Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Wednesday, January 24,
2001, 1:30 p.m.
Francis Campbell City
Council Room
Plaza Level, Tulsa Civic
Center
Members Present Members
Absent Staff Present Others Present
Boyle Hill Beach Boulden, Legal
Carnes Bruce Counsel
Harmon Dunlap
Horner Huntsinger
Jackson Matthews
Ledford Stump
Midget Lasker
Pace Brierre
Selph Armer
Westervelt
The notice and agenda of said meeting were posted in the Reception Area of the INCOG offices on Monday, January 22, 2001 at 8:45 a.m., posted in the Office of the City Clerk at 8:21 a.m., as well as in the office of the County Clerk at 8:20 a.m.
After declaring a quorum present, Chair Westervelt called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
Minutes:
Approval of the minutes
of January 3, 2001 Meeting No. 2263
On MOTION of BOYLE the TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Selph, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none “abstaining”; Hill, Midget “absent“) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting of January 3, 2001 Meeting No. 2263.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Application No.: Z-6797 il
to rmh
Applicant: Steve Coder (PD-5)
(CD-6)
Location: South
side of I-244 between North Garnett and North 129th East Avenue
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that the applicant has requested a continuance to
April 4, 2001.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE, the
TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes,
Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no
"nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill, Midget "absent") to CONTINUE Z-6797 to April 4, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
REPORTS:
Mr. Midget in at 1:31 p.m.
Chairman’s Reports:
Mr. Westervelt stated that there were many familiar faces present
today. As important as the
recommendations that the Planning Commission make as part of the legislative
process of the Zoning Code, none are more important than the matter that is
before the Planning Commission today.
This is a tremendous opportunity for the Planning Commission to thank
one of the past members for his thankless service. Mr. Westervelt turned the election over to Mr. Gary Boyle, 1st
Vice Chair.
Mr. Boyle stated that it was his pleasure and distinct honor to bring
this matter before this very experienced and very knowledgeable group of
people, including former members of the Planning Commission and a wide
representation of all of the people who regularly practice and come before the
Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission is honored by the presence of Mr. Jim Doherty today, who is present
at the Planning Commission’s request to receive an honor that the Planning
Commission has never bestowed on anyone.
The Planning Commission has been very fortunate to have the opportunity
to work with Mr. Doherty for many years and to be inspired, not just by his
public service and many years of faithful attendance, hard work and devotion to
the public good on the Planning Commission, but more recently by his courage in
the face of significant adversity. All
of the Planning Commissioners, and speaking for the rest of the City, have been
honored to work with and beside Mr. Doherty, as well as be inspired by Mr.
Doherty’s devotion and courage at this very difficult time.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of BOYLE, second by WESTERVELT, TMAPC
voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon,
Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no
"nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill "absent") to ELECT BY ACCLAMATION Mr. Jim Doherty to the office of Chairman
Emeritus of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.
Mr. Westervelt stated that it was a great honor to have the opportunity
to present this remembrance to Jim Doherty.
This remembrance has been provided by a number of anonymous donors that
care for Jim Doherty very much. Mr.
Westervelt further stated that he was very proud to know Jim Doherty.
Mr. Westervelt presented Mr. Doherty with a Steuben crystal pillar
designating him “Jim Doherty, Chairman Emeritus TMAPC”.
Mr. Doherty stated that he would like to
thank everyone for the honor of being elected Chairman Emeritus TMAPC. He further stated that he served with
everyone on the Planning Commission and has much admiration for everyone for
making the system work, in spite of so much adversity and controversy. The City benefits from the work that the
Planning Commission does and he is proud to have been associated with the
Planning Commission and the City over the years. Mr. Doherty concluded by requesting the Planning Commission to
keep the system working.
Mr. Boyle assured Mr. Doherty that the
Planning Commission would continue the current system. Mr. Boyle stated that the Planning
Commission would know that it was Jim’s inspiration that keeps the Planning
Commission going from week to week.
Mr. Doherty received a standing ovation from
the Planning Commission, staff and attendees of the TMAPC meeting.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Committee Reports:
Mr. Stump reported that the committee met before the TMAPC meeting today in order to review draft recommendations on the Work Program for FY 2002. There were a number of alterations and changes, as well as ranking. These recommendations will be forwarded onto the City on January 31, 2001 as a draft Work Program. Mr. Stump indicated that the Work Program for FY 2002 would be brought before the Planning Commission for adoption in February.
Mr. Westervelt stated that he would like to thank everyone who responded to the memo requesting input for the Work Program FY 2002.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Director’s Report:
Mr. Stump reported that there are two final plats on the City Council agenda for Thursday, January 25, 2001.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Midget out at 1:35 p.m.
SUBDIVISIONS
FINAL PLAT:
Woodfield Village – (3483) (PD-26) (CD-8)
Southeast corner of 111th Street and Sheridan
Staff Recommendation:
Mr. Bruce stated that all release letters are in and everything is in
order. Staff recommends approval of the
final plat for Woodfield Village.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 9 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER TMAPC voted 9-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace,
Selph, Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining";
Hill, Midget "absent") to APPROVE the final plat for Woodfield Village as
recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Selph out at 1:42 p.m.
First Pryority Bank - (2683) (PD-26) (CD-8)
Northwest corner East 106th
Street & South Memorial Drive
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of one lot in one block on 1.89 acres. It will be developed under PUD 619 as a bank. The preliminary plat was approved March 15, 2000.
All releases are in and the plat is in order. Legal Department review has been done but the required changes have not yet been included in the covenants. Staff recommends approval of the final plat, subject to revisions to the final covenants. Staff will not release the final plat for signatures or recording until this condition is satisfied.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 8 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER TMAPC voted 8-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace,
Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill,
Midget, Selph "absent") to APPROVE of the final plat for First Pryority Bank,
subject to revisions to the final covenants as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Crown Colony (3314) (PD-15) (County)
East of southeast corner of East 76th Street and
North 129th East Avenue
Staff Recommendation:
This plat consists of 46 lots and one reserve in four blocks on 14.03 acres in unincorporated Tulsa County. The property is being developed for single-family residential use. The Preliminary Plat was approved December 1, 1999 and approval expired December 1, 2000.
Numerous issues raised by the County Engineer and the utility providers have been resolved satisfactorily. All releases are in and the plat is in order. Staff recommends approval of the reinstatement of the preliminary plat and of the final plat.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 8 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER TMAPC voted 8-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace,
Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill,
Midget, Selph "absent") to APPROVE the reinstatement of the preliminary plat
and the final plat for Crown Colony as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
OTHER BUSINESS:
Application No.: PUD-405-H detail site plan
Applicant: Wayne Alberty (PD-18)
(CD-2)
Location: South
of southwest corner of East 91st Street and South Memorial Drive
Staff Recommendation:
The applicant is requesting detail site plan approval for South Pointe Chevrolet on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, 9100 Memorial. The use proposed is in conformance with the approved Planned Unit Development for the site.
Two service structures are to be added to the existing showroom and office buildings. The total allowable square footage of floor area per the approved PUD of 48,051 square feet will then be utilized.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the site plan as submitted as it meets the approved development standards for PUD-405-H.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
The applicant
indicated his agreement with staff’s recommendation.
TMAPC Action; 8 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER TMAPC voted 8-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Pace,
Westervelt "aye"; no "nays"; none ”abstaining"; Hill,
Midget, Selph "absent") to APPROVE the detail site plan for PUD-405-H as
recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Midget in at 1:41 p.m.
Mr. Selph in at 1:41 p.m.
Application No.: PUD-542
Applicant: TMAPC (PD-18)
(CD-8)
Location: West of Sheridan at 86th Street
Staff Recommendation:
PUD-542 was approved by the City Council in April 1996. The PUD was approved per TMAPC recommendation. The permitted use in the PUD is single-family residential and at the urging of residents west of the PUD, a condition was recommended by TMAPC and approved by the City Council, that 86th Street remain closed to through traffic until 30 units had been completed in order to avoid construction trucks going through the subdivision to the west. As of this date, five units have been completed or under construction. Staff has received a request from Cathy Moore, who lives in the area to the west, to open 86th Street and we have also received a memo from Mark Brown, City of Tulsa Traffic Operations Manager, requesting the same. Legal has reviewed the request and has advised staff that a minor amendment would be required to open 86th Street before 30 units are completed.
Therefore, staff recommends that TMAPC initiate a minor amendment to PUD-542 in order to open East 86th Street South to through traffic.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Boyle asked staff if the Planning Commission would become the applicant. In response, Mr. Dunlap answered affirmatively.
Mr. Boyle asked if the minor amendment would go through the usual notices and timing as any other minor amendment application. Mr. Boyle further asked if the action today is strictly to decide if the Planning Commission is in favor of submitting a minor amendment application for PUD-542. In response, Mr. Dunlap answered affirmatively.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of CARNES TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget, Pace, Selph, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none ”abstaining”; Hill “absent”) to APPROVE the request for TMAPC to initiate a minor amendment for PUD-542 in order to open 86th Street as recommended by staff.
Lot 2, Block 1, Sunchase II, PUD-557-A and Corridor Site Plan Z-5620-SP-11
Staff Recommendation:
The amendments to the restrictive covenants that implement PUD-557-A and Corridor Site Plan Z-5620-SP-11 have been reviewed by staff and it has been found that they conform to the approved standards. Therefore staff recommends APPROVAL of the amendments to the deed of dedication and restrictive covenants amending PUD-557-A and Corridor Site Plan Z-5620-SP-11.
There were no interested parties wishing to speak.
TMAPC Action; 10 members present:
On MOTION of HORNER TMAPC voted 10-0-0 (Boyle, Carnes, Harmon, Horner, Jackson, Ledford, Midget,
Pace, Selph, Westervelt “aye”; no “nays”; none ”abstaining”; Hill “absent”) to
recommend APPROVAL of the amendments to restrictive covenants/deed
of dedication for Sunchase II as recommended by staff.
* * * * * * * * * * *
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE DISTRICT PLAN MAPS AND/OR TEXTS, ALL PARTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE TULSA METROPOLITAN AREA
Consider Amending the District Plan Maps and/or Texts for the following Planning Districts: 6, 7 and 18, all parts of the Comprehensive Plan for the Tulsa Metropolitan Area, as they relate to Houston Avenue south of the Inner Dispersal Loop and Riverside Drive areas of the plans.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that there are numerous interested parties wishing to speak. He explained that the time for each speaker would be limited to three minutes; however, those who would like to pool their time, the speaker’s time will be extended. He indicated that staff will first make a presentation and then the Planning Commission will hear the interested parties wishing to speak.
Staff Recommendation:
3 That the Riverside Drive intersection with Houston Avenue remain a T-intersection, thus eliminating the proposed sweeping roadway curve, and any significant encroachment into existing park land, by amending the Comprehensive Plan to eliminate references to the 1993 Conceptual Plan for the portion of Riverside Drive from Southwest Boulevard to 21st Street including Houston Avenue.
4 That all Task Force recommended trail and roadway connections from downtown Tulsa to the Arkansas River be considered in conjunction with the proposed “Downtown Tulsa/Arkansas River Pedestrian Connection Study” for which funds have been reserved and that the recommendations of the completed Study be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Task Force
has adopted twenty-five specific refinements to the 1993 Plan:
1. Sequencing. Prior to considering implementation of the six-lane configuration for Riverside Drive, widen the existing four lanes with shoulders within an overall pavement width of 80 feet to 100 feet east of the existing west curb line. Add acceleration, deceleration and left-hand turn lanes at the primary intersections. The Task Force believes these improvements ought to be considered at 31st, 36th, 41st Streets, 45th Place and 1-44. The Task Force believes that current traffic on Riverside Drive can move efficiently and safely in this configuration for many years.
2. Move
the pedestrian trails along Houston to Galveston. The Galveston location for
the trail will enhance the safety of park and trail users dramatically by
moving the pedestrians farther from the road and by exposing the pedestrians to
traffic at a lower speed. The Galveston
trail should be located on the east and west sides of Galveston between 12th
and 14th Place.
3. Extend
refined Galveston trail. The trail on
Galveston as depicted in the 1993 Plan should be extended from 14th Place to
Riverside and 15th Street and should be further extended to cross Riverside
Drive at grade at that point. The pedestrian crossing should comply with all
ADA regulations and should include advance-warning signs for motorists. In
addition, to save cost and remain consistent, the trail leading east on 15th
Street in the 1993 Plan should be deleted.
4. Improve
River Parks trail north of Houston. The existing trail on the west side of
Riverside Drive that extends from Houston to Southwest Boulevard should be
improved with a ramp that conforms to ADA standards on the north side of
Riverside Drive at Southwest Boulevard. The trail should be reconfigured to
continue on Southwest Boulevard to 12th Street and turn east to connect with
the trail shown in the 1993 Plan, which originates at Center Plaza. The 12th
Street trail crossing at grade should be protected by pedestrian lane striping
and advance warning signs similar to those proposed for the extended crossing
of Galveston at Riverside drive.
5. Add
adequate pedestrian access from 15th Street to Denver. The Task Force believes
that the ability of residents in the neighborhood of the Pythian Apartments to
use the park would be assured by installation of an all-weather sidewalk from
Pythian Manor to Denver along the east side of Riverside Drive. Failing
installation of a sidewalk, DPW should provide some method for residents of
Pythian Apartments to access River Parks. To increase the safety of disabled
users all signals in this area should be upgraded to ADA standards.
6. Maintain
Riverside Drive with two lanes north of Denver. This would encourage use of Denver as a downtown connector and
help to preserve the character of the neighborhoods to the north. Decreased
traffic to the north would also improve the safety of pedestrians and drivers.
Pedestrian use of the park and safety will be improved by the addition of a
pedestrian crossing on the north side of the intersection.
7. Maintain
Houston as a two-lane residential street.
The Task Force believes that expanding this street to four lanes would
be detrimental to the neighborhood, which is already isolated by the physical
constraints of 12th Street and Riverside Drive. The existing street should be
resurfaced and improved.
8. Improve
Riverside Drive north of Houston. The Task Force believes that Riverside Drive
north of Houston should be resurfaced and modernized as part of the 1993 Plan.
This would permit additional traffic to access downtown using Riverside Drive
north of Houston to Southwest Boulevard.
9. Improve
traffic flow on Boulder and Denver. In
order to allow traffic to move more smoothly and safely from Riverside Drive
into downtown and in order to preserve as much of the flavor of the Houston
Neighborhood as possible, the Task Force believes that connectors to downtown
other than Houston should also be improved as a part of the 1993 Plan.
a. Boulder: Traffic signals at 21st and Boulder should be
adjusted to allow a more efficient flow of traffic off of Riverside drive and
into the downtown area. The Task Force also believes that parking on Boulder
should be eliminated, especially during rush hour periods. This is the most
cost effective method to improve traffic flow.
b. Denver: The Task Force believes that the flow of traffic
from Denver into downtown can be improved by straightening the curvature of
Denver, widening the street to the extent possible within existing right-of-way
and eliminating driveways with access to Denver for those residents and
businesses that can relocate their driveways to other streets. Fourteenth
Street access to Denver should be closed.
10. Avoid encroachment into the park at
Houston. The Task Force recommends that
the street configuration at Houston remain unchanged except that a right turn
lane be constructed on the east side which will permit north bound vehicles to
turn right onto Houston. This will permit northbound traffic on Riverside
toward Southwest Boulevard to proceed at normal speed. Maintain the stop sign
for Houston traffic turning onto Riverside Drive. The final design of this
intersection should not impact the River Parks, the Spotlight Theater, the
McBirney Mansion or the grounds of either property.
11. Decrease the distance required for pedestrians
to access the park. In general, pedestrian
access, east and west side trail systems and signalized crossings should be
located in such a way that pedestrians are not required- to walk more than
one-half mile along Riverside Drive to reach a safe crossing.
12. Leave Woodward Boulevard open.
25th and 26th Streets and 26th Place should be closed due to the Midland
Valley Railroad crossing between Boston and Cincinnati. The Task Force believes
that these changes will enhance access to Riverside Drive from the surrounding
neighborhood.
13. Leave 34th and 35th Streets open. This will allow traffic flows from Brookside to move efficiently onto Riverside Drive in accordance with the recently adopted Brookside Plan.
14. All closed streets should include a pedestrian
public way. This would ensure that
pedestrians only are still permitted access to the River Parks through the
closed streets.
15. Add a collector street south of 1-44. The Task Force believes that convenient
access to Riverside Drive can be enhanced for the residents south of 1-44 by
adding a collector or access street connecting the closed side streets on the
east side of Riverside Drive. The collector street would allow traffic to flow
from the neighborhoods onto Riverside drive efficiently and without unnecessary
negative impact on the flow of traffic on Riverside Drive. The Task Force has
depicted its intent on Exhibit B.
16. Land
acquisition guidelines:
a. Those houses that cannot reconfigure
their driveways to avoid connecting with Riverside Drive should be acquired by
the City.
b. The city should acquire future
right-of-way for the ultimate design of Riverside Drive as funds become
available and as properties become available on the open market. Land acquired
in this manner should be used as open areas and turnouts where appropriate in
the interim.
c. Land acquired in this manner should be
used to compensate those apartments and other buildings, which lose parking or
other property as a result of street widening. Other property so acquired could
be used to increase the available parkland.
17. Preserve the historical integrity of the
neighborhoods. The 1993 Plan
potentially impacts several historic neighborhoods which the Task Force
believes should be preserved. To this end, destruction or adverse impact on any
neighborhood that is listed in the 1993 Tulsa Preservation Update should be
approved in advance by the Tulsa Preservation Commission.
18. Relocate the east side trail. The trail located on the east side of
Riverside Drive in the 1993 Plan should be moved a safe distance from the road.
The Task Force believes this is necessary to insure the safety of park users.
The final trail design should insure a connection to Johnson Park.
19. Trails should be a safe distance from the curb
line. This will ensure the safety of park
users and pedestrians without the need for unattractive automobile barriers. To
the extent that the trail must be located close to the curb line, the Plan
should provide for unobtrusive barriers similar to those proposed in the
Immediate Needs section of this Report.
20. Add a pedestrian crossing south of 1-44. The Task Force believes that pedestrians
should have a safe and convenient method of accessing the River Parks from the
east side of Riverside drive south of 51st Street. The intersection with the 1-44 ramp just south of 51st Street
would be the most convenient location for a crossing. This crossing should be protected by a traffic signal which would
allow safe pedestrian crossing.
21. Delete the pedestrian underpass at 49th
Street. The Task Force believes that
the underpass will present significant safety risks especially to young
children who will likely be attracted by it.
The underpass should be replaced by a crossing at grade level north of
1-44 at the proposed stoplight. The
size of the center median should be reduced at this location.
22. Move the proposed trail near 49th Street. The proposed trail which reaches down to the
lower riverbank from approximately 49th Street to 1-44 should be moved back to
the east and elevated by wooden bridges where necessary to keep the trail in
view of the roadway. The city should
consider including a split trail using a piered wood bridge over the lower
riverbank and an improved trail on the upper bank to add capacity.
23. Include landscaping on the east side. The park and trail portion of the 1993 Plan
on the east side of Riverside Drive should include landscaping, appropriate
park furniture, drinking fountains and restrooms at appropriate locations.
24. Separate trails for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic. Pedestrian traffic should be
separated from bicycle traffic on all trails and paths included in the Plan.
River Parks Authority should consider adding trails to the existing park trail
system to make this separation possible.
25. Consider future plans for 1-44. In preparing the final design of Riverside
Drive at 1-44, the City should consider future plans of the Oklahoma Department
of Transportation for improvements to 1-44. Any opportunity to move the roadway
east, away from the riverbank, should be taken in conjunction with the ODOT
project.
Mr. Brierre, INCOG, 201
West 5th, Suite 600, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, stated that on August 9,
2000, the City Council unanimously approved a resolution directing INCOG/TMAPC
to review and evaluate the 1993 Conceptual Plan for Riverside Drive and Houston
Avenue and the 1994 report of the Riverside Functional Design Task Force.
Mr. Brierre cited the history of the 1993 Conceptual Plan and the 1994
report of the Riverside Functional Design Task Force.
Mr. Brierre explained that INCOG has submitted a summary of the Task
Force study and the Conceptual Plan to the Planning Commission members, which
compares and contrast the two documents.
For a variety of reasons the traffic projections that the 1993
Conceptual Plan were based on were more robust than the most recent traffic
projections that were completed last year and are the basis for the Long Range
Projection Plan that projects roadway needs throughout the metropolitan area to
the year 2025.
Mr. Brierre stated that the previous versions of the Long Range Plan
calls for a six-lane roadway or a special traffic-way on Riverside Drive from
21st Street to I-44. The
recently-adopted Long Range Transportation Plan identifies a four-lane divided
parkway as being adequate to handle the projected traffic through the year
2025. In responding to the City Council
request, a staff prepared draft summary regarding Comprehensive Plan issues has
been prepared and distributed to TMAPC.
Mr. Brierre reminded the Planning Commission that the Comprehensive Plan
reflects the long-term development policy of the city. It should be noted that the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the city currently reflects a planned six-lane roadway
classified as a “special traffic-way on the Major Street and Highway Plan for
Riverside Drive south of 21st Street to I-44. Mr. Brierre read the draft TMAPC response to
the Tulsa City Council regarding Comprehensive Plan issues related to Riverside
Drive.
Mr. Brierre stated that the action before the Planning Commission today
is a response to the City Council, to their request for comments, review, and
recommendations by TMAPC. Any
subsequent Comprehensive Plan or Major Street and Highway Plan amendments would
come to the Planning Commission as separate action items being specifically
drafted for that purpose. The purpose
today is to consider and respond to the City Council at their request. Mr. Brierre acknowledged that a number of
letters have been received and distributed to the Planning Commission regarding
Riverside Drive (Exhibit A-1).
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Brierre what existing conditions currently exist
with the ‘93 Plan and the ‘94 Task Force Recommendations. Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Brierre to describe
a roadway cross-section. In response,
Mr. Brierre stated that the purpose of a cross-section is to show the typical
roadway that can be used in the development process to reserve and protect right-of-way for the ultimate
construction of a facility based upon its classification on the Major Street
and Highway Plan. Mr. Brierre stated
that it is easier when one is dealing with an arterial street that has been set
out on a grid system of major streets every mile. Mr. Brierre commented that Riverside Drive right-of-way is currently a varied
amount of land between the current roadway surface, the Arkansas River and
adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Brierre
stated that there is a tight ribbon of land between the riverbank, which
accommodates a trail, then falls off quickly into the roadway surface that is a
curb section at this point (Blair property and the 23rd Street
bridge). Mr. Brierre indicated that at
some point there would be a transition to a roadway with shoulders as a
recommended cross-section (Exhibit A-5).
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Brierre what the current roadway cross-section is where the new proposal would replace. In response, Mr. Brierre stated that he understands that the roadway, curb to curb, is 44 feet without medians. Mr. Brierre further stated that the Major Street and Highway Plan for this special traffic-way identifies a roadway to be constructed within an 80- to 100-foot width.
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Brierre if the ‘93 Plan and ‘94 Task Force address the right-of-way width through the corridor. In response, Mr. Brierre stated that both documents contain a specific reference to 80 to 100 feet. Mr. Brierre explained that the Major Street and Highway Plan is a plan for the protection of the right-of-way for ultimate development. Mr. Brierre reminded the Planning Commission that the Comprehensive Plan and the Major Street and Highway Plan talk about the ultimate plan for the city.
Mr. Harmon asked how the current traffic load compares to the 1993 load when the Plan was first being developed. In response, Mr. Brierre stated that the traffic projections at the time were for traffic to exceed 40,000 cars a day by the year 2005. The most recent traffic counts for Riverside Drive indicated the highest traffic count south of I-44 near 71st Street intersection. North of I-44 the highest traffic count is under 35,000 cars per day. In 1990 the traffic count between 21st and I-44 was 32,400 cars per day. In 1985 the highest traffic count north of I-44 was 23,000 cars per day. The 2025 forecast for north of I-44 is over 38,000 cars per day, but not as high as the forecast that had been previously developed that were the basis for the ‘93 Conceptual Plan. Mr. Harmon asked how much traffic a four-lane road such as this is expected to carry. In response, Mr. Brierre stated that a maximum load would depend upon the cross-section and the level of congestion. Mr. Brierre indicated that a four-lane parkway capacity at a Level of Service C capacity is 30,800 cars per day and the Level of Service D capacity is 39,600 cars per day.
Mr. Westervelt asked the reason for the recommendation of repealing Ordinance #18117 (“the Bartlett Ordinance”). In response, Mr. Brierre stated that this is a unique ordinance in the City of Tulsa and the only ordinance like it. Mr. Brierre explained that the ordinance calls for a separate stand-alone vote on funding improvements to Riverside Drive based upon the Conceptual Plan. Mr. Brierre indicated that there are a few caveats to the ordinance and there are varying interpretations of the ordinance regarding what it allows and what it does not allow. Mr. Brierre stated that Council legal staff indicates that there are some interpretations that the ordinance is limiting. Mr. Brierre commented that the ordinance is not imbedded in the Comprehensive Plan, but it is an issue that some feel has had a chilling effect on implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Charles Hardt, Director of Public Works, City of Tulsa, stated that the cross-sections indicating four lanes with shoulders allow for a much different design of roadway. He indicated that he endorses a four-lane road with shoulders and bar ditch drainage. The design with shoulders allows for the drainage to be channeled into the bar ditch and therefore the profile of the road can be more pleasant. The shoulders allow for a greater safety for a variety of reasons. He explained that stranded vehicles could pull to the side and move out of the traffic lane. Traffic officers could pull people over and this is actually a much safer means of dealing with speeding and other traffic violations. The shoulders also provide more distance between the traveling vehicle and the pedestrian. He explained that a shoulder allows a vehicle to recover better in the event that it should run off the road.
Mr. Hardt stated that the drainage is the major reason that the shoulder-and-drainage-ditch concept is a big benefit. The curb and guttered cross-section relies on the drainage being handled in a portion of the outside lane, which is susceptible to being blocked by leaves from the large tree growth.
Mr. Hardt stated that his recommendation would be to deal with the curbed and guttered cross-section (Exhibit A-6) only in the areas where there are very tight constraints and it is not feasible to do otherwise, and then try to get the more open cross-section (Exhibit A-5) with the shoulders and bar ditch drainage where it allows greater capacity to open the roadway up. He indicated that this would give Riverside Drive the look and feel of a parkway.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Boyle asked Mr. Hardt if he endorses the proposal that the Planning Commission is looking at today. In response, Mr. Hardt stated that there is no compelling need for six lanes along Riverside Drive and he is in agreement with the proposal that is being considered today.
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Hardt his opinion of using the median as a turn lane. In response, Mr. Hardt stated that the concept for the proposed road is for a four-lane roadway and not a five-lane roadway. The concept is more of a parkway atmosphere where there are reduced turning movements and restricted left-turn movements. Mr. Hardt stated that in order for this concept to work and have the parkway atmosphere, it is important to have restricted access from abutting properties, minimizing left-turns across the roadway.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Councilor Pringle, City Council District 9, stated that the Planning Commission was directed by the City Council to revisit the 1993 Comprehensive Plan for Riverside Drive and the Functional Design Task Force Report of 1994 in order to find where there could be an agreement.
Councilor Pringle indicated that staff has produced an excellent full report which includes comments on the Task Force suggestions and at least one major change in designation.
Councilor Pringle stated that the parkway designation is appropriate for Riverside in his opinion. The footprint of the road has not changed in his opinion, after reviewing many pages of material and reviewing the tapes of the two Council meetings of 1993 and 1994, at which the Comprehensive Plan was amended and subsequently the Bartlett Ordinance was passed, and speaking to former Councilor Dewey Bartlett personally and the attorney who helped draft the ordinance.
Councilor Pringle stated that his agreement to work for the repeal of the Bartlett Ordinances was based upon his belief that there would be a new footprint, one that is less intrusive. He indicated that he approves of the plan and the designation as a parkway and hopes that others will agree with him. He never intended to work for the repeal of the ordinance if the proposal was for the same footprint.
Councilor Pringle concluded that the City Council saw a very good reason for the Bartlett Ordinance and it should not be repealed at this time. He reiterated that this is a good solid proposal and one that can move forward. He commented that he hopes for some considerable public discussion in the future regarding this proposal. The public could examine the details of the proposal whenever those details are ready for dissemination. The renewal of the third penny sales tax is coming up for a vote in May and in his opinion the city cannot afford to let the Riverside issue intrude into that process. For that reason he avoided including any items involving Riverside into his list of suggestions for the 2001 renewal for his district.
Councilor Pringle thanked the staff and the Planning Commission for their work on this issue. He indicated that he would like to concur with the repeal of the Bartlett Ordinance, but he cannot find it in his heart or his conscience to do so. He stated that he looks forward to the public comment that he will hear today.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Boyle asked Councilor Pringle to clarify if he is in agreement with items one through five and in disagreement with item six. In response, Councilor Pringle agreed.
Mr. Boyle asked Councilor Pringle if he felt that items one through five are true to the ‘94 Task Force report. In response, Councilor Pringle stated that on the whole he does agree with the items one through five.
Mr. Boyle stated that his recollection of the Task Force report is that there is no mention of the Bartlett Ordinance one-way or the other. In response, Councilor Pringle stated that he thought it did mention the Bartlett Ordinance, but he is not sure.
Mr. Boyle stated that the question of whether to repeal or not to repeal the Bartlett Ordinance is to be decided at the City Council level and not by the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyle further stated that he wanted to make that understood so that the issue is not blown out of proportion and those present lose sight of today’s purpose. In response, Councilor Pringle agreed with Mr. Boyle’s statement. Councilor Pringle stated that he hopes that everyone can focus on the positive and go forward.
Mr. Westervelt stated that at the time of Councilor Pringle’s first written statement together with the slightly modified statement that he read today, he did not have the opportunity to see the diminished footprint through the more sensitive areas. Mr. Westervelt commented that Councilor Pringle’s statement was that his willingness to make any changes that would include an appeal of Ordinance #18117 had to do with the change in footprint. Mr. Westervelt commented that the new footprint is as new to Councilor Pringle, and he asked if now that Councilor Pringle has seen the new footprint, it has any impact based on his earlier comments regarding his position and the Ordinance. In response, Councilor Pringle stated that he envisioned the new footprint all the way along.
Mr. Westervelt stated that when Councilor Pringle arrived as a new Councilor and began dealing with land use issues, there were a number of times he visited the Planning Commission and discussed the consequences if certain things did or did not happen. Mr. Westervelt commented that this began a very good working relationship between the Planning Commission and Councilor Pringle’s office. Mr. Westervelt stated that looking at the Riverside issues in a very similar way, if indeed the difference would be the fact that the Major Street and Highway Plan maintains its 100-foot right-of-way width, continues to hold a six-lane roadway versus the opportunity to indeed have a functional plan developed that would create this diminished cross-section, modify the MSHP and modify the Comprehensive Plan to eliminate the six-lanes. He asked if he would still prefer that the six-lanes remain, the ‘93 Plan and ‘94 report to remain and that Ordinance #19117 stay on the books as it is, or if he would prefer to consider having the Comprehensive Plan amended, having the MSHP changed and having the ordinance no longer encumbering this section of roadway. Mr. Westervelt stated that he is not asking Councilor Pringle to pass judgment of the intent of the ordinance, but all have recognized the chilling effect the ordinance has on improvements. Mr. Westervelt concluded by asking Councilor Pringle how he would view those choices if indeed it comes down to making them. In response, Councilor Pringle stated that, as an elected official, great deference has to be paid to former legislative actions, especially unanimous votes. Councilor Pringle commented that this is an issue that is very important to a lot of people and he would have to think long and hard about the repeal of the ordinance. Councilor Pringle indicated that he does not prefer to keep the six-lanes on the plan.
Mr. Midget asked Councilor Pringle if he considers the narrower cross-section a change in the footprint or just as a part of it. In response, Councilor Pringle stated that it is a change in the footprint.
Interested Parties
Comments:
Dewey F. Bartlett, Jr., 1208 East 26th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114, presented a historical perspective and the intent of the “Bartlett Ordinance”. He commented that he hates to hear that the ordinance has had a chilling effect (or legal opinion). He stated that if the Planning Commission would like a legal opinion of the ordinance’s not having a chilling effect, he would be happy to provide it.
Mr. Bartlett stated that to him the intent of the ordinance is a very important part of this process. He indicated that he too reviewed the City Council tapes from 1993 and 1994. He commented that he made a specific statement several times that “…when the ordinance was put in effect it was not to impede growth and not to impede four specific things, 1) right-of-way acquisition, 2) reallocation and movement of utilities, 3) any activity that would be of the benefit of the public safety, and 4) not to be used as an excuse to impede actions that benefit the public safety.
Mr. Bartlett stated that the purpose of the amendment was to require a citywide vote upon the financing of an action that could have a very positive or negative effect upon Riverside Drive. He explained that if there had been a plan of action implemented without a citywide vote, he feels that the city would be doing the citizens a disservice. The amendment was to give the citizen’s of Tulsa an opportunity to either say yes or no to a plan that affects the entire city. For a plan to be put in play without a vote from all of the citizens in Tulsa would not be a good idea. He reminded the Planning Commission that the City Council voted unanimously for the ordinance and the Mayor signed it into effect.
Mr. Bartlett commented that the footprint is the important thing and the footprint is how the road would lay in relation to the surrounding neighborhood and River Parks. The cross-section indicates how wide the roadway would be, but it does not show how wide it would be in relation to the land upon which it is going to go.
Mr. Bartlett concluded by stating that the intent of the ordinance was not to impede growth or the use of the City’s resources to address public safety problems.
TMAPC Comments:
Mr. Westervelt stated that very regularly the Planning Commission sends unanimous recommendations to the City Council and frequently the Council and citizens do not like the Planning Commission decisions. He suggested not using the unanimous vote of the Council in 1993 as a benchmark for a successful ordinance or recommendation.
Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Bartlett if there is any other roadway project, currently or in the past, in Tulsa where it takes an entire vote of the public to create improvements. In response, Mr. Bartlett stated that he does, insofar that it takes the citizens of Tulsa to vote on the temporary one-cent sales tax. In response, Mr. Westervelt stated that his question was for an individually-defined roadway project that has this type of requirement. In response, Mr. Bartlett stated that the City of Tulsa, does not; but the City of Broken Arrow, does. Mr. Bartlett explained that Broken Arrow passed a statute to allow the Creek Turnpike to extend through its borders. In response, Mr. Westervelt asked Mr. Bartlett if he would concede that in Tulsa, with regard to road projects, Riverside is the only one that requires a stand-alone vote by the citizens. In response, Mr. Bartlett agreed. Mr. Bartlett stated that when he developed the ordinance he was speaking for the entire City of Tulsa. Mr. Westervelt commented that Mr. Bartlett was speaking for his district and the entire City of Tulsa.
Mr. Midget asked Mr. Bartlett if he considered the footprint shown today to be a change from the original proposed in the ‘93 Conceptual Plan and ‘94 Task Force Report. In response, Mr. Bartlett stated that the footprint is a change from the proposed ‘93 Conceptual Plan and ‘94 Task Force report. Mr. Bartlett commented that the footprint proposed today is obviously much less concrete to be laid down and that was the position of the people he was representing. Mr. Bartlett indicated that the footprint proposed today would be more favorable. Mr. Bartlett stated that this type of footprint would be appropriate for the entire length of Riverside Drive, but it should be shown how it would relate and it would be laid down on an aerial photograph.
Mr. Carnes asked Mr. Bartlett if the proposal would be attractive. In response, Mr. Bartlett agreed that it would be attractive, but he questioned if it was appropriate for that type of roadway to put on the existing Riverside Drive. Mr. Bartlett explained that the plans proposed in ‘93 and ‘94 would have a taking impact upon River Parks because a significant amount of land would be required and used by the footprint. Mr. Bartlett stated that whether the road is moved to the east or west, in his opinion, it is not necessary and it is still not necessary because of the flawed data that they used at that point. Mr. Bartlett commented that six lanes are not needed and the median and shoulders are not necessary either. Mr. Bartlett stated that it is not a matter of a visual effect, but of the amount of land taken from both residential uses and River Parks.
Mr. Carnes out at 2:46 p.m.
In response to Mr. Westervelt, Mr. Brierre stated that the ‘94 Task Force was very clear that there should be no encroachment west of the west curb line without compelling justification. Mr. Brierre explained that during the development of the ‘94 Report there was not a conceptual plan and no determinations of the exact amount of land that might be added or lost with respect to that. In response, Mr. Westervelt stated that since the ‘93 Plan indicated a net gain and the ‘94 Task Force was very sensitive to the west curb line, then it is assumed that the Task Force didn’t further diminish the net park land by further limiting encroachment of the park. Mr. Brierre stated that he believes that to be a fair statement.
Ms. Pace asked Mr. Bartlett if he agreed with Mr. Hardt’s proposal regarding shoulders versus curbs for safety reasons. In response, Mr. Bartlett stated that safety is one of the most important factors that should be dealt with. Mr. Bartlett explained that one of the things that did concern him is that no matter what the speed limit is posted, with four or six lanes being improved this much, people would automatically drive faster. Mr. Bartlett stated that it is naïve to think that people will drive the posted speed limit. Mr. Bartlett indicated that the does not agree with Mr. Hardt’s proposal of shoulders instead of curbed streets.