecycleMichael]

Rico is right.

Sidewalks are important. How much did this development cost? The sidewalk probably added a a fraction of one percent to the overall cost, yet they don't think they need it.

We need to support the TMAPC on this one. Make sidewalks happen, every time.

[jackbristow]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

You seem awfully well knowledge about who knows what. You can almost see my house in that picture. If the city plans sidewalks in that area and the regulations are for sidewalks in that area, you build one. It seemed to state pretty clearly that they are planning on widening 81st and adding sidewalks and that is why it is required. It doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing or have done in the past.

I was just coming to the lady's defense because of the name-calling that was going on ("hag", etc.) She has a valid point and those involved with her case acknowledge that in the story.  So you live near that area and I used to live near that area, who cares?  

Unless they plan on re-doing the entire street, I would do exactly what she is doing.  For her to build a sidewalk is pointless unless they can show her how it would fit into a larger plan and actually follow through with that plan.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by jackbristow

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

You seem awfully well knowledge about who knows what. You can almost see my house in that picture. If the city plans sidewalks in that area and the regulations are for sidewalks in that area, you build one. It seemed to state pretty clearly that they are planning on widening 81st and adding sidewalks and that is why it is required. It doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing or have done in the past.

I was just coming to the lady's defense because of the name-calling that was going on ("hag", etc.) She has a valid point and those involved with her case acknowledge that in the story.  So you live near that area and I used to live near that area, who cares?  

Unless they plan on re-doing the entire street, I would do exactly what she is doing.  For her to build a sidewalk is pointless unless they can show her how it would fit into a larger plan and actually follow through with that plan.

You're right, I shouldn't have called her a name.  I just get bent out of shape when people don't understand the point of what I think is a very valid requirement.

[OurTulsa]

If we don't require sidewalks as part of development we will never have them.  It's just like having individuals who develop residential and commercial subdivisions put in or make improvements to streets.  God knows we would stand for someone putting in a significant development refusing to put in adequate streets.  Consider the sidewalk in the same light.  They are a necessary element in a quality built environment and we unfortunately have ignored them for far too long.  Now that we are playing catch up we have to insert them piecemeal when we reconstruct a street or have them constructed when a property is developed.  So what there are no sidewalks around.  Eventually there will be and hers will connect.  If she doesn't like this cost of construction maybe she should find herself an existing space and not worry about development.  
Would we rather continue to tell individuals in the surrounding residential compounds that they have to traipse through the grass and mudd and she eventually has cow trails in front of her pristine temporary dentist office?  Or should the City foot the bill for all sidewalks on every street?  

However, the City should have a better organized fee in lieu of system.  It's not hard to establish.  I know that surrounding suburban cities have the fee and utilize it with ease.  

The irritating thing of this is that we are even having the argument.  Never mind bike lanes and transit we have to mess with simple sidewalks.

[rwarn17588]

It does fit in the larger plan. There aren't sidewalks there. The city wants sidewalks there. It has to start somewhere, so it starts with the dentist's office.

Just because there's a precedent for wrong-headed planning doesn't mean such planning should continue.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Nothing new with respect to the court case on Utica.  Interestingly, just like the dentist, the developer at Utica said that he shouldn't have build a sidewalk, because no sidewalks existed nearby (ie, a sidewalk to nowhere). Now that Cascia is building one, you'll have sidewalks along a good chunk of Utica, leading from a school to a shopping center.  You never know when property might be redeveloped, and, bit by bit, you start connecting sidewalks.  You have to start somewhere; if you don't require it today, you cannot require it tomorrow.  Or ever.

I'd really like to know what happened with the Utica Place LLC v. Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission case.  Was it administratively reassigned in January because of Judge Peterson's departure from the bench?

I don't care for this trend of developers balking at the idea of building sidewalks as reported in a Tulsa World news story in July 2006.  I want to see a clear ruling by the court, not a settlement.  The TMAPC should not agree to any settlement which involves NOT building a sidewalk.  Tulsa needs more sidewalks.