I wonder how many on here kvetching and screaming have contacted their city councilor letting them know they want it to be more urban?
This still has to be approved by them, so you can at least try to let them know your perspective.
I wonder how many on here kvetching and screaming have contacted their city councilor letting them know they want it to be more urban?
This still has to be approved by them, so you can at least try to let them know your perspective.
Why? They have to submit a whole new site plan through the Planning Commission. If they say no, then there is no legal ground for them to stand on.
They submitted plans for a highly urban development, then changed to this. It WILL require a new application through Planning and then City Council.
Rather than speculation, does anyone on here actually know what if any obstacles this piece of development (restaurant with parking) might face with the city? I believe the zoning is okay for the use. It isn't in any design district I can see. It doesn't create environmental changes (runoff, etc.). Can the city legally stop them from building this?
I'm guessing the easement prevents them from building on the western side of the property. The Alley North people might not want it butting up to their development on the south. How would it fit on the property then?
There is still the formality of city council approval which means citizens could reach out to their council person and even go speak at the meeting.
But in reality, no, there aren't any barriers when something falls outside of design review boundaries. It's the same with demolition; just file a permit and it gets instantly approved (often same day).
I also posted this on the other thread but on the photograph and rendering Pete posted of the Pappadeaux's parcel there is a large powerline and easement between Broadway and the restaurant building. Without a complete redesign, l don't think the proposed structure would fit between Broadway and the easement.
I drove by NW 13th and Broadway yesterday and the former Dolese building on this space was being demolished.
I love being able to park in a garage compared to surface lots for the extra layer of protection against the weather, but it really isn't necessary in OKC yet. For the record I am not saying a lot of downtown surface parking is good. However, I will say that we are nowhere near the level of development as a city that would necessitate the additional cost of structured parking everywhere. I think collectively we should just appreciate what we have. I am not a construction expert, but I imagine developing a lot that is a parking garage is not all that harder than developing one that is an open field. I imagine they both have positives and negatives, but I am not an expert by any means.
Some additional context for how the surface-parked Pappadeux's fits into a reworked site plan on CBRE's dedicated project website. My guess is that the +/-500 multifamily project becomes something more like 250-300 units and the retail gets scaled back a bit. Pivot can still fit that program in the remaining assemblage.
https://alley-north.cbre-properties.com/site-plan/
What does the 100 keys mean?
74,000 SF at 65' x 56' would be 20 stories. Is that the weird hotel with 100 rooms (5-6 rooms per floor, depending on ground floor)? Maybe a typo, looks more like 165'x156' or something?
Also, I'm a little confused by the 4,500 SF Med Office or Retail in the bottom right... 60' x 133' = ~8,000 SF, a little over double. What's that plan, a 4500 SF building with 3500 SF parking or something? That does not appear to be consistent with how they labeled the other areas.
According to Evan Onstot @ KOCO, today Pappadeaux pulled out of plans to come to OKC due to "site concerns". Have you heard anything about this Pete?
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Bookmarks