Development at 31st/Peoria?

[Markk]

Just saw a post by someone on Nextdoor asking if anyone knew about an effort to get one of the corners rezoned to commercial so some type of shopping center and parking garage could be built.   I'm assuming the post was referring to the SE corner.  Anyone heard anything about this?

[patric]

Just saw a post by someone on Nextdoor asking if anyone knew about an effort to get one of the corners rezoned to commercial so some type of shopping center and parking garage could be built.   I'm assuming the post was referring to the SE corner.  Anyone heard anything about this?

Brookside 31 (31st & Peoria)

Apparently seeking rezoning 31st & Peoria from Residential to Mixed Use for retail, restaurant, entertainment, office and housing.
http://tulsaplanning.org/tmapc/PRC/2020-8-6%20MPD-3%20PRC%20Packet.pdf

https://goo.gl/maps/tB4cqHLUoFfNGG9E6

[shavethewhales]

Wow! That is an amazing concept! I imagine there will be massive pushback to having such a large 6-story building plopped into the old neighborhood. This would be an awesome addition to Brookside though. The parking garage is sorely needed.

[Markk]

Thanks for finding that.

[DowntownDan]

Interesting project. I wonder if they can guarantee it'll look like that and won't end up being a crappy little stripmall and ugly apartment complex.

[SXSW]

Wish this was in more of an existing commercial location like at 15th & Peoria but it would be a great addition to midtown if built as designed.  I always assumed that piece of property would just get turned into another residential neighborhood someday.

[rebound]

Just heard about this yesterday, and I'm not in favor. "Brookside" doesn't start until South of the creek, about two blocks South of the corner.   This won't really alleviate any parking issues on Brookside proper, because it's a few blocks North of the main area, and we already know that Tulsans don't like to walk that far.  Particularly when they will be walking through two blocks of residential.  I think more development along Brookside would be great, and could really be used down on the South end where it is already commercial.  But I don't like sprawling the commercial into an established residential area, North of an obvious line of demarcation such as Crow Creek.   

[BKDotCom]

anyone have a working link to the PDF?

[LandArchPoke]

Just heard about this yesterday, and I'm not in favor. "Brookside" doesn't start until South of the creek, about two blocks South of the corner.   This won't really alleviate any parking issues on Brookside proper, because it's a few blocks North of the main area, and we already know that Tulsans don't like to walk that far.  Particularly when they will be walking through two blocks of residential.  I think more development along Brookside would be great, and could really be used down on the South end where it is already commercial.  But I don't like sprawling the commercial into an established residential area, North of an obvious line of demarcation such as Crow Creek.   

That application has suddenly gone missing online... so I wonder if it was something they've already decided against pursuing a zoning change and nixed the idea. If it was an active zoning case they shouldn't have removed it unless it's just an 'error' on the city website.

I'm curious why exactly you don't like the development? Is it the worry about what type of retail would go in, the height of the development, or you just don't want anything to change, etc.?

I'm kind of mixed and I do get the point you made about there is a separation between Brookside, but with Phase III of the gathering place and then the parcels south of this (which goes to Crow Creek) would likely be redeveloped too at some point if this was successful, then there would be no gap between Brookside and this development. I'm not really sure what is different about this location and the Phase III mixed-use project Kaiser has preliminary plans for just a few blocks away and why one would be allowed and not the other?

I'm very pro development that is appropriate even in existing neighborhoods and from the designs shown it's hard to say that development does not meet the intent of the long range plan and I believe the area of growth designation went all the way to 31st. It was also built up to the street with appropriate lower density where the site abuts to neighboring single family with the townhomes.

You can't tell from the plans but I think a lot of it would depend on the type of retail space they planned. I could see why residents might not want a bunch of new bars to be right at this corner or something that will play loud music outside so appropriate measure to require the developer not to allow that would be appropriate. But if the developer has a lease for say Whole Food's relocation or a sprouts and a pharmacy and little retail that would be of a possible nuisance I'm not sure why it would be opposed. I have heard Sprouts is has wanted a location near 15th Street for a while and have hear Whole Foods would like to relocate into a new build location at some point to expand the midtown store. This layout kind of screams urban grocer to me but without any floorplans it's hard to tell what exactly they planned retail wise.

In the long run, if the city required the developer to hold to a certain quality to the development this would be a net benefit to property values around the development given the demand for walkable communities.

[LandArchPoke]

Here's pictures from the document:



Growth/Stability Designation



Description



Site Plan

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I'm sure the residents of 3164 S Rockford location N on the rendering, will just be thrilled with a pedestrian access gate right next to their driveway.

https://goo.gl/maps/MRxa96TLuWxK6tnU9

[rebound]

That application has suddenly gone missing online... so I wonder if it was something they've already decided against pursuing a zoning change and nixed the idea. If it was an active zoning case they shouldn't have removed it unless it's just an 'error' on the city website.

I'm curious why exactly you don't like the development? Is it the worry about what type of retail would go in, the height of the development, or you just don't want anything to change, etc.?

I'm not anti-change, or anti-development.  But I do think we should consider continuity, and the overall neighborhood.   The height of the development is particularly concerning.

I'm kind of mixed and I do get the point you made about there is a separation between Brookside, but with Phase III of the gathering place and then the parcels south of this (which goes to Crow Creek) would likely be redeveloped too at some point if this was successful, then there would be no gap between Brookside and this development. I'm not really sure what is different about this location and the Phase III mixed-use project Kaiser has preliminary plans for just a few blocks away and why one would be allowed and not the other?

I actually considered The Gathering Place PHIII when posting earlier.   I think TGP being a park and a general huge asset to the community overcomes some of the "intrusive" aspects that come with it.  And I do think eventually there will be some form of path along Crow Creek from Riverside over to Peoria, or at least close to it.  (They could just dump it onto 33rd pl at "the meadow", and add a bike lane and sidewalk over to the Torchy's corner.)

I'd like to understand better how the area East of Peoria and North of 32nd Pl is designated "growth".   Had that area already be designated that, or is the developer doing this simply because the large parcel size in that area makes growth feasible? 

I'm very pro development that is appropriate even in existing neighborhoods and from the designs shown it's hard to say that development does not meet the intent of the long range plan and I believe the area of growth designation went all the way to 31st. It was also built up to the street with appropriate lower density where the site abuts to neighboring single family with the townhomes.

I guess I need to better understand the long-range plan.  To me, it does not make sense to convert this area from residential to commercial.   Although,  I will accept that something on  a smaller scale could work there.  Current Brookside developments are mostly two-story, and only go half-way back into the surrounding blocks.  This development would look very large even if built down on the South end of Brookside, and would be massive (and, to me, out of place) where it is proposed.  But I do agree, if the aesthetics could be worked out, and guaranteed, there could be an opportunity for something to go in at that location.

You can't tell from the plans but I think a lot of it would depend on the type of retail space they planned. I could see why residents might not want a bunch of new bars to be right at this corner or something that will play loud music outside so appropriate measure to require the developer not to allow that would be appropriate. But if the developer has a lease for say Whole Food's relocation or a sprouts and a pharmacy and little retail that would be of a possible nuisance I'm not sure why it would be opposed. I have heard Sprouts is has wanted a location near 15th Street for a while and have hear Whole Foods would like to relocate into a new build location at some point to expand the midtown store. This layout kind of screams urban grocer to me but without any floorplans it's hard to tell what exactly they planned retail wise.

Definitely depends on what goes in.  A small Sprouts would work well there.   But, a small Sprouts would work well down in Brookside also.  I guess my overriding issue is "why?"  We have an existing strip that starts at 33rd and goes all the way to basically to 51st.  True, actual "Brookside" ends at about 41st or so, but the South end all the way to the highway is ripe for conversion and development, and would welcome something like this with open arms.  Why convert existing residential to commercial and intrude into the neighborhood?

(Side note on the topic of developing the South end of Brookside.  Saw yesterday they are bulldozing the old car wash and strip center on the West side of Peoria, just North of 43rd st.  Anybody know anything about what's going in at that location?)

In the long run, if the city required the developer to hold to a certain quality to the development this would be a net benefit to property values around the development given the demand for walkable communities.

I do like the walkable aspect.  (I could easily walk there from my house...) And obviously something is going to happen there.  And I am definitely happy that eventually that wall at the corner will come down.  That's a very dangerous intersection right there, with very limited visibility.  But, I do think overall the development as proposed would be better suited further South.

[LandArchPoke]

I'm not anti-change, or anti-development.  But I do think we should consider continuity, and the overall neighborhood.   The height of the development is particularly concerning.

I actually considered The Gathering Place PHIII when posting earlier.   I think TGP being a park and a general huge asset to the community overcomes some of the "intrusive" aspects that come with it.  And I do think eventually there will be some form of path along Crow Creek from Riverside over to Peoria, or at least close to it.  (They could just dump it onto 33rd pl at "the meadow", and add a bike lane and sidewalk over to the Torchy's corner.)

I'd like to understand better how the area East of Peoria and North of 32nd Pl is designated "growth".   Had that area already be designated that, or is the developer doing this simply because the large parcel size in that area makes growth feasible? 

I guess I need to better understand the long-range plan.  To me, it does not make sense to convert this area from residential to commercial.   Although,  I will accept that something on  a smaller scale could work there.  Current Brookside developments are mostly two-story, and only go half-way back into the surrounding blocks.  This development would look very large even if built down on the South end of Brookside, and would be massive (and, to me, out of place) where it is proposed.  But I do agree, if the aesthetics could be worked out, and guaranteed, there could be an opportunity for something to go in at that location.

The developer didn't request a change to the long range plan - that is what was that area was designated when it was approved. That is kind of the bad thing about the long range plan is because there was no classification of the 'areas of growth' from an intensity perspective. So you could make the case that growth could mean a small single family subdivision or growth could mean a multistory mixed use project. That's why neighborhood or small area plans are important but many in our city don't always take them very seriously and seems like they tend to get disregarded all the time when someone like Quiktrip or other developers feel like they are special and don't need to follow them - that's another topic though.

I do think it's a legitimate concern for the height of the project given the surrounding land uses. It seems what is causing the extra height is they have the parking garage above ground and then residential above the garage. So that bumps up the 4-5 levels of residential up much higher than normal. This is where I think the city should offer up some solutions to development challenges. Work with the neighborhood and the developer and provide enough incentives to offset the cost of moving the parking underground and then the main part of the development would be 4-5 stories instead of 7-8. I tend to think the city offers up TIF and other funds when not needed in far too many cases, but should be using things like that to offer solutions to challenges that would encourage higher quality development. 

[Jeff P]

As a north Brookside resident (my house is literally on the map above - I'm west of Peoria/south of 31st), this looks great to me.

I walk from my house to Brookside "proper" all the time... I've been hoping for a while that the west side of Peoria north of 34th would get a little bit more developed, and I think this would certainly potentially benefit that.

[patric]

anyone have a working link to the PDF?

Try these:

http://tulsaplanning.org/tmapc/PRC/2020-08-06-MPD-3-PRC-Packet.pdf

http://tulsaplanning.org/boards-commissions/planning-commission/prc-agenda/?fbclid=IwAR28oJHa_q6ok22c3gUZSNsp8ZMztKHPxSslt3qe8UJ5ebith0ss3gOGImY