Wont find this in the Tulsa Whirled:
Residents call it an abomination and say city officials deceived them. They say apartments going up next door are a complete surprise and will ruin their neighborhood. This is happening near 81st and Mingo.
"You would expect a little bit of privacy in your own backyard," says Tulsa resident Paul Kennedy. When he bought his house in October 2007, he never expected to see an apartment building in his backyard. His builder told him only single-family homes could be built on the empty lot next to his property, based on a letter from the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.
"We were deceived. The letter is pure deception," says Kennedy.
The Story (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Neighborhood-Claims-City-Deceived-Them/wTHiutDe2E-L8dRzUpeIlQ.cspx%22)
I just don't understand why we keep developing along Mingo near 81st yet we cannot get Mingo widened between 71st and 81st. It really should be widened all the way to 111th.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Wont find this in the Tulsa Whirled:
Residents call it an abomination and say city officials deceived them. They say apartments going up next door are a complete surprise and will ruin their neighborhood. This is happening near 81st and Mingo.
"You would expect a little bit of privacy in your own backyard," says Tulsa resident Paul Kennedy. When he bought his house in October 2007, he never expected to see an apartment building in his backyard. His builder told him only single-family homes could be built on the empty lot next to his property, based on a letter from the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.
"We were deceived. The letter is pure deception," says Kennedy.
The Story (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Neighborhood-Claims-City-Deceived-Them/wTHiutDe2E-L8dRzUpeIlQ.cspx%22)
Yes, high end apartments are so detrimental to home values that a developer built some single family homes behind my apartment. I was deceived. There wasn't enough land for a proper subdivision. Now instead of looking at a large wooded lot, I have to look at houses.
When will people learn that in a city, undeveloped land will be developed, and that they probably won't like it?
If intellers version is correct that it is a crappy deal. When did they change the restrictions that would allowed dense residential in that space? Or were they merely a plan to have single family houses and not really a restriction on such development?
If the city changed their mind and altered the zoning without proper notice, then this is horrible.
If the developer either lied or changed his mind, it is poor conduct on his party and I believe actionable. The runoff issue is actionable (you can not alter the lay of your land to the detriment of your neighbor). BUT, if it was not a legal restriction the guy should have taken anything said with at something short of face value.
My default position is: development will happen on empty land. I assume the fact that the area was all newly developed was a prime reason for moving there, then people complain when new development goes in. HOWEVER, as I stated above, if he did his homework and was deceived something is rotten.
I fail to see why the neighbors are causing such a stink now. That complex is nearly done. Why didn't they complain earlier?
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
I fail to see why the neighbors are causing such a stink now. That complex is nearly done. Why didn't they complain earlier?
You dont really think they waited until it was three stories high to say something, do you?
Sounds like alarm bells were going off at least when the grade was being raised.
The city told them to expect single residences. At what point do you think they realized they were lied to?
The builder of these apartments (flournoy out of Columbus GA) are also the same group that built Estancia. Everytime I drive by there, I wonder how those neighbors feel knowing that some of them look out their windows and see these TALL donkey apartments. I feel bad for the property owners, but then again, empty land is bound to be developed into something. You can't please everyone.
well no **** sherlock, development will occur on empty land. That is not the question or the issue. The issue is developers in Tulsa skulk around doing questionable development instead of being out and open about their designs. The 2000 PUD agreement stated that the restrictions would expire if the Meadowbrook subdivision didn't happen. That is almost unheard of these days. If you have a minor amendment on a PUD today, it will stay with the PUD whether the development occurs or not. I don't know when they ended that BS, but that's what it is. INCOG needs to go through their tomes and proactively diffuse any other time bombs like this because residents are going to act on the last information they got, which was that a single family sub division was going in there.
Really though I'm not here to argue the morass called TMAPC and INCOG, they already have a proven track record of this ****. The developer gamed the system by going out and getting an earth moving permit to jack up the elevation AND THEN went and set the elevation for his development. Based on that, I could go buy a plot of land, permit to move earth and build myself a hill 200 ft high, and then build my house with a 35ft height restriction.
One also has to question the structural safety of apartments sitting on 15-20 of fill dirt sitting on oklahoma red clay.
The residents between 91st/101st street didn't expect a freeway in their backyard when they purchased their $500,000+ homes back in the 70's and 80's.
It's unfortunate they were misled, but vacant land will be developed, and if developers can get the most money from certain types of development, they will. That's life in the big city. If you want to look out your window and see open space, move to the country.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
The residents between 91st/101st street didn't expect a freeway in their backyard when they purchased their $500,000+ homes back in the 70's and 80's.
there were no $500k houses at 91st/101st in the 70s and 80s you tard.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
there were no $500k houses at 91st/101st in the 70s and 80s you tard.
I'm basking in your warmness you charmer.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
The residents between 91st/101st street didn't expect a freeway in their backyard when they purchased their $500,000+ homes back in the 70's and 80's.
there were no $500k houses at 91st/101st in the 70s and 80s you tard.
Are you sure those houses back in off 91st and Harvard aren't that much? (Ah, your point os more that they weren't worth that much in the 70s and 80s.)
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
The residents between 91st/101st street didn't expect a freeway in their backyard when they purchased their $500,000+ homes back in the 70's and 80's.
there were no $500k houses at 91st/101st in the 70s and 80s you tard.
Once again, your Arkansas education shows. Why do you always post ignorant statements that prove you know nothing about the topic?
Go drive through the Woodlar, Hunter's Point, Silver Chase, Crown Pointe, etc. neighborhoods. Woodlar was developed in the 70's, Hunter's Pointe and Silver Chase in the late 70's/80's and Crown Pointe was developed in the 80's. All have houses that at the time they were built were going for 300,000-700,000+. Many are worth over a million now.
I should know- I grew up in that area in the 70's/80's. Many in the neighborhood tried to fight the turnpike, but they obviously lost.
What do you base your wealth of knowledge on?
So the PUD said "single family use unless they don't use it for single family use."
That's meaningless. I agree that the PUD seems to be stupid and if the homeowner says he was misled so be it. But if he was relying on the development of a subdivision to protect his purchase then he was taking a calculated risk.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Highland Park is ruined now. Thank goodness I didn't decide to buy a house there, I came really close.
I think you're being a bit of a drama queen. The apartments I live in (with their godawful unshielded lighting and all!) sure didn't stop the folks behind them from building brand new houses, and the heights are probably very similar, given that the apartments are at a higher elevation.
Are you sure that the fill wasn't required for flood control purposes? (that's why the place I live in is on fill)
Edited to add: I drove by a little while ago. I had forgotten the lay of the land in the area. The fill? It's there to level the site..you know, so they can build buildings on it. It's not exactly the developer's fault that the subdivision is in a low spot.
Neighborhood after neighborhood has suffered the same set of issues. The reality is there is no safeguards for neighborhoods or citizens. Information is not easily accessible and when a citizen goes before the TMAPC they are told they should have known. Is there a guide for homeowners "The everything you need to know that no one will tell you before you buy". Codes and ordinances are twisted, twirled and torqued depending upon who is doing the asking. Look at Brookside, Yale, Harvard, Lewis - Cherry Street for clear examples. Broken Arrow is having their own awakening with the same issues. West Tulsa is being torn asunder. It isn't TMAPC so much as the slick operation under Alberty. Who does he answer to? Who does his boss answer to?
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Highland Park is ruined now. Thank goodness I didn't decide to buy a house there, I came really close.
I think you're being a bit of a drama queen. The apartments I live in (with their godawful unshielded lighting and all!) sure didn't stop the folks behind them from building brand new houses, and the heights are probably very similar, given that the apartments are at a higher elevation.
Are you sure that the fill wasn't required for flood control purposes? (that's why the place I live in is on fill)
Edited to add: I drove by a little while ago. I had forgotten the lay of the land in the area. The fill? It's there to level the site..you know, so they can build buildings on it. It's not exactly the developer's fault that the subdivision is in a low spot.
uh, no it wasn't in a low spot. If you had seen the construction pictures you would have known that the grade from the back of highland park to the apartments was level BEFORE he added 15 ft of fill. If anything the dude has exacerbated flood problems onto the highland park area because now there IS a low spot and it happens to be the back yards of Highland Park.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Highland Park is ruined now. Thank goodness I didn't decide to buy a house there, I came really close.
I think you're being a bit of a drama queen. The apartments I live in (with their godawful unshielded lighting and all!) sure didn't stop the folks behind them from building brand new houses, and the heights are probably very similar, given that the apartments are at a higher elevation.
Are you sure that the fill wasn't required for flood control purposes? (that's why the place I live in is on fill)
Edited to add: I drove by a little while ago. I had forgotten the lay of the land in the area. The fill? It's there to level the site..you know, so they can build buildings on it. It's not exactly the developer's fault that the subdivision is in a low spot.
uh, no it wasn't in a low spot. If you had seen the construction pictures you would have known that the grade from the back of highland park to the apartments was level BEFORE he added 15 ft of fill. If anything the dude has exacerbated flood problems onto the highland park area because now there IS a low spot and it happens to be the back yards of Highland Park.
Based on the current lay of the land, (the site where the apartments are is pretty much flat now) I don't see how that's possible.
Now, the land to the east is much flatter. And the back yards adjacent to the new complex are still higher than many of the other houses in that neighborhood.
Unless I'm confused and there's two high-end apartment complexes under construction there.
try to find this week's UED meeting on TGOV. they show the pictures there. it is clear to see the existing ground and the fill dirt on top.
you guys wanna see an abomination.take a drive down 103st east of Louisville...a developer has built a huge concrete water retention box 18' high. There are existing homes on that street that look at a blank concrete wall 18" high!
Sure sounds like an awful lot of whining going on now that the issue is "South Tulsa" property values. Many replies to my dislike for the looney bin going near my midtown home sounded similar. I was labeled though because I was being insensitive. Sometimes zoning sucks folks. Guess we all have to live with it.
Posted - 12/05/2008 : 12:10:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Sad sad news when people try to hide their bigotry and NIMBY-ism with such dubious claims as "the city didn't notify us!" (Again, folks, it was already zoned for that type of building -- no notification was required.)
I met one of those neighborhood advocates a few weeks ago, and it was ... scary. And disheartening.
With an advocate like that, the neighborhood doesn't need enemies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you mean as opposed to groups who DON'T hide their bigotry and NIMBY-ism?
http://www.buildingtulsabuildinglives.org/buildingtulsa/
give me a ****ing break.
-------------------------------------------
My "crankiness" is directly proportional to your stupidity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country: | Posts: 3615
Wow! speaking of NIMBY-look at these posts in reference to another area of Tulsa. Sound familiar Intell and rwarn? You can get off your soap boxes now.
your cross posting is completely out of context and not comprehensible. If you cannot state your position without referring to some really poorly captured quotes then just don't post.
I really don't see the correlation between a loony bin and a developer lying to a homeowner.
Councilor John Eagleton is proposing a height cap on all future building projects that would include the dirt brought in as part of the overall height. (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Building-Height-Rules-Questioned/Wtb8kuUlFkmH6VOYXD5ycg.cspx%22)
As for the development, about the only thing that could be done to rectify the nuisance is for the builder to bring in more dirt to build up the fenceline and do some serious tree planting, along with correcting the drainage so the rest of the neighborhood doesnt flood. That would certainly make more sense than the developer paying some slap-on-the-wrist fine.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
try to find this week's UED meeting on TGOV. they show the pictures there. it is clear to see the existing ground and the fill dirt on top.
My point is that the apartment complex was already on higher ground. They did apparently make it 5 or 6 feet higher still to level the site. Look at the terrain map on Google Maps.
Now, if you're talking about blinding glare from ****ty light fixtures and other off property nuisances, I'm with you 110%. Or if they graded the complex in such a way as to direct all of the runoff into these homeowner's back yards, which I doubt. Just being higher doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
i just watched the UED meeting on this. these neighbors got screwed over. Once again the council is going to try and take action to fix the problem going forward, but it doesn't help this neighborhood.
http://www.fox23.com/mostpopular/story/New-Concerns-Over-Complex/VSvRrwjGV0e6zBbjUQyBcQ.cspx
One man now thinks the foundation of his home is cracked because of storm water runoff from a nearby apartment complex and another neighbor is worried about soil contamination.
"We now have 113 parking spots set up perpendicular to our fence," said Arnold Newman, who lives right down the road. "Car-door slamming, alarms going off. This is going to be about 35-feet from our back bedroom window."
Concerning to him most of all are the effects of a 10-foot mound of dirt that was collected to elevate the complex.
City Councilman Bill Christiansen says he knows who's to blame for all this.
"I hold the bureaucrats that work for the city responsible for allowing this to happen," said Christiansen.
From storm water runoff to blaring lights and most concerning for Hawamdah- a lack of privacy.
Neighbors living in homes along the property line have already spent thousands of dollars on things like lawyer fees and an engineering report. They're set to meet with the developer of the apartment complex on Saturday, to try and remedy this situation.
Off topic: where has Inteller been for two weeks? I miss his vitriol . . . ???
One good rule of thumb is don't buy a home adjacent to a vacant lot near a busy corner. No telling what you will get for a neighbor, that is unless you buy in a neat old part of town and some DB like Bumgarner moves in and starts chopping down all your neighbor's houses.
Canon Fodder, Inteller, and Conan are EXACTLY correct on their observations here.
Being banned during this discussion, the devil is in the details. Deep into the details.
The city sees revenue. There are those in the city that will go to great lengths to make development happen.
In this case, during the platting process of the apartments, the city no doubt failed to watch out for the adjoing residents. At the same time, just like Conan sez.....
Quote from: patric on December 16, 2008, 11:34:22 PM
Councilor John Eagleton is proposing a height cap on all future building projects that would include the dirt brought in as part of the overall height. (http://"http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Building-Height-Rules-Questioned/Wtb8kuUlFkmH6VOYXD5ycg.cspx")
As for the development, about the only thing that could be done to rectify the nuisance is for the builder to bring in more dirt to build up the fenceline and do some serious tree planting, along with correcting the drainage so the rest of the neighborhood doesnt flood. That would certainly make more sense than the developer paying some slap-on-the-wrist fine.
That's the problem with our city, they don't take REAL punitive action.
One of my neighbors built a business in his backyard, way out of code. All the neighbors complained. The result.... He was told "Don't you do that again."
The city has no real wayvoes when it comes to telling someone to tear that thing down. They just tell them, "Don't do that again." Until that changes, everyone is this city knows they can just build and ask forgiveness later.
The problem is that once a PUD is approved, it's valid forever. Even if you don't take action for 17 years (or whatever). That PUD was sitting there, giving the developer the right to do exactly what he did.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand how the system works. They don't know what a PUD is or how it works (I challenge you to read the city ordinance covering PUD's and try to understand it, without help from INCOG staff or a lawyer). They don't know how to find out if any PUDs have been approved in their neighborhood. (Another challenge: try to figure out what's planned for your own neighborhood... Let's assume that like most folks, you don't have a clue about TMAPC or INCOG. It's an eye-opening experience in frustration.) And they don't expect that something from 1990 is still going to happen after the surrounding areas have changed so much in the past two decades. Most people would assume that the developer died or went out of business after all this time.
If you have any suggestions on how to solve the above problems, speak up. I think Liz Wright started a thread asking for just this sort of input. (Not the complaints, just the solutions.)