Tulsa Zoning: May 2008 Archives

Via Mister Snitch, a beautiful collection of photos of New York, arranged chronologically, beginning with 1885, when horse-drawn carriages and trolleys dominated Manhattan's streets. Most of the pictures were taken when skyscrapers looked like steeples, turrets, and minarets, before the 1960s influx of flat-topped glass and steel boxes. (Click the thumbnails to see full-sized images.)

Mister Snitch calls them "photos of a romantic, antique, B&W New York," and I think they deserve a romantic soundtrack, so here's Charlie Spivak and his orchestra.

This photo and its caption are worth highlighting:

Union Square West. A hilarious jumble gets A+ for accidental design. These lots once held town houses. Their dainty footprints have been preserved, so the buildings have a delicate scale regardless of their height. One is a miniature skyscraper. Scale-obsessed NIMBYs take note: you need to object to a building's footprint, not its height.

A great point. The constraints of lot lines, alleys, and the street grid generate a more pedestrian-friendly experience at the ground level. Instead of one large building with a single entrance framed by blank walls or reflective glass, you have at least five building entrances in a single block -- five different window displays to catch your eye, five places to duck in out of the rain, five places to escape from a creep. Changes in construction finance provided the deep pockets to enable developers to buy out an entire block at once, rather than buying and redeveloping one lot at a time. Urban renewal cleared whole blocks at a time, and cities became willing to vacate streets and alleys to suit the demands of developers.

My biggest complaint against the proposed Bomasada development in Brookside is not its height, but the fact that it is one huge blocky building with a single entrance, and rather than creating more connections between the residential and commercial areas, it creates more obstacles. A development of individual three to four-story townhomes or apartment buildings (2 or 3 units per floor) with separate entrances, and at least one public way connecting 39th Street to the Old Village Shops, would "enhance the value, image and function of area properties" in a way that satisfies the condition on page 7 of the Brookside Infill Plan for higher-density residential development in the residential area on the boundary with the commercial area.

Here are the Powerpoint slides presented by planning consultant John Fregonese at last Tuesday's kickoff of PLANiTULSA, the city's first comprehensive planning effort in a generation. It's only the slides, unfortunately, and not the audio, but it will give you the gist of what was presented.

| View | Upload your own

I especially liked slides 29 and 30, which outline the traditional approach to planning, certainly the approach that has been followed in Tulsa: Decide, Educate, Announce, and Defend -- that spells DEAD, and you'll notice that there's no place in the DEAD process for public input. The enlightened make the decisions and then tell the public why they should approve what has been decided. The TCC bond issue and millage levy was the most recent example of this process at work.

The following two slides are in the same vein. We plan, fund, and build projects, but we skip what should be the earlier three steps in the process: Values (what do people want?), Vision (How will our city provide it?), and Strategy (How do we implement the values and vision?).

Mayor Kathy Taylor also spoke at the kickoff, and I was disappointed to hear her describe this process as one that began in 2007. In fact, this new comprehensive planning effort has its roots in Mayor Bill LaFortune's vision summit of July 2002 and the efforts of Councilors Chris Medlock and Joe Williams in 2003 to establish a Future Growth Task Force. Unfortunately, Mayor LaFortune cooperated in the degeneration of the vision process to the development of a laundry list of disconnected projects designed to generate enough votes to get an arena tax approved by Tulsa County voters. He also stymied the Future Growth Task Force, refusing to support it unless eight of nine councilors were also on board. (Art Justis, Randy Sullivan, and Bill Christiansen withheld their support.)

Nevertheless, it was during the LaFortune administration and with pressure from the Gang of Five that the new comprehensive plan was launched, with the initial development of the process included by the City Council in the TMAPC's work package for the 2005-6 fiscal year.

While Mayor Taylor deserves credit for keeping the progress moving, and a great deal of credit for putting the process under the planners at the City Urban Development Department rather than the land-use bookkeepers at INCOG, it would have been gracious for her to acknowledge the foundation laid by her predecessors at City Hall.

(Taylor also expressed pleasure in working with the City Council over "the past month" -- a back of the hand, hopefully unintentional, to departing Councilors Roscoe Turner, Maria Barnes, and Cason Carter who served with the Mayor during the first two years of her term.)

There are two big rezoning cases on the Wednesday, May 21, agenda for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC) involving infill in midtown Tulsa. Affected neighborhoods are meeting in advance to discuss the rezonings and strategize about the upcoming hearing.

One involves a 240-unit apartment building proposed for 39th & Rockford in Brookside, behind Food Pyramid and the Old Village Shops. Area residents will meet early this evening, May 19, at 5:30 p.m., at Wright Elementary School. Called the Enclave at Brookside and developed by Bomasada Group of Houston, the four-story building would replace two single-story apartment courtyards along 39th Street and some barracks-like post-war duplexes along Rockford. While higher density infill development is to be expected in the business areas of Brookside, as designated by the Brookside infill plan, this development is into the Brookside residential area, and is at a larger scale than would be consistent with the terms of the plan. The plan does allow higher densities of residential development along the boundary between residential and business areas "if (a) appropriate design elements and improvements are provided in conformance with area design guidelines to enhance the value, image and function of area properties and (b) if consistent with District 6 Plan goals, objectives, policies and guidelines." Whether this project meets those criteria is at the heart of the debate.

The other concerns the 21st & Harvard QuikTrip. QT seeks to expand all the way west to Gary Place, replacing two duplexes, a single family home, and a two-story commercial building. On Tuesday, May 20, at 7:00 p.m., Florence Park neighborhood association will host a joint neighborhood meeting along with Florence Park South (southwest of the intersection), Jefferson Terrace (southeast), and Sunrise Terrace (southeast) to discuss flooding in the area and the proposed rezoning.

This week in Urban Tulsa Weekly, I review the controversy over the digital billboard ordinance, approved last week by the Tulsa City Council and look ahead to next Wednesday's hearing before the TMAPC on plans for an expanded QuikTrip convenience store at 21st & Harvard.

Here is a link to the case report on the QuikTrip rezoning. Here is a description from the case report of the proposed screening along Gary Place:

An 8 foot high, brick screening wall will be constructed along the South Gary Place frontage, angled at the northwest corner of the property and extending east to the front set-back of the residence to the north. The screening wall will be constructed of brick to match the wall color of the brick on the west wall of the store. The wall will be set-back 13 feet from S. Gary Place right of way and approximately 25 feet from the east curb of the street. The height of the wall will drop from 8 feet to 3 feet, 41-feet north of the southwest corner of the property to permit acceptable visibility of traffic leaving the store on East 21 st Street and for traffic entering East 21 st Street from South Gary Place. The location of the screening wall is shown on Exhibit A, Site Plan and the design on Exhibit C, Landscape Details and is subject to detail site plan review.

The second element of the screening plan is a combination of 12 feet high at planting pyramidal Leland Cypress evergreen trees and 12 feet high semi-evergreen Wax Myrtle trees as shown on Exhibit C, Landscape Details.

Landscape features accent planting areas at the northwest angle of the 8-foot high wall and at the south end of the screening wall. Chinese Pistache trees 12 feet high and Crepe Myrtles will be planted on the interior of the wall to add to visual buffer as indicated on attached Exhibit C, Landscape Details. Additional shrubs will be installed as shown on Exhibit C, Landscape Details. The remainder of the landscaped area outside the tree and shrub areas will be Bermuda sod.

Beyond the screening wall would be a second parking lot for the new QuikTrip, so this would be a two-entrance store; it just wouldn't have the back entrance on Gary Pl., as I'd suggested in my column. The new QT would be larger than the existing building and just to its west, roughly where the Lassiter & Shoemaker Photography building and the backyards of the residences being removed.

Last month I took some photos of the 21st & Harvard intersection, since there are major changes proposed for the northwest and southwest corners.

Here is an overview of the post-general election Form C-1 ethics reports filed with the Tulsa City Clerk's office by 5 p.m. Monday, the deadline for the post-general filing for the April 1 Tulsa City Council general election.

Perhaps the most interesting report wasn't from a candidate. It was from Build PAC, the developer lobby's political action committee. Build PAC filled out an incomplete report which did not list the names of contributors or amounts of contributions. It did list the candidates which received its largess:

Emanuel Lewis (District 1 Democrat) - $500
David Patrick (District 3 Independent) - $1,500
Eric Gomez (District 4 Republican) - $1,500
Dennis Troyer (District 6 Democrat) - $750
Bill Christiansen (District 8 Republican) - $1,000
G. T. Bynum (District 9 Republican) - $1,000

It was a good year for Build PAC. They elected five of the six candidates they supported, and they timed their donations to avoid being an issue in the campaign. Note also that most of these candidates also received contributions from the ABC PAC (Associated Builders & Contractors) and the Realtors PAC.

Now that we know who the Build PAC Boys are, we'll be watching to see if they toe the development lobby's line or if they demonstrate some independence between now and the next election. This city's future is too important to let it be decided by those who are only out for short-term profits.

Please note that the numbers for Eric Gomez do not include any of the contributions from his May 5th breakfast fundraiser at the Chalkboard Restaurant. Even without those donations, he was able to raise more than he spent.

DISTRICT 1:

Jack Henderson (D)

Contributions this period = $2,700.00
Contributions over $200 = $2,400.00
Contributions $200 or less = $300.00
Expenditures this period = $6,360.72

Total contributions for campaign = $14,228.69
Total expenditures for campaign = $14,173.32

$750 - Tulsa Firefighter Local #176
$500 - Jack Henderson, Roy Ashley
$400 - Mary Blendowski
$250 - DPF PAC Local #523

DISTRICT 2:

Rick Westcott (R):

Filed a statement of inactivity.

DISTRICT 3:

David Patrick (I):

Contributions this period = $9,600.00
Contributions over $200 = $8,000.00
Contributions $200 or less = $1,600.00
Expenditures this period = $8,936.80

Total contributions for campaign = $12,421.13
Total expenditures for campaign = not listed

$2,500 - Tulsans for Truth, P.O. Box 4503, 74159
$1,500 - Build PAC
$1,000 - Realtor PAC; ABC (Associated Builders & Contractors) PAC, 1915 N. Yellowood Ave., 74102
$500 - Margaret Pellegrini, Jeff Parell, Thomas Kennedy, Barry Benoit

Roscoe Turner (D):

Contributions this period = $1,725.00
Contributions over $200 = $1,100.00
Contributions $200 or less = $600.00
Expenditures this period = $4,924.00

Total contributions for campaign = $12,999.37
Total expenditures for campaign = $12,927.25

$500 - K. Anderson
$300 - P. Feist
$250 - Mark Darrah

DISTRICT 4:

Jason Eric Gomez (R):

Contributions this period = $10,700.00
Contributions over $200 = $8,300.00
Contributions $200 or less = $2,400.00
Expenditures this period = $10,057.76

Total contributions for campaign = $13,700.00
Total expenditures for campaign = $13,127.01

$2,500 - Ed Leinbach
$1,500 - Tulsa Build PAC
$1,000 - Realtor PAC, ABC (Associated Builders & Contractors) PAC
$500 - River City Development LLC, Albert Mendel
$300 - Caleb Raynolds
$250 - Peter Walter, Robert & Jill Thomas, Ridge Kaiser, William Thomas

Maria Barnes (D):

Contributions this period = $2,130.00
Contributions over $200 = $750.00
Contributions $200 or less = $1,380.00
Expenditures this period = $4,752.28

Total contributions for campaign = $22,211.71
Total expenditures for campaign = $12,481.41

$500 - Just Progress PAC
$250 - Steve & Norma Turnbo

DISTRICT 5:

Bill Martinson (R)

Contributions this period = $8,550.00
Contributions over $200 = $8,050.00
Contributions $200 or less = $500.00
Expenditures this period = $10,923.88

Total contributions for campaign = $10,967.62
Total expenditures for campaign = $10,923.88

$2,000 - Stan L. Johnson
$1,500 - Bruce Norton
$1,100 - Jeff Stava for City Council
$1,000 - Stacy Schusterman
$700 - Phil Frohlich
$500 - Mike Case, Howard G. Barnett Jr., George B. Kaiser
$250 - James G. Norton

DISTRICT 6:

Kevin Boggs (R)

Contributions this period = $1,300.00
Contributions over $200 = $1,150.00
Contributions $200 or less = $150.00
Expenditures this period = $2,078.23

Total contributions for campaign = $2,573.23
Total expenditures for campaign = $2,523.23

$550 - Kevin & Christy Boggs
$350 - Bill Bickerstaff
$250 - April & Jeff Cash

Dennis K. Troyer (D):

Contributions this period = $7,200.00
Contributions over $200 = $6,000.00
Contributions $200 or less = $1,200.00
Expenditures this period = $5,659.44

Total contributions for campaign = $13,634.90
Total expenditures for campaign = $11,984.34

$2,000 - W. E. Lobeck [Mr. Kathy Taylor]
$1,000 - Transport Workers Union, Greater Tulsa Association of Realtors
$750 - Home Builders Association [Build PAC]
$250 - Jim East, J. L. [Jody] Parker, GBK [George B. Kaiser] Corp, 6733 S. Yale, Larry Mocha, Dan Schusterman

DISTRICT 7:

John Eagleton (R)

Contributions this period = $1,790.00
Contributions over $200 = $800.00
Contributions $200 or less = $990.00
Expenditures this period = $1,790.00

Total contributions for campaign = $1,790.00
Total expenditures for campaign = $1,790.00

$300 - J. & P. Rice
$250 - L. Mocha, M. Barkley

[Expenditures consisted of refunding all contributions to the contributors.]

DISTRICT 8:

Bill Christiansen (R)

Contributions this period = $7,710.00
Contributions over $200 = $5,250.00
Contributions $200 or less = $2,460.00
Expenditures this period = $6,319.49

Total contributions for campaign = $21,830.23
Total expenditures for campaign = $13,140.38

$1,000 - Build PAC, Realtors PAC, Mike D. Case
$500 - Ronald E. Davis, Mike Krimbill, Martin Keating
$250 - Laurie L. Ross, Michael B. Fretz, Ernest & Jeannine Terry

DISTRICT 9:

G. T. Bynum (R)

Contributions this period = $9,850.00
Contributions over $200 = $8,650.00
Contributions $200 or less = $1,200.00
Expenditures this period = $10,556.82

Total contributions for campaign = $58,284.14
Total expenditures for campaign = $29,489.65

$2,000 - Joseph & Kathy Craft
$1,000 - ABC PAC, Build PAC, Realtors PAC
$500 - W. H. Helmerich, Dave Hentchel
$350 - Mary B. Sullivan
$300 - Steve Austin
$250 - Arnold & Pat Brown, Frank & Bonnie Henke, Rosa Lee LaFortune, Richard B. Pringle, Mollie B. Williford, William H. Davis, Fred Daniel Jr., Julie Pringle

More analysis of these reports on Thursday.

PLANiTULSA, the city's first comprehensive planning effort since the 1970s, will be launched today at 4:30 at the Central Center at Centennial Park, on 6th Street west of Peoria. The festivities will include a presentation at 5 p.m. by John Fregonese, head of Fregonese Associates, the firm that was hired to develop Tulsa's plan.

Fregonese was involved in Dallas's first-ever comprehensive plan, Forward Dallas:

ForwardDallas! identifies Dallas' most critical land-use issues: the need for more area plans and fewer planned development districts; the desire for an updated parking ordinance; and demand for a simpler, more transparent development process.

To implement ForwardDallas!, detailed specific area plans were outlined to be pursued in the coming year. Eight small area plans were developed in various parts of the city for ForwardDallas! These plans were used to develop specific policies and actions for ForwardDallas!...

Like every plan on which Fregonese Associates works, ForwardDallas! offers a framework for the future rather than a blueprint.

You can read more about the PLANiTULSA process on the City of Tulsa website.

The intention of the City's Urban Development Department is to have a great deal of public involvement in the development of this plan. Knowing many of the people in that department, I believe that intention is sincere. So whether or not you can be at today's kickoff, plan to be involved in the process. Tulsa's future is too important to be left to those who are only concerned with short-term profits.

P.S. Don't forget to vote today!