Thursday night, the Tulsa City Council will face another test as they hear big time Houston real estate developer Bomasada's rezoning request for its proposed four-story "Enclave" development at 39th and Rockford.
Brookside neighbors are protesting the new development as out of scale for the neighborhood and out of accord with the neighborhood's infill plan, which is a part of the City's comprehensive plan and should guide officials as they consider requested changes to the zoning map ordinance.
Whether you live in Brookside or not, all Tulsa property owners have a stake in the outcome, as it will show whether this City Council will stick with or set aside the development standards that were negotiated by homeowners, business owners, and developers and formally adopted by the city. Consistent application of the rules is the issue at hand.
The Bomasada proposal exceeds the height and density for area designated as residential in the Brookside plan. In the Brookside residential district, new development is supposed to mimic the setbacks, heights, and open space of the single-family homes that dominate the neighborhood.
The plan makes allowances for higher residential densities where the designated residential area abuts the designated business area but only "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."
A group of four-story brownstone apartment buildings with individual entries and paths allowing better pedestrian access between the neighborhood and the Old Village Shopping Center might meet those criteria. The massive, monolithic, insular apartment building proposed by Bomasada does not.
While the developer made some concessions to get the plan through the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, word is that the developers think they can get council approval for their original proposal.
In conducting in-depth interviews for Tulsa's new comprehensive planning effort, the public opinion research firm Collective Strength found a recurring theme: "Fatalism about lack of zoning and code enforcement and special favors for the wealthy." Approval of this development would only reinforce that well-founded cynicism and would undermine optimism that a new comprehensive plan would be fairly applied to all.
Brookside plan participants put in a great deal of time and effort. To set the product of that effort aside will chill enthusiasm for participating in future planning efforts. If all that negotiation and compromise comes to nothing, if the developer is always going to get his way, why bother?
I was happy to speak publicly in support Jim Glass's townhouse development on 35th Place, despite the objections of nearby homeowners. That development was within the north Brookside business area and clearly in accord with the relevant design guidelines. But in this case, the homeowners' protests are correct.
Good land use planning doesn't grant an automatic win for developers or homeowners. It requires rules that are consistently and fairly applied, regardless of the wealth or influence of the applicant.
The council will hear from applicants and from INCOG staffers that the Bomasada development is consistent with the Brookside plan. The councilors should examine the matter for themselves and come to their own conclusions. If they do, I feel confident that they'll vote down this proposal.
The ripples from their decision will extend far beyond Brookside. The new comprehensive planning effort, PLANiTULSA, will have its first public workshops in September.
If the council shows respect for the Brookside planning process by voting down the Bomasada development, it will signal to the public that they can have a positive and long-lasting impact by participating in PLANiTULSA.
If they set the Brookside plan aside for the developers, it will feed public cynicism about public land use planning and discourage participation from the very activists who have the most insight to contribute to the new plan.
Choose wisely, Councilors.
Share this article:
|
|
|
|
|
The councilors could have directed Bomasada to the downtown area or the river. Case in point, Bomasada is just getting started here with this win. Expect them to cherry-pick the city now and take advantage of a spineless council and a disfunctional TAMPC. One wonders who's paying whom to get these deals through with such lightening speed. And all while the city attorneys slap each other on the back in plain view in the council chamber while live televised meetings are in progress. Someone down there around all this backrubbing should be an honorable citizen and blow the whistle on the yahoos downtown whose salaries we are paying who are weaseling these deals while the citizens wring their hands in disgust. We have spoken with 4 people this week who are leaving Tulsa! One going to Chicago, one to Phoenix, Arizona, one to Portland, Oregon and the last to Madison, Wiconsin. They are all young to middle-aged....their reasons for moving.... they are tired of the logic our city leaders use for pushing projects through that cost taxpayers money, and yet we never see the final results come to fruition;they are fed up with the crazy conservative politics in OKC making national headlines monthly; they are fed up with how their neighborhoods can't effect positive change, and the number one reason all stated is the roads!!
Apathy is a good way to put it, but I for one, choosing yet to remain here for now will not 'settle for less" either. Once Brookside is invaded with high rises that follow in the footsteps of the Camelot, we'll be putting our house up for sale too and moving closer to our family out east. One can only give a state and municipality so much time to prove itself progressive yet, practical. We have seen neither in the past 15 -20 years. We need some committed leadership. Where or where are the people of integrity needed to realign this city? This city relies on philathopists to keep it going. This is crazy. If I were them, I'd close the city's account.
Taxes are necessary for services but they are cursed and then, used contemptably.. . we have no services. No trains, no Amtrack connections, no bus system worth using, not enough sidewalks for bicycle friendly streets, no mandatory recycling, an aging infrastructure we continue to procrastinate in replacing because we are afraid to raise people's taxes, we miss revenue for the city because we won't charge simple fees for such things as: filing in city clerk's office, fining homeowners who will not clear litter and trash from their property, fees which are too low to impact, such as the $ 1.00 fee to euthanize dogs and cats, the infamous sidewalk fee waiver of $100 in lieu of a developer putting in a sidewalk, $75.00 to pay for a roaming dog(why not $300 ....the list goes on and on. Sorry time for a nap. I'm feeling apathetic.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the deal is done. These deals are often described as "Charles Normans". It does take some influence and money scattered in the right places to pull off one of these deals. Time will tell....... When the shopping center parking lots fill up with cars from the "projects", the merchants will be singing a different tune!
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with MidTowner about INCOG. They are political operatives who do as instructed. But I have lived in the Brookside area since 1960, and I will have more to say about the proposed project later.....stay tuned!
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
G. Webster should take a walk through the area in question. In fact, Perry's apartments that currently occupy the space where the Bomasada project is planned are much more like the "Spanish language transmission shop" he references than the proposed improvements. Unfortunately, like the Lassiter and Shoemaker properties at 21st and Harvard, Perry's places will simply sit and continue to be a blight on the neighborhood as long as new development is discouraged by complex and contradictory regulations. There are people at INCOG whose full time job appears to be to continue to expand and complicate the zoning code. If they support this project, you can be sure it is not short on regulation. Anyone who has tried to improve or develop something in Tulsa with their own money can attest to this. Sadly, the regulation itself is what has made it necessary to have considerable wealth to be able to fight through the system to do almost anything, so almost by default, a developer is an evil fat cat that can always draw a handful of cranky protesters. This is part of why there is so much derelict property around Tulsa, including downtown.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Read the column, Midtowner: "Good land use planning doesn't grant an automatic win for developers or homeowners. It requires rules that are consistently and fairly applied, regardless of the wealth or influence of the applicant." There are criteria in the plan, which I quote above, for allowing higher densities. The Bomasada proposal doesn't meet those criteria.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Midtowner would prefer the Houston system. A relative bought a very nice town house/condo in a sleek west side area. Right down the street, among the up scale apartments and homes was a Spanish language transmission repair shop, complete with junked out cars and parts stacked in the street. That's the result of not having any regulation at all!
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
Mail Article
Print Article
Add to favorites