Concerned citizens claim development plans are at odds with wetland health

[BoulderSooner]

the developers don't own the "other" space you are talking about ... they own this piece of land .. and they have the right to develop it

[Midtowner]

the developers don't own the "other" space you are talking about ... they own this piece of land .. and they have the right to develop it

In accordance with the law. And it sounds like we'll see what the law says if the homeowners can fund the legal battle.

[Kerry]

There is property available to people within the same distance as the residents who live in relative close proximity and are vocal about this complex. The primary woman quoted says she lives on the east side of Lake Overholser. That could be as close as a block from Stinchcomb or as far as a couple of miles. Why do we need to trade green space for more development when we have underused property already developed? That's a poor use of resources and poor planning.

That is why I said the City should looking at trading out this land with OCURA owned land near the urban core. Build these apartments downtown.

[Double Edge]

I'm for rebuilding downtown before building new at the outskirts.

I'd have to know more details before I'd be willing to trade land with a developer and not if they bought swampy wetland zoned agricultural that is never going to get legally developed into anything otherwise.

[Kerry]

I'm for rebuilding downtown before building new at the outskirts.

I'd have to know more details before I'd be willing to trade land with a developer and not if they bought swampy wetland zoned agricultural that is never going to get legally developed into anything otherwise.

I am talking about this one deal, but if land was already in a condition that would prevent development then 'no deal'.

[Double Edge]

I'm talking about this deal too. They have only filed a PUD, or SPUD or for some zoning change. It remains to be seen if they can do what they want to do and comply with the laws and concerns of the various entities who have to approve of it.

[Spartan]

the developers don't own the "other" space you are talking about ... they own this piece of land .. and they have the right to develop it

You do not ever have carte blanche authority to do anything you want if you live in a city limits. Why is it with some people that controversy only increases that non-existent right??

[bluedogok]

If I had to bet $20 on it here is my official take - these residents don't want an apartment complex next door and the 'wildlife refuge' is just the vehicle to try and stop it. If these people really loved the wildlife refuge and were that concerned about it they wouldn't live next door to it either. They have their little piece of heaven and they want to keep it that way and if that means they need to scare the multitude into think wetlands are going to be destroyed, thus getting the enviro-left on their side, they will do it.

However, if the enviro-left told these current residents they had to stop using fertilizer on their lawns and that they had to build (and maintain) a storm water runoff collection pond to prevent heavy metals from entering the wildlife refuge, had to turn off all outside lights at sunset, and couldn't exceed 85 decibels of noise during the day, I suspect they wouldn't be so concerned about the wildlife refuge anymore.

A bunch of that goes on down here....

[ljbab728]

I too can personify failure to grasp the concepts of civil society and public governing.

Yeah, and if you want a road to get to work, pay for it yourself or find a group of coworkers that live nearby to pitch in together. If you want a school, same thing--find a group of neighbors that also want a school and everyone pitch in to buy the land and make the school whatever you want it. Right?

Your analogy has nothing at all to do with what I said. If you want to use that analogy, the property owners should get the city of OKC to buy out the developers which means that all citizens of OKC will be paying for it. Just because you or they don't like the proposed development doesn't mean that the developers should lose all of the money they have invested in a legal proposal. If that land needs to be preserved someone or somebody needs to compensate them.

[Spartan]

It does suck that so many suburban developers don't do their due diligence. You do have a point though.

It just comes down to which the city needs to look out for more. Preventing a developer from taking a huge loss and having a property he can't develop or get rid of (although maybe he could put something of much less impact like 1 single family home on the site). Or whether we should prevent shoddy development, enforce development standards, and protect environmental standards especially around a wildlife refuge that is a natural asset to the city.

Not a black and white issue, but it's obvious which side I'm on.

[Double Edge]

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.

[Spartan]

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.

[Kerry]

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.

[Double Edge]

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.

[Spartan]

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.

[Kerry]

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?

[Spartan]

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

[Kerry]

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

[Double Edge]

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.

[Spartan]

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.

[Kerry]

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.

[Double Edge]

$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

[Spartan]

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.

[Kerry]

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?

[Spartan]

Main Street.