The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Just wanted to share some info about the proposed River Design Overlay which will be heading to the TMAPC on May 18.

Draft Ordinance: http://tmapc.org/Documents/RDOverlayDRAFT040616.pdf (http://tmapc.org/Documents/RDOverlayDRAFT040616.pdf)
Map: http://tmapc.org/Documents/RDO_Zoning.pdf (http://tmapc.org/Documents/RDO_Zoning.pdf)
Presentation: http://tmapc.org/Documents/RDO%20Presentation%20with%20videos.pptx (http://tmapc.org/Documents/RDO%20Presentation%20with%20videos.pptx)

The ability to develop design character overlays for important areas in town was enabled by the recent zoning code update.  The overlay does not replace existing zoning, but it does add supplemental standards to properties within the defined boundaries of the overlay.  In this case, the goal was to "maintain and promote the river as a valuable asset in terms of economic development and quality of life."  

It identifies 3 different districts along the river corridor, each with its own goals and standards.  

Here are the 3 districts:

(Note: Single-family residential, historic neighborhoods, Creek Nation land, and unincorporated land along the river are NOT included in any of these districts. The RDO will not apply to them.)

RDO-1 - parks and open space
RDO-2 - parcels with direct access to the river (land that abuts the river/river trails)
RDO-3 - parcels that do not directly abut the river, but are visible from the river trails.  Essentially, land on the east side of Riverside Drive.

In RDO-1, the goal is to preserve and protect park space.  This is the most restrictive district. Any development that is allowed within park land will be an accessory to the park, like a coffee shop, restaurant, etc. Any development is intended to enhance the park as a park amenity, while being respectful of the primary goal to protect the greenspace.

RDO-2 and RDO-3 are similar, but RDO-3 is slightly less restrictive.

In all cases, the proposed RDO prohibits several uses that would otherwise be allowed under current zoning, such as drive-thrus, gas stations, banks, etc.  The goal is to promote the river as a pedestrian-oriented space, so the RDO prevents development that is geared primarily to cars.

Among the cool stuff included:

Buildings must be oriented to face the river and abutting streets. The overlay includes a Build-To Zone from the river trail and major streets. In areas where the trail doesn't yet exist, a deeper BTZ is calculated from the top of the river bank.  In addition, parking must be set back from the trail/street, which essentially places parking behind buildings (which is critical for supporting pedestrian activity).  Dumpsters and loading dock must be set back even further from the trail/street.

Other highlights:

• - River and street facing buildings must have 40% transparency, while facades that face parking areas must have 20% transparency.
• - Buildings must have at least one entrance facing the trail/street.
• - Landscaping must be at least 20% of the lot, and existing landscaping along the river trails cannot be included in the calculation.
• - Minimum parking may be reduced from normal zoning requirements by 50%.  
• - Bicycle parking must be increased from normal zoning by 150%.  
• - Surface lots must be broken up into smaller areas, not to exceed 50 spaces. These parking areas must be separated by landscaped areas with a minimum width of 12 feet.
• - Parking must be screened from the trail/street by either buildings or additional landscaping, berms, low walls, etc.
• - Structured parking must be designed to visually conceal ground-floor level parking through the use of architectural detailing or liner buildings.
• - No more than one driveway is allowed per 300' of public ROW in RDO-1 and RDO-2.  All access points must be shared by multiple tenants and park users.
• - Pedestrian connectivity is required.
• - Sidewalks must be 5' wide along the entire street frontage on any lot abutting a major street.
• - Lighting must be "pedestrian scale" (might want to clarify that).
• - Pole signs are prohibited, freestanding signs must be ground/monument signs no more than 6' tall and not to exceed 50 SF.

- Major amendments to existing PUDs will force the developer to comply with the RDO requirements for any new construction. (Minor amendments will NOT require compliance.)

The above is not an all-inclusive list.  See the draft ordinance for more detailed info.

In general, my main comment is: "can we apply this overlay to the entire city?!"  It's a huge step forward for Tulsa and will ensure MUCH higher quality design than current zoning allows.  

Take a look at the links above and send feedback to the TMAPC.  

TMAPC public hearing: May 18 – 1:30 pm
City Council: June 9th, 16th, 30th

Slide 4 of that presentation. Those buildings. That bridge. Is this a joke?

Obviously, graphics are used to convey concepts, not to indicate current design plans.

However, from that rendering, it looks like it could represent the west side of the river--perhaps where the concrete plant currently is?  That location has long been identified as a place where high-density development would be welcomed.  

Read the ordinance for regulations, don't get hung up on the pictures.

For those who will look at every graphic and take it literally, be forewarned that some of the graphics in the presentation were used to show the bad/mediocre developments that are allowed under current zoning (without the overlay).  These are used to contrast with the much improved developments that would be expected with the overlay. (eg: slide 17 is an example of what would be allowed under current zoning, slide 18 demonstrates the RDO alternative)

I would be absolutely shocked if this passed.  There are a lot of folk out there who will be against this because it will "set a precedence" and be a foot in the door for this kind of thing to possibly sneak into another part of the city.

I bet you dinner at the downtown restaurant of your choice that it will pass.

Remember, this was initiated and shepherded by the City Council.  GT and Blake especially have a lot of skin in the game.  Also, don't underestimate the number of people who are totally pi$$ed about the REI project. (Which, if it had been subject to this overlay, would have been significantly better.)  Those folks should come out in support of the overlay.  The RDO steering committee included City Councilors, developers, architects, one member of the TMAPC, etc, etc.  I think it's pretty solid.

At the public meeting I attended, the only concerns seemed to be people who wanted MORE protections for their neighborhoods along the river, not less.  At the TMAPC work meeting, the commissioners seemed most interested in clarifying certain points in the RDO, but I didn't hear anyone say anything that was in opposition to it.  (Of course, they haven't contacted their development buddies to find out what to think, yet.)

This is one of those cases where it doesn't really matter what the TMAPC thinks, b/c the council will decide.  I think there are enough councilors who care about the river and want to see attractive, high quality design that maximizes ROI for the city that this will pass.

Fingers crossed.

The graphic you're talking about is a rendering of a park in Philadelphia. It's just there to show a concept. (PlanPhilly (http://planphilly.com/praxis-projects/central-delaware-riverfront-planning-process/a-civic-vision-for-the-central-delaware/parks-and-open-space))

I think the RDO is a huge win that will both prevent bad things (like the current REI debacle) and give us a high quality riverfront. Kudos to all involved in the process. I think it will pass the Council unanimously.

The planned overlay seems well intentioned and well designed and it seems like it will pass.

The Small Area Plan and Formed Based Codes for the Pearl District seemed well intentioned and well designed.

PlanItTulsa seemed well intentioned and well designed.

The Small Area Plan for Cherry Street was well intentioned and well designed.

Of course, those things have had little impact on what actually happens when QuikTrip wants to block a street and do as they please. Or when a facility that already fits the code wants to be exempted from it because at some point in the future they might want to violate it. Or when a national retailer wants to make minimum adjustments to its cookie cutter plan. Or when we define "mixed use" as selling both meat and potatoes on the same block.

This is the best possible outcome for the area. But my confidence in enforcing any code and demanding quality development is low. I think we are moving in the right direction, I have faith in Ewing and think Bynum is a straight forward guy... but Tulsa's history on this issue isn't kind. Really hope we hit a turning point.

I'm just skeptical. Or cynical. Or Blake would probably call me flat out negative.

Again, best possible outcome is this type of zoning overlay. So I will shut up and slink away now.

There are two things about this which give me pause, I have emboldened them in your comments.  I could not make it to Monday night’s meeting and I was at another meeting Tuesday night where, ironically, the Riverside RDO was on the agenda for discussion so I could not make it to the Riverside RDO roll out on that night either.

Developers and architects writing design overlays is pretty much the same process which has given us our tortured planning and development strategy for years, yes?

We’ve seen through the years that small area plans are largely ignored, modified (QT @ 11th & Utica Pearl District Form Based Code be damned), or didn’t mean what we thought it meant (i.e. the recent interpretation of “mixed use” at the corner of 15th & Utica).  I simply do not have the trust or optimism you do that this will not be full of gaps which clever developers can manipulate to their own benefit and savings.

The comment of "maximizing the ROI for the city" along the riverfront really disturbs me.  Granted, the design of Blue Rose is far preferable to layup slab construction and makes good use of the river as a backdrop with its deck, and it has relatively attractive facing on the front and back side.  Thus far, it has been a pretty good litmus test of how commercial enterprises could co-exist in a recreational setting.

What concerns me is what is the development density envisioned with this process?  Tulsa has a really rare asset in the existing river park system.  We have very well-maintained trails along both banks and split trails over a number of miles.  I truly worry about crapping this up with a bunch of similar retail developments.  This was the same issue I had with a mall on Turkey Mountain.  People go to these places to escape commercial corridors, to escape traffic and congestion, and escape the daily grind in general.

Where is the real ROI for the city with more entertainment/dining/retail development along the Arkansas River?  Are people going to regularly come from the suburbs and outside the county to spend money there or is it more urbanites moving their spending points from somewhere else in Tulsa?

I do applaud this as an attempt to prevent another debacle like the design and nature of the REI development and thank the council for taking the lead on this.  

Our awful development history and the city being broke as ever after 30 years of explosive retail growth justify my concerns, IMO.

Here's all that really matters: under current zoning, private property owners can develop their land in ways that negatively impact trail users and reflect the lowest possible denominator of design "standards." (None, basically.)  They could fill the commercially zoned space with nothing but asphalt and Burger Kings and big box stores... you know, sort of like most of the crap that's been built in the past 20 years. 

This proposal attempts to minimize the bad crap that developers can build, and ensure certain basic provisions are made to address the needs of trail users and pedestrians alike. Perhaps I failed to mention that Riverparks was also a key player in the development of these standards?  That's important to me.

In my perfect world, the Riverparks would be at least a half mile wide on both sides of the river and have nothing but park space and wilderness.  (With a couple opportunities for small venues serving cold beer and live music.)  However, we do not live in my perfect world. 

I have been caring about, fighting and losing urban design battles probably longer than anyone on the forum--so I come to my cynicism honestly.  But I truly believe this is a big, awesome deal.

Unlike neighborhood plans, this is not a vision statement.  This is actually a zoning ordinance that is enforceable.  Site plans and permits will not be approved unless they are in compliance.  Yes, the BOA could grant variances if they determine a "hardship" exists, but it would have to go through that process. This is yet another reason to care about who the mayor is, and who they appoint to important boards and commissions.

Let me put this another way:  I’d feel 100 times better about this as long as the current regime is deposed in November.  However, that does not immediately revamp the TMAPC or BOA.

I agree.


As is mine...


Okay!  That's precisely what QT, CVS, REI, and many others hope you will do.

Our skepticism and cynicism does come honestly.

What I've noticed is that we have urban design workshop after workshop, plan after plan, report after report, vision after vision, tax after tax, and very good intentions up to our eyeballs --- BUT --- when it comes to putting workshops/plans/reports/visions/taxes/intentions into action, we get:

-more glaring acorn lights
-more rough pavement in crosswalks and sidewalks that can't hold up to Tulsa's climate
-more closed streets
-stupid anti-sidewalk arguments and videos featuring Barbo [sic] Cox spiking through mud in high heels
-more ordinances which aren't enforced
-more curb ramps which aren't ADA-compliant
-more lip service to "mixed use" while lauding and approving single use developments (because selling Pepto-Bismol and selling condoms is actually selling two separate products for two entirely different uses, hence "mixed use," even if the products are sold in the same building)
-more new single-story, single-use buildings to replace existing buildings taller than one story, in neighborhoods where new buildings with functioning second stories are desired

In the realm of Tulsa's zoning and development, what matters is who you are, who your cronies are, how big you are, how much money you have, how much money you can afford to pay attorneys to argue about "mixed use" and small area plans, and who those attorneys are.  Zoning ordinances and land use regulations don't matter much at all if you're up against someone with great affluence/influence.

The City can't/doesn't/won't enforce the Zoning Code as already approved and adopted. 

Yep.

Very well put, Boo.

Codes, rules, and laws are worthless when they are not enforced or selectively enforced to the benefit of a few.

It's already begun. The QT at 96th & Riverside wants an opt-out.

http://www.fox23.com/news/tulsa-city-leaders-consider-new-river-development-plan/217464630

Assuming QT at 96th and Riverside falls into RDO-3 (because it's across the street from the river), nothing would actually change for them.  They would simply be legal non-conforming as a truck stop (oh, sorry, convenience goods and services) that doesn't front the street--and could continue their existing business as long as they want.  I believe the rules don't apply unless a non-conforming building expands more than 50%.  At that point, their plan would need to come into compliance.  If a tornado hit the store today, they would have two years to rebuild it as is, and would be allowed to do so.  After 2 years without obtaining a building permit, they would have to come into compliance.  This is all standard for any zoning change, re: how it impacts existing buildings that were legal when they were built.

I get really tired of this truck stop company dictating all of our neighborhood plans.  The current model of QT stores obviously belongs along interstate highways, not on every street corner in Tulsa.  If they want to be a part of the neighborhoods, they need to re-learn how to be a neighborhood store.  As long as people remain addicted to sugar, cigarettes, and lottery tickets, their business model should be secure. But Tulsa has a right to protect its most valuable land and public investments through zoning and land use regulation and transportation policies. 

This is a modest proposal, but QT always goes nuclear with the confidence that they can rally uninformed populations to support them.

I heard they want to expand that store and close the north bound lands of Riverside to do so. Dewey is on board.  :P

You all can bash QT all you want. They use all of those parking spaces they add.

I couldn't tell if you were kidding...

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/QT-11th-Utica.png)

Whoops, burst that notion, didn’t you?

Interesting, so that appears to be the 11th & Utica store.  Note how El Rancho Grande has managed with much more dense parking for over 50 years with similar interior space in that spot.  Major dick move by QT on that one.  Same with 36th & Peoria.

QT is by all accounts a great place to work and corporate citizen but I have to agree with Ponder, local (or national for that matter) retailers should not be dictating neighborhood planning.

So, if you believe that we need to be working towards a time when not every Tulsan needs a car to function, we need to agree to be serious about the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and transit users.  This can be done.  Other cities do it as a standard operating procedure.

The QT at 96th and Riverside is a disaster for pedestrians.  You can hardly blame QT, because they have grown up and evolved as a company during a time when we have prioritized cars over humans to the point of excluding pedestrians, cyclists and transit users from the equation.  They just reflect our values as a city and a culture.

The question is: Do we want to continue that trend, or can we gradually evolve to be a place where people who walk, bike, and use transit have equal rights with people who drive?  What's the cost to our city if we don't?  What's the cost to taxpayers?  What's the cost to the climate?  What's the cost to public health?  What's the cost to people with physical challenges?  What's the cost to kids and old folks?  What's the cost to quality of life for everyone?

Here's a close up of the QT at 96th and Riverside, showing one of the FOUR curb cuts around their property:

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/QT-96th-and-Riverside.png)

A pedestrian walking along the sidewalk has to cross about 55' of unprotected drive aisle, where cars don't even have to slow down to turn the corner (note the enormous turn radius of the driveways).  This is wider than many 4-lane arterial streets in Tulsa!  And there are four of them on this lot.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say we need be smarter than this if we expect to adapt to the demands of the future.  The public right-of-way allows businesses like QT to exist.  It's OK to say that we want the public ROW to be a place for all people, and to do that, we need to think differently about how developments impact the streetscape.

Cities are built one parcel at a time, so it's not about changing what's already there.  It's about ensuring that future developments are in line with our priorities moving forward. Just as we've destroyed a lot of great, walkable places over the decades, one parcel at a time, we can also build towards a future where walkability matters-- one development at time.  But we have to start now and take it seriously.

Right now, Tulsa is trying to figure out what we want to be when we grow up.  I have hope that our best days are ahead of us...and the past and the status quo shouldn't hold us back.

The argument was the parking spaces at the time. Go at lunch time, they are all used. It's a culture problem in Tulsa, not a company that caters to the consumers needs/wants.

The Doobs still doesn’t quite get it, does he?


Bartlett says he’s concerned proposed river development rules may be too restrictive

"I hate to get into these kinds of overlays because they can be extremely restrictive and are normally reflective of a relatively small number of people," Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett said.

(https://www.readfrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Arkansas-River.jpg)

The city of Tulsa has scheduled two public meetings in April on proposed development regulations along the Arkansas River. DYLAN GOFORTH/The Frontier

Discussions regarding how to develop the banks of the Arkansas River begin in earnest this week when the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission takes up proposed river development regulations. DYLAN GOFORTH/The Frontier
Now that Tulsans have approved funding to build low-water dams in the Arkansas River, get ready for another long, potentially contentious battle over what should be built along its banks, and who gets to decide.

Everyone has heard about the southwest corner of 71st Street and Riverside Drive, where the city has contracted with a Dallas-based company to develop approximately nine acres of what for years has been known as Helmerich Park.

That deal is in limbo as the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority tries to fend off a lawsuit from a group of Tulsans who claim the authority has no right to use park land for commercial development — even if that development includes a highly respected business like Recreational Equipment, Inc.

As it turns out, that squabble over river development could end up being small potatoes compared to the big-picture questions city officials are about to tackle.

The first comes Wednesday, when the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission begins public hearings on a proposed River Design Overlay.

The document would regulate what types of development can be built along the river, how new structures should be oriented in relation to the river, and, in limited instances, what construction materials can be used.

The RDO has been a long time coming. The Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, approved more than a decade ago, called for the creation of such regulations. But it wasn’t until last year that it became a priority, when city councilors and the mayor placed it on their list of shared goals.

Now, just days before the TMAPC meeting, Mayor Dewey Bartlett says he’s concerned about the proposed RDO as it is currently composed. The steering committee that came up with the proposed regulations was led by Bartlett’s appointee to the board, Robert Gardner.

“I hate to get into these kinds of overlays because they can be extremely restrictive and are normally reflective of a relatively small number of people,” Bartlett said.

Overlays can also become “extremely difficult to change, to alter, or to amend,” Bartlett said.

He pointed to “historical overlays” as an example of bodies that can sometimes — and he emphasized sometimes — become very autocratic and difficult to deal with.

“It can take away a lot of private ownership rights and responsibilities,” Bartlett said.

The mayor said he is not advocating for no regulations.

“But I am saying you can go to the extreme and make it so restrictive that you dictate color, size, windows,” Bartlett said. “How much of one’s taste do you want to dictate?”

The mayor said he wants to be sure the development community is onboard with the proposed overlay.

“They are the ones who invest the money, risk the money,” he said. “I want to make sure that there is a representative group that has the ability to take a look at it.

“If they feel comfortable with it, good. If not, than I think we need to revisit it.”

City Councilor Anna America, meanwhile, said Friday that she would like the City Council to hold town hall meetings to receive input from Tulsans about how they would like to see the river corridor developed.

America said the Trinity River Vision Authority’s presentation to city councilors in Fort Worth last week drove home the importance of public engagement in the creation of development guidelines and plans. The TRVA oversees the development of 88 miles of land along the banks of the Trinity River and its tributaries within Fort Worth.

“I think we need a little broader community input,” America said. “What is it you really want the river to look like 10 years or 20 years down the road?”

(https://www.readfrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Trinity-River-Authority-2016-05-14-at-1.44.13-PM.png)

JD Granger, executive director of the Trinity River Vision Authority in Fort Forth, Texas, speaks with city councilors Wednesday about the role the authority plays in advancing development in the city. KEVIN CANFIELD/The Frontier
America said her desire to have public meetings on the issue should not be interpreted as criticism of the work done by the River Design Overlay steering committee, which she praised. She said she would confer with the councilors who sit on the steering committee to determine when and how those town hall meetings might proceed.

“You could let TMAPC work through the process and take that document out, or you could do it at the same time. Whatever they think would be more productive,” America said.

Last but not least comes Councilor Phil Lakin, who walked away from the TRVA’s presentation committed to an idea he believes would help advance river development.

Lakin said Friday that he intends to revisit the idea of creating a public authority or similar body dedicated to development along the river. He first bought into the idea a few years ago in Pittsburgh, Pa., where city councilors and the Tulsa Regional Chamber learned how an authority played an instrumental role in developing the banks of the rivers there.

Lakin said the city must examine the issue to determine what responsibilities and powers are appropriate — and legal — for the authority to possess, but that he strongly believes such a body is needed.

“I am totally in favor of a vision authority,” Lakin said. “… We have got to have a development authority or some group that comes in every single day and focuses their efforts and their work on developing certain parts of the Arkansas River.

“I’m talking about the people who have the set of skills that can inspire and create and envision those kinds of things we saw in Fort Worth. I don’t have the ability to do it, and we can have these one-off conversations about it, and then we’ll forget, and then we’ll come back to the table a year later and go, ‘Oh, yeah. We did talk about that.’

“I would rather just put an authority together, put some kind of body together, that really does thoughtfully think through these things on a daily basis.”

Bartlett said he’s not keen on the idea of an authority, except perhaps as a mechanism for facilitating the financing of development projects.

“We have a Planning Commission and they have staff. We have a lot of experienced people in our Planning Department, people involved in zoning and different things,” Bartlett said. “What concerns me about having another entity and giving them a tremendous responsibility is, I don’t see a need for it yet.”

The visit to the Trinity River Vision Authority was one of nearly 10 stops city councilors and Tulsa Regional Chamber officials made in Dallas and Fort Worth on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The trip was arranged by Lakin to give councilors an idea of how Dallas and Fort Worth are handling commercial development along popular trails and waterways.

City councilors seemed genuinely impressed with the outdoor restaurants they visited, including the Katy Trail Ice House, The Rustic and the Woodshed. But the REI store in South Lake elicited less enthusiasm.

(https://www.readfrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ICE-HOUSE-2016-05-14-at-1.32.36-PM.png)

City councilors visited the Katy Trail Ice House restaurant on Tuesday night as part of their two-day visit to Dallas and Forth Worth. The stop was intended to provide an example of what types of open-air venues could be built along the Arkansas River. The Ice House is built up to the edge of a popular pedestrian/bike trail that runs along an abandoned railroad line. KEVIN CANFIELD/The Frontier Trail

Councilors — on their last stop of the trip — peppered an REI official and the developer of the 71st Street and Riverside Drive project with questions about the design of the proposed Tulsa store, the design of the entire 71st and Riverside development, and whether REI would cut into the sales of other Tulsa sporting goods stores.

Lakin — to no one’s surprise, perhaps — was not among the councilors underwhelmed by the REI store.

He said Friday that he hopes that when councilors envision the store at the Riverside Drive site, they also envision the other businesses that could potentially be its neighbors. Among them, councilors learned while in Dallas, could be a restaurant owned by the same people who are behind The Rustic.

(https://www.readfrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/REI-OUTSIDE-2016-05-14-at-1.35.41-PM.png)

City councilors Wednesday visited an REI store in Southlake, Texas. The shape, size and interior layout of the store are the same as the REI store proposed for construction on the southwest corner of 71st Street and Riverside Drive in Tulsa. The exterior of the building would look different. KEVIN CANFIELD, The Frontier

So Lakin, for one, is not giving up on developing the southwest corner of 71st Street and Riverside Drive.

“I don’t know why we don’t continue to look at that for exactly what it was designed for – development,” Lakin said. “Its highest and best use in many respects is really smart, good development.”

He added: “The vast majority of Tulsans will never go to that site because there is absolutely nothing to do, and I want to change that.”

(https://www.readfrontier.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/REI-INSIDE-LAKIN-2016-05-14-at-2.02.36-PM.png)
City Councilor Phil Lakin (right) speaks with Janet Hopkins, REI retail director for the Southwest district, (center) and others during a City Council visit to an REI store in Southlake, Texas, on Wednesday. KEVIN CANFIELD/The Frontier

https://www.readfrontier.com/debate-on-arkansas-river-development-standards-begins-this-week/

The River Design Overlay was approved unanimously by the TMAPC today without amendment.  Now on to the City Council.

Good news.


Thought this quote by the Mayor brought home my point in another thread about how local developers can derail this thing....


(The mayor said he wants to be sure the development community is onboard with the proposed overlay.

“They are the ones who invest the money, risk the money,” he said. “I want to make sure that there is a representative group that has the ability to take a look at it.

“If they feel comfortable with it, good. If not, than I think we need to revisit it.”)

I can only imagine if the mayor of say San Francisco... or New York... or DC... or well any major city - h*** probably even Dallas and this would not go over well. Typically old guard of Tulsa though. This is just another reason everyone who cares about Tulsa at all better be telling everyone they know to vote for GT. Do we really want 4 more years of this BS?

Oh, one thing I forgot to point out.  The ordinance LANGUAGE for the RDO passed TMAPC this week.  Not the zoning map amendments, which will indicate the specific boundaries of the overlay. (That comes next.)

They will consider the actual boundaries of the overlay (what's included in RDO-1, 2 & 3) at the next TMAPC  meeting.  This will be interesting to watch. However, I think they were smart to separate the two issues, so we can get the language first, and then worry about the map.

During the TMAPC meeting, a few people hinted at what's to come.

Councilor Lakin spoke in favor of the RDO (he was one of the councilors on the steering committee), but he suggested that the land at 71st and Riverside (aka "the REI site") should be put in RDO-2, rather than RDO-1.  RDO-1 is specifically designed for park land as a way to ensure that any development is compatible with the park.

This gets confusing because Helmerich Park has an existing PUD (from the 80's)  that allows crappy commercial development to be done (IF the COT...er...TPFA can actually sell the land).  The river overlay does not impact existing PUDs (they are grandfathered in), unless they seek a major amendment, in which case, new additions would have to come into compliance with the overlay.

For this very reason, I think it's critical that all park land should receive the RDO-1 designation.  If anyone can talk me out of this, please speak up.

Also, I'm betting that QT will request to be exempted from the overlay (the current map shows they would be RDO-3, since they're on the east side of Riverside.)  Or, perhaps this is why RDO-3 doesn't have the limit on number of driveways or the distance between curb cuts?  They're basically already grandfathered in as a truck stop with the current design.  However, we know that QT likes to reinvent itself and demolish and rebuild their stores...at that point, it would matter whether or not they're included.

I had several people ask me about a zoning change sign near Turkey Mountain, this is what is going on.  Here’s the new Riverside Design Overlay package:

http://www.tmapc.org/tmapc/SA-1.pdf

The hearing date is August 17 in the City Council chambers at City Hall.

What happened to Lakin's proposal for an umbrella authority to oversee development? I thought that was insightful.

The TMAPC recommends removing two properties from the RDO standards ... August 18, 2016 Tulsa World article by Samuel Hardiman (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/planners-push-removal-of-helmerich-park-olympia-condos-from-river/article_95d78c22-ba52-5914-ba23-c302e2fdccc0.html)

I haven't been following this issue very much.  Anyone know why the TMAPC wants the Olympia condos excluded from the overlay zoning?
 

They also recommended passing the "REI Property" zoning issue to the Council. Which I understand to be a step in the direction of forcing compliance with the new zoning standard and killing the REI project.

How so?  The approved PUD would supersede the overlay, unless a major amendment was requested.  At that point, any new development would need to come into compliance with the overlay.  (Assuming the park is included in the overlay, either RDO 1,2, or 3.)

I think the TMAPC is old and tired and didn't want to think too hard or take too much responsibility for anything.  Thus... punt!

My understanding was that the TMAPC originally proposed that the overlay wouldn't apply to the REI property. Hence, punting the issue to the council is a step in the right direction. Happy to be corrected.