Residents not all on board with proposed Brady Heights apartments
Posted: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:00 am | Updated: 1:26 am, Wed Dec 10, 2014.
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer |
Brady Heights has seen a resurgence in the past few years. Folks are moving into the historic neighborhood just north of downtown, fixing up old homes and planting roots.
Now Will Wilkins wants to build some apartments in the area, and not everyone is thrilled with the idea.
"It's a small-scale, 16-unit apartment complex," Wilkins said. "And we focused on the small scale because it's (in keeping) with the neighborhood."
Wilkins' proposal calls for building the apartments on a vacant lot on the northwest corner of Haskell Place and Cheyenne Avenue. The plans include two brick buildings, a two-story and a three-story, whose apartments would rent for the current market rate — about $850 a month plus utilities, Wilkins said.
The apartment buildings would have to meet historic-preservation standards.
That's the plan. But Wilkins has an uphill battle ahead of him.
The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommended that the City Council deny Wilkins' applications for the zoning change and planned unit development needed to undertake the project.
The City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission's recommendation, and last week, after hearing that a planning commissioner who had opposed the project was now in favor of it, Councilor Jack Henderson said he wanted more time to consider the matter.
But the planning commissioner, Dwain Midget, said Tuesday he remains opposed to the project as proposed.
"I have told him (Wilkins) that I think it's a good project," Midget said. "My concerns were with the size of the project. If it came back to us (with) the size it currently is, I would vote against it."
Midget said he and other planning commissioners also were wary because the project is proposed for the middle of the neighborhood, and that would set a precedent.
"I am concerned about having a proliferation of apartments in the Brady Heights neighborhood," he said.
Wilkins noted, however, that apartment complexes already exist in the neighborhood and that they are not uncommon in other historic neighborhoods, such as Swan Lake and Owen Park.
"We view this project — my mother and I — as a tremendous step towards bringing in those people who are looking at the downtown market into this neighborhood and use it as a vehicle to promote the neighborhood," Wilkins said.
The hope, he added, is that some of the apartment dwellers will someday decide to purchase homes in the neighborhood.
Wilkins, who lives in Brady Heights with his family, has built three single-family homes in the neighborhood.
He said he is not out to change the character of the district.
"I want to see the neighborhood grow and develop, and certainly I don't think empty lots are conducive to that," he said.
The project was recommended for approval by Planning Commission staff, who found that the neighborhood already includes a mix of uses including single- and multifamily residential, commercial buildings and churches.
"They had (different) uses scattered throughout the neighborhood" for years, said Planning Commission staffer Dwayne Wilkerson.
Neighborhood resident Christopher Carter spoke in opposition to the project at last week's City Council meeting. On Tuesday he expressed disappointment in how the application was handled and noted that 106 neighborhood residents have signed a petition in opposition to the apartments.
"Our neighborhood has been actively involved for the last 25 years working with the city, as evident by the historic overlay zoning and the single-family residential zoning on the entire neighborhood well before PlaniTulsa was even an idea," Carter said in an email to the Tulsa World.
PlaniTulsa is the citywide process to update Tulsa's comprehensive plan.
Henderson, who represents the Brady Heights neighborhood, said he spent part of Tuesday talking to residents about the project.
"I'm getting some pretty good feedback," he said. "Basically, I'm hearing it's not about trying to stop the apartments as much as it's about saving our neighborhood as it is.
"They're saying, 'We like what we've got. We have houses we can afford to live in,' " the city councilor told the Tulsa World.
The issue is expected to be back before the City Council on Thursday night.
Henderson said he is close to making a decision on how he will vote.
"I'm hearing both sides," he said. "I'm going to pray about it and vote my conscience."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/residents-not-all-on-board-with-proposed-brady-heights-apartments/article_0424a455-db63-5855-9db9-e116dbbe85fd.html
I'm torn on this project but at the end of the day I think I'm in favor of it. As a resident of the Reservoir Hill area I drive thru Brady Heights almost daily. The transformation over the last five years I've lived in the area has been amazing. There are a few other spots around the neighborhood I would picked before this one, but Wilkins is right, the neighborhood does have existing multi-family smack in the middle of the neighborhood. What he is proposing looks very similar to the existing structures. It also brings density and likelihood of more young folks into north Tulsa.
The comment that bothers me in the article is Henderson saying that neighbors don't want development because they can afford to live in their houses and that's one of the reasons they don't want it. I believe Tulsa is long ways off from true gentrification, but as a property owner I want my property to appreciate in value because new development is coming in. That was part of why we bought on Reservoir Hill. The idea that downtown would grow north eventually and I'd have the opportunity to possibly see the same appreciation that long time Maple Ridge residents have experienced.
Yes if someone were to drive by this development in the future (after it has gotten some patina on it) they might be hard pressed to suppose it had not been part of the neighborhood for a long time. It appears to fit in with the mix you would find in many older neighborhoods. And indeed, that is a troubling comment "affordable and don't want to change". I have toyed many times with the idea of moving to the Brady Heights/Owen Park areas and one of the main enticements is the thought that it will only improve and get more expensive as time goes on. And it will, stopping this development will not stop that so they are barking up the wrong tree there.
The design is very much in step with the neighborhood and I'd think represents a better value to the neighborhood than empty lots or more single family housing. I could understand hesitation from the homeowners if it were Section 8 housing being proposed. This is precisely what should have been put in place in the Cherry Street district instead of the ultra mod condos they put up. Those condos are totally out of step with the other brick apartments and craftsman bungalows which populate the Cherry Street area.
All that said, if the majority of home and land owners in the area are against such a development whose rights are more sacrosanct, the developer or the existing stake holders?
Has Will ever finished any of his proposed projects? I'd be for this proposal if it was in my neighborhood (Riverview) but I doubt the ability of the developer to deliver.
Quote from: rdj on December 10, 2014, 07:43:37 AM
but as a property owner I want my property to appreciate in value because new development is coming in. That was part of why we bought on Reservoir Hill.
How do you plan to use that increased value? Add on to the house? Take a 2nd mortgage to buy a boat? Sell and move to another low rent district and hope the value goes up? Pay more in taxes for probably no new/more services? Keep out undesirables?
I'll never be a real estate tycoon. :(
Quote from: carltonplace on December 10, 2014, 08:52:18 AM
Has Will ever finished any of his proposed projects? I'd be for this proposal if it was in my neighborhood (Riverview) but I doubt the ability of the developer to deliver.
Yes.
The Fairfield Inn
The Ward Building (107 N Boulder)
While he has had several "stalled" projects, I think he is more than capable of delivering this project.
Thanks for correcting me. I had forgotten he was involved with the Fairfield Inn.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 10, 2014, 11:47:30 AM
Yes.
The Fairfield Inn
The Ward Building (107 N Boulder)
While he has had several "stalled" projects, I think he is more than capable of delivering this project.
Wasn't the Atlas Life Marriott also his?
Quote from: carltonplace on December 10, 2014, 11:50:44 AM
Thanks for correcting me. I had forgotten he was involved with the Fairfield Inn.
It's Sager that holds mom's purse strings and can't seem to finish anything.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 10, 2014, 02:18:16 PM
It's Sager that holds mom's purse strings and can't seem to finish anything.
Are you kidding me? The First Street Lofts will be done in the Spring of 2015!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/businesshomepage1/work-starting-again-on-downtown-first-street-lofts/article_28172494-5c1c-539c-ac17-50a030758b0d.html
He's only owned the building for 18 years and been working on this project for 8. Sure, sure, some people have remodeled the Mayo, the Atlas Life Building, City Hall and the YMCA in the meantime. And yeah,we did build the BOK Center, the Ball Park, repave the IDL, and Cimerex built a new tower. To think of it, the University of Tulsa built a dozen or so apartment buildings, all nwe sidewalks, a couple engineering buildings, an athletic complex, a new press box, and a few other things. Saint Francis added a new wing, a children's hospital, a patient tower and a new trauma center. And I guess Riverwalk Crossing in Jenks and the Spirit Event Center in Bixby went up. I guess if you want to get technical Devon commissioned, designed, and built an 850' office tower since then too... but since this is the second or third (fourth?) article saying it's going to be done soon... I'm sure it's accurate!
Then it's just a waiting game to get our $1.3mil back.
Or, in the alternative, my son was 7 when it was started - and maybe he can get on the list to move into one of the ~20 apartments when he hits 18. If it's done by then.
I'm taking bets on what's done first - the Sager project started in 2007, or the YMCA project started in 2014.
Tulsa will build the world's tallest skyscraper before he ever gets done.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 10, 2014, 05:47:57 PM
Are you kidding me? The First Street Lofts will be done in the Spring of 2015!
http://www.tulsaworld.com/businesshomepage1/work-starting-again-on-downtown-first-street-lofts/article_28172494-5c1c-539c-ac17-50a030758b0d.html
He's only owned the building for 18 years and been working on this project for 8. Sure, sure, some people have remodeled the Mayo, the Atlas Life Building, City Hall and the YMCA in the meantime. And yeah,we did build the BOK Center, the Ball Park, repave the IDL, and Cimerex built a new tower. To think of it, the University of Tulsa built a dozen or so apartment buildings, all nwe sidewalks, a couple engineering buildings, an athletic complex, a new press box, and a few other things. Saint Francis added a new wing, a children's hospital, a patient tower and a new trauma center. And I guess Riverwalk Crossing in Jenks and the Spirit Event Center in Bixby went up. I guess if you want to get technical Devon commissioned, designed, and built an 850' office tower since then too... but since this is the second or third (fourth?) article saying it's going to be done soon... I'm sure it's accurate!
Then it's just a waiting game to get our $1.3mil back.
Or, in the alternative, my son was 7 when it was started - and maybe he can get on the list to move into one of the ~20 apartments when he hits 18. If it's done by then.
I'm taking bets on what's done first - the Sager project started in 2007, or the YMCA project started in 2014.
Sorry, I don't give Sager enough credit. Either that or someone (like, oh I dunno) gave him too much credit.
Sager wants the painter's tape on just right.
Quote from: Townsend on December 11, 2014, 12:56:36 PM
Sager wants the painter's tape on just right.
I think he's in charge of the brick design. That can get complicated. ::)
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 10, 2014, 05:47:57 PM
Are you kidding me? The First Street Lofts will be done in the Spring of 2015!
He's only owned the building for 18 years and been working on this project for 8. Sure, sure, some people have remodeled the Mayo, the Atlas Life Building, City Hall and the YMCA in the meantime. And yeah,we did build the BOK Center, the Ball Park, repave the IDL, and Cimerex built a new tower. To think of it, the University of Tulsa built a dozen or so apartment buildings, all nwe sidewalks, a couple engineering buildings, an athletic complex, a new press box, and a few other things. Saint Francis added a new wing, a children's hospital, a patient tower and a new trauma center. And I guess Riverwalk Crossing in Jenks and the Spirit Event Center in Bixby went up. I guess if you want to get technical Devon commissioned, designed, and built an 850' office tower since then too... but since this is the second or third (fourth?) article saying it's going to be done soon... I'm sure it's accurate!
Then it's just a waiting game to get our $1.3mil back.
Or, in the alternative, my son was 7 when it was started - and maybe he can get on the list to move into one of the ~20 apartments when he hits 18. If it's done by then.
I'm taking bets on what's done first - the Sager project started in 2007, or the YMCA project started in 2014.
I park by his building. I've not seen anyone doing any kind of work in there in quite some time.
The times I have was when someone was taking something out of the storage area on the street level.
Quote from: Townsend on December 11, 2014, 01:05:31 PM
I park by his building. I've not seen anyone doing any kind of work in there in quite some time.
The times I have was when someone was taking something out of the storage area on the street level.
Not to get to far off-topic, but why has the city not sued him to regain the funds he essentially stole from taxpayers? The Enclave in Brookside just sold for the highest per unit cost in the state's history ($177,000/unit), and guess what the buyer had financing secure for the nearly $50 million deal. The excuses of not being able to get financing is BS and has been for a few years. The city needs to step up and take action again him. Foreclose on it, hire a third party developer to finish it, and then sell it. The city would probably make a million or two off this, and free up that money to give to legitimate developers wanting to do projects downtown.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on December 11, 2014, 01:53:34 PM
Not to get to far off-topic, but why has the city not sued him to regain the funds he essentially stole from taxpayers? The Enclave in Brookside just sold for the highest per unit cost in the state's history ($177,000/unit), and guess what the buyer had financing secure for the nearly $50 million deal. The excuses of not being able to get financing is BS and has been for a few years. The city needs to step up and take action again him. Foreclose on it, hire a third party developer to finish it, and then sell it. The city would probably make a million or two off this, and free up that money to give to legitimate developers wanting to do projects downtown.
Well...it might be Sager's ability to get financing.
As for the city, it takes years for the city to sell a property. We've seen what happens with foreclosures on buildings owned by a dude in California. I'm not sure on the legal ramifications for a city to take a foreclosed building, hire a third party to finish it and then sell it. There's probably some Oklahoma law about the city of Tulsa making a profit from actions like these. (I don't have the knowledge but I've seen some crazy in this state)
It takes forever if the city never starts.
Quote from: Townsend on December 11, 2014, 02:36:52 PM
Well...it might be Sager's ability to get financing.
As for the city, it takes years for the city to sell a property. We've seen what happens with foreclosures on buildings owned by a dude in California. I'm not sure on the legal ramifications for a city to take a foreclosed building, hire a third party to finish it and then sell it. There's probably some Oklahoma law about the city of Tulsa making a profit from actions like these. (I don't have the knowledge but I've seen some crazy in this state)
The sale of the parcel of buildings at 2nd & Elgin was supposed to make him flush enough to finish that project. Still no progress.
Back on to the Brady Heights apartment project.
City Council said no.
I'm hopeful the Wilkins and the neighborhood can get together and figure something out on this. Vacant lots are a cancer in our near-north neighborhoods. We need to get them re-developed with quality projects.
Agree. In this case, the developer complained that the neighborhood didn't contact him when he first mentioned it to the Preservation Commission. He erroneously believed he didn't need to do any more contact.
I believe the developer should have knocked on doors and tried to win over the neighborhood. It is up to him to make the contact if he is trying to change the rules.
He didn't and he lost. He lost at the TMAPC hearing and he lost his appeal to the city council.
After listening to the neighborhood at the council meeting, he has a long way to go to rebuild any trust in Brady Heights.
That is too bad because I believe he is the only person that has built new houses in the neighborhood and owns a chunk of vacant lots as well. I also think he lives in Brady Heights.
New houses are welcome. 16 unit apartment complexes are not.
He is a smart guy. He can make this work.
I'm actually in favor of figuring out a way to put a multi-unit building on this lot. There is precedence in the neighborhood (as well as just outside at Main & Latirmer) for multi-story, multi-unit property.
We talk in this town a lot about wanting density, but when an opportunity arises for us to see density added we cry not in our neighborhood. Tulsa is addicted to oil, the automobile and single-family housing. Until those addictions are broken I don't see Tulsa being a progressive city that has the amenities many on this forum want, ie public transit, walkability, density/less urban sprawl.
That is an oversimplification of the details of this project.
Yes, there is some spotty density throughout the neighborhood that were built 80 years ago or longer. They are also mostly four and six units structures. The predominant housing is single family with a consistent use of the lot with details like setback.
This developer wasn't going to do what should be done. The look and feel of what he proposed was not right for the neighborhood. He also did a poor job convincing anyone to approve it. The original public city council meeting had 29 people speak against and no one for. He lost to a very development friendly planning commission and then lost unanimously to the city council.
Here is the video of last night. This item starts at 24 minute ten seconds.
http://tulsa-ok.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2354
Most of us are for more density. But not density for density alone.
There are lots of little aprtment buildings in my neighborhood. In fact there are seven of them within one block of my house. Also, everyone on my street rents out their garage apartment. I would welcome this type of development in any empty lot in my hood as long as it was to scale.
I think this is the main complaint of the neighbors: scale.
Something like this would likely be welcome in the Pearl District. The Pearl has the potential to be more of a dense, mixed-use neighborhood that BH will never be.