REI

[cannon_fodder]

Nothing has changed, unfortunately.

Damn it. I thought I could point to something positive. Just prettier pictures...

[DowntownDan]

Nothing has changed, unfortunately.

1. The parking spaces listed are only for development area "A" (the part north of the cul-de-sac/loading docks). The south part also contains roughly 300 spots.
2. The store has always faced north.
3. The 35 foot tall wall that faces the trail is still completely blank except at the NW corner.

Another thing I don't understand is, on the first drawing, how is the parking lot not enough for this entire development?  The site plan has another larger parking lot behind this strip with only a detached restaurant.  Why can't the restaurant be plopped down on the trail in the parking lot in front of REI (Lot 1) and place minimal added parking behind, if necessary, and let that land remain park land.  Maybe let the volleyball courts stay there (business opportunity REI, since you're supposedly a sports and outdoors store).  The restaurant also would be better engaged as part of the store and rivertrails instead of separating it completely with a view of the REI loading dock.  Maybe they would get some goodwill if they did something a little more creative like that. 

[PonderInc]

What?  And lose the drive-thru?!

You raise an interesting point.  That restaurant has a huge outdoor patio, which could be nice.  But it "connects" to REI's back / loading dock, and that weird/enormous (75' radius?) cul-de-sac.  It's a very strange appendage.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

and that weird/enormous (75' radius?) cul-de-sac.  It's a very strange appendage.

Maneuvering space for delivery and refuse vehicles so the are not backing up and turning around in public parking/driving areas.

[PonderInc]

Damn it. I thought I could point to something positive. Just prettier pictures...

I'm fascinated by the one that shows the Arkansas River as a forest!

[PonderInc]

Maneuvering space for delivery and refuse vehicles so the are not backing up and turning around in public parking/driving areas.

Well, gosh, that's sounds like a lovely thing to look at from the patio dining area...

[DowntownDan]

Let's also not pretend that they would actually pay money to install a forest of fully mature trees.  The one thing that is clear here is bare minimum, no more than is necessary.  The number of trees is probably accurate, but it'll be a row of these along the Great REI Wall. 

[BKDotCom]

From an article written by our own Carlos Moreno
http://www.thetulsavoice.com/January-A-2016/Big-box-city/

"I don't want to have an authority taking away the rights of the citizens of Tulsa to use [Helmerich Park] as a park. We have to make sure we don't give someone the opportunity to take that right away from us."
    —Councilor Dewey Bartlett, Tulsa City Council meeting, May 1991

[PonderInc]

Let's also not pretend that they would actually pay money to install a forest of fully mature trees.  The one thing that is clear here is bare minimum, no more than is necessary.  The number of trees is probably accurate, but it'll be a row of these along the Great REI Wall. 

Landscaping plan shows 12' tall and 3" caliper.  This is not necesarily a bad thing because smaller trees will have a better chance of getting established and being healthy mature trees.  The sad thing is that this development will be obsolete / abandoned / rebuilt before these trees have a chance to mature. 

[Conan71]

I'm fascinated by the one that shows the Arkansas River as a forest!

That's probably the rendering they've made as their plan B to put it on Turkey Mountain if this location gets shitcanned.

[Bamboo World]

I'm also curious what all those cyclists are doing back by that area at the back of the building that isn't a door.  Are they window shopping?

They appear to be looking away from the building, toward the river (or the proposed forest where the river used to be).

[PonderInc]

So if you're nerdy enough (Cannon Fodder....), you can read all the legal petitions / counterclaims that have been filed between Craig Immel et al and the TPFA.
http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=tulsa&cmid=2863839&number=CV-2015-902

Check out the TPFA's "Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Petition and Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment" on 12/29/15.  The recurring theme throughout this whole document is: "TPFA is without sufficient information to answer the allegations...and therefore denies same."

You can also view the "Plaintiff's Amended Petition" from 1/7/16.  This document is like reading an in-depth history of the property going back to the 80's, how it came to be in TPFA's hands, and everything that's happened since then.  It also lays out the whole case of why the property should not be sold without council approval, etc, etc.  Glad they also make a point about how private the public meetings were.

It may take a while for the documents to download from the OSCN website.  If you have trouble, you can also view them here:

Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Petition

Plaintiff's Amended Petition

[Conan71]

So if you're nerdy enough (Cannon Fodder....), you can read all the legal petitions / counterclaims that have been filed between Craig Immel et al and the TPFA.
http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=tulsa&cmid=2863839&number=CV-2015-902

Check out the TPFA's "Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Petition and Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment" on 12/29/15.  The recurring theme throughout this whole document is: "TPFA is without sufficient information to answer the allegations...and therefore denies same."

You can also view the "Plaintiff's Amended Petition" from 1/7/16.  This document is like reading an in-depth history of the property going back to the 80's, how it came to be in TPFA's hands, and everything that's happened since then.  It also lays out the whole case of why the property should not be sold without council approval, etc, etc.  Glad they also make a point about how private the public meetings were.

It may take a while for the documents to download from the OSCN website.  If you have trouble, you can also view them here:

Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Petition

Plaintiff's Amended Petition

So, if TPFA does not have enough information to answer and just deny, they certainly don't have enough of an idea of whether or not they have the authority to sell or otherwise convey the property in the first place.  JMO.

If you look at the people behind Immel, there are some great legal minds in opposition to this.  They are some of the 40-50 notable Tulsans who signed off on the letter to the council opposing the sale.

[DowntownDan]

"TPFA is without sufficient information to answer the allegations...and therefore denies same" is standard response in answering a petition.  It means nothing.  The only things that are ever usually admitted in an answer are identities, dates, basic undisputed things.  The meat of the case won't get going until after discovery.

[cannon_fodder]

"TPFA is without sufficient information to answer the allegations...and therefore denies same" is standard response in answering a petition.  It means nothing.  The only things that are ever usually admitted in an answer are identities, dates, basic undisputed things.  The meat of the case won't get going until after discovery.

This.

Sorry I have not had the time to do a review of the proceedings.  But the Answer appears to be a "general denial." They are technically frowned upon, but almost ubiquitous.