The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.tmapc.org/tmapc/PUD-437-A.pdf

I thought this might need a thread.

QVC CVS ended up doing a fair job on most of the lighting at the 41st & Harvard, but that was mostly because of the neighbors (and a few people here) not letting up.  As far as submitting lighting plans, we learned from the 21st & Harvard QT that submitting a lighting plan doesnt necessarily mean some people wont omit a few isofootcandle numbers that will drastically change how it will actually look.

24' LED sign. Why does it have to be 24 feet tall?

(http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/blog/uploaded_images/WayneNewton-764833.JPG)

Good = fronted along 11th. Requesting reduced parking requirements- but still a lot of surface parking. Interested in the 1680 sq ft. mezzanine.

Bad: Surface parking along 15th. 24' sign.


Why not flip the design and front to the corner of 15th and Utica?

Why do you need a 24' sign? No other business along Cherry has a giant sign sticking up. It makes an area look like crap.

Overall, a bunch of "meh."

Grizzle - The Midnight Idol deserves an enormous sign.

CVS does not.

QVC?

This is better than the dumpy gas station/convenience store currently on this corner, but it could have been so much better.  I assume the orientation of the front door to the parking prevents them from having it front both 15th & Utica.  Given the proximity of both St. John and Hillcrest Hospitals, it was probably inevitable a national chain pharmacy was going to build in this corridor.

I wonder if this will make it harder for Walgreens to keep open both the 15th & Lewis and Utica Square locations?

Pole signs are yet one more dated concept our zoning code allows.  Travel to other cities and people find their commercial destination just fine without needing to create elevated and blaring sign clutter.

Both chains seem to be doing their damnedest to figure out how to do their job worse than the other so who knows.

I love when you take in a prescription at 9am and they seem perturbed when you say you want it today. Assuming they have what you need in stock.

We had a new prescription we took to CVS to be told that all locations were sold out, but they would have some in two weeks.

I tried to get sudafed at my closest walgreens, but they have no cards/displays on the floor, just the boxes behind the counter. The pharmacy tech asked which one I wanted and I told her I couldn't see what they carried. She told me there was a blue one and a red one.


Went to CVS with a prescription that had a typo on it. Was something like "take twice a day for 10 days, quantity 10". They gave me 10 and when I asked how you can take 10 twice a day for ten days they said "yeah, we noticed it was wrong, but didn't check with the doctor and just filled it as written"

etc.[/list]

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6e/9f/d6/6e9fd632d1e8e3ffa3458e6e036e4d5c.jpg)

Fronted along 11th??

Gag.....Just what we need.......

Yeah, imagine a shopping area like Woodland Hills without all the pole signs, how are you going to find anything?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.848427,-119.7906464,3a,75y,357.58h,94.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0gqjCa8wPZuX9yGfcwHPIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.848427,-119.7906464,3a,75y,357.58h,94.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0gqjCa8wPZuX9yGfcwHPIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

 

How tall is the Phillips 66 sign that will be right across the street?
(http://i.imgur.com/MkOf3ji.png)

Looks to be nearly as tall as the existing CVS sign (perspective was tricky on g-maps)
(http://i.imgur.com/AEY8uuv.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/CJ2lb8Y.png)

No other tall signs on Cherry Street
(http://i.imgur.com/ucPEqAr.png) (http://i.imgur.com/ePri3De.png)

Are McDonalds and LJS not on cherry street?
(http://i.imgur.com/AbZtN7S.png)


Don't get me wrong - I think that it'd be better off just having 2 of the smaller signs.

But to say that there aren't any large pole signs on cherry street?

"Some people call me a dreamer"

how is there enough room on this lot for both a CVS and parking?

Most of Cherry Street doesn't have tall pole signs - the parts people actually like. I would much prefer to add more of Cherry Street between Utica and Peoria than add more McDonald's and LJS to Cherry Street. McDonald's and LJS do not add to the character of Cherry Street that draw people to that area. Look down Cherry Street, then look down Harvard from 21st to 41st. Which one look nicer?


And there si room for a CVS and parking because they are buying up several lots in the area, I believe.

I've seen plenty of CVSs (though not in Tulsa) that have checkout stations at both the "front" and the "back" leaving neither end the back but making them both fronts. The could have bumped this down to the corner of 15th & Utica, put a pedestrian entrance with check out lanes on the SW corner and put an identical entrance on the NE corner for people coming from or going to a parked vehicle. If they had wanted to.  While we're on the subject, the Trader Joe's could have done this dual entrance thing onto Brookside but - unless I'm wrong - it looks like there will just be an entrance in the rear. Which is a shame because many of the shops on Brookside (BBD, all or most of the Center 1 shops, Shades of Brown, etc) have front and rear entry.


Thank you.


So it looks like this medical office building (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1415584,-95.9670641,3a,72.5y,146.53h,82.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZgsPtaSrsxli0av4VQz0Rg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZgsPtaSrsxli0av4VQz0Rg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D108.66407%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) will get torn down and replaced with the CVS's dumpsters?

I thought the public notice sign was at the next building north of that one.

Oh, sigh...

Looks like the building is built up to the sidewalk on Utica (yea), but it doesn't have pedestrian-oriented windows along that edge.  It has some windows (not enough), but they will be opaque at pedestrian height, so won't be interesting to walk beside. (In some cities, when retailers demand opaque windows along sidewalks, they are required to include photos, art or something other than solid color film on the windows.  This makes it a bit nicer to walk beside, though it's obviously not as nice as just window shopping.)

The actual "front" of the building will be set back behind a parking lot (of course) along 15th.  Since 15th is actually our "walkable urban" street, you'd think we'd require them to build up to the corner.

The sign is ridiculous overkill, as per usual.  Designed to be seen by cars moving at 50 MPH.  I'm sure that's necessary.

In general, it's a standard-issue, mediocre CVS, just like every other CVS in the country.  Go Cherry Street!  (Since this is some of the most valuable and unique land in town, it's too bad we can't require better.  Oh, yeah.  That would require a different planning commission and stronger zoning requirements.)

Maybe they are doing that for the purposes of negotiation, they give on something outrageous if you give on something less outrageous.

<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1446653528018!6m8!1m7!1sF34T_speSf3Weh1mdcksXg!2m2!1d36.10404334036731!2d-95.94019348636735!3f87.67654899720392!4f-0.49079155662873575!5f1.9587109090973311" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

41st & Harvard monument sign.

I live on 14th Place and oppose this for a lot of reasons.  Unfortunately, I know that traffic flow nightmares and "please think of the pretty buildings" rarely win the day in these things.  But, at an absolute minimum, they need to scrap the 14th Place entrance.  It is a residential street that has lots of kids who play outside in the front yards, families walking with wagons, and kids riding their bikes.  The street already has people using it as a shortcut which is dangerous and annoying, but the volume from the pharmacy drive thru will cause a tremendous increase when CVS customers start using it to avoid traffic on the 15th and the Utica entrances and exits.  The Walgreens at 15th and Lewis has only two entrances, one on 15th and one on Lewis.  There is no reason CVS needs a third on a residential street except to allow its customers to wreak havoc on the residents of the neighborhood.  Does anyone know of any other examples of a business similar to this that has a traffic entrance on a residential street?  I'd like to argue that it doesn't exist anywhere else in Tulsa or that, at a minimum, it's very rare.

A group of people on NextDoor are organizing a meeting to discuss objecting to this development, or at a minimum, trying to secure changes to the site plan.  I'll post on here if anyone is willing to chime in and support our cause.   

https://terracedriveok.nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=17555625

I got this info from the Gilbert AZ Code Compliance regulations regarding "monument signs" (pole signs)


http://www.gilbertaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=1450#page=179 (http://www.gilbertaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=1450#page=179)

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.148627,-95.9680074,173m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.148627,-95.9680074,173m/data=!3m1!1e3)

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0766585,-95.9237523,292m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0766585,-95.9237523,292m/data=!3m1!1e3)

Totally agree. I hope the city listens to the neighborhood for a change.

Bumgarner is happy.....

This building is part of the siteplan.  it currently has a sign that says its available, so it would be purchased and bulldozed for parking.  Hate to see it go, but I don't pretend that a cool old building means anything to anyone in charge of these things.  

https://www.google.com/maps/place/1711+E+15th+St,+Tulsa,+OK+74104/@36.1405814,-95.9665984,3a,75y,10h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAK4d-Vy3xFzkzF1mIkmWWQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAK4d-Vy3xFzkzF1mIkmWWQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D10.628496%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b6ec94112ffa0b:0xb49e6776f5cf9713!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/1711+E+15th+St,+Tulsa,+OK+74104/@36.1405814,-95.9665984,3a,75y,10h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAK4d-Vy3xFzkzF1mIkmWWQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAK4d-Vy3xFzkzF1mIkmWWQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D10.628496%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b6ec94112ffa0b:0xb49e6776f5cf9713!6m1!1e1)

Yep, they need to shitcan that entrance/exit onto 14th Pl.  I really don’t think it should be that big a deal to get that taken out of the plan.  Just follow this very carefully through the process and show up at the hearings.

He is probably the developer.

I would bet money on it....He owns most of those corners....

The CVSs around here never have any customers.  41st & Harvard serves as a cut thru and overflow parking for when chicken and bottled water are on sale at sprouts.  I have not once seen more than 1 or 2 employee vehicles in the parking lot at 61st & lewis.

QT often has entrances to/from residential streets, even when they already have two other entrances on arterials. Not saying it's smart, but it exists. Tulsa has never seen a driveway it didn't like.  Often, when homes are demolished for PUDs, they just keep all the existing driveways, even after all the little houses are gone. Only difference is that they're widened to 30' so nobody has to slow down when crossing a sidewalk.

Reasor's at 15th and Lewis also is adding a drive through as part of their remodel.  Do we really need a third pharmacy drive through a few blocks over?

CVS at 41st and Harvard has 68 parking spaces, even though zoning only required 57.  In truth, there are rarely more than 15 cars there at one time.  Halloween was an exception as everyone raced around looking for candy.  It was perhaps 1/3 full that day, which was the most I've ever seen! Probably about 30 cars at once!  Whew!  That was a close one!

love NO....!!!

Here's what I don't get:

The City is always broke. No matter how much sales revenue we bring in, or how many new buildings go up, we are broke because of a poor growth model.

Strict development codes generally raise property values. You can require this CVS to be built not only to a higher spec in and of itself, but in a manner that elevates the property value of the area. Additionally, areas that are something other than standard suburban development draw people in from standard suburban development. There are a lot more Owasso residents driving to Cherry Street for a night out than the other way around.

SO--- good, smart growth zoning makes the city money. CVS isn't going to pass on this spot even if it costs an extra $250k (or whatever) to build there. They've done the math, and $250k wouldn't change the outcome.

Yes, but our planning commission and development policies are ruled by...developers. Developers think like this: More rules = higher quality product = more expensive = less profit for me.

They are not playing the long game of improving a particular neighborhood, which would allow them to increase profits due to higher commercial leases and greater desirability for the whole area. That's how an intelligent local property owner who has a stake in the neighborhood and understands urban design would behave.  That sort of developer would not be bringing in a CVS to this corner.

We're dealing with guys from Alabama or somewhere who have made a deal with an unimaginative property owner in Tulsa.  They have a template, and they know how much profit they can make from that template, and they want that number today. The building will last 20 years and then it will be replaced with something else.  Maybe by then, if we haven't ruined Cherry Street with too much of this sort of crap, the land will be so valuable, they'll want to develop in an intelligent urban way.

But as slow as Tulsa is to make changes to the status quo, 20 years may not be enough time.  We can only hope that the right old geezers die off, and the right young people stick around.  Then maybe we'll see more positive change.

they are tearing down the homes that their customers live in.

Don't worry.  With all that parking, their customer base can spread far and wide!  Who needs neighbors when you can have parking lots! (And increased road maintenance, and expensive lane widening projects, and reduced property taxes, and...)

You pretty much described how the Brady District has done it right. Local guys holding and building out properties for the long term. I might not love all the development that has gone in there, but there hasn't been anything cringe worthy IMO. Much as I am critical of Sager, same story in the Blue Dome.

and traffic gridlock on an already busy intersection.

There are nice 3-4 story office buildings on the SE and SW corners of that intersection.  It's at the end of a block of offices.  Could they not have built a nice urban office building with CVS as a ground floor tenant?  It would at least look nicer and fit better with one of the only urbanish quasi pedestrian neighborhoods in our city.

So...How do we get this shot down.....???

+1

I mean people that live in that area have to get even minor things approved on their residences but you can build a shitbox CVS around the corner.....

You won't be able to shoot it down.  Not with this planning commission. But you might be able to tweak it slightly.  Maybe.

It's a PUD, so technically everything is up for debate/negotiation.  With the current planning commission, the whole thing will be rubber stamped b/c...you know...property rights. If you're lucky, INCOG staff will work to improve it somewhat, before the final product is sent to the TMPAC, but you never know.

In the best case scenarios, a lawyer lives in the adjacent neighborhood and has the time and inclination to meet with neighbors and then negotiate with developers.  This is asinine, but that's how it works when you develop your city by a thousand PUDs instead of by neighborhood planning and long-range vision.  Since the developer always has a lawyer, it puts local residents at a disadvantage.

In typical fashion, the neighbors ask for intelligent things like better landscaping, lighting and signage, less stucco, fewer driveways and less parking.  Then the developer says they can't do any of that but maybe they'll do a 20' tall sign instead of a 24' sign.  Then they go before the planning commission and talk about how they met with the neighbors and changed the plan to meet their needs and everyone is satisfied with the plan.

In the end, you still get a lousy, car-centric design.  If they are developing the PUD in pieces, they get the whole project approved before they have a clue what they're going to build.  Then they get amendment after amendment, until the final product looks nothing like the thing that was originally approved.

That’s not entirely true.

There have been PUD’s shot down by the planning commission due to neighborhood concerns within the last year.  These were lot split issues in the midst of neighborhoods that I am aware of.

Since this already has commercial properties abutting the neighborhood you likely cannot stop the development, but the 14th Place entrance/exit, lighting, and signage should all be reasonable issues to tweak.

As far as the poor taste in design, not a damn thing you can do about that.

Well...I know the property owner won't listen to reason.......I'm a bit surprised it's going this route.....

How many more parts of midtown will be degraded by CVS?  This is an important corner that could've been much better, i.e. commercial development with CVS as a ground floor tenant up to the corner.  

Boom..!!!...We may have to release the beetles.....

As far as I can tell, this is a Mixed Use Corridor in the Comp Plan land use map. (It's hard to tell b/c there are 3 shades of pink that are nearly indistinguishable.)

Recently, both the TMAPC and the City Council unanimously approved a PUD for a parking lot in a Mixed Use Corridor (it was supporting a single business that already had ample parking, so it wasn't benefiting any "mix" of uses).  So, as you can see, this designation doesn't mean anything to the Tulsa Metropolitan Rubber Stamp Committee.

If we lived in cities that took planning seriously, and understood the implications, we could have standards in place for walkable urban areas.  But just try to get an overlay in this part of town and watch a couple big boys scream.  (Of course, if they were really big boys, they'd live in big boy cities that already have design guidelines in important corridors.)

The parcels appear to be the "Mixed-Use Corridor" pale pink, and are within an "Area of Growth" (on a different map).

But I don't think the land use map has much credibility or usefulness.  In my opinion, creating that map was a huge waste of time.  And the same for the parcel-specific stability/growth map -- a waste of resources and time during the Planitulsa process.  The comp plan maps were intended to be generalized, not parcel-specific.


The TMAPC makes recommendations to the City Council.  I don't know which PUD case you're describing (Harley-Davidson, perhaps??), but if the City Council unanimously revised the zoning map to create a PUD for a parking lot, then the City Council did the important rubber stamping, the rubber stamping that actually changed a city ordinance.  The TMAPC can rubber stamp an applicant's PUD proposal for a big parking lot, but only the City Council can amend the zoning map.  Are you combining the TMAPC and the City Council into one single rubber stamp committee?

Who defines what a "Mixed-Use Corridor" is?  Who decides which parcels will be shown in "Mixed-Use Corridor" pale pink on the land use map?

Helmerich Park is "Park and Open Space" green on the land use map.  So what? 

After hours and hours of studying land use patterns and mapping individual parcels, the Fregonese team categorized Turkey Mountain as an "Existing Neighborhood."  In my opinion, Turkey Mountain would fit the "Park and Open Space" category, but the Fregonese team chose the "Existing Neighborhood" pale yellow for Turkey Mountain instead.

There isn't a good reason to spend time and tax dollars creating inaccurate and relatively useless maps.  There's no need to have them, and no need to look at them.

Soooo...We need to get on our councilors donkey respective to district.....???

The City Council mostly rubber stamps what the TMAPC advises.  Most of them became councilors for reasons other than caring about urban design and land use.  They tend to have different priorities and areas of focus. I would say that Blake is the only one who truly understands urban design.  But remember that they are all limited by our lousy zoning code and what it allows.  (Though I would argue a PUD is open season for negotiation.) (Many people in this town would argue that "property rights" means the ability to do anything you want with your property, so we disagree on that one.)

The other line of defense is INCOG staff, which is now under competent management by people who care.  So staff will begin reviewing the proposal and will work with the developer to help them understand the implications.  Again, they are limited by our lousy zoning code, but they are professionals and they do get it, so hopefully, they can make some impact.

To add some context, if you recall Dan Patten's run for Blake's council seat last year, his main substantive platform issue was precisely that property rights means the ability to do whatever you want to do with your property. There has always been an element in Tulsa that wants to emulate Houston by at least de facto repealing the zoning ordinances. If actual repeal isn't possible, benign neglect is an option. On the other hand, Blake can claim a mandate to stay on the developers wrt design issues such as this.

Houstons zoning would have been an improvement on our zoning.

Which PUD was recently approved?

PUD-837 for another parking lot for the Myers Duren Harley Davidson place.  Demolished two more residential homes prior to rezoning application.  I was surprised, b/c I've never seen a PUD for a parking lot.  Lame.

Our neighborhood on the northside of Cherry Street doesn't have any historical designation or protection.  I think Yorktown to the South has some restrictions so our corner probably was an easy target.

The developer apparently fought INCOG for several months refusing to move the building to the corner.  They finally gave in and submitted a new site plan.  The building now is to the corner.  It looks better than most CVS's and has less parking that we've come to expect for something like this, but it still doesn't fit the Utica Midtown Corridor Plan.  It isn't mixed use, the main entrance is not on the street, and the parking lot to the north leaves a big gap on Utica  killing any chance at true walkability/connectivity.  The "walkable" corner also is a drive thru separated by a partial brick wall.  The neighborhood at a minimum is pushing to close the entrance on 14th Place.  

Here are the new drawings in case anyone is interested.  The hearing was continued to December 2nd.

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/CVS%201_zpsbwdhveaz.jpg)

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/CVS%202_zpssumlhash.jpg)

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/CVS%203_zps5s1uwggu.jpg)

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/CVS%204_zpsiaq5uqje.jpg)

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/CVS%203_zps5s1uwggu.jpg)

Still a hideous unneeded smile box......

Kudos for INCOG actually sticking up for, well, for itself I guess. A definite improvement. but it's funny that they are throwing such a fit, they've done more urban oriented designs all over the place (quick Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=urban+CVS+design&safe=active&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1099&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRudilj6fJAhXJjz4KHWBaB40Q_AUIBygC#imgdii=DEsLuj_6s3-KdM%3A%3BDEsLuj_6s3-KdM%3A%3Bktp_tHqTDxSZ6M%3A&imgrc=DEsLuj_6s3-KdM%3A)). Are they less profitable, more expensive to build, or they just don't want to and think that they can do as they please in Tulsa (sales tax revenue!!!!1!!1!!!).

I understand (but dislike) the push back from mix-use - it makes CVS a landlord and that's not the business model. But this design seems like they are torturing it in order to keep the "main entrance" facing away from the street and the drive thru next to the sidewalk. Utterly ignoring the concept of walk-ability. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the drive-thru on the east side of the building, the main entrance on the NW corner, angled towards the east and easily accessible from most of the parking. The parking to the east would be employee parking. This still caters to the car culture and parking lot, but would totally front the building and have two signage spots (above the entrance, at at the corner of Utica and 15th).

Not sure what the drawback would be. Doesn't seem like it would interfere with their standard store layout.

Nonetheless, making design progress.

After all the investment in making the section of Cherry St. just west of this site more pedestrian-oriented, this seems to thumb it’s nose at it.  Definitely an improvement over the original site plan, but we still don’t seem to have common sense planning and design.

Moving in the right direction.  Keep at it until the entrance is moved to the corner or at least along 15th.  Otherwise this does nothing for walkability. 

Cannon Fodder the reason it seems like they are torturing the designs is because they are, Most major brands like this have a extremely detailed list of requirements that have to be met by the developer that is building on the site. I have seen some that are so long that they require binding them. The other problem is that major brands like this don't like to change from there "Standard" store, so for a developer to get a variation or exclusion from the list of requirements about 12 people have to approve it. And as the joke goes "A Camel, is a Horse designed by a committee"

I give it up to INCOG for at least trying to fight and not just roll over like they usually do.   

They've done up to the sidewalk with the drive thru and parking in back.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.465739,-112.0734616,3a,75y,170.45h,94.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMn67Z6rMJQtqSliQQddh4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.465739,-112.0734616,3a,75y,170.45h,94.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMn67Z6rMJQtqSliQQddh4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

Thanks for the update, DowntownDan.

About two weeks ago, I stopped for gas at the Conoco station on that corner.  While I was there, a couple pulled up to the pump in front of me.  They got agitated when they saw the yellow TMAPC sign.  At least one of them intended to attend the Nov 18th meeting to oppose CVS's plan, but since I did not attend that TMAPC meeting myself, and I haven't watched it on TGOV, I'm not sure if either one of them went.

I probably won't attend on Dec 2nd, but I might get an email to the TMAPC by then.  CVS's proposal, even as modified, isn't an improvement over what's there now.  It's hideous.

Thanks for the link!

Did you notice the word "BEAUTY" stuck on the McDowell Road facade?   :) 

Street view shows this location boarded up all the way back to 2008.  :-\

That's  an illusion. The walls that face the street are the back walls of the building. The entrance is on the NEWS corner of the building, the drive through is on the SE side in the parking lot. If you look on the 1st  Street view on the east of it you will see that it is open.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.465247,-112.0725971,3a,75y,276.57h,83.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHIfb4DXShviQbXNYTYw0UA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.465247,-112.0725971,3a,75y,276.57h,83.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHIfb4DXShviQbXNYTYw0UA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

It's to the corner, with an ocean of parking on both sides of the sidewalk.  It's still not right for what the small area plan has envisioned for the area.  The parking lot to the north kills walkability that direction of the corridor.  Before they develop this corner into anything, office, retail, restaurant, they need a parking solution that avoids it looking like the Stillwater National Bank and Arvest buildings across the street which are multi story office buildings but have oceans of parking abutting both 15th and Utica.  I'd like to see the large lot across the street, the big one that's been empty for years, developed with a smart urban parking structure (businesses on street level) and share that parking with Cherry Street and a mixed us office building on this corner.  CVS can even take the bottom floor of the parking structure. 

I know that none of this is easy, but my understanding of the small area plan was to set out what we want.  Let's figure out how to get there instead of trying to build things that don't fit because it's "too hard" to build for an urban environment.  If it never materializes, fine, but lets not give up just a few months after finalizing the plan.

At first glance (and with low resolution, I can't see the details), I think they did a number of things right.  For Tulsa, this is a big step forward.  Yes, it's a crap national chain lacking in any sort of architectural appeal. OK. True.  It's going to last about 25 years before it gets updated or demolished for something else.  So, whatever.

What's good about this? The big parking lot is in the back.  Think of this parking lot as "future developable space" (if Tulsa ever gets busy with transit).  That could become mixed use with apartments above, once everyone realizes that it's not needed for parking.  Also the building is set up to the street, but there is some buffer space, so if/when the building is adopted to a different use, there would be room for patio dining. The narrow parking lot on the side is a pretty good compromise.  Usually, you want to see all parking behind the building, but what's the "back" when you're on a corner?  To me, this is a big improvement.  I would eliminate the driveway on 14th PL, but it's important that pedestrian access is maintained.  Yes, it could be better.  (Is the drive-thru really along Utica?) But given the limitations of Tulsa leadership, I think Incog has done a great job to get this far.  Kuddos to the staff, who, unlike the TMAPC, actually understands why this stuff matters.

Update @ 12:11 pm: Holy crap! The drive thru goes along Cherry Street????? OK, this is stupid! I take it all back!

Two steps forward one step back.  Really if they did the following it would be much more in line with the plan for this area:
1. Move the drive-thru to the east side of the building
2. Move the main entrance to the corner
3. Eliminate the curb cut/drive on 14th Pl

It sucks alll the way around.......

Unless he's sold it (possible) that is owned by John Bumgarner.  If he could develop something there like Utica Plaza/Utica Place (his previous projects) with some kind of ground floor retail on 15th that would be a nice infill project for that site.  I'm surprised it has sat there empty for so long.  

Excellent edit on your update, PonderInc!

I'm so glad you take it all back, because the narrow parking along the side is awful.  There's a historic house on that portion of the site now, used as an office.  I'd rather have the existing house than a CVS parking strip for a couple of reasons:
1. The house with its own parking area is more beautiful and interesting than a strip parking lot alongside a very, very, very ugly building.
2. The house is office space, which means the site is currently mixed use.  That's better than a single use (retail) for this PUD in a mixed use corridor.

And, yes, the drive thru is incredibly stupid.

Yep.  One of the worst proposals I've seen.
It's awful.

Extremely disappointing.....A very whorish development....

Is it Bumgarner? It has to be.

It's like the developer is just trying to be an a$$hole.

Hearing is tomorrow at 1:30 before TMAPC.  It'll be the first test of the Utica Midtown Corridor Small Area Plan and if it really means anything.

Not directly, but I think one of his companies owns the cool old brick house/office building next door that is part of the PUD and set for demolition.  He doesn't own the gas station or the medical office.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1405811,-95.9665515,3a,75y,2h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAK4d-Vy3xFzkzF1mIkmWWQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAK4d-Vy3xFzkzF1mIkmWWQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D2.6934493%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1405811,-95.9665515,3a,75y,2h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAK4d-Vy3xFzkzF1mIkmWWQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAK4d-Vy3xFzkzF1mIkmWWQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D2.6934493%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)

Several commissioners were unhappy with the design, it's lack of mixed use to conform to the Utica Midtown Corridor Small Area Plan, and that the drive thru is on the corner which is envisioned to be pedestrian friendly.  They want a better design and for CVS to shut down the 14th Place entrance, which CVS claims is essential to the project.  They have until December 16 to submit a better proposal.  We'll see if they come up with a better, smarter design or if they abandon the project.  The proposal was just their regular box design flipped around and with fake brick exterior.  Coming up with a more creative urban design to fit the small area plan will require actual work and they may not be up to the task.

Kudos!

Actually asking a retailer/developer to submit a design that fits with the plan - woohoo!

Whoa whoa whoa...That's not the Tulsa way.

They'll submit a new design, get it approved, and file numerous variances.

The Tulsa way

 (http://doorcountydailynews.com/shared/inc/client/28/articles/images/1211455015-CVSstore.jpg)

With our Form-Based Codes that would be a snap.... oh, wait...

(http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/66908276.jpg)

Tulsa is so slow to understand basic economics.  A mixed-use building generates 2X, 3X, 4X or more tax dollars for the same SF of land as a single-story building.

Great cities understand this.  They like getting a good return on the cost of their public infrastructure.  They like doing cool stuff with all those extra tax dollars.

Minneapolis understands this:
(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CVS-Minneapolis.jpg)

(Why wouldn't Tulsa want this?)

Mixed-use would be ideal (and the smartest decision for the city of Tulsa... which shouldn't throw away tax dollars in prime real estate areas). 

However, even car-centric Phoenix can do better job of creating walkable places than the stupid design that was submitted here in Tulsa.
(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CVS-Phoenix.jpg)

For cities like Tulsa that can't understand the simple math of mixed-use, this is a baby step called "first, do no harm."  Because walkability adds value, even if you're not maximizing tax revenues.

That's actually Mill & University in Tempe right next to ASU, and one of the most heavily foot traffic areas in the valley. There are ~40,000 undergrad students there, and most every weekend it's easier to walk or bike that area.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/asu-1081 (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/asu-1081)

http://www.downtowntempe.com/ (http://www.downtowntempe.com/)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/CVS+Pharmacy+-+Photo/@33.4205198,-111.9365863,16z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x872b08d75813ec7f:0xb4775241fddcc041?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/place/CVS+Pharmacy+-+Photo/@33.4205198,-111.9365863,16z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x872b08d75813ec7f:0xb4775241fddcc041?hl=en)

Thanks for the correction on location.

However, this is a good example of a "walkable" design in a car environment.  The intersection in Tempe has 2 lanes of traffic in either direction, some with 3 protected turn lanes, and one with 3 travel lanes.  You have to walk over 90' to cross the street in any direction. (Compare that to cherry street where the pedestrian crossings are 75' or so, and where the maximum is two lanes each way with a single turn lane on Utica only).

Similar to 15th and Utica, however, this example appears to be at the edge of a walkable environment.  Just down the street on Mill, it narrows down to one lane each way with on-street parking and a bike lane.  In the other direction, it opens up to 3 auto-lanes each way.

Based on the building design, however, it looks like Tempe wants future growth to be walkable, not car-centric.  We can learn from this.

Anything on Utica from 21st to I-244 absolutely should be built with pedestrians in mind.  It has rightfully been planned as a mixed-use corridor and has two of the city's biggest employers (the hospitals) and one of its main retail centers as anchors, as well as being adjacent to Cherry Street and 11th which will be a pedestrian-focused corridor in the future (not there yet).  

Buildings are a big part of it but making the streetscape more inviting should be a future city project.  Outside of Peoria (244 to Brookside) and 11th St (Peoria to Yale) I can't think of a more important corridor for future mixed-use development outside of downtown Tulsa.

That area of Tempe has been a walkable space since forever as I understand, and yes IIRC they required CVS to build that way. Mill Ave. has been reconstructed a few times to make it more pedestrian friendly since the 70's when ASU started growing, but they had a good walkable space to begin with and have done a lot to maintain it. For perspective though, that part of Mill Ave is only 3/8 of a mile long, and from the CVS to Tempe Town Lake is just over a 1/2 mile away.

Yes, you don't have to go very far from there to return to a more autocentric design, but there are several cities in Maricopa county that are revitalizing similar areas and they are sticklers for what is built in those areas to keep those areas walkable.

If you can get the wonderful people in the ice cube, and it sounds like there is some rethinking going on (about damn time btw) maybe you can get a better development.

The loss of density on Utica can be directly attibuted to the construction of 51 through the Forrest Orchard neighborhood and to everyone's favorite Tulsa developer. Oh, and Tulsa's terrible zoning rules.

Some poster here once referred to the neighborhood as a collection of POS properties when I complained about tearing down a nice little two story quad apartment building from the 1920's just west of Utica on 14th place. Now its vacant land.

The first home I sold as a realtor was on 14th place. A lovely little bungalow. Future plans for the area at that time included commercial/industrial zoning but the buyer felt the same way I did. We couldn't see the city writing off the neighborhood. Either there isn't a plan for protecting the area or its not being followed due to name brand pressure.

Has anyone heard anything?

The TMAPC today voted CVS down 5-4.  The small area plan has prevailed by the skin of its teeth.  They mostly disliked the drive-thru on the corner.  Were not for that, it would have passed.  On to City Council.

At the previous hearing the commissioners took issue with the drive-thru on the corner.  CVS had submitted a new proposal but did not change the drive-thru.  In fact, they clarified that the drive thru would go below grade by about 3 feet, so pedestrians on the corner would be separated from the building not only by the drive thru-lane, but three feet in elevation, separated by a 3 foot wall.  The only change they made was to close down the 14th place entrance, which was appreciated and was one of the major points of contention.  But their insistence on the drive-thru did them in.

http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Agendas/12-16-15/PUD-437-A.pdf (http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Agendas/12-16-15/PUD-437-A.pdf)

Great news

Just FYI, since the TMAPC denied the application, it will not go to the City Council, unless an appeal is filed.

Since it was 5-4, I can see them paying the $15 to give it a shot with City Council.  They might also try to get the City Council to give them another chance to change the site plan under the current application.  If they are required to try again later through a new application, I think they will fall under the new zoning code taking effect January 1.  I haven't had time to review the new zoning code thoroughly enough to know if it would be more or less helpful to them but I think PUDs are dead under the new code.  I don't know if applications to amend current PUDs are processed the same or different under the new code.  I'll take some time to read it over the next few weeks and figure it out. 

Anyway, it's important to note that this would have passed had it not been for the drive-thru on the corner.  My fear is "be careful what you wish for."  If the next proposal is worse, but doesn't have a drive through, it will likely pass.  I take heart that some of the commissioners were committed to walkability and the small area plan.  I'm a little concerned that some didn't care about walkability and believed that cherry street ended at Utica.  One commissioner even said that trying to make that corner walkable would be like "putting lipstick on a pig."  Thanks commissioner for saying that a major intersection on one of the only urban walking districts in town is a pig. 

love yes....!!!......Lets hope this smile hole does not get built in this location.....

Or if it does it should be part of a larger mixed-use development with a corner entrance, glass along Utica and 15th, drive-thru on the side.  The best option would be to combine this with office space above with the parking lot underneath the offices closer to 14th.  The only curb cuts allowed would be one on Utica and one on 15th.

In the new zoning code, if a PUD application is in process prior to 1-1-16, it will be processed as a PUD.

Starting in January, instead of PUDs, we'll start seeing MPDs (Master Planned Development).  The MPD is very similar to a PUD, except it isn't constrained by the "underlying" zoning. (Thus, it's a PUD on steroids, limited only by the developer's imagination and the wisdom and intelligence of the TMAPC and City Council.)  (Uh-oh.) They will actually be similar to Corridor zoning, in which the developer can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as it's approved by the planning commission.  So everything from building height to setbacks to signage to parking to landscaping all gets proposed in the developer's application.  If it gets approved, that's your zoning for that place.

The MPD goes against the Comprehensive Plan's clear statement to eliminate one-off / ad hoc zoning.

However, there are a couple very interesting lines in the zoning code related to MPDs.

There's good stuff in section 25.070-D 2 Supplemental Review and Approval Criteria

Among the criteria mentioned, an MPD needs to be consistent with adopted plans, and it needs to "result in public benefits that are equal to or greater than those that would have resulted from development under conventional zoning regulations." 

Another criteria is: "Whether appropriate terms and conditions have been imposed on the approval to protect the interests of surrounding property owners and residents, existing and future residents of the MPD and the general public."

Mr. Dix, who likes nothing better than approving pig-like developments in historic neighborhoods, may find it harder to justify his actions in the new system.  I guess time will tell.

Good thinking, but you're wrong. Those are platitude and completely subjective.

"We determine that the [insert beloved building] here is past its useful life and not viable for rehabilitation.  The area is better served by new construction that conforms to all modern codes and has a long useful life. Such construction being unlikely to happen under conventional zoning, deviation represents a great public benefit. All surrounding property owners and residence will benefit from said new construction and the general public will see increased tax revenue."

COPY, PASTE. Minutes of meeting done!

Yes, but we now have intelligent professional planners in INCOG's Development Services department.  Unlike during the Wayne Alberty years, we now have qualified people who care.  I think they will demand a better product than in previous decades.  Fingers crossed.  We'll see.

CVS has appealed to City Council and it will be heard on Thursday at 6:00 pm.  They have revised the plan since TMAPC voted them down by moving the drive thru from the corner to the side and configuring the entrance oddly along the northwest corner of the box building near the sidewalk, but not directly facing it.  On the corner is a friggin window which will not be transparent, but spandrel glass. 

They have refused to come up with any sort of creativity in the design for that unique corner or to offer anything in the realm of walkability, mixed use, or anything else required by the small area plan.  It they want that corner, at the end of one of the only urban walking neighborhoods in town, they really need to put some effort into fitting in with the neighborhood.  Smaller footprint, mixed use building, no drive thru (a planning commissioner mentioned that he has seen urban pharmacies with designated parking spaces and a screen to pick up prescriptions that are hand delivered, as opposed to an actual drive thru), or anything else really.  This is what they build everywhere.  Drive by a "brick facade" CVS anywhere else in town.  They look terrible and nothing like the drawings.  It's not genuine brick laying, it's plasterboard with thin brick facade, and anyone with eyes can tell.  Please help us kill this suburban monstrosity proposed for Cherry Street.

https://drive.google.com/a/okstatealumni.org/file/d/0B4Dqzlhdnu6jNlhtSFAtUDQ4UEE/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/a/okstatealumni.org/file/d/0B4Dqzlhdnu6jNlhtSFAtUDQ4UEE/view?usp=sharing)

CVS apparently really does not like facing corners of busy intersections. This is one about 50 feet from the West Village in Dallas. It doesn't have the weird drive through along the main street, but has the nice fake front door, so that makes it all better.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8069052,-96.7976886,3a,75y,283.86h,90.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szxHnPTq7ChCrav1hxdvyrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8069052,-96.7976886,3a,75y,283.86h,90.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szxHnPTq7ChCrav1hxdvyrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Thanks for sharing that they appealed this. I was actually driving by this corner yesterday and thought "Thank god that CVS got denied". I have hope the council will follow through with TMAPC's denial since it sounds like they didn't change much from the original concept. Is that link the updated plans? I tried to open it, but it says it is private?

I think I fixed the link.  Should work now.

Significantly better than the last incarnation. I can't tell from the drawings if this is "fake brick" or not.  Sure, the door is in the wrong place.  But if it does get approved and built, then in 20 years when it's abandoned and re-purposed, someone could put a real door on the corner where it belongs.  It's a step in the right direction.  The parking areas could be future development space if Tulsans ever embrace transit, cycling and walkability.

I think the small area plan calls for two-story, mixed use.  This is definitely not that.  As far as a CVS goes, this is pretty decent.  Could it be better? Absolutely.  Could it suck way more?  Yep.  It will be interesting to see how much the City Council is willing to respect the neighborhood plan.

It's partial brick on particle board.  During a college summer I worked in a prefab wall factory and that's part of what we did to make fast food and box store "brick" facade.  Drive by any CVS in the suburbs with fake brick.  It's obviously fake.  And these buildings do not convert well to other uses.  We need a two story real brick building on that corner.  CVS can move in on the ground floor with a smaller footprint urban model.  Don't give us the same thing you build everywhere else.  That was the whole purpose of the small area plan.

It's much better and when I saw the new rendering my first reaction was "I could go with that."  But on further reflection I am like "It may actually be worse that there is a dead zone on the corner there than had it been a parking lot."  Intersections are very important.  In most cities those are the "champion" really attractive, bustling places where people meet up, where there is lots of activity, that say "here we are at..."  If everything at that intersection was up to the sidewalk but devoid of entrances and exits, it's still a dead intersection for pedestrians and transit, and for anyone really.

All we are doing here is turning this intersection into denser areas of Dallas where there are lots of buildings but nobody out walking.

I will use my Walt Disney example again.  Walt was giving a reporter a tour of DisneyLand just before it opened and he said "And wait until the biggest attraction gets here!" and the reporter said "What's that?"  Walt said "The people!"

It's the people out and about that make an area like this attractive, that give it life and indeed increase the areas desirability to other developers and businesses, and increases property values. It takes a different set of criteria to create good urban spaces than it does to create good suburban style ones. The rules are just different for each. 

They are so close with this.  It's a tough call.  I hate being someone who "tells people what to do with their property" but you know, unfortunately for us free market leaning people, we also have to realize that this building affects a shared public realm.  And that can be far more true in an urban infill environment than a suburban one.  What they do affects other properties.  It affects our shared spaces, the streets and sidewalks that we all pay for, our shared investments in transit, etc.  In an area that we want to be pedestrian/transit lively, the sidewalks are just as important as the roads are in a suburban type area. Where the entrances and exits are on a building are just as important here, though perhaps different, as where the entrances and exits are on a suburban road, into and out of a parking lot. 

I'm pragmatic.

In my dreams this building would be an L shape generally resembling the Fairfield Inn at the Brady District. 3 or 4 stories. Real brick. Occupying the frontage of the entire lot with structure parking tucked away on the ground and a ramp (that would likely occupy floor 3 on this small lot). The entrance would be a "drive through" the building. The CVS could still occupy the corner space and it would put apartments up above in an area desperate for more apartment.

BUT...

I also understand that CVS is a $110 Billion corporate machine that makes money by sticking cookie cutter stores on corners that fit a certain demographic. It's a formula. They hate deviating from that formula - but will to make money. The City has forced them to make some basic changes. Is it a dream plan? No. Could we force them to build a second story? Maybe, maybe they walk away.

But if we, the "smart development" types, are never satisfied short of our perfect - people stop trying to meet us half way. This new plan is a significant step in the right direct.  It maintains an urban feel if not contributing much to the actual urban density. I wish they would what they did with the "car wash" lot and embrace it, but we are moving in the right direction.

I think the height and density aspects are secondary to the "pedestrian lively" and this is on a main corner/intersection aspects.  Those two things I could give up far far more easily.

Just one more thing and I would be fine.  Put the door on the corner or even actually on the side of the building. It's just so odd urban wise to see something like this without the doors near or on the corner, or on the street facing sides? Who does that? lol  

But, I think this is ok long term, not the end of the world.  BUT, then you have to wonder, if you let this go with them violating several factors,,, then does that set a precedence for the next guy who comes in and says he doesn't want to do this or that?  How do you hold the line if there is no line?

As far as I can tell, this is one of the first "tests" if you will of the new comprehensive plans "small area" plans.  What message will this send? 

The property owners all agreed "what to do with their property" when the small area plan became effective.  The community decided what that corridor would be.  Density and walkability were finally something more than things people talked about.  It was in writing, signed by city leaders, neighbors, and property owners.  If "be near the sidewalk" was all that was required, the plan would be two pages.  It's more than 100.  

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the plans desire for density in the urban environment.  This project would demolish the two story tudor home/law office next door, and the three story medical building to the north, along with the gas station, and replace it with a single floor single purpose box store.  That strays so far from the plan that I'm astonished how much trouble we're having convincing people.  

The non-transparent window on the corner is equally offensive to the plan.  They have done nothing to try to meet the plan other than make the roof slightly higher (which will be empty space and for aesthetics only) and moved closer to the sidewalk.  That's literally the only difference between this and what's at 21st and Harvard, or any of them in the suburbs.  The small area plan outlined what the corridor is supposed to look like.  This is the first test under the plan.  If it passes, the plan isn't worth the years of work and the paper its written on.  It becomes the equivalent of us talking about it and nothing more.  It is written down, vetted, and approved by the stakeholders.  Why is it all of a sudden meaningless?

Those who feel there is an economic benefit to being in this market will meet us half way.  We need to show we have self-esteem when it comes to planning and design, especially as we try to add quality infill to the city’s interior, and stick to it.

Same with any proposed commercial development along our river.  I’m tired of barely-improved layup slab design with an under-utilized sea of parking being the norm with every national brand that comes to Tulsa.

Very good points!

Trader Joes, unfortunately. Which is sad because Brookside is one place where people actually can walk on the sidewalk to go shopping.

No problem in convincing me...

I agree completely.


Today, I looked at the backup documents for the City Council agenda.  The drawings indicate extensive use of storefront near the street corner entrance.  Are you certain it's to be glazed with spandrel panels or some other type of non-transparent material?

Look at it this way, they could have gone with the huge set-back and parking out front, flat-donkey pulled a Quik Trip.  Give credit where credit is due on this one.

If you're for smarter development on Cherry Street, please consider coming to City Hall at 6:00 pm tonight.  All we're asking is that CVS put some effort into an urban design to better fit the neighborhood.  The planning commission turned them down and one of the commissioners, Ted Reed I believe, told them to put some effort into the architecture to fit the neighborhood.  Their response was to move a few things on their prototype box.  The small area plan calls for smarter structures.  Multiple functional floors.  Density, likely meaning a smaller footprint than their used to. None of this is unreasonable.

The most important part about what happens today is that a precedent will be set as to whether the Small Area Plans mean anything.  This is the first major test.  The people who worked with PlanIt Tulsa took months and drafted very long detailed plans on what our city will look like.  This doesn't conform.  If this is allowed with all of its deviations, then the Small Area Plans are meaningless and were a waste of peoples' time and vision.  I hope that people can see this and, particularly, the city council.  

I really wish I could...I hate what is allowed to build in Tulsa. 

If CVS is unwilling to adjust their plans then screw 'em.

A shithole CVS has no place here......

Councilors sent it back to TMAPC, set for next Wednesday, April 20.  Then back to City Council a month later.  The writing is on the wall.  As long as the drive thru is on the east side, which it's latest site plan does, it's gonna get approved.  The developer will work with us on landscaping and street scaping but their bottom line is that they need a drive thru, they need the entire footprint, and no second floor.  We're gonna keep fighting for the small area plan, but a slightly better than the suburbs CVS will be there within a year.

So the small area plan with the new TMAPC has slightly more weight than the old one, but in the end... if you want to build something you just have to be willing to whine long enough and it will be approved.  Sad that I'm satisfied (not happy) with a standard store move around a bit.

Overall, how many square feet of building are we losing? Ergo, how much density are we losing?

INCOG is very proud that they got the building to the corner with fake brick exterior and the door slightly near the sidewalk.  Apparently their first proposal was identical to 21st and Harvard.  Even I'll admit that's something, but they act like it fits the plan 90%.  I say its right about 50%.  That's not good enough.

As far as density, they're tearing down the two story medical building to the north and the two story tudor home/law office to the east, along with the gas station at the corner, and replacing it with a single floor, single purpose, box store.  That's the worst of it, and nobody in the position of authority seems to care.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1414066,-95.9671133,3a,75y,96.34h,90.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRG8MvD_ufkpZxTB_YHTccQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1414066,-95.9671133,3a,75y,96.34h,90.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRG8MvD_ufkpZxTB_YHTccQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1405812,-95.9665537,3a,75y,4.58h,86.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMfpbzEy77UFQ_ezrqDMl8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1405812,-95.9665537,3a,75y,4.58h,86.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMfpbzEy77UFQ_ezrqDMl8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Looked it up:

Gas station: 2840 sq ft
Home: 2884 sq ft
Office Building: 5812 sq ft
- - - - - -
11,536

CVS stores are between 11,000 and 15,000 sq. ft.

So technically, we may be gaining density overall.

Here is CVS site criteria:
http://www.cvspharmacyrealty.com/new-location-criteria

But it’s density with a sole purpose, no additional living square footage in the area, and most likely less jobs than you would have if they were to build a two or three story structure for offices above like the opposite corners.

None of that is density. It's square footage, and that doesn't determine density. No one resides in any of those buildings, so there's zero effect on residential density. Depending on how many folks CVS hires, it could affect the density of jobs at that corner, but probably not very much. What it would do is remove diversity of uses at the corner. Instead of 3 distinct uses drawing people to the corner for different reasons, there would be one reason to visit: CVS.

We've argued that to deaf ears.  Not only density, but the mix of uses.  Under the small area plan, it's a "mixed use corridor."  Susan Miller at INCOG tells us that means a mix of uses within the corridor.  There's a gas station across Utica, and a bank accross 15th.  Hence, mixed use.  So the term "mixed-use corridor" has no meaning whatsoever to INCOG.  Every street in town and in the suburbs is a mixed use corridor as long as there's a Supercuts near a McDonalds near a cell phone store near a mattress shop near a vape store.  The planning commission even agreed that because CVS sells drugs and milk and greeting cards, it's a mixed use building.  The small area plan isn't worth the paper it was written on to those who are charged with implementing it.

You all raise great points.  If "mixed use" means a district isn't exclusive to one industry, then I'm hard pressed to find any area outside of a subdivision that isn't "mixed use." We don't have a "hammock" district that just sells hammocks...

I'm afraid you're right. Small Area Plans are usually ignored. Please note the road closing QT as an example.  Find an example where the small area plan won over a developer.

It looks like the TMAPC approved the revised CVS plan today, so it will go back to the City Council.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/planning-commission-approves-site-plan-for-pharmacy-at-th-and/article_b0e73e6e-12e4-5375-9939-e095e67b3eec.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/planning-commission-approves-site-plan-for-pharmacy-at-th-and/article_b0e73e6e-12e4-5375-9939-e095e67b3eec.html)

I wasn't at the meeting, and can't watch the dang TGOV video because I don't have outdated software on my pc... so I don't have any details.

Planning Commission OK With CVS at 15th and Utica

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/planning-commission-ok-cvs-15th-and-utica (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/planning-commission-ok-cvs-15th-and-utica)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/large/public/201604/cvs_15th_utica.png)

CVS: Can we build a CVS at this corner?
City: Sure! Here is the zoning and small area plan for that corner!

CVS: We want to put our standard box on the site, tear down a few buildings, enter from a residential street, not front the building, not have a second story, have a drive through, and have lots of surface parking. Is that cool?
City: Ummm, no. You have to conform to the small area plan.

CVS: How about we move the building up a bit, put more brick on the facade, and add windows and lights to the street front?
City: What about mixed use, multi story, walk able, real brick, excess surface parking and using the residential street as an entrance?
CVS: No, we aren't doing that.
CityL Ok, fine.

CVS: Why won't you give in to any of our demands? This is totally unfair!

What I've been asking for is a unique design, not slight modifications to their regular box.  Here are examples from the internet.  Not great in my opinion, but loads better.  The starting point is that the small area plan requires a building that is two stories in height.  CVS is saying the building will be 30 feet tall.  But there is nothing to make it even appear that there is a second floor of an actual building.  We are pushing hard for a second functional floor, but even if they don't lease it for office space, at least make it a real second floor with windows that could plausibly at some time in the future be used as a functional second floor.

https://nextstl.com/2012/07/how-to-get-a-cvs-that-doesn-t-suck/

https://nextstl.com/2013/04/lindell-cvs/

(https://nextstl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/7591185250_1650ac173f_n.jpg)

I’m sure they are putting in a 400 square foot manager’s loft on the “second story”.

What a steaming pile of dung this has turned into.

There are examples of good designs from around the country. Here are a few:

Carmel, Indiana (a suburb of Indianapolis)
No corner entrance, but gets some other things right.
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-carmel5-e1461359404337.jpg)
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-carmel1-e1461359316216.jpg)


North Kansas City
Seems to be doing fine with an entrance on the street corner and one by the parking lot...
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-NorthKC-1-e1461359378145.jpg)
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-NorthKC-3-e1461359390466.jpg)


Tempe
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-Tempe4-e1461359338395.jpg)
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-Tempe5-e1461359351703.jpg)


Lakewood, Ohio (a suburb of Cleveland)
Not two stories, but gets some things right.
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-lakewood3-e1461359508542.jpg)
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-lakewood1-e1461359664756.jpg)


Kansas City
What they apparently did to the existing storefront windows is bad, but they kept the corner entrance, and guess what...Where's the parking lot? Where's the drive-thru? Will people walk all the way to the corner?
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-kansascity1-e1461359795217.jpg)
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CVS-kansascity3-e1461359828757.jpg)

When this issue goes back to the City Council, I think it ought to be rejected for the following reasons:

1.  What's there now is better aligned with the Small Area Plan than the proposed CVS development is.  There are three buildings on the site now, two have true second floors, one is a historic house.  The existing parking areas are relatively small compared to the proposed parking, and they're separated by some landscaping.  There's a mixture of uses on the site now:  office and commercial retail.  The proposed CVS store will be one single building, one single story, one single use: retail.

2.  The CVS proposal is contrary to the following PlaniTulsa Guiding Principle for Land Use:  "Future development protects historic buildings, neighborhoods and resources while enhancing urban areas and creating new mixed-use centers."  The proposed CVS would not protect historic buildings.  It would destroy one.  It would not create new mixed-use on the site.  It would destroy the existing mixed-use and replace it with a single-use building.

3.  The CVS proposal runs contrary to another Guiding Principle:  "New buildings meet high standards for energy and water efficiency while delivering high quality spaces and architectural design." 

4.  The CVS development review process, so far, has been at odds with a third Guiding Principle:  "Once adopted, city-wide and neighborhood plans are funded, implemented and monitored for performance."

5.  The CVS proposal raises conflicts with a fourth Guiding Principle:  "Development and zoning policies are easily understood, workable and result in predictable development."

6.  The CVS proposal, as approved by the TMAPC, and if approved by the City Council, would be inconsistent with a fifth Guiding Principle:  "Residents have a voice in solving their community’s problems today and are a part of planning for tomorrow."  When the residents had a voice in crafting the Small Area Plan, addressing the problems of single-story, single-use buildings, they thought they were planning for tomorrow...

7.  The CVS proposal, if approved by the City Council, would be the polar opposite to the intent and spirit of a sixth Guiding Principle: "City planning and decision-making is an inclusive and transparent process."  Mixed-use doesn't mean single-use.  A building where milk and drugs and greeting cards are sold is not necessarily a mixed-use building.  A two-story building is not a single-story building.  Protecting historic buildings doesn't mean razing historic buildings.  High quality architectural design doesn't mean a bland, run-of-the-mill standard corporate box, even if it's "customized" by slapping a "Pearl District" or "M.B. Cherry St" logo on it.  Implementing adopted neighborhood plans does not mean ignoring adopted neighborhood plans.           

I've been to that one in North Kansas City. I thought the design was great.

Very well said.  Please send to your city councilor.

So who is on this TMAPC and why did they approve this development?

I'll add something to chew on. Cannonfodder you had looked up the sq. ft. of the building to be torn down and thought it would be interesting to see if we'd loose any tax value even if we are adding sq. ft. with a CVS.

The proposed CVS is 13,301 sq. ft. (unless this has changed with the past revision?)

The total buildings to be torn down is 11,536 sq. ft. on 43,450 sq. ft. of land
Current taxes - $30,887
Current taxable value - $2,087,500

CVS @ 21/Harvard
13,146 sq. ft. building | 52,049 sq. ft. land
Current taxable value - $1,981,000
Current taxes - $29,311

CVS @ 41/Harvard
12,779 sq. ft. building | 66,047 sq. ft. land
Current taxable value - $2,609,400
Current taxes - $38,616

CVS @ Admiral/Sheridan
13,439 sq. ft. building | 73,734 sq. ft. land
Current taxable value - $2,712,700
Current taxes - $38,840

So let's average these and apply it to the proposed CVS

$2.71/sq. ft. of taxes per sq. ft. of building
$0.56/sq. ft. of taxes per land

So if apply these two, the new CVS will produce between $26,905 (based on land ratio) to $36,097 (based on building ratio)... so we could assume an average of those two at $31,501 in property taxes per year.

So in reality we will probably get about $1,000 more a year in property tax/taxable value. Keep in mind, this is for a BRAND NEW building as well - these other building are producing this value at an average age of 52 years. What will this CVS be worth in 52 years if it barely will produce more value at year 1? Is this good business for the city? Is it good business for our schools? No.

Not only is it bad business for our tax base, it doesn't align with the small area plan like others have stated very clearly.
 

Pretty sure a CVS between two major hospitals would bring in more revenue compared to a run down gas station. If not then we need to seriously reevaluate how we tax property in this city.

Sadly based off what the other CVS are taxed in Midtown/Central Tulsa it won't. I would agree that the way we tax a lot of property in the city makes very little sense. A good example would be the refineries. In reality they are some of the most expensive facilities in the State of Oklahoma and they pay probably the lowest ratio of taxes and its because of the way they are assessed. It baffles me.

Sales tax revenue has to be higher for a pharmacy than a gas station and a small office. I think the city will be ahead on that point. But doing things just for sales tax can lead us to become Plano Texas with no soul. Nobody wants that for Tulsa.

The location is ideal for a pharmacy. CVS is the 35th largest business in the world with 7,800 locations including 12 already in the Tulsa area. They know what they are doing and are very successful with lots of loyal customers. There should be a pharmacy on that corner.

But it is not unreasonable to ask for a better design. This corner matters to many people. They have done everything citizens can do to try to make it what they want it to be. Someone has to listen.

I just wish this same passion occurred anywhere else in Tulsa. It is hard for someone who doesn't live in mid-town to care this much about this corner when if this CVS was being built three miles in any other direction none of these people would speak up.  

With sales taxes, yes it will bring in more revenue. About $130,000 per year in sales taxes more if it hits sales of $400/sq. ft.

But what if that office building was renovated into a restaurant and that gas station was bought by say Apple or a another name brand retailer that built a true urban format store there - it would bring in way more revenues in sales taxes than a CVS.

How this should be evaluate is are we increasing value on this corner - and we are clearly not.

Frankly we shouldn't be allowing anything less on this corner than what is being built on a mere 2 blocks away. I'm sure the Car Wash Site development will blow this CVS out of the water in sales taxes collected - so if that's what we are after, this development will fail at this as well. It will fail at increasing property taxes too.

No sales tax on most prescriptions.  Most sales from this store will be exempt.

No need for this shithole on that corner.....

I have relatives in another town that went thru this -- CVS wanted a corner property where a historic restaurant stood, to put the most generic, boxy light-polluted design in their folio on. 
Its refusal was a slam-dunk, and could have been derailed at many levels.  There was no public support (the area was surrounded by pharmacies) yet the project was approved and the restaurant torn down with amazing speed, so obviously there is more to their strategy than the needs of the community.

All it will do is shift sales tax collection from other pharmacies in the area.  It’s a zero sum game in this location.

How does everyone keep missing this one immutable fact of sales tax shift?  Unless there’s new money to spend in the area, we simply change the collection points.  I’m not aware of pharma-tourism being a big deal in our state. 

This intersection is already a mess, the last thing we need to add is to make it a worse mess like the Walgreens/Reasors mess at 15th and Lewis.

I am amazed that city leaders and others often ignore (or pretend to ignore) this fact. Even with REI (which will have some regional draw), the majority of business will just be siphoned off from the dozens of other existing outdoor stores.

The mayor touts new tax revenue but it is usually just taking more of what's there, essentially taking business from other existing places. Huge national chains are great at this. This is why Walmart decimates communities. CVS will further take away from Reasor's/Walgreen's pharmacy and grocery sales.

Speaking of pharmacies in the area, I saw a permit for a pharmacy at 2516 E 15th St:
https://www.buildzoom.com/property-info/2516-e-15th-st-s-tulsa-ok

That is just southeast of the 15th & Lewis Reasors.

Does anyone know anything about this? I had heard something medical was going in but thought it was a dentist.

Could be this: http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21230.0

Bingo!

That makes the CVS even more redundant and unnecessary!

I have no stake in any pharmacy, for or against.  But the sales tax argument is so much stupid noise. What... is someone going to go to St. John's or Hillcrest and then drive 10+ miles to get out of Tulsa to go to a pharmacy unless there is a CVS on this corner?

Within one mile google lists 10 pharmacies. (https://www.google.com/maps/search/pharmacy/@36.140196,-95.9723286,15.29z) Lets pretend 50% are fake (which they aren't, but not all are public) and that 3 more only sell to albino Australian Aborigine Oiler hockey players from the Northwest Territory. There are still 2 pharmacies within a mile. If CVS doesn't move in, someone else will snatch up a great location for something.

I don't want to tell CVS not to go in, but caving isn't called for either.

If the city wants to be able to demand specifics regarding design standards, we have tools in our zoning code that allow us to do that.

If we wanted a Cherry Street design overlay that stretched from Peoria to Utica that called for zero lot line, up to the curb, no pole sign, red brick, transparent glass, minimum parking, minimum building height, etc., we can do that. I would support an overlay in that district.

We do not currently have that, however.

One of the primary problems with this site from a legislative standpoint is the conflict it creates amongst the citizenry.

Some consider it a win that the store is built up to the sidewalk, with brick, with parking in the rear, with the drive-thru hidden, etc., and are happy with the compromises made by the developer.

Some would've been fine with a traditional, stucco wrapped, placed at the back of the lot, parking in front, pole sign out front design and would've just been glad to have been able easily walk to the pharmacy.

Some demand a multi-story building with two real floors and less parking with the entrance on the corner. They don't care that there's a CVS inside, only that it's part of a mixed use building.

Others don't care how it's built as long as it's not a pharmacy.

You see, the target is moving all over the place with this one. The developer has changed the plan 6 times to meet requests made by INCOG staff, Planning Commissioners, neighbors, and me... and there are still people mad. And as I said, some of them are mad about the use. Some are mad about the lack of a second floor. Some are mad that the entrance isn't on the corner. Some believe it will create a traffic problem. Some are just mad.... and some are perfectly fine with it.

Even in this thread, there's no consistency. Is about the number of pharmacies? Is it about the exterior design materials? Is it that it isn't dense enough? Is it about taxes?

If Quik Trip, at 11th and Utica had accommodated the neighbors, professional planning staff, and City Council the way CVS has with this development, we'd have been singing their praises and celebrating the win, and that was in a neighborhood with much more restrictive elements than the Utica Corridor SAP. I like it that our standards are being raised here, believe me. Nobody in elected office has fought harder for these things than I have. I was thrilled to complete the Utica Corridor SAP and then the zoning code update, both of which I was involved directly.

To act like Cherry Street is this beacon of originality that needs to be preserved at all costs is disingenuous, considering a person standing at this intersection will be looking at a couple of banks, a Panera Bread, a Phillips 66, a Ghengis Grill, and a Chipotle. For Crying out loud. There's a CVS in the french quarter. There's a CVS in every urban commercial district of note that I've ever been to. It didn't destroy the integrity of the district. It gave those people a place to buy the types of things people buy in pharmacies - the last second birthday card, diapers, milk, deodorant, toothpaste, halloween candy, and yes, a prescription.

If someone is going to make the case to me that it shouldn't be there, it's going to be a struggle at this point. That design is a remarkable improvement over the typical CVS, it's up the curb, it's 35 feet tall, its parking is in the rear, it's made of brick with windows. It's an urban CVS. Nope, it's not a five story mixed use building with underground parking. No, it's not the absolute best project for that site. I've had to weigh, as an elected person, the lengths to which I'll demand a developer go to transform the project into the best possible use. I feel it's appropriate to demand that they make the project the best that it can be and that it respect the plan. I don't feel like we, as elected people, should ask that the entire nature of the project be altered when we don't have a regulatory system in place on the front end. It's bad form to have developers go through an entire process of design and development, thinking the rules are one way, only to veto their project at the end because it's not an entirely different and more desirable project. This is one of those areas where all nine councilors probably see things differently. This is one of those human things where personal judgment comes into play on a case by case basis. Remember, my argument is for predefined regulations that are more strict and that allow all sides to understand the rules before engagement.

If we want to enforce the ideal, we have to regulate it and communicate it prior to the application process. That's why we're implementing the river corridor overlay. It would have been much easier with the REI developers to produce quality outcomes if the regulatory guidelines were in place when they first came to the table. Bouncing developers around from board to board, city staff person to city staff person, councilor to councilor, all with different ideas, just muddies the waters and frustrates developers. It's stupid.

So, if we want, as a community, to say that our most valuable districts and corridors deserve a higher level of regulation, I agree. I support it. I fought harder than anyone to include these overlays in the zoning code. I just don't support us making up standards on the fly after the developer has already started the process. Small Area Plans are not adequate substitutes for enforceable guidelines and regulations. They are meant to inform the regulation and communicate community intent.

In this case, the suggestions of the SAP and the end product do not appear to me to be out of sync. As this is the subjective part of the debate, our only option, no matter where we come down, is to agree to disagree.

I believe our SAP has served us well in this regard. I believe INCOG staff and I were able to use the SAP to produce better outcomes on the site, not through regulation, but through communication of the community intent. I'm disappointed that some of the neighbors do not feel I've listened or represented them well. I'm even more disappointed that they've accused me of corruption and of not caring about the plan. I maintain that I'm doing my best to listen and to represent the best interests of all of my constituents and that they'd be hard pressed to find anyone in elected office that supports our planners more and who cares more about land use issues. I've spent the last five years working on these things and have become quite well-versed in land use policy and the politics surrounding it.

My belief the land use issues are the most important issues with which we deal on the City Council is not universally held at City Hall. Hopefully others in elected office and in higher ranking staff positions will continue to realize the value of such things, as nothing shapes our city like the way we allow it to be developed. Regardless, I will continue to advocate for smart, progressive land use practices and for the written policy that supports them.

Thanks.

Thank you for the insight Blake, always informative and useful. Even if I don't always agree with you, I always respect your opinion because it is well thought out.

My main take away: the small area plan is a guideline, but it is not a mandatory guideline like a zoning code or an overlay. Something many people know, but gets lost in the discussion too often (I'm definitely guilty here). It certainly makes sense from a developers perspective to complain about moving the goal post. And, it makes sense from a community perspective about being frustrated that the plan isn't being met. CVS had made moves - but neighbors and development wonks want the area plan met.  The source of your frustration was well articulated.

That said, I hope no one is against CVS simply because it is CVS. Even if there was 50 right there, it is their decision to put their money on another pharmacy. Yes its a chain, but just because I prefer Joe Mommas doesn't mean Dominoes shouldn't be welcomed downtown too. My point was that if they chose not to go in, we aren't losing an essential service or likely any tax revenue.

We are in total agreement that the zoning, not just the small area plan, needs to be updated. CVS can meet the small area plan if they want, they've done it before. As you mentioned, there are CVS's in the French Quarter:

(http://i.imgur.com/cTcIeXOl.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/WGvZ1jUl.jpg)

By why spend the extra money and deviate from your standard business model unless the zoning code says you have to?

Thanks, Blake, for taking the time to contribute to the discussion. You are the first and only city councilor I can remember who actually "gets" urban design and the importance of land use decisions.  No other elected official has been a stronger advocate for walkability, transit and intelligent urban design.

For anyone who did not sit through the years of meetings related to updating our zoning code, you have no idea how hard Blake worked to include regulatory tools to help enhance and protect neighborhoods.  This was an epic battle because of the power and connections of a lot of old-school developers who have no desire to change how they've done things for the past 50 years.  (The lame-i-tude of the current administration was a huge factor, too.)

It is important to distinguish between plans that conceive of a vision for an area, and the regulatory tools that enable and enforce that vision.  A small area plan is the first step.

Thanks to the existence of the character overlays which were included in the new zoning code (thanks to people like Blake), we do have a regulatory tool to make that vision a reality.  However, overlays cannot simply be applied to private land without action from the landowners themselves, or by the city council with the backing of a strong majority of area property owners.  This is an appropriate limitation to protect property rights.  We all know the terrible history of redlining, rezoning and "urban renewal" where black communities were destroyed with the stroke of a pen--without their consent and without representation at the table... or even the right to vote.

As much as I'm on the side of neighborhoods, PlaniTulsa and small area planning, I think you have to be reasonable and recognize that Tulsa is doing something new and important here.  For the first time in memory, INCOG staff is asking developers to meet the intent of the SAPs.  Members of the TMAPC are saying: "You either have a plan or you don't.  If you have a plan, it should be taken seriously."  We have started to push back and demand quality, not just rubber stamp every crappy proposal to come along.

All of these things have made this proposal significantly better than the original design.  SIGNIFICANTLY.  No, it's not perfect. Rome, as they say, was not built in a day.  Twelve-year-olds can't play in the NBA because they haven't had time to learn the skills and grow into their abilities.  Tulsa is finally growing up and demanding better things.  We are developing self-worth and higher standards.  We are learning to walk.  We want to run.  It's a process.

I'm as impatient as anyone to see Tulsa "get it."  I'm worried I'll be old/dead before we actually reach our potential.  I hate it when we hold ourselves back due to inertia and fear.  But I'm excited by a lot of positive energy right now.  I think we're on our way.

PS: I'm quite certain Cannon Fodder meant "insight." ;)

We might quibble about the need for a pharmacy in this location but I think most of the regular posters on this forum are generally in agreement that we support form over function, and smarter parking and transportation options for these small areas. If CVS wants to build here I'm fine with that, they've done the market research to know if they can compete here. But if or when they leave this spot, smart construction will allow a new use without total demolition and rebuild to suit. Smart construction will fit nicely into the fabric of Cherry street. 

Thanks Blake for your insight and openness on this issue.  I hope that you don't allow the bad arguments to drown out the valid ones.  A lot of us know that traffic and crime and "too many pharmacies" and hatred of national brands aren't things the City Council can regulate.  There will always be neighbors that want to argue and it's their right to do so at an open meeting.  A functional second floor I think is equally as important as the build to zone bringing it to the corner.  I know the city probably can't require the property owner to lease office space but I think the city can press the small area plan's statement about buildings being "two stories".  I don't think its a measurement, it means two floors in relation to density.  Even if it's not rented out immediately, or ever, it's more than aesthetics.  The small area plan calls for denser development along the corridor and it should be a two story building.  CVS can be the only tenant if that's what the property owner wants but the option should be there in case the market changes or if CVS for whatever reason doesn't last long term at that location. To me that's about city planning consistent with the small area plan.

The developer could change the proposal 60 more times, but there would be at least a few angry people, regardless.

For various reasons, most Tulsans aren't interested or concerned about land use and zoning.

The developer is asking for a revision to Tulsa's zoning map, namely, a major amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development which would allow for:
1) bringing the corner Conoco station property into the existing PUD;
2) razing (or otherwise removing) the existing house on 15th and the existing office building on Utica; and,
3) constructing a new CVS store on the combined, enlarged property.

Tulsa's Zoning Code is based around promoting the general welfare of the public.  The purpose of Planned Unit Developments is to allow for more flexible, innovate land use, subject to public review and approval by the City Council.

When a developer asks for a special category of zoning, it's not unreasonable for the public or for the City Council to expect a special, higher-quality development in return.

In my opinion, the existing PUD is better than the proposed amended PUD.  The existing PUD incorporates several existing small-scale buildings and small-scale parking areas, plus some mature landscaping.  To me, whether or not a CVS (or any other drugstore) is built on that particular corner isn't the issue.  It's not important.  The northeast corner of 15th and Utica would be a good location for a drugstore, no doubt.  But the Phillips 66 corner would be a good location for a drugstore, too.  The Arvest corner also would be a good drugstore location.  And the Stillwater National Bank corner would be a good location, as well -- in fact, it once was:
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/A2322.jpg)
Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

I think most of us here on the forum, most Tulsans, and most of the City Councilors would agree that the existing single-story Conoco store development is unattractive.  The most recent CVS proposal (I've seen) would be a visual improvement to the very corner itself, but it's not a simple "crummy old convenience store/brand new drugstore" trade-off.  The CVS proposal would make the actual street corner look better, but would make the properties to the north and to the east worse.  In my opinion, the issue needs to be evaluated with that totality in mind.  In pains me to think that Tulsa might lose another historic house and a two-story brick office building in order to gain another ordinary single-story drugstore.

I'm not angry about the CVS proposal.  I was very disappointed in the 11th & Utica QT case, but I'm not angry about it.  Life's too short.


What irks me the most about these types of zoning cases is to sit through hours and hours and hours of meetings and work sessions about urban design and zoning, only to face silly arguments about how a building set back farther from the street, with an enlarged parking lot surrounding it, is more "pedestrian friendly" than the building it replaced.  As I wrote in a previous post, selling three different products in a single building doesn't make it a "mixed-use" building.  If the TMAPC honestly thinks that, and if the City Council believes that, then we're hopelessly lost.

In this particular case, what's on the site now (a couple of two-story buildings and a single-story building) is better aligned with the Comp Plan, the Small Area Plan, and the intent of the original PUD than the proposed CVS development is.  The City Council can't demand that a two-story CVS be constructed.  That's not fair.  But the Councilors can rightfully say to the developer, "You're asking us to amend a long-approved PUD.  We have approved a Small Area Plan for that neighborhood, and within that approved plan, two-story buildings and mixtures of uses are preferred in that location.  You're asking for our permission to change the zoning to allow you to remove a couple of existing two-story buildings from the property.  You're proposing a single-story building.  That's contrary to the Small Area Plan."

The intersection of 15th & Utica could be developed in a variety of ways.  It has been developed in a variety of ways.  At one time, there were gas stations on three of the four corners:
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/B1984.jpg)
Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

And, in my opinion, the design of the DX station was clean and Modern -- much better and more interesting than the current Conoco store building:
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/B1182.jpg)
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/B1180.jpg)
Source:  The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society

As I see it, the intersection has been a mess for decades.  The most enduring features might be the utility poles and overhead power lines.    

Downtown Dan,

Thank you for your reply. I am grateful for the dialogue and remain convinced of the validity of your quite solid arguments and observations. It appears you may be alone in your ability to see the big picture and to make specific requests with a legitimate basis and without losing yourself in your feelings. It also helps to refrain from accusing me of corruption, apathy, or ignorance, as I am none of those things.

You're also correct that the behavior and poor arguments of your cohorts are making the conversation difficult for all of us.

Hopefully, things will go better moving forward.

As for the comments about milk and toothpaste constituting mixed uses, you're correct, Bamboo. That's ridiculous. I can't imagine that anyone on the council believes that. Your post just now may be one of my favorites in the history of this message board. Right on the money in a number of ways. I appreciate the insights. Also, I like pictures.

Thanks, Blake.  In the Beryl Ford Collection, the B1177 through B1183 series, plus A3025 and A3026 all show 15th & Utica, looking from various directions.

Blake, expanding upon a point Boo made, many of us are frustrated for the following reasons:

Tulsa has spent millions over the years on consultants and studies for corridor plans, small area plans, and master plans, yet it seems as if we continually ignore the recommendations and conclusions of those results.  Why do we keep throwing money down rabbit holes for out of state consulting firms if all we are going to do is ignore the conclusions?

Citizens have been asked for their input on corridor plans, small area plans, and master plans only to feel like their input was marginalized or completely ignored.  Plani-Tulsa is a prime example.

I recognize there is a real need for people with development experience to sit on the BOA and TMAPC.  However, it seems as if those boards have been  top-heavy with development and commercial real estate people or bureaucrats who have served far too long and who have tended to favor the developer in the past.

The current mayoral administration shows a serious lack of economic sophistication when they point to new retail development as some sort of a windfall when all it is doing, for the most part, is shifting sales tax collection points.  How many people do we think drive from Jenks, Owasso, BA, or Bartlesville to spend $100 or more at the new Trader Joe’s?  Don’t get me wrong, TJ is a nice amenity to have, but essentially, every dollar I spend there is simply money I’m not spending at Reasor’s, Whole Foods, or Sprouts.

I’ll grant that Costco may be a really good draw and will, by location, import a good deal of sales tax from Bixby, Jenks, and BA residents so long as it is not simply scavenging existing customers from the two Sam’s locations in Tulsa.

If retail growth was really the economic bonanza it is made out to be, Tulsa’s revenue growth wouldn’t look so flat over the last 30 years while our infrastructure needs and costs have gone up.

We have got to move our funding functions from being so sales tax dependent.  John Fothergill and I have talked about this and I’m aware there is some movement within City Hall to this end.  What, as citizens, can we do to try and get the legislature to listen to us to allow cities to chart a different course for operations funding?  I would seriously love to hear your opinion on how this can be done.

Thought the Old English-style stores there looked neat.  Anyone remember a giant bull on the SE corner?

Sure do! http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/pulling-the-plug/article_9e93177c-359e-56d6-bb0a-4ef15262f25f.html You just sent me on a trip back to childhood.

Does anyone know/remember when the Old English style buildings were replaced with Stillwater National bank?
 

From this article, it appears to be about 1997.  I was thinking mid 1990’s.

http://tulsapreservationcommission.org/districts/swan-lake-historic-district/

Check out the corner entrance and intricate design work on this CVS.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8845619,-76.996219,3a,75y,242.81h,86.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sykLDghtnf0rKwpY8eA23hw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Obviously DC is a much bigger, denser, and pedestrian oriented town. This is across the street from a metro stop after all. And CVS obviously didn't build that, they moved into it. But still, makes your heart ache for what could be.

Speaking of moving into, CVS bought this tiny tiny green pub behind them and gutted it to use as storage for the CVS. Just interesting.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8846971,-76.9965486,3a,75y,212.08h,86.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHfrh3NoE3mks7iuXYgJ9BQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

When does this proposal go back to the City Council?

May 19.

This view of Cherry St is very concerning and condescending. You could say a similar thing about the Brady District:

Yes we live in a country (and especially this area of the country thanks in part to our leaders) where huge corporations dominate almost every business and mixed-use district. It is sad that small businesses aren't more prominent in a unique urban area like Cherry St, but the attitude that there's nothing to preserve there is concerning:

First, this plan demolishes 2 interesting business buildings and a 1920's house. Many people who cared about preservation of the area were against the plans of the bank on the SW corner to demolish the neat shopping strip to build a big parking lot. In fact it is mentioned in the history of Swan Lake in the Tulsa Preservation Commission website http://tulsapreservationcommission.org/districts/swan-lake-historic-district/ (http://tulsapreservationcommission.org/districts/swan-lake-historic-district/)

Second, if Cherry St isn't a unique interesting part of Tulsa, then what is? Cherry St has the highest walkability of anywhere in Tulsa (https://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa (https://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa)) and has many local businesses and, yes, chain establishments also, but ones that are typically located in similar bustling urban areas. If what you say is true, that Cherry St is not a beacon of originality, than we should give up for all areas in Tulsa because no area is good enough to preserve according to our most urban-development-minded city counselor.

We should've given up on Turkey Mountain ("It's no beacon of great urban parks! Look at the massive power lines running through it!") and give up on the 71st and Riverside development ("It's no beacon of parks! It is not developed! ANYTHING would be better than what it is!") and give up on the small area plan and let big corporations come and demolish whatever they want to build massive lots and low-quality 1-story buildings.

Dwayne is truly a nice guy and very helpful, but he's a symptom of what can happen when you allow former developers to either write or enforce our zoning codes.  I mainly say this because their empathy seems to fall on the side of developers when there is a contentious development like this particular one.

My walkscore is better :-P  https://www.walkscore.com/score/4332-s-canton-ave-tulsa-ok-74135    Which is one reason I would like to create a small area plan for this area of 41st and Yale.  Has a lot of potential to be an urban/main street hub if redeveloped well.  But apparently it doesn't seem like small area plans mean much anyway so why go through all the years of hard work it would entail to create one.

Very bike-able?  I had to chuckle.  That’s one of the more challenging areas to transit via bike in the entire city due to Darlington being fairly narrow with shopping and cut-through traffic as well as the gigantic intersection of Yale & I-44.  I’ve ridden under I-44 exactly twice along there on Yale, once north-bound and once south-bound.  It’s pretty intimidating with all the traffic breaks and no one looking for bikes or pedestrians.

I think all your rating means is you can walk a block north from your house to the Promenade and get a hot meal, clothing, or nik-naks for your house or play Frogger to go another block north to get your pet food or groceries.  Or, if you were so inclined to earn a medical degree, you could walk a couple of blocks west and hope someone doesn’t run the light by Mc Donald’s when you are walking to nephrology class at the Schusterman center.

Sites like walkscore are as steeped in reality as Zillow is for home values.  There’s fairly good data, but it’s relevance is somewhat in question when you are actually in the area looking at the surroundings.

Point to me is I can walk to more stuff and a larger variety of stuff than I could in Cherry Street.  I walk to the movies, the bookstore, and to the mall all the time. And it has the potential with the right infill to be a really good town center type area. Once you figure out the "back road" type areas here you can bike/walk down some nice quiet streets to get to other parts of town like how I can take the back roads and go to the YMCA and Lafortune Park.  I can take the trail over a street, then take the other neighborhood streets and go to Panera for breakfast and coffee, usually on Sunday Mornings as a nice walk. The main arterials are a bugger but again, if infill were to go say in front of the Promenade parking garage and front the sidewalks and same thing all along 41st on the North side and then had a pedestrian friendly development go in where the gas station now is... this area would be incredible.  A great place to shop, work, run errands, dine, etc. and if you could get here via transit would be great for a lot of people. Already beats the area around Woodland Hills Mall or Tulsa Hills, so in my opinion would have been a great place to have a small area plan, if those actually meant anything.

For grins, I guess I need to see how they rate our neighborhood near 21st & Yale.  If it’s rated less walkable or rideable than the area between 41st & I-44 between Yale and Darlington, I call shenanigans.  We are three blocks east of the complex housing Sears, Target, Reasor’s, Gordman’s, IBC Bank, etc.  We can walk up 20th St. and cut around the back of Sears and encounter maybe one or two cars on our way up there.

In that half mile stretch from 15th to 21st on Yale, I can buy a new Honda Motorcycle, shop for groceries at two locations, buy beer or liquor, clothing, tools, tires for my car, home accessories (and improvements), plants, mattresses, get a coffee, get my computer fixed, go to a soccer game, do my banking, get my hair cut, or dine at any number of fast food options which isn’t my bag anyhow. 

Our Saturday morning routine consists of getting on a couple of our bikes and ride from garage sale to garage sale, ending up at the Cherry St. Farmer’s Market if we make good time navigating the sales along the way, then we hit the flea market at the fairgrounds on our way home.

We don’t have sidewalks in our neighborhood, but they really are not needed as ours is what I’ve always called a “pocket" neighborhood.  There’s no connection from 21st to 15th so if someone is in our addition, they are either coming from or going to a destination, not trying to avoid traffic on a main thoroughfare.

I wasn’t exaggerating about the lack of bike-ability down your way though.  You get south of 36th St. along the Yale corridor and it gets really scary. 

I think what people haven't been paying attention too is the fact that the Small Area Plans don't regulate anything. They're just a framework of ideas for what people who live in those areas to express what they'd like to see developed. If you want to regulate (put that plan into action) then you need an overlay for that area which will guide development to fit the Small Area Plan.

New renderings that will be voted on this Thursday.  Brick looks more authentic and includes "blade" signs.  Still not two functional floors.  Still destroys density to replace with single purpose box store.  Still no entrance at the intersection.  Glass is transparent, no more spandrell glass (rendering doesn't really show all that well but it's in the development description).  Better than the suburbs.  I hope the standard is a bit higher than that though.  Let me know if the link doesn't work.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Dqzlhdnu6jY3JSa3hzLU9pVW8/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Dqzlhdnu6jY3JSa3hzLU9pVW8/view?usp=sharing)

Link worked.  Thanks for providing it.

While I'd have to guess at the outcome, it's sad that people would say "well at least it's better" instead of waiting to say "there, the builder has met all the requirements."

If the developer says "you are being to difficult, I'm not going to build there."  So what?  Another developer will, if not tomorrow, then somewhere in the future.  What will it matter if it's not developed in the next year?

The "okay-to-go" should be held until someone comes along with an acceptable build that matches the guidelines.

I'm a Southie but I still drive by these piles of smile that we just say "meh, good enough, I guess."

Don't QT the corner if at all avoidable.

City council will hear it today at 6:00. 

It was approved 5-1 (a quorum was present and with 5 votes, it formally passed anyway).  Here is the final drawing that was approved.  If it actually ends up looking like this, and if they install the streetscaping they've promised, it could turn out to be a decent development even if it falls short of the ideal.  Blake Ewing deserves credit for pressing the developer for a better looking building including the windows on the fake upper level and more genuine warehouse style brick.

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/final%20drawing_zpsdtuoj0yp.jpg)

The fenestration is hideous, and it looks fake.

The previous version was better.

Gag.....They should all be voted out of office...

Um... Or, you could have this:

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CVS-21st-and-Harvard.jpg)

Note how many improvements were achieved compared to the "standard" suburban CVS (shown at 21st and Harvard, above).  That's how important the small area plan is--even though it's not a regulatory document, INCOG staff and members of the TMAPC and City Council definitely used the neighborhood vision to force the developer to make significant modifications/improvements.

I think we just got the best CVS in the region.  Find me a better example that is not 1) located in a true urban environment, or 2) located in an existing historical building.

This is a win.  It's not perfect.  We live in frickin' Oklahoma, for crying out loud.  But this is a big step in the right direction. (Lately, that's how I define wins.  It's about incremental progress towards what can be, not "getting everything I want" today..) 

This much improved design would have been impossible 5 years ago, when Wayne Alberty was over land development services at INCOG.  We should all be thanking the people who worked hard and fought to make this possible.

It's not fair to ask these folks to fight for us, and then crap on them when we don't get every perfect thing we wanted.  How's that going to work as a long-term strategy? Does that motivate anyone? (I once watched a man call his dog repeatedly.  When the dog finally came, he punished it for being slow to respond.  The lesson he just taught his dog: even though you're on the right track, expect to be punished.)

I would rather express thanks and encourage the people who worked hard to make significant progress towards the neighborhood's vision. 

Who are "these folks"?  

Who is crapping on "these folks"?

In my opinion, adding windows to the facades (near the roof) made them worse, not better.  It makes the overall fenestration worse, not better.

Evidently, Breadburner thinks all of "them" should be voted out of office.  Again, I don't know who "they" are, or why all of "them" should be voted out of office.  

But I do think the proposed "improvements" to the exterior elevations are gag-worthy, if that's what Breadburner meant.

I wrote a nauseatingly long blog post about it for any who care to jump inside my head as it relates to this issue.

https://blakeewing.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/regarding-cvs/?fb_action_ids=835621466582462&fb_action_types=news.publishes

Thanks for the comments along the way. I always enjoy the feedback on this site...almost always.

B

Well written blog post Blake.  I do think this was a fair and decent outcome considering.  Lets keep pushing forward and evolving our city to becoming an ever more pedestrian lively and transit friendly place.

Agree with your sentiments.

The 21st and Harvard corner is a great example. In 10 years that area went from interesting, funky, and quasi urban... to a suburban intersection. Multi story street fronted buildings were replaced with single use structures with parking out front.  Umbertos fronted brick building is being replaced with a setback strip mall.

Now, in many instances, dilapidated buildings were also replaced with new shiny buildings. But reason we had to give up character to achieve new and shiny.  I understand the same restrictions aren't in place, and I'm not blaming anyone for the development at 21st and Harvard, but if I wanted new and shiny with no character, I'd live in Owasso.

The Utica CVS is a huge step in the right direction. At very least an acknowledgment that an urban corridor and a  suburban big box lot are two different things. No lets keep improving the code (overlay, overlay!) so there isn't a "moving goalpost" for developers and neighbors know what to expect.

Cherry Street seems to be doing okay with businesses organically fitting the neighborhood.  I'm more worried about the office buildings on 15th between Utica and Lewis.  They are old and unique and I've been told some of the lawyers are reaching retirement age and will have to decide what to do with their buildings.  They will be faced with the choice of maintaining the character and integrity by paying for updates or rehabs, or it would probably be cheaper to tear them down and replace them with generic stucco stripmalls.  I don't think those buildings even have a small area plan in place. 

Umberto’s is really the only significant loss in the last 10 years and the building was pretty shot.  I’d rather see something like the shell was replace it rather than more suburban style for sure.

The CVS replaced a really dumpy Mays/Drug Warehouse that had about the same set back.  QT has been there forever with a re-do that swallowed a few unremarkable homes on the block behind it (not please with it but they were not shining architectural gems).  I believe the Burger Street replaced a gas station about 20 years ago, and the Arby’s has been on the other corner in various configurations since Der Weiner Schnitzel left about 35 years ago.  The stretch between 21st & 15th has been a mix of up to the curb and set back suburban style development for 50+ years.

Most of the offices on the north side of 15th between Utica and Lewis are former homes.  I’ve been in a few and while they can be interesting, some have functionality issues and real problems with access for the handicapped (same thing for some converted homes on Denver south of downtown).  While I like the aesthetics of that stretch of 15th, I suspect the value of the land is overtaking the value of the existing buildings.  If/when any of those are knocked down, I hope whatever replaces them will be built closer to the street and have parking in back.

Those buildings may not have been great losses, but I think the corner definitely has a more boring feel than it did in the past.

This is what I was going for. Not that the buildings that were lost were of great value, but we lost an opportunity when we replaced them with suburban style development. If we replace dense and interest with suburban (instead of other dense interesting structures) we lose any competitive advantage that we have, or could be building. 

We lost a couple of houses as well as two two story buildings for the suburban QT (the only kind). We lost a Mexican restaurant and a drug store for the suburban CVS. We lost a fronted brick building (Umbertos) for a suburban strip mall.  None of the buildings that were lost were in good shape and the new buildings probably add value to the tax base.  But every step has been away from density instead of towards it.

What I took away from Blake's blog post is incremental progress matters. It isn't the one CVS that is marginally improved that makes or breaks the neighborhood. But if all the structures above were marginally improved to create a small walkable pocket...15-20 years from now as other buildings are replaced we keep moving in the right direction, eventually we get there. Or at least we keep getting closer.

I hadn't noticed what their installing where Umbertos was.  Are there any drawings of what's going up?

I'm guessing...

(http://www.summit-customcuts.com/images/800_Mall-front-800-1.JPG)

They have it posted on the signage in front of the space. Replace the above picture with 3 or 4 spaces instead of 5, and what appears to be red brick instead of yellow faux-stucko, and it is spot on.

I don't get it, where are all the vape stores?

The point I was trying to make is other than the Umberto’s building getting knocked down, it’s not really changed in 20 years other than the CVS revamp of the dumpy old Mays and the revamp of the QT.  To me it looks the same with fresh brick and paint.  ;) Anyone remember what was on the NW corner before it was a QT?  Another gas station?

On topic, check out what's happening at 15th and Lewis across from Reasors.  A local pharmacy (according to their marketing at least) that preserves the existing buildings.  They removed the McKee Sewing sign, but installed a new sign calling it the McKee Office Building.  Pretty cool stuff.  And yes, another pharmacy.  That makes 5 in about a half square mile once CVS goes in.  CVS, Walgreens, Reasors, Apothe, and Walgreens at Utica Square.  Lots of meds going around this town.

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e136/saxmanosu/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps0jqgrewl.jpeg)

 

You can almost smell the opium,

Not yet.  At least not over the chicken fry from Bros Houligan
(I'm in the bldg between the two)

For those wanting to discuss other locations, I suggest starting new topics about 21st & Harvard and 15th & Lewis/Atlanta, because the subject here is the CVS development at 15th & Utica.

Just drove by today at lunch and the signs are out - "CVS Coming Soon"

Did you have to open your car door and barf.....???

If she was sick, it sure would be nice to have a CVS that was close by...  (you made me do it)

I, too, am perplexed by the demand for CVSes and Walgreenses (are those the correct plurals?). But I gotta say, it's not just a Tulsa thing, and it's just as bad or worse elsewhere.

https://www.google.com/maps/search/cvs/@38.9012512,-77.0385774,15z/data=!3m1!4b1

They are havens for over-prescribed baby boomers.

In Washington DC (and NY, Boston, etc.) many of these are very small and are built into the ground floor of large office buildings, apartments, or condos.  They operate like convenience stores for those nearby to get milk, eggs, etc.  They operate on walk-in traffic.  Much different than in Tulsa where we have a cavernous Walgreens or CVS on every block.  They each have large parking lots and drive thrus catering to automobile traffic.  I don't get the demand either but it's there apparently.

Good one.....!!

All three buildings have been demolished.  I still can't believe the footprint needed to sell drugs and greeting cards.  The parking lot will be too big as will the building.  I hope they at least stick to the site plan that ultimately was approved.  It included many important aspects that will make it much better than regular CVS stores.

Time to change the title of the thread

Done and done.

Shithole would be more appropriate....

Went by the completed CVS at night.  The outdoor lighting WOULD NOT pass a zoning inspection if it were enforced.

Glare and "light trespass" there are exactly the types of nuisances the ordinance was written to curtail.

This sounds like a job for https://tulsa311.com/site/wss/home
 :)

Wasn’t that one of the stated concerns of the neighbors in the residential area off 14th?

It would be if they did their jobs.  They have been closing out lighting ordinance complaints because they dont like the language of the ordinance.