Wait, isn't this site a PUD? And don't PUDs allow for the type of development that many, including myself, on this forum want (i.e. higher density development that has a mix of uses and is pedestrian friendly)? Unless my idea of PUDs is way off base, then what is to stop developers from developing the type of development we want right now, anywhere in the city? Is the underlying zoning preventing it? Is it perceived lack of demand? Someone please tell me why?
Ah, yes. The PUD...
Here's the supposed purpose of the PUD according to the Tulsa Zoning Code:
SECTION 1101. PURPOSES
The purposes of the Planned Unit Development are to:
A. Permit and encourage innovative land development while maintaining appropriate limitation on the character and intensity of use and assuring compatibility with adjoining and proximate properties;
B. Permit greater flexibility within the development to best utilize the unique physical features of the particular site;
C. Permit creative land use design;
D. Provide and preserve meaningful open space;
E. Achieve a continuity of function and design within the development.How are PUDs ACTUALLY USED in Tulsa?
We use them to create generic, big box developments in inappropriate areas. And we use them to convert residentially zoned land into commercial parking lots (by "shifting the underlying zoning around").
Because our developers have learned how to game the system, and our planning commission and City Council lack the knowledge or political will to enforce the real purpose of the PUD (perhaps in part because of the terrible precedents that have been set in the past?), it essentially turns the intended purpose of a PUD on it's head.
The "Tulsa PUD"...
Gives the developer greater flexibility to create non-innovative developments in inappropriate locations; it allows them to disregard the underlying zoning, without requiring any extra quality: "creative land use design," "meaningful open space," "compatibility with adjoining and proximate properties," sensitivity to historic areas, etc, etc from the developer.
Yes, there are some layers of risk and possible delays that the devloper may face. But generally, it's worth it to get what they want (Generic, national-chain, template-built, suburban developments wherever they fancy) while making few, if any, substantive concessions.
Even when a developer comes forth with an actual "innovative" design (think Jamie Jaimeson's Village at Central Park, which basically recreates a traditional neighborhood in an area where the traditional neighborhood had been destroyed), the Planning Commission may exert its short-sightedness, and lack of understanding of the goals of a PUD. According to Jamie, their big hang-up with his development (which exceded every standard of the PUD's stated purpose) was that it DIDN'T INCLUDE ENOUGH PARKING!
Sigh.
With visionaries like this...