Concerned citizens claim development plans are at odds with wetland health

[urbanity]

http://www.okgazette.com/article/12-...nd_health.aspx

[MustangGT]

I frequent that area and would like to see it remain in its natural state with no development beyond what is there now. IMHO some areas just need to be left alone.

[Kerry]

Another case of "I already live here, but I don't want you living here". I wonder if Lynda Bahr was so concerned about the water quality when her home was built.

[Midtowner]

1 home =/= a massive apartment complex in terms of environmental impact. There's zero comparison.

[Kerry]

1 home =/= a massive apartment complex in terms of environmental impact. There's zero comparison.

True, but 1 home =/= 0 homes either.

[Architect2010]

Also true, but 1 home > 100+ unit complex with grocery store. In terms of environmental protection for that area.

[kevinpate]

If someone elects to buy next to or near bare land which isn't restricted to remaining bare land, they either can purchase the bare land too or they can roll the dice and take their chances that no one else will buy it and choose to put something on it.

Maybe it's not as simple as it seems to me.

[Spartan]

We need to start sending these people to sprawlers' anonymous meetings because of the severity of the failed logic here. This makes absolutely no sense. I understand the premise of sprawl: all this cheap, useless land around the metro. But now we're just sprawling for sprawl's sake. It doesn't make sense for you to build an apt complex in the middle of an environmentally protected SWAMP that's 20 miles from downtown, but they want to anyway, because..because they can! But if you deny a developer the right to build that then he will cause a huge stink and then we get to hear all the usual worn arguments over property rights and all that good stuff.

[MadMonk]

I suspect that her objections are driven more by a potential reduction of property value than her concern for the wetlands and the "problem" of sprawl.

[Spartan]

No doubt. Anyone should be mortally concerned when apartments are proposed right next to where you live. "There goes the neighborhood.."

[ljbab728]

This sounds like much ado about nothing to me. It says the property is already zoned commercial so some kind of development will happen anyway. It's not part of the wildlife refuge, just next to it and if you can trust the proposal they are planning to protect the wetlands that are currently designated. If development was denied here why couldn't development be denied on land next to this property but further away for the same reason? If more property needed to be protected the wildlife refuge should have been a larger area.

[mcca7596]

This sounds like much ado about nothing to me. It says the property is already zoned commercial so some kind of development will happen anyway. It's not part of the wildlife refuge, just next to it and if you can trust the proposal they are planning to protect the wetlands that are currently designated. If development was denied here why couldn't development be denied on land next to this property but further away for the same reason? If more property needed to be protected the wildlife refuge should have been a larger area.

^Exactly^ I don't think anyone desires sprawl; I see it more as a growth of northeast Yukon, an area underserved in retail.

[Kerry]

So let me sum up the last 7 posts, "I already live here, but I don't want you to. Sprawl and living next to wetlands was ok when I did it, but if you live here it will be bad."

[Midtowner]

This sounds like much ado about nothing to me. It says the property is already zoned commercial so some kind of development will happen anyway. It's not part of the wildlife refuge, just next to it and if you can trust the proposal they are planning to protect the wetlands that are currently designated. If development was denied here why couldn't development be denied on land next to this property but further away for the same reason? If more property needed to be protected the wildlife refuge should have been a larger area.

It doesn't matter that the place isn't part of a wildlife refuge. If the land is registered as a wetland with the federal government, it is entitled to certain protections. The developers are going to have to satisfy the relevant governmental body (I believe it'll be the DEQ) that the wetlands will be sufficiently protected, or the whole project can be deep-sixed regardless of what the Council says or what public sentiment is.

[bretthexum]

Kinda funny - up here in Wisconsin the tree huggers protect any little crap hole and call it wetlands.

But I agree - that is one place that should be left alone. Very nice area. Find one of the 500 old farm fields for sale and build it there.

[aintaokie]

Why a wetland area, why not some other area of Northwest OKC that is dry, rolling prairie land? Don't screw with lake Overholser period.

[Kerry]

Kinda funny - up here in Wisconsin the tree huggers protect any little crap hole and call it wetlands.

But I agree - that is one place that should be left alone. Very nice area. Find one of the 500 old farm fields for sale and build it there.

They must be pretty busy as there are a lot of crap holes in Wisconsin. J/K - I couldn't resist.

Someone with the city (or chamber) should try to sell them on building downtown instead. Maybe even a land swap with OCURA and then turn the rural land over to a wetland protection group.

[Double Edge]

A couple miles south there is at least one large complex boarded up. Lets build more next to a natural area and leave the ones we already have empty. Then the city can have them for unpaid taxes and pay more tax dollars for someone to bulldoze them, leaving slabs and weeds on the vacant land like the numerous other complexes we knocked down a couple of decades ago in the same area.

[ljbab728]

It doesn't matter that the place isn't part of a wildlife refuge. If the land is registered as a wetland with the federal government, it is entitled to certain protections. The developers are going to have to satisfy the relevant governmental body (I believe it'll be the DEQ) that the wetlands will be sufficiently protected, or the whole project can be deep-sixed regardless of what the Council says or what public sentiment is.

Only a portion of the property is designated wetlands and the article says that issue will be addressed. I doubt if the developers are unaware of the requirements. Again, if all of this property was meant to be left alone it should have had some other type of designation for the entire area.

[Double Edge]

Only a portion of the property is designated wetlands and the article says that issue will be addressed. I doubt if the developers are unaware of the requirements. Again, if all of this property was meant to be left alone it should have had some other type of designation for the entire area.

That's the issue. It's not zoned for what they want to do and perhaps the last zoning change was an error as well. It would be worth knowing when it was zoned commercial and what the OKC plan was at the time it was zoned commercial.

From the gazette link:

The land is currently zoned as commercial — after an aborted attempt to bring in a Walmart — and the land’s majority owner, Ken McGee of McGee Investments, is looking to zone part of the land as residential to make way for an apartment complex.

[ljbab728]

That's the issue. It's not zoned for what they want to do and perhaps the last zoning change was an error as well. It would be worth knowing when it was zoned commercial and what the OKC plan was at the time it was zoned commercial.

From the gazette link:

The land is currently zoned as commercial — after an aborted attempt to bring in a Walmart — and the land’s majority owner, Ken McGee of McGee Investments, is looking to zone part of the land as residential to make way for an apartment complex.

No, I don't really think that's the issue. I think the property owners would object no matter what was being built. Do you really think that they would rather have a 24 hour Walmart next to them compared to apartments?

[PennyQuilts]

That's a shame. I lived in that area for twenty five years and used to go birding around Overholser and the Stinchcomb area. All I can really say is that I feel bad about it. It is a lush area and there isn't a replacement, nearby. Let us hope that whatever they do, they don't destroy it. I wonder how this would impact Wiley Post. They are always on the alert to avoid bird strikes and construction might make the job a bit more dicey for a period of time.

As for downtown and urban sprawl - working downtown is a pretty much out outdated notion in this part of the world, notwithstanding the urban planners who have made a religion of it. Most of us, by far, work out of downtown. When I worked downtown, it was a cool novelty that quickly wore off because the benefits were vastly outweighed by the negatives. Mainstreet is for little burgs and landlocked places like NYC. There is a reason they call it the City that never sleeps - because it is different from most.

[Double Edge]

No, I don't really think that's the issue. I think the property owners would object no matter what was being built. Do you really think that they would rather have a 24 hour Walmart next to them compared to apartments?

Agreed. I'd guess the current surrounding residents didn't want the wallmart and were vocal about it and don't want the apartments or other building. (I'd include myself in that list. I live a couple of miles from there.) The current issue is they are asking to change from commercial to residential zoning.

My guess is the property was changed from an agricultural use to a commercial one when the push was on for the Walmart, but that's a guess and certainly could be wrong.

However, just because the city planners at some point decided they thought it in the best interest of OKC to develop the area, doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do now or perhaps even then. Such is governance.

[Double Edge]

There is a large empty apartment complex at 7200 NW 10th street, which is about 2.5 miles from that site as the crow flies and another down the street at about 6400 NW 10th street. They tore down apartments in the '80s and we still have vacant lots with paving and weeds, presumably still zoned multifamily on Rockwell just north of Melrose Lane and on Melrose Lane, just west of Rockwell. Does OKC really need to designate more parts of this end of the city multifamily or should we plan to make use of what we have now? I'm in favor of the later.

[Spartan]

So let me sum up the last 7 posts, "I already live here, but I don't want you to. Sprawl and living next to wetlands was ok when I did it, but if you live here it will be bad."

Huge apartment complex > one house.

How do you know that these people, who you're talking crap about, wouldn't mind one or two more single-family neighbors?