^^^^^^^^
The developer of the Deep Deuce Apartments was First Worthing out of Dallas.

This is one of those developments, like Chase Bank, that is hard to believe that the DDRC actually signed off on and exemplifies the need for higher standards. Its also an insult to those who went the extra mile to propose something urban. DDRC needs to tell this developer to take this hotel up to Memorial Rd.

So the owner of the land is selling it AND they have the authority to grant a hardship waiver to the new owner?

Yep, no conflict of interest there. [/sarc]

This is one of those developments, like Chase Bank, that is hard to believe that the DDRC actually signed off on and exemplifies the need for higher standards. Its also an insult to those who went the extra mile to propose something urban. DDRC needs to tell this developer to take this hotel up to Memorial Rd.

Did you miss the part that there is a huge easement running through this property?

So the owner of the land is selling it AND they have the authority to grant a hardship waiver to the new owner?

Yep, no conflict of interest there. [/sarc]

What on earth are you talking about?


This thread is a classic example of people just pissing and moaning without having any idea about what they are talking about.

What on earth are you talking about?

This thread is a classic example of people just pissing and moaning without having any idea about what they are talking about.

Never mind - two different entities. By the way - that last sentence of yours was a little uncalled for.

Did you miss the part that there is a huge easement running through this property?Pete, can you give an example of how an easement has forced a surface lot in an urban area in another major? I would be curious to see it because I am sure there is a way to work around it.

^

If you are so sure, why don't YOU do some research and provide the solution?

The developer could do it if they wanted to get creative, but it might substantially increase the cost of the project. If they aren't willing to do so, they should take their project elsewhere. The days of approving surface parking and setbacks in Bricktown should be over. It would be better that land be turned into a park or simply not developed than to be developed like this.

The developer could do it if they wanted to get creative, but it might substantially increase the cost of the project. If they aren't willing to do so, they should take their project elsewhere. The days of approving surface parking and setbacks in Bricktown should be over. It would be better that land be turned into a park or simply not developed than to be developed like this.

Again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

^

If you are so sure, why don't YOU do some research and provide the solution?Yeah... I'll just go to Google right now and type.. "give me examples of how an easement has affected a development in an urban area."

I did try and get creative with some search result, but I could find nothing.

I figured since you were so involved with city development, perhaps you would have some sort of example for me and anyone else question this to look at. I guess you don't.

For the record, I follow development very closely in Miami, OKC, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco and this is the first time I've ever heard of an easement basically forcing a surface lot to be built. I just don't get it.

Again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Why you are defending this development?

Are you telling me this is the only option for this site? Like there is no way nothing else could have been done?

What I'm saying is we have 4 people on this thread complaining and making all types of accusations without knowing the facts or bothering to find them out.

It's patently unfair and irresponsible to make wild allegations and judgments without first bothering to get educated.


Happens way too often here and it reflects badly on the site and me personally.

I haven't really complained at all. I don't like it, but I don't see why having a discussion about it is a bad thing.

If that is an issue, why don't you make two separate development forums. One specifically for updates and updates only. One for discussion.

BTW, all I did was ask why the easement was affecting development. I am honestly asking that and have searched Google. It is a question that really can't be asked without getting too specific and when I typed that in on Google, I got a ton of irrelevant results.

Did you miss the part that there is a huge easement running through this property?

Every day in America an easement is moved... you can usually just build a culvert for the affected public service.


^

If you are so sure, why don't YOU do some research and provide the solution?

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51021

Your defense of this development is starting to look strange. You were earlier seen salivating that "hopefully this thing gets started soon!" It's the crappiest development to come to Bricktown since Residence Inn.

This development is already approved and ready to go and will be starting soon.

Absolutely no sense it beating a dead horse here. That's my only point.

A dead horse would be more comely:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridgewiki1.jpg

A dead horse would be more comely:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridgewiki1.jpg

That's a nice photo of the new Hampton Inn, going in on 122nd and I-35! What's that? Oh...OH...:(

But we're so excited for it! Lower Bricktown will be complete! Some day! More crap to come soon! And by soon I mean every 5 years for the next 30 years! We need one of those urban format Taco Ball/KFC's in front of the Centennial! It will book-end the urban format McDonald's (which is actually the 2nd best new project ever built on Reno Avenue)..

But we're so excited for it! Lower Bricktown will be complete! Some day! More crap to come soon! And by soon I mean every 5 years for the next 30 years! We need one of those urban format Taco Ball/KFC's in front of the Centennial! It will book-end the urban format McDonald's (which is actually the 2nd best new project ever built on Reno Avenue)..

Gotta make sure the Taco Bell/KFC has a two-lane drive thru to handle the traffic.

But it will be streetscaped and landscaped, so it will be beautiful (and prevent folks walking up)! Just what Reno/Lower Bricktown has always needed.

^^^^^^^^
The developer of the Deep Deuce Apartments was First Worthing out of Dallas.

OKC\?s Deep Deuce Apartments sell for $26.9 million | okc.BIZ (http://okc.biz/2007/08/03/okcs-deep-deuce-apartments-sell-for-26-9-million/)

http://newsok.com/article/5465385

I think it was a partnership?

By the way, Steve Lackmeyer writes:

"I look at the Oklahoma Department of Transportation easement that runs north and south through the neighborhood, east of Walnut Avenue, and I wonder why portions of the empty land can't be turned into the pathway once promised by First Worthing.."

WHAT??! Doing stuff? In an easement? Like where the ROW is technically controlled by someone else?? Stuff? Things for people??

Easements are just lines on a map, drawn by men, that represents things put in the ground by other men. They can be moved and the maps can be redrawn - by men. Sadly, men seem to be in short supply in OKC these days. Maybe time to give women a stab at it.

^

It is not even close to that simple.

Sometimes there are good on-going reasons for the easement to stay in tact.

And for them to be removed, the holder -- which is often some massive conglomerate or utility company -- has to agree and they often have little reason to do so.

Easements are just lines on a map, drawn by men, that represents things put in the ground by other men. They can be moved and the maps can be redrawn - by men. Sadly, men seem to be in short supply in OKC these days. Maybe time to give women a stab at it.

Pete's correct, that is a far to simplistic view of what constitutes an easement. It is a legally binding and recorded agreement....they don't just get wiped off the map because you want them to be. The easement would have to be released of record by whoever holds it, in this case I think it is ODOT...good luck getting them to do anything.

Since we've changed to easements - my uncle owned I-35 frontage for a mile. He leased easement for a billboard to be put up. Then he leased easement for access to the billboard. It expires in 20 years.

Pressure could be brought to bear on ODOT - if we didn't have a bunch of pansies in charge in OKC. OKC is the largest City in the State - the City should start acting like it.

I don't see what leverage they'd have though... except maybe AICCM at present.

I don't see what leverage they'd have though... except maybe AICCM at present.

Then use that.

Isn't the AICC leverage for the state, not the city? The state holds all the cards on that one because they are more than willing to walk away, not really caring about the museum, Native culture, OKC, or really anything at all.


Pete's correct, that is a far to simplistic view of what constitutes an easement. It is a legally binding and recorded agreement....they don't just get wiped off the map because you want them to be. The easement would have to be released of record by whoever holds it, in this case I think it is ODOT...good luck getting them to do anything.

Well many of you are the ones that kept voting for the Fallin regime that has brought the hard times back. You all now get to enjoy the Faith, Family, and Freedom you wanted instead of competent, responsive government. Don't complain when people who still want urban design overlays enforced do not care that ODOT owns a particular easement.

If you're as willing as this to accept just any excuse, there's pretty much nothing we won't allow at this point.

Where is that darn Like button for Spartan's comment?

Isn't the AICC leverage for the state, not the city? The state holds all the cards on that one because they are more than willing to walk away, not really caring about the museum, Native culture, OKC, or really anything at all.



Well many of you are the ones that kept voting for the Fallin regime that has brought the hard times back. You all now get to enjoy the Faith, Family, and Freedom you wanted instead of competent, responsive government. Don't complain when people who still want urban design overlays enforced do not care that ODOT owns a particular easement.

If you're as willing as this to accept just any excuse, there's pretty much nothing we won't allow at this point.Couldn't agree more.

Isn't the AICC leverage for the state, not the city? The state holds all the cards on that one because they are more than willing to walk away, not really caring about the museum, Native culture, OKC, or really anything at all.



Well many of you are the ones that kept voting for the Fallin regime that has brought the hard times back. You all now get to enjoy the Faith, Family, and Freedom you wanted instead of competent, responsive government. Don't complain when people who still want urban design overlays enforced do not care that ODOT owns a particular easement.

If you're as willing as this to accept just any excuse, there's pretty much nothing we won't allow at this point.

This should be in a different thread, but where did Fallin's regime have anything to do with Saudi Arabia flooding the world market with oil ?

Isn't the AICC leverage for the state, not the city? The state holds all the cards on that one because they are more than willing to walk away, not really caring about the museum, Native culture, OKC, or really anything at all.



Well many of you are the ones that kept voting for the Fallin regime that has brought the hard times back. You all now get to enjoy the Faith, Family, and Freedom you wanted instead of competent, responsive government. Don't complain when people who still want urban design overlays enforced do not care that ODOT owns a particular easement.

If you're as willing as this to accept just any excuse, there's pretty much nothing we won't allow at this point.

First off, no one said I voted for Fallin so don't put words in my mouth. Second, my post was meant to reflect that an easement is a legally binding document, not something that is easily wiped off the map unless the owner of the easement is agreeable to it... to which I said ODOT likely wouldn't be willing to just give up. Third...I never said I want ODOT to keep the easement or that I like this hotel sitting so far back on the property. Also I never said I was willing to accept that as an excuse, the one who accepted that excuse was the developer and that is all that matters in this case. Fourth... As usual, quit being such an asshat. I hope you and Kerry are enjoying the view from up there.

Well many of you are the ones that kept voting for the Fallin regime that has brought the hard times back. You all now get to enjoy the Faith, Family, and Freedom you wanted instead of competent, responsive government. Don't complain when people who still want urban design overlays enforced do not care that ODOT owns a particular easement.

If you're as willing as this to accept just any excuse, there's pretty much nothing we won't allow at this point.

Take the political garbage to the politics forum.

I don't participate there, unlike you. I am sorry that YOUR state government is verboten in other discussions. How should I cherry coat this for you?


This should be in a different thread, but where did Fallin's regime have anything to do with Saudi Arabia flooding the world market with oil ?

The notion that we have to grant variances any time an easement relocation involves the non-responsive state government.

We are way off in the weeds here...

Back to discussing the Staybridge Suites please.

Staybridge Suites. :P

Or the Staybridge? :-P

I wanna bitch about the easement some more. Do we have a map showing exactly where it is? I'm sure I could move the design around so it didn't touch the easement.

From 2013:


How does this (red) occupy any more or different ROW than the proposal (white)?

http://gyazo.com/f559f9aa437a26e6e61820df471e387b.png?1360865524

Also here's the statutes guiding variances:

III. STATUTORY STANDARDS
In order for a variance to be granted in accordance with State Statute requirements, the
applicant must prove:
(a) The application of the Ordinance to the particular piece of property would create
an unnecessary hardship;
(b) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved;
(c) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or
impair the purposes and intent of the Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan; and
(d) The variance, if granted, would be the minimum necessary to alleviate the
unnecessary hardship.

Nobody forced these guys to buy this parcel. Nobody said it had to be a Staybridge Suites. So we don't have to ignore our ordinances, diminish surrounding value, and eat into the hotel market - just to bend over backwards so that this site may be a crappy Staybridge Suites.

The red goes right through the easement.

Not if it's just a little breezeway over the easement (which I assume is that dirt path through the site), which doesn't include air rights.

Not if it's just a little breezeway over the easement (which I assume is that dirt path through the site), which doesn't include air rights.

There are actually 2 easements

So, assuming I've properly interpeted the plat that was included in the building permit application filed with the City (and granted, that's a pretty big if - I don't do any of this for a living), I believe that the areas highlighted in red are the easements that prevent this hotel from being built up to the street. These easements are for a 7½-foot and a 10-foot storm sewer that appear to drain into the buried creek that also runs through this property.

Can someone who actually knows this stuff confirm that my assumption here is correct, please?

http://www.okctalk.com/members/baralheia-albums-bits-pieces-picture12165-easements-staybridge-suites-property-east-bricktown-120-s-lincoln-blvd.jpg

If it's for a sewage line then that does complicate things (which would explain why the one easement is visible from outer space). You still can't possibly not know that before buying the parcel. In fact if this is true, this further reinforces the argument AGAINST a variance.

If you're talking about that line across the property from the I-235 bridge to roughly that Circle K on the corner of Reno and Lincoln... That's a former railroad right-of-way. It's marked on the diagram above by that dashed line that cuts across Lincoln. This entire chunk of land used to be Railroad property. This was a wye for the MKT spur that went down what is now known as Flaming Lips Alley, and the spur that crossed Reno and went to their freight depot roughly where the Harkins is now.

As near as I can tell, these two storm sewers are not visible in satellite views - just the abandoned railroad ROW.

^^^^^^^
That's what I was thinking; looks like railroad ROW to me.

Yeah, you can see the railroad ROW in this 1990's satellite view from Google Earth.

12166

The blue lines are the railroad ROWs, and the red outline is this parcel.

Once again, train-related stuff getting in the way of progress... ;)

B.. But I like trains! :(

LOL

Anyway, back on topic. I would love it if someone could let us know if I was anywhere near correct on the storm sewer easements...

The storm sewer is what I always heard when I worked for the City - that the large lines from Bricktown ran into this property and caused quite a bit of an issue at this location.

Work has started on this project:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge071316.jpg

When I saw you posted on this it was the one few times I was hoping you would say it is dead.

Hard to see but they have made good progress on the foundation:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge082816.jpg

You can see the foundation here. Should start to go vertical pretty soon.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge091016.jpg

Aerial imagery seems to indicate the lot east of the highway is moving forward as well.

Aerial imagery seems to indicate the lot east of the highway is moving forward as well.

Not quite yet. Still doing their engineering as that is a tricky site.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/staybridge100916.jpg

You can't get excited about this? Why? This is great news. At 100 to 125 rooms it will be about 5 to 7 stories and extend downtown/Bricktown even more. Just think of all the low-rise building that were removed as part of urban renewal. We are starting to get those back.
I'm happy I'm tired of looking at all those empty spaces in Bricktown