Plan Feedback Received
All feedback received through the web form will be posted here within a few days.
NEW -- Comments submitted to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission as a part of the public hearing process.
March 9 2010
Something that isn't really addressed in the Plan is emphasis on greening Tulsa. Some of the things I'd like to see addressed are city-wide curbside recycling, the requirement that all new-built city structures use Leed and USGB green-building standards, and regulations regarding demolition, deconstruction and re-use of new construction materials.
March 9 2010
Please think carefully about any changes to the requirements for infill in existing neighborhoods. Part III - items 1.6 and 5.4 represent the consensus view that established neighborhood design should be preserved. Building large houses with vast areas of concrete on lots not designed for it dramatically affect the water flow and can cause irreparable damage to neighbors. The tree kill is vast and lasts for years. The standing water deteriorates the streets. Today, neighbors have no notice of a tear-down and can not protest the building of a home not remotely compatible in style or size. Our established neighborhoods are a backbone to what makes Tulsa great - don't allow that support to erode.
March 9 2010
One version of this plan contained under Existing Residential Neighborhoods and Areas of Stability the phrase "consistent in form, scale, rhythm and proportion." Then I read in the comments where this phrase was removed and changed to "as permitted through clear and objective setback, height , and other development standards of the zoning code." Why? The problems in our neighborhoods now are with the zoning codes which allow the the ugly, ill-proportioned and ill-fitting infills. I think the language should be corrected to include the words "form, scale, rhythm and proportion."
March 9 2010
3 Points:
- Follow through and accountability is the most important element, this could require some sort of public oversight.
- Density and urban vitality are essential to maintain a tax base that can keep our City great.
- We need to become more progressive in our handling of stormwater, infiltration methods and use on sight must be encouraged and rewarded.
March 9 2010
Flood plain management needs to be as conservative as original intent of no building in potential wet areas or the creation of new wet areas as created by inapprotriate building. Any softening of this approach will see return to invasive and potentially damanging land uses. 2). Define carefully stable and unstable land uses re comp plan. Much too subjective and now invites development in unwarrented area. 3). Begin design phase for metro government design as financial condition of city at risk and new approach wArranted. 4) escape temptation to to select easy step of a city planning unit missing point of tmapc created by title 19 as a metro wide planning unit. Reestablishment as statute intended an independent tmapc funded by city and county with already designed authority to hire and fire director. This is the missing link to have person capable and trained as planner to negotiate the comp plan coordination so missing in city and county govenment!!!
March 9 2010
Taking planning out of ingco to city is not the answer reestablishment the tmapc as the independent unit it once was with the commission hiring and firing it's director as planned by title 19 of Oklahoma statues. Planning is to be metro wide and tmapc is to plan, manage subdivions regulations, board of adjustment ( that has been allowed to slip into secondary zoning board),small area planning city and county,zoning and overall manager of the comprehensive plan. Just pulling out planning misses the point of the title 29 legislation. Stormwater,parks,urban development, codes,all need to be coodinated re planning statagies outlines in comp plan. Transportation fits nicely with cog mission. Reestablishment tmapc as independent unit funded by city county and federal dollars
March 3 2010
After reading the comment blog, we would like to thank the Homebuilders Association for all of the time they devoted to thoroughly editing out any language proposed by Fregonese to protect the "form, scale, proportions and rhythmn" of established neighborhoods.
6,000 Tulsa stakeholders want stable neighborhoods. Fregonese and Associates, a highly educated planning firm understood the importance of these words and repeatedly used them in the PlaniTulsa document.
Please respect the wishes of the taxpayers and the intelligence of Fregonese and Associates and keep these very important words in OUR plan.
March 2 2010
Stability Change map has the SEC of 31 & Peoria as Change. It is a 1920's era Tulsa Mansion Estate. It seems that it would be more appropriate to have it be stability like the surrounding historic neighborhoods which surround it.
Feb 28 2010
I agree that the Vision for Tulsa plan is wonderful. Most folks don't know enough regarding Tulsa history. I am 66 and working for a #1 Wireless company. I plan to share this information to my coworkers so they can share their imput.
Feb 25 2010
I spoke briefly at the meeting on Tuesday night, and I gather the next meeting will be much busier. Since I can't come then, I'd like to add a few more comments. I'm the pediatrician who grew up in Texas (6th generation!) and chose to live and raise my kids in Tulsa 30 years ago. I have been impressed at the number of multi-generation families that live here, and disappointed, as are many of my friends, that my kids didn't stay. They have moved away, partly because of transportation issues, to larger cities on the east coast in dense inner-city locations. The oldest went to the Kennedy School of Public Policy, and has a company that studies public school systems - mostly on Gates Foundation grants. Too bad he wasn't involved in the application process for the TPS!
At any rate, in addition to my comments in support of the PlaniTulsa vision and execution, I want to answer what I see are some of the nay-sayers (real estate agents and developers maybe?) who would like Tulsa to develop as it is. The plan does not disallow the continued growth into suburbia that is the apparent direction some seek. However, the character of Tulsa is in its midtown and near-downtown areas, and that is what needs to be coalesced and given some better form and function in order to help Tulsa retain its unique character as well as keep up with the changes necessary for a viable society. Having a more walkable layout, and access to public transportation, would contribute to better health, a reality some cities have come to embrace. Tulsa could be the shining star in this, the obesest state in the Union. It already has the best health care in the state, and we should capitalize on that fact.
If some are concerned that there was a preponderance of folks from midtown taking interest in this process, I can only say, everyone had an opportunity to contribute, and the rest of the city may develop just fine "on its own", but there is huge need for oversite and collaboration, which involves sometimes cooperation over individual property owners' "rights" in order to have a quality, functional "product", a city of which we can all be proud.
Thanks for shepherding this process along, successfully, I pray!
Feb 23 2010
I hope after all the input from the citizens of Tulsa and the expense of this project it will be adopted by TMAPC and subsequently by the City Council. We need a plan for Tulsa and the planners have gone to great lengths to get us what we want. Don't leave us blowing in the wind!
Feb 22 2010
The reliance on neighborhood associations as an informed and engaged planning participant is misplaced. Although WIN has offered a number of classes addressing a variety of topical issues, the subject of planning has not be properly addressed. Unless a neighborhood has been engaged in a small-area neighborhood plan, the planning process and its outcomes are alien to the majority of citizens in Tulsa. Without a structured training resource on the subject of planning that results in a minimum standard of accountability, the majority of the city's neighborhood associations, leaders, and members will continue to be primarily reactive in their response to change in their neighborhoods, and historically, this reaction has been negative and personal.
Why has PLANiTULSA failed to address citizen education as a fundamental issue?
Feb 22 2010
I attended the summer Parks hearing and the recent overall hearing in my district. Seems like an interesting plan of what Tulsans - citizens - want for our city: the proof, however, will be in the actual implementation which is when all the business interests attempt to pay their way through the political process - and I am not a "teabagger." It will be up to citizens to remind the folks in office that "we" wrote this plan and they need to follow it!
In regards to that, it seems the Mayor and Council have already tried to shoot the PLANiTULSA planners in the foot with the repeal of the 100-year-old ordinance on drilling in the city and our parks. Parks and trees are mentioned throughout this plan and in all the sections of comments given. We obviously love them - so why abandon this 100 year old tradition???
These are the sections of the Parks section I would call to their attention.
PA4 "Tourism Value" hey, doesn't this mean $$$$$$. Why not save the parks rather than attack them.
PA8 "Unobtrusive parkland" great term. Hard to use that when it has drilling going on. And right after that:
PA9 "Tulsans also recognize we need to protect and capitalize on the city's local natural assets, including Mohawk Park..Turkey Mt...Tulsans want to preserve these assets for children in the community, future generations.." Well said. why couldn't the City leaders wait for this report and listen to what citizens were saying to them.
On the previous page, citizens were asked about "unobtrusive il drilling in large tracts of undeveloped park land" as possible revenue sources to raise funds for the city and many favored this. However - this is then contradicted by what you have later in the chapter about ecological balance and saving tree canopies. I wonder if people would have responded to your question differently.
I remember a fight back in the 80's over the North Woods of Oxley when Inhofe proposed a casino for the north side. He was plucked by the birders and had bird tracks up one side and down the other. Result: no casino and the woods still stands. It is one thing to propose it but when it comes to actually saying we are going to cut the trees, the mayor is likely to be the one that gets the ax. (Inhofe lost the next election.)
PA10 "Restoring Ecological Function" Well, we are already preserving it in Mohawk with the nature center so why do we want to drill in Mohawk? Also, Turkey Mountain is another areas that supports migratory birds PA17.
PA25 Building and saving the Tree Canopy - Yes, so save the parkland, duh.
PA26 Avoid Development in the Flood Plain. Again the City Council and the Mayor just ignored this. Bird Creek floods Mohawk. Why do you think the interpretive building at Oxley Nature Center sits up on a pad? Why is there a pond in front. Because the dirt was removed to make the building pad so the building was up out of the plain.
As I told a city planner at my district meeting, the nature center is always being flooded. (it's part of the natural process) IT is, he replied! I said yes. It's had waist deep water in the parking lot. It has?? he replied. Well if you folks would talk to the staff and the Friends group once in a blue moon you might learn a few things!
PA 26 7.3 "Avoid development in floodplain and wetlands areas." To me that says No Drilling, but maybe that's not development?!
PA27 Goal 9 "Natural and sensitve areas are protected and preserved." I would add - since we are in Oklahoma, No drilling allowed.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.
Feb 22 2010
As proud midtown residents (district 4), we support the PlaniTulsa policy plan. We would love to see downtown Tulsa redeveloped and reenergized to offset the flight to the suburbs that has occured over the last several decades. We finally have a vision and a plan and we need to implement it.
Feb 16 2010
Thanks for your presentation this evening on PlaniTulsa.
We discussed the Xmas tree lot at 31st and I-44. That address would be approx 7600 and 7700 East 31st St. The property meanders south along the B/A I-44 on ramp westbound.
The City did considerable Audubon Creek improvements across that property from West to East from the 1990 sales tax extension. Yet. there is still some privately owned property on the 31st street frontage and more across the creek to the south.
It currently has a for sale sign on the property with something to the effect of "Commercial Potential." I believe it is RS-2 zoning as it has never had but one house on it which is long gone. Our HOAR fought many zoning cases on that property in the 80's and early 90's. I heard it was owned by a person who owns the large billboard lighted sign on the property.
With lack of ingress and egress, FD zone area and the state will not allow any access from the on ramp, it would be costly to bridge the creek to access the back of the property which abuts the Magnolia Terrace Addn. And, the District 5 Comp plan currently does not recommend commercial in that area. I hope that does not change with PlaniTulsa.
I would like to see your PlaniTulsa maps revised and remove this area from change and perhaps, classify as stable. Most residents here believe it should be open land with a mini-forest to reduce I-44 traffic noise. Please Advise.
Feb 9 2010
Vision, page 6, the last bullet point is missing a word or phrase.
Land use, page 14, chart 7, three shadings on graph per se, whereas there are four categories shown.
February 8
I am very concerned about ratifying this Plan for the entire city.
I have heard that our present system is 30 years old. I say if it aint broke don't fix it.
I think it will put undue stress on many levels of development.
Please pass this around to the TMAPC board members as my veto.
Feb 01 2010
I searched the transportation section for the word age, aging, elderly, old, older, etc and found one statement that the old and young may be killed on page 32. I emailed long ago about the horrible sidewalks, telephone poles in the middle of the walk, along S. Lewis across from Southern Hills and south you see people walking on hillocks or below street grade being spewed with drainage from rain or snow. AARP recently emailed "Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America" a research report developed by a consortium traffic experts. Hope Planitulsa will somehow consider the content. Thanks.
Jan 29 2010
I think the parks section is good, but there is no mention of "dog parks". I am relatively new to Tulsa and I am amazed at the low number of dog parks and the locations of the existing ones. They are not very accessible. As I compare the existing dog parks to other parks in Tulsa, the ratio of dog park users seem to out number usage of other parks by at least 3 to 1. The dog parks are used everyday as opposed to the other parks being used mainly on weekends. You speak of a sense of community, dog owners have something in common, and that makes way for meeting new friends. I urge you to take a look at new dog park locations, accessible by paths to down town and mid town residents. Charging a quarter for each use could be instituted to maintain the purchase of waste bags, water, maintenance etc. The dog parks in Houston have swimming ponds for the dogs with fenced sections for large and small dogs. If the park was near the river, it seems a water circulation system could be powered by a solar source and the water could be shut off in the colder months.
Jan 28 2010
I would like to see the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan in it's entirety, as adopted by the Tulsa City Council to fulfill requirements a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Oklahoma Department of Civil Emergency Management (ODCEM), be implemented and incorporated into the plan. It might not be a bad idea to even add an entire section to the plan covering hazard mitigation planning to address the goals of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan by making Tulsa a more disaster resistant community in our planning, with special emphasis on, including but not limited to, building codes for commercial and residential properties, municipal facilities, infrastructure, and transportation systems. Proactive planning to mitigate natural or manmade disasters, as opposed to a reactive plans, are a much more cost effective approach to manage times of emergency and to reduce the potential costs associated with the damage, destruction, or disruptions caused by disaster events including loss of life and losses to the local economy. Making Tulsa more disaster resistant will make it a more desirable place to live, work and play. I hope this will be considered and included, or at least discussed for inclusion in the final draft of the plan.
Jan 28 2010
The plan should include planning on how Tulsa deals with municipal waste stream management. With the construction, demolition, renovation and infill development proposed in the plan, we should seek greener solutions to how to address the waste generated in these processes.
8,000 lbs of waste are typically thrown into the landfill during the
construction of a 2,000 square foot home. Annually, builders in the
United States generate approximately 31.5 million tons of construction
waste, almost 24 percent of the total municipal solid waste in this
country. When over 50% of that waste can be recycled there is no
reason for it to go into the landfill. A construction recycling program for commercial, industrial, residential and transportation construction should be discussed, considered and included in the plan as a possible greener solution to this issue.
Deconstruction, as opposed to traditional demolition, is also a greener solution that would provide new green collar jobs, promote construction and demolition waste recycling while creating green jobs in a new recycling market in Tulsa, thereby reducing the impact of construction and demolition debris waste streams on municipal landfills.
Jan 27 2010
I strongly support the Planit Tulsa recommendations, but am extremely disappointed that the Tulsa Metropolitan Transit Authority budget has been cut by 31%, resulting in driver layoffs, route cancellation (Cherokee Industrial Park), and reduced runs on other routes. Instead, our city leaders have spend the federal stimulus transportation funds on building more highways and bridges, which will cause more traffic congestion and force Tulsa onto the EPA dirty air list.
Jan 26 2010
Thank you for the opportunity to review the "Our Vision for Tulsa"
document. I am a retired City Planner with 38 years of experience in the public and private sectors in Colorado and California including almost 25 years as a planning director and community development director.
My opinion of the document is that the graphics are nice, but the vision is
mostly fluff - mom and apple pie. I am reminded of an old Richard Hedman cartoon that shows two planners talking. One planner says to the other, "Ideally, all your policies cancel each other out. That's the only way you can do whatever you want and still get federal funds."
Many of the vision concepts conflict with one another. Further, it appears to me there is nothing in the vision that indicates we are going to do anything to curb urban sprawl, revitalize or redevelop existing dead or near dead shopping centers (or improve the appearance - landscaping - of new ones), or really revitalize the downtown.
I realized long ago that no city council member and no city manager can ever say no to proposed new retail or office development and that developers, as a group, are incapable of preventing themselves from overbuilding. The result in Tulsa and almost every other city has been a huge over-supply of retail shopping centers and office development.
The unfortunate result in many cities, and Tulsa, is deteriorating downtowns and deteriorating older shopping centers and office buildings. Cities, beginning primarily in the 1950's, started approving shopping centers, office buildings, and residential development all over the place; and urban sprawl became rampant. Those factors, along with the oil and automobile companies buying the streetcar operations and shutting them down, caused downtowns to decline.
Unless there is strong political commitment and leadership to revitalize downtown Tulsa, and I suspect here isn't, it isn't going to happen. If downtown is going to be revitalized, then the Comprehensive Plan is going to have to say something like no more new office buildings of more than 40,000 square feet in area will be allowed outside the downtown. It is my impression from a recent tour that most of the beautiful and historic buildings in the downtown are vacant or underutilized. They are going to stay that way unless there is a major political commitment to filling them up.
There needs to be similar policies for multi-family residential, movie theatres, restaurants, etc. The survey results showed that half of survey respondents would choose to live in an existing neighborhood rather than downtown. That's not surprising considering the current state of downtown Tulsa. There are, however, downtowns in other cities, in which I, and many others, would like to live: San Francisco, Portland, Boston, even Fort Worth. Unfortunately, it's a viscous circle. If people don't want to live downtown, there isn't going to be a strong downtown. To have a strong downtown, people have to live there. Downtown retail is probably a lost cause until there is a significant downtown residential population.
I think the transportation issue is very difficult. The population densities in Tulsa are not sufficient to support any form of mass transit other than bus (and probably not even bus); and the "quick reliable bus" noted is the document is an oxymoron. I have become convinced over the years than no one is going to ride a bus if there is any other way to get where they need to go. They will ride streetcars however, the older and quainter the better.
A streetcar line from the north into downtown, then out along Fourth Street, and up Peoria by Cherry Street and through Brookside would be very nice and, I think, utilized.
I think that the challenge to the consultants for Portland is: What policies, strategies, codes, and ordinances are necessary to get the "Pearl District," in downtown Tulsa and limit urban sprawl. The vision as drafted isn't going to cut it.
Jan 19 2010
I have always enjoyed walking to town. When I lived in Brookside, I daily walked downtown using Cincinati and the Midland Valley Trail and alleyways and side streets. I walked a total of 8 miles per day. Now I live closer to downtown and still do this. I enjoy seeing more pedestrians uptown these days. In the past years I shared the sidewalk with only the homeless. I no longer have a grocery store within walking distance (except the Quik Trip) so would welcome that option. What is the old Homeland at Denver and 12th being used for? Is it for sale?
Jan 19 2010
Many in our neighborhood have spoken and requested that 76th Street between Sheridan and Memorial be opened on the east end of the street with a left turn opening from 76th Street to go north on Memorial. A man was killed around Christmas trying to make a left turn (north) onto Memorial off of 76th Street. He turned into the oncoming traffic. There are numerous other turn lanes into the are - this is a much more logical location and one needed.
Jan 19 2010
Please make the proposed rail connection to the Tulsa Airport more explicit.
There needs to be an intermodal connection there.
Jan 17 2010
Excellent plan. Couple of things need to start right away...
1. Complete the Gilcrease Expressway as soon as possible.
2. Start converting all municipal and county-owned vehicles to CNG. Do 20% a year. Finish by 2015.
3. Start the detailed transportation planning this spring. Start building a light rail system by 2015. Finish it in 2020.
Obviously, these are no more than "details" in a very big picture that has to come together consistently but they are "markers" we should start putting down now.
This is a very ambitious plan. It is both creative and thoughtful. If Tulsa actually looked and worked like this, people would fight for the chance to live here. Do NOT let this die because finances look gloomy this year. There are enough of us here to pay for this and make it happen. We're not afraid to do this or spend money for it. We don't want our leaders to be afraid, either. We want to see them out front, making a difference.
"Make no little plans..."
Jan 14 2010 - 1:08pm
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the plan is the need to address signage in Tulsa. Our overabundance of pole signs, billboards and Vegas-like digital signs are a big impediment to creating an attractive, livable city. Indeed, changing the sign ordinances to restrict the height, size and number of signs allowed per lot (as well as the brightness of digital signs), would have a profound impact upon the desireability of our public right of way.
We can't create inviting, walkable streets without addressing the issue of ugly, ubiquitous visual clutter.
I also wonder if there should be some statement offering guidance about PUDs. Obviously, the new plan (and suggested changes to the zoning code) should lessen the need for PUDs. At least theoretically.
In practice, we seem to have an addiction to PUDs, which are not necessarily used to create unique, higher quality developments. Instead, they are generally used to mass together lots for inappropriate, large-scale, suburban-style developments. How do we break this habit? Can we offer guidelines that would enable the TMAPC to "just say no?"
Comments on previous versions of the Vision and Plan Chapters
Summary of Comments on Earlier Plan Draft (posted Jan 18, 2010)
Summary of Comments on Vision (posted Jan 15, 2010)
