The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://m.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-negotiating-to-open-rei-sporting-goods-store-on-riverside/article_56b52524-effa-52ef-a8ad-e0168ff72f31.html?mode=jqm

REI will be opening it's first store in Oklahoma at 71st and Riverside. I assume this is the project that others have mentioned in different threads. Glad to see that the plans are to keep (but relocate) the volleyball courts.

I shopped a lot at REI in Phoenix. They are a great resource not only hiking, camping and kayak/rafting equipment, in the Phoenix area they had maps for all of the trails in the area both biking and hiking all of the mountain preserve trails. Little pricy, but quality equipment.

This is great news.

Wait. someone wants to do commercial development on land that is ACTUALLY a park and we're all for it?

The volleyball courts will be moved a little ways south. There's really not much else there.

Denver has its flagship REI next to the South Platte River by downtown.  There is a Starbucks in the building that has a riverfront patio and a launch area where you can rent or test out kayaks.  There's also a track around the building for testing mountain bikes.  Something similar would be pretty cool at this location.

In my analysis of available land along riverside, there is land in that area that is city owned and an overgrown field (as in not maintained at all for years). If Helmrich park is essentially moved south, and we gain QUALITY development... Then I'm for it.

An REI goes well with that location. It is in their interest to integrate trail access and be close to parks.

I reserve the right to complain about the quality of the development...

Of course, the end of th article says the plan is for the remaining 50 acres to be "improved in the eyes of other developers." 

So the plan is to eventually eliminate the volleyball courts, the splash pad, the playground, and the rest of the park?

That's a problem.

Also... With all the emphasis on spending hundreds of millions on river water, will this face the river and embrace the trail, or just put dumbsters along the trail and backs of buildings to the river, with a glorious stretch of asphalt along 71sy and riverside and the buildings offset?

Quality counts.

“The ultimate goal is to go ahead and get the ground lease finalized and signed off on,” Bird said. “And then get the development going and, hopefully, spur the rest of the development in a compatible way with the river, the trails and the volleyball courts.”

This is at the very end....we'll see what actually happens. I agree that if what we're going to get along the river is a bunch of big box/strip center development, we have absolutely no need to build dams.

I'm reserving judgement until the site plan is released. If it looks anything like Kings Pointe or Riverwalk I'll be very disappointed.

I actually had hoped REI would build downtown as some point when some more residential developments had opened, but this location makes a lot of sense too. I love REI, and they seem to get urban and smart development usually. Hopefully this is quality and not another strip center you could have built anywhere.

There’s room to move in park equipment to the north of 71st St. as well and there is another existing park with playground equipment around 56th St. I think.  Other than the volleyball courts, the rest of that area is a wasteland.  This plot was the original proposed site for the aquarium which Jenks finally got. City leaders in the early 1990’s didn’t see the value in an aquarium. 

South of 71st is a city park, north of 71st is River Parks.

Yea, all the locations I have seen have been very high quality.  While more towards downtown would be cool, the fact it is IN TULSA and near the are both pluses.

Dumb.  There is a Dicks and soon to be a Gander Mountain just across the river at Tulsa Hills and the Walk.

I'm not one that typically frowns on much of any new construction, but this is just stupid.  Not all three of those places will be able to stay in business for the next 10-15 years.

I believe REI is significantly different than Dick's, I don't know about Gander Mountain.

REI is a specialty store for biking, hiking, climbing, snow gear, and specialized camping. They don't sell guns, hunting equip, lake stuff, stick and ball sports, or fishing equipment.

I've only been to the one near Paradise Valley Mall, so that is the only location I can refer to.

http://www.rei.com/stores/paradise-valley.html (http://www.rei.com/stores/paradise-valley.html)

REI is to Dick's as Fleet Feet, Runners World, and Lee's Bicycles, are to Dicks

And that matters, why?  It’s still park land which has room for more amenities, should it be needed. 

I'm not for the location, but I'm all for an REI.

The city can't just move their facilities to land they don't own.

Are you aware that RPA actually leases some of it’s property from the COT?  There’s a very good working relationship between RPA and the city and has been for 40+ years.  If needed, I’m pretty confident there could be room for more equipment north of 71st.  Aside from the volleyball courts, I don’t see there being a huge loss south of the 71st St. Bridge.  That area is literally known as “The Desert” by trail users.  If that parcel fit the business model of outlet malls, which need a major interstate in close proximity, it would be ideal for the Simon outlet project.

This plot is far better than pushing over trees, mowing down a ridge, and artificially filling in a valley.  I really don’t get the rub on the REI location.  If anything, they have proven to be a good corporate citizen and they like to make use of the local resources to demo the equipment they sell.

Dick's won't be missed.  Sounds like a decent trade - REI for Dick's. 

Gander Mountain - meh...ok... who cares....

On the contrary.  This is exactly how retailers do it all over the country (for decades).  Dicks and Gander, as well as Macy's, Kohls. . .  all use the same demographic data to co-locate.  McDonalds, Burger King, Sonic, and Wendy's too. Here is why.

If the two compete from across town, they will segregate their customer base and have very little likelihood of drawing customers away from the competition.  They also diminish the total draw to the retail development as a whole.  Each specializes in a slightly different emphasis and while there is a good degree of cross-over, there is quite a difference in brand and price structure.  The cross-over is where each can compete for the loyalty of the other's customers, and expose them to the diversity of their offerings.

I promise you that Dick's couldn't be more thrilled by the Gander Mountain grand opening (and will surely have quite a few sales at the same time) and they both would be just giddy if an REI moved in across the street.  This is how large-scale retail development is done. 

Personally, I will be far more likely to visit both now that I can pop across the street if one does not have what I'm looking for or if I want to make comparisons.

Exactly.   But Sun and Ski Sports has to be antsy about REI coming in.  Much closer competition.

And Backwoods

Kind of like my shop downtown.  If there were more shopping nearby, I would do better because people could then say "Hey let's go to the Deco District and do some shopping." They don't really do that now so it's tougher for me to compete with those areas that do have more shopping. The convenience and perception factors outweigh the competitive factor.

Or a better example might be "art galleries" or an "arts district".  If you have one or two art galleries in one area of town, then another couple in another area, etc. (kind of like Tulsa has) each would not do as well as they would if they were all clustered in one area.  It would then become a destination for those looking for art and to sell art.  It would create more traffic for all of those in that area versus a lone art gallery far away from the "cluster" or in that situation where there is no "cluster" and all the galleries are spread out.  

1. Riverparks isn't going to put stuff up and maintain it just because the city throws it out.
2. The Tulsa proposal for the aquarium required them to initially have "no indoor exhibits"
3. The "wasteland" you speak of is closer to the official definition of a park than the outlet mall location
4. This development will probably also include a bank, two cell phone stores and a great clips. Still all gung ho?

I actually did have a conversation with someone at Riverparks about this and TMUA for a good while the other night.  It’s entirely possible for them to find another place for it.  There simply is no shortage of recreational opportunities near the vicinity of the current “park”.

Have you walked or ridden past this area on the trail?  Other than the apartments, it’s mostly over-grown vacant land which doesn’t seem to be serving any purpose other than the occasional hobo camp I come across. From Riverside it looks like over-grown vacant land, with the exception of the volleyball courts. I’m not sure how that squares with what a park is supposed to look like.  It reminds me nothing of Woodward or Zink parks.

I’m no fan of the additional development leeches, but an REI beats the smile out of a Super Target or Wal-Mart.  REI is more of a lifestyle store which would fit being near popular outdoor recreation areas, not a fashion mart.  My biggest concerns are the same as with the proposed Simon development: loose trash blowing from the parking lot and dumpster areas, storm water runoff, and additional traffic.  As there are three lanes SB on Riverside at 71st, it is one of the few intersections in Tulsa which would be ready to handle such a development prior to it being built.

You can bet with the city being dependent on sales tax for most of its operating revenue, the city is anxious to get sites like this generating revenue and it will get developed rather than staying in limbo.  If it has to happen there, this is preferable to other retailers for the area.

There's been a survey crew at the REI site this week

While I can't say I'm surprised by what this will turn out to be I just expected more from such a prime piece of land. I can't believe we are trading park land and frontage to the river for MORE SURFACE PARKING LOTS!!  >:(  Over 50% of the river frontage is parking... just absolutely insane and unacceptable. Why again are we being asked to pay $300 million for dams that will spur this kind of development?

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/905/phJgdY.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/p5phJgdYp)
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/540/TbLXAd.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/f0TbLXAdp)

http://www.tulsafrontier.com/hyperlocal-blog-reis-really-ridiculous-rollout/

Why not have a parking garage and add more retail buildings? I just don't understand the logic in so much surface parking.

Worse yet... NON LANDSCAPED SURFACE PARKING. Acres of treeless concrete right next to our river trails and parkland.

I understand garages cost 5 to 10 times more per space compared to surface lots. I know they are jot always economical. But why don't we get into the 1990s and at least require some landscaping for surface parking lots? Even the Walmarts in Bentonville do it now...

It has nothing to do with Logic and everything to do with money. Surface lots cost about $1,500 a parking space and multi-story parking structure cost about $12-15,000 a space. Combine that cost with Tulsa high parking requirements and it will never make economical sense for developers to put in garages unless they are in a part of town like Brady or Blue dome where land is more expensive or hard to buy. What I would like to see is the city make protection of the river front a priority by say putting a PUD in place for all land on the river front that have a maximum % of LF of water frontage that could be parking vs development.

Here's the thing.  The zoning code requires 330 spaces for the 3 buildings shown.  They are providing 612 parking spaces!!!!!!!  This is absurd.  REI has a policy of greenhouse gas reduction, a stance on climate change and a policy on green building and environmental stewardship.  They also have a goal of reducing single occupancy car commuting.  

So again: W_T_F?

I would bet that the larger-than-required number of parking spaces is driven by the developer's estimate of the number of spaces that would be used by people merely accessing the trail. It is unlikely that the developer would put extra money in for covered, multi-level parking if many of those spaces would be used by non-customers. Think of people like Sauerkraut.

The only new amenity being added is the development.  We are not adding boat ramps, picnic areas, a new disc golf course, an outdoor theater, etc, etc. So why would these buildings generate 300 additional trail users beyond what is currently needed?  I am mystified by this logic.

Parking opportunity, I’d guess.  It’s not impossible to find spaces at 21st, 41st, 71st, or 96th now though.

Is the city paying for any additional parking for the trail? 

Remember that the parking minimums required by our current zoning are arbitrary.  They are typically double or triple or quadruple what is actually utilized.  They are not based on real studies or analysis of parking needs in Tulsa. (They are based on a single, flawed, statistically invalid "study" from decades ago based on estimated peak demand for free parking in a suburban location without public transit, bike trails, etc.)  So our minimums are based on a decades-old maximum in a different city with different conditions.

In the case of the REI development, the required parking (333) does not account for access from the trail users (I would bike to REI), or the nearby transit stop (which is the most utilized bus route in the city, and will be the future Bus Rapid Transit route).  The parking minimums are based on the building size, not the number of people who use the buildings and how they travel, or the policy goals of our city (PlaniTulsa is all about walking, biking and transit, and the efficient use of land; it's not about doubling the amount of surface parking in Tulsa).

Here's an example: parking for retail stores is based on total SF of building (including warehouse/storage space), not on the SF of retail floor space or the number of customers and employees. It also doesn't take into account "shared" parking, where a person might shop at a store and then eat at the restaurant nearby.  Parking is provided for both, as if they each operated in an isolated bubble in separate universes.  (We know this is not true, or the developer would not want to put these two uses together!)

It's a ridiculous formula and not based on science.  So the required minimum of 333 spaces already has plenty of "cushion" for any additional trail users that are magically spawned by the store, the restaurant or the drive-thru proposed in the development concept. Providing 612 spaces is insanity.

Trail users may call the sand volleyball courts a "desert" but this parking lot will be nothing but a wasted heat island that collects oil and chemicals from cars and dumps them neatly in the river.

The excuse is they couldn't make the development pencil out with structured parking is BS - even with the high number of spots required. Why not ask the city for a variance or do a PUD or better yet zone this with a form based code to allow the developer to do something better than this with less parking.

The developer is always going to take the cheap way out if the city lets them. They need to require structured parking.

Here is just a quick run down...

Development is 110,000 sq. ft. - 330 spaces needed at 3:1000 ratio.

Development cost of $200 per sq. ft. = $22,000,000 building development cost

Structured parking for those 330 spaces would add an extra $6,600,000 @ $20,000 per space.

$30.00 NNN is what the could attain (possibly higher) as this is what Tulsa Hills rates are typically renting for.

= $3,300,000 per year in income.

Loan for no structured parking (4% - 30 Year Amortization) = $1,272,263 in total payments per year
Loan with structured parking (4% - 30 Year Amortization) = $1,653,941 in total payments per year

Providing 330 structured spaces wouldn't kill this deal, but if the developer can squeeze out an extra $400,000 because the city will bend over and grab their ankles for them they will do it. Even if somehow taking in $1.65 million in income instead of $2.03 million in income kills the deal, why not throw in some TIF money to bridge that gap and get high density on this site or abate the property taxes for a few years to cover the gap.

LandArch, thanks for your analysis of the cost of structured parking.  However, I want to be clear about the amount of building SF and parking requirements.

Here's what I see according to the PUD application and concept plan:

Total Retail: 35,050 SF (includes 27,000 SF REI)
Retail "required" parking: 1/225 SF of building = 151 spaces

Total Restaurant: 18,200 (including a drive-thru - at least that's what it looks like on the concept drawing)
Restaurant "required" parking: 1/100 SF of building = 182 spaces

Total commercial space: 52,250 SF
Total "required" parking: 333

Remember that we are utilizing the current parking requirements, not the (hopefully) soon-to-be-reduced requirements of the updated code.

By the way, this was submitted as an amendment to a PUD from 1972 (PUD 128-E-5)
http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Approved%20Minutes/2015/05-20-15%20TMAPC%20Approved%20Minutes.pdf (http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Approved%20Minutes/2015/05-20-15%20TMAPC%20Approved%20Minutes.pdf)
(starting on page 38 of the TMAPC minutes)

It also wouldn't cost anything to orient the buildings to take advantage of the park instead of ignoring it, with the exception of the single restaurant.

The big shopping center that houses/housed the Spirit bank event center has multilevel parking...   Does it ever even get used?

That seems to be what the TMAPC was saying. I was a bit surprised they seemed to grill them about now orienting the development more towards the river. I figured this would get rubber stamped and approved.


I did notice I was a bit off in terms of SF when I re-looked at the site plan after I posted that. Here is the revised #'s just for people to think about at 52,250 sf and 333 parking spaces.

Development cost of $200 psf w/ surface parking = $10,450,000
Development cost of $200 psf w/ structured parking @ $20,000 per space = $17,110,000

30 Year Am. loan @ 4% = $604,324.54 in payments per year
30 Year Am. loan @ 4% = $989,437.00 in payments per year

52,250 sf leased at $30.00 NNN per year = $1,567,500.00 per year in income.

So basically a difference of $578,027 in income w/ structure parking versus $936,175.46 in income with surface parking.

Difference is, that the density you could get with structured parking would allow for more sf to be built. They could wrap the structured parking with multifamily and some of the retail with multifamily on top and built 150-200 units that would use the parking mainly in the evenings and overnight when the retail is closed. That would make way to much sense especially since this is identified as MIXED-USE developable land.

I continue to be amazed that developers don't understand that excessive asphalt is wasted space and unnecessary cost.  It's weird that you have to fight a developer to say: Hey, can you please use that land to do something productive and increase your profit? Or at least save yourself the cost of buying land and building surface parking that will never be utilized? (Oh, and by limiting the asphalt, simultaneously make it a better and more desirable place.)  I'm astonished that there are developers who DEMAND to provide excessive parking that will never be used.

I drove by on the way home from Sprouts.  There were some cars parked along the outside edge of the 3rd level.  I didn't see any others but there wasn't anything going on. Most of the businesses aren't really retail evening sales though.  Maybe the college uses it.

The nearby car lots use the parking lot.
The Bixby chamber of commerce and some sort of mortgage office rent space in the event center.
The owners have sold the sound system and scoreboard.
It's for sale, but nearly impossible to use as an event center with nowhere to park and and all the non-entertainment tennants

We could have a whole other thread just to discuss the spirit bank arena/plaza stuff.
My company actually got an old retail space to use as an office in Regal Plaza outside the spirit bank center. The entire center was sold around the start of the year, and the new owners have done a lot of work trying to get the place fixed up. There's a lot of rebranding going on, and hopefully they're working on getting the stadium opened up soon too.

But to answer the question: no, no one really uses the parking garage there except a few people who park on the outside edge to make it look like the garage isn't completely empty.


Getting back to the topic at hand though, I agree that the parking could be handled better, but honestly this development will probably turn the REI area into the main trail head for river parks in this area, so I can understand the need for lots of parking. On beautiful days in spring, for example, the other parking lots are overflowing.

That's not to say there isn't cause to make some noise and let them know there are people who care how this turns out. I think it would be a good idea to have more buffer between the parking lot and the trail so that stretch isn't so ugly and urban. There's room here to work things around a bit and improve it for everyone, but inevitably there will be a lot of surface parking.

" That's not to say there isn't cause to make some noise and let them know there are people who care how this turns out. I think it would be a good idea to have more buffer between the parking lot and the trail so that stretch isn't so ugly and urban suburban. There's room here to work things around a bit and improve it for everyone, but inevitably there will be a lot of surface parking. "

Fixed that for you.  If it were urban, it wouldn't have all that parking and would be pedestrian friendly.

That was my point.   Tulsans tend to lean away from multilevel parking and prefer large, open, well lit (light polluting) spaces.   Look at the Promenade mall as another example.   Even if it didn't cost more, most people prefer open lots.

I really like a restaurant with a patio abutting the trail.  Really don't like that it's surrounded by an ocean of asphalt.  The picture has trees but we know there won't be trees, or if there is, it'll be $10 baby trees from Home Depot that'll take 50 years to look like real trees. 

Not a fair comparison because it's in an adaptive reuse of an old building in an urban location, but Denver's REI does a good job of incorporating its natural surrounding.  It has the S Platte River on one side where it offers kayak demos, and a mountain bike track on the other side which sits above an underground parking garage.  One thing that would be cool is to have a coffee shop on the river/trail side like what they have in Denver.  It makes for a nice stop while biking/jogging.

(http://livelaughrv.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rocky-mtn-np-318.jpg?w=584&h=346)

This is actually a fair comparison for a few reasons:

Even though Denver REI is considered "urban," it's in a corner of downtown that's not particularly walkable unless you're coming off the river trail.  It's bordered on one side by I-25 and another by Speer Blvd, which is a fast moving 8-lane street/freeway. The other side is the Platte River.

In this case, REI worked with the City of Denver to redevelop this property and great care was taken to make it an amenity.  It's surrounded by greenspace and has two small surface parking lots that are densely landscaped.  (I've been to the store many times, and never even realized there was underground parking.  I guess it's there somewhere.)

The store is 90,000 SF and has about 180 surface parking spaces.

Another store to compare to is the REI that was recently built in Pittsburgh, which is also adjacent to a river.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.428684,-79.965252,3a,75y,269.56h,73.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scqdPuyLSg2Q5YbkWv42EWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.428684,-79.965252,3a,75y,269.56h,73.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scqdPuyLSg2Q5YbkWv42EWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

We gotta protect our heat islands, otherwise snowball-throwing politicians will take over.

Again this is rhetoric that is not true. Tulsans leave towards surface parking just like a New Yorker would if it is more easily accessible and closer to their destination. The parking garage at Saks seems to be used very often and it's not like parking is a huge headache at Utica Square. Parking garages seem to be used all the time downtown.

You are using two failed retail development to say see Tulsans don't get parking garage, they're afraid of them, and promoting the status quo. The parking garage at at Spirit Center isn't used because it's the parking that is the furthest from any retail space and the center is 50-70% vacant. If the parking garage was in the center of the development and there wasn't much surface parking and the center was fully leased you bet people would use it all the time. Promenade is a dead mall and because of that no one goes there making parking very easy in the surface pots that are quicker to park in and closer to the entrance of Sky Fitness or Macys that people visit. Why would you park in a garage just for the sake of it? If Promenade was brimming with business and leased with high quality tenants those garages would be full.

A small parking garage here would allow the developer to build even more square footage increasing their profits. In the long term would the city rather have 100,000 sq. ft. of retail or 50,000 sq. ft. of retail? Make the developer an offer to subsidize the parking structure in order for them to build more retail, more retail = more sales taxes. I don't get how this hasn't sunken in with our economic development people.  ???

As I said before... a 330 spot structure would cost approximately $6.6 million

Right now we have a development of 52,000 sq. ft. - we'll use $300 per sf in sales per year

= $645,000 in sales taxes per year to the city

What would it be if we upped the development to 100,000 sq. ft.? $1.29 million per year in sales taxes to the city.

Give the developer 25% of sales tax revenues back a year and that $5 million in 15 years, essentially paying for the structured parking, and the city gets 25% more sales taxes than with a surface parking lot consuming the majority of the surface land area of the development.

Your thought process isn't bad but don't forget there is additional debt service to be added to the developer's equation in order to pay for the parking structure and from my experience often the typical retail space deals are often not of sufficient duration to fully recoup the original investment let alone additional costs for structured parking.  If you want structured parking and more density the land price has to go way up to make it work.  In Jenks the Bank's structured parking was part of a TIF which was betting on more development but a good way to subsidize it if you like that sort of thing.   

Oh and for 20K a space you can do a very nice garage.

Or, you could just eliminate 3/4 of the proposed surface parking, and you'll have lots of space left over for development.

I may have not been super clear in that last post, but I was meaning that the city should kick in money to fund a parking structure for this site and other very important development sites. Essentially to double the sq. ft. of the development the city would double it's sales tax and ad valorem taxes. Waive 50% of the increase in revenues from the additional 50,000 sq. ft. (or 25% of the total revenues from 100,000 sq. ft.) and that would pay for the parking structure at essentially no cost to the developer. Then at the end of 15 years the city is earning double the revenue it would, and would be eating 25% more revenue in that first 15 year period than it would if the development is built as proposed.

Better yet, wrap the parking structure in multi-family, a use that most of the parking demand comes in the evenings - over night - and mornings when the retailers would be closed. That would increase the ad valorem taxes even more and make the structured parking even more economically feasible.

Good to see Blake Ewing adding nothing to the conversation on Facebook.

Oh now you're bringing common sense into it, good luck with that.

This development was revealed to The Tulsa City Council a couple of months ago. Several of us expressed immediate concern with the development plan. They met with  us individually, so there wasn't necessarily continuity. Even Lakin, the biggest REI fan in Oklahoma, had some issues with their plan.

I think I had more issues than anyone. I was familiar with other REI stores and just didn't feel like this was anything close, especially to the one in Denver, which I think is really impressive. I'm also perfectly fine with imposing standards on a developer, especially in an area as important as this and especially when it's publicly held property in a public park.

I wanted more interface with the waterfront and the trail system, more green space, etc. I didn't like the pad on the corner or the 71st Street orientation. Basically, all of the things you guys probably don't like, I don't like them either.

There is no Council legislative action that can keep this from happening or require the developer to change anything. Trust me. I've asked.

The property is held by the TPFA or TIA or something like that. They empowered Clay Byrd to negotiate with REI on this property a long time ago. The Council wasn't aware of negotiations involving this piece of property until this was well down the road. That's pretty standard protocol. They don't want the Council to meddle when private negotiations are taking place, understandably.

Anyway, the property is already zoned for this. If the authority wants to sell it or long term lease it, they are empowered to do so without any interference from The Council. There will be some issue that comes to us regarding the underlying plan, but it's not regulatory. It will be approved. We're working to rezone the adjacent property to AG so that it has to come to The Council for consideration in the event of a PUD.

I met with the developers several times. We discussed alternative design plans and riverfront orientation. They were having none of it. I also worked to find ways the city could contribute to the property to help shrink the parking footprint. At that point, we were told it was too late and that they were moving ahead without a TIF. That's right. They rejected a tax increment financing that would have directed revenues generated by the project back on to the project for public amenities like parking, trail improvements, waterfront access, etc.

I don't like anything about how it has gone down, but there's nothing I can do right now.

I am working with INCOG, city planning and some local design professionals and a few other councilors on a task force to develop river corridor design standards that will apply to all developments after this one. We'll present that draft to the public in the coming months and will hope to have it as the first overlay district after we adopt the new zoning code. It's actually a really great thing as the overlays have been controversial (I love them, some in the development community do not). The desire to have this one on the river has inspired support for them from several of my colleagues, all but guaranteeing their inclusion in the zoning code update.

This is an example of one of those issues I'm glad to weigh in on and share information about. I've made myself available in the past, but am never asked for info by TulsaNow. Instead, I see all kinds of guessing and wondering about these things. I promise. I'm on your side and glad to provide info and it turns out my position as a Councilor grants me access to it. I hope you find this to be helpful and informative. I will remain at your service, but will continue to ask that I be asked for information prior to publicly conspiracy theorizing about the motives and intent of our city leaders. It makes TulsaNow look bad to the very people you hope to influence, especially when it's wrong.

Thanks,

B

Put a maximum on the surface square feet.  If a developer wants more parking, (s)he has to go vertical.  It should be the cost of doing business in such lucrative spots.

We, as consumers, can just not buy there.  It's after the fact but it might get other developers' attention for future projects. 

One can only hope the next mayor and their ED will have better respect for Tulsa’s best assets and the best way to develop or preserve those assets.  The current admin seems pretty indiscriminate on how they go about trying to capture new sales tax sources.

That for the update. That is discouraging.

And seems like a bad sign for Turkey Mountain too.

Sounds like they are "building to the audience".  In Denver there is one set of expectations - it draws kudos from near and far.  In Tulsa and Oklahoma, what we will "settle" for is very different. 

Kind of like kids - they will often live up to, or down to, our expectations.  When ya look at what we require (settle for) versus other, more progressive areas of the country, how can there be any other end result?

That’s a great point.  We are obviously so desperate to have the same stores all the cool kids have in bigger cities that those stores know they can much put in the cheapest/blandest version and we will still be thrilled. 

I think this development will become an issue with a number of people in the upcoming “water in the river” vote.  If this is the kind of asphalt jungle/suburban development Tulsa will get on our limited waterfront property, then a $300 million investment isn’t looking so great.  This REI would be perfectly at home at 71st & Memorial and Tulsan's could save a lot of money on dams.

This is very true. I was on the fence about the whole water in the river thing. I get that there are opportunities water brings, but I also appreciate having space that is just green and recreational. For me to support water in the river I have to be convinced that the development is going to enhance an existing asset. Right now I am thinking that water in the river means lots of parking lots. It's just one vote, but right now if it comes down to it I am voting no. If Blake can really get a standard for development set that has teeth and will be enforced Ill gladly reconsider.

This is an interesting discussion, but there are a few missing pieces. Is REI driving the design, or is a developer who will lease to REI making the decisions? The pictures looked like a small shopping center with REI as an anchor tenant, which was not what I expected months ago.

The Denver REI store looks exceptional. My REI experience has been with the Albuquerque store. Its original location close to downtown (next door to the natural history museum) was a fairly plain retail store with a moderate number of surface parking spaces. The Albuquerque store was relocated to a commercial area of NW Albuquerque dominated by a gigantic Costco with acres and acres of surface parking. The REI store again has a moderate number of surface parking spaces. In my experience parking there has never been a problem.

This seems so different than REI's usual pattern. Has anyone talked to REI? REI is a national retail chain cooperatively owned by its customers. It seems they would be sensitive to adverse publicity regardless of the local governmental climate.

Incidentally, REI is not just just a "big city" place. It appears to locate first where there is a local demand for its products, hence locations in Boise, ID, Albuquerque and Santa Fe, NM, Bozeman and Missoula, MT, and Bend OR, to mention a few. These places all have well-established backpacker/climber/cyclist communities. Then there are the large cities. I'm not sure how Tulsa fits in unless REI is planning an outreach to obese adults who love guns. Those folks already have Gander Mountain.

BINGO!

Agreed.

What's the point of putting water in the river if this is what is to be built?

I am guessing other developments may go better.  In fact, I prefer to think that if this goes in poorly, then it will turn into the driving force to cause other developments to be more appropriately designed/implemented.

That's what people said about King's Landing.

Any way this could be made to apply to this development?

The hideous quality of all Riverside development (except for the Blue Rose, which was done well... and of course Elwood's) is one of the reasons I can't support the dam project.  We would spend $300 million for dams and then be forced to develop the land to justify the debt (in the name of "economic development). 

I care more about the River Trails and green space than I care about water in the river.  And I certainly don't want Riverside Drive lined with suburban-style, big box developments and surface parking lots.  It would be a horrible joke to have water in the river and then line the river with asphalt.

I'll take the sand bars with my trails and green space over asphalt any day!  Save the $300 million for transit projects.  (True economic development and a nice dose of opportunity / equality would be generated by a functional transit system.  Water in the river....not so much.)

Talk about something that turned it’s donkey to the river...

If there is a river development overlay district like Blake mentioned that could help drive any future development a different direction than what we've seen.  Honestly outside of this area and around the west bank festival park there isn't a lot of developable land along the river in Tulsa that isn't either too narrow, already parkland or industrial.  Smaller-scale projects like Blue Rose are what I hope gets developed in Tulsa with one or two larger ones this being one and the west bank another.

The only thing I can think of is that they know a lot of people will be parking there to use the trails and think they need extra spaces.  Or have future development in mind and will have parking until it's developed.

I'm in a council meeting right now, but I'll try to reply to the points and questions I remember.

1. The design guidelines can not be made to apply to this design, which sucks.
2. I agree with the statement that this bad design will inspire action to prevent it in the future. That is exactly what is happening.
3. Future projects will have a design overlay. I am confident that it will be very good and will produce the kind of outcomes we all want.
4. REI has made a corporate decision to go to the standardized floor plan model. This is understandably a smart decision for retailers as it allows them to define a repeatable floor plan from store to store. The negative is that we lose the unique reuse projects REI has done in the past and swap them out for typical big box repeat stores.
5. Some of the parking on that site was requested by city staff to accommodate anticipated River Parks usage. They didn't want to see people parking there for River Parks taking up the spaces for REI and the other stores and then having the retailers complain. This is something that happens at Blue Rose all the time to the detriment of the restaurant. We do need the River Parks tenants to be successful, so I understand that. I just wish we could've solved that problem with a little more creativity.
6. There are some incredible waterfront designs available online with a simple google search. We've been studying those designs in our design committee. Really exciting to see what could happen if we just defined the standard.
7. To assume that the mayor has had any input on this may be a stretch. I doubt he's been very involved in it. It was handled by Clay Byrd and the authority that owns the property. To be fair to Clay, while he's fine with the look of this and doesn't seem to agree with the standards I would have preferred, he's also said he's fine with design standards as long as he knows them going into the negotiations. The issue in this case was that we started springing these issues on the developer when they were already far down the road.
8. This is not REI specifically. This is a developer. That said, I'm under the impression the developer was hired by REI, which suggests that REI is fine with the development style.

If there are any more questions, let me know. I'll do my best to answer. Also, if there are any I missed, please bring them to my attention.

The River Parks website says that the river trails are used by "tens of thousands of people annually."

OK, so let's say it's 90,000. That equates to an average of about 250 trail users per day.

So if every trail user of the entire 26 mile system arrived at 71st & Riverside at the same moment in a single occupancy car, we could fit every user in the REI parking lot utilizing only those spaces provided in EXCESS of the required parking.

If you're having trouble visualizing a 612 space parking lot, picture the Target parking lot at 17th and Yale. Then imagine it quite a bit bigger.

This is stupid.

That math would assume that every person who comes to River Parks only uses it once per year. (90,000 users / 365 days = 247)

If the average visitor visits once a month, then we're talking 2,959 spaces needed.

Disagree on the math, still agree that the parking is stupid. Can't believe the city asked for all of these extra spots in unstructured spaces.

Thanks for the reply.  This is the kind of thing I was hoping for.  Sometimes it takes a slap in the face to get people organized and into action.

I can already feel the 'outreach'...  Haven't found "my" Gander Mountain in Tulsa yet, so just gonna have to settle for WalMart and mail order for guns and ammo!!

Second the motion....


It is like we are totally oblivious to the Riverwalk.  Massive parking.  Non-viable retail.  Movie theater gone.  Lots of rationalizations.  Geez....we just don't ever learn from other's mistakes, 'cause now we want to make the same ones all over again - destroying a lot of green space in the meantime!

Based on a study TUWC did for RPA on Turkey Mountain usage, TMUWA weekly usage is about 10,000-11,000.  I suspect Riverparks overall usage from 11th to 96th is somewhat more than that.

As green/sustainable as REI claims to be I'm surprised they don't have a say.  You would think they would want their only (for now) store in NE Oklahoma to be a destination and more of a showcase for green design and outdoor activities.  Still hoping they eventually open a downtown location.

It looks as though they're trying to match the parking lot look of the Luby's across the street.

Speaking of Luby's...are there plans for that?  Strip mall with a Kum & Go out front?

seems like a good location for an REI

Seriously.

When they announced the Luby's closing, they said the site had already been leased to Planet Fitness.

I wonder what UCR's  stock holders (as they are owned by CBRE Group) would think if they knew that they turned down a TIF to help maximize profits because they were "just to far down the road". To me that's an insane amount of arrogance that has no place in business. They should have at least had the conversation.

I wonder what REI would think if a petition was started telling them this design is crappy and they are taking advantage of one of the great natural assets of our city and paving over outdoor recreation (volleyball courts - which have no firm location of where they will be replaced) in order to pave it over with parking. What a great way to entire the home state of REI's CEO.

Thanks.  This intersection should be more than this. 

Yep.

I was upset about this in January. Nice of everyone to join me on the dark side, we have cookies.

I looked.  You weren't alone in January.  It looks like others had doubts and called what would happen.

I, for one, am super excited about another enormous heat island for that intersection.

Soon, Burger King can just cook their burgers outside off the asphalt heat.

If you look at the concept drawing, it looks like they're already planning for a drive-thru restaurant. So Burger King can cook on a grill, and folks can idle their cars on the heat island...

You've heard of "Rails to Trails."  Now we've got..."Parks to Parking Lots!"

Sheels would also be nice.

Not sure why they don't look at the lot north of lubys at the Peoria/riverside intersection, just south of the apartments.  I know it may not be ideal next to those apartments, but it would a GREAT thing for that lot and that part of town in general.

I feel like they will find Hoffa before anything gets built there.

Tulsa City Council approves amendment clearing the way for REI to come to 71st and Riverside

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsa-city-council-approves-amendment-clearing-the-way-for-rei/article_b2c26a75-1af6-5f59-83b3-376b5eabcced.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsa-city-council-approves-amendment-clearing-the-way-for-rei/article_b2c26a75-1af6-5f59-83b3-376b5eabcced.html)


Horrible news... So the City Counsel COULD have done something but intentionally went against the will of the people.

A sentiment I've heard over and over recently is: I guess the Tulsa city leaders want Tulsa to be full of fat people driving to big box stores. That's what people think of Oklahoma. This kind of development cements that for the future.

Not true. The City Council's hands are tied, and the map update is merely a procedural vote to make the comp plan map match what the TMAPC has already approved. The TMAPC commissioners are the ones who had/have a say-so in this, and they already approved the conceptual plan. This article leaves out quite a bit about the process and fails to mention that the Council took a stand on the issue in their last meeting or that even if they didn't approve the map change, it would happen anyway. More to come soon.

My understanding of the zoning change process is TMAPC makes a recommendation to the Council, then the council approves or disapproves the change and has final say on the matter.

At least that is what I learned with the whole proposed Turkey Mountain development.  Is this different?

Please educate us on the best ways to influence zoning decisions like this!

I'm not per se against trading parkland for development... But I'd like to see the resulting development NOT be a 6 acre asphalt lot.

This is different because it was a land use map change, not a zoning change.

The land was already "zoned" as a PUD back in the 70's.  (Nope, they don't expire!)  Because the PUD was in place, the development was only considered a "minor amendment" to the PUD, which does not require/involve the City Council.  (Major amendments to a PUD DO require council approval.  Because this didn't represent a massive change to what was allowed in the old PUD, this was considered a minor amendment.)

What the Council voted on was a change to the "Land Use" map which is supposed to represent the vision of the Comp Plan.  The land use map gets updated typically concurrently with any zoning changes that impact it.

The land use map shows a broad category of how we envision the land should be developed: downtown, parks and open space, main street, regional center, town center, neighborhood center, etc.  It's supposed to be a guide to the Planning Commission to show the overall vision of the city's long-range planning & development.  (I can't say that they particularly respect it.  They're very comfortable "spot zoning" / making one-off changes and doing whatever a developer wants, regardless of the comp plan.  But staff recommendations do consider this.) </end rant>

The zoning map, on the other hand, shows how each particular parcel is zoned: single-family residential, multi-family residential, office high/low, commercial shopping, PUD, etc.

So in this case, our Planning Commission failed to require the developer to provide something better than the average crappy suburban development.  (They also failed to stand up for INCOG staff recommendations, which were ignored.) And they rubber stamped the minor amendment to the 1970-whatever PUD.

This left the City Council with the administrative step of updating the Land Use map to reflect that decision.  They initially voted no on it, just out of consternation with how the entire process went down (city selling park land for development without involving the council, etc).  However, it was sort of pointless to vote no on this, b/c it wouldn't change the outcome.  So after they made their point, they went ahead and voted to update the land use map.

It's best if you can check the TMAPC agenda every couple weeks, scanning for any issue that might be important.  Then it's best if you don't have a day job and can attend the TMAPC meetings at 1:30 on Wednesdays. Then it's best if you're an old-school, suburban-style developer (and possible business associate) who the TMAPC members will respect and listen to.

Other than that, I guess you'd have to work in the mayor's office. 

Or, perhaps, there should be an ordinance that states that when COT land is sold, it should be approved by the city council.  (Why does this not already exist?)

Thanks for the well-detailed clarification!

https://www.readfrontier.com/hyperlocal-blog-opposition-to-proposed-rei-site-growing/

So the TMAPC unsurprisingly approved the site plan (it was in accord with the crappy PUD amendment they previously approved). Also unsurprisingly Mayor Dooey can't understand why this proposal is inappropriate for this site. (This is what you get when your go-to guy for urban design questions is Joe Westervelt.)

On the positive side, it appears there may be a deed restriction limiting the use of this land to park / recreational use for 99 years.

I believe the park land was donated to the city in 1991. A group of civic leaders and local companies donated half the money and the city parks dept ponied up the rest (I think! It's hard to remember a time when we (COT) still thought of the parks system as an asset not a liability.)

Also fun: former mayor Terry Young spoke adamantly against the proposed development.

The plot thickens...

I read that "Bartlett is 110% in favor of the development."

Nuff said

I was unable to go to this meeting as the DCC meeting was at the same time.  Glad I went to the DCC meeting, lots of interesting stuff there at least.  But anywhoo, I had heard earlier that the TMAPC would likely approve the plan.  I do not know what else they could do as the development fit the legal parameters and all they were there to do was say yes its ok per the rules or no its not.  However did hear that some are trying to see if the City Council can go ahead and change the zoning on this parcel as well as what they did for the rest, and yes, also heard that there may be some strings attached to this land as it was donated and likely had some restrictions with what could be done.  Glad to hear that may be true. Odd that whoever was working on this (TPFA? or whatever the group is) for so long kept the potential development a secret and worked on it in private meetings and didn't know about the restrictions?  Really seems odd and or stupid to go through all of that for what I heard was quite a long time trying to get this development and didn't even have the legal rights to be selling the property.

As far as the deed restriction, I would assume the city will simply do a land swap.  If the land donor is still around, maybe they will put their foot down if there really is a deed restriction.

As far as keeping this under wraps, it’s classic Clay Bird, though he keeps invoking Tammy Fate’s name.  She used to be the retail development director for Tulsa and moved away a couple of years ago.  He has brought her up during the Simon fiasco as well as this one as if he’s scapegoating her for these hare-brained developments.

Deed restriction seems to be a moot point:


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/plans-for-riverside-development-move-on-despite-opposition/article_4170b22b-f73b-53ea-89a4-2b918b11452d.html

This development is just flat wrong for this spot. Seriously, who thinks that 600 parking spots and a suburban eyesore facing away from the river is a good fit? Have any of these people ever been to other cities or countries? I would hate to see what their tappedout Springfields look like.


Think Small

(http://www.vikingrivercruisescanada.com/images/2014-11_Rivers_Badge-GrandEuro_tcm28-22899.jpg)
(http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/files/2014/05/REI-Dallas-LBJ.jpg)

I used to support the water-in-the-river thing.

This development plan has changed that.

Moving the volleyball courts a mile North...there were multiple murders right next to that park over the past few years. 

Will the volleyball players still want to be there?


REI on Riverside Clears Another Hurdle

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/rei-riverside-clears-another-hurdle (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/rei-riverside-clears-another-hurdle)

Hmmm, I thought maybe they would move them further South. North is a bad, bad idea unless there are Kevlar volleyball uniforms available.

Moving them north not only creates potential conflict (generally affluent kids going to a generally poor park to play could certainly lead to conflict, or it could be a good, but it seems doubtful that many residents in low income housing will join a vball league)  it also means paving more of that park for cars...

Vehicle break-ins have been commonplace for years in the three parking areas in the vicinity of 23rd & Jackson.  I’m not claiming there’s a definitive link to low income housing in close proximity to lots like this and stealing from cars, but I’m sure it’s more than a slight coincidence.

Just for everyone's reference here is where REI is going in Oklahoma City:

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/907/xqYCuS.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p7xqYCuSj)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/537/57At0Q.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/ex57At0Qj)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/910/roh2nV.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/paroh2nVj)

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/901/ym1LIT.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/p1ym1LITj)

I think everyone would agree this is what should be built on this parcel of land fronting the river. If REI is willing to locate in this in Oklahoma City there is no reason they wouldn't be willing to be incorporated into something like this in Tulsa on this piece of land. Unfortunate the City of Tulsa will now be losing out on a considerable amount of revenue because the developer is cover the vast majority of land with parking lots.

I thought former Mayor Terry Youngs letter was informative, yet it did not sway the decision.





Mr. Chairman and commissioners, my name is Terry Young. I am a former Tulsa county commissioner and a former Tulsa Mayor.

I was sworn into office as District 2 County Commissioner in November 1976. I immediately began work on building 71st Street bridge, which had been a major issue during my campaign for the office.

Between November 1976 and December of 1983, when the 71st Street bridge was opened to traffic, I was personally involved in the following:

 My District 2 Road Crews laid the asphalt for the very first section of the River-Parks bike and pedestrian trail in 1977 when River-Parks was a little over two years old.
 I personally negotiated donation of the first 350 acres of land for the Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness Park.
 I personally negotiated donation of the land for the PSO Soccer Park on the West Bank of the river.
 I personally negotiated the acquisition of right of way for construction of 71st Street from the river to Highway 75.
 And, I personally negotiated with the State Department of Transportation the inclusion in the 71st Street bridge construction the structural elements necessary to later add a bike and pedestrian path – which is, in fact, now in place and is THE link of the east side river trail to the west side trail through Turkey Mountain Park.

I tell you this to let you know that in the earliest years of the development of the River Parks system, I was directly involved and, therefore, I can state with authority what the intentions of those engaged in the establishment of River-Parks truly were.
In the area of the 71st Street bridge there was never any expectation of anything but public recreation and preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land between Riverside Parkway and the river.

Similarly, on the west side of the river there was never an expectation of anything other than recreational and natural-state use of the land north of 71st Street from the bridge to Elwood – the Turkey Mountain area.

Commercial and other moderate to high density uses were expected and encouraged from Riverside Parkway east to Lewis and – on the west side – from Elwood to Highway 75. Coincidentally, you have just today acted on a proposed apartment development on the southwest corner of 71st and Elwood. (It only took 32 years!)

The proposed commercial development on the southwest corner of 71st and Riverside should not be allowed.
I can tell you unequivocally that that corner was always intended to part of the River-Parks system. Even the recently updated comprehensive plan states that, as well as the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

That is why the Helmerich family acquired and donated that land to the River-Parks Authority for park purposes in the first place
As Chairman Covey emphatically stated regarding land along the river at 121st and Yale that was donated for Cousins Park, "The donated part of the property is to be used as a public park, period."

And just as Mr. Covey said in the Cousins Park matter, “We’re not a bunch of naysayers. We’re not a group of NIMBY’S.
Those of us here today opposing any use other than a dedicated park on land donated for that purpose are not against commercial development on the other side of Riverside Parkway. We’re FOR responsible use of the land that was donated for and is currently in use as park land.

Therefore, given all of these facts, I believe this matter can quickly be resolved by the Chairman entertaining – or himself making – a clearly germane motion to vacate PUD-128.

In the alternative, I would request that this commission schedule the necessary public hearings to amend the comprehensive plan to reflect this dramatic change in land use at 71st and Riverside Parkway.

How odd than an outdoor apparel store wants to pave over and ignore the great outdoors to build its Tulsa store. 

Maybe REI can add a “Parking Lot Hiking Apparel” line of clothing to this store.  It would be in great demand in Tulsa.

^ All it would take is one article in a national publication about how a development that REI is anchoring is paving over a park with well over the maximum parking and little to no interaction with the adjacent natural asset. 

It’s not like there hasn’t been recent precedent of a developer changing their plans for a retail development due to public outcry.

We already have an Urban Oitfitters.

So now that this is all approved and going forward, who gets the money from the sale of the land? Where does that money go and who controls it? Will any of that money go to rebuilding the volleyball site?

The land wasn’t sold as I heard on the news, it’s a 99 year lease.  I’ve looked around and can’t find the terms published anywhere, but I’m sure they are out there.

It would be nice if the terms of the sale/lease were made public, since this is a sale/lease of public land.

The decision yesterday by the TPFA was to execute the contract to sell the land.

It's actually pretty hard to understand what they voted on because of Dooeys completely incomprehensible motion.  (Chairman: "Was that a motion?" Dooey: "Yeah, whatever all that stuff was I just said...") (paraphrased, but you get the point.)

Here's the contract: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BgaBXva60WSGlPUzQwVmowYWs/view?pli=1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BgaBXva60WSGlPUzQwVmowYWs/view?pli=1)

It appears that the contract is contingent upon the buyer signing a lease with REI.  (See p. 8, section 6) ("This contract...[is] specifically conditioned upon Buyer, on or before Closing, entering into a satisfactory Lease or Purchase and Sale Contract pursuant to which Buyer leases or sells all or part of the Property to a high-end outdoor retailer that offers its own line of high-quality sports and outdoor gear and apparel, in addition to products from other top brands.")

The contract includes a 99 year deed restriction preventing the property from being used for a bar, a titty bar, a porn store, a medical marijuana store, etc.

Another question that was raised in the meeting involves the process that must be followed to declare public property "surplus."

There's a state law that governs a municipality's ability to sell off public property.  The property must be declared "surplus" before it can be sold, and there's a specific public process that must be followed before you can declare a property surplus.

To the best of my understanding, this process was not followed.

One question is whether or not the TPFA is acting on behalf of the City. If so, do they need to follow the same strict rules for declaring a surplus.

The city ordinance that created the TPFA empowers it to buy and sell property on behalf of the city.  And the city lawyer who was on hand suggested that by deciding to sell the park land, the TPFA was essentially declaring it surplus.  She seemed to think that this fulfilled the obligations of the law.

I'm not sure I understood all of the legal details that were raised, so I may not have captured the concepts perfectly.  However, I think it's interesting that the two dissenting votes on the TPFA are both lawyers, and their major concern was that the TPFA didn't have the right to sell the property.

I think this is an important question.  If anyone knows a lawyer  ;) it might be interesting to take a look at the state statutes related to declaring city property "surplus."

According to the Tulsa Whirled, the question of the property having been properly surplused was the reason for the two dissenting votes of board members.  And it would be nice too, if the media could get its story straight (i.e. 99 year lease vs. purchase) prior to blabbing that out.

I think this REI boondoggle will kill any chance of a yes vote to put "water in the river"

Why exactly do we need water in the river if we are just going to sell off public land and land in trust to build bone headed big box developments that don't even face the water in the river

You'll be pleased to know that the developer said this is "not a big box store."  After all, it's only 27,000 SF (or whatever) vs.a super Walmart.

I guess we're all confused b/c they're building more parking than a super Walmart could ever hope to utilize for this little modest sized development.  

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, it's a "lifestyle center."  

By lifestyle, I think they mean "drive and park and admire all the asphalt."

Yes, the term the developer used is "junior box". They equate "big box" stores to the entire Tulsa Hills development with 1,000,000 SF of leaseable space.

Having a "junior box" is like having a "mild" heart attack. In the end, it's still a heart attack.



I think you're right, and it's exactly what Councilor Bynum has been worried about. On one hand, we've got the mayor claiming this suburban style development is exactly the type of thing we want to see on the river, and on the other, we've got Councilor Bynum saying that development would be much more thoughtful in its approach. Those competing ideologies will do nothing but cause confusion among voters.

I think the REI and the Jenks outlet mall developments give the "no damns” advocates a lot of added ammunition in another way as well.  If these developments are already happening along the river without the damns and the orientation of these developments are basically oblivious to the river itself, why bother spending all that money building damns just to get “development.”  Based on these projects, you can make a pretty strong argument that all land along the river with development potential is going to get developed in time with or without the damns.  The only group left to benefit from a Jenks damn is the Creek Nation, and they are still being coy as to any firm dollar commitment for a damn.

The contract is plainly a "Purchase and Sale Contract" not a lease.  Perhaps the confusion is that sale is contingent upon the developer leasing part of the property to REI?

No, the confusion was a bubble-headed bleach blonde saying it was a 99 year ground lease.

In fairness to the reporter, the TPFA didn't exactly follow Roberts Rules of Order.  (You could tell they weren't used to public attention.) They did not clearly state a motion.  The developer presented some hooey, they took public comment, the authority members discussed questions/concerns, then the mayor rambled about something and it was seconded and everyone voted.

In fairness to journalism, there was a printed agenda that clearly stated what was being considered. (A purchase and sale contract.)

Part of the mayor's rambling motion was that the proceeds from the sale should benefit the property.  (Presumably, the remaining park land, but, again, he wasn't very cogent.)  It will be interesting to see what the motion actually said when the minutes are approved. 

Does that mean that all $1,465,000 will go to improving what remains of the public park land south of this development?  If so, wow!  Those are going to be some fancy sand volleyball courts!  (Update: they mentioned the plan is to move the sand volleyball courts south, instead of moving them to Johnson Park.)

Johnson Park is a terrible idea, improving the park south of the REI site could have potential.

I agree.  I liked the "feel" of the space at the old volleyball courts.  I played volleyball there for many years and even started several volleyball teams for a few seasons back in the day.  Volleyball is a natural by the river (or a beach).  Though, being barefooted, one would discover when the ball went out of bounds, that there were some horrid sticker bushes towards the river side lol  Ouch ouch! 

Perhaps, once its open, we can start playing volleyball by the river at the new Gathering Place and perhaps they will get the hint and make some permanent courts there.

Why is our leadership seem like requiring a better site plan is simply something they cant do?

If I was selling a track of land next to my house I could set build requirements, setbacks, whatever I wanted in the sale agreement. I have helped friends in the country sell a track of land and put covenants in the sale agreement that the purchaser would not build or allow to be built any homes within 100 yards of the property line (seller was afraid buyer was a shell company for a subdivision developer and didnt want to sell the land if it meant neighbors) for a period of 10 years.

In this instance, we are selling park land for a bargain, at a key intersection, right next to a river that the City is trying to convince people needs water for development. You'd think we would want to make sure this is done right. WE own the land. WE can mandate how it is used or refuse the sale.

There was much discussion on the tiny tracked of land Tally's sits on being sold, I think i saw on this forum that it was for a similar amount of money as a 12 acre tracked at 71st and Riverside. WHAT THE HELL? One would think the 12 acres at a prime location could demand a premium.

Because Dewey

Two problems:
1. As a city, Tulsa is too insecure to demand value and high quality development. Over and over again, we get raped, and thank the rapists for their interest. (Other cities insist that developers meet their standards, and the developers do it.)  Unsurprisingly, demanding value creates better places, which are--shocking!--in greater demand and more valuable than mediocre places!

2. Too many of our leaders and power brokers are apparently so dense that they can't see or understand the difference between quality development and a bunch of junk.  Maybe they are wowed by the fictional tales the developers tell about all the economic growth that will occur (if those stories were true, Tulsa would be flooded with excess revenues!).  Maybe they lack the perception and imagination to envision something better.  Maybe their travel experience is limited to interstate corridors, where the lowest common denominator surrounds them everywhere they go.  Maybe they can't tell the difference between Maple Ridge and Woodland Hills Mall.  I have no idea.

But I am getting so tired of it. 

It's because Tulsa has the most arrogant inferiority complex you'll ever see.  We love to look down at our noses and at everyone else, namely OKC, while begging whatever and whomever to please come to our city no matter the cost.

I agree this is a much better description of the problem than blaming whoever happens to be mayor.  We are so desperate to have the stores all the cool cities have that we don’t want to put any conditions on them for fear they will turn us down.  The irony is, by the times those stores get around to opening in Tulsa, their coolness is ebbing to the point they probably need us more than we need them. 

This and rdj's comment have been true about Tulsa since I can remember back in the early 70's when OKC had Montgomery Ward Stores, and all Tulsa had was a catalog counter.

Also, I think REI will survive without any issue if they did not open a location in Tulsa.

Bah....we didn't need no stinkin' Monkey Wards...we had Sears and Otasco!!

Odd comparison now that Tulsa generally gets the "new stuff" before OKC.  Not always, but more often then not.

There was a  time when Mongtomery Ward's was cool?

The comparison though not direct as a reference to people in Tulsa always wanting what other city's have, but then after the store or restaurant arrives people became fickle about it, an after the newness wore off no boy cared, or now people want it, and then when it's built they don't like the development. With REI I believe they rent most of their locations, an now people are angry about their location, and they probably had little to with the actual development itself.

How long did Wolfgang Puck's place last? Why did it close?

If my mom as still alive, she would tell you how cool it was. She was at the catalog store so often I think she had reserved parking.

Longtime reader, first time poster.  The only positive I can gather out of this development is that at least it was done at 71st and riverside and not closer to downtown.  At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Dewey supported the redevelopment of Woodward Park into a Kmart or Circuit City. I guess what amazes me is the fact that developers and stores like REI still see this as a profitable model.  Is there anything offered by this REI that I can't just buy online? I thought these big box stores were catching on to the fact they needed to create an experience to lure customers rather than simply selling stuff. This is not an experience, it is just a glorified sports authority. I’ll just get my outdoors equipment online for cheaper and skip the trip to the paved shopping nightmare they are creating at this location. I'm just disappointed Tulsa has a mayor who doesn't recognize this problem.  He should be supporting developments that give people a reason to get off their couch, spend money, and pay sales tax rather than just clicking a button and getting exactly what you want for a lower price, within 2 days, delivered to your front step. Maybe I'm still in the minority here but I guarantee that won't last.  Amazon did not really exist in its current state 15 years ago.  Imagine what online shopping will be like in 15 years? How are big box stores like this REI going to compete with the one click, no sales tax, delivered to your house by a drone that same day form of retail?  Unless you enjoy sitting in traffic, standing in lines, dealing with subpar customer services, and being disappointed when a store doesn't have what you want, my guess is that this box store will be long empty by then.

Nothing original here and pretty much just echoes the sentiments of most on here but its my first message board post of all time so I had to get my feet wet at some point.

What I always expected was that REI would do something unique to incorporate the river trail, and that a restaurant patio type place would fit nicely in the footprint.  I could even get over the parking lot situation (which is way more than necessary) if they incorporated some forestry to make it at least feel like a natural environment since REI is an outdoor store.  The example I think works is the Katy Trail Ice House in Dallas, which is one of my favorite places.  It abuts the Katy Trail running trail in uptown and they created a massive outdoor area that incorporates the trail (they have a water cooler on the trail that greets you to their patio) and they added a bunch of huge mature trees for shade.  If they could do this within the parking lot of this development, and incorporate REI and the restaurant to the running trail and river, it would be a special place.  It would probably be expensive, by why bother if its not going to be special?  Instead, we're getting a cheap suburban strip mall that happens to be near water, and the view while you run by will be the back side of the businesses.  Just strange with all of the possibilities.  See the youtube below for tree installation at Katy Trail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj3bLiZ-LXk

If the site plan is a done deal they at least still have the opportunity to make the buildings more interesting.  If the side of REI is indeed located along the River path as the site plan shows with a sidewalk connection in front of the store to the river trails there is the opportunity to have the west elevation of the building mostly glass looking out over the river.  It would also look pretty cool driving over the bridge eastbound at night. 

The "restaurant" space to the south hopefully could end up being a local place and not a chain, and thankfully the plan shows a river-facing patio that has potential.  Something like Katy Trail Ice House, like what was mentioned above, would be a hit here.  The more trees in the parking lots the better.

Welcome to the monkey house, Hayduke.

While this isn't a Bass Pro Disneyworld, there is still a lot of things online stores cannot offer that places like REI can:

1. Instant gratification
2. In-person advice
3. Touching the item you want to buy

I buy a lot of stuff online, although I try to curb it some for the sake of my local sales tax collections and local retailers, but there are plenty of items that I want to buy in person... at least the first time. I've bought shoes online but sometimes I need a pair of shoes now. Plus, the ones I bought online were a known style and size I knew would work so I had to buy the first pair in person.


REI is specifically like a mountain biking/kayaking/extreme outdoorsy place. Not just your standard bait and tackle shack and not into casual sports like basketball and golf either.

This is a good place for this....Especially if they do it like the poster above suggested......

I guess there's some hope with respect to building design, orientation, trail connectivity, and landscapping.  I hope they spend the money installing mature trees in the parking lot to try and minimize to the extent possible the fact that you're in an ocean of asphalt.  I'm not as perturbed by the location as some, assuming they follow through in moving the volleyball courts, but the site plan and renderings so far look boring and a really poor use of the location.  

Wolfgang's closed because the owner is/was one of the worst restauranteurs in Oklahoma....And corporate pulled the plug....

David Rutkauskas?

No.....Worse....

I would be more disappointed if this was 21st & Riverside but around 71st this is sadly par for the course, even on the river.  Hopefully this leads to a better visioning and set of guidelines for future riverfront developments in Tulsa, something that Blake Ewing has mentioned before and has arisen because of this. 

Satan?

Welcome to the conversation! I hope D doesn't read this and then claim it as his own original idea. I bet he still shops at circuit city.

Id love to get with someone with some artistic ability and make a proposed site plan that utilizes the assets the area has to offer.

My vision: a large floor-really-tall ceiling glass bay window/wall that faces the river with just a sitting/rest/shade/water station separating it from the trail. From inside the store you look out on hikers bikers, and volleyball players enjoying cold water stations, maybe a mister or two, and some shade --- enjoying products and activities supported by REI. You are also overlooking the river, which might soon be filled with REI kayaks and paddle boats.  From outside, you look in on new shiny bikes, running shoes, or athletic gear that you simply must have! Coming from Tulsa Hills east on 71st you would see the glass curtain wall of REI greeting you all the way down the hill and across the bridge... looks cool, lets stop there and check it out. Throw in a few short-term lockers (like airports), including BIKE lockers (or check at customer service) and trail users would be able to stop and shop along their way. Need a new water bottle? Thinking about getting new running shoes because the ones you are wearing are hurting your feet?  DONE!

Move the loading docks and dumpsters to the south side of the building (small fence as view blocker from main parking lot) and allow the rear of the building to EMBRACE the trail. There is no visibility from the South Side anyway.

Then make the expansive parking lot embrace the uses of the area. Add some tree lined medians along one side... then add a path along that trail. You could use it to "test ride" equipment easy enough for a short loop or two.

Position the north side of the building closer to 71st, that's the real estate youre paying for anyway. Leave a green space and room for the trail/sidewalk to head to riverside, but there is no need for a parking lot there. Make it pretty and park a climbing wall, camping equipment, or just move some merchandise to display there from time to time (Canoes, bikes, etc.). Or just leave it green. You know, like a space that people who enjoy the outdoors (and outdoor equipment) might gravitate towards

This isn't rocket science. I'm a lowly attorney with no design qualifications. My only insight is that I use the trails and I go to sporting good stores. COMBINE THE TWO!

If I plan on driving to a big box stores that sells sporting goods crap Dicks, academy, and Gainder Mtn have that covered already. I'm resigned myself that we are trading park land for retail. I'm resigned myself to believe "river development" just means selling parks at a bargain rate so developers can make money, and fully expect a big push to sell more parkland as soon as possible (Riverparks West, well, all river frontage really). But in this instance, there is NO reason why REI couldn't insist the developer make this place attractive to their desired customers.

DO IT. Use this idea for free. Message me and ask me for more great ideas. All free, I don't care. Make it work.

Tulsa World today reports that the volleyball courts will be rebuilt on-site, south of their current location, as part of the development, with significance improvements.  Hopefully this means that they are listening to the public and rethinking the site plan overall.

I saw Dewey on Saturday and it took all of my self control not to ask him to explain how he can ask Tulsans for hundreds of millions to put water in the river and at the same time support suburban development that face away from the river and block the view of the river while paving the bank for parking.

I don't think he can be this dense.

Just to help people understand the scale of this thing.  Here's someone walking along an REI building in Dallas. 

Now picture this wall 10 feet away from the trail.  That's what the site plan shows. Not enough room to plant real trees.  So close that the heat from the afternoon sun should reflect nicely onto the trail users.

(Yes, there will be some windows along the northern edge of the west wall.  Then there's 150' + of 30' tall blank wall.)

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/image8-e1439843279275.jpg)

Welcome!  Always good to have new input!


It's a dog eat dog world here...just don't be wearing Milk-Bone underwear...!!

And yet, even as lowly attorney, you understand perfectly...it isn't about preserving/enhancing/improving quality of life for Tulsa and Tulsans.  It's about growth for growth's sake development to allow certain people to benefit exclusively.

If REI builds that design along the trail, that will be a level of crapulence unmatched since the Office Depot and its wall of shame went in at 15 & Lewis.  A wall of glass and shade features would sure look more inviting--both from the river and toward the river. 

Here is another one.....

(https://livelaughrv.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rocky-mtn-np-318.jpg?w=584&h=346)

And so this happened...

(From an article on the KWGS website) http://publicradiotulsa.org/#stream/0 (http://publicradiotulsa.org/#stream/0)
The city parks department had proposed moving the courts from 71st and Riverside a mile north to Johnson Park. Mayor's Office of Economic Development Director Clay Bird said instead they’ll move south of the land sold into Helmerich Park.

"And then also try to identify what amenities need to go with the volleyball courts, maybe look at putting in some parking, getting some cost estimates on that," Bird said.

I think I'm finally starting to understand the phrase "bird brained."

Remember just a few short weeks ago how the Dallas developer insisted that the REI PUD required almost 600 parking spaces TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THOSE PARK AND TRAIL USERS?? This was their justification for adding something like 250 extra parking spaces to the development plan.

There's a huge blob of excess parking on the south end of this development... Which would put it, gosh, maybe near the volleyball courts.

Of course, since the city sold the land for some beads and a mirror, we won't technically have legal right to park there. I guess that's something the TMAPC should have considered when they were discussing their gentlemen's agreement with the dudes from Dallas.

When you act like a whore, you will be treated like a whore.

Ascribing to the tired old saw of “A rising tide raises all ships”, better development helps lift the value of all properties in proximity of it.  What benefit does a taxing authority get when the value of properties rise?  Hmmmm??

Here is our applied method: Hand over incentives to any retailer the city sees fit just so we can have the cool factor of COSTCO, Trader Joe’s, etc. come to town.  Never mind that most local people will forget about their arrival not long after they arrive and consumers go back into their usual rut.  The city’s ED department can use a $2 million discretionary fund to attract new retailers and it is my understanding this was used to lure COSTCO and I was led to believe this same mechanism would have been used, in part, to help lure SPG to level part of Turkey Mountain.

The net result is the city essentially gives up revenue to make slab-sided, ugly development more profitable for developers.  In the meantime, Tulsa’s growth rate is still abysmal and it’s an easily proven metric that we don’t grow at a rapid enough pace for a municipality which must reap 65% of its operating budget from sales tax.  If there is no substantial growth, you wallow in an over-extended budget or cut necessary services to shore up the bottom line.

In a nutshell: We promulgate crappy development with no apparent forethought about the total net return to the city’s coffers we just think sales tax collection is a panacea.  Retail development is not nearly the tourism draw as are great arts, entertainment, and recreation.  That is an immutable fact.  You need to have enough reasons for people to come and stay for a few days or a week without retail being in the forefront of their minds. 

FFS, you can build an outlet mall or name retailer anywhere.  In order for that to equate to real sales tax growth, you need to have other reasons for people to come and stay for a week or a lifetime- those are the real assets we need for new retail development to really pay us back.  If you have those assets in the first place, retailers won’t sit around waiting for handouts to move in, it will already make great financial sense to them and they will happily abide by the terms you set in place for them to neatly assimilate into the local scene.

That wall is going to look great decorated with spray painted images of male genitalia and gang tags. Seriously though, why would REI put a store on the river and next to the trails and not incorporate them into the design of the store?  I just can't imagine them doing that.  If it was Kohl's, that's one thing.  But it's an outdoor recreation store, catering to the kind of people using the trails and maybe someday the river.  It would just be stupid to not have a back patio, a place to lock up bikes, a back entrance, windows facing the river, perhaps a coffee shop to lure Saturday morning riders/runners into the store, an area to test out equipment, etc.  I get they want to open as cheap as possible but they also want customers, outdoorsy customers. Wishful thinking.

Looks like they plan to add some monkey grass and a couple of trees to the wall.

(https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1200/1*njnxz75QWPvaADba_gN88w.png)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0lzyUOjvFw

You mean like this REI in Denver?
(http://www.wenkla.com/files/3713/7234/7040/REI-starbucks.jpg)

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/image8-e1439843279275.jpg)
[/quote]


Just think of it as a lighted community billboard.

If only that was in the plan.  If it was, they better let Tulsans know before the water-in-the-river thing is voted down again.

Tulsa could have that if we built canals...  Don't hold your breath - wouldn't want anything to happen to one of my favorite antagonists around here!

Here's the view from the trail.  The tall parts of the wall are 36' tall.  The rest of the wall is 30' tall. 

The dark parts of the wall are covered in brown aluminum siding; the white area is almond colored smooth CMU block; and the rest of the wall is concrete panels with CMU block wainscoting.  The decorative element is painted on (which isn't required by the PUD, but they show it in their site plan).

The area to the far right side is actually the back of the loading dock.

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/west-elevation-e1439934047994.jpg)

Based on the site plan, it looks like the trail is anywhere from about 12 to 25 feet away from the wall.

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Site.jpg)

Based on the landscaping plan, there are a couple redbuds and an oak by the windows towards the north. And in the middle of the wall there are a couple oaks and a loblolly pine.  Everything else is shrubs and grass. 

South of the building along the trail is a clump of landscaping serving to shield the trail from the giant cul-de-sac / turnaround thing and the loading dock.  This area has 2 oaks, 2 loblolly pines, a redbud and a bald cypress, along with a bunch of grass and shrubs.

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/landscaping.jpg)

It might be neat if they cold install a climbing wall since it's an outdoor store and all.  It would have people on the trail side of the building. 

HI. Congrats on taking the big leap and jumping right on in! Welcome to the world of forums!

I always liked these falls.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pictures+falls+at+sioux+falls+sd&view=detailv2&&id=8DA95615B920A3A370AAF27DEE41297F8A17A5A8&selectedIndex=5&ccid=HQS4oyB8&simid=607995133012673170&thid=JN.qoVwjBdCPQgDwSawQVkpnw&ajaxhist=0

Okay, don’t underestimate the power of public opinion.  This development is one that most Tulsans are not happy about.  I personally liked the location from the beginning.  How the eventual site plan ignores the river and is little more than additional concrete dreck that is so ubiquitous with suburban Tulsa retail is what is so disturbing.

Please, take time to email the corporate development folk at REI.  Let them know we expect better from a company with their reputation and stature and we want something which would interact with the river.

You can effect change when it comes to crappy development, that’s been proven with Turkey Mountain.  The only way it will be changed though is if you let them know this sucks.  REI has built itself up as being a good corporate citizen, one which loves to integrate into the community.  Let them know this is not a plan you would support with your wallet and we might be able to get them to demand something better out of the developer.

I took some time to email them this morning.  I could not find an email for the "corporate development folk" at REI but I did find e-mail address for their board on the website and sent it there. (board@rei.com). If somebody else finds a better email, please post here and I'll send my email their way as well.

Director of Asset Management/Real Estate: Vic Blanco
Based on other REI email addresses, I'm guessing: vblanco@rei.com

Vik Sahney - VP of Strategy at REI (includes sustainability functions)
Email: vsahney@rei.com

I have exchanged several respectful emails with Mr Sahney related to environmental concerns about the development / ginormous parking lot. Car-centric design, runoff, pollution, etc. He was responsive and thoughtful, but couldn't say much bc they had not signed a lease. He said he would forward my concerns to the Real Estate folks so they would be aware of local concerns about environmental impact.

By the way, somebody got the Twitter handle @REITulsa before REI did. Lots of funny  and informative tweets...

I assumed that was someone on here.  If it is, please step forward so we may thank you.

Someone went and made a Facebook page for it, too: Build a Better REI Tulsa (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Build-a-Better-REI-Tulsa/434401710104185)

We spent the last two weeks in Colorado and a few observations hit me regarding our future REI development:

We drove past the REI in Denver everyone has pointed to as a “model” for them.  This seems to be an exception to their appearance in other communities.  Their store in Ft. Collins, for instance, was pretty innocuous big box and did not seem to interact with any other recreational aspect of the area.  I wish we would have had the time to visit the Denver store and get a better first hand idea of how it interacts with the bike trails and river outside its backdoor.   FWIW, that area of bike trail and river is somewhat sketchy with homeless camp sites and overt drug activity.

A thought has occurred to me: “Would people have been as upset if the RPA or city simply announced they were paving a 300 or 600 space parking lot on this parcel for park users and moving the volleyball courts to the south?”

Certainly, I would like to see this development interact with the river, if it must be built here.  Turning it’s back on the trail and the river with a 30 foot wall is a lost opportunity for sure, but I was curious how people would have reacted to the parking lot if it were not attached to a retail development. 

The Denver store is considered a "flagship" for the brand.  It's in a repurposed trolley maintenance building from the early 1900's.  The river trail goes right by it and there is a Starbucks on that side with outdoor seating, and is a popular rest stop for cyclists and runners along those trails.  Something similar would be a hit in Tulsa.  

There are windows facing the river and the retail floors inside take advantage of the views on that side.  There is an underground parking garage that was built to the south of the existing building with some surface parking and a landscaped mountain bike track on top.  There is also surface parking across the street adjacent to I-25.  They do kayak demos in the rapids next to the building.

It would be nice if even just the north side and part of the west side was covered in windows like this:
(https://www.djc.com/stories/images/20060404/REI_Portland.jpg)

The store under construction in DC is going to resemble Denver's much more than Ft. Collins. So it's not a one-of-a-kind. Maybe it's a new flagship. Though the REI in Arlington, VA is nothing to look twice at.

I've been to REI stores all over the country, and yes, many of them are pretty nondescript and located in strip malls, big box shopping centers, etc.  However, several of them are not.  It seems that when the city demands something better, the developers can deliver.  We didn't demand something better.  We sold Manhattan for some beads and didn't demand anything in return.

Had REI announced plans to open a store in an existing shopping center, I wouldn't have batted an eye about it.  Lord knows, any existing shopping center in Tulsa would already have all the pavement any developer could possibly want. And they could have plugged their store template right in there without any effort.

My beef is that this was park land.  It's adjacent to the most important recreational trail in the region. But the proposed development is a sad, typical, suburban Dallas mediocrity that turns it's back to the trail and surrounds itself with an extra 200 parking spaces over and above Tulsa's ridiculously excessive parking requirements. The landscaping is paltry, as per usual in these giant parking lots in Tulsa. (Thanks, lame zoning code!)

Bland mediocrity is everywhere in America.  REI's are everywhere in America.  How does that set us apart?  How does that attract anyone to Tulsa? Why should we sacrifice park space when we have so much existing mediocre commercial space available for lease throughout town? 

(By the way, just because we weren't able to invest in the park during the past 15 years like we should have doesn't mean that future generations wouldn't have done so. Did anyone see the 1999 plans for what Helmerich Park was envisioned to be?  It could have been amazing!)

It matters that we demand high quality development.  We can't think that accumulating an assortment of national chains (that already exist everywhere else, remember) will make us a great place.  We certainly can't think that accepting the basic-level design template of those corporations is good enough. If that's all Tulsa has to offer, we should all move to Topeka.  I hear they have an Olive Garden there!

Exactly. Very well stated.

Our leaders have consistently failed to demand excellence. We have failed to stick to a coherent plan. WE are consistently behind the curve in adopting things that other cities already had success with  (OKC has success with a city revitalization project - 10 years later, Tulsa wants that too. OKC has success with a NCAA eligible arena, 10 years later Tulsa wants that too. OKC builds a new ballpark, 10 years later... OKC makes a plan to put in light rail, start the clock).

NEWS FLASH:  Tulsa will never "get ahead" but being slow to implement what everyone else is doing. We will never be the biggest city in the region. We will never be the capital city. We cannot build cheaper homes than Collinsville, or more new subdivisions than Jenks.

What we can be, what we should be, is a urban regional hub that has unique things to offer. QUALITY matters much more than quantity. In the last few years we've added a new Academy, a couple of Dicks, a Gander Mountain, and soon an REI... so what? Add 10 more big box outdoors stores. Lets put in a "Tulsa Hills East" and replicate that entire development. So what? That's not offering anything that any suburb anywhere in the US can offer. So why would a company, or an educated young professional, or a family man, or an entrepreneur choose Tulsa?

I have family and friends come to Tulsa all the time. I help out of town kids going to law school find their way around town. I take people NOT from Tulsa around Tulsa. They think Jenks is nice. They think BA is a great suburb. They are impressed with all the new shiny thinks in Owasso. But when I take the to Cherry Street, Utica Square, Brookside, and the Brady District - they are amazed that all this life is in Tulsa, OK. Things they associate with big, expensive, sprawling cities. Unique, interesting things. People who have been around the world, who have lived in major cities, and who expected to come to Tulsa and see nothing BUT bland, suburban development you can see everyone else.

But our policies are designed to add to the bland, suburban developments you can see anywhere else. When Bantonville, Arkansas has stricter requirements for new Walmarts than Tulsa... we've done something wrong. Development for development sake is a failed goal. Trading parkland for bland development is beyond failure.

We can't help it.

You can't expect excellence from a population of a state that had "Oklahoma is OK" on our license plates as an unofficial/official motto for years.

I fully expect our next plate design to say "Oklahoma, hey at least we aren't Mississippi"

 :P  :'(  ;)

Yeah...we ain't Mississippi all right... THEY put more money per child into education than we do!  We are #50!!  And Mary Failin' is darn-tootin' proud of that accomplishment....

That's an entirely different discussion. One that should begin with the waste at the admin level in our schools......but let's not get off topic here.  8)

Wait a minute...did I logon to the wrong forum??  This is TulsaNow, isn't it??   Isn't "off-topic" one of our ways of life....??  Need bumper stickers with the TN Logo that say something like, "Thread Drift Rules..." !!



Kinda related, almost - goes to the whole 'demanding excellence' idea.  Which sadly, we don't way too often...

Topeka?  Isn’t that where things that suck go to feel better about themselves?

One thing about Ft. Collins is there were no pole signs along the stretch where the REI was and their centers were better landscaped than ones commonly found here.  Until you drive through an area without pole signs, it’s hard to imagine what an improvement that really is!

Bravo.  When I started noticing that in other cities, how nice one area looked and how trashy another did, and wasn't exactly sure what the difference was building wise, store wise, etc. but then someone pointed out that the nice area had no pole signs it clicked, "Ah, your right, I somehow didn't notice that, but it does make a difference."

When you are used to the idea there are no pole signs, it totally scotches the notion that you can’t find a business without that eye clutter.  That should have been worked into the latest zoning change.

Can anyone verify whether or not the developer has actually signed a lease with REI?  The sales contract was contingent upon that.  We also need to see how many days they had to finalize the lease with REI before the contract becomes void.

In related news, here's a petition you might want to support...

https://www.change.org/p/mayor-of-tulsa-develop-71st-amp-riverside-in-a-responsible-manner (https://www.change.org/p/mayor-of-tulsa-develop-71st-amp-riverside-in-a-responsible-manner)

Shaming editorials might get further with the mayor than the petition would. 

Really? He seems kinda Trumpy.

I still signed it though.

It seems like anyone who would care about a petition has no say in this at this point other than maybe REI and they don't seem real responsive.

Does anyone have any updates on REI?

The sales contract was "conditioned upon Buyer, on or before Closing, entering into a satisfactory Lease or Purchase and Sale Contract pursuant to which Buyer leases or sells all or part of the Property to a high-end outdoor retailer that offers its own line of high-quality sports and outdoor gear and apparel, in addition to products from other top brands."

I've been trying to find something in the TPFA minutes, but it's hard to find approved minutes online.

The Oct 12, 2015 agenda includes the following intriguing statement:

"Consider a motion and vote to enter Executive Session...to discuss pending and potential litigation regarding the Purchase and Sale Contract for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside, for the purpose of allowing confidential communications between a public body and its attorney concerning a pending claim, investigation, or litigation."

So, it sounds like they haven't signed a lease yet.  Does anyone know how the "pending an potential litigation" is going?

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3scce7/i_am_jerry_stritzke_ceo_of_rei_and_were_closing/cww1b3t

I am Jerry Stritzke, CEO of REI and we’re closing all of our stores on Black Friday. Ask me anything!


I responded that the proposed store in Tulsa sucks.

Edit:   confused what's going on with the /r/tulsa (https://www.reddit.com/r/tulsa/comments/3sddfg/rei_president_on_reddit_says_he_loves_turkey/) thread

I’m not a regular reader of Reddit so I forget how schizophrenic those threads are.  I did manage to rip a quote that exemplifies why we have such shitty development standards in Tulsa:


It’s this “better than nothing” mentality that really bugs me.  We could be a trend-setter when it comes to development standards, instead, we end up with layup slab dreck.

Making a project look more attractive does not end up making it unattractive due to vastly higher costs.  It doesn’t take vastly higher costs, just a better design standard and imagination.

Ugh.. tell me about it... why am I wasting my time on someone that goes by troll_face

You yearn for approval?

Could be a flagship store with the proper design..........

I am a huge fan of REI.  Want the store to hurry up and open so I can go shopping there...

They did the best thing for people as a whole this year that I have heard of in a long time - they were closed on Black Friday!  Said to go outdoors and have some fun!!  So I did....

So now the TPFA is asking the court to clarify it's right to sell the Helmerich Park property.  Nice article in the Frontier.

https://www.readfrontier.com/citys-public-facilities-authority-looks-to-resolve-legal-challenge-to-rei-deal-so-project-can-proceed/ (https://www.readfrontier.com/citys-public-facilities-authority-looks-to-resolve-legal-challenge-to-rei-deal-so-project-can-proceed/)

Bynam must know that this will wreck much of the support he needs for water in the river.

Also an open letter with some legal arguments was mailed to City Councilors, as reported by the Tulsa World:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-seeking-court-ruling-to-answer-legal-questions-on-land/article_4dc4d394-f1d8-5c35-b5df-dd13f0fbb5a9.html

The Letter:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/30/43064878-3a41-530b-8411-745a4d55cd03/565f8197b7c1b.pdf.pdf

Some interesting arguments raised:

1) The TPFA needs to designate the land no longer beneficial for the trust before it can sell it.
2) If the TPFA can sell this land with no bidding and no City approval, it can sell anything it owns. Including City Hall.
3) Saying it isn't and never has been a park is a joke: it was gifted as a park, it was dedicated as a park, the City Council has always referred to as parkland, it is labeled on maps as parkland, and it was used as parkland. And the City can't dispose of parkland without a designated process, which wasn't followed.

I’m impressed with the number of former city officials and board members who believe this has merit.  There are also other people on the list of signees whom I respect greatly.

If somehow this gets shot down and the parkland preserved I will have renewed confidence in Tulsa leaders.  Already a good year with Simon abandoning Turkey Mountain and CVS not being able to rubber stamp a crappy design for a mixed-use corridor on Utica. 

This was put on the TPFA agenda just last night... permitting the public to comment at TODAYS 2PM meeting room 295 at city hall.

I'm not an expert - but I thought an agenda for a public meeting required 48 hours notice and must be POSTED 24 hours before the meeting. Maybe I'm reading it wrong? (this isn't sarcasm, there is very likely something I'm missing)

Oklahoma Public Meeting Act, section 533(A)(9).  (https://www.ok.gov/Architects/documents/Open%20Meetings%20Act.doc)25 OS 311(A)(9) (http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=73436iteID=73436)

Seems to be what the Attorney General has to say on the issue too...
https://www.oag.ok.gov/oagweb.nsf/0/9afabc8767512a97862572b400738e39/$FILE/Open%20Meeting.pdf

What good does it do to post an agenda for a meeting that is less than 24 hours away? Reducing the number of participants by, what, 90%?

This website says it was scheduled Wednesday and is a "private meeting" with their attorney followed by a period for public comment.
http://www.newson6.com/story/30724744/tulsa-public-facilities-authority-to-discuss-lawsuit-over-helmerich-park

I'm confused. Someone who knows more about open meeting requirements, chime in!

I heard that the sale of the land is not to REI but to a developer that hopes to lease to REI. The exact language is more vague stating that it should be developed as an outdoor sporting goods store.

So if I walk over to room 295 will I be let in for public comment or will I be told "private"?

With little or no notice of the meeting...


TULSA, Okla. — The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority voted Friday to obtain legal counsel from the City of Tulsa to represent itself in a lawsuit over the future of Helmerich Park.
The TPFA entered into a lease with a developer to build a high-end sporting goods store reported to be an REI at the southwest corner of 71st and Riverside in south Tulsa.
Construction was expected to begin this month, but legal battles have hindered the construction process from beginning. The legal battles are over if the mayor and the TPFA actually have possession over the land and can give it away from its current use as a park.
Opponents have argued that the park belongs to the City of Tulsa and city councilors should have had a bigger role in the lease.

R.E.I says it will not commit to any lease in Tulsa as long as there is a legal challenge to the lease, and the community feels uninformed of the plans.
http://www.fox23.com/news/news/local/exclusive-rei-responds-lawsuit-over-proposed-futur/nphmc/

They could have walked away saying they didn't realize it was a park. Instead they said they won't sign a lease facing a legal challenge...

REI Reticence could be enough to kill this.

Let’s hope.  Then let’s hope the developer doesn’t return with a proposal for Academy on that corner.

You are correct.  I get the feeling that the TPFA is not used to any real public participation, so they're a little fuzzy on the rules.  Even so, I'm surprised that city staff would allow an agenda item to be added less than 24 hours prior to the meeting.  But maybe TPFA doesn't have to follow the city's rules, since they appear to act as an independent body that doesn't need council approval to sell city park land....

So if you could put REI somewhere else in Tulsa where would you put them?  I like the idea of having them near the river but don't think we can pull off the design that kind of site deserves (something like Denver).  We don't have any old buildings that need repurposing by the river.  But we do downtown..

https://www.google.com/maps/place/100+S+Elgin+Ave,+Tulsa,+OK+74120/@36.1568642,-95.9876552,3a,75y,328.53h,88.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srJUgdXYQ2TMwuFrCBQqpMg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DrJUgdXYQ2TMwuFrCBQqpMg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D158.71555%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b6eb7f5df91ccd:0xee9cd0de7c6df9f3 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/100+S+Elgin+Ave,+Tulsa,+OK+74120/@36.1568642,-95.9876552,3a,75y,328.53h,88.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srJUgdXYQ2TMwuFrCBQqpMg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DrJUgdXYQ2TMwuFrCBQqpMg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D158.71555%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b6eb7f5df91ccd:0xee9cd0de7c6df9f3)

Utica in the Miss Jackson's space

I could go for that.  Remove the precast (?) panels and put in a glass curtain wall to open up that corner.  Add a unique retail offering to an existing retail center.

Where Peoria and Riverside merge, just north of 71st.

Let’s quit talking about their iconic site in Denver in a re-purposed brick veneer building as if that is REI’s standard because it is not.  It is what they consider a flagship for their chain but nothing else in the chain has that cool of an original structure to be built in.  It is, indeed, a one off.

Look at the other  stores in the Colorado front range and this one is very unique.  Their MO is somewhat of a modern design on concrete lay-up slab which isn’t the kind of design standard which would really compliment the east side of the river at 71st.
 

Evans Fintube site

I heard that some local developers were working to bring REI to the 18th and Boston area before the mayor's genius "parks to pavement" plan came on line...

I still don't necessarily have a problem with REI by the river.  But I have a problem with: 1) 600 space surface parking lot 2) huge, blank wall facing and nearly touching the trail 3) the enormous asphalt "roundabout" near the proposed restaurant 4)the proposed drive-thru 4) no attempt at stormwater remediation such as bioswales before parking runoff drains directly into the river 5) insufficient landscaping throughout the development.

It would be possible to do a fairly standard REI on this location that doesn't turn it's humongous back to the river.  It could be a thoughtful, mixed use development that would be attractive and appealing.  But when I say "mixed use" I don't mean a big retail store and a drive-thru.  It could be a mixture of residential and commercial with reduced parking (shared) and incredible landscaping.  It could be a place trail users would want to stop and shop/eat before walking up to their apartments.

REI in Pittsburgh is a good example of blending a standard building into an interesting mixed use space that's next to trails/parkland.  The trick is to turn the back of the building so it abuts...the sides or backs of other buildings!

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/REI-pittsburgh.jpg)

But that is not what is proposed.  Although there may be developers in Dallas capable of this sort of thoughtful enterprise, the ones who are poaching on Tulsa land are determined to spread their car-oriented crap throughout the land.  Thanks, but no thanks.

Completely agree. In fact, I think this is still a better location than Evans Fintube, Miss Jackson's, or the light bulb building.

How about Veteran's Park? 

This is a joke, right?

I think the location is fine if they would come up with a design that is unique for the location and with no more parking than is required (and that the parking be predominantly on the street side not the river side).  I think a restaurant off the trail too is a great idea.  If they're sticking to their plan to plop a big box surrounded by an ocean of parking with a brick wall facing the river, then no thanks.  That seems antithetical to what REI's image is in other cities.  If you want a big box, go to 71st and Memorial or Bixby like everyone else.  Also, if the deed doesn't legally allow this at all, lets stick to the law.

If this gets killed off, will there be any effort to renovate the park?  I drive by it and it has the volleyball courts and not much else.  If we're gonna make a big fuss about the park lets make it more park-like.  Maybe a climbing wall and other outdoor activity centers to show REI what would have been possible.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/rei-deal-on-riverside-may-hinge-on-community-support/article_81f17ac6-0096-527f-9bca-2a6191211ca5.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/rei-deal-on-riverside-may-hinge-on-community-support/article_81f17ac6-0096-527f-9bca-2a6191211ca5.html)

(Emphasis added)

Interesting how Bird tries to marginalize the opposition and diminish their opinions as if they are a couple chicken littles on the fringe:
I have yet to meet anyone who supports REI going in there, even among hardcore REI fans. The most positive reaction I have heard is along the lines of "Yes it sucks, but since it's a done deal, at least we will have REI and the volleyball courts are supposed to be improved"

The article also panders to the "sales tax lost" crowd, comparing it to the Turkey Mountain preservation efforts as if sales tax is more important than a very popular and irreplaceable park. Comparing to the Riverside lot, as Jeannie Cue said, once that space is sold and turned to a retail, it is gone for good.

How exactly does, to quote PonderInc "1) 600 space surface parking lot 2) huge, blank wall facing and nearly touching the trail 3) the enormous asphalt "roundabout" near the proposed restaurant 4)the proposed drive-thru" take advantage of the unique riverside location and great access" which the RFP stipulated?

Bird claims “It was a public process,” because they made a Request for Proposals for the site. When did the public have a chance to review the proposals and have a say? An RFP does not necessarily involve the public as it is intended for those who want to submit a proposal and most citizens would not be interested in that. Had they had meetings showing the massive parking lot and other bleak features, the reactions would have been the same and at a time where perhaps they might have done something to improve the design.

Like many others, my problem is not REI. My problem is not even the location. My problem is the design and the process.

The design is exactly what one would expect at any big box retail development. Same as everything at Tulsa Hills, or the new Walmart in Glenpool. Or Anystore up in Owasso. It absolutely does not take advantage of the premium location, it does not embrace the river, and it surely doesn't add to the use of the parks or the trails.

I'm also aggravated that they keep pretending this was never a park. That is disingenuous.

Finally, I find the "deal" side of this suspect. How did they agree on a price for the "premium" land?

The Tulsa County Assessor places a value on the full 16 acre tract of $8.35 million. (http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-property.php?account=R98212821200710&return=close) Or $520k per acre. We can look up the neighboring tracks on the assessor website and get some information.  (http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-map-interactive.php)

I get that assessor records are not the same as an actual evaluation, but they are instructive. Particularly when they all point to the same thing stemming from recent transactions... so I'm only looking at that source for information.

The BK on the opposite corner sites on .3 acres, and is assessed at $800,000 ($230k land value). That .3 acres was sold in 2011 for $1.4million. Assuming the same building ratio, that values the land at ~$900k. Or $2.7 Million per acre. Tiny parcel, so clearly not a very accurate evaluation for a larger tract.

The new Planet Fitness bought ~2.5 acres for $1.975 million within a year.  The building wasn't valued that highly, as it was entirely gutted and then rebuilt and expanded. The assessor says the land is worth $1.6mil. Or $640k per acre.

The Taco Bueno net door appears to have bought  1 acre for ~$630k (NOT on the corner) about a year ago.

Okay, throwing out the BK outlier which was considerably higher, the assessed and/or known sales evaluations for properties near that corner range from $520k per acre to $640k per acre.

The agreement calls for the sale of 12.3 acres of not-parkland for $1.46 million. WHY ARE WE SELLING OUR LAND FOR $119k per acre when all neighboring land sold for a lot more? Or 1/3rd of the assumed value? It isn't like we are requiring a lot of strings that would justify the public eating $7,000,000. There are housing lots in Broken Arrow that sell for more than that.

Again, I understand that these are not apples to apples. I get that assessor values are not accurate. I know deals can be structured funny. But the consistency is there. One outlier is significantly higher, the other is 1/3rd the value.

Please.... no more big box along Memorial.

With a huge “subsidy" on the price of the land, this is hardly a financial bonanza for Tulsa.  How many people will really drive up the turnpike to shop at a new REI store?  Sorry, I really don’t see this as a tourist attraction which will add millions to the Tulsa sales tax base every year.

Bird also should be smarter than this.  He used to be a real estate appraiser and I have a funny feeling, with his behavior, he may be anticipating going into development when he leaves the public dole and is paying forward favors.  I do have concerns though that if Bynum were to win the next mayoral election Bird might end up staying on board as he also served under Bynum’s cousin, Bill LaFortune.

As far back as 2006, Michael Bates was implicating that Bird wasn’t beyond having conflicts of interest regarding his position on the south Tulsa toll bridge while running for county commissioner:

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2006/07/the-birdbridge.html

I truly hope we end up with a new mayor who:

-Has common sense when it comes to economics.  You simply don’t grow your sales tax base by adding one crappy new retail development after another.  You grow your tax base by making Tulsa a better place to visit and move to.

-Has some balls in demanding better design and development standards.  Tulsa looks like it has no self-esteem when we try and lure retail development. 

-Listens to public opinion carefully and isn’t afraid to reel in his un-elected appointees when they clearly disrespect and demean citizens who express concern about haphazard development.

-Doesn’t have this “Aw shucks, golly gee” attitude the current mayor does (sorry ripped that off from Blake Ewing on Smart Growth’s FB page).  He comes off like a complete rube.

NIMBY  ;D

Good luck with that.  Big box and drive-thrus are what they love in that area and its what they get.

We really do love our big box and Jeezus out there.

Yep.  We have enough with Costco.  Someone else's turn.

Way too many do anyway.  "We" don't have a monopoly on that though.

Clay Bird was on the news again last night, this time calling the park a briar patch. Gotta watch the video to get the full effect. Looks like things are heating up.

KTUL Story (http://"http://ktul.com/news/local/helmerich-park-valuation-questioned")

---

"Tulsa, Oklahoma — Like the volleyball courts on the site of the proposed development, the battle over the future of Helmerich park has a new serve.

"This is just a bad real estate deal," said former Tulsa mayor Terry Young, questioning the city's $1.4 million price tag for the property.

"We have found no evidence that an appraisal was done for the sale," he said.

"We had an appraisal done on the property, the valuation was $7.8 million dollars," and that, says city of Tulsa economic development director Clay Bird, was for the entire park, roughly 55 acres, resulting in the corresponding $1.4 million price tag for the just under 9 acres of the development.

"Should be in the ballpark," he said.

But not from Mr. Young' perspective.

"The county assessors records show that the fair market value of this particular tract should be somewhere in the vicinity of $3.5 million dollars," he said.

Also ready to weigh in on the development as a whole...

"The citizens of Tulsa want it, I want it, is that the right place?" asked Tulsa city councilor Jeannie Cue, looking to explore all the options.

"Do we have other locations that maybe would fit better than just there, or do we need to expand and develop that whole corner?" she said.

The battle over Helmerich, with plenty of more volleys on the way.

"What were they thinking?" asked Young.

"Have you been out there? It's a briar patch," said Bird."

The sale price is 40% below the assessor value which I think is accurate for a parcel along the river and next to two major thoroughfares and in the shadow of Turkey Mountain. The city is losing almost $2.5M on this deal. If we are going to develop this property why wouldn't we just offer it on a long term lease and keep the land?

NPR reported this morning that in addition to selling it well below market, there is also a provision for a $600,000 kickback to the developer. He pays $1.4mil, and gets $600k back to do site work/sewer/water etc.

So the actually purchase price is just $800,000. Or ~ $65k an acre. Arguably 10% of the market price for neighboring properties.

Then from that $800k they have to rebuild six sand volleyball courts, build out some parking, and move the trail.

The University of Virginia recently spent more than $50k (http://www.avca.org/includes/media/docs/UVA-2-Sand-VB-Ct-Proposal-20101.pdf) building 2 competition level sand volleyball courts. Lets pretend we build our courts for less than half the cost of each of their courts, $10 each. There goes $60k to rebuild the courts. Adding a parking lot to wherever the courts will go = $20k. And throw in $20k to move the trail back (which will likely require  a retaining wall along the river). Whatever, my spit ball is $100k of other expenses for the City.

Can the City sell me land below market and then give me half my money back to improve the land they gave me?  Please?

So we net $700k from the sale of 12+ acres. We expect nothing of architectural, walkability, or standard of living significance. We don't expect much, if anything, in net gain in sales tax (Academy, Gander Mtn., Midwest Sporting Goods, Sports Authority, Dicks, local shops, etc.). We don't expect it to enhance the use of the parks, trails, or be visually interesting for passers by. It will not enhance the river in any way.

I don't get it.

Sales taxes, bro.  That's all that matters to them.  At least until we hear that they got some sales tax abatement to thank them for blessing us with their riverside box.

What Cannon_Fodder said.

This administration shows an utter lack of economic sophistication to the point of it appearing like retardation.

Can anyone find approved minutes from any of the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority meetings?

I can find agendas, and I can find minutes from the Tulsa COUNTY authority, but no luck on the TPFA approved minutes.  Don't approved minutes from public boards and commissions have to be made available to the public?  Or do I have to call some mysterious person and ask for them, like it was 1990?

I found minutes for DCC, Human Rights Commission, Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission, Greater Tulsa Area Hispanic Affairs Commission, Mayor's Commission on the Status of Women, Transportation Advisory Board, City Council, etc.

It is super easy to find the agenda for a group:
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/agendas-by-board,-trust-and-authority.aspx

But I could not find the meeting minutes for the TPFA.

You are not allowed to call anyone "retarded".  ;D

Robert Frost asks October to "Retard the sun with gentle mist"

How 'bout...

This administration acts as a retardant, preventing and slowing Tulsa's ability to reach its potential.

(not lecturing Conan, just an interesting side discussion)

I'm not overly PC, and it doesnt bother me when others describe a mentally handicapped person as "mentally retarded." But, I understand why mentally handicapped people and their guardians don't like the word to be used as an insult. In this instance, the persons responsible for the public trust are not acting because of a genetic issue, a brain injury, or other mental handicap. So don't insult those people!  :D

Also not sure if "mentally handicapped" is the preferred nomenclature. I know "special" went out the window when it started to be used as a pejorative. Idiot, imbecile, and moron were medical terms - that were subsumed as pure insults and dropped as descriptive terms. For a while it was developmentally delayed, but "DD" was already taken by MADD so it didn't stick. "Intellectually and developmentally disabled" was too long. "Challenged" is thrown around as a stand in, but that gets confusing - "My son is intellectually challenged."  And I leave thinking the kid got in to a really tough engineering program. The Down syndrome society wants it to be "differently-abled," which is a tortured euphemism waiting to be turned into the next "special."

I guess its all about usage and intent.

/tangent

My total lack of tact is one of my more charming assets.  :-*

Challenge accepted

I think that eventually most terms used to replace undesirable terms become undesirable.  No net gain.

Have family members that are Aspberger's - or were for a few years until that was blended back into autism.  One of the terms I hear is 'neuro-typical', with the corresponding, 'neuro-nontypical'.

Well, I was able to request the approved minutes from TPFA related to REI, going back to March of 2013  Dozens of meetings were held over the past 2 years, but except for a couple meetings, everything was discussed in "executive session" where it was closed to the public.

Public process, indeed.

Can you publish/share the meetings online?  I'd be interested to see what was discussed, what was open to the public, and why so many executive sessions were needed.

"I will say, there was one person that was in opposition with it," Bird said

"I have talked to the developer. They do have — they've got a secondary site in mind, because they really like that market," Bird said.

Unlike the Tulsa Development Authority, TPFA owns land and may sell it without council approval.

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/councilors-ask-questions-about-potential-rei-deal

Are these the meetings that are at 2pm in the afternoon with ~24 hours notice?

Shocking that there isn't better attendance.

secondary site in mind ??!?!!    Where at??

Next to Simon in Jenks.

Sorry couldn’t resist.

Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 03-28-2013 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2013-3-28-March-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda)  (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=000C32A1)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 07-25-2013 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2013-07-July-25-TPFA-Regular-Minutes-Approved.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=000EBE08)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 11-07-2013 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2013-11-Nov-7-Special-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=0010F627)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 04-10-2014 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-04-Apr-4-Special-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=0013E6DD)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 07-24-2014 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-07-Jul-24-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001603C4)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 08-28-2014 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-08-Aug-28-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=0016B2D1)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 10-23-2014 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-10-Oct-23-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=0017DDDE)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 12-18-2014 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-12-Dec-18-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=0018E46C)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 01-22-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.01.22-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=00196A93)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 03-05-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.03.05-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001A2AA2)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 03-24-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.03.24-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001A84A9)  (Addendum) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001A8A60)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 05-28-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.05.28-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001BB53C)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 06-25-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.06.25-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda-Addended) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001C508A)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 07-23-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.07.23-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001CBCBA)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 07-29-2015  (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.07.29-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001CCA24)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 08-11-2015  (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.08.11-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001D08E9)  (Addendum) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001D113D)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 09-24-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.09.24-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda-Addended) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001DEC5D)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 10-12-2015  (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.10.12-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001E433D)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 10-22-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.10.22-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001E73D9)
 Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes 11-19-2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.11.19-TPFA-Regular-Meeting.pdf)   (Agenda) (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/meeting-agendas/display.aspx?ID=001EF1A5)

Yes I'm very curious where their Plan B site is located. 

I could see REI eventually having two locations in Tulsa.  A flagship either in Utica Square or downtown and another typical suburban location in either south Tulsa or Jenks (maybe by the river there).

Well the whole executive session thing seems to cloud the transparency to the process that Clay Bird claimed happened.  I’d also like to know what the purpose of the special meeting was on Jan. 24, 2013.

Does anyone else see that having the mayor and the city manager as trustees is stacking the deck on any business the TPFA does?

It's also amusing to note that the first time Dewey even stepped foot in a TPFA meeting was the day of the 3-2 vote. (Gosh, this was also apparently the first time the TPFA ever actually had public participation.)  He voted first, so everyone else in the room had to think about whether they wanted to cross the mayor or not.

Thank you for the minutes, I realize not everyone is going to spend time going over them. To facilitate discussion on the issue, I went through and summarized the meeting minutes. I tried to withhold comment and tried to put in all pertinent parts, cut and paste so everything is a quote unless it is underlined, then it is a summary. Bold is all my emphasis added. By extension, a bold underlined is just an emphasized summary (want to make sure I'm not putting words in the Authority's mouth). Color is obviously my super emphasis.

The formatting got wonky, sorry, but I already invested too much time on this (thought it would be "over lunch"). I have withheld commentary until everyone gets a chance to review and give their own thoughts.

---

*****7/25/2013 Request for a proposal at 71st and Riverside released

12. Approval to release Request for Proposal to obtain detailed proposals for developing the site at 71st and Riverside with emphasis on retail/recreation venues. (Clay Bird) Mr. Bird and Ms. Fate presented this item. They explained the recommendations of TPFA have now been added to the proposal. Ms. MacLeod inquired about the impact of the project on traffic in the area. Ms. Fate explained that there is a provision in the proposal stating that depending on the project there may be a deceleration lane or other traffic control devices required. Mr. Bird also noted there will be a review committee established for the project which will include up to two people from TPFA. Motion: Twombly moved approval to release Request for Proposal to obtain detailed proposals for developing the site at 71st and Riverside with emphasis on retail/recreation venues. Second: MacLeod Vote: The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Twombly, Sartain, MacLeod, Cremin Nay: None

http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2013-07-July-25-TPFA-Regular-Minutes-Approved.pdf


*****11/7/2013 Clarify RFP is for retail/recreation

5. Discussion of Request for Proposal to obtain detailed proposals for developing the site at 71st and Riverside with emphasis on retail/recreation venues. (Clay Bird) Mr. Bird presented this item explaining that, to everyone’s surprise, there was only one response received and it was ultimately considered to be non-responsive. There was follow-up to try to determine why there was no response. A major deterrent was that it was felt it would be difficult to obtain funding for developing a leased property. Mr. Bird stated that he would provide information to TPFA regarding how the requests were solicited.

http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2013-11-Nov-7-Special-Minutes.pdf


*****7/24/2014 First executive session on the subject. The language is always the same, I will hereinafter just say EXECUTIVE SESSION unless there is a notable difference. The language is always nearly identical, no need repeating it over and over.

6. Consider a motion and vote to enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S. Section 307(C)(10) to discuss a development proposal for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside and which includes a determination that public disclosure of the matter would violate the confidentiality of the business (Clay Bird, City of Tulsa). After hearing items 8 and 9, the Chairman took up item 6 and asked for the advice of Counsel. Ms. Hinchee explained that the item on the agenda is appropriate for executive session if public disclosure would impair the confidenitality [sic] of the business Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Minutes of Meeting July 24, 2014 3 of 4 to be discussed. She added the both she and Mr. Bird have seen information from the proposer that would support that need. Motion: Sartain moved to enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S. Section 307(C)(10) to discuss a development proposal for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside and which includes a determination that public disclosure of the matter would violate the confidentiality of the business. Second: Blue Vote:
The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Blue, Cremin, MacLeod, Sartain, and Twombly Nay: None
After the motion, in addition to the Trustees and officers present, only the following people remained for the discussion: Clay Bird, Roger Acebo, Crystal Keller, and Ellen Hinchee.

7. Leave Executive Session on discussion of a development proposal for 71st & Riverside for the purpose of taking any appropriate related action. Upon conclusion of the Executive Session held for item 6, the meeting was opened to the public. Motion: Blue moved that the members of TPFA affirm that the information presented did support the need for an executive session, that nothing other than the development proposal for 71st & Riverside was discussed, and that the members leave executive session. Second: MacLeod Vote: The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Blue, Cremin, MacLeod, Sartain, and Twombly Nay: None Motion: Twombly moved that Clay Bird be hereby directed to proceed with initiating negotiations pursuant to the instructions given during executive session and to report back to TPFA not later than its next meeting. Second: Sartain Vote: The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Blue, Cremin, MacLeod, Sartain, and Twombly Nay: None Mr. Bird inquired and the members clarified that the instructions to initiate negotiations was not meant to be exclusive to a particular party.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-07-Jul-24-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****8/8/2014 EXECUTIVE SESSION, only thing worth noting is a letter of intent and discussion of having to move the volleyball courts

Twombly moved that we agree to the letter of intent with an expiration date of June 1, 2015, that Clay Bird be directed to proceed with discussions and to report back on a regular basis. Second: Blue Vote: The motion carried with the following votes: Aye: Blue, Cremin, MacLeod, and Twombly Nay: None Mr. Bird stated that in addition to providing an update on the letter of intent and discussions that he will provide an update regarding the volleyball courts.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-08-Aug-28-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****10/23/2014 EXECUTIVE SESSION, nothing was discussed publicly regarding the site, just boilerplate to move in and out of executive session
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-10-Oct-23-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****12/18/2014  EXECUTIVE SESSION, nothing was discussed publicly regarding the site, just boilerplate to move in and out of executive session
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-12-Dec-18-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****1/2/2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION, only thing worth noting is they amended the letter of intent (no word on what they amended it for or what the original LOI said

Executive Session on discussion of an amendment to the existing Letter of Intent for 71 st & Riverside for the purpose of taking any appropriate related action. Upon conclusion of the discussion, the meeting was opened to the public
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.01.22-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****3/5/2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION, nothing was discussed publicly regarding the site, just boilerplate to move in and out of executive session
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.03.05-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf


*****3/24/2015  EXECUTIVE SESSION, only thing worth noting is they amended the letter of intent (no word on what they amended it for or what the original LOI said And no, I;m not accidentally repeating myself.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.03.24-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf


*****5/28/2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION, Letter of intent amended for 30 days and they were to "CONSIDER A GROUND LEASE for land owned by the TPFA," but that item was dropped from the agenda. However, important to note the agenda reflects they were discussing a lease.

10. Consider a motion and vote to enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S. Section 307(C)(10) to consider a Ground Lease for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at....11. Leave Executive Session on discussion of a Ground Lease for 7151 & Riverside for the purpose of taking any appropriate related action. Per item 10 this item was dropped from the agenda.

http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.05.28-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****6/25/2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION, extend LOI by 60 days. First mention of SALE of the land and drafting a contract for sale.

11. Leave Executive Session on discussion of the possible sale of land at 71 st & Riverside for the purpose of taking any appropriate related action, including but not limited to authorizing the negotiation of terms and drafting of a contract for sale of the property or approving a contract for sale of the property.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.06.25-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****7/29/2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION, first time the mayor shows up. First meeting after it was made public that they were considering selling the land. In and out of executive session. Not business as usual. so I included more of the meeting as there was a lot of non boilerplate:

Tried to move for executive session, then. . . . The Trustees discussed Mr. Brannin's concerns with him. Mr. Blue noted that they
had received no previous interest on the subject from the citizens. Mr. Brannin also expressed that un-named officials within the City and INCOG do not believe that
their input within the process was heard or taken into account. Mr. Bird spoke to the design, compliance requirements, and developer's communications with staff and
Elected Officials. They then entered executive session anyway. . . .
Trustees requested that the developers speak to their obligations surrounding the bike path and the 1031 exchange language within the contract, the design and
landscaping of the property facing the bike path and river, and process surrounding the covenants. . . .
Blue moved to re-enter Executive Session pursuant to Title 25 O.S.
Section 307(C)(10) to consider a Purchase and Sale Contract for land
owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71 st and Riverside and
which includes a determination that public disclosure of the matter
would violate the confidentiality of the business.
. . .
Macleod moved table any decision on a Purchase and Sale Contract
pending the resolution of certain questions brought up by Authority
Members and to have those answered and another vote on this contract
for land owned by Tulsa Public Facilities Authority at 71 st and Riverside
by August 1 ih
Sartain
The motion carried with the following votes:
Aye: Macleod, Sartain, Cremin, Blue, Twombly
Nay: None
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.07.29-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf


*****8/11/2015 First meeting without an executive session. First actual public comments. Full minute below.

2. Public Comments on the purchase and sale of land owned by Tulsa Public
Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside
Mr. Cremin set the parameters for the public comment period and opened the floor
for public comments. Speaking on behalf of the developers, Don Bouvier and Greg
McGahey, presented the site plan for the project with details on their intended
landscaping plan. They answered questions from the Trustees, including how the
site plan compares to "big box" stores, the scope of the parking and how they plan
to incorporate landscaping, and the maintenance of the landscaping on the property.
Mr. Brannin, Mr. Young, Mr. West, Mr. Leighty, Mr. Beattie, Ms. Lemmon, and Ms.
Kobos spoke in opposition to the purchase and sale contract. They cited a number
of areas that they believed to be concerning about the transaction, including a large
amount of parking, potential impacts to the river, and fish and wildlife including
potential for runoff from impervious parking and pavement, and that the intent of the
property was originally for park land. They also noted the transparency of the
process was deficient and that while the committee met the open meetings
requirements they did not well-publicize the transaction; It was also stated that only
a minor amendment was needed in the rezoning process with a lack on notice to the
public beyond 300 feet.
Mr. Bird spoke in support of the project noting the steps taken to select the site and
issue an RFP, the lack of response to the RFP, the discussions had with the
Helmerich Family, and the marketing of the site following the RFP process. Mr. Bird
also informed the trustees that there were several public hearings and newspaper
articles on the project over the approximate 2 year period. He also stated that in the
original transaction all proceeds, should any property be disposed of, are to go back
into the remaining property.
The Trustees asked Mr. Helmerich to state his family's thoughts on the purchase
and sale contract. He noted that the family is supportive of this project and they
believe this will enhance the trails and outdoor living.
Mr. Leighty presented a petition for temporary injunction filed by Craig Immel on
August 11,2015 to the Trustees. Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Edmiston provided their
legal opinions that the temporary injunction was not properly filed, as it was not
signed, there was no affidavit attached, and a summons was also not served on the
Authority.
Prior to the reading on the next agenda item, Mr. Cremin called for a break at 5:23
PM. The meeting resumed at 5:34 PM.
3. Consider approval of a purchase and sale contract for land owned by Tulsa
Public Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside or authorization of the
continued negotiation of terms of such a purchase and sale contract.
Mr. Cremin informed the Trustees of an email he received from Greg Bledsoe
regarding the Authority's ability to transfer park land. Ms. VanValkenburg noted that
the Authority does have this ability in their trust indenture. It was also noted that the
Authority is a separate entity from the City of Tulsa. The Trustees reviewed the list
of questions from the July 29, 2015 meeting. Mr. Bird spoke to the relocation of the
volleyball courts, affirming that the Volleyball courts can be relocated South on the
property instead of Johnson Park. Mr. Wilkerson and Ms. VanValkenburg spoke to
the site plan, building renderings and the standards of the landscaping plan. Mr.
Bouvier answered questions regarding the number of parking spaces. He also noted
that they believe they will be back for regular updates on the status of the project.
Ms. VanValkenburg discussed the restrictive covenants, limiting the uses on the
property. The restrictive covenants are to be filed with the property at closing. She
also informed the Trustees of their role in a 1031 exchange. Mr. Edmiston spoke to
the regulations surrounding damage of the trail system.
The Trustees also discussed the concerns of the transparency of the process, the
possible use of the property as office space, and if a determination was made that
the property was no longer needed as park land.
Motion:
Second:
Vote:
Bartlett moved to accept the purchase and sale contract and utilize the
money received for the improvement of the remaining property.
Blue
The motion carried with the following votes:
Aye: Sartain, Blue, Bartlett
Nay: Macleod, Cremin
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.08.11-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf


*****9/24/2015 First time they discussed the Park, or used the word park, this in the context of a request to rezone it so it couldn't be used as a park. Motion to initiate application passed.

7. Discussion and potential action on rezoning applications brought forward by
the City Council and to be heard by TMAPC on October 7.2015. (Susan Miller,
IN COG)
a. PUD-128-1 - City Council, Location: South of southwest corner of South
Riverside Drive and East 71st Street South, requesting a PUD Major
Amendment to abandon a portion of the PUD, (CD 2) (Related to Z-7314)
b. Z-7314 - City Council, Location: South of southwest corner of South
Riverside Drive and East 71st Street South, requesting, requesting
rezoning from RS·4/RM-2/PUD·128·E to AG, (CD 2) (Related to PUD·128-1)
Ms. Miller presented these items together. She informed the Trustees that the
applications were initiated by City Council and request to abandon a portion of the
existing PUD and rezone the RS-4, RM-2 and PUD·128-E to AG. She noted that
abandoning the PUD would remove the allowable park use for Helmerich Park and
would make it a legal non·conforming use. To make the park a legal conforming use
an application would need to be brought before the Board of Adjustment to allow the
special exception. Susan suggested that the Parks Department submit the
application.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.09.24-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****10/12/2015 Status on sale moving forward. Then went to EXECUTIVE SESSION on the issue.

2. Update on the Purchase and Sale Contract for land owned by Tulsa Public
Facilities Authority at 71st and Riverside. (Clay Bird. City of Tulsa)
Mr. Bird reported that the Developer is moving forward. The Parks Department is
looking at site options for the relocation of the volleyball courts and is working with
the developer to determine if certain options on the Southside of the proposed
development would be viable with the potential tenants. Ms. VanValkenburg
addressed the Trustees questions regarding the impact of the zoning change on the
park use and its impact on the relocation of the volleyball courts.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.10.12-TPFA-Special-Minutes.pdf


*****10/22/2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION on pending and potential litigation, only public information that is useful is...
Macleod motioned to seek a narrow declaratory judgement to
clarify TPFA's responsibilities regarding the sale of property that
TPFA holds at 71 5t and Riverside with regard to abandoning the
public use.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.10.22-TPFA-Regular-Minutes.pdf


*****11/19/2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION on pending and potential litigation, no new information in the minutes.
http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015.11.19-TPFA-Regular-Meeting.pdf

Thanks for the summary, CF.  I noticed another amusing thing in the minutes.

You will recall that the first time public comment was heard was on 8/11/15.  On 9/24/15, the TPFA (for the first time in its existence?) discusses the need for a policy on public comment.

From the approved minutes of the 9/24/15 meeting:

6. Consider development of a policy for public comments at Tulsa Public Facilities Authority Meetings (Mike Kier, City of Tulsa)
Mr. Kier brought forward the opportunity for the Trustees to set a procedure on how they would like to handle public comments.  Mr. Kier offered a number of potential options, including allowing no comments, restricting comments to the agenda items listed, and an open general public comments option.  Discussion ensued between the trustees on how they would like to handle public comments.

Motion: Blue moved to adopt a procedure to allow public comments to be taken up at the beginning of each agenda item, with the comments specifically addressing that agenda item and a limit of 30 minute total per agenda item, 5 minutes per comment and the ability extend the times if the trustees so chose.
Second: Twombly
Vote: The motion carried with the following votes:
Aye: Bue, Sartain, Twombly, Cremin
Nay: None

This amazes me, since the TPFA has existed at least since the early 1990's.  Yet this is the first time they've bothered to have a policy for public comment? 

Clay Bird even mentioned in the City Council Urban/Economic Development Committee meeting last Thursday that the TPFA "normally meets in a closet."  This is funny, since he keeps talking about how there were so many public meetings on this topic, and how surprised he was by the opposition.

The CC Urban/Economic Dev meeting is fascinating, b/c you get to hear Bird and Twombly respond to a lot of really direct questions from the City Council.  Pretty much all of them are unhappy that the citizens of Tulsa helped buy the land, and have maintained it as a park for all these years, but didn't get a say in the sale of the land.  It also becomes apparent that the City of Tulsa will provide the legal services in the upcoming court case to represent the TPFA.  So, the citizens bought the land, operated and maintained the land, and will also pay for the legal representation for the group that made decisions about the land without public input.

Councilor Ewing is especially eloquent when talking about land use and the need for high-quality design along the river corridor, and how this development falls far short. Also makes a great argument for why design overlays would have prevented this mess.  Bynum does a great job of breaking down all the ways in which the public essentially owned and operated the land, but was not adequately involved in the decision-making process.  Laiken spends most of his time trying to sound like he worked to make the development better than it would have been, but all he does is show how clueless he is about urban design issues.  My favorite quote from Councilor America is something like (paraphrase): "It doesn't speak well when you say the TPFA usually meets in a closet."  Generally, all the city councilors recognize this was a big fail, although they are more concerned with the public process than the need for great urban design.  They are all aligned when talking about the need to get out in front of these debates and involve the public much earlier in the process.

If you're interested in this topic, the video from the Urban/Economic Dev Committee meeting is must watch TV:
http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3064 (http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3064)

(It's TGOV, so you'll have to watch using Internet Explorer, or maybe Firefox.  I know it doesn't work with Chrome.)

So, is there a court date set?    What's next?

The short version - we wait for the Court to throw out the City's suit (the matter was already before the Court) and set a hearing on the underlying suit from August. The TFPA arguing that they can sell what they want, when they want it. The Citizen arguing it is a park, and the City Council has to approve it.


What's going on is odd to me -

Craig Immel sued the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority seeking an injunction in August, 2015. Tulsa: CV-15-902 (http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=tulsa&number=CV-2015-902)
The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority sued him on November 25, 2015, over the same issue. Tulsa: CV-15-1320 (http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=tulsa&number=CV-2015-1320). In fact, their petition in the latter is then cut and pasted into the response to the former. Same parties. Same issues. Same pleadings. Why the hell did they file what appears to be a frivolous lawsuit and then present the same arguments in a counterclaim in the underlying action?  Publicity stunt to appease the developer?

I don't get it. In their meeting of August 11th, 2015, the TFPA commented that the original petition was deficient, so they essentially ignored it. But instead of moving to dismiss it they filed a response to it as a separate lawsuit and then answered it without ever being served. Anyway, the Counterclaim contained in the Answer to the original suit and the petition filed by the City in the new suit appear to be exactly the same. Identical actually.  I assume the litigation by the City of Tulsa on behalf of the separate and independent entity (the TFPA) is actually being driven by the private developer...

On the original suit, no action was taken until the City Answered (http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=tulsa&bc=1031911645&cn=CV-2015-902&fmt=pdf) on December 29, 2015, a month after filing a lawsuit over the same thing. In the new lawsuit and answer/counterclaim, TFPA claims they can sell the land but don't have to give their legal analysis that explains they they can sell the land, but they then go on to explain it. Kind of. It's a 57 page document, so cut me some slack.

Basically, they argue that the Trust can dispose of any property that is "no longer needful for Trust purposes" (p. 6, Counter Claim paragraph 5). They admit that the property was purchased by the City of Tulsa and funds raised by Mr. Helmerich. They admit it has colleyball courts, playground, picnic tables, restrooms, etc., that it shows up on maps as Helmerich Park, that it has Tulsa Park signage... but "No portion of the subject Property has been dedicated as a park in any written instrument." (p. paragraph 8.) So they don't need anyone's permission to unload it, so tell us we can unload it Court!

A little more detail:

Paragraph 11: July 16, 2015, zoning changed from "Park and Open Space" to  "Mixed-Use Corridor" (that's right, the totally not a park that was labeled and used as a park was also zoned a park). They also admit "The Council has not formally adopted a resolution declaring that Tract A is no longer needed for public use." But go on to say in paragraph 14 that they don't need the Council to declare the tract no longer needed for a public purpose in paragraph 14.

12. August 11, 2015, Special meeting approved purchase and sale contract to sell 8.8 acres to private developer.

13. That same day, a private citizen brought suit for an injunction questioning the TFPAs "legal right to convey pulbic property, currently used for public purpose, to a private developer."  (yes, suit was brought the same day the TFPA made it public that they wanted to sell the land)

14. The Trust can sell what they want without City Council approval in any way

15. The Trust can execute contracts, sell, lease, etc. etc. etc. any property of the Trust in just about any way whenever it wants. (If that is the true standard, then no City property should ever be placed with this Trust, as they can do whatever they want with it whenever they want with it, without regard for that pesky political process of input from annoying voters.)

16. The trust indenture provides the purposes are to dispose of property no longer needful for Trust purposes."  (I wonder on what grounds they decide the property isn't "needful for Trust purposes," which is to benefit the City of Tulsa)

They then ask for the Court to say they can sell it immediately.


The Answer of the City, linked above, contains the following attachments (exhibit numbers are wonked):
-  Trust Indenture
- Proof of publication of the Trust in 1981
- Amendment to the Trust and Publication thereof
- More Amendments and Publication in 1991 (is anyone questioning the overall validity of the Trust?)
- November 2015 zoning change minutes
-  7PM Friday, August 11th Amended Notice and Agenda of Special meeting on the issue the following Tuesday at 4pm (so if you didn't go down and check for this agenda item on Monday and get off of work the next day, screw you! That's public engagement...)

- Minutes from August 11th Meeting, seven people - INCLUDING Ponderic if I am not mistaken, spoke against the development citing poor development criteria, large open parking, use with the river, and use as parkland. The developer spoke in favor along with Clay Bird with Mr Bird pointing out that the process was totally open (it wasn't), the Helmerich he trotted in front of the panel was in favor, and then they said the temporary injunction that was filed was deficient.  They called a break.

They then came back into session and declare that Greg Bledsoe said the Authority does have the ability to sell parkland and again noted that the Authority is a separate legal entity from the City of Tulsa.  They discussed some of the concerns, including the destruction of the trail, if a determination had been made that the property was no longer needed as parkland.  (my guess: they later figured out the "parkland" issue presented an obstacle, and decided to admit it is listed as a park used as a park, appears on maps as a park, has park signage, is zoned as a park, and had a ceremony naming it Helmerich Park... but hold firm that it was never a park)


- - -


Also... The TFPA also has title abstract documentation on the property, that you can stop by and "inspect" if you want. Someone please "want" and post the thing on the web. Could be very interesting (but probably not very helpful).

Fun fact... according to the TPFA the City Council has no authority to stop the deal or do anything with the land, because it is an independent authority and separate and distinct legal entity whose affairs are separate and independent from the City of Tulsa. The City is just a beneficiary of the Trust. Otherwise, it is not part of the City of Tulsa.  But the City Attorney's office is doing all the legal work for the "totally not part of the City of Tulsa and independent Trust" because... well, I guess because screw you, that's why!

Doesn't anyone know if the City Attorney can volunteer time to benefit a "separate and distinct legal entity?" I really don't know how that works.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m979MYTGP1k/VNHD-4GjcpI/AAAAAAAAAPo/8HygV0AkbDI/s1600/d1Z-thats-not-how-it-works-thats-not-how-any-of-this-works.jpg)

Yes, I get that.   I was asking.... estimated timelines?  Are there hearing dates set?  Does it look like its going to be a long drawn out battle to possible go on for 1 year or more due to possible appeals?  Etc.  Etc. 

Per the links provided above, no, there are no dates set. The Court could rule as a matter of law, ask for briefing, or set evidence hearings and allow for discovery.  So there is on easy way to tell the timeline. Yes, appeals are possible - but don't know anything about the citizen who filed the suit, so I can't speak to if it is likely or not.

Thanks, CF for ongoing legal analysis.

One minor correction: The land has been zoned PUD-128 since 1972 (long before it was turned into a park).  The original PUD envisioned all sorts of high intensity development: Commercial shopping, Office Medium Heavy, residential multifamily. From the staff analysis: "It permits the property to be used for over a million SF of office space with building heights up to 154 feet and over 60,000 SF of commercial floor area by right."

Once it was turned into a park thanks to public/private partnership, nobody ever bothered to rezone the land to agricultural, which would have been appropriate.  The PUD just sat there, dormant and unknown to most people in town.

So two actions have occurred related to land use.  The original PUD was amended for the 5th time PUD-128 E.  This was considered a minor amendment, which is why it didn't go before the City Council.  After the minor amendment to the PUD was approved, the comprehensive plan Land Use Map was also amended from "Parks and Open Space" to "Mixed Use Corridor" and the designation was changed from "area of stability" to "area of change."

May have been a minor amendment, but sounds like a major PUD pull to me.

From the outside looking in as a longtime Tulsan who now lives in Denver, it is so mindless that this has a thread of 20 pages long. This should absolutely get approved and we should move on.

That's funny, since it wouldn't be approved in Denver.  But enjoy your terrific land use planning and zoning ordinance out there!

What do you mean "we" Kemo Sabe?

Yeah, lets get this park land squared away into sporting goods so we can get on to the other parks. I bet Woodward would be a great Outlet Mall location. Good traffic flow, good demographics and so much sales tax dollars to harvest. Then we can all move to Denver!

Please expand on your thoughts on the issue. You made a statement to try and establish credibility, a passing insult, and a conclusion statement. But WHY should it be approved and, more specifically, what analysis do you disagree with? 

I can dumb down the 20 pages to 5 points:

1) It is a park, they did not follow the proper process to develop a city park;
2) The process they did follow, while it may be in line with the opens meeting act, was mostly closed to the public;
3) The land is being sold for far less than market value;
4) The proposed development is not well designed for that site and use; and
5) The dream "of more sales tax" is an alchemists promise and not a panacea to develop whatever, where-ever. 

You felt strongly enough to follow the issue from out of town, create an account, log in, and comment - and certainly challenging the common vein in this thread is a good thing, so please expand.

Someone run the IP to make sure the comment didn’t come from City Hall.

No, I suspect it's something else.

The CEO of REI, Jerry Stritzke, is actually from Tulsa.


http://newsroom.rei.com/news/jerry-stritzke-named-president-and-ceo-rei.htm
https://news.okstate.edu/articles/jerry-stritzke-says-osu-was-instrumental-his-ascension-top-coach

I want to make sure this is quoted in fact and won't be deleted. Somebody might want to check the IP and see who owns it.

You been eaten to much of that "Candy" up there....???

Great sleuthing, swake, but doesn’t really match REI’s latest statement they would not develop until the issue was settled.  If that traced to his server, he’d really look like an idiot.

To stop the rumor mill before it really gets rolling -

The IP of the above poster is from the Denver area.

REI is headquarter in Washington, and Jerry Strizke lives in Seattle. The IP of the posted is not from Seattle, and is not, as best as I can tell, from an REI store in Denver.

XoXo,

Your friendly neighborhood Moderator

Ok, thanks.

Cry more. I am a graduate of Booker T and the University of Tulsa. I lived in Tulsa for 22 years and OKC for 8 years. I moved here to follow a girl, drink copious amounts of craft beer, and ski whenever possible. I love Tulsa and all it has to offer. This is the type of store it needs. 

 =It always amazes me of the certain stupid anti-development and anti-tax crowd down there. See vision 2025 coming in 10 years after it should have because of the Michael Bates like 'tards. If you devote the new proposal to public safety, it goes to show just how dumb bartlett and that crowd is. I think  I follow stuff down there closely because I have friends and family down there and love the University, especially the basketball team. Tulsa needs to expand the interesting things it is doing such as developing the river and expanding on the downtown arts vibe. Sorry senors and senoritas, pushing more outlet malls, suburban highschools, charter schools, and warren theaters is not going to get young people to move to Tulsa.

Caveat: I have by no means read this entire thread.  That said, I think there are two things happening here: a philosophical argument and a legal argument.  They are not necessarily one and the same, yet they are being conflated.  I am also not sure all of the facts are on the table either.  It appears there are some assumptions that are being made that are significant and relevant to the situation that might determine what can happen at the location.

Let's start with one thing that has been stated as a fact, which it may not be.  And that is, that this parcel is Park land.  It is being used as Park, but that is not the same as "it is Park".  I am not an expert, and I don't know all the facts, but this, clearly, is a gateway issue.  Can someone definitively clarify that? 

Have you reviewed this thread or the development you are supporting? I think 90% of the people here agree with most of what you just said. Unless it is doing interesting things and differentiating itself from the suburbs, Tulsa cannot move forward.

Which is why so many feel that selling park land below market for a generic big-box development with acres of parking lot is the wrong thing to do. I don't think anyone is against REI. But leasing a big box to another outdoors store isn't going to "get young people to move to Tulsa." I'm still not sure where the disagreement really comes from.

You just said it yourself.

Greenspace and recreational opportunities along with great employment opportunities are what help drive YP’s to a city, not trendy retail.

Erecting a crap development featuring REI won’t get young people to move to Tulsa either.

The crux of the issue isn’t that REI may or may not build here.  The crux of the issue is the developer wants to also add additional retail which could be well-suited anywhere in Tulsa.  The plat features parking for 600 cars which is a ridiculous amount of parking space, though the one redeeming part of that is that the developer claims it would be fair game for recreational parking for those using the trail.

The renderings shown thus far look like lay-up dryvit that turns its back to the river instead of embracing it and it’s no more compelling in appearance than REI’s location on College in Ft. Collins:

(http://www.rei.com/content/dam/images/store-images/49.jpg)

The second issue, crap development not withstanding, is that the trust which sold this land may not have had the legal standing to do so.  At very best, their authority to do so is very murky.

As far as the skiing and copious amounts of craft beer, my hat is off to you!  You chose a real mecca for that.  I’m a middle-ager and living in the high country is definitely in my future, for much the same reasons, though we are angling for something a little more off the beaten path than DEN.

 I know I'm in the minority. But I think this is a great development in a great location.  This kind of element will definitely enhance riverside.  This development will bring people to the river that have never experienced the river in Tulsa.  I think it's crazy that everybody is so against this right off of 71st. Very few ever use that part of the park.  Now that national businesses are looking to expand in the Tulsa market I think we need to move to a more pro development community.

It probably would've helped if they'd made the development more about the river instead of ignoring it.  Throwing a huge wall up facing the trail and river and building an enormous parking lot didn't help their cause. 

It was like they saw the Kum & Go down river and thought "that's what we need".

Losing the park land along the river was another issue.

I agree with the don't develop with crap group.  Put REI on the other side of Riverside Drive and I don't think there would be any significant objection. 

So what do you see as being great about this development?

Must be the sales tax.

I've lived in the same house (in Bixby) for more years than that.   ;D

This is my biggest complaint.  It's supposedly a sports and outdoor focused business that ignores the running trail and river.  Why do they refuse to incorporate the trail and river bank into the plan?"  How about a climbing wall, outdoor activity center, something unique that enhances the trail by more than repaving it and drawing some trees near it (most likely would be saplings that look nothing like the mature tree renderings).  And yeah, parking is a necessary evil, and its South Tulsa, so I guess they need a lot of it, but could you at least make a parking lot that's more than just pavement?  How about trees, park like spaces interwoven into the ocean of pavement?  This development could be placed anywhere in South Tulsa.  It would fit in just fine at 71st and Memorial.  If you're going to take park land abutting a running trail and river bank, how about recognizing that uniqueness and doing something intriguing?  It's such a waste to plop down the typical big box strip mall on that land.  Just lazy in my opinion.

Yes, very disrespectful.  The people of Tulsa, including average citizens, wealthy philanthropists, taxpayers of all stripes, etc. for decades have invested and continue to invest in making River Parks something ever better and more wonderful, a crown jewel showpiece and quality of life attraction.  To have someone propose an average strip mall type development go in like you see in "everywhere bland America" (and I don't care what the anchor store/tennant is) is like a jaw dropping slap in the face?  I find it shocking that REI themselves don't have more respect for, themselves.  This does no good service per the reputation of their company.

If, and only if, REI was the sole retailer and built a store that interacts with the river and trails would I support it at this location.  Blue Rose is an example of a private business enhancing the park in that area and embracing its riverfront site.  REI could build a really cool store that could be an attraction in itself.

OK, I'm confused about something.

Here's the contract again: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BgaBXva60WSGlPUzQwVmowYWs/view?pli=1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0BgaBXva60WSGlPUzQwVmowYWs/view?pli=1)

Closing is supposed to take place 30 days after the expiration of the Inspection Period.
The Inspection Period is 30 days after the effective date of this contract (which was back in August 2015), and it can be extended for two additional 30 day periods.

Then it says: (See p. 8, section 6) "This contract...[is] specifically conditioned upon Buyer, on or before Closing, entering into a satisfactory Lease or Purchase and Sale Contract pursuant to which Buyer leases or sells all or part of the Property to a high-end outdoor retailer that offers its own line of high-quality sports and outdoor gear and apparel, in addition to products from other top brands."

But REI says they won't sign a lease until the legal stuff is cleared up.

There's an interesting little sentence that follows this: "In the event that the foregoing condition has not been satisfied or waived on or before the expiration of the time periods set out above, then either Seller or Buyer shall be entitled to terminate this contract without liability upon written notification to the other party..."

So, we have this special clause to ensure we get something other than typical Dallas crap (oh, wait, the whole development is typical Dallas crap, but at least it would have an REI in amongst the crap).  But, actually, it doesn't really mean anything because this clause can be waived, and doesn't appear to be binding unless one of the parties wants it to be.

Cannon_Fodder...???

This is a good concise summary although apparently point number 1 is what is up for legal debate.

Point 3 is one of the most irritating things combined with the bad development. If it was an amazing development which had a rock wall and large windows facing the river and entrances from the trail, only REI and maybe a cafe and less parking, then the lower price might make sense. If the reason for this is they want to increase revenue for Tulsa, just sell this tract at market value!

It looks  like there is some kind of backroom deal going on here where Bartlett and Bird will be repaid with big favors later. Just like with Bartlett's opposition to the Gathering Place 21st sidewalk by his friend's house and neighborhood, this one looks like blatant corruption which he has been known for.

I agree.  If this had been more along the lines you were talking about more people would be on board, but it still doesn’t remove the transaction from legal scrutiny. 

We need to be asking why this administration is cheap-selling city property, especially when the economic development director is a freaking real estate appraiser.  It’s not like he doesn’t realize this land is being sold well-below comps in the area.

It is theft. They are giving huge favors in the form of stealing from Tulsans probably with the understanding that the favor will be repaid later.

Why is it theft to quote sell land to developers that will pay property taxes, use utilities, and increase sales tax? REI one of the best outdoor stores there is and treats their employees about as well as any retail establishment in America.  There are still going to be trails on the river. Stop crying.

You live in Denver.  Concern yourself with what you see every day in Denver.

Try to comprehend the concerns listed by people who live in and thus have concerns in Tulsa before you post like an jackass.

Growth for growth's sake...??


Volume over substance.

Oklahoma versus most other states.

Either party can terminate the entire contract now that the conditions were not met before or on the expiration of that timeframe, but that seems highly unlikely. CBRE has gone and added more renderings and built a new webpage (http://"http://ucr.com/property/riverside-parkway-development/") around this development (of course, with no mention of the lawsuits) and are still soliciting retailers. They're not going to back out. TPFA isn't likely to back out either, since they've dug their heels in on the lawsuits. It's just an option.

- The land is being sold undervalue, when compared to all property sold nearby.

- The developer is receiving massive subsidies, including many tax kickbacks and more kickbacks for infrastructure.

- It is doubtful that there will be any realized increase in sale tax revenue. 90+% of the funds the store takes in will be funds currently spent at Academy, Bass Pro, Dicks, Gander Mountain, Midwest Sporting Goods or a group of local stores.

- And using utilities is utterly irrelevant unless you are Detroit and shrinking, such that your existing plants are not economical.  

I will be happy to see what REI has to offer. And I understand that they treat their employees well and do try to be involved in the community. That isn't my concern. My concern is giving away too much public money for a generic development that will detract from outdoor recreation in Tulsa.

Why can't they just build a store that embraces the trail, the volleyball courts, and the River? Seems logical. The vast majority of opposition goes away if the development is done well.

Looking at the new stuff on the website, http://ucr.com/property/riverside-parkway-development/ :

1) They have parking now listed at 316 spaces
2) The REI is now facing north, it does not entirely have its back to the river
3) The wall facing the trails is not a stark naked giant wall

Improvement...

Credit where do! I hope they keep moving in the right direction.

Also, the building is labeled "Riverfront Sports," which made me chuckle. Also also, HELMERICH PARK is labeled on their map... not a park.

Finally, and this is just making fun of their graphic designer to be mean, the rendering showing two cyclists next to each other on the trail shows a woman in a short sleeve jersey unzipped with a hot pink sportsbra, next to a man in a long sleeve jersey. Is it hot or cold  people. Hot or cold!

 

What's so special about REI anyway?  I thought the appeal was that it was a unique outdoor focused business.  There's nothing unique about a generic strip mall design that fails to utilize the river bank and trails it abuts.

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.

(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/REI-renderings.png)

Thank you for the great response!

If a deal is made which sells public property which has not been offered to the general public and greatly undercuts the value, that is basically stealing from the City of Tulsa. Potential taxes will not make up for that huge of a loss (millions of dollars as discussed earlier).

They should've opened up the land for proposals like they did with the PAC parking lot. You get many ideas and can choose the best use of land for the public. If this were among many proposals, it is highly unlikely it would it be the best use of space.

So  basically the same thing but meant to mislead anyone looking. :/

This developer and those involved are really looking like scoundrels.

Apparently those of us you consider whiners don’t think Tulsa should show such a lack of self-esteem in terms of development.  Again, there is nothing about this development which is dripping with “cool factor” that would make someone like you move back to Tulsa, now is there?

We have a finite amount of public space. If we allow it to be nibbled away, there's no way to replace it. What's next, Turkey Mountain?

James Watt, Reagan's Interior Secretary, proposed "improving" wilderness areas by building hotels and golf courses in them. If anything, the pro-development crowd has become even more tone deaf since then, or perhaps they're more openly greedy.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/big-plans-led-to-big-dispute-over-best-use-of/article_f2605f6d-dd54-565d-a74a-a778b5f10abe.html


This deal / transaction / development smells worse than the river.

The glamorous new color sketches are funny.  The approved landscaping plan shows exactly 6 trees along the back of the building: 2 redbuds and a swamp white oak in one cluster towards the north, and a loblolly pine and two shumard oaks in another cluster towards the middle of the building.

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're certainly not taking their bikes into the store for a tuneup... since there's no door there.

...And no lighting in the parking lot whatsoever.  Im sure thats a totally honest representation of exactly what they are planning.

/s

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

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. 

(http://www.readfrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/71st-and-riverside-drive-site-plan.png)

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.

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

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

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

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. 

(http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/memorial/WSU%20Memorial%20Service%20Saturday%2010-2-2010%20(3).JPG)

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

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. 

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

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

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 (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 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Helmerich-Park-Defendants-Answer.pdf)

 Plaintiff's Amended Petition (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Helmerich-Park-Plaintiffs-Amended-Petition.pdf)

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.

"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. 

Latest update from Kevin Canfield at the Frontier:

https://www.readfrontier.com/rei/ (https://www.readfrontier.com/rei/)

Sounds like both sides are talking to see if there's a way to prevent a court battle. This is a good thing. Too bad that these conversations can't happen as part of the public process before back room deals are made.  It's unfortunate that you have to have legal resources and ability to fight in court to be taken seriously by this administration.  It would be a lot easier to simply hold inclusive public meetings and actually follow the comprehensive plan and any other small area plans that exist.

Some interesting quotes from former mayor, Terry Young:

“What we hope to do is find a way it can work... that is a catalyst for the rest of the park to be developed as was originally planned in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan,” Young said.

...Young said the hope is to come up with a plan for the site that “can be a positive thing for the entire park and that translates into a positive thing for the whole river corridor.”

It's nice to see that even with an incompetent and disinterested mayor, we still have reservoirs of leadership in the ranks of our retired former mayors...who care enough to fight for what's best for Tulsa.

Terry has become a friend and trusted mentor over the last year with the Turkey Mountain battle.  I think we missed out on a lot of his common sense leadership due to petty politics.

I have no idea how this played out yesterday.  Notice that the TPFA filed this agenda about 26 hours prior to the meeting.  The first order of the agenda was to adjourn to executive session.  So much for transparency.

Note agenda item 5 asking the City Council to declare this parcel as abandoned.  Excuse me, but shouldn’t that have been done PRIOR to entering into a contract to sell this property?  I also have it on very good word there’s never been any sort of an LOI signed between the developer and REI.  Essentially, this Dallas developer is trying to buy the land at a severe discount and if they don’t end up with a development anchored by REI, then they can just flip it and make a huge profit on the backs of taxpayers.

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-23%20at%202.11.42%20PM_zps3oocrett.png) (http://s133.photobucket.com/user/71conan/media/Screen%20Shot%202016-03-23%20at%202.11.42%20PM_zps3oocrett.png.html)

TulsaNow. The new media now.

You've got to be kidding me... I can only hope the council didn't fall for this. If they deemed the parkland "abandoned" that could put on of the major obstacles of the lawsuit in question. The main premise and strongest cases the plaintiffs have is that the land has not been determined "abandoned" as parkland, which under Oklahoma law means they don't have the authority to sell it. Now, since this was done after the lawsuit was filed, may not hold much weight at this point. I don't see how anyone can determine the land is abandoned when there's volleyball courts that are used a lot... I wonder when this will come public with what was decided?

No longer needed, until next month when hundreds of people want to play in their volleyball leagues...

Gerald Bender is the litigation manager for the City of Tulsa (and a pretty good guy). I thought this land was held in a magic trust over which the City of Tulsa had no authority or control? Why are they seeking litigation advice from the City if... or right, it's a farce.
- - -

Again, I am not objecting to developing this land. But it is premium land and certainly IS used as a park. The citizens deserve to see this done right.

I just heard a Vote Yes River advertisement that said water in the river will help ensure quality development, "not strip malls."  It actually said "NOT STRIP MALLS." But Big Box stores are quality development?

MAYBE - all the talk about modification is really about adding in stipulations and design requirements. Maybe it stipulates REI and other things. Maybe they are trying to hear the voice of the people and reach a decent deal.

But without transparency, we will never know.

Central Park has got to be premium land, too, but I bet you won't see New York doing something this stupid with Central Park.


Ignorance, stupidstition, graft, and corruption.  You're doing fine, Oklahoma...!!

I wonder if that meeting was rescheduled...

The Save Helmerich Park people posted on FB about a TPFA meeting on Thurs, March 31 at 4:30 PM (10th floor of City Hall) to discuss the abandonment of part of the park.

The TPFA is not used to public input or scrutiny. Last summer when a few of us showed up to speak out against the proposed development, you could tell it was the first time they'd ever had public comment or participation. 

So... I think it would be very helpful for as many people as possible to show up to oppose this.  It wouldn't be hard to have a standing room only crowd, since there's only seating for about 30 people or so.

<rant> The whole process has sucked.  Dooey and his administration are short-sighted and oblivious to the value of park land and its potential to create long-term benefits for the city.  (The value will not be found by selling it off.)  Quality of life matters.  It's how cities compete. Tulsa has not prioritized investment in the park system for many years.  (Not counting GKFF.) Still, this does not justify selling off / destroying park land for all future generations to come. Long after everyone's forgotten Dooey Jr was ever mayor, our parks will continue to be enjoyed by generations of Tulsans.  Hopefully the next mayor will understand the importance of fully-funded, well-designed and thoughtfully programmed parks.  GKFF can't do it all.  The city of Tulsa has a responsibility to protect and enhance the park system.

We have to do more than just hire cops and fill potholes if we want to compete as a city.  Dooey doesn't get this.  I think some of the younger generation is starting to wise up. (Those that haven't already left for other cities that have been investing in quality of life for decades.) </end rant>

Its good to see local media showing all the public utilization that this "abandoned" park is getting:
http://www.fox23.com/news/city-council-continues-debating-plans-for-helmerich-park/180282498

The meeting to discuss the proposal to ask the City to abandon the non-park was canceled and rescheduled for yesterday. When it was canceled again. The state reason is the need to prepare additional documents.

No new meeting was scheduled, the next scheduled meeting is the end of April. Presumably they schedule a special meeting with the minimal statutory notice possible and then immediately break for executive session because transparency and openness.

(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/business/branded/2011/11/111118_BRANDED_summersEve.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg)

Tulsa board extends deal with potential 71st and Riverside developer

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/tulsa-board-extends-deal-with-potential-st-and-riverside-developer/article_d7fdefab-1766-51c1-b15b-cd1a13bd06a0.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/tulsa-board-extends-deal-with-potential-st-and-riverside-developer/article_d7fdefab-1766-51c1-b15b-cd1a13bd06a0.html)

http://m.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/controversial-development-at-helmerich-park-gets-tweaks-in-response-to/article_10898162-a60f-5d4c-8afe-4208b914572c.html?mode=jqm

The developer out of Dallas is doing some PR work trying to look reasonable:

http://www.newson6.com/story/31787900/texas-based-developer-talks-vision-for-helmerich-park

Is he calling parking lots "open-air plazas"?

If he wants to sound reasonable, he needs to pony up the $600K/acre everyone else is paying in the area first and come up with a much better development plan.

Agreed! Of course he is going to be all for this and talk as if it will be some destination with no downside. How about the cash-strained City of Tulsa giving away high-value property!?

Wait... he said it is going to be just like the Katy Trail Ice House in Dallas?  Ok, lets talk...

(https://joerunfordom.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/cyclist-on-katy-trail1.jpg)

(http://dallastxlofts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/katy-trail-ice-house.jpg)

(https://dallasrunner.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/katy-trail-11.jpg)

v.

(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/REI-renderings.png)

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/image8-e1439843279275.jpg)

And once the city pays to rebuild the volleyball court will the city actually even clear any money at all?

I'm too lazy to find it but someone posted the maths showing the city of Tulsa taking a loss on this one.

Insane. Dewey is a disaster.

The store *could* be situated in the park in a good way with a restaurant or two with the courts next door, but this development still sucks as proposed.

Or REI could go into a hundred other locations in the city.

Aside from this, would you (or myself) drive 100 miles from OKC to feel "REI legit"?  I sure wouldn’t.  If there is something I need that bad from REI can I not order it on-line and pay the use tax? I honestly don’t have a clue what that item would be I could not find in another shop which is already here, particularly at a place like Backwoods in The Farm.  

The last thing I recall buying from REI was about 20 years ago in Denver and I just remember it was something I needed for myself to take some clients skiing the next day so I wouldn’t freeze my arse off and that store was convenient to my hotel.

My wife and I were touring course marshals for the USA Pro Challenge in Colorado last summer.  We are what I would call very active outdoors enthusiasts.Our final deployment for the week was near the Denver store downtown and we could have gone there later that day or the following day prior to leaving Denver.  We didn’t.  We drove past the Fort Collins REI store a few times, we didn’t stop there then either.  

In the last two years between multiple trips to New Mexico or Colorado, we stopped in independent outfitter stores we usually deal with in Leadville, Pagosa Springs, Durango, Salida, Breckenridge, Steamboat, Dillon, Albuquerque, Taos, Angel Fire, etc. just to browse or if we did need something, we never sought out an REI just because Tulsa didn’t have one, it never dawned on us to venture into the expanse of an REI.

I don’t think REI is that much of a draw for Tulsa.  What is so compelling about REI that you cannot satisfy with local retailers or other national retailers who have been here for some time in the first place?

I’ve always thought of myself as the “average consumer”.  I support local, eschew national as much as is possible in this day and age, and tourism for the sake of shopping simply is not my bag.  Does that make me an anomaly I’m simply not aware of?

I really don’t get the cachet of having an REI in Tulsa when it’s on a total give away deal for the land.  Why would someone from Denver, Dallas, or Houston here on energy business go shop at Tulsa’s REI when they can do that in their own home town?  What does REI sell that would make someone get in their car and drive from Owasso, Muskogee, or Bartlesville to purchase in sufficient quantities to support this total give-away?

To my knowledge, REI doesn’t do anything different than any other sporting goods retailer to woo high school sports business that Academy, Dick’s, et al doesn’t do.  So where is the sales tax lift from this project???  How much sales tax does a remote bank branch (which has been a part of this project from the beginning) generate?...Oh...wait...none!  

Just for fun, do this:  Enter a major city name then “REI” and chances are, they have a store there.  So anyone here on business with an REI in their hometown isn’t likely to have an impulse to shop at ours if they come from an MSA equal to or larger than our own. It’s like Bass Pro in terms of over-hyped and over-exploited retail.  Bass Pro was another cool concept prior to the internet too and when there were just a few terrestrial locations.

Why has the self-esteem of our city sunk so low that we will go to incredibly stupid means to recruit ubiquitous development with less than 10% sales and/or property tax lift?  I really do not get it.  REI is as compelling as Academy, Sports Authority, or Dick’s and I don’t recall any of those national chains being paid any greenmail to move here.  There is something really corrupt or really stupid about this development that defies any logic.

If there was no other valid example to get rid of the current regime at City Hall, this should be it.

I had never even heard of REI till this issue came up so could care less "who they supposedly are".  This development is crappy.

I looked up the costs of building sand volleyball courts, seems from what I can find quickly it will cost us about $15,000 - 25,000 per court to replace, so let's say $20,000 per court. There's 10 courts there so it will cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 to replace them. Frankly, this is probably on the cheap side. With the money the city is proposing to give back to the developer in "infrastructure costs" the $ the city would net - replacing these courts will probably be zero. Again, aren't we supposed to be a business minded city under Dewey? How is giving away a piece of land off 71st right on the River close to Tulsa Hills and high incomes in South Tulsa for $0 a good business decision?

I will ask - are people really against developing this land, as in we  need to preserve park land or is it that people just want to see a smarter development (mixed-use non big box strip center style)? From what I see of the people who filed the lawsuit is that they don't want parkland developed period. To me, I don't mind if we develop parkland in strategic places like this (vast amount of this park is under utilized), but it needs to be high quality development - not like what is proposed.

They are just another suburban box store regardless of the perception they try to give.

Katy Trail Ice House is awesome.  It's one of my favorite places.  This development ain't no Katy Trail Ice House.  The closest we have is Elwoods, which is terribly underutilized in my opinion as a food/drink/music venue.

I agree about Elwoods, but I wish they had better food and drink options. It would be neat if they could make it a bit more of a beer-garden. They have to some extent added on to make it more of an outdoor patio area with permanent stage and roped off area.

Parking probably hurts them too, especially being next to the Blue Rose Cafe. Tulsans don't want to park a block away and walk. Plus there's no convenient spot to walk over Riverside with a cross walk. Maybe they should consider adding a pedestrian stoplight and crosswalk there at W 19th St.

No food at Elwood's anymore.  At least they wouldn’t serve us any yesterday afternoon.

I agree. I went to REI once because others talked about how cool it is. Mostly really expensive items only hardcore camping/outdoor enthusiasts would need (Many specialized lightweight items for long hiking trips). It doesn't even make sense to have one in Oklahoma. We don't have huge mountains or coastal trails here. It would be like having a professional chef store with $1000 knives in Tulsa when 98% of people could find what they needed at a standard retail store or online.

Like Backwoods (in the Farm shopping center).  Only bigger.
Everyone needs hybrid composite aluminum alloy tent stakes.
Joking aside,   father's day is coming up and I wouldn't be disappointed with anything from backwoods.

They added a ton of parking on Riverside to the north.  I think people are willing to walk a few feet on a trail to get to a cool outdoor eating/drinking establishment.  I didn't know they stopped serving food.  Since they have common ownership, I think it would compliment Blue Rose well to tear down the current shack and replace it with a slightly larger and nicer building with a limited kitchen and cater to trail users like Katy Trail Ice House.

Speaking with the owner of River's Edge, they were told the building was no longer fit for food service and were essentially shut down. Then Blue Rose took over, got an exclusive lease for food service in the area, had the River's Edge building thrown in for good measure, and used it to serve food for the first few years. Sometimes, you could even get Blue Rose to "deliver" food down the Elwoods (fka River's Edge).

Cycling yesterday, we stopped at Elwoods and were told this season they only serve chips (and drinks).  No idea if it is a business decision, permit thing, or a misinformed employee.

But the REI plan is much closer to a Walmart than it is to Blue Rose or River's Edge OR Icehouse in Dallas.

I think the public opposition to this project has, sadly, become all about saving parkland at all costs, when, in reality, there are more nuanced positions out there. I'm not categorically against developing parkland (this spot or otherwise). Partially because, I think Tulsa is fortunate to have a lot of great parkland and losing Helmerich wouldn't make that big a difference in our park inventory.

But also because, and more importantly, I think development in all of our parks would be great, as long as its done tastefully. The consensus here seems to be that more Elwoods, more things like the Ice House, would be a good thing. That kind of stuff actually draws people out to experience the parks more.  I'd like to see quite a bit of that up and down Riverparks and elsewhere.

The problem with this REI proposal is that's not at all tasteful. So I'm happy to see its certainty waning. I'm afraid, though, that the lesson learned by the townsfolk, city hall, and developers will be "Parks good. Any businesses in parks bad!" And we've shot ourselves in the foot and lost out on opportunities for cool, new stuff in the future.

I'm for development that complements the park land.  "Come enjoy a day at the park and stop by the REI for some outdoor stuff and have a bite to eat and a beer on the patio cafe, and listen to some live music."  This development is what you can build anywhere in town.  It doesn't complement the park it replaces it.  I don't get why it's so controversial to say a park development should acknowledge that its part of a park. 

Blue Rose and Elwoods are nice in theory. In reality, they tend to suck. I get nervous when people use them as examples of good development on the river. Too many cars in too few spaces. People park on the grass when it fills up. The restaurant itself spoils what used to be a beautiful sunset view, instead its now employee parking, storage buildings, and refrigerated buildings. Always good to see the employees smoking out there too. The clientele, or visitors to the area are downright scary and some hostile. At the least quite unfriendly. The yoga classes are cool but don't attempt to talk or make eye contact with them. I have biked, ran, partied there for some 30 years. A few weeks ago my sons returned and went biking and riding their old paths. Even they said they would never return.

If you hadn't seen the area before this stellar development you would never know how badly it has evolved. If this is what they have in mind for development I am sorry I voted for it.

I thought that aside from the aesthetics of the development, the other opposition was in the way the sale of the property was being handled. Wasn't there a large amount of complaining that the city was selling the land at far below the actual value of the land?

You're right. That's true.

I agree that a lot of that south side of Blue Rose is unsightly. Also the food and service there is subpar. The actual building design and patio are overlooking the Arkansas River are really well done.

As far back as I remember, this area has been a gathering place for strange and homeless people. Maybe there are more now than in the past but that could be due to most of the park south of there being closed. There was a big group of hippies the last time I was there. They weren't scary and it was kind of cool to see them taking advantage of the nice day at the park, setting up hammocks and playing games. I chatted with them and apparently they do that quite often. I could see some old person thinking they were scary because they are different. Occasionally a homeless person will talk to me but nothing worse than anywhere else downtown. About 12 years ago, a group of homeless men threw a beer can at me right at the overlook area and to me, that era was the worst that area ever was in terms of looking shady and having shady characters around all the time. I haven't experienced anything bad recently.

I also agree on the South End of Blue Rose.  Seems they could do something to clean that up or put in some trees or something.  But overall, they must be doing something right because (to paraphrase Yogi Berra) "I never go there because it's too crowded".  Specifically, I want to go sit on the deck and eat a burger and watch the sun go down over the river, and so do a lot of other people, apparently.  I would like to see Elwood's up their game, but understand what it is and why (to a certain degree) it is what it is.

And as for the trail and parks in the area, yes, there are always homeless in that particular area, especially from the Blue Rose on North.  But I ride there all the time, and my wife rides (alone) multiple times a week on that trail, and neither of us has ever had a bad experience with anyone.

Thanks for the old slam. My son's are in their early twenties to early thirties. We have been going there since they were toddlers. They weren't scared, they just didn't like the look and feel. They are big city boys.

Scary was the wrong word. Maybe undisciplined? Self absorbed? Disrespectful?

The homeless never bother me. They always smile and nod if they are conscious. The hippies may have talked to you but they were rude to me. And I was a real hippie back in the day. They are what we called "pseudos".  They block the running path which is sometimes entertaining but not when I have to break stride in the middle of the run. I stopped to chat about one of their nice looking (unleashed) dogs and was ignored. Oh well.

And although the Rose building is itself a fine building and well situated, its views are for paying customers. The rest of us get to see parking and storage. The old Rivers Edge allowed everyone the view. BTW, I've never seen the green area east of the parking lot used for cars until recently. Most notably when the Yoga folks are there. Really tacky.

Really?

I have ridden those trails for 13 years. I loved the River's Edge and have hung out with the owners before it closed and after. But the area now occupied by Blue Rose was an overgrown drop off with wet goose poop covered sand. It was so underutilized I often took my dog off-leash to fetch/swim in the area (specifically the footprint of Blue Rose). And yes, there was plenty of parking - because there were less people there! Here is the area in 2007:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1341594,-95.9913004,3a,75y,231.46h,85.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sap_X-RUba-u4Vocw3OzNUQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

From River's Edge the view wasn't terribly different. The sun sets to the west, not the south. The trees blocked the view of the "21st St." bridge almost as well as the new building does. And the beach area is still there - if one cared to climb down to see it (the view there certainly is changed).

The trail is basically unaffected. You lose maybe 3-4 seconds of view as you pedal by... then everything is back as it was.

I'm not arguing the Blue Rose is the greatest restaurant ever. Or that it is the perfect example of everything we want along the river. But as far as development goes in this city, they did a good job. It doesn't occupy much park land. It is a unique design. Has a good vibe. It embraces the river. It doesn't interfere with the trails. And it compliments the area (I often stop for a snack/drink after a ride, just did on Sunday).

There are ~26 miles of river trails, if this 300 feet ruins it for your son, then it is merely the change and he wouldn't like it if anything changed at all.

(on a side note: the trails are horribly mangled at the moment. Closed from ~21st to 36th including the crossing. Single land from 51st to 56th. Closed at Little Joe Creek. Riverwest was recently closed for a couple of weeks.  Sheesh! No matter what goes in along the river... KEEP THE TRAIL OPEN! That should be a priority!)

Really. We live in different worlds. At least we can agree the sun sets in the west. Which is west of both Elwoods and Rose.

I wasn't calling them old! But was more referring to the old grumpy attitude one might have towards the young wimper snappers who frequent that area. Tally hoe! Got my knickers in a wad!



Gotcha.. So it was the hippies! They by default hate all the elderly and yuppies unless you have a righteous beard. :P

I understand about the pseudo hippies. No TRUE Scotsman!

Just kidding about all of this, I'm just giving you a hard time! :D

I think what precipitated the awareness of just how tortured this transaction is was the shitty design and ground utilization when it got rolled out.  Had the design been something which really embraced the river, I do believe this project would have never risen to the level of protest that it has.  In fact, it might have happened with relatively little fanfare.  There’s something for most everyone to dislike about it whether it is the bad design, the undervalued sale, or simply not following the proper legal process.

Some people have pursued the illegal transaction angle and/or undervalued sale angle to try and combat the terrible design and prevent the transaction from happening.

Terry Young, Herb Beatty, Jeff Immel, et. al. are primarily concerned with the fact this park was placed into a public trust specifically to prevent it from being developed commercially.  Knowing Walt Helmerich’s affinity for parks and park land and the work he put into securing this property, there is little doubt the namesake of this park would agree this was not the intended purpose of this land...ever.  His widow has even echoed that sentiment.

That said, there was to have been much more to this park, the intention was never for this to be a sand lot and briar patch which is basically all it has ever amounted to.  There were always bigger priorities in the budget and no one stepped up with a private fund drive to improve the amenities in the park.  But that, in itself, did not allow the TPFA in concert with the mayor’s economic development director, to try and develop the land for commercial purposes.

As a secondary issue to this group:  In order for the TPFA to legally sell or otherwise dispose of the property required a declaration from the city council that the land was surplus and was being abandoned from its purpose as a park.  TPFA did not have this granted by the council prior to entering into an agreement with the developer.

It probably would have been a good idea to have had that declaration from the council before an RFP was let out on the land.  The RFP could have also been better promoted so that this didn’t take on the appearance of a backroom deal between an out of state developer and a member of the mayor’s staff who just so happens to be connected to the real estate business.

What the city has is a bad image problem on its hands.  Its process for this did not follow the law, it was less than transparent, and the development does not harmonize well with its surroundings.

Instead of realizing and owning up to their errors, this administration has a bad problem with blaming "tree-huggers and naysayers” for Tulsa becoming unfriendly to developers.  In reality, our zoning code and approach to developing on properties like this needs to show some self-esteem and respect for the surroundings instead of begging people to plop down layup concrete dreck.

I once had a righteous beard. It was great fun when eating a Big Mac. Women swooned.

No ill will here.  8)

The Group Seeking to Preserve Helmerich Park looks to the Trust for Public Land for Help

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/group-seeking-preserve-helmerich-park-looks-trust-public-land-help (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/group-seeking-preserve-helmerich-park-looks-trust-public-land-help)


(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/large/public/201604/photo_21_.jpg)

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/tulsa-city-councilors-on-dallas-tour-question-rei-site-concept/article_f57a9ba9-fb9b-50d6-868f-3383e207df05.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/tulsa-city-councilors-on-dallas-tour-question-rei-site-concept/article_f57a9ba9-fb9b-50d6-868f-3383e207df05.html)

Sounds like some of them are starting to get it, like Anna America. I don't get Connie Dodsons thought, she thinks the proposal is too dense? How can it be any less dense? Add more parking lots  ??? ??? ??? ?

I thought the developer's comments were idiotic.

...but he said the scope of the project he’s brought to the table is only able to adjust so much before the tenants he’s building for pull out for being in unproven territory."

The Dallas developer says Tulsa is "unproven territory."

WTH?

Or.... or maybe it's the specific area of Tulsa?

So the council skipped the part about whether or not its legal or moral to sell a donated park to a commercial developer, and moved on to picking the color scheme for the new strip mall?

No. Basically they are saying "if we can't build a standard big box for REI they will pull out. This site isn't special and we don't give two rats butts about the facing the river or the trail. You take your big box or nothing."

He was more polite than that, but that's what I read into it.

I think he means "different from other standard developments" I'm sure he has all kinds of numbers to predict traffic and sales, based on other developments.  But if you do something truly unique (which is what I think most of us are looking for here), then it gets harder to predict/assure return.

But what bugs me more is this quote from the article:

"Janet Hopkins, REI retail director, said the company’s more-than 140 locations all have a similar design except for the store’s five “flagship” locations, including a well-known Denver store. Tulsa’s proposed location would not be the “flagship” concept."

Well,  scr#w them, then.  Given the site, if they aren't willing to invest even a little more in doing something beyond a basic cookie-cutter store, then let them go somewhere else.

Also,  does anyone in Tulsa know Jerry Stritzke, the CEO of REI? He's an OSU grad and went to law school at OU, and lived in Tulsa when he practiced law.  

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerry-stritzke-60198970  (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerry-stritzke-60198970)

https://news.okstate.edu/articles/jerry-stritzke-says-osu-was-instrumental-his-ascension-top-coach (https://news.okstate.edu/articles/jerry-stritzke-says-osu-was-instrumental-his-ascension-top-coach)

I would think that one word from Stritzke saying "let's build something cool in Tulsa" would be all we needed to change the entire direction of this thing.

Where did she says it was too dense?

"Councilor Connie Dodson questioned the Tulsa site’s density plan."

Given the context of the proposed development, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume assume she doesn't think it's dense enough.

Can "we" put and end to the "presumed REI" already?

There is nothing special about nearly all the REI stores because there is nothing special about REI.  Is there a single product they sell that you cannot get somewhere that is already in Tulsa (other than the REI brand of the same merchandise)?  If they were building at one of the strip centers at Riverside & Delaware or scattered throughout Tulsa, I wouldn’t care about their attitude or lack of imagination. 

I've preached this since last summer to everyone who keeps romanticising about the iconic Denver store:  The majority of REI's stores, including other Colorado stores, suck.  They are a retailer.  They care love all about our ideas of aesthetics and they care love all about our park space and distraction to the trails in the area.  I am friends with local shop owners within blocks of this location (bike retailers) who do a great job serving the local community and love the community.  Just go away already, Mr. Dallas developer who reputedly doesn't even have so much as an LOI with REI.

Sorry for the harsh language, but I'm sick and tired of the notion that local retail can't be destination shopping and I'm also sick of the notion that we need to sell out our best spaces in a feeble attempt at sales tax gain.

So you think that this park should be preserved 100% the way it is?

I disagree. I think the city should leverage some of the land and build something that adds to the community and the surrounding park. The current proposal does not do that. A strip mall that can be built in anywhere America isn't the solution. We've already eroded away some of the parkland with that suburban apartment complex to the south. Why not build something like this (obviously with less boats)? But, a more urban mixed-use project with ground floor retail and apartments above that actually interacts with the riverfront and trails.

(https://www.clarkconstruction.com/sites/default/files/styles/project_photos/public/project_photos/The-Wharf_Carousel1.jpg?itok=-2C3npmM)

Capture some of the value created through a higher density project to improve the park. Why not build competition level sand volleyball quarts just south of the development that we could host tournaments? Add some gardens, walking trails, pond, etc. so that Helmerich Park actually becomes useable. The current state of that park is terrible. It could be something of high quality and be a south park anchor along the trail with A Gathering Place as the northern park anchor and Turkey Mountain across to the west. Turn Helmerich Park into something like below:

(http://crossroads.newsworks.org/images/stories/flexicontent/l_rendering-riverwalk1200.jpg)

(http://www.stvinc.com/portfolio_images/Westport3.jpg)

(http://headwatersjunction.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Headwaters-Junction-Riverfront-Fort-Wayne-South-Bank.jpg)

(http://volleyballmag.com/system/images/content/articles/0002/3649/sandcourt_homepage.jpg?1367242970)

(http://www.brianrose.com/journal/2012/beachvolleyball_lg.jpg)

Saying that Helmerich Park is some beacon of parkland that should be preserved in its entirety is a bit disingenuous. You could develop this northern section and south section below the other apartment complex and still have 40 acres of park land (that's not that much smaller than the Gathering Place). Even the Trust for Public Land says compatible uses are ok - the point is to improve public spaces. Helmerich Park is in major need of improvement and as been for decades. If the way to do it is through developing small sections of it into quality development (which the current REI/UCR development proposal is not)? Fine by me.

It would be far easier to get something towards that direction if this property remains a park than it will ever have the chance once some strip mall type thing goes on it, imho.

Yeah, there are plenty of imaginary scenarios where they could improve upon what there, but the discussion really is about the lowest common denominator development that Tulsans will trade park land for.

As has been said before, if the developer was going out of his way to make a space that really improved the area we wouldn't be having this discussion. A few people would gripe about selling park land, but ultimately the vast majority would be excited for it. Instead, the developer and mayor is arguing that a strip mall with blank walls facing the river is good enough, especially since we're getting some all-important niche brand-name store to go with it.

In the end, they'll ram this through based on the argument that more people will use the strip mall than the park, and in five years we'll have another faded strip mall with nail salons and cell phone stores, and probably without the REI since that will probably struggle after the new smell wears off (hence why they won't commit to a good design). Will people learn? Probably not. They'll probably already be working on expanding it into the land next to it. 

Good development is for those other cities. We're not special enough.

I wonder if the unintended consequence is going to be that donors will be quite skeptical about donating land for particular purposes. I certainly would be hesitant to donate land for parks after seeing how easily it was turned to commercial purposes. If the city needs the money they simply take it and claim its for the public good.

Well now, it won’t be completely blank walls.  I’m sure they will plant some crepe myrtles for “screening".

Tulsa’s issue is our current leadership has ZERO self-esteem when it comes to demanding quality development.  I guess it is part of our cheap cost of living culture.  

We also have an economic development director who is either unwilling or does not know how to court great employers to Tulsa with great paying jobs rather than going for the low hanging fruit of retail development which adds minimal benefit to the revenue base.  He has completely scoffed at the idea that amenities like parks and green space are what other cities use to attract 25-34 YP’s and what other cities have to lure their young back after college.

Other tricky thing, per our leadership, is that in situations like this you get scads of wealthy, successful, businessmen and developers pushing their agenda of "We don't want you to tell us (successful) people what to do, we know business and what works, who are you to doubt us? lay off or you will hurt the business climate," etc. etc.

Maybe they'll hire The Artist to paint a trompe l'oeil painting on the blank wall. It could look like a high quality riverfront development or the beautiful park land that could have been  ::)

I'm definitely not saying that we should do the strip center and hope to retro fit it at some point. I don't think the proposed design should be allowed, period. I do think, proper higher density and walkable development that integrates and interacts with the trails and the river should be allowed. I don't see much point in preserving grass for the sake of it. If we can leverage some of the land to benefit the park, create a TIF & BID that pays for park improvements - I see that as a win win. Typical suburban box development is not a win.

Sports Authority sells ubiquitous off-shore made crap.  No real loss to the sporting goods industry.

Drove by the park and saw a lot of trees tied with orange construction tape.

Does that mean they are being removed, or being saved?

Orange tape can be used for surveying but considering the recent history...I'm going to guess someone plans to remove them.

They arent junk trees or brush.  They look like Riverparks-maintained landscape.  Who would be moving forward on park demolition at this point?

I'm hoping nobody but I have no faith in anyone with the power to call out the wrecking crews.

Anyone have real information about the orange tape around the trees?

Here's the so-called Tree Preservation Plan (http://"http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/08-Tree-Preservation-Plan.pdf") from the detailed site plan that was submitted to the TMAPC last year.  You have to zoom in quite a bit to read the details, but there are several healthy, mature trees that are standing in the way of the anticipated driveways and...uh... well, 589 parking spaces.  Or is it 580 now?  I forget.

August 1, 2016 Tulsa World update (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/majority-of-council-against-vacating-park-property-to-allow-rei/article_f1bd34f6-6734-559f-862e-6688b499e657.html)

A majority of the City Council is against vacating Helmerich Park property to allow the REI development.

And basically TPFA, the Mayor and his minions screwed this up from the “git-go” and the city might be sued as a result.

How bucking stupid is that?  Agree to sell land worth $600k/acre (or more since this would be very coveted being right on the river) for $100K, then end up being possibly sued by a developer for not following through on your stupid idea in the first place.

This development as well as the now scuttled Simon development on Turkey Mountain were complete busts to the taxpayer.  I sincerely hope Mayor-elect Bynum has someone with much more economic sophistication in mind than Clay Bird.

Wouldn't any contract for the sale of public land have a requirement that the deal be approved by the relevant authority and ultimately city council?  How does anyone have the authority to approve a land sale that requires city council approval to the extent that the city can be sued if the city council disapproves?  Doesn't that kind of take city council out of the picture?

I do believe this is the issue TPFA overlooked.  In order for them to sell the property, the Council would first have to vacate the land as city park land, which the Council had not done and apparently is now unwilling to do.

I’m not sure what was going on at the site last Tuesday night if that is a regular volleyball game night or a special tournament, but there had to have been at least 100 or more cars parked at the site.

That's the tricky thing, since apparently TPFA owns the land, not the COT... even though the City of Tulsa has been operating and maintaining it all this time.  And COT lawyers will will be defending the TPFA in the lawsuit.  So, whose baby is it? Does it require City Council approval to vacate/declare surplus?  For all intents and purposes, it functions as COT property.  I'm not sure if there's a legal term for "if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck..." but it sure seems like it's COT property to me.  (Maybe it's like if your the biological father, but you haven't been participating or paying child support for decades...you sort of waive your right to claim them as your kids...)

Hearing pushed back 60 days per TW.

Which gets us to October.  When does GT take office?  December?

Yep.

I predict another punt in October.

It's going to be built.

Not a chance on that site. 

They might want to start talking to Utica Square.  Interesting part is the Helmerichs own Utica Square. 

Other than public outrage. The City Council and new mayor being against it. And a lawsuit they lack confidence in (or they would have insisted on the hearing and tried to force it through before the new mayor)...

What gives you that idea? I'm not saying it won't happen for sure, but the signposts certainly seem to be pointing in the "no" direction.

I thought for sure Simon would build the outlet mall by Turkey Mountain.  But people spoke up and the grassroots efforts created to stop it worked.  I am hopeful for the same outcome for Helmerich Park.

I doubt that REI meets Utica Square's minimum snob factor quotient; and I doubt REI wants to pay the $/SF required to achieve such lofty heights.  If a different developer wanted to work to bring an REI here, we could do something cool that would be a positive for Tulsa.  Pick almost any commercial intersection in town, and it wouldn't be hard to improve it.  With the current Dallas developer, we're just looking at more asphalt and stucco crap.  Nothing to see here. (Maybe they want to use that old Circuit City spot at Southroads.  Or hey, I know a defunct Borders store that's just sitting around...

Speaking of the defunct Borders store... That place closed 5 years ago and that space of that building has been sitting there empty the entire time. Either the landlord is asking too much in rent or (and I can't figure out why), they are ok with just leaving it empty and getting zero income from the larger space. Sure, it might theoretically be a $15k+/month retail space, but if you can't what you're asking for 5+ years, lower the price until you get a renter. Even $2k/month is better than zero! Just rent it out as storage space if nothing else until you find a retail tenant.

The building has excellent highway visibility and is in a relatively high-populated area surrounded by high income earners. It is about 25,000 ft2 that is not used by the cleaning business. It looks like the owner bought it for $4 million in 2011 from Borders. $34k in taxes a year and a mortgage payment would be about $20k/month. It seems crazy they bought this place without any serious renters or plans to use it as a retail space.

Does anyone understand the economics of this? Even if they rented it out for a measly $2k/month for 5 years, that's $120,000 they missed out on, but considering if they had a mortgage, they've already paid $1.2 million+ on it. Surely they can split up parts of it to rent separately (like the coffee shop and maybe closing off upstairs for office space).

Who is "they"? That may explain some of it.

This same thing happened to downtown properties for decades. There are reasons, both economic and legal, that properties remain dormant.
Zoning, building layout that would require heavy investment in rebuild, high cost of rental that would diminish ROI, legal tie ups in ownership etc. Once a landlord succumbs to lowering rent or lowering the quality of the tenant its a dangerous road to travel. Hard to raise the rent, attract better tenants or afford to upgrade the building.

I used to rent office space in one of the nearby buildings. When Charlie Mitchell's closed I figured another restaurant/bar would open quickly because of all the lawyers, medical etc nearby. It was empty for a long time and eventually changed direction entirely. Even my office building was emptied out and totally remodeled to achieve higher rentals. 

Great location though. Parking lot was never easy to maneuver but do-able. Loved that place.

But now you can have all the bagels you want, until 3pm.  Charlie Mitchells is missed.

Probably my favorite location for Charlie’s.  Ma Mitchell was usually there.

The reincarnation was really meh.  Another concept that simply should have been allowed to stay dead.

If we were a sustainable city that Borders location would already have an REI.

We are a sprawling, sales tax addicted city however.

Sigh.

Or at least one of the many places which has had a brand new building built for it. Makes no sense to build and build and not use a nice existing building in a great location.

I live near the empty Border’s building and I would love to see it become something other than a monument to the demise of the brick and mortar book store.  However, I don’t see that building being successfully repurposed as a big box retailer.  It is located on a retail island - isolated among office buildings.  Perhaps it could be divided up into a 6 or 8 smaller retail shops.  More likely, it should be recreated into office space.  That’s not interesting or exciting, but better than sitting empty for the next decade.

I thought it could have been a great Fresh Market or Sprouts though the two levels would be a bit awkward for a grocery store.

Either one of those would be great there or, long shot, Whole Foods.  I know WF has done some locations with a mezzanine for their cafe and demonstration area.

Sigh

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/proposal-could-resolve-dispute-over-sale-of-helmerich-park-land/article_840c12e1-df56-547c-b7e1-3bdf82d996d5.html

I’m willing to be open-minded about this that a re-design of the original project could be an asset especially if it involves real investment in the park and an REI store which is not like their suburban Denver dreck.  Other than the playground and the volleyball courts the stretch between 71st & 81st has been derisively known as “the desert” by trail users for as long as I can remember.  If it allowed the city to finally improve it to Walt Helmerich’s original vision, is it really all bad?

The cons still remain the same:

-I still don’t see this as a panacea for raising city revenues, it will have a bigger tendency to scavenge from other retailers.  
-Are we still going to sell this land at about 1/2 the market rate (I think that’s what we’d determined in this thread before)?
-It was announced yesterday Gander Mtn. is headed for bankruptcy which could affect their store recently opened near Highway 75.  Is this indicative of the industry itself?  What if this gets built and REI goes tits up in a couple of years?
-This will increase traffic at an intersection which is already very busy and southbound on Riverside appears to be the only access unless they added a light a few blocks down for northbound traffic to access which would be about as fun to navigate as any point on Memorial between 101st and 111th.

Again, trying to approach with an open mind.  Perhaps this is simply the difference in GT’s management style and he’s gracefully trying to get us out of this with the developer but at least going about it in the right way.  We shall see.

The precedent this sets is chilling... What would proposals for donor-led projects like The Gathering Place look like in the future when donors consider gifts to the citizens can someday be sold off to private corporations?

Business as usual.  Bynum same as Dewby.

And to accompany today's reality...a little stroll back in time with The Who.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMD_W_r3Fg

I actually agree.  It could be a cool.  Think of how well Elwoods adds to the park at 21st.   What we've seen proposed for Helmerich is the complete opposite of cool with zero integration with the park - it's just cookie cutter development for development's sake.   I just don't see this developer bridging the cool/integration gap enough.

I'm with the crowd on this one.  I'm open minded - that area could be developed and better utilized.  It could be an enhancement to the trail.  It could upgrade the park area.   It could draw people in an add to sales tax revenue.

But not if it is anything like the previous plan, which I viewed as selling land cheap in a largely closed door process, funding infrastructure, and ending up with a basic big box development with its back to the trail.  A development which doesn't seem to meet the new river overly zoning requirements (which it doesn't have to, but since it is City land they certainly could insist). All for the promise of sales tax revenue.  Which seems dubious.  

REI might be the world  greatest outdoor store, I've heard they treat their employees really well.  Good for them, I want them in Tulsa.  But I ask again - what am I going to buy from this chain that I don't already buy from Academy, Dicks, local shops, Sun & Ski, Midwest Sporting Goods, or Target/Walmart etc. ?  Now that Amazon is going to kick in sales tax revenue, add them to that list.  Or from Gander Mountain for that matter:

http://www.newson6.com/story/34505218/reuters-gander-mountain-to-file-for-bankruptcy

I fail to see how adding one more sporting good store will increase the amount of sporting goods Tulsans purchase.  And since there appears to be money on he table for infrastructure, the property tax revenue is likely a wash.  

And I'm STILL not against this development. I really want to see GT take the lead and show that we can do development well.  We own the land, we can make demands.  Demand an interesting development:  embrace the trail and river, meet the new zoning overlay, create a destination people would want to go to.  There are hundreds of places to drop in a big box, the reason there are people fighting over this sport is because it is special - lets treat it that way.

Perhaps it would make more sense for REI to simply move into the soon to be vacated Gander Mountain store.

The sports/recreation store market looks to be way over-saturated here.  We got enough cookie cutter places - as much as I like the REI's I have been in - granted, only a couple -  don't see how that is gonna benefit Tulsa or bring anything new.  Just another chain...

Agreed that it could be cool if the developer completely redid the project and the city was able to extract money for the park.

That said, all of this greenfield big box retail coming online seems unhealthy for the city.  We have decaying shopping centers from the 70s and 80s that need to be replaced.... maybe this REI could go there?  It seems like once you get south of 41st street we have a ring of retail decay, where old shopping centers are reaching the end of their lifecycle and new retail keeps pushing further and further south. Instead of building Tulsa Hills where it is, needing all new expensive infrastructure, maybe that kind of development would have been better sited at the largely empty shopping center at 41st & Yale.

Sears is closing at 21st and Yale.  Hey REI! Here'a a nice location you could use! And, we've got all the stupid parking you could ever want there.  (My dad took me to the Sears parking lot to practice driving on ice, back in the 80's.)

Bingo.
I've been at a loss for what could go in the giant vacated Sears or Macy's at 41st and Yale. 
REI could fit either of these spots.

Actually no.  I give GT a lot more credit than that.  This is unfinished business the previous administration had gotten us legally encumbered in which it does not appear he could simply say: "This is off the table".

He may be saving face and hoping this will die or perhaps there are some very real demands of the developer, which if met, might be a decent development.

GT is a pretty common sense guy.  My view might be slightly prejudiced since he and Anna America were the first two city councilors who publicly said they were unlikely to support the zoning change which could have made the mall on the western flank of Turkey Mountain a reality.

Considering there's still no dirt turning in Jenks for Simon, I still think that whole incident was a ruse to smoke Horizon out of this market.

I hope so.  I have great hopes for his administration.

The hearing is set for 10 AM tomorrow morning, not exactly going out of their way to set it for a time when more citizens could attend.

The Tulsa Public Facilities Authority sold the property to UCR Development on Aug. 11, 2015, for $1.465 million with the stipulation that the anchor tenant specialize “in the sale of high-end sporting goods and outdoor merchandise.”
https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/three-images-and-a-few-words-sum-up-flap-over-proposed-development-at-71st-st-and-riverside-drive/


Original plan.  The latest one actually has trees.
(https://www.readfrontier.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EARLIERS-REI-2017-02-19-at-6.15.29-PM.png)

Here is the agenda:
http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/meeting_detail.php?id=MXB8HB62152017121219


The new proposal:


https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/three-images-and-a-few-words-sum-up-flap-over-proposed-development-at-71st-st-and-riverside-drive/

Ok.   So I was right about Bynum and all the other commissioners.

Well, it isn't perfect, but it is significantly improved over what was originally proposed. I'd like to see a rendering of what they envision as far as "transparency" along the trail, but the increased landscaping and less concrete is much, much better.

I like the entrances into the trail system, and I like that the developer is willing to add parking to accommodate trail users, but 200 extra spaces?? I really don't see that many being needed. Maybe cut that down by 100 or so and save some land from being paved over.

Overall, I'm not totally opposed. (I'm maybe slightly biased because I'd really love to see REI here.)

Will they install mature trees, or those little rinky dink baby trees that'll take 40 years to actually look like full trees?  My guess is they'll go the cheapest route possible and it'll still look terrible like an ocean of parking.  I think there should be a city ordinance requiring any and all parking lots of a certain size to include large mature tree scaping for every x amount of spaces.  None of those teeny stick looking crap they put in every suburban cookie cutter front yard.

Tulsa's Zoning Code is an ordinance with parking lot landscaping requirements intended to help soften the visual impacts of parking lots and to provide shading.  See Sections 65.040 and 65.050 of the Code.

Mature trees are expensive and difficult to install.  Most likely, rinky dink baby trees will be planted.  Generally, smaller trees are much less expensive and have a better chance of surviving than transplanted "mature" trees.  

I agree with your guess:  The developers will probably go the cheapest route possible with landscaping, and the corner of 71st and Riverside will look like an ocean of parking.
 

City Council meeting starting now, you can only view it in ie Explorer with MS Silverlight:

http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2


Started by addressing timing - today was the only day available where every city councilor was available.  Then went on to say they MAY take action today, but they are not obligated to take action today. Kudos Anna America for addressing that straight away.
     
Changes to rules for public comment:  waiving 30 minute comment limit and extending time limit for comments. 

Mayor presentation, QT from council, then public comment.

GO.

Thus far, Bynum is hitting all the right notes.

Neither side is a villain.  Developers don't hate Tulsa. Opponents don't hate all development. Court is a win or lose proposition for both parties.  If we opponents win, Helmerich park remains underutilized and Tulsa adds to a reputation of hard to do business there. If developers win, we get a stock development that backs up to the river.  [I'm summarizing, these are not his words]

Resolution through closed doors or the courts is not what we want. I didn't want City council to see the plan in the paper before I could present it to you (directed to council).  Understand concern with timing, if you want to hold off on a vote - that's fine. I wanted the agenda to allow action if you felt it appropriate.  We need resolution sometime soon, but not necessarily today.

Now presenting the plan:

New plan:

Parking shielded by grassy berms.
Coffee chop at the corner.
Windows facing the river.
Restaurant and REI abuts the trail, not back of building.
Landscaping dividing parking.
Reorient buildings to shield service area.
150 trees.
Less parking spaces than concept plan in river corridor.

A better plan and fits with master river corridor plan.

All of proceeds from the sale, ~$1.5mil, goes back into Helmerich park.  Wants to raise matching funds, developer is donating $100k matching funds towards that goal.

Placing development on 71st corner instead of the center of the park because 71st is a retail corridor, Riverside Drive is not. Fits with the plan.
[displayed some new drawings of the proposal]

Sales price - smart people disagree, he didn't negotiate the price. But this is the highest price offered for this land.  Contract has been signed, little he can do without legal consequences and/or reputation of City in deal making.

Uses 1/8th of the park.  7/8ths of the park will benefit. $15mil increase in property value.  $20mil in retail sales.  Not taking sides, trying to pick the best path forward.

Action items
1) Vacated/abandon the plans. Not saying it needs to be done, that's a legal question.  But bringing it to the council is the right thing to do, whether it is required or not.
2) Authorize economic development funds for infrastructure. 

Thanks for doing this Cannon

Councilor questions:  [again summarizing all of this]

Lakin:  What improvements would sale funds go to. Could be...
Bynum:  Up to the council and citizens.  Could be better volleyball courts, dog park, pond in the master plan, etc.   [not  mentioned, but COULD be simple  mountain bike paths through the area!)

Also will likely need a new traffic light on 71st, just after the bride.


Cue: $1.5mil sales price?  Aren't we spending $500k on infrastructure?  [this was touched on earlier]
Bynum: Yes and no.  Plan is to use economic development fund to pay for the infrastructure, freeing up the $1.5mil available for recreational improvements. Estimate cost is $570k for infrastructure.  [America pointed out, if infrastructure exceeds this number...developer is on the hook for the difference]


America: Hazards of traffic from a safety perspective, if it seems unworkable off of 71st other options?
Bynum: Could be changed to Riverside if the 71st entrance is dangerous or doable from traffic engineer staff, not the developers call alone.

America: People often commit to landscaping, but results don't match drawings. Save mature trees, good sized trees, and make sure we have a guarantee that landscaping is appropriate.
Bynum: Yes.  It is in the resolution.  If this is not done, site is not "vacated."  Not crossing our fingers and hoping.  [there is a formal exhibit making it part of the resolution[

America: What if REI backs out or developer sells the land... how do we know we are getting what we approve?
Bynum's staff: there are safeguards that will come in during the contracting phase
Dodson: What if they sell in 10 years and a super wallmart wants to move in, once retail it is retail, right?
Legal Department: RDO & PUD standards are in place.  But, a grocery store wouldn't be prevented. But it would still have to be in compliance with the design standards. Site plan approval is still a requirement, but depends on how big the proposed changes are. If same building but a different retailer - no approval required.  15 year lease required in the draft.
Blake: We shouldn't put in contract language saying you can't have this tenant or that tenant.  Fine in the begging, but you can't have the language that you can't ever change tenants, etc.
 [ongoing discussion - but once it is sold, it can be anything retail so long as it meets the zoning/site plan requirements]

Yes, huge thank you.

Public Comment:  33 con signed up, 10 pro.  Anna American requesting brevity, feel free to support each other instead of taking your time if you can.

Discussion on public comment - if you comment now, you don't get to comment again if this meeting is continued.  

In favor goes first (my commentary winds down and I only listen with one ear...)

I like that the BA guy wore shorts to the meeting to show off that he was an athlete.

There was 13 PRO development, 1 was kind of a plant who was actually opposed.  The Chamber, Mr. Warren, chair of parks department, etc.  a high school student, businessmen, and residents.   Reasons are:

Development is good on this site.
Can't get the reputation of hard to do business with.
Love REI.
Sales tax.
Encourage outdoor activity/health and fitness.
Fits well with the area.
Could help the volleyball courts.
Bring more life to the river.
Could be a destination.


Moving on to the against...

My favorite against argument was the guy who said that we couldn't put a whore house on the property.

I think having a whore house across from a Burger King makes sense.

They both have the motto, "Have it Your Way."

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RSDorQ4tCgM/hqdefault.jpg)

Dobie Langenkamp is awesome.
https://www.ogel.org/about-author-a-z-profile.asp?key=12

http://www.pennwellbooks.com/r-dobie-langenkamp/

Ha, I didn't realize we still had that site.

His daughter used to work for my mother and I went to high school with his sons.

Tabled until March 1.

OK, so here's the site plan from the PUD exhibit at the TMAPC hearing on 5-20-2015:
(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/REI-site-plan-from-April-2015-PUD-128-hearing-on-5-20-15-e1487721640356.jpg)

And here's the "new and improved" site plan from today's article in the Frontier:
(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/REI-site-plan-2-21-17.jpg)

https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/mayor-bynum-lays-out-his-development-plan-for-71st-street-and-riverside-drive/ (https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/mayor-bynum-lays-out-his-development-plan-for-71st-street-and-riverside-drive/)

It does appear that the city negotiated for more trees and a bit more green space in the parking lot. It looks like the berms caused a serpentine sidewalk along Riverside, if you think that's an upgrade. (Berms are good for drivers passing by.  Not so good for actual pedestrians.)  If I understood the meeting today, these changes would be a required condition before the city would consider abandoning the park land. The city also negotiated some edits to the contract language to resolve some of the issues that people have complained about, although I'm not exactly sure what those changes are.  Also, someone hired an artist to make a much prettier rendering. Woo-hoo! Nice job on the watercolors!

We still have my "favorite" feature, the 75' radius turnaround for trucks between the restaurant and the REI loading dock. Just FYI, traditional Tulsa arterials are 40' wide.  Just sayin...

The above sketch would be a perfectly fine upgrade to most of our suburban Home Depots and other such commercial lots where our landscaping requirements are so minimal they're non-existent.  This takes us from hopelessly sub-par suburban sprawl to mediocre plus suburban sprawl.

Are these changes enough to make this a wonderful addition to Tulsa's River Parks?  Nope.  Is it better than nothing?  Yep.  Is "better than nothing" the best we can hope for in Tulsa?  Gawd.  I hope not.  We'll see....

I realize that my tone in the above post sounds a bit sarcastic.  For the record, I totally understand that the current administration was handed a turd of a problem (Or as former Mayor Terry Young said, "A bad lemon and a bunch of rotted Bartlett pears...") and they are trying to do the best they can.  This is really the first time the City Council has had an opportunity to address this issue.  (They previously voted on what was basically a minor administrative change to the comp plan land use map, and I think they applied the RDO-2 river overlay to this land, which would only apply in the case of a major amendment to the PUD.)

Dooey handled this poorly from the beginning, and as GT said, we don't have a time machine to go back and fix it.  Had the previous administration handled this appropriately, we would have STARTED with a discussion of whether or not the citizens of Tulsa wanted to abandon any park land for economic development purposes.  If so, we could have moved forward with discussions of what type of development was desired and how to achieve that.  Instead, we're doing the whole thing backwards.

However, this is our current reality, and I sincerely believe everyone in the administration and City Council is trying their best to do the right thing.

Not to derail a perfectly good thread too much, but I guess no one realizes who Dobie's daughter is.
(http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BEST-MARE-NOE.3.Pink-Sweater.jpg)

Wait... those two site plans look exactly the same.  The only difference is that some architectural summer intern messed around with it on Adobe Illustrator to make it look more design-y.  Did a single building move or change orientation?

Like really - those are the same buildings with "Drop Shadow" effect in Illustrator and Photoshop trees. 

The layouts are similar, but not exactly the same.

Get out your inspector gadget magnifying glass, and you'll notice that there's one fewer row of parking in Lot 2 (south of the restaurant), which allowed them to add more greenspace.  That's nice.  The original plan included around 580 parking spaces.  I'm sure we're down to almost 560 here... (Whoops!  sarcasm returned!)

To be fair, isn't this supposed to be parking for the park as well?

I can get on board if it really means $1.5 million to make the rest of the park better, but I think more is needed to make that park a real gem, and Bynum all but admitted that Dewey made a sweetheart deal for well below fair market value.  Some of the local small business owners I think made the best opposing pitches that the city is picking winners and losers with this special deal for prime real estate for a single national retailer.  There was some discussion that they can write in some fairly specific landscaping requirements that will require real semi-mature trees instead of the 4 foot sad little sapplings that go up around every suburban McMansion, but I remain skeptical.

What bothers me the most about all of this is that the development still isn't anything special.  It's slightly better than the typical big box setup, but not by much.  An opponent used the term "lipstick on a pig" yesterday.  It's the second time in a year I've heard that used to describe development (the other was CVS at 15th and Utica which I'm still holding out hope will look okay).  What it tells me is that the city is okay with slightly better than usual.  It seems to go against Bynums campaign pitch of "restoring the spirit of high expectations."  We obviously are still okay with low expectations for developers.  I still like Bynum and think he's doing good work but I wish he's push harder on smart development issues.

Not just a sweetheart deal for the national retail chain but for an out of state developer as well.  I think it is a kind gesture that the developer wants to put $100K toward park improvements on what would remain of the adjacent park, but I still choke on the idea of how cheaply this deal was worked out.

I'm not sure if I'm more pissed off that we negotiated such a poor deal or that we were paying Clay Bird $140K or so to run around trying to negotiate such poor deals with many retailers.  How many people really believe Costco would not have come here if not for a $2mm incentiveto do so?

If the previous admin would have simply gotten behind Horizon Group's proposal for an outlet mall in east Tulsa instead of trying to court more suitors to completely muddy that proposal that might have been a retail development which would have actually had more imported sales tax dollars than shifting from other collection points in the city.

Bird and Bartlet (sic) always seemed more concerned about the stature of the retailers and developers than looking at how good or poor the economic and development realities were for the city.  Essentially: "We need an REI because that's what the cool cities have and we can attract more REI's!"  "We want Simon Group to develop our Outlet Mall because all the cool cities have Simon Outlet Malls!"

There's marginal gain in the livability factor with "cool" retail.  Whomever sorts out the mishmash of colleges in downtown and near downtown and finally gets a four year public university/research park will have pulled off the true stroke of genius in economic benefit and livability that really attracts major industry.

I'm still worried we might get our collective PUD pulled.

Many or most of these trees would probably die. It's very difficult to transplant large trees and keep them alive for long in their new home. Instead of this, why not require the developer to keep some of the mature trees already on the site?

I was about to make a point there aren't many mature trees on the site. I was wrong:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0589041,-95.9774908,17z/data=!3m1!1e3

Protecting the existing large trees on the site was discussed yesterday. I certainly hope that detail is followed through and in writing...

Here's the original "Tree Preservation Plan" from the 2015 PUD exhibit. It's a bit slow to load and you really have to zoom in to read it.
PUD 128-E Tree Preservation Plan 2015 (http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/08-Tree-Preservation-Plan.pdf)

In this, they give their analysis of the condition and location of the various trees and their priority for preserving them.  Several healthy mature trees are on the cutting block because the location is "poor."  Which means they want a building or a parking lot in that space.

I doubt the "new" plan will do much to save these trees.  To protect an established tree during construction, you basically need to fence around it at the drip line of the tree (ie: prevent trucks and bulldozers from driving underneath any of the branches, damaging limbs, and compacting roots).  Most developers prefer the speed and convenience of ripping up all the trees so they don't have to work around them.  Then you just plant new trees and start over.  Unfortunately, it takes a long time to get an oak tree with a 2 foot diameter.

Fun fact: many cities have ordinances demanding this level of protection for all mature trees.  If any mature tree is removed, the developers have to replace the tree with enough young trees to equal the trunk diameter of the one that was lost. (If you destroy a tree with a 24" trunk, you have to plant 6 trees with 4" diameter, or whatever.)  It's amazing that these places are not know as being "anti-development."  Instead, they're known as "great places to live."  Weird.

I had never heard of something like this, but I like the idea.
And who cares, I'd rather be seen as "anti-development" than live in some paved over hell.

It's expensive, but there are farms that have raised or maintained trees grown or designed for viable transplant.  They don't need to be 50 or 100 year old oaks, but something along the lines of 15 years mature.  Anything other than those pathetic branches they stick in the ground in new generic suburban developments.

"Whomever sorts out the mishmash of colleges in downtown and near downtown and finally gets a four year public university/research park will have pulled off the true stroke of genius in economic benefit and livability that really attracts major industry."

Seconded.

Tulsa's Zoning Code doesn't require expensive trees.  It doesn't require trees to be 15 years old.

Minimum required tree sizes at time of planting are as follows:
a. Deciduous trees must be at least 8 feet in height and 1.5 inches in caliper size at the time of planting; and
b. Conifers/evergreen trees (e.g., pine, spruce or cedar) must be at least 6 feet in height at the time of planting.

All parking spaces must be located within 50 feet of a tree. Required parking lot trees must be located in a landscaped area that is at least 64 square feet in area and that has a minimum width or diameter of 8 feet.

The development is no better than the typical big box setup.  In other words, it's ordinary and awful.
 

Great development!! Hope it gets built soon!!