Here's a rendering of what might happen. The apartments would be directly north across the highway from Stonebridge and a bit west of Stinchcomb. There is another section of AA land between Morgan and Stinchcomb. No doubt this will shorten the time until it's developed too. (This tract was zoned AA until the last PUD was approved to be all commercial in 2002). That's an existing stream running through the middle. I don't believe the ponds are existing but are for detention. That's the outer loop on ramp on the left and Highway 66 at the bottom. Most or all of the site is in a flood plane. 60 acres more or less with some proposed to be used for commercial and some residential, single and/or multifamily.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs993.snc4/76635_1561899420388_1622410513_1310006_3956126_n.j pg

Probably shouldn't develop in a flood plain. And the storm water detention on the southwest looks great but it looks like they are literally just going to use the Stinchomb Wildlife Refuge as their drainage for storm water on the other sides of the development. Nice.

Probably shouldn't develop in a flood plain.

LOL - half of downtown OKC is in a flood plain. I think the new Devon Tower is too. When you go south on Robinson thru downtown OKC do you know why it goes downhill? It is because you are going down into the flood plain of the Oklahoma River.

There are issues and risks with building in a floodplain both with the property itself and with the impact on other parts of the floodplain. That's probably not going to slow down this project tho.

LOL - half of downtown OKC is in a flood plain. I think the new Devon Tower is too. When you go south on Robinson thru downtown OKC do you know why it goes downhill? It is because you are going down into the flood plain of the Oklahoma River.

Yeah, and it also used to flood regularly. Then they kinda did something about it.

Developing in a flood plain is normally verboten, especially in modern development, where usually you just sprawl around the flood plains.

Yeah, and it also used to flood regularly. Then they kinda did something about it.

Developing in a flood plain is normally verboten, especially in modern development, where usually you just sprawl around the flood plains.

You don't seriously think new development is just allowed to build in a flood plain with out doing 'something about it' do you?

We're talking about something entirely different, but let me just say that I'd rather they not Oklahoma River the Stinchcomb Wildlife Refuge.

Usually they fill in the area to raise it above flood stage.

I think it's more complicated than that, depending on the municipality and to what extent they have involved FEMA for help and flood insurance. I think once you have FEMA involved you act according to their guidelines at a minimum. But I'm far from up to speed on that.

Usually they fill in the area to raise it above flood stage.

That would create more drainage and irrigation issues and the site plan hardly shows appropriate mitigation for a normal grade development.

That would create more drainage and irrigation issues and the site plan hardly shows appropriate mitigation for a normal grade development.

Well - I guess that means they can't do it then. They should have gotten some engineers with experience in this sort of thing before they drew up a bunch amateurish site plans. They could have save $70.

$70

<snort>

The city filing fee for a PUD is over $1000, closer to $2k I think, and this is their second time around. I imagine they have quite a bit tied up in surveys, consulting, legal fees, filing documents and planning at this point. They are probably on top of it but that doesn't mean it's a Good Thing to do.

edit to add:An internet search makes it appear the filing fee is $2390

It's just a generic site plan that you see almost all new suburban projects using these days, nothing special. Probably figured it was safe.

Yep - I prefer the new fancy 'bells and whistles' site plans also. What they lack in compliance, they make up for in pizazz. What kind of site plans did they use before "these days" anyhow?

Main Street.

Main Street.

Ok, I got your point now. I thought you were criticizing this particular site plan and not suburban development in general. I can go along with that.

Well, I didn't think you were asking a serious question back there. I don't legitimately want to fight all suburban development, and you know that, but we both agree that it's bad. I do have legitimate environmental concerns, so we just disagree there.

Route 66 rejection:
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-10699-route-66-rejection.html

I would have bet against that but good. Back to the drawing board for something more responsible.

It sounds to me like they were saying they didn't necessarily have a problem with the type of development proposed. They thought it had too many unanswered questions about how it would be developed while keeping the environmental issues in check.

What a joke. I just looked to see where this property is located. The people complaining live between this development and the lake. It is a mile from the wildlife refuge and the only wetland is a ditch disguised as a creek and the headwaters are flow through 2 major subdivisions already (one of which is already using it as a retention pond). The creek is already used as a water run-off collector for 39th Expressway and it also run through a farm.

Might as well pile impact of new mistakes on the impact of old mistakes, eh? Even if this particular area was built on previously, which it wasn't, I still think it's prudent to ask these kind of questions.

Might as well pile impact of new mistakes on the impact of old mistakes, eh? Even if this particular area was built on previously, which it wasn't, I still think it's prudent to ask these kind of questions.

No. Drainage from the development wasn't going into the creek. It was going into two evaporation ponds.

And upon further review a branch of this creek comes from a pond on an extensive livestock operation off of Sara Road as well as farming operations north of Yukon.

No. Drainage from the development wasn't going into the creek. It was going into two evaporation ponds.

And upon further review a branch of this creek comes from a pond on an extensive livestock operation off of Sara Road as well as farming operations north of Yukon.

From the story:
“There’s no commitment in the (planned unit development) over who will be responsible for the detention ponds or the wetlands,” Groves said. “There’s no plan whatsoever to provide for the quantity or quality of runoff that’s going to go in that stream.

I read the PUD but I don't remember the specifics on this issue. Evidently, they are loosely written to favor the developer doing as they please. Imagine that.

So was this plan denide because of problems with the plan or because of the wetlands a mile away? Since this ditch cathes run-off from 21,000 feet of 39th Expressway what is the City doing to ensure water quality? Would there be the same concern if this development was at Mustand Road and Main in Yukon? It should, it is the same ditch, but my guess is it wouldn't.

Beats me, it's an up or down vote. You would have to ask the planning commission. You could go online and perhaps still find the staff report that usually recommends things one way or the other to the commission. That report also gives a summary of the input from the various people who have a say so at the staff level.

It's PUD 1428. The staff recommended conditional approval.

http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/meeting.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&docid=28859

Wetlands - solution, close down New Orleans... there's your 'wet lands'.

Good idea, rebuild there on what's already impacted and leave the wetlands here alone. Optionally, build responsibly here or somewhere else in OKC.

But that may not have been the only reason or even one of the reasons the Planning Commission voted it down. Perhaps they thought it inappropriate to rezone for an apartment complex across the street from upscale homes when those citizens strongly object or for some other issues totally unrelated to either reason.

Rezoning means the developer thinks he has a better idea than the planning commissions that came before. It's just possible the developer doesn't.

Rezoning means the developer thinks he has a better idea than the planning commissions that came before. It's just possible the developer doesn't.

The 'before' was a Wal-Mart.

This time was x-many square feet of retail AND apartments. I'd like to read the current PUD 813 but the city online zoning locator is a steaming pile and I can't seem to locate it online.