36th and Peoria Mixed Use Proposal

[Tulsan]

In today's TMAPC agenda... http://tulsaplanning.org/boards-commissions/planning-commission/tmapc-agenda/

There is a request to change the zoning for 3 parcels right behind the bank/sandwich shop, totaling half an acre, from residential to mixed use. http://tulsaplanning.org/tmapc/agendas/exhibits/Z-7571.pdf. 

There are no site plans, but the application states the intent is to build commercial on the first floor and apartments above. The neighbors have their pitchforks out.

[rebound]

In today's TMAPC agenda... http://tulsaplanning.org/boards-commissions/planning-commission/tmapc-agenda/

There is a request to change the zoning for 3 parcels right behind the bank/sandwich shop, totaling half an acre, from residential to mixed use. http://tulsaplanning.org/tmapc/agendas/exhibits/Z-7571.pdf. 

There are no site plans, but the application states the intent is to build commercial on the first floor and apartments above. The neighbors have their pitchforks out.

And why wouldn't they?  This is simply another intrusion further into established neighborhoods.  Why expand commercial beyond the main corridor?  I understand that it is cheaper to buy three residential lots than to renovate existing commercial, but that's the same issue we have with general sprawl.   

[BKDotCom]

And why wouldn't they? 

I, for one, welcome walkability. 

[shavethewhales]

I certainly don't feel that it should be looked at as an "intrusion" into the neighborhood, but rather a continuing evolution of the area. I'm not sure I understand why single family occupancy land is seen as so sacred. That is not to say that I am against the idea of property owners speaking out against anything they feel could harm their property values or enjoyment, but I feel their concerns are often misplaced, especially in developments like this one.

I'd love this type of thing in my neighborhood. I'd think it would increase property values and make it more livable at the same time by adding more businesses and services.

The whole "area of growth" vs. area of "stability" map is kind of silly. Is nothing allowed to ever grow and change? Do we really believe that everything is built to completion and can't be improved/adapted over time?

Maybe they can get away with a two-story residential structure like townhouses or something at least.

[LandArchPoke]

I certainly don't feel that it should be looked at as an "intrusion" into the neighborhood, but rather a continuing evolution of the area. I'm not sure I understand why single family occupancy land is seen as so sacred. That is not to say that I am against the idea of property owners speaking out against anything they feel could harm their property values or enjoyment, but I feel their concerns are often misplaced, especially in developments like this one.

I'd love this type of thing in my neighborhood. I'd think it would increase property values and make it more livable at the same time by adding more businesses and services.

The whole "area of growth" vs. area of "stability" map is kind of silly. Is nothing allowed to ever grow and change? Do we really believe that everything is built to completion and can't be improved/adapted over time?

Maybe they can get away with a two-story residential structure like townhouses or something at least.

Part of the issue here is a failure in the zoning code for small lot development. If a developer wants to build a small infill project for apartments on sites like this, mixed-use zoning is about the only option you have. The multifamily zoning requires some very large lot sizes and ignores the idea of small infill.

I can see the concern here on commercial much more than the 31st & Peoria site given this is set back from Peoria and 36th Street isn't what I'd consider a 'main' street. I do find it funny most of the comments talk about traffic moving too fast - maybe we should promote road calming like road diets. As soon as people try to do this though everyone complains about slowing traffic.

Sometimes it seems like people want to complain just to complain and hear themselves talk (like the dude who spent more time talking about how many garages his house had then why the development was bad haha). I don't think it'd be inappropriate to have apartments here and ideally along a corridor like Brookside you want to have a transition zoning from higher density commercial to higher density residential to low density residential. Frankly, that's what an apartment building here would do. It's not really that much different than the three story townhouse to the north, just apartments.

The dramatics behind how anything will degrade property values is just the stupidest arguments one can make for zoning changes. You'd think the developer is trying to build a nuclear power plant next door.  

Just a note to the 'neighbors' concerned about property values... this is much better for your property value than if they were demoed for a giant surface parking lot next to your house. Increasing density in your neighborhood boosts the underlying land values in the entire area which = more value to your home. Not the other way around.

This is something else I do find as a bit of a failure in our zoning code too is I wish there was a zoning for commercial offices (dentist offices, doctors, etc.) that would likely love a space like this and wouldn't be an intrusive type of 'retail' like have an outdoor cafe next to your house. It does seem to cause concerns with retail because you don't know what tenant is going to go in next door, and I can see those concerns as being warranted. It's something the city really needs to figure out so we can find a middle road for people who live near commercial zones and the need for the city to become more dense and walk-able.

[LandArchPoke]

I'll add something else - maybe it's time for our urban neighborhoods to move toward a site plan specific approval process.

Dallas for example, most of the near urban neighborhoods are zoned 'PD' Planned Development and everything that is built goes through a neighborhood council and then final approval from the city. While it adds steps to the process, it is a good way for the neighborhood to have more of a say on the look and feel of developments.

Part of the anxiety behind zoning changes in Tulsa is even if this developer says they are going to build apartments, they could not do that in the end. Once it's upzoned they could just flip the land and another developer comes in and builds who knows what within the allowable uses of mixed-use zoning.

I really would hope that the neighbors who are just screaming at the city "NO CHANGE, NOTHING!" actually work to make the development process better for everyone and ask the city to create better controls. I think the above would be a good option. Then you can have more control that the development going in down the street actually fits in with the context of the neighborhood better and to me thats a win for everyone, including the developer and the homeowners.

But, again I have a hard time feeling bad for people because the city planning department warned everyone about this and tried to place overlays in Midtown and all the Karens lost their mind over "property rights" and you can't tell me what to do.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

And why wouldn't they?  This is simply another intrusion further into established neighborhoods.  Why expand commercial beyond the main corridor?  I understand that it is cheaper to buy three residential lots than to renovate existing commercial, but that's the same issue we have with general sprawl.   

To enhance the area significantly and progress towards the type of city people are wanting to live in? I'd love to live by something like this and welcome these types of developments. Brookside is not the place to live if you want to be in a stagnant quiet neighborhood full of single family homes. A development like this multiplies the usefulness of a single family lot. You get more housing and add office space which will positively affect the area. Win-win.

[swake]

These three houses are nothing worth saving, are on a minor arterial street and already have commercial development on three sides.

[SXSW]

I don't see anything wrong with having commercial on this parcel since it is adjacent to existing commercial properties.  I would love to someday see the old Blockbuster now Bank of the West site redeveloped into something that meets the street and sidewalk and increases the density on the site. 

I know that's not how this works but I wish the Brookside31 commercial portion could go there and keep the rest of that project residential.

[SXSW]

Not sure where on Brookside this is located but something like this at the 36th & Peoria intersection would be cool.  https://beckdesign.com/work/brookside-marketplace


Courtesy Beck Design

[ELG4America]

Cool design SXSW. I wonder if it's just a study or an actual proposal.

[SXSW]

Cool design SXSW. I wonder if it's just a study or an actual proposal.

Not sure, I saw it on Beck Design's website.  I did some Googling and there is a Brookside Marketplace proposal for 42nd & Peoria but I don't know if they're linked.  Just saying something like this would be a better use at the NE corner of 36th & Peoria.