A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2017, 12:13:31 pm
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CVS at 15th and Utica  (Read 30529 times)
Breadburner
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4320


WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2015, 08:26:05 am »

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.....
Logged

 
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2459


« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2015, 10:03:41 am »

So...How do we get this shot down.....Huh
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.
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 28721



« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2015, 10:42:55 am »

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


Thatís not entirely true.

There have been PUDís 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.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the firstĒ -Ronald Reagan
Breadburner
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4320


WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2015, 12:27:23 pm »

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

 
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3416


WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2015, 12:28:56 pm »

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.  
Logged

 
Breadburner
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4320


WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2015, 12:51:55 pm »

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.....
Logged

 
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2459


« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2015, 03:16:47 pm »

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.)

Logged
Bamboo World
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2015, 08:59:18 pm »

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.)

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.

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.

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.
Logged
Breadburner
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4320


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 06, 2015, 06:57:14 am »

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

 
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2459


« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2015, 09:49:52 am »

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.
Logged
cynical
Civic Leader
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 326


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 06, 2015, 10:29:25 am »

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.
Logged

 
TheArtist
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6593



WWW
« Reply #56 on: November 06, 2015, 10:27:11 pm »

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.
Logged

"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h
Bamboo World
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #57 on: November 08, 2015, 12:46:08 pm »

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). 

Which PUD was recently approved?
Logged
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2459


« Reply #58 on: November 09, 2015, 09:37:20 am »

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.

Logged
DowntownDan
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


« Reply #59 on: November 09, 2015, 10:44:54 am »

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.....

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org