Comment Response Matrix PLANiTULSA Comprehensive Plan February 2010

Robert Mccracken

Description

Consent Log – Updated for posting June 2, 2010 PLANITULSA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSOLIDATED TABLE OF CONSENT ITEMS SUMMARY OF TMAPC ACTION The PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT items is a record of public comments and review of the Comprehensive Plan draft as published on January 12, 2010, including decisions taken by the TMAPC. Text and graphic corrections, additions and revisions as directed by TMAPC forced text layout shifts, which resulted in changes to page numbers, line numbers and paragraph numbers. For purposes of comparison, please note the following notations in this table when comparing January 12 version to the June 1, 2010 version, published and posted at this time. • January 12, 2010 draft page numbers will appear in brackets such as [Page 56]. • June 1, 2010 Final Drain red without brackets, such as Page 57.   • Changes that were prescribed for multiple locations and multiple chapters will not include page numbers. TMAPC Action through 4/28/10  PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT Items – TMAPC ACTION  1  Consent Log – Updated for posting June 2, 2010 PLANITULSA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSOLIDATED TABLE OF CONSENT ITEMS TMAPC action appears in the last column. Item # Chapter Consent Items Suggested Action TMAPC ACTION Page Source Item 1. INCOG Website and I would like to make you aware of an incorrect statement Language has been clarified on Clarify with underlined language Document that is appearing in the plan ...

Informations

• Publié par: Zaud
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010 

 



PLAN I TULSA   C OMPREHENSIVE P LAN   C ONSOLIDATED T ABLE OF C ONSENT I TEMS   SUMMARY   OF   TMAPC   ACTION

The PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT items is a record of public comments and review of the Comprehensive Plan draft as published on January 12, 2010, including decisions taken by the TMAPC. Text and graphic corrections, additions and revisions as directed by TMAPC forced text layout shifts, which resulted in changes to page numbers, line numbers and paragraph numbers. For purposes of comparison, please note the following notations in this table when comparing January 12 version to the June 1, 2010 version, published and posted at this time. • 12, 2010 draft page numbers will appear in brackets such as January[Page 56].  • June 1, 2010 Final Draft page numbers will appear in red without brackets, such asPage 57.   • Changes that were prescribed for multiple locations and multiple chapters will not include page numbers.  

TMAPC Action through 4/28/10   

PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT Items  TMAPC ACTION 

1 

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010  PLAN I TULSA   C OMPREHENSIVE P LAN   C ONSOLIDATED T ABLE OF C ONSENT I TEMS   TMAPC action appears in the last column. Item #  Chapter  Consent Items Suggested Action Pa e Source   Item 1. INCOGWebsite and Document 

TMAPC Action through 4/28/10   

TMAPC ACTION

I would like to make you aware of an incorrect statement Language has been clarified on  Clarify with underlined language that is a earin in the lan document and on our website. website. 2.5 The Land Use Plan: The TMAPC ado ts the lan and the cit council a roves Clarify with underlined language •  Is adopted by TMAPC and the plan the reverse is the way it is being presented. I have 2.5 The Land Use Plan:  by City Council. approved tried to em hasize this distinction ever time I see it but to no avail. This is not m inter retation but State Statutes •  Is adopted by TMAPC •  li  yb dednema sI prov d  ap C anTMAP uocnytC  yiCdeb  (Title 19, Section 863.7) language where the authority is and approved by City  . derived. The very first sentence in 19-863.7 states, The Council. commission shall make, ado t, and ma ublish a master •  I sed dmane TbyPCMA d   app aevoryb dtiC  y lan of the munici alit , and of the unincor orated area of il.  n oC the county. Further it states, The council and/or board unc ma a rove the lan in whole or in art, or return the lan   or an ortion thereof to the commission for further The PLANiTULSA team has consideration. For some unknown reason from the consistently respected the role of be innin there has been an effort to minimize the role the both the TMAPC and the City TMAPC has in the com lan to em hasize the cit s role. I  the preparation andCouncil in plan to make sure this correction is made in the TMAPC  Plan.eview of the Com ve public hearing. iCyt na dht ee TMAPC   p B r o e t he h n   s t i h r Council are tremendously important to the success and implementation of PLANiTULSA. The team has tried to use common language - rather than technical jargon - where possible to make the plan as easy

PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT Items  TMAPC ACTION 

2 

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010  Item #  Chapter Pa e Source   Item

Consent Items

Suggested Action

TMAPC ACTION

to read and access as possible. In addition to the legal authority for review, TMAPC has the background and depth of understanding of land use issues necessary to review and adopt the plan. The City has additional tools to implement the plan. The team’s approach has always been that TMAPC and City Council both play critical roles in plan development.  2. Michelle of Vision statementunder certain sections (i.e.,Vision Structure section headings consistent. MakeWill make section headings Cantrell  you have a how we get there section, but not all. General housing), consistent Document Reason?  3. Elaine Meek  last night's meeting, there was discussion about adding AtVision Document Add to Vision  an Education component to the PlaniTulsa master plan. A Page 11 suggestion for what we should add is pasted below.   Thank you for your work on this project. Secondary public education is a critical component of this plan. Although the Tulsa, Union and Jenks public school districts are independent of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and city government, the intent of this plan is to encourage effective and quality public education for all our children. As part of the PLANiTulsa master plan,

TMAPC Action through 4/28/10 PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT Items  TMAPC ACTION   

Insert into Vision‐page 10/11 spread):  Support   Education   and   Learning   Although   the   Tulsa,   Union   and   Jenks   public   school   districts   are   independent   entities,   Tulsans   want   to   encourage   healthy   lifestyles   for   our   children,   and   create   a   city   that   is   conducive   to   learning.   Our   children   and   families   need   clean   air   and   water;   safe   routes   to   schools   for   walking   and   biking;   parks   and   open   spaces   for   recreation;   access   to   grocery  

3 

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010  Item #  Chapter  Consent Items Pa e Source   Item

Suggested Action

TMAPC ACTION

stores with healthy food choices; high quality  public   libraries;   and   cultural   resources   and   museums.    Tulsans   also   want   thriving   post‐ secondary   educational   opportunities   including   community   colleges,   vocational   and   technical   training   centers,   and   colleges   and   universities.   Educational   facilities   are   highly   supported   by   public   and   private   partnerships.    Educational   institutions   and   the   City   are   partners   in   planning   and   developing   improvements   to   local   transportation,   like   improving   sidewalks,   streets   and   crossings,   and   public   transportation.   The   public   schools   are   included   when   planning   residential   and   business   development   in   our   city,   and   should   be   considered   when   parks,   libraries   and   other   amenities   are   affected.  

we want to encourage healthy lifestyles for our children, and create a physical environment conducive to learning. To achieve these goals, we should provide clean air and water to the Tulsa area; safe, walkable routes to schools; parks and open spaces for recreation; convenient grocery stores with healthy food choices; high quality public libraries; and cultural resources and museums. We also want post- secondary education to thrive, including community colleges, vocational and technical training centers, and colleges and universities, to attract new businesses and residents, and to encourage young adults to remain in Tulsa. The public schools and other educational institutions should be included as partners when changes and improvements are made to local transportation (including sidewalks, streets and public transit). The public schools should also be included when planning considering residential and business development in our city, and should be consulted when parks, libraries and other amenities are affected. All Maps with  City of Tulsa Staff referred comments from recent City  the bridge segment from the GIS RemoveConsultant will remove the bridge transportation Council  meetings: and Illustrator files used to produce layerssegment from the GIS layers and network visible  the PLANiTULSA maps.Illustrator files used to produce the  r T e h m e o p v r e o d p  o fr s o e m d t S h o e u  t F h a  l T l u 2 l 0 s 0 a 9 B d ri r d a g ft e   o a f t O Y u a r le V  i a si n o d n   1 F 2 o 1 r st T  ul w s a a s .   all maps throughout Our Vision f Update r PLANiTULSA maps. o All ma will ted For the final draft of the Vision and Plan, it has been   e P g  cy s n n   t l m a e teh wtihhlei Pto    a . s d l dna er se u v T omasliois VurTur fon htortuO guoh ps upda be    proposed that the consultant remove the bridge alignment and the Policy Plan with the from the GIS coverage and Illustrator files used to produce TMAPC   Action   through   4/28/10   PLANiTULSA   Consolidated   Table   of   CONSENT   Items      TMAPC   ACTION   4    

4. Public 

Consent   Log      Updated   for   posting   June   2,   2010   Item #  Chapter  Consent Items Suggested Action TMAPC ACTION Pa e Source   Item the maps, because a faint line still appears on a number of segments removed. maps. 5. Public  6, the last bullet e aVision Vision, word or a is missin oint  text: CorrectCorrect text: [Page 6] hrase.     Page 6   city has the ability to monitor trends, TheThe city has the ability to monitor   ottrends, s ot s o ke o ke and ortunities ortunities and meet   meet challenges strategically. challenges strategically. 6. MichelleVision Bullet sentence. point 5 under Economy: incomplete amended text: add “city”:Suggested amended text: add Suggested Cantrell [Page 6] “city”: The city has the ability to monitor trends, Page 6 key opportunities and meet spotThe city has the ability to monitor    challenges strategically.trends, spot key opportunities and  meet challenges strategically. 7. MichelleVision On the vision map, still have downtown designation over a AdjustAdjust the Downtown area on the the Downtown area on the Vision Cantrell [Page 13] neighborhood. historic Vision map so that the Downtown so that the Downtown designation map Page 13  avoids areas with Historic Districtdesignation avoids areas with   Historic District designation north of designation north of the IDL and west of the IDL and west of Peoria, Peoria, between 15 th and 21 st streets. between 15 th and 21 st streets. 8. INCOG map does not show the Tulsa Community CollegeVision This updated per comment. MapAs noted previously when this was [Page 13] Southeast campus (81st and US 169). This has been noted brought up, we want to keep this map Page 13 on numerous previous reviews of the draft plan. map uncluttered so are not showing  Recommended Action: place TCC Southeast on map or all of the higher education Vision Mapdelete all higher education sitescampuses. However, since this is  an issue that is too minor to allocate TMAPC time discussing we recommend adding the TCC SE Campus to the map. We will do our best to retain the clarity of the map.   TMAPC   Action   through   4/28/10   PLANiTULSA   Consolidated   Table   of   CONSENT   Items      TMAPC   ACTION   5    

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010 

Item #  Chapter Pa e Source   Item   9. MichelleVision Cantrell [Page 15] Page 15  

10. Michelle Cantrell  11. INCOG 

12. Michelle Cantrell 

Vision [Page 32] Page 34  Vision [Page 43] Page 43 Photo

Vision [Page 43] Page 43 

TMAPC Action through 4/28/10   

Consent Items

Suggested Action TMAPC ACTION

TMAPC hasnt yet received the downtown planjust want to text to read: AmendAmend text to read: be clear that it still needs approval before part of the com rehensive plan. Says doesnt invalidate existing Detailed planning concepts for plans p includingthedistrictplans?Whatifthereare  se.sT eh in l g     l c r o t n c c a e a p   t p s     r f a o l r a d l   o w p o e t d n   w o o n   e n enu T d s e l v   e a eDliat w p i   k d   en   n t a h l ack  l  tr thewithiNUTP ALrpcoSL A ebe e vbavhe haalsolvueTd ennw oan tnoow ddepellarap  contradictions? e the PLANiTULSA process. The 2009 draft Downtown Tulsa Master Plan, 2009 draft Downtown Tulsa Master pending adoption by the TMAPC, will Plan, pending adoption by the serve as a small area plan under for the TMAPC, will serve as a small area city. plan under for the city. Most of Tulsas housing stock will consist OF (not UP).  language Correct Most of Tulsas housing stock will consist OF (not UP).  

This is a European picture showing vehicles driving on  image as shown below ReverseVisualization image was reversed the left side of the road.Recommended Action: Find in layout process. picture that shows drivers on the right side of the Correct ima e. road 

  CSD ensures that transportation facilities Should that be Correct to read CSS CSS? 

PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT Items  TMAPC ACTION 

Correct to read CSS

6 

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010 

Suggested Action TMAPC ACTION

Item #  Chapter  Consent Items Pa e Source   Item 13. MichelleVision Step 5 refers to page 28 for prototypes of new development. Remove page reference, this refers Remove page reference, this refers to a Cantrell [Page 44]  draft of the Vision. previousto a previous draft of the Vision. Page 44   14. INCOG   15. Public 

Vision text  says; "The city will adopt the comprehensive plan." [ P P a a g g e e 4 4 5 5   ] r T R e h e f e mmoc tate stect the  t  o l c ahgndeulhobed tee  sxtnoithT :ednecA d  ah t tesirquret ha tegaugnal yrotuta Argee 01 T  /902 hguorhuo TMAP to  2/1C on  gol egn dedivorp ins  id,ha che t  :tn   eks ru e tod cam consiste this is     s The Comprehensive Plan: First paragraph, T Co M u A n P c C il     a a d p o pr pt o   v th e e s    t C h o e  m P p l r a e n  h t e h ns r i e v a e f   t P e l r. a   n and the City  •  Is adopted by TMAPC and line 3 e approved by City Council.  •  Is amended by TMAPC and  approved by City Council.   Land Use Include that this is not a regulatory document underlined language: AddAdd underlined language: [Page 1 and Page 74]  1: This chapter of Tulsa’sPage 1: This chapter of Tulsa’s Page Page 1 and  Plan addresses how OurComprehensive Plan addresses Comprehensive Page 74  for Tulsa will be realized throughhow Our Vision for Tulsa will be Vision Policy 2.6  use of land. The Comprehensive Plan therealized through the use of land. The Comprehensive Plan is not a  is not a regulatory document. The goals regulatory document. The goals and policies at the end of this chapter will and policies at the end of this guide the design of the city’s regulatory chapter will guide the design of the system, including the zoning code, rules city’s regulatory system, including governing the subdivision of land, the the zoning code, rules governing interaction of land use and transportation the subdivision of land, the and economic development. interaction of land use and transportation and economic  Add to Land Use Policy 2.6 (pg. 74):

TMAPC Action through 4/28/10   

PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT Items  TMAPC ACTION 

7 

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010  Item #  Chapter Pa e Source   Item  

16. INCOG map

Land Use [Page 4] Page 4  Figure 1 

Consent Items

Suggested Action TMAPC ACTION

development. The Comprehensive Plan is a policy guide, not a regulatory document. The Land Use Add to Land Use Policy 2.6 (pg.  Plan is not intended, nor should it be used, 74): to affect decisions that are permitted by The Comprehensive Plan is a  the zoning code by right. policy guide, not a regulatory document. The Land Use Plan is not intended, nor should it be used, to affect decisions that are permitted by the zoning code by right. This map does not show TCC Southeast campus (81st and updated per comment. MapAs noted previously when this was US 169) Recommended Action: place TCC Southeast on brought up, we want to keep this map or delete all higher education sitesmap uncluttered so are not showing all of the higher education campuses. However, since this is an issue that is too minor to allocate TMAPC time discussing we recommend adding the TCC SE Campus to the map. We will do our best to retain the clarity of the map. 17. INCOG still references "the City's planning department",Land Use ThisAgreeThe developer worked closely with the city   in fact the developer worked with a number of staff[Page 3] when in realizing the project."   Page 3 departments and agencies to get approval of the project.  he co sultant is referencing the City Planning If t n Sidebar Department, the proper words should be capitalized.  Recommend wording "The developer worked closely 4th and 5th lineswith the city staff in realizing the project." from bottom TMAPC   Action   through   4/28/10   PLANiTULSA   Consolidated   Table   of   CONSENT   Items      TMAPC   ACTION    

8 

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010  Item #  Chapter Pa e Source   Item 

Consent Items

The title lists it as population to 2008, but the bar chart Agree only shows it to 2006.Correct either title or label for consistency  Subtext should read "The City's share of the metropolitan Agree area's"

Suggested Action

TMAPC ACTION

Correct either title or label for consistency 

"The City's share of the metropolitan area's"  

Label should read "Tulsa County (except City of Tulsa)  

18. INCOGLand Use YES [Page 8] Page 8 Chart 4 19. INCO GLand Use  [Page 8] Page 8  Chart 4 20. INCOG  Tulsa County data on the pie chart reflects all of Tulsa Land Use  The Agree  [Page 8]  T Page 8  ulsaCounty population outside of the City of (unincorporated and City of Tulsa)Recommended  Chart 5 change: Label should read "Tulsa County (except City of Tulsa)  21. INCOG  City of Tulsa's corporate limits includes 200 square The Land Use 182Agree, can amend text.Change "182 square miles" to "200 square  [Page 11  Page 11 ] R mi e le c s o . m Th m is e  n in d c e lu d d A e c s t  i t o he n  : W C a h g a o n n g e e r    " C 1 o 8 u 2 n   t s y q A u n ar n e e   x m at i i l o e n s . "  to y.phraogges suen  on tsed s bas wa 00C  s02ti’y eh C  quse arlemi miles"    First paragraph "200 square miles"  Second line 22. INCOG floodplain layer does not reflect the current or previous The Land Use  original map.The floodplains shown are based Retained map  City of Tulsa regulatory floodplain map nor the FEMA [Page 11]on a floodplain survey CAD file Page 11 floodplain map.Map should reflect the City of Tulsa provided by the City of Tulsa Public  Figure5 regulatory floodplain map, which has been previously Spring ment in  W Deporks,tnemtraeht aiv  innnla   PrtpaDeg   TMAPC   Action   through   4/28/10   PLANiTULSA   Consolidated   Table   of   CONSENT   Items      TMAPC   ACTION    

9 

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010  Item #  Chapter  Consent Items Pa e Source   Item

23. INC OGLand Use  [Page 11] Page 11 Figure 5 24. Michelle Land Use  Cantrell [Page 13] Page 13   25. INCOGLand Use  [Page 13] Page 13  Right column Line 1 26. INCOG Land Use  map [Page 13] Page 13  Figure 7 27. INCOG Land Use  [Page 13]  Page 13  Figure 7 TMAPC   Action   through   4/28/10    

provided to the consultant. 

Suggested Action

TMAPC ACTION

2008.   By request of the city, the consultant digitized the Public Works’ map. It was used in the plan maps, because it more accurately reflects floodplains than the data on the City’s shapefile. The digitized version will be provided to the City and INCOG for their use. Agree Change source to INCOG   Source on surface limestone is INCOG, not City of Tulsa. Change source to INCOG 

Rredevelopment

Correct spelling.

Figure notation refers to "XX" and should be corrected. Agree Reference Figure 7  

Rredevelopment to Redevelopment  

Figure notation refers to "XX" and should be corrected. Reference Figure 7  

The figure shows substantial floodplains (Bird Creek) and  willAgreed, will amend map to screen amend map to screen these areas out rock quarries as redevelopable lands. These areas arethese areas out as opportunity as opportunity areas. not easily redevelopable and should be excluded from areas. Tulsa's "redevelopment opportunity areas" Add title to legend to indicate what the valuation is based on.  title with: valuation is dollars per acreYes, valuation is dollars per acre. Add For example is this cost per acre? Agree to add title.

PLANiTULSA Consolidated Table of CONSENT Items  TMAPC ACTION 

10 

Consent Log  Updated for posting June 2, 2010 

Item # Source   28. INCOG  29. 30. INCOG  31. INCOG  32. INCOG 

Chapter Pa e Item Land Use [Page 14] Page 14  Chart 6  Land Use, [Page 14] Page 14   Chart 7 Land Use [Page 14] Page 14   Chart 7 Land Use [Page 16] Page 16 Table 3 Land Use [Page 31] Page 31 Second paragraph 

TMAPC Action through 4/28/10   

Consent Items

Suggested Action

TMAPC ACTION

Natural increase seems to be missing from the bar chart, Agree. Re-do legend Re-do legend but is indicated in the legend. Or colors are not consistent The legend has no x-axis.Revise chart to make data more readable.  Three shadings on graph per se, whereas there are four correct chart on page 14 forWill  subject to making the legend and Approve categories shown. consistent chartconsistent chart/legend

Youth and Young Adults appear to be combined on the Agree. Re-do legend graph, but separate in the legend.Revise chart to reflect all items in the legend 

The category "148 - 165,000" should be corrected to Agree "148,000-165,000". Source should also be Fregonese and Associates, in addition to the Census

Approve subject to making the legend and chart consistent

The category "148 - 165,000" should be corrected to "148,000-165,000". Source should also be Fregonese and Associates, in addition to the Census   Staff questions the statement that "surface parking lots are Statement about parking is in a reword of last sentence for clarity: not needed or desirable". Suggested rewording: "Surfacediscussion of Downtown Core parking lots should be limited"  support downtown’s lively and walkable Tobuilding block – not parking in  general. A character, automobile parking urban number of cities have Existing text: moved to discourage surface ideally is located on-street and in Downtown Core is Tulsa’s most intense regional center of parking lots in their downtowns. structured garages, rather than in surface commerce, housing, culture and entertainment. It is an urban We do not recommend that they be parking lots. environment of primarily high density employment and prohibited, but discouraged. mixed-use residential uses, Downtown has a large supply of complemented by regional-scale entertainment, conference, surface parking, and it will take a tourism and educational institutions. Downtown core is  long time to replace it with buildings primarily a pedestrian-oriented area with generous sidewalks and structures. PLANiTULSA   Consolidated   Table   of   CONSENT   Items      TMAPC   ACTION  

11