REI

[davideinstein]

Why not have a parking garage and add more retail buildings? I just don't understand the logic in so much surface parking.

[cannon_fodder]

Worse yet... NON LANDSCAPED SURFACE PARKING. Acres of treeless concrete right next to our river trails and parkland.

I understand garages cost 5 to 10 times more per space compared to surface lots. I know they are jot always economical. But why don't we get into the 1990s and at least require some landscaping for surface parking lots? Even the Walmarts in Bentonville do it now...

[BuiltRight]

It has nothing to do with Logic and everything to do with money. Surface lots cost about $1,500 a parking space and multi-story parking structure cost about $12-15,000 a space. Combine that cost with Tulsa high parking requirements and it will never make economical sense for developers to put in garages unless they are in a part of town like Brady or Blue dome where land is more expensive or hard to buy. What I would like to see is the city make protection of the river front a priority by say putting a PUD in place for all land on the river front that have a maximum % of LF of water frontage that could be parking vs development.

[PonderInc]

Here's the thing.  The zoning code requires 330 spaces for the 3 buildings shown.  They are providing 612 parking spaces!!!!!!!  This is absurd.  REI has a policy of greenhouse gas reduction, a stance on climate change and a policy on green building and environmental stewardship.  They also have a goal of reducing single occupancy car commuting.  

So again: W_T_F?

[cynical]

I would bet that the larger-than-required number of parking spaces is driven by the developer's estimate of the number of spaces that would be used by people merely accessing the trail. It is unlikely that the developer would put extra money in for covered, multi-level parking if many of those spaces would be used by non-customers. Think of people like Sauerkraut.

[PonderInc]

The only new amenity being added is the development.  We are not adding boat ramps, picnic areas, a new disc golf course, an outdoor theater, etc, etc. So why would these buildings generate 300 additional trail users beyond what is currently needed?  I am mystified by this logic.

[Conan71]

The only new amenity being added is the development.  We are not adding boat ramps, picnic areas, a new disc golf course, an outdoor theater, etc, etc. So why would these buildings generate 300 additional trail users beyond what is currently needed?  I am mystified by this logic.

Parking opportunity, I'd guess.  It's not impossible to find spaces at 21st, 41st, 71st, or 96th now though.

[SXSW]

Parking opportunity, I'd guess.  It's not impossible to find spaces at 21st, 41st, 71st, or 96th now though.

Is the city paying for any additional parking for the trail? 

[PonderInc]

Remember that the parking minimums required by our current zoning are arbitrary.  They are typically double or triple or quadruple what is actually utilized.  They are not based on real studies or analysis of parking needs in Tulsa. (They are based on a single, flawed, statistically invalid "study" from decades ago based on estimated peak demand for free parking in a suburban location without public transit, bike trails, etc.)  So our minimums are based on a decades-old maximum in a different city with different conditions.

In the case of the REI development, the required parking (333) does not account for access from the trail users (I would bike to REI), or the nearby transit stop (which is the most utilized bus route in the city, and will be the future Bus Rapid Transit route).  The parking minimums are based on the building size, not the number of people who use the buildings and how they travel, or the policy goals of our city (PlaniTulsa is all about walking, biking and transit, and the efficient use of land; it's not about doubling the amount of surface parking in Tulsa).

Here's an example: parking for retail stores is based on total SF of building (including warehouse/storage space), not on the SF of retail floor space or the number of customers and employees. It also doesn't take into account "shared" parking, where a person might shop at a store and then eat at the restaurant nearby.  Parking is provided for both, as if they each operated in an isolated bubble in separate universes.  (We know this is not true, or the developer would not want to put these two uses together!)

It's a ridiculous formula and not based on science.  So the required minimum of 333 spaces already has plenty of "cushion" for any additional trail users that are magically spawned by the store, the restaurant or the drive-thru proposed in the development concept. Providing 612 spaces is insanity.

Trail users may call the sand volleyball courts a "desert" but this parking lot will be nothing but a wasted heat island that collects oil and chemicals from cars and dumps them neatly in the river.

[LandArchPoke]

The excuse is they couldn't make the development pencil out with structured parking is BS - even with the high number of spots required. Why not ask the city for a variance or do a PUD or better yet zone this with a form based code to allow the developer to do something better than this with less parking.

The developer is always going to take the cheap way out if the city lets them. They need to require structured parking.

Here is just a quick run down...

Development is 110,000 sq. ft. - 330 spaces needed at 3:1000 ratio.

Development cost of $200 per sq. ft. = $22,000,000 building development cost

Structured parking for those 330 spaces would add an extra $6,600,000 @ $20,000 per space.

$30.00 NNN is what the could attain (possibly higher) as this is what Tulsa Hills rates are typically renting for.

= $3,300,000 per year in income.

Loan for no structured parking (4% - 30 Year Amortization) = $1,272,263 in total payments per year
Loan with structured parking (4% - 30 Year Amortization) = $1,653,941 in total payments per year

Providing 330 structured spaces wouldn't kill this deal, but if the developer can squeeze out an extra $400,000 because the city will bend over and grab their ankles for them they will do it. Even if somehow taking in $1.65 million in income instead of $2.03 million in income kills the deal, why not throw in some TIF money to bridge that gap and get high density on this site or abate the property taxes for a few years to cover the gap.

[PonderInc]

LandArch, thanks for your analysis of the cost of structured parking.  However, I want to be clear about the amount of building SF and parking requirements.

Here's what I see according to the PUD application and concept plan:

Total Retail: 35,050 SF (includes 27,000 SF REI)
Retail "required" parking: 1/225 SF of building = 151 spaces

Total Restaurant: 18,200 (including a drive-thru - at least that's what it looks like on the concept drawing)
Restaurant "required" parking: 1/100 SF of building = 182 spaces

Total commercial space: 52,250 SF
Total "required" parking: 333

Remember that we are utilizing the current parking requirements, not the (hopefully) soon-to-be-reduced requirements of the updated code.

By the way, this was submitted as an amendment to a PUD from 1972 (PUD 128-E-5)
http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Approved%20Minutes/2015/05-20-15%20TMAPC%20Approved%20Minutes.pdf
(starting on page 38 of the TMAPC minutes)

[swake]

It also wouldn't cost anything to orient the buildings to take advantage of the park instead of ignoring it, with the exception of the single restaurant.

[TeeDub]

The big shopping center that houses/housed the Spirit bank event center has multilevel parking...   Does it ever even get used?

[LandArchPoke]

It also wouldn't cost anything to orient the buildings to take advantage of the park instead of ignoring it, with the exception of the single restaurant.

That seems to be what the TMAPC was saying. I was a bit surprised they seemed to grill them about now orienting the development more towards the river. I figured this would get rubber stamped and approved.

LandArch, thanks for your analysis of the cost of structured parking.  However, I want to be clear about the amount of building SF and parking requirements.

Here's what I see according to the PUD application and concept plan:

Total Retail: 35,050 SF (includes 27,000 SF REI)
Retail "required" parking: 1/225 SF of building = 151 spaces

Total Restaurant: 18,200 (including a drive-thru - at least that's what it looks like on the concept drawing)
Restaurant "required" parking: 1/100 SF of building = 182 spaces

Total commercial space: 52,250 SF
Total "required" parking: 333

Remember that we are utilizing the current parking requirements, not the (hopefully) soon-to-be-reduced requirements of the updated code.

By the way, this was submitted as an amendment to a PUD from 1972 (PUD 128-E-5)
http://www.tmapc.org/Documents/Approved%20Minutes/2015/05-20-15%20TMAPC%20Approved%20Minutes.pdf
(starting on page 38 of the TMAPC minutes)

I did notice I was a bit off in terms of SF when I re-looked at the site plan after I posted that. Here is the revised #'s just for people to think about at 52,250 sf and 333 parking spaces.

Development cost of $200 psf w/ surface parking = $10,450,000
Development cost of $200 psf w/ structured parking @ $20,000 per space = $17,110,000

30 Year Am. loan @ 4% = $604,324.54 in payments per year
30 Year Am. loan @ 4% = $989,437.00 in payments per year

52,250 sf leased at $30.00 NNN per year = $1,567,500.00 per year in income.

So basically a difference of $578,027 in income w/ structure parking versus $936,175.46 in income with surface parking.

Difference is, that the density you could get with structured parking would allow for more sf to be built. They could wrap the structured parking with multifamily and some of the retail with multifamily on top and built 150-200 units that would use the parking mainly in the evenings and overnight when the retail is closed. That would make way to much sense especially since this is identified as MIXED-USE developable land.

[PonderInc]

I continue to be amazed that developers don't understand that excessive asphalt is wasted space and unnecessary cost.  It's weird that you have to fight a developer to say: Hey, can you please use that land to do something productive and increase your profit? Or at least save yourself the cost of buying land and building surface parking that will never be utilized? (Oh, and by limiting the asphalt, simultaneously make it a better and more desirable place.)  I'm astonished that there are developers who DEMAND to provide excessive parking that will never be used.