Brookside: Upscale Apartment Complex Proposal

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The concerns about traffic are a bit double edged too.  Where would be a good place for development?

How about Owasso with nice wide new streets.  Then all we have to do is put in a new $20,000,000 interchange at 169 and the BA since we'we just got done widen those roads.  After that we'll just redo the next choke point.  Then for lunch, those people have a good chance of ending up at Brookside anyway.

Arguing it is too dense for Brookside is an argument in favor of sprawl over infill.

I think you dropped a zero in your cost of a highway interchange.

[skillz]

I am an ex-resident of Tulsa, currently residing in the Alamo Heights area of San Antonio. We are experience the same kind of development pressures as Brookside. We have a number of no-tell motels next to my area. Recently, a developer proposed tearing down 2 of them, along with a low-income apartment complex, to put up a 360-apartment, 4-story apartment complex.

The developer worked with my neighborhood association on a number of deed restrictions, including a Restrictive Covenant into perpetuity, in order for our support of zoning changes that would allow such a large building. We got them to agree to design changes, lighting changes, and a whole slew of other benefits to the neighborhood. So we get rid of high-crime areas adjacent to our area, and they get their development. It's a win-win for everyone, and a good model for working with a developer that the Brookside folks might want to take a look at.

Read more here: http://terrellheights.com/docket/. Look under "Chancellor Propery Redevelopment".

[booWorld]

I did some very quick calculations based on INCOG's online zoning map, the county assessor's parcel map, and on the article/map published in the Tulsa World today.

Perhaps someone in Brookside has looked at the proposal, but I don't see how the developer can be planning a mixture of 240 one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments.

By my calculation, a maximum of 68 apartments could be built in a planned unit development (PUD) on the RM-1 portion of the site (west of Rockford between 39th and 41st).  

A maximum of 134 apartments could be built in a PUD on the RM-2 portion of the site (south of 39th and east of Food Pyramid).

In a PUD, the developer would have some freedom to build the apartments on the site regardless of the underlying zoning districts, but as I understand it, the total number of dwelling units is based on those districts.  The combined number of apartments based on the land areas of the RM-1 and RM-2 districts would be 202, not 240.  

I'm not an expert on this, but I did work on a PUD with a mixture of underlying zoning districts -- so I'm somewhat familiar with the methodology.

I'm figuring that an additional acre of land would be required in order the developer to propose a total of 240 apartments.

I relied on information which could be inaccurate.  Also, my calculations could be wrong.  I could be off by 15% with my quick run through the numbers.  This could be the 15% mentioned as a minor PUD amendment in Section 1107.H.3 of the zoning code, but I doubt it.  If someone familiar with the zoning code knows where I might have mis-calculated, please post a reply.

I'm not an authority on zoning or on Brookside, but I do want to see all parties treated fairly in this case.  Even without a PUD, Rockford already divides a single-family residential district from multi-family district.  The maximum allowed density allowed on the west side of Rockford is approximately 19.8 dwelling units per acre without a PUD and 25.6 dwelling units with a PUD.  The development on the east side of Rockford is limited to approximately 5.2 dwelling units per acre.

Without an amendment to the zoning map, the height of buildings on both sides of Rockford is limited to 35 feet.  This is one regulation which protects the owners of the homes east of Rockford from overwhelmingly out-of-scale development being built on the other side of the street without the benefit of any notification or public hearing.  

[OurTulsa]

From what I hear they are attempting to rezone some of the property in anticipation of the PUD to RM-3 in order to get them the density.  The PUD will also get them over the 35 ft.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by OurTulsa

From what I hear they are attempting to rezone some of the property in anticipation of the PUD to RM-3 in order to get them the density.  The PUD will also get them over the 35 ft.

Thanks.  Re-zoning 32,571 square feet of the RM-2 district to RM-3 would net 38 additional apartments.

[Gaspar]

Word has it, that the deal has fallen through.

Another developer is now examining the land.

That is all I know for now.

[sgrizzle]

That was quick.

[YoungTulsan]

What in the crap?

Bait and switch?

The first one looked nice in a lot of aspects (lower level parking, no criminal fence around the perimeter).  I wonder if they floated the "nice" idea so our initial reaction would be one of acceptance, and now the real crap is about to be foisted upon us?

I hope not.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

What in the crap?

Bait and switch?

The first one looked nice in a lot of aspects (lower level parking, no criminal fence around the perimeter).  I wonder if they floated the "nice" idea so our initial reaction would be one of acceptance, and now the real crap is about to be foisted upon us?

I hope not.

I doubt this developer came all the way to Tulsa to do research, set up meetings, listen to red faced people holler at him, just so he could "set the stage" for some other developer.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

What in the crap?

Bait and switch?

The first one looked nice in a lot of aspects (lower level parking, no criminal fence around the perimeter).  I wonder if they floated the "nice" idea so our initial reaction would be one of acceptance, and now the real crap is about to be foisted upon us?

I hope not.

I doubt this developer came all the way to Tulsa to do research, set up meetings, listen to red faced people holler at him, just so he could "set the stage" for some other developer.

But the other developer could take advantage of our acceptance, based on what we THOUGHT we were getting this time around.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

What in the crap?

Bait and switch?

The first one looked nice in a lot of aspects (lower level parking, no criminal fence around the perimeter).  I wonder if they floated the "nice" idea so our initial reaction would be one of acceptance, and now the real crap is about to be foisted upon us?

I hope not.

I doubt this developer came all the way to Tulsa to do research, set up meetings, listen to red faced people holler at him, just so he could "set the stage" for some other developer.

But the other developer could take advantage of our acceptance, based on what we THOUGHT we were getting this time around.

Not sure who the new player will be yet, but they want all of the proposed images to review.  I mentioned that much of the acceptance was built on the original image of the Arkansas project.  

The original developer was told that several changes to the plan would have to be made before it could be approved, so he walked.  End of story.

[TURobY]

Any particular reason given as to why the development fell through?

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

Any particular reason given as to why the development fell through?

Sometimes these out of state developers get a design first, then look around for sites that fit the design and demographic profile.  If it becomes to difficult to develop one site they just move on to the next.  That's just the way it works for them.

The good news is that now the site and the accepted concept is available for a good Tulsa developer to come in and take over.  []  I would much rather see a local guy or gal developing this site!

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

Any particular reason given as to why the development fell through?

Sometimes these out of state developers get a design first, then look around for sites that fit the design and demographic profile.  If it becomes to difficult to develop one site they just move on to the next.  That's just the way it works for them.

The good news is that now the site and the accepted concept is available for a good Tulsa developer to come in and take over.  []  I would much rather see a local guy or gal developing this site!

Local development is good, but given Tulsa's history with 'developers', the most likely thing to happen to the property if in the hands of a Tulsan is... nothing.

I'd rather an out-of-towner come in and build something nice rather than always have the potential for a local developer who might or might not put anything on it in the next 20 years.

Until there's an official statement or email or something, I'm going to try an believe this is still going to happen.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

My guess is parking will be at least somewhat underground.

The parking garage most likely was a factor which significantly increased development costs.  Underground parking is even more expensive than parking garages above ground, I my guess is that an underground garage would have been illegal and/or very expensive because most of the property is within the City of Tulsa Regulatory Floodplain -- the shallow flooding area of the Perryman ditch.