The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

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

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.

Thanks for finding that.

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.

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.

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.   

anyone have a working link to the PDF?

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.

Here's pictures from the document:

(https://i.imgur.com/l74T47d.png)

Growth/Stability Designation

(https://i.imgur.com/sYa9d7A.png)

Description

(https://i.imgur.com/sREMIpa.png)

Site Plan

(https://i.imgur.com/rHGz6sa.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/kgf97qO.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/3813IIV.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/RF4UxxH.png)

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 (https://goo.gl/maps/MRxa96TLuWxK6tnU9)

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.


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?)


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.

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. 

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.

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

There's no housing to the south, and the east end of the project are townhomes, so not commercial space. And the retail and dining part appear to be facing the major streets of 31st and Peoria. There obviously will be immense pearl clutching from anyone nearby, but I support density within existing neighborhoods including townhomes. The only grievance I can see as legitimate is maybe the height, but I'm not really sure because again that part of the project is buffered by the townhomes to the east and the creek to the south where there aren't homes anyway.

Well, I confess, I have just gone down a rabbit hole on this development and related development from Kaiser and TGP, the possible Crow Creek trail, and the like.   Spent waaayyy too much time thing morning, but pretty cool stuff.

When you say North of 34th on the West side, what area do you mean?  The area South of Crow Creek is already commercial (but yes, could be improved upon), and the area North of the Creek on the SW corner of Peoria and 32 st is owned by Kaiser.  (Who I assume is holding it as part of the proposed trail.)  North of that is all existing residential.

After looking at what Kaiser owns, it could make sense to acquire the land immediately across Peoria and South of the line that would be the extended 32st, and make some kind of entry into Brookside, with the requisite parks, etc.   Any non- residential development North of the 32 st street line seems (IMHO) intrusive on the current residential nature of the area.

Good point on this connecting directly to the planned Crow Creek trail.  That will be a great amenity once it is built, especially if it involves a below-grade crossing underneath the Peoria bridge.   That puts all of Brookside within close and safe walking distance to the Gathering Place and the future development to the south.  It also helps connects the larger Brookside neighborhood to the river trails.  A dream would be to one day be able to connect to Philbrook as well.

Based on what is currently owned by City of Tulsa or Kaiser, the Crow Creek trail from Riverside to Peoria is very close to being feasible.  A couple of areas still to be addressed, but I'm sure it will happen.   I looked at what it would take to get the trail over to Zink Park, and there are several smaller lots in the way, so I think there is a problem there.  If the trail could make it to Zink Park, getting it the rest of the way to Philbrook seems pretty doable.  There are two HOAs that own stretches of the creek there, and only one (very) large acreage where the owner would have to be negotiated with.

I remember reading about the Crow Creek running trail and always thought it was a pipedream. It would be really cool if they could get it done.

Sounds like it could actually become a reality which would be an amazing asset for midtown.  Now if only you could not only get to Philbrook but go through it and all the way to Yorktown by Cascia you would have a neighborhood trail from the river to near Utica Sq

It reminds me of a creekside trail I saw in Boulder, CO. The part I walked along was not in a neighborhood but I think it did extend into a residential area. It was really pretty and interesting.

Massing model for this project.  Planning Commission meets to consider this project on Sep. 2

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EerkyWIXsAM1yF2.png)

Not sure how I feel about the commercial midrise but I love the townhomes and residential density

(https://ktul.com/resources/media/519ecd9d-c9ed-4222-83b7-20c68cc17725-medium16x9_reformat31standPeoriadev5.jpg?1596653485099)

Agreed.  Basically any form of residential, done well, would work fine there.   The push-back is on the commercial.   

I'm a fan of urban green space but I think this will be a great use of the Patterson estate and would be a nice anchor for north Brookside.

I still don't understand why there are no hotels in Brookside.

So who is Brett Kramer?

Or really in midtown for that matter, outside of the Campbell on 11th.

I'm just excited that we finally get to fix the sidewalks in that area. The current ones really suck with that stone wall right up against them. Not a fan.

Really excited for the possibility of a Crow Creek trail at least to 31st.  Like I said before if you could extend a neighborhood trail all the way to Yorktown you could connect several midtown neighborhoods to Brookside and the river.

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/4f/e4f2f8cf-361d-5d7b-9b40-29f6503a888d/5740dd6f27265.image.jpg)

Yeah "developed" probably wasn't the right word since, as you noted, it's already commercial... So yes, "improved" is the operative word. I wish the building that includes Shades of Brown and 3 Tequillas had a larger base of more stable tenants and I especially wish the landlord would keep up the streetscape up like the building owners to the south do.

My hope would be that this really nice commercial development at 31st & Peoria, along with whatever cool stuff Kaiser has planned for that area around Crow Creek, would spur some big improvements in that area.

If there was ever a good redevelopment opportunity in Brookside "proper" it is the building with the wing shop and tattoo parlor at the corner of 33rd Pl.  That would be a good spot for a nicer mixed-use development with apartments or condos above retail that eliminates that corner parking lot. 

I wonder if at some point the homes along the north side of 33rd Place will be acquired as part of the Phase 3 work along Crow Creek.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/BXjDLfPkfghKCm0YeCgtZWI5A_RtP7r1JgTG-khhQnH1s71Wc5Ka5iT4pwfFXKhN6RPoog4LnK4rpPEqYIVJFpcTlDdajIL5QRnAtdm8tSL8ryorJWLLye5XX0_hM9lyRpu_TtUq9hPBSF3M3aBBOKOiahEYGWOo2nl9TS9ZwhLN16WfJz1dowxqjNtnjKlkZJgbCDtK5PfHYWMV3xy9bavHw5abKLfjfQccNoi-nmwUN4RX1hIETZeNgErJqlKqtEh_f7jSnO21BkJzRf-QDnLopHTFftVJ_xhMTB4mvhfLLAGDo0_4j0yF6akmDSdxAwypIpxETWo8bnVd9m-JEajs9oFFL9MLtG586rNQgiXJLC82irMkAs0KVTUntSiZm1k8IeW9E7IneCReT_e6FisIcnz6zmwDBxixnzHeP5MUMg-ED6xgoKW9RMrhLsgyNgmchWpUv0P0gdH6bBXAF10GQomXCxeVG9lI_jVVWLQu8D3M02BsekhLFKj09kFECqkC3ZK3oQeUeOqpJm0PK99BjyqN_q4jT0BnMpU4J4CWYyXb1SUAAy2XNIw_USbvRRmEv6CKv8I8I1CaKwGyi1YedDhj8cKZ1b3O7RwmGCaLpnmu855yqX13KewbnfQkZQdaTpZNYfXahQLDhwsNYQ7H0acbAJRrwVz6zDvQDIKmqDO3vbX65ZeFYok=w1250-h584-no?authuser=0)

Agreed.  That corner would be perfect for mixed use.

Regarding the North side of 33rd PL.   See below for a very crude map I made a few days ago.  The areas in yellow are already owned by city or Kaiser.  The blue are all owned by the same individual.     

(https://i.imgur.com/JxVLPib.jpg)

Great map. Kaiser actually controls more property than that - RSD Properties LLC is also a Kaiser vehicle and owns 1007 E 33 Pl (the triangle of condos backing up to the creek) as well as many of the parcels west of Cincinnati on 33 pl.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/developers-host-informational-session-for-proposed-development-of-tulsa-basketball-legends-brookside-property/article_dc1a7ad5-b09e-52b1-bcf2-f9c18e9b6f42.html (https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/developers-host-informational-session-for-proposed-development-of-tulsa-basketball-legends-brookside-property/article_dc1a7ad5-b09e-52b1-bcf2-f9c18e9b6f42.html)

...


https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/developers-host-informational-session-for-proposed-development-of-tulsa-basketball-legends-brookside-property/article_dc1a7ad5-b09e-52b1-bcf2-f9c18e9b6f42.html#1 (https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/developers-host-informational-session-for-proposed-development-of-tulsa-basketball-legends-brookside-property/article_dc1a7ad5-b09e-52b1-bcf2-f9c18e9b6f42.html#1)

I can only imagine the "intelligible" responses from the public they will receive.

Might be a bit like the Gathering Place: Oh no! My million dollar mansion is now worth 2 million!? I might have to cash out and live comfortably the rest of my life because I don't like change and don't like going outside and enjoying the highest dollar public park in the history of the world! I had to move 5 blocks away to get away from all the traffic! (I know people who live 2 blocks away and have had zero negative effects since the first grand opening month).

This will be a preview of responses for phases 2 & 3 of the Gathering Place. It will increase traffic and density, but that is a good thing for a city that wishes to bring in the kind of people who can help make it a city of the future. Startups, remote jobs and tech jobs are filled by the kind of urbanites who want to live in neighborhoods like this would become with this sort of development (it's currently close for sure, but this and Gathering Place future phases would take it to another level). Utica Square should follow this path.

I am not a fan of how the rendering looks, but the overall idea of it is awesome. Townhomes all around, garage hidden and tall buildings in the middle, hidden pretty well from surrounding neighborhood. I wish the styling was a bit better, but overall this project would be transformative for the area. I am thankful the kids of Robert Patterson (Go TU!) are forward thinking and willing to undertake such a huge risk.

I like all of the big trees on this lot and hope they can preserve many of them with this development.  I always envisioned this as a denser residential neighborhood similar to the one just to the east along 31st so it's hard to imagine it with a large tower.  I think if there is any kind of compromise between the developers and neighborhood it would be to eliminate or significantly reduce the commercial portion of the project and keep it mostly residential.

If they were to acquire all of those parcels along 33rd Pl (in blue) they could do a really incredible mixed-use development there that truly connects the river to Brookside.  Who owns the property to the south of the Patterson estate adjacent to Crow Creek?

Patterson Estate/Brookside31 (in red)
Gathering Place Phase III (in yellow)
Crow Creek Trail (in green)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/POAimXML5qN29ohq0oOQ8nlsvHYu0UALwBE3Gsv5U4nlQzawZXpE5GYrfYOsI9O9DhZ1W-kUNxweWx9_oc3d51mUgOw44_VXT6Hw6iH5eNxYqpW7PxPmSXbKOnegxQiJl54VOZDkt5h2dggz1MEjsvPqN1kzsJbOr7SlcD4nLax74IM5F8-jt-pn2AyInsKMz-m00PGDjzyZf3ylB6thmjvnWYIQ37q8oOXiKbOG-tyoQlBaHoVLnSKH_b1CYuMajHmkKohXNNsF_7Dg3izHfs9nVJ9HoVeCuDzNtwI_eRzOjEl9Ol7JBJrm0xptqNhwy1WzaxtI2l2NfH9ms4KnucSXTOOXD3aghUbH8SL11Mgx41ke3hKzpmxZs1IWsWXZunpEd3yX2hwesjz5MU-faG9ONtaFsO3MJzI4smypk3M_FbuKcc_gRVoXWffEQt_g47jk3DNxicW0rC5v-C8MCFPXinIXBqUngjBTCvX3ZfCQ83lDXh9gElAJhz8iGSmg1d5F9MtBUqgzkwrYDPSdncoA7M0tb7pJciFTdqgcvQBF9arYUYLtGncLQ4JUUkrdvHMZD1_b8twMOcRFBJj6DR1soJ00Gxk9VTnyaXMUmhIFU42UghTVzxnt6X8K9qGOyvBRE7hFD2fXpbyhs-xwGlx8-XzNGZYrg-BjWtifn9e1mHamUNDhNtJSKkIY=w1625-h937-no?authuser=0)

Wow, that's what I've got to say to some of those comments.

The irony of this is the people making these extreme comments about this development are 100% the same people who screamed above placing a historical overlay for the neighborhood which would have made it harder for developers to tear down old homes and thus stabilizing the neighborhood more and given much more power to the neighborhood associations. But people screamed about property rights and you can't tell me what to do with my property! And they are now standing up there and telling someone else what to do with their property?

Funny how things like that work sometimes.

Some of these comments remind me of the sidewalk debate a few years back and look at what a disaster that was (sarcasm) and how much crime that brought to all those homes because oh my god the horror of pedestrians and hooligans who might enjoy walking!!!

Those "comments" were satirical. I just recalled all the negative comments I remember about the Gathering Place and other similar developments and tried to combine them into as succinct of a cluster I could muster! I know they have real concerns (extra traffic, connection to neighborhood, light pollution, big building right there), but even if they don't change the zoning, they can still do a smaller version of this with pure residential so it's not like they'll be able to stop it completely. Time to accept the neighborhood is transitioning certain parts into the 21st century.

Ha, gotcha! Sad part is I'm pretty sure all of those things were said during the sidewalk from Gathering place to 21st Street so that's why I figured those had actually been said.

I would say, if the neighborhood does feel so upset at the end, maybe they should get more serious about working with the city on some additional zoning overlays that would help keep the 'character' of the neighborhood similar to what it is now. I'd love to see some more regulations put on new home construction to make them fit in better with the neighborhood like requiring garages to not be at the front or not make up over 30% of the front facade. Simply pushing the garages to the back of the lots or side entry would make a huge difference in preserving a lot of the architectural charm of the area.

I've been monitoring the responses on Next Door and similar.   Some are obviously over-wrought,  but most are rational and not opposed to basically any kind of residential development.  Simply that retail/commercial is not a good fit at that location.    There are some really good conversations buried in the mix regarding planned use.   I have not dug into the source docs yet, but basically the property in question is noted as a "growth" area, but no change in zoning is mentioned.  It seems obvious that "something" will be built out on that plot, but it was always assumed it would be residential of some form.  Also, there is a separate zoning for the Cherry Street area, stopping at Crow Creek.  Which also seems to indicate that commercial was intended to stop at Crow Creek, and all North of there was planned to be residential.  (Which coincides with my earlier observations, even though I was unaware of these documents/directions at the time.)

I did not know RSD was Kaiser.  They own several parcels in the area. Interesting. Its great they own those condos, as I saw that as a parcel that would have to be acquired to build the path.   

I can't see your graphic...   (Might be just me.)

I can see a legitimate concern on the commercial side - maybe they can make some sort of agreement with the developer in which restricts the uses of retail allowed.

I can't imagine any bars/clubs will be able to afford rents in this project which I'm sure is the biggest concern of the neighborhood. I'd bet retail lease rates will be at least $25 sq ft or more. Seems like the retailers that would want this space are more likely to be a LuluLemon, Warby Parker, etc type retailers that are increasingly more common along Brookside versus something that would be loud/blasting music late in the evening/night. I could see this being a great location for a Container Store, SurLaTable, etc. which I know have been scouting Tulsa for a while and just haven't been able to find the right space and I'd think that type of retail/commercial use wouldn't be a detriment to surrounding residential like if this was all nightclub or restaurant/bar combos.

It's not type of commercial/retail.  It is retail vs residential.  The pervasive opinion, and I am in this camp, is that the development should be residential-only.  Whatever kind of residential isn't as big of a factor. 

Fair enough argument, but I think most of their concerns could be alleviated through proper site-layout/design and that Brookside should go all the way to 31st eventually. I think that at minimum, they should at least compromise to allow office space. The taller building having offices on the ground and maybe a mix of office/residential on higher floors would seem to fit nicely without too much of a bother.

I understand the opposition to loud bars and clubs there. I think a restaurant component would be essential though, whether a small indoor/outdoor cafe or a restaurant, that would be great for the neighborhood and the development. All around Midtown, there's restaurants along arterial roads with residential interior and it doesn't bother those who live in those neighborhoods. I'm in that same boat and I love having restaurants nearby. The bars and breweries don't bother me either. Most of those and most retail places don't disrupt anything.

What exactly are people's arguments against having a really nice mixed development there that includes retail?  I live literally 3 blocks from this to the west and I think it would be awesome.

The most valuable property in Brookside is currently the property that is closest to the most developed part of Brookside, in terms of retail - east of Peoria in between about 33rd and 36th.

So are people who live around this afraid their property values will increase too much????!!!

I can see why someone would be concerned with not wanting a bunch of new clubs/bars opening near their house, but frankly the type of retail that would be able to afford the rents in a development like this would not be that type of tenant. It could be solved by restricting the uses of retail within the development through a deed restriction imposed by the developer on the site - so then it would carry onto any owners afterwards as well. I think that's a valid concession the developer could make with the neighborhood and would have no impact to the overall marketability of the development to tenants or if they decided to sell it at some point.

I don't see the argument of just no retail at all. Having a LuluLemon or Urban Outfitters within a few hundred feet of a house is bad in what way? That I'm not sure about. That also goes to your point of a lot of the more expensive parts of Brookside are now those sections near the highest density of retail/commercial space. So, with the right tenants of retail, it'd increase surrounding property values.

I’m still of the opinion that the commercial strip of Brookside should stay south of Crow Creek, and that there should be more focus to redevelop the portion between 36th and 41st more into an area that resembles 36th to 33rd.  I am all for a dense residential development on this block even a midrise I just think it should be residential in nature.

Does the Patterson estate extend all the way to Crow Creek or is there another property in between? 

Exactly.  Are there even any CURRENT spots in Brookside proper that would be considered "loud clubs/bars???" Maybe Warehouse I guess, but that's basically it... and it's not anywhere approaching "loud." There isn't a single spot in Brookside any more that I would consider a "club."

Anything that goes into this new development is going to be upscale restaurants/bars and boutiques, just like 99% of the rest of Brookside.  They won't be anything near approaching "loud."

And it absolutely will increase property values on the north end of Brookside.

I'm still with SXSW, in that Brookside starts at the creeks and goes South from there.   There are tons of properties from the creek to the highway that would benefit greatly from a development like this, rather than converting existing residential in an area outside the traditional commercial area.

In terms of property values,  I don't think that (assuming the development is done tastefully, and does not overshadow the immediate neighbors) the nearby residential will be affected greatly either way.   Given the location, with Brookside being walkably close, I don't see it being a benefit and it could be a negative to immediate home values. In terms of sq ft pricing, this is already some of the most valuable housing in Tulsa, so it is not in an area that is in need of property value improvement.  But also, I don't see this as being a pure property-values argument.  The great question should be whether this area was/is intended to be commercial.   If not, it should not be approved.

   

There are a couple of properties between this proposed development and Crow Creek.

It should be noted that not everyone wants their property values to go up.  For those who have no intention of ever selling, the only thing they see coming from increased property values is increased taxes.

Who would buy a house in an area with declining values for their primary residence? If the neighborhood isn't declining, then values are going to be going up regardless. It's just a question of how fast. Given that Oklahoma caps property tax increases I don't really buy that argument either. Especially if you don't intend on selling for a while, that actually would allow people to tap equity within their home over the long run - not sure who would think that's a bad thing. If property taxes weren't capped, then I can see that being an argument of causing displacement of current residences.

This argument has never made much sense to me either... You can't say well there's other properties somewhere else so do it there.

They can't force anyone along Brookside to sell their properties - let alone find a site of similar size on the south side of Brookside to do something similar there. You could make the same argument of saying well there's lots of land in Bixby, why don't they build it there. You can't duplicate the location - they own that piece of land and want to develop that piece of land - it's a private development and private property. This isn't a public facility where that argument is reasonable to say you think a community center or something should be located in a certain spot versus another.

Those properties south of 41st could use some redevelopment, that's a different point - that's up to those specific owners to do so too.

If you don't like the development, I'd say you should ask the city for an update to the Brookside small area plan (not sure if there even is one) and ask for an overlay which would provide more control to the neighborhood for the scale and type of development. The city tried this before and people lost their smile over it and threw a huge fit about you can't tell us what to do with our property... blah blah. Now the neighborhood is being over ran with a lot of context insensitive infill homes that fit better in Jenks than Brookside. This development is a direct result of those lack of policies the city tried to tell people they needed for the neighborhood. You can't have it both ways... if you want more control over what's built near you, you need regulations.

If you don't want regulations on your property outside of common zoning, then you can't be mad when people around you change their properties to fit whatever they dream within the current long range plan/zoning codes.

This is where I am. 

And I'm not sure why "Bookside" needs to "stop" at Crow Creek or some other arbitrary line. 

I would also be less enthusiastic about this development if it was actually taking away something that is currently adding value to the neighborhood.  But honestly, the SE corner of 31st and Peoria is a bit of an eyesore.  All you see is an overgrown mess of vines and mature landscape that obviously hasn't been tended to in decades.

Replacing that with an upscale mixed development like the one proposed is a win in my book.

I like the proposed development. Used to seeing a LOT worse so happy when one comes in looking this good.  I think its appropriate for the area as this corridor features our first BRT line and one hopes it will continue to infill and become more transit and pedestrian friendly.

And yes, it is ironic to listen to so many "property rights" people complain about someone trying to do what they want with their own property.

I agree on the first point, regarding houses that don't fit the neighborhood.  Particularly with regard to multi-car garages as the predominant feature of small-lot home.  I would have been in favor of overlay restrictions, but I didn't live in the area at the time, so wasn't part of that discussion.    I am sensitive to the current owners' wanting to maximize their land value, however as you note, we have zoning for a reason and these owners are not trying to maximize their land value within current zoning, but are asking for a change from residential to commercial.   This changes the basic nature of the area, and is what is being opposed.   

As a general rule, I do think zoning is important, particularly that traditionally residential areas are protected from encroaching commercial and related.  We do need "quiet residential areas" in all parts of the cities, not just specific to this area.

The only cap I saw had an upper income limit that would be exceeded by pretty much anyone living in Brookside.  Please lead me to the cap.

Is this what you are thinking of?
https://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-senior-valuation-limitation.php

https://okpolicy.org/resources/online-budget-guide/revenues/an-overview-of-our-tax-system/oklahomas-major-taxes/property-tax/

The county assessor appraises properties in two ways in Oklahoma. Your fair cash market assessment, which has no cap, and is supposed to be set at 100% of market. Then you have a total taxable value assessment, which is capped. It can not increase by more than 3% per year and this is what the millage rate is applied to in order to calculate what taxes you owe.

However, that capped taxable value can increase more than 3% in the event that the property is sold. At that time it is allowed by the county to increase your assessment by as much as they want and usually is increased to the reported contract price. Then after that reset, the taxable value assessment is thus capped again until the property is sold again.

I've seen plenty of commercial properties that have been owned for 10 years or more and that capped value is sometimes 100 to 200% below the fair cash market value and the person that buys the property has their taxes double or triple the next year upon reassessment. So this rule actually makes it beneficial to own property for a longer duration and if market value in a neighborhood you live in increases more than 3% per year, it saves you money on taxes each year. There's plenty of ways to access home equity these days too.

So, really it's a net benefit to anyone for them to encourage development near their property that would increase values to their residence (unless 3% per year is something someone can't handle which is a far different conversation and not out of the realm of possibilities given stagnation in wages over the past few decades). 

What I meant is that they are working within the current zoning code - they aren't seeking hardships or variances (that I'm aware of at least) from the board. The point of overlay district is that would further restrict the current zoning code. So for example it could require that anything within the neighborhood for new home construction requires the development to place the garage at least 10 feet from the front part of the house or much be side entry and have some level of transparency, etc. Then if someone wanted to build something that would comply with current zoning, but not with the overlay, they would then need to request variances or hardship and at that point the neighborhood has more of a say and can attempt to block that request through public feedback periods.

From Nextdoor; dont know how much teeth this has, though --


' The city had agreed in the past, this area from Crow Creek to 31st was to remain residential. A document at the planning site supports that as the intent. From the Brookside infill document:

" 3. 31st Street South to Crow Creek Select Area:
...
B. This area is to remain residential in use. Existing residences should be maintained, rehabilitated and reused where feasible and appropriate. New and replacement residences are to reflect the unique character and include compatible design features of this urban residential neighborhood. "

The Brookside infill recommendations pdf document is at the planning site 

 http://tulsaplanning.org/resources/plans/
under 'Plans for Development Review Only.'  '

Next-door is awful.

The infill plan is not an active small area plan, and it's also ancient (nearly 20 years old). That document has very little teeth to it, it's just design recommendations which have largely been ignored by the city ever since and by most of the developments. Just look at things like Bank of West and Jimmy Johns and how many other development along Brookside that the city approved that blatantly disregarded that document. So the neighborhood will have a hard sell if that's what they have to hang their hat on.

The city wide comprehensive plan adopted a few years ago is what INCOG and the board of adjustment base zoning/planning decisions on and that document it is VERY clear this site is in the 'Area of Change' and likely makes the older infill plan obsolete. Frankly, I'm still very surprised Brookside doesn't have a more official small area plan given how many other neighborhoods have had one completed since the last master plan was adopted. The small area plans are essentially extensions of the city comprehensive plan.

I know it's a matter of semantics but the rate of increase is capped, not the taxable value and not the taxes.  That's better than nothing though.  I hope to retire soon and don't know if my income will increase at at least 3%/year.  What am I saying.... my income has not increased at 3%/year while I have been working.

I don't care about the fair market value or the taxable amount after I sell the place.  I plan to stay here until it's no longer possible and the taxes on the new owners will not be my problem.

The taxable value is what is capped, which in return caps the amount your taxes can go up. Your fair cash market value can go up or down at any rate, but the taxable value can not increase more than 3% per year. That is what the 11% is applied to and then the millage rate is applied to that and calculates your property taxes so that is all tied together. Granted, the millage rate can change more than 3% per year, but that's something that effects everyone and not just a specific neighborhood. The only time your property taxes can increase by more than 3% is after a sale and the taxable value can then be marked up to the fair cash value or the purchase price that was recorded in deed records.

It really is. It is like all of the worst parts of facebook spread to another platform. I remember a neighbor having his photo posted a number of different times just for walking down the street. He was delivering a package a couple of times and people simultaneously kept posting pics of him walking down the street.

On this issue, it is extremely one-sided acting like a game-changing development like this is some kind of secretive conspiracy designed to subvert the richest people in Tulsa to some sort of shady underground deal. It is out in the open and it is a boost that will help far more than it will negatively affect. Maybe a few very rich people around it won't like it and decide to move and sell their homes for a huge increase. That's about the worst that will happen.

A big argument is traffic and whether it can handle it. Has anyone been to downtown Denver or parts of DC? Similar intersections in many parts with far higher population density and yet they are able to handle it. The neighborhoods around there are very low density with huge yards and one mansion per big lot. Density (and bringing in people who want to live in a walkable area they will frequent) will actually help alleviate some traffic. The traffic increase will be minimal even if they think it will. 61st and Yale has the highest traffic count in Tulsa. Go there after 7pm and tell me how horrible it is. After rush hour, even the busiest spots die down and that intersection is relatively low-traffic when compared to other major intersections around Tulsa (checkout INCOG traffic maps).

I guess tax people and accountants have a different definition of capped than the rest of the world.  Must be trade jargon.

I prefer to differentiate between a value and its rate of change.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/a-tulsa-neighborhood-is-pleading-for-more-time-to-study-a-proposed-brookside-development/article_aa4633e8-e710-11ea-9afd-ef5e3357d534.html

At least some of the residents have reasonable reactions. I can understand wanting more time to discuss it, but I have to assume NIMBY-ism will dominate the discussion. Rezoning is not the same as approving the building as proposed, but people will not understand that.

I'm all for preemptively rezoning key areas to allow for denser development. Brookside is a great place to start.

I also thought that was a good article, and aligns with my feelings as well.  The issue with most (at least the rational ones...) is not new development.   Basically everyone seems OK with denser residential of whatever kind.  The issue is the presence (and size/scope) of commercial/retail.   There are several valid concerns about rezoning, and how to assure control over future development type/size, etc.   I personally still think that commercial should be limited to south of Crow Creek, but if not, let's be sure to provide sufficient controls so as to protect the overall character of the area.   

Man I hope they can preserve a lot of these trees..

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/71/271c285c-e7d7-11ea-b524-9fadcd24c142/5f46bff8cffba.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C724)

Doubt it.By the time they started grading, upgrading water and sewer and electric, and digging out for a foundation for a multi floor building there won't be a tree left.

Likely not, most of the time they just bulldoze the trees and then replant tiny baby trees afterwards which half of the time die anyways because they don't plant the right type.

I would love to see them transplant a few somewhere like to River Parks or something. It's a pretty expensive process but if they sent and arborist out to survey the property and save 10-25% of them somehow that'd be nice to see. That is always the saddest part of new development for me is seeing so many mature trees just disregarded and most of the time they make no effort to save any of them even in places they could.

Just as a base costs for replanting/moving trees is about $10,000 to $20,000 per caliber inch. So to move a mature Oak Tree for example could be as much as $500,000 when you include cranes, trucks, replanting, etc. It is very expensive.

It would be nice to see them at least preserve all the trees that front Peoria and 31st, just prune them up higher. This would add a nice buffer and probably not make the commercial seem as intrusive to have mature trees between the street and sidewalk/store fronts. They could easily prune the trees up so you can still see the storefronts but at least makes it feel like it fits in better and keeps some of the tree canopy in place.

Let me say up front that I support this project in principle and broadly in the presented form. Here are some bulleted points:

1. The character of the neighborhood will not be detrimentally affected. This area is one of the oldest disconnected neighborhoods in Tulsa. What do I mean by this? Look at the streets on a map, all curves and random intersections. This is fine from an aesthetic standpoint, especially if you’re primarily traversing by car. However, much like newer housing developments in South Tulsa, chunks of land are disconnected (a result of being privately developed) from one another and have little interaction with the “neighborhood.” This particular plot is completely cut off from the surrounding area. It’s actually almost exactly like the estate where the Gathering Place now is. Therefore replacing it with almost anything won’t really affect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods because they’re disconnected now and will remain largely disconnected. The area that this plot is most visually connected to is already Brookside.

2. Mixed use neighborhoods are just better. Go to your favorite part of your favorite city in the world in your mind. Was it the Champs Elysee in Paris? San Marco in Venice? Maybe Brooklyn Heights in New York or even Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles. What do all these places have in common despite hugely different aesthetics? Mixed use. Where residential, retail, commercial, dining and public space interact on a human (read: pedestrian) scale, you have an interesting and vibrant place. So even if you’re not convinced by my argument in the first section, consider whether the changes might just make the whole area much better.

3. The area residents should work to make sure this is the best possible version of itself rather than being NIMBY obstructionists. The concerns around the trees is totally reasonable, so work to include rules about maintaining the maximum practicable portion of the existing canopy. They’re worried about traffic so work on rules regarding the ingress and egress from the development (I’d suggest considering completely reworking the intersection as a 5-way traffic circle.)

4. Change needs to come for the whole city to improve. Brookside is one of our best areas, we need it to be even better. We’ll never be the next Austin or Portland if we stay exactly the same. So work to make sure the change is positive change rather than opposing it by default.

Something like this, around the corner from where I grew up, might be less offensive than a 5 story mega complex:


https://goo.gl/maps/H1iQYxF4UbD4v5LNA


This was mixed use with living quarters above the stores.  The stores are different than I remember from the '60s but the concept is the same.

Definitely not a fan of plowing through the trees, and I'm not a fan of the parking and auto orientation, considering it is at the north end of what should be a developing pedestrian and public transit district. Also I do see reasonable objections about the height considering the surrounding area.

I like the density, the housing element, the overall style (assuming it stays that way or improves). Objections about "the neighborhood" are unwarranted. It is on the corner of an intersection of two main streets. The townhome element abuts the existing homes. I'll also never be persuaded by the "too much added traffic" argument. This entire city has developed the last 80 years as a traffic city. That's why we spend billions upon billions of dollars building, widening, and maintaining streets. Don't complain about the conditions of "the streets" then complain about developments that use those streets. We should be complaining about the lack of decent transit and that this city is still built for car dependence. That's the real issue. But those who object to development because of "traffic" are the very people who will also throw a fit if there isn't an ocean of parking in any given place.

Very well said!

Anyone who thinks Brookside can't improve, hasn't looked at walkability maps and hasn't spent much time in a place with extremely high walkability. It changes your whole existence knowing you don't need a car to get anything, that you can just walk out the door and do everything you'd like for the day. Brookside gets in the 80's on their score. Cherry Street has had Brookside beat in that regard for some time, but Brookside has made strides. It is however a very thin strip of real walkable area surrounded by those winding neighborhood streets with mansions and big lots taking up a lot of area so the convenience of all of Brookside's main strip is relatively isolated without a car. This development would add some much-needed density and extend the commercial and retail component in an urban format as opposed to the sub-urban format which has infiltrated the area south of Brookside.

[url]https://www.walkscore.com/apartments/search/OK/Tulsa[/url

That would be an excellent design, but 3 stories would be much better. I think they'd have much less blow back with something like that fronting Peoria and keeping only residential townhomes behind it. A courtyard behind it, maybe open to Peoria with restaurants would be ideal also.

If I lived in the area, I don't believe I would complain about an attractive 3 story design.  4 stories I think I might not be so enthusiastic about. 

Some of the reasons my parents bought their first house around the corner was they only had one car, the trolley line was available for dad to go to work if mom needed the car and there was a grocery store, a barber shop, a beauty salon, a pharmacy (originally with a soda fountain), a variety store, a shoe store, a Hallmark card store, a deli store, and (this is Pennsylvania) a "beverage" (beer and soda) store.  By the time I was a late teen, mom and dad were ready to move to a more rural area but dad got transferred here.  We had dogs (several) so mom and dad wanted a bigger lot.  So here I am many years later SE of 111th and Memorial.  The convenience of grocery shopping and the Lowes etc is OK but the traffic is horrible at certain times of day.  I really don't know where all those people are coming from and going to.

Frankly that's been one of my biggest surprises to me, I figured the height would be the biggest concern. It seems to be mostly focused on the retail space.

To me if I lived next door, I'd probably ask the developer to work with the city to figure out a solution for them to build the parking structure underground (wether it's through TIF funds or some other incentive) to reduce the height to 5 stories. The garage is what is adding several stories in the back based on the concept they've shown. Frankly I'd still think that'd be a good solution and the scale would fit in better overall with surrounding 1 or 2 stories homes.

This goes before the planning commission tonight. 

(https://ktul.com/resources/media/4aaa8381-0f71-441e-80d6-cd044f5f3940-medium16x9_reformat31standPeoriadev1.jpg?1596653485149)

Any updates on this? Looks like they got the 30-day continuance to hold until the October 7th meeting.

Interesting..hopefully they can reach a compromise with the neighborhood.  I think if they could figure out a way to keep the site entirely residential and preserve more of the existing trees that would be fine. 

 https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/applicant-withdraws-application-for-brookside-31-development-at-31st-and-peoria/article_38489ee2-fc65-11ea-ab8b-778ae3e03736.html#tracking-source=home-breaking (https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/applicant-withdraws-application-for-brookside-31-development-at-31st-and-peoria/article_38489ee2-fc65-11ea-ab8b-778ae3e03736.html#tracking-source=home-breaking)

Keeping the site entirely residential undermines the whole point of a mixed use gateway development. God, I’m tired of good ideas getting so much pushback in this town while the same old garbage gets the red carpet treatment. It makes me want to follow so many others and just give up and leave.

I’m all for new mixed-use development but this wasn’t the right plan for that site.  You can still do a dense residential development and preserve many of the existing trees. 

This is Tulsa's first rapid transit corridor.  As much as possible it needs to have retail/business on the ground floor facing the corridor then it can have residential above and behind that. The fact that this is a large plot of land that can connect to the core of Brookside makes it all the more important to be developed with density and transit in mind as there are spots along the corridor that are not as well positioned.

I had a feeling that the main building wasn't going to make it. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole lot covered in townhomes by the end of this. Won't make anyone happy, but I guess it at least adds some density?

Alternative is getting rid of retail, coming down a couple floors? Doubt that would sway any of those opposed.

I just don't know what their strategy could be here. Maybe wait it out until the ill feelings die down a bit so they can talk rationally?

I don’t disagree with that premise and want to see more density along the corridor but would rather see commercial space concentrated in existing commercial districts like Brookside south of Crow Creek (plenty of room for increased density along that corridor), Cherry St around 15th and the Pearl from the BA north to 244 (LOTS of opportunity along that corridor).  

I do think you could integrate commercial space into a development at this corner but the proposal they put forward wasn’t the way to do it.  If you’re going to urbanize that corner build up to the sidewalk, no plazas unless it’s for a large outdoor seating area.  If you concentrate the density along the street where it belongs you could lower the density on the neighborhood side and preserve more of the big trees on that site.

Your second paragraph is an entirely rational objection to the project as presented. Essentially you’re hoping for community involvement in improving the form and function of the design. Wonderful. However, the problem is in this and SO MANY other projects the reflexive “no change is good change” attitude in Tulsa is killing us. Hell, even the Tesla factory proposed for way out on 412 was facing opposition because the city might grow and people were offended that a big old marketing tool (the driller) was being temporarily used for marketing. I mean is it actually the case that Tulsans just want this city to stagnate forever? If so I’ve severely overestimated the future of this town.

There will always be NIMBY's.  Tulsa actually seems to get more accomplished than many other cities in this regard where all new developments gets scrutinized.  The same thing would happen in just about any other city if a high density project were proposed in a wealthy upper-class neighborhood of single-family homes.  Propose the same thing at 36th & Peoria and there would be some pushback but not nearly as much as this site.

Curious if there is any news on the redesign for this project?  Last I heard they were going to take some of the neighborhood feedback and present a new plan.  This is a great site in the middle of midtown and I think higher density residential is appropriate.  Maybe not a midrise and maybe not even retail but townhomes or apartments similar to the development to the east.

Something that popped up in a BOA meeting was this was requested to be moved into an area of stability from area of growth and was denied.

http://www.tulsaplanning.org/tmapc/cases/CPA-96.pdf

Council fees were even waived, signature on the app says Tulsa City Council.. anyone have more details on this? Seems odd.

The 7 acres including the house is on the market.  $15 million

Seems like a good play for a residential developer to acquire and build homes so they don’t have to deal with a rezoning. 

A Tulsa family bought the property and plan to renovate the house and live in it

 https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-family-buys-patterson-estate-for-13-million-there-will-be-no-redevelopment/article_8ce68bca-2937-11ed-ace5-732a3a6d1717.html (https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-family-buys-patterson-estate-for-13-million-there-will-be-no-redevelopment/article_8ce68bca-2937-11ed-ace5-732a3a6d1717.html)

Big missed opportunity for some awesome high quality densification and a massive shot in the arm for Brookside, but I admit there would have been some challenges along the way and the neighbors were right to be concerned. At least this makes most people happy by preserving a house with some history and a nice little wooded area.

If only we could get a similar project to take root on the south side of Brookside.

There is the Ross Group mixed-use apartment project at 36th that will likely start next summer.  I have also heard there is a proposal for the BOK at 33rd that could involve a boutique hotel.  And the Brookside Collective plans to eventually build an expansion on the temp park space to the north of their building at 37th Pl.  

The biggest opportunity involves redeveloping the NE corner of 36th (Bank of the West, Jimmy Johns) and the old Mecca/Brookside Tattoo at 33rd, though I’ve heard that landlord doesn’t want to sell even after several offers. 

Landlord is probably making enough $ or is reluctant to sell because potential buyers want to put in drive thru businesses.  I just wish Mecca still had their location at 101st & Sheridan.  41st & Peoria is a long drive for a few spices.

Not at all, they don't want to sell because it is in a family trust and cash flows so no real reason to improve the property.  I know a local developer who wants to do a mixed-use project with retail on the first floor and offices above if they could only acquire that building and parking lot.

Good.

That's so frustrating because that location is so great, but the building/parking lot is a massive eyesore that gets worse by the day.

I'm a Brookside resident and am bummed about this not happening.

What I don't understand about the "concern" is ... if you live in Brookside why are you complaining about a new commercial development? Isn't part of the appeal of living in Brookside that you are close to a walkable commercial area with restaurants, bars, shops, etc.?  I know that's certainly appealing to me, and one of the reasons I bought a house in Brookside.

If you want to live in a quiet neighborhood with no traffic and/or commercial development around it, why not move to the suburbs? There are plenty of homes out there far away from any commercial development.

So, looking at some of the property evaluations from the Tulsa County Assessors website, the homes that back up to the original planned site have gone up $90k to over $130k since 2021 without the development being built. There are a couple of plots that haven't changed, I would be curious as to how much values would have gone up for a 4 or 5 story apartment complex that the proposed developers stated would not have enough parking spaces would have increased the valuation.

The Assessor went crazy this year.  Most of the homes in my neighborhood went up by about 50%.