[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6525156,"mediaKeyId","3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7","parentId",3667296,"title","TMAPC approves large industrial PUD for \"Clydesdale\" technology park; developers and unions tout jobs, some residents asked about water and buffers","audioSeconds",2261,"startMs",2829000,"endMs",5090000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7&start=2829&end=5090","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7/thumbnail_2829000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6525156/Tulsa/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/TMAPC-approves-large-industrial-PUD-for-Clydesdale-technology-park-developers-and-unions-tout-jobs-some-residents-asked-about-water-and-buffers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525156-7bfc07be10102dd2275e293b7745b24b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098841&Signature=Fa32AV4GmJwwRelCGi5xMLM-cRiyqI5POd3JSHfLz64r9NZUQpVd-ib3UVP-Ck68mRT19pvSMizicFsNihLJ~fT~e0B4hu7G7PubSXe-~7No4BnA5cQeU1QiI~tfqWGEJ2XC7ddTKKVfGC1QO2CHNpWbFqr-x2P7Qqc4Tb3hxcORrXdKvrVAPIrEa~wREJVjHTKO4WO7EJ26WcG4v~yPR2GLA6nG0zRk52YpPtKLAzg0HoUJo6BYMwG8Chxqa9rXMa6ywCJQD4I2dWqyVZNsH0PmHIa09f7zjYKj3cvrZwDdhma9ccrAghfF3wE--U8YlL-tGjuo8vRYhmjsG3Go2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Tulsa","date","2025-06-04T13:00:00Z","article","The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on June 4 approved a request to rezone land west of North Sheridan Road to IL (industrial) with an accompanying Planned Unit Development (PUD 871) to permit a technology park and light industrial uses, including provisions for data centers and associated infrastructure.

Staff presented the proposal (case CC5565 / PUD 871) as a large, multi‑phased technology/industrial park. The PUD would govern detailed development standards, setbacks, buffers and allowed uses; staff recommended approval of the rezoning and the PUD with the development standards outlined in the proposal. The PUD materials include detailed lists of permissible accessory infrastructure for data centers (electrical substations, backup generators, cooling systems, battery storage, fuel tanks, security buildings, central utility buildings and similar facilities) and prohibit mining and mineral processing.

The applicant team, represented by attorney Lou Reynolds for Bill Infrastructure, said the project would be developed on the parcel bounded by North Sheridan Road, East 70th Street North and East 80th Street North. Reynolds and his team showed conceptual site plans that preserve an approximately 815‑foot natural area and floodplain on the east side, propose 50‑ to 300‑foot setbacks in key locations, and place primary access on East 70th and East 80th rather than North Sheridan.

Speakers in favor included construction and trade union representatives. Eric Lemley, business manager for Ironworkers Local 584, and Dustin Phelan, business manager for IBEW Local 584, said the project would generate significant construction employment and wages. The applicant also presented letters of support from adjacent jurisdictions and institutions, including the city of Owasso and area educational partners, and said Tulsa Tech and local schools are interested in workforce pathways.

At the hearing, a resident (Tyler Duncan) asked about water and energy use for data centers; the applicant and staff said the project will tap existing city water lines and has been modeled with the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority (TMUA). The applicant said the industrial users would recycle process water (the applicant described recycling water \"five times\") and that they have ringed the site with ample water infrastructure and are investing in off‑site PSO electrical improvements and a substation. Staff and the applicant also emphasized the large vegetative buffers and the intent to preserve wooded areas, while acknowledging site grading and drainage work will be part of the engineering process.

Staff noted that the site is mostly outside the 500‑year floodplain except for a tributary along the east side and that detailed plans will be subject to site‑specific engineering, floodplain and utility review at the time of platting and permitting. The PUD sets out maximum building heights, materials standards, access and security measures and limits on outdoor storage.

The commission approved three related agenda items: the rezoning (item 5), the PUD (item 6) and a related item (item 7), each on motions by Commissioner Bulmash and seconds by various colleagues; staff conditioned the recommendation on the PUD development standards being adopted as presented. No specific roll‑call tallies were recorded on the audio transcript.

Ending: With the commission vote, the PUD and rezoning move to subsequent city processes (county/city administrative approvals, platting and permitting). The project team and labor leaders said they expect the development to create construction jobs and long‑term technology jobs pending final tenants and infrastructure work.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Tulsa - Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission - Jun 04, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","TMAPC approved a rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD 871) on June 4 to allow a large technology park west of North Sheridan Road with data‑center‑scale uses and substantial natural buffers.","taxTitle","Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma","taxId",2682,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6525161,"Commission approves mixed‑use plan near Reservoir Hill despite neighborhood opposition over trees and traffic",2251,549000,2800000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7&start=549&end=2800","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7/thumbnail_549000.jpg","/articles/6525161/Tulsa/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/Commission-approves-mixeduse-plan-near-Reservoir-Hill-despite-neighborhood-opposition-over-trees-and-traffic","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525161-65a95e79185b23e96b0ab4684e2c3771/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098841&Signature=YC8uIYMbEcLFkXBahZ8VvCHJjn4l3JGT4h6BBXo6~ioa66oO-ORbHibj3BQjNUNgpKQpT2NF-R3ZwrrO70lNLuGXekkbZrOXvUJ5FF9~UmMrQhXuZnqwu5pFf6yRC3EiJ86Jl-a90ETw2LPHt39jUbVTJUxJ37j3xIb-c3o608qGyU~n7irNGmozVUQU-c~npOjdSSg2zAGVSLr0y-j8yOs6XTmXotK-Ntv6hY7uc97bFhZG6ugUsnsQ5YMdjQ4N5UsS40fxw2dQBBHUJ-JsBkZi9ASrlKFck6zpNTjaijdnkF33DuBX4T2gjbBpJr8ltJp1lCOc3pBXEy0Rxo~6xA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission voted on June 4 to approve a comprehensive‑plan amendment (item 9) and a related rezoning (item 4) that will allow a mixed‑use development on nearly 17 acres just south of West Apache and adjacent to L.L. Tisdale Parkway. Planning staff recommended the land‑use change from \"neighborhood\" to \"multiple use\" and the rezoning from RM‑1 (multifamily residential) to a mixed‑use district with a variable character designation and a 55‑foot height maximum.

The developer, William Tisdale, told the commission his group owns the larger 40‑acre assemblage and is proposing a development with a mix of commercial retail, a grocery concept, multifamily units and townhomes. Tisdale said the project would include a medical clinic with an urgent care (\"They will have an urgent care, not an emergency room, so there won't be sirens running there.\"), a health and wellness center, and a grocery operation the applicant described as a \"no‑contact\" or delivery‑oriented grocer. He said the project is intended to provide neighborhood amenities and generate new sales and ad valorem taxes.

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing urged denial. Stanford Pape, a Reservoir Hill resident, criticized the proposed no‑contact grocery and said residents prefer places where customers can shop inside; he warned of increased traffic, noise and potential crime. Casey Cluer, another neighbor, described moving to Reservoir Hill to escape commercial encroachment and asked the commission to deny the change, citing concerns about neighborhood character, privacy, and property values. Several residents cited an existing neighborhood overlay (they said it was authorized by their city councilor) and argued the area is already served by nearby grocery and medical services.

Staff and commissioners described efforts at community outreach: Tisdale said the team held neighborhood meetings and revised the plan after feedback, moving buildings west to preserve a buffer, proposing underground parking to reduce surface parking, and adding vegetative screening. Planning staff noted the mixed‑use designation and proposed uses are consistent with goals to place neighborhood services adjacent to residential areas and that the property is a large available tract adjacent to highway and arterial streets.

Commission discussion ranged from support for providing neighborhood services and housing variety to concern about removal of mature tree canopy and long‑term value of green open space. Commissioner Hood emphasized the area's mature tree cover and suggested the development would remove significant old‑growth trees; other commissioners noted the site is already zoned multifamily, meaning apartments could be built without a rezoning.

The commission approved the comprehensive plan amendment (item 9) on a motion by Commissioner Turner Addison, seconded by Commissioner Robinson. The commission then approved the rezoning (item 4) on a motion by Commissioner Bulmash, seconded by Commissioner Zogg. Both items passed with \"all those in favor\" voice votes recorded in the meeting audio; no roll call tallies were provided in the transcript.

Clarifying details and limits cited at the hearing: staff described the mixed‑use zoning framework (MX2 community mixed‑use level with variable character), a proposed maximum building height of 55 feet if approved as requested, and that the multifamily zoning already allows apartments by right. The applicant said the multifamily portion would be a little over 100 units in combination with townhomes; he also described an underground parking structure to reduce surface parking and said the developer plans to keep as much vegetation as possible but acknowledged existing grade and topography will require some new plantings.

Ending: The commission approved both items after debate; the project will proceed to City Council for final approvals and any site‑level plans, design reviews and permits will be reviewed later. Residents who opposed the rezoning said they will continue to monitor the project as it proceeds to subsequent public hearings.","The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approved a comprehensive‑plan amendment and rezoning on June 4 to permit a mixed‑use development of nearly 17 acres south of West Apache that the applicant says will include an urgent care clinic, a grocery concept, townhomes and multifamily housing.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6525165,"TMAPC approves rezoning to agricultural for South Houston property; staff says animals allowed by acreage",230,308000,538000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7&start=308&end=538","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7/thumbnail_308000.jpg","/articles/6525165/Tulsa/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/TMAPC-approves-rezoning-to-agricultural-for-South-Houston-property-staff-says-animals-allowed-by-acreage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525165-2fce8222a8555f40113bdadca62ba845/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098841&Signature=P7LmiocvPv24jSz7jmkD5iubn4ozs2QPVuuyB94wIhXeujjSA5yccL5t-tih6WtoRx6sTMfUalT65TPiJ1m-hVX6LKc0qFi6QCNjLJEKbn8u0JEO7qGFvDNKBMknm9lLTInzz2f3NZlhBtiZj0gviJalsuqIzPjaSzqo2f-vD54IUPTZTazYL4beoazO1g6O8vb~jjRC9lnCbzuPz4Ttq9A3OndRVF~TBWdt4xowtegGM6o4MSH2wqYmArrf0ls4QbdvoLodkHSX3vGdbNtBCg9ZhRBqjCnwKZtTUkxG5zoKdOP7p1pcfo~GKVOfIP7DDfvPmfpJ81AOyXP8lPnAYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on June 4 approved a rezoning request to change a slightly larger than 5‑acre parcel at the dead end of South Houston from RS‑3 (single‑family residential) to AG (agricultural). The motion to approve followed a staff presentation that recommended the change to allow agricultural uses, including keeping animals on the site.

Nathan, a planning office staff member, told commissioners the AG zoning would allow agricultural animals and accessory structures that RS‑3 does not. He also noted the property is surrounded on two sides by land already zoned AG and said the change would \"support the use of the property as an agricultural use as well as just a single family home.\" Staff recommended approval, and the commission moved and approved the rezoning during the meeting.

Why it matters: The zoning change removes a prohibition on certain animals and allows larger accessory buildings than RS‑3. Planning staff said the property meets and exceeds minimum requirements for an agricultural district and that the requested AG zoning would still comply with the neighborhood land‑use designation.

Details from the hearing: Nathan explained the city ordinance limits large animals by acreage (\"1 per acre\" for horses and cows was cited), so on this roughly 5‑acre parcel the owner would be limited to about five large animals. He also said the city allows chickens in residential districts and estimated \"up to, like, 6 to 10 chickens\" depending on spacing rules. Commissioners asked whether screening was required; Nathan said the animal ordinance requires specific fencing for animals, but there is not a general mandatory screening requirement between agriculture and residential zoning.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioner Schivel moved to approve the rezoning per staff recommendation; Commissioner Robinson seconded. The commission voted in favor and approved the rezoning. No speakers from the public were signed up on this item.

Clarifying details provided at the hearing: staff repeatedly described animal limits as acreage‑based (\"1 per acre\" for large animals), the applicant would be limited to approximately five large animals on the parcel, and chickens would be allowed subject to coop spacing requirements. The exact number of chickens is governed by the city ordinance and was described in the hearing as roughly six to ten, not a precise cap in the staff presentation.

Ending: The commission approved the rezoning during the meeting; any future development or animals will have to meet city ordinances for fencing, coop spacing, and related requirements.","The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission approved a rezoning on June 4 to change a slightly larger than 5‑acre parcel at the end of South Houston from RS‑3 to AG, allowing owners to keep agricultural animals and larger accessory buildings.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6525151,"TMAPC recommends Pearl District TIF project plan despite neighborhood concerns about notice and project details",2083,4509000,6592000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7&start=4509&end=6592","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3667296-5de983b2fad5d70f3c57884acd557fc7/thumbnail_4509000.jpg","/articles/6525151/Tulsa/Tulsa-County/Oklahoma/TMAPC-recommends-Pearl-District-TIF-project-plan-despite-neighborhood-concerns-about-notice-and-project-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6525151-f57b396efadedcfc8ea6819db005fac7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771098841&Signature=XcS4c6Cqprlvb1MDN~8rtM8xsKw6FOfQ~32~GvQQaYBsT4ULdsVvMQ8Bbm~MDGueXe4gyy2TE1pqLtGn4hONSuBXt-Qedgrnzz0pbSWLIvUlbM2mbiUkXm~ZcXvPxNNSlfZiQsWsQweHmIXhuAkL8ejzg39McUpl5qT~qRgLskDDBOuVTD4efEE7RDmkg7lw2oRSeuyTR2I6X4D~lKP3Ia3mjd~fV5xdrC8z6xFlPkXlNx2TfHzllvH9FakVsANpofraavuhIcsi6SBrXOOr1UYmXg5FU5DtZLfLQua1wdWUac2PDPtgIaoxdcHy6cA~KL0seM41KS-rxK1rZLNloQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tulsa Planning staff presented the Pearl District Neighborhood Economic Development Project Plan (a proposed TIF district) to the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on June 4 and recommended the plan for approval as in conformance with the Tulsa comprehensive plan. The commission voted to recommend the project plan to City Council.

Staff described the TIF project area as a downtown‑proximate area between I‑75/Utica and I‑244/11th Street and said the project plan was aligned with the comprehensive plan elements and the Pearl Area Small Area Plan. The staff recommendation focused on whether the project plan conformed to adopted planning documents; it did not authorize any specific project expenditures. The presentation noted the TIF district is an area‑wide financing mechanism to support redevelopment and infrastructure in the Pearl District and that individual projects would apply to Partner Tulsa for assistance and undergo separate review and agreements.

Several Pearl District property owners and representatives spoke in opposition to the motion, not because they opposed the idea of a TIF per se, but because they said they received little advance notice about the plan and were unclear which projects the TIF might support. Stacy Leffler and Ty Silverthorn of the Pearl District Association told the commission they were concerned that the project plan presented to TMAPC did not match priorities in their small area plan on issues such as compatible infill, block and street pattern preservation, and an area‑wide parking strategy. They requested clearer communication from Partner Tulsa and more opportunities for neighborhood input as specific projects apply for funding.

Partner Tulsa representatives (including Karen Weidl and counsel from the Center for Economic Development Law) explained that the TIF as proposed is district‑wide and is intended to provide an enabling financing mechanism; specific projects that request TIF assistance will be considered individually by Partner Tulsa and require project‑level agreements and design review. They said the catalyst project that precipitated district consideration is not yet ready to file individual applications and that the TIF project plan itself sets the broad financing framework, not the final project list.

Commissioners debated the narrow scope of TMAPC’s role — whether the commission was being asked to determine only conformance with the comprehensive plan rather than to approve any particular project or spending. Several commissioners said the role is necessarily narrow and that future project‑level outreach and review is the appropriate forum for detailed conversations. Commissioner Bulmash moved to recommend approval per staff; Commissioner Hood seconded; the motion carried.

Clarifying details from the hearing: Partner Tulsa staff noted the TIF apportionment period would be up to 25 fiscal years and that individual projects would file application packets and be reviewed by Partner Tulsa trustees and staff; no single project was authorized by the TIF resolution at this step.

Ending: The commission recommended the Pearl District Project Plan to City Council. Partner Tulsa staff said they will work to increase outreach and that the city council process includes additional public hearings and mailed notice.","The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on June 4 recommended approval of a proposed Pearl District tax increment financing (TIF) project plan, finding it in conformance with the comprehensive plan, while neighborhood representatives urged better notice and project‑level engagement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

TMAPC approves large industrial PUD for "Clydesdale" technology park; developers and unions tout jobs, some residents asked about water and buffers

Commission approves mixed‑use plan near Reservoir Hill despite neighborhood opposition over trees and traffic

TMAPC approves rezoning to agricultural for South Houston property; staff says animals allowed by acreage

TMAPC recommends Pearl District TIF project plan despite neighborhood concerns about notice and project details