Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tulsa planning staff present citywide classification amendments and redevelopment concepts for east-side projects and corridor segments
Summary
City of Tulsa planning staff reviewed a package of land-use classification amendments and project-area concepts, highlighting Robson Ranch and Project Anthem on the Far East Side and proposed adjustments to several corridor segments including Charles Page Boulevard, Route 66 and South Tulsa Boulevard alignment concerns.
City of Tulsa planning staff presented a citywide package of land‑use classification amendments and project‑area proposals that staff said are intended to align zoning and multimodal planning with current traffic patterns and development plans.
A planning staff member said the package combines citywide classification changes with project‑level segmentation, and that staff analyzed historic traffic data and other indicators to recommend reclassifications by project area and by corridor segment. According to the presentation, some long‑standing corridors — including Charles Page Boulevard and parts of the Route 66 corridor — show traffic trends that staff said are lower than previously forecast, creating what staff characterized as "potential for transit and pedestrian‑oriented development, historic preservation, economic development and tourism." The staff member presented the classification changes as part of an overall effort to reconcile existing classifications with recent comprehensive plan updates.
The presentation grouped several shows‑of‑interest by geography. On the Far East Side, staff described two named projects: "Project Anthem" and "Robson Ranch." Staff said Robson Ranch has a set of planning documents including a master plan proposal that references a larger "Core 7000" area of the property and associated plans for Fair Oaks; the presenter said part of the property is proposed for a transformation to mixed‑use (MX) and walkable, environmentally oriented development. Staff did not provide final parcel acreage or a firm timeline in the presentation; those specifics were described in the presentation materials as not specified during the spoken remarks.
Staff also referenced corridor and segment work. The presentation listed several corridor segments by name, including Charles Page Boulevard and Route 66, and mentioned other segments and street names that were unclear in the spoken transcript. Staff said the corridor analysis considered historic average daily traffic and Federal Highway Administration standards for roadway capacity when evaluating whether a corridor’s classification should change. The staff member noted the presence of the OSU Medical Center as a special event and traffic generator near some segments but did not provide precise traffic counts in the verbal presentation.
The package included a note on the South Tulsa Boulevard project: staff said the alignment of the boulevard has been the subject of questions from neighboring municipalities and residents for multiple years. During the presentation, staff described ongoing local concerns about the proposed alignment but did not announce a final alignment or a formal board action. No formal motions or votes were recorded in the portion of the transcript provided.
Planning staff told the meeting that some segments’ current classifications were created assuming increasing vehicular traffic, but that observed traffic trends on several segments have flattened or declined, leading staff to recommend classifications that would allow for more transit‑ and pedestrian‑oriented development where appropriate. The presenter framed the classification amendments as a tool to match land‑use regulation to contemporary conditions and to support infill, redevelopment, and historic preservation objectives where applicable.
The presentation referenced the City’s comprehensive plan updates (noted in materials as a 2023 update) and federal roadway capacity guidelines. Staff said more detailed project‑level analyses, parcel data, and final recommended ordinance language would be provided in subsequent materials. The presenter did not announce any immediate regulatory changes or adopt motions during the remarks.
For next steps, staff indicated the package would enter the formal review process, including additional analysis and public review; staff did not provide dates for public hearings or adoption. Meeting materials provided to the record contain more detailed mapping and draft classification tables, which staff said would be posted with the project record.
