|
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: tulsa1603 on June 14, 2007, 07:23:48 pm FYI: Tonight at the Florence Park HOA meeting, I learned that QuikTrip is buying up land from Harvard to Gary Pl, with the intention of pushing their store back and adding pumps, plus a rear entrance. The basic layout of the store would stay the same (facing Harvard), except they would add an entrance to the rear - there will be no street entrance off of Gary Pl., just on 21st, but there was some heated discussion about the increase of traffic that is bound to come down Gary when this happens. I brought up the issue of lighting, and the QT rep said that they follow the "Phoenix" lighting example (Patric, do you know what he meant by that?). I also pointed out that we often hear promises at meetings like these and of course, it never happens, and nothing is done about it.
I live about as far from the QT as you can in the neighborhood, so I have mixed feelings. I think the store is generally an asset, and the properties they would be taking are a detriment becuase they are shabby, but at the same time, I'm also concerned about the increased lighting, noise, and traffic it could bring, and that it would turn adjacent properties into something less than desirable.. Shockingly, many along 21st street said that they would love to see a wall built all the way down 21st street for noise protection, like they did at 61st and yale (yikes!). Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle on June 14, 2007, 09:02:20 pm Quiktrip has done this expansion in a lot of places. They will increase traffic (some) but keep in mind the back door is usually locked at night and the added size is generally to help people to get in & out easier.
The phoenix lighting might refer to something they did in Arizona. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Chris on June 14, 2007, 09:23:40 pm I worked at that Quiktrip from 2000 to 2001 and they were planning to expand even then. It was the busiest store of its size then and it seems to be even busier these days. It's almost impossible to get in and out of and I can't see how expanding could do anything but help in that regard. I would doubt that it would get much busier overall though.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on June 14, 2007, 11:13:20 pm The current standard they will be held to in Tulsa is:
"Lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged as to shield and direct the light away from properties within an R District which do not contain uses for which the parking is being provided. Shielding of such light shall be designed so as to prevent the light-producing element of the light fixture from being visible to a person standing in an R District." (Title 42, Chapter 13, Section 1303C. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, City of Tulsa Ordinances.) Keep in mind that "shielded" refers to performance (not simply the presence of something called a shield). If you can see the source of the light (the lamp, image of the lamp in a reflector or a glowing lens) from your residential property, it isnt shielded and violates zoning. If QT is saying they currently follow Phoenix's lighting ordinance design guidelines, I would have my doubts but ill let you be the judge. Here are excerpts of the relevant sections from the Marcopia County (Phoenix) ordinance: "Outdoor Lighting Control Provisions" Ch. 11 Section 1112 (http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/pdf/reform_ordinance/mczo1.pdf) 1112.4.1. Shielding: All exterior illuminating devices, except those exempt from this Ordinance and those regulated by Article 1112.5.3. shall be fully or partially shielded as required in Article 1112.4.2. 1. “Fully Shielded” shall mean that those fixtures so designated shall be shielded in such a manner that light rays emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, are projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest point of the fixture where light is emitted. 2. “Partially shielded” shall mean that those fixtures so designated shall conform to the classification of “Cutoff”, defined as follows: a. A luminaire light distribution is designated as cutoff when the candle-power per 1,000 lamp lumens does not numerically exceed 25 lumens (two and one-half percent) at an angle of 90 degrees above Nadir (horizontal), and 100 lumens (ten percent) at a vertical angle of 80 degrees above Nadir. This applies to any lateral angle around the luminaire. 1112.4.1. Filtration: Those outdoor light fixtures requiring a filter in Article 1112.4.2. shall have glass, acrylic or translucent enclosures (Quartz Glass does not meet this requirement). 1112.4.2. Requirements for Shielding and Filtering: The requirements for shielding and filtering light emissions from outdoor light fixtures shall be as set forth in the following table: FIXTURE LAMP TYPE SHIELDED FILTERED Low pressure sodium 1 None None High pressure sodium Fully None Metal halide 5 Fully Yes Fluorescent 7 Fully 4 Yes 2 Quartz 3 Fully None Incandescent greater than 150watts Fully None Incandescent, 150 watts or less None None Mercury vapor Fully 6 Yes 6 Fossil fuel None None Glass tubes filled with neon, argon, and krypton None None Other sources As approved by the zoning inspector Footnotes: 1. This is the preferred light source to minimize undesirable light into the night sky affecting astronomical observations. 2. Warm white and natural lamps are preferred to minimize detrimental effects. 3. For the purposes of this ordinance, quartz lamps shall not be considered an incandescent light source. 4. Outdoor advertising signs of the type constructed of translucent material and wholly illuminated from within do not require shielding. 5. Metal Halide display lighting shall not be used for security lighting after 11:00 p.m. (or after closing hours if before 11:00 p.m.) unless fully shielded. Metal Halide lamps shall be in enclosed luminaries. 6. Recommended for existing fixtures. The installation of Mercury Vapor Fixtures is prohibited effective ninety (90) days after the date of adoption of this Ordinance. 7 Outdoor advertising signs may use fluorescent fixtures. These fixtures must be mounted at the top of the sign structure and may be partially shielded, but not filtered. 1112.5.4. Mercury Vapor: The installation of Mercury Vapor fixtures is prohibited effective 90 days after the date of adoption of this Ordinance. ARTICLE 1112.6. PERMANENT EXEMPTIONS: 1112.6.1. Non-Conforming Fixtures: All outdoor light fixtures installed prior to January 1, 1985, that are equipped with a permanent automatic shut-off device may remain unchanged, except that the subject light fixtures shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and sunrise. All outdoor light fixtures installed prior to January 1, 1985, that are not equipped with an automatic shut-off device may remain unchanged. With respect to all outdoor light fixtures installed prior to January 1, 1985, whether with an automatic shut-off device or not, there shall be no change in use, replacement, structural alteration, or restoration after discontinuance of use for a period of 12 consecutive months, unless it thereafter conforms to the provisions of these regulations. 1112.6.2. Fossil Fuel Light: Produced directly or indirectly by the combustion of natural gas or other utility-type fossil fuels. ARTICLE 1112.7 OTHER EXEMPTIONS FROM OUTDOOR LIGHTING PROVISIONS: 1112.7.1. Bottom-Mounted Outdoor Advertising Lighting: Outdoor advertising sign boards which exceed 301 square feet per sign face and consist of panels which are designed to be removed from the top of the sign board are exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance if illuminated by an approved bottom-mounted outdoor advertising fixture equipped with an automatic device which shuts off the fixture between midnight and sunrise. 1112.7.2 Low Intensity Fixtures: Any outdoor lighting fixture which has a maximum candle power of less than 1,000 candelas is exempt from these provisions, if equipped with an automatic device which shuts off the fixture between the hours of midnight and sunrise. ARTICLE 1112.8 PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE: 1112.8.1. Applications: MARICOPA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE Chapter 11 – General Regulations 1. Any individual applying for a Zoning Clearance and intending to install outdoor lighting fixtures shall, as a part of said application, submit evidence that the proposed work will comply with provisions in this ordinance. 2. Utility companies providing a notarized affidavit in which they agree to comply with the provisions of these regulations shall be exempt from applying for and obtaining a permit for the installation of outdoor light fixtures, including residential security lighting. 1112.8.2. Contents of Application or Submission: The submission shall contain, but shall not necessarily be limited to the following, all or part of which may be part of or in addition to the information required elsewhere in the zoning regulations upon application for the required permit: 1. Plans indicating the location on the premises, the type of illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports and other devices, etc. 2. Description of the illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports and other devices, etc. This description may include, but is not limited to, manufacturers' catalog cuts and/or drawings (including sections where required). 3. The above required plans and descriptions shall be sufficiently complete to enable the Zoning Inspector to readily determine whether compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance will be secured. If such plans and descriptions cannot enable this ready determination by reason of the nature or configuration of the devices, fixtures, or lamps proposed, the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance by certified test reports as performed by a recognized testing lab. Tulsa's ordinance does a much better job adressing "Light Trespass" and glare, whereas Phoenix's mainly addresses uplight that threatens eco-tourism and observatories. These handouts might also be of use to your neighborhood group: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/kennebunkport_formula.gif http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/whatis_FCO.gif Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: cannon_fodder on June 15, 2007, 08:16:29 am I love QT. That QT is the closet to my house. I make them rich. It is always WAY busy and needs more space and I do not think it will cause much more traffic at all. The area is already so busy it has all the traffic it needs. I'm sure many people pass by because it is so busy - more than likely they will just attract those instead of more traffic.
That said, I also like that little enclave of buildings around it. They are certainly a bit rundown, but boy to they have character. I would be sorry to see them go for more concrete lot. To alleviate some of the stress on that QT they can build on at 31st and Louisville (where a Fiesta Mart has been "coming soon" for 3 years now). I'd be a HUGE fan of that. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle on June 15, 2007, 09:22:41 am quote: I heard people like you and I are called 'trippers. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: tulsa1603 on June 15, 2007, 09:22:52 am quote: That was my thought last night - why don't they build another one further down Harvard instead of making this one a "Mega" QT. I signed up to be on the neighborhood QT Committee. I'm not completely opposed, but I definitely want to make sure our needs and wishes aren't completely run over. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: tulsa1603 on June 15, 2007, 09:31:03 am My apologies Patric, it was "Scottsdale" not "Phoenix". I should have taken notes.
quote: Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Conan71 on June 15, 2007, 11:27:26 am I was running errands last weekend around the area. I was going to gas up at the 21st & Harvard QT, but every pump was taken. I tried again after getting produce across the street- still full. Went to the Dollar Tree, came back and finally got a pump. That one stays very busy.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on June 15, 2007, 11:47:21 am <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tulsa1603</i>
My apologies Patric, it was "Scottsdale" not "Phoenix". I should have taken notes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Oh NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! "Scottsdale" is the brand name of a gas station canopy light that has had one of the worst reputations for neighbor- and environmental friendliness. http://lsiadapt.com/media/specsheets/pdf/scottsdale_pet.pdf (http://www.nwpump.com/images/scotsd~1.jpg) This fixture <b>will not comply with zoning</b> without significant architectural modifications to the canopy. Another photo of the LSI "Scottsdale" fixture: http://www.rice-christ.com/lsi/lsi1.htm LSI boasts "With the Scottsdale you’ll get exceptional lighting performance with better long-range visibility and greater impact on vertical surfaces." which is manufacturer-speak for "you will be able to see this light for blocks and lure more customers." It's a technique called "Moth-Effect Marketing" where customers subconsciously associate brightness with safety and convenience, but it's not so great if you live nearby. Ideally, canopy lighting should be recessed to eliminate glare and trespass, and should look similar to this: http://www.lsi-industries.com/lighting_product.asp?ID=1646 A variety of manufacturers (LSI included) make recessed, shielded fixtures that are capable of complying with Tulsa's ordinance. Some look like these: (http://www.sperolighting.com/typo3temp/pics/fdef30fea3.jpg) (http://www.ruud.ca/literature/Series/RC_series.jpg) (http://www.sperolighting.com/typo3temp/pics/34a43659d9.jpg) More listed here: http://www.darksky.org/lighting/fixtures/service-station-lighting-2.php http://www.darksky.org/lighting/fixtures/service-station-lighting-3.php http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_en/petrol_station/index_undercanope_lighting_concepts.php?main=global&parent=6450&id=gl_en_petrol_station&lang=en If installed properly, the Focused-lens (Spot) version of the "Scottsdale" <i>could</i> be in compliance with zoning, and I believe it may already be in use at the new Kum-N-Go on Riverside and the Creek Expressway: http://www.lsi-industries.com/media/specsheets/pdf/scottsdale_recessed_pet.pdf They should be submitting a lighting plan to TMAPC for approval, which should list the types of fixtures they intend to use as well as the Photometric report on how much light shines where. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on June 15, 2007, 12:03:34 pm Oh, and the "Scottsdale" is also used for "Security" lighting...
(http://www.kotv.com/newsimages/640/18cb9b6d-4abd-4127-ae41-3e47d22ee561.jpg) (photo of a frequently robbed convenience store) Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: RecycleMichael on June 15, 2007, 12:12:30 pm I think we want to see our retail stores from space. Think of the untapped UFO market.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Townsend on June 15, 2007, 01:54:39 pm Maybe they want to help the flowers and vegetables across the street grow more. My mother used bright lights on her African violets in this way when I was a kid.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on April 11, 2008, 09:28:45 pm I will say one thing positive about this particular QT -- they were the only ones fully operational for miles during the ice storm -- they had an industrial generator running on their north side where EMSA usually parks. I think the credit card readers were on satellite internet as well, which was good when all the ATM's were down and cash was low.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: OurTulsa on April 11, 2008, 10:56:57 pm QT filed their PUD application last week. They hired Charles Norman; they know their in for a dog fight with the hood.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Enid on April 12, 2008, 08:21:19 am That QT is almost impossible to get into and I wish they carried sandwiches and salads like the newer QTs. I have actually witnessed two women fighting over the gas pumps there. I wish they would build a QT at 41st and Harvard where the nasty Diamond Shamrock (?) is on the corner. You can't even go in that store it's so smelly and filthy.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on April 12, 2008, 10:11:07 am quote: If they go the PUD route they will have to submit a detailed plan that, among other things, demonstrates how their lighting follows the Kennebunkport Formula to abate nuisance glare and trespass -- no obnoxious "Scottsdale" lights, more like what the Kum n' Go on Riverside near the Creek Turnpike is using. http://www.tmapc.org/applications/Standard%20Elements%20for%20PUD-Corridor%20Detail%20Site%20Plan%20Review.pdf http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/kennebunkport_formula.gif Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: CoffeeBean on April 12, 2008, 10:35:35 am How old is Charles Norman? The man must be pushing 80.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: TUalum0982 on April 12, 2008, 11:50:40 am quote: They aren't wanting to build this QT into a MEGA QT from my understanding. (atleast not like the truckstops in dallas and Phoenix.) They are just wanting to bring it up to date with current trends and flow. That style of QT is old and outdated (just like the one on 11th by TU and the one at 51st and Mingo). It shouldn't increase traffic too much, they are already busy enough. If anything, congestion would ease up around QT because I have been by that store many times where I am at a complete stop because people can't turn into and out of the parking lot. I think it would be beneficial for you and your neighborhood as long as the lights aren't like a car dealerships. If that's the biggest of your worries, then I would have to say you are probably in good hands with the project. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle on April 12, 2008, 05:40:43 pm quote: As far as I know, that is the only non-updated QT in the city. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: cannon_fodder on April 12, 2008, 09:33:55 pm The one on 11th near TU was renovated without any expansion... just better use of space.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: PonderInc on April 13, 2008, 11:09:32 am That QT is very busy...and possibly the most difficult to navigate via car. I think the newer layouts with pumps perpendicular to the store work better from a traffic flow standpoint. However, from a "fit with the neighborhood" perspective, I hope they don't biggie-size it (like 15th & Denver) with the extra parking in the rear.
There are so many places on Harvard where they could easily put a larger QT without having to cut into a neighborhood. They don't have a presense anywhere in the area near 31st or 41st and Harvard....so dropping south a mile would be great. (The only ones I can think of are around 55th and Yale, and 61st and Lewis.) Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle on April 13, 2008, 01:41:36 pm quote: The one on 21st is backed up right against the houses behind it. They have plenty of room North-South but are very constrained East-West. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: joiei on April 13, 2008, 07:01:22 pm If I am not mistaken, what backs up to the QT at 21st and Harvard is another business in a rather fugly building. The photographer? Am I wrong?
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: tulsa1603 on April 13, 2008, 07:22:19 pm They will be putting parking in the back like the one at 15th and Denver. THe Florence Park HOA has been all over this and QT has been working with a committee to make sure the neighborhood is heard. They're putting a brick wall in along Gary to screen it from the neighborhood, plus they'll be planting two rows of evergreen shrubs as well. I have PDFs of the site plan if anyone can tell me how to post them.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: godboko71 on April 13, 2008, 07:41:07 pm quote: You can either upload them to a free host or just email me the files and I will get them up and linked ASAP. godboko@gmail.com Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: hoodlum on April 13, 2008, 07:57:37 pm to me it seems like an opportunity for the neighborhood. Walkable commercial.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: TUalum0982 on April 14, 2008, 10:58:28 am quote: I believe 51st and Mingo is the same layout, as is the one by TU on 11th. Atleast the pumps are layed out the same. I can't recall the inside of either store, as I never go to either one. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle on April 14, 2008, 12:17:52 pm quote: Those are both updated stores. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: tulsa1603 on April 14, 2008, 04:04:25 pm I sent the PDF file to godboko..hopefully he will upload it for us.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: godboko71 on April 14, 2008, 04:44:01 pm (http://www.viperwebconsulting.com/tulsanow/QTHarvard/QT-Landscape-4-2-08-small.jpg)
[PDF] (http://"http://www.viperwebconsulting.com/tulsanow/QTHarvard/QT-Landscape-4-2-08.pdf") | [JPG] (http://"http://www.viperwebconsulting.com/tulsanow/QTHarvard/QT-Landscape-4-2-08.jpg") Sorry for the delay all. The PDF and JPG links are full versions of the file. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Limabean on April 14, 2008, 06:08:12 pm So Tulsa is becoming more pedestrian and forward thinking by building bigger gas stations?
Interesting.......... Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on April 14, 2008, 11:03:14 pm They will be required to submit a detailed lighting plan to get a PUD --
and that plan should NOT include the obnoxious "Scottsdale" lights they told you about last year (since they wont meet code today). Did they give you a copy of the plan? Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: tulsa1603 on April 15, 2008, 11:54:57 am quote: I have nothing about lighting...the only other thing I do have is a schematic of their "monument" signs, which are pretty typical looking. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: cannon_fodder on April 15, 2008, 12:33:13 pm Thanks for the link... but they take up another 2 lots for more asphalt. A negative move for development in my book. As a regular user of that station, it adds no value to me.
To avoid the circular need for me to post this, I'll just do it here: I'm not advocating telling them they can not expand. Just saying I view the development as a negative. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: LongtimeTulsan on April 16, 2008, 06:55:23 pm The entire front lot will be nothing but gas pumps and canopy - From the plan it looks to be 16 or so pumps. That is mega -
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle on April 16, 2008, 07:58:11 pm quote: 8 pump islands. that is small compared to the the newer stores and a speck compared to the texas stores. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: TUalum0982 on April 16, 2008, 08:24:13 pm quote: agreed. Go look at the quiktrips around the Dallas area...WOW Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: LongtimeTulsan on April 20, 2008, 09:11:36 pm quote: 8 pump islands means 16 stations. QT is acting like they are building on undeveloped land and not in an established neighborhood. No - it is not a plus for the area. The traffic and congestion will only get worse. Given that they pass E10 off for gasoline - I am surprised that anyone buys their gas. I wonder if QT will replace engines. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: tulsa1603 on April 23, 2008, 10:41:35 am At the Florence Park Homeowner's meeting last night, it was announced that they've applied for the PUD. They gave the association everything they asked for as far as screening goes along Gary Pl...and the two guys that ran the QT committee said that they wouldn't oppose it. They felt that it was inevitable, and they were glad that QT was workign with them on the screening issue. They don't feel that the loss of the photography studio, rundown duplexes or rundown house are a big loss (and I'm not sure that I don't agree with that) The president of FPHOA was obviously opposed, so I'm not sure what action she'll be taking.
Then one of them said something like "and they'll be using the Scottsdale lighting which is supposed to be the best.." and I couldn't help but think of some of Patric's posts here. Since I didn't know enough about it, I wasn't sure what to say. No one was there from QT to answer questions anyway. And, interestingly enough, neither was our new city councilor Eric Gomez, though Maria Barnes was...as was Randi Miller, who used the audience to rally against annexation of the fairgrounds and against moving Driller stadium downtown. Anyway, it goes before the board sometimes toward the end of May. I'll post that date as soon as i retrieve my notes from last night. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on April 23, 2008, 10:56:25 am quote: These were two guys from the neighborhood committee saying that? The "Scottsdale" glare bombs wont meet code under a PUD, that is certain. Either their information is old, or QT doesnt have a real plan to comply with zoning. Maybe you could invite more of your neighborhood commitee to the TulsaNow forum? Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: buckeye on April 23, 2008, 02:50:55 pm Maria Barnes was there but Eric Gomez wasn't? What a chucklehead.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: YoungTulsan on April 23, 2008, 03:44:05 pm In cases like this, I don't even think it is about making more money for QT at this particular location. They could leave the current store and continue raking in money. I think their business model wants to have the same level of service, convenience, and product line uniformally wherever you step into a QuikTrip. A cramped parking lot that can be a pain to get in and out of, and a packed store lead you to subconsciously associate QT with inconvenience.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: TUalum0982 on April 24, 2008, 08:50:32 pm quote: agreed. I for one will avoid that store if at all possible and go down the road to the one at 48th and yale if I have to. The parking is cramped, the gas pumps are a pain in the butt to get into/out of. Not much convienence at that location Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: In2neon on April 25, 2008, 11:30:47 pm Then one of them said something like "and they'll be using the Scottsdale lighting which is supposed to be the best.."
Before everyone gets in an uproar about using the Scottsdale fixture be aware some QTs have fitted the Scottsdale (from LSI lighting) with the optional cutoff shield and this seems to direct light where it should be and make this fixture much more friendly... Only a greatly reduced glow looking at the fixture sides, as opposed to without, when these first started to pop up... I find the Scottsdale with the cutoff shield quite acceptable... Also MH lighting will have a large initial punch of light with fresh bulbs then plateaus to a more acceptable level after a few hundred hours.... Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on April 26, 2008, 12:51:03 pm quote: If glare were measured like tornadoes, a piece of shielding inside that lens would reduce it from an F-5 to an F-3, but my house would still be trashed. That would be better than nothing, but it's not effective enough to meet either the spirit or the letter of the law. To get a PUD they must demonstrate that their lighting will meet code before construction begins. To show compliance, the Kennebunkport Formula (http://"http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/kennebunkport_formula.gif") is used to calculate where the cutoff line is in relation to the property line. To have an effective cutoff line, you need to be using either Full-Cutoff lighting, or architectural features that accomplish a full-cutoff effect. The typical "Scottsdale" installation (even with an internal modification) doesnt meet the definition of (nor behave as) a Full-Cutoff light, and wont work for us. Glare is an effective marketing tool, and retailers sometimes place that above safety when they fight to keep glarey, obnoxious lighting over eye-friendly lighting that costs them the same (or less) to install. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sauerkraut on April 26, 2008, 02:46:54 pm I like QT stores and I wish we them in Ohio. QT offers free tire air and free air is hard to find in Ohio, just about every place charges 50-75 cents for air and the air pump things don't even work good.[xx(]
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on May 02, 2008, 09:35:35 pm There will be a hearing before the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for this on Wednesday May 21 at 1:30pm.
Its PUD 756 If you cant make this afternoon meeting, write or call INCOG beforehand at 584-7526. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: PonderInc on May 05, 2008, 03:58:44 pm I wonder why they didn't just move across the street to the vacant Mays store. Plenty of space, already has a big parking lot. Why mess up the scale of the NW corner when there's already a big open space on the SW corner?
By the way, the QT on Brookside managed to "upgrade" without adding additional asphalt. Too bad QT (and Tulsa) is so focused on cars and gas. It would be great to see an "urban" QT like some of the new 7-Elevens popping up in big cities. (It could be small, walkable, and include the famous QT customer service!) Here's one in Boston. Pretty cool. (http://www.universityunited.com/BeaconHill7-Eleven.jpg) Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: inteller on May 05, 2008, 08:45:32 pm quote: because their business model is based on filling your car with ****, and then walking into the store and filling yourself with ****. you cant have one without the other and you CERTAINLY cant have something like that 7-11 in boston. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: PonderInc on May 05, 2008, 09:06:13 pm Not saying that QT should adopt the Boston model at the 21st and Harvard site. I just like to demonstrate walkable neighborhoods at every opportunity! [:)] And I think something walkable COULD go there...if QT would utilize the vacant Mays site across the street instead of turning the existing location into a car-centric development.
Basically just dreaming... Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: buckeye on May 06, 2008, 10:32:56 am Call me crazy, I like my gas stations to be car-centric.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: tulsa1603 on May 06, 2008, 11:52:50 am quote: QT told us they tried for that site, but the owner is not interested in selling. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on May 09, 2008, 10:44:29 am Here's something that should be in the hands of the neighborhood association, as well as QT:
http://data.nextrionet.com/site/idsa/specbull-1-1.pdf (http://"http://") ...and I wouldnt mind INCOG looking it over, either. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on May 14, 2008, 04:26:01 pm quote: ...but there's now a big realtor's "Available" sign out front on the SW corner of 21st & Harvard... Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: mrB on May 14, 2008, 07:34:08 pm quote: Upon closer look at the sign, its says something about "Retail Center" space available. Probably putting in a few shops is my guess? Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle on May 14, 2008, 08:20:09 pm Sounds to me like the owners wants to put in a styrofoam and stucco strip mall and collect rent.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: PonderInc on May 14, 2008, 08:42:26 pm Or when QT came calling, they envisioned deep pockets and jacked up the price?
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: joiei on May 15, 2008, 04:57:17 am Didn't I read on here that they had applied for a variance for the parking lot on the southwest corner next to the Empire Optical. And Empire has done a reworking of the exterior of their building. If they rebuild the exterior of that old drug store to match, that corner would look a lot better. Plus they would have to throw the temporary plant sellers out of the parking lot.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on May 15, 2008, 01:11:08 pm Hmm, are those recessed lights in the canopy of the new QT in BA?
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2008/20080515_QT500STOREp1.jpg) Sure looks that way. And they still want to use the glare-bomb 'Scottsdale' lights in Tulsa? Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: mrB on May 15, 2008, 08:19:06 pm quote: 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 Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on May 15, 2008, 10:01:33 pm 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: PonderInc on May 16, 2008, 08:56:21 am quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on September 04, 2008, 11:00:31 pm QT just bulldozed the houses and the photography shop, so they seem to be moving right along.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on October 30, 2008, 02:33:32 pm 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? Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: inteller on October 31, 2008, 11:56:26 am quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Pebbles on October 31, 2008, 03:18:37 pm 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.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on October 31, 2008, 04:36:20 pm quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on October 31, 2008, 04:47:07 pm quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Pebbles on October 31, 2008, 08:08:44 pm 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: inteller on October 31, 2008, 08:34:38 pm quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on November 03, 2008, 12:36:28 pm quote: 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). Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: PonderInc on November 03, 2008, 03:27:44 pm 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?
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: carltonplace on November 03, 2008, 03:49:13 pm 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? Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: inteller on November 03, 2008, 04:51:20 pm quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: bacjz00 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: inteller on November 03, 2008, 07:33:52 pm quote: 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" Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on November 03, 2008, 07:58:57 pm quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: inteller on November 03, 2008, 09:15:23 pm quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Pebbles on November 03, 2008, 09:49:01 pm quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: inteller on November 03, 2008, 10:00:31 pm quote: haha, yeah.....when QuikTrip starts using LEDs is when cats and dogs start living together. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on November 03, 2008, 11:11:15 pm quote: 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.pdf Would be kinda hip if they went with it, and they could milk the publicity. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Pebbles 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.
Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on November 04, 2008, 10:56:41 am quote: 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. Title: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: inteller on November 09, 2008, 01:32:41 pm quote: so what did TMAPC do on this? Let me guess, they pushed it through anyways. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: LongtimeTulsan 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?
Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle on March 06, 2009, 07:17:10 am (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bkFIPLIOGL8/R4FooVvyCrI/AAAAAAAAHJ4/JwRPavmNIpc/s320/BeatDeadHorse.gif)
Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: cannon_fodder 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? Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sgrizzle 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. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: 1956packard 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 Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on May 08, 2009, 09:36:18 pm 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. Pretty close. The old store vanished overnight and the new one is open, but they are still using the old pumps and canopy for the time being. They may not have closed at all. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: sauerkraut on May 09, 2009, 09:47:38 am 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? QT & Tulsa go together. The city revolves around QT. That's the best guess I have. Don't ask me abot Sonic Restaurants, Tulsa has those all over too.Geesh...no wonder Tulsa has such low expectations. Move on doodz. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on July 05, 2009, 12:32:47 pm Over the 4th of July weekend they started putting up the nonconforming, high-glare 'Scottsdale' lights they were told would violate their PUD, so I expect fireworks come Monday.
(http://www.benfordfueling.com/shop/media/LSIsc320.JPG) Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Hoss on July 05, 2009, 02:56:31 pm QT & Tulsa go together. The city revolves around QT. That's the best guess I have. Don't ask me abot Sonic Restaurants, Tulsa has those all over too. Don't ask you about Sonic? Don't you know all there is to know about Tulsa? ::) Guess the library got sorted out... Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on July 05, 2009, 10:17:34 pm First, the bad fixtures that went up over the 4th of July, followed by an example of the fixtures they should have used (like the ones at their 500th store at 501 W. Kenosha in BA).
Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: cannon_fodder on July 06, 2009, 07:31:06 am If they were told those would violate their agreement and went with them anyway, I hope they are duly punished. Replace the lights immediately and fined for the cost of enforcement.
Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: dbacks fan on July 06, 2009, 10:26:10 am QT & Tulsa go together. The city revolves around QT. That's the best guess I have. Don't ask me abot Sonic Restaurants, Tulsa has those all over too. Ummm, Sonic is based in OKC not Tulsa. http://www.sonicdrivein.com/business/profile/backgrounder.jsp (http://www.sonicdrivein.com/business/profile/backgrounder.jsp) Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on July 06, 2009, 12:30:16 pm If they were told those would violate their agreement and went with them anyway, I hope they are duly punished. Replace the lights immediately and fined for the cost of enforcement. I cant imagine what QT is thinking, especially since they comply with much stricter lighting codes in other parts of the country. Maybe they just need to understand that Tulsa isnt as soft on some development standards as it once was. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: PonderInc on July 07, 2009, 01:36:12 pm It is my understanding that PUD violations are inspected and enforced only by "complaint." (The burden is on the neighbors.) So I would encourage you to call the City code enforcement office and complain. (Is this the correct office to call? If anyone knows a better contact for PUD violations, please share.)
Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: OurTulsa on July 07, 2009, 04:30:17 pm I was told to contact the Mayor's Action Center to file a zoning complaint - 596-2100.
Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on July 07, 2009, 10:19:18 pm It is my understanding that PUD violations are inspected and enforced only by "complaint." (The burden is on the neighbors.) So I would encourage you to call the City code enforcement office and complain. (Is this the correct office to call? If anyone knows a better contact for PUD violations, please share.) Thanks OurTulsa and PonderInc, you are both correct. Enforcement is complaint-driven, so we would have to bear part of the blame if we did not speak up. And the MAC is how you initiate zoning complaints these days --- I was given a case number Monday. QuikTrip may have created a hardship for themselves, as the old canopy and lights were demolished Tuesday and they are relying on the half-installed, new (non-compliant) lights to sell gas at night. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Townsend on July 08, 2009, 08:56:12 am Thanks OurTulsa and PonderInc, you are both correct. Enforcement is complaint-driven, so we would have to bear part of the blame if we did not speak up. And the MAC is how you initiate zoning complaints these days --- I was given a case number Monday. QuikTrip may have created a hardship for themselves, as the old canopy and lights were demolished Tuesday and they are relying on the half-installed, new (non-compliant) lights to sell gas at night. What's the chance they'll get a variance? Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on July 08, 2009, 09:26:11 am What's the chance they'll get a variance? They would have to go before TMAPC and show why they cant do what they said they would by building according to the approved plans, why the city should give them what they want for their PUD (demolishing part of a neighborhood) but they shouldnt have to uphold their end, and why there should be no consequences to them deviating from the approved plan. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: Townsend on July 08, 2009, 09:32:15 am They would have to go before TMAPC and show why they cant do what they said they would by building according to the approved plans, why the city should give them what they want for their PUD (demolishing part of a neighborhood) but they shouldnt have to uphold their end, and why there should be no consequences to them deviating from the approved plan. So from my memory of discussions on here their chance is pretty good. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: nathanm on July 08, 2009, 03:56:06 pm So from my memory of discussions on here their chance is pretty good. It that happens, I will not be pleased with QuikTrip. It's not as if they couldn't relatively easily swap out the fixtures for the correct ones. It's not like they'd have to do them all at once and close down all of the pumps, just one at a time. It might take a couple of days at most.I don't think any of us expect them to just stop doing business there until it's fixed. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: cannon_fodder on August 31, 2009, 11:49:16 am FYI:
Recently while at this store I noticed that they did not install protruding lights, as many of us thought they had in violation of the PUD. Instead they had merely not installed the ceiling yet. The lights are now flat with the awning and don't seem to disburse light nearly as badly as before. Title: Re: QuikTrip Expansion at 21st and Harvard Post by: patric on August 31, 2009, 12:33:07 pm FYI: Recently while at this store I noticed that they did not install protruding lights, as many of us thought they had in violation of the PUD. Instead they had merely not installed the ceiling yet. The lights are now flat with the awning and don't seem to disburse light nearly as badly as before. They did indeed change out the non-conforming lights with flat ones a week or so ago. It seemed COT Inspections had a flawed understanding of "shielded" when the drop-lens 'Scottsdale' lights initially went up. The manufacturer sells those lights with an option which consists of extending a small part of the reflector behind the refractive lens to steer more light in one direction. Since the manufacturer referrs to that option as a "shield" city inspections was interpreting lights so equipped as being "shielded". Since shielding refers to performance rather than manufacturer's claims, the Scottsdales were no-go since their light was spilling copiously over their property line into drivers eyes and residences. CF beat me to the punch, but I was waiting for them to clean the construction up a bit before posting a much more flattering photo than the earlier one with the protruding lights. |