Housing-business plan has some neighbors wary

Developer Grant Humphreys stands with site maps of his NW 36 Street mixed-use project. A close-up of the site plan is shown below. by steve lackmeyer, the oklahoman

Project details
•A self-contained, mixed-use development, increasingly popular in other states, has yet to be built in Oklahoma City. Such developments typically feature narrow streets that favor pedestrian traffic, a diversity of housing and retail, and a compactness that eliminates buffers between different types of housing and retail. In the West Village in Dallas, the development includes buildings that have shops and restaurants on the first floor and housing on upper floors that wrap around structured parking.
•The Humphreys development proposes a mix of lofts and midrise apartments and for-sale flats, townhomes and midrise condominiums. A plaza in the heart of the development would be surrounded by restaurants, offices and shops with one building featuring five floors of hotel rooms. Humphreys also wants the development to include sidewalk cafes with landscaped seating areas under hanging lights. He also envisions open-air music and annual festivals. Over the past few months, Humphreys has met with residents of Edgemere Park, Edgemere Heights, Central Park and Crown Heights, hoping to convince them to support his upcoming application to change the 18 acres from single family to planned unit development zoning.

"What we're proposing is a mixture of uses that create a walkable community and brings much-needed amenities into the inner-city and historic neighborhoods,” Humphreys said. "We'll have some great public spaces, new housing convenient to downtown, office space for people in the area, and a great deal of restaurants, retail and a grocery that is much needed.”

Neighbors are at odds as to whether to fight, negotiate or support the project, which is being developed by The Humphreys Co. Humphreys has a contract to buy the land from First Christian Church.

A tough battle
Some neighbors have pledged to fight the project at a series of meetings held over the past few months, including one attended by more than 200 residents Tuesday night at the Westminster School auditorium. The top complaints included fears of increased traffic and the height of some of the proposed buildings, including a hotel that residents believe will be seven stories tall (Humphreys promises that the building will be no taller than six stories).
"There aren't a lot of people going to sleep around here thinking, ‘If only I could get that seven-story hotel down, the street life would be better,” resident John Joyce said at the start of the meeting.

The hotel height also was cited by Betsy Brunsteter, one of three area residents who are practicing architects and presented recommendations.

The suggestions include minimizing building heights facing North Creek, which flows along the northern edge of the development, and prohibiting retail operations from the same area. Some residents insisted they should fight Humphreys and demand that his project be scrapped. Other residents, including George McQuistion, wondered whether such a fight would be difficult because the proposed mixed-use zoning is encouraged in the city's master plan.
And when some residents suggested that the development is unanimously opposed by the adjoining neighborhoods, others, like Ed Martin, responded that they like what Humphreys is proposing. "Not all of us are against this development,” Martin said. "It could be a lot worse. ... I'd like to be able to go over to a nice deli there or to the grocery.”

Ward 2 Councilman Sam Bowman, who represents the neighborhoods, avoided stating his opinion on the project. He said the debate is too big to simply be heard at City Hall and insisted most issues will need to be resolved before the rezoning is heard by the city council. "This represents a powerful bloc of neighborhoods we're not ordinarily used to hearing from all at once,” Bowman said.

Humphreys said his next step is to try to educate residents on the nature of mixed-use developments and work with key neighborhood leaders on addressing confusion and misinformation. He noted that neighbors previously were misinformed that he was planning to include a Walmart — a tenant he swears will never be considered. He said early plans to lure a Whole Foods market also have been scrapped, and he only will be seeking a small specialty grocer."We believe in the public process,” Humphreys said. "We want to work with the community in hopes of negotiating a win-win for project design. We believe that as they become more enlightened to our development concepts, that they will see the beauty of it and the quality of life it can afford and the great impact to the inner-city and can look past their initial fears of building height and density.”

I just can't imagine this being all that bad.

I personally think it will be good and bring some life to that area.

This is exactly the type of in-fill developments that will bring a bit of density to the city's core.

I suppose this is property now owned by the First Christian Church? The empty land between the church and I-235 and north of NW 36th?

Is this the property (highlighted in yellow)?

Yes, as stated in the article, FCC owns the property.

Pete, yes I believe that highlighted section is the property but I could be wrong.

It must be that property then...

And I'm not buying most of the neighborhood concerns, particularly about traffic. It looks like the only ingress/egress will be on 36th street.

And the whole project is separated by the surrounding neighborhoods by a wooded creek.

Of course in these situations, the neighbors always just want the property to stay vacant. I hope a compromise can be reaches and this goes forward. Looks exactly like the type of thing we need more of in OKC.

Yep, we need this density and Humphrey's does't build second rate either. Now if we could only get the city to deannex tons of unnecessary land. Our population density numbers would skyrocket and attract national retailers and employers that we despirately need.

not to mention that greater population density will help the success of public/rapid transit... we're currently too spread out for those to be completely viable, imo.

-M

I read the Sentinel article on this the other day -- yeah, these folks have a reasonable gripe in that they have to get permission to paint their houses.... but otherwise, this is a decent project.

Hate to see that old youth center go though. In my younger days, I was a member of the Oklahoma Youth Symphony. They used to have their rehearsals there. Good times.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

This looks like a solid development to me. The citizens of the neighborhood would greatly benefit from its presence -- their property values would probably skyrocket. The "concerned citizens" need to take a step back from the ledge.

On the other hand, they need to demand a quality development, not just sit idly by and let the developer do whatever he wants. This looks like a quality development to me.

I'm just not seeing a down side to having that land filled in with buildings and peeps. Could it really be louder or more disruptive than the current traffic noise wafting across a mostly barren patch of grass? Guess I'm just not citified enough to see the problem.

Here's another opportunity for a TOD.

I was sorry to see the comment about plans to lure Whole Foods being scrapped. Was hoping to see them bring their store downtown. I was in the Tulsa Whole Foods store last week and asked one of the managers there if they knew of plans to bring Whole Foods to OKC. She said that the company is in fact looking for land to buy in OKC. I asked her what part of OKC and she said she didn't know. If downtown (or Bricktown) doesn't have an interest in Whole Foods then I suppose they'll end up in Edmond, or maybe Norman even. They usually go where the more upper class (higher income) areas are, but I think they would do great downtown. Time will tell.

I don't live in that neighborhood, but I know some people who do, and they are not happy. This is not a Humphreys family member versus various miscellaneous nobodies. This project, as Midtowner noted, is surrounded by historic preservation neighborhoods inhabited by lawyers, architects and other professional people not easily bamboozled or intimidated.

I like Councilman Bowman personally, but it seems like he will do almost anything to avoid having to take sides on an issue. The debate is too big to be heard at City Hall? What does that mean? Being on council means making tough decisions, not trying to get controversy lost in a pile of paperwork on some assistant municipal counselor's desk and hoping it just goes away.

I live about 500 yards from there and am a bit torn on the project. The nature of the site proposes a challenge to making the development very "walkable" for a lot of neighbors. The property ends up being very segmented with the Church taking up the corner of 36th and Walker. It might work, and I'm leaning toward yes more out of fear for what could end up being built there if this isn't.

We have a winnah!

The reality is that Humphries is probably our best chance for a developer that is actually going to listen to the neighborhood. I think they should ride him hard to make sure it is a quality development that fits in with the district, but that is prime space right there and it will probably be fast food and box stores, developed by people with a lot of resources and zero compassion for the area, if a local developer doesn't do it. And when I say local, I mean that Humpries lives in Edgmere Park, I believe.

I understand some of the concerns, but the reaction from others is more visceral than rational. There are a lot of "do-nothings" in the area who portrayed the development at the recent CH 4th of July Parade as one of strip clubs, hooters, and by-the-hour motels. IMO, those kind of tactics, even in jest, completely undermine the whole idea of community involvement in developing a city.

I'm sorry, but what i have seen so far is a great example of developer interaction with the community and it would be a big mistake to discourage that in a city where it almost never happens to begin with. It could be worse. Chesapeake could own it and be simply demanding blanket approval at every step.

I think it's great the people are involved at all. Whatever their position. It gives the developer a chance to lay it all out and have the people of the neighborhood help decide its own fate. That's real democracy.

I have to agree about Councilman Bowman, Born Here. He's a great guy, but he needs to sit down, get educated on the issue and, if necessary - fight for his citizens. If, in the end, he needs to be gutsy and tell his citizens he thinks it's a great idea - he should do that too. His just not taking a stand happens too often.

Property values going up? Has anyone ever paid attention to what happens when you build rental units directly by an all-owner area? Values go down. We don't want that. Values already have been skyrocketing. In the past 10 years, many houses have doubled and tripled values. I honestly don't think this would help. It would also almost certainly raise the crime rate

Has a neighborhood ever welcomed ANY sort of development? Almost every single time they'll complain and while that is understandable, you can't govern a community based on people that would prefer nothing be done with any land near their homes.

Certainly input and compromise are necessary but it all has to be reasonable. And the last time around with something similar, OCURA put Heritage Hills homeowners in charge of deciding on the old Mercy hospital property and surprise, surprise... They opted for only expensive condos rather than a mixed-use development that would benefit the whole community.

I see a quality mixed-use development that will front a major interstate on one side with the primary (if not only) access on a major 4-lane street.

That some residents would be able to see a building or two from their backyards shouldn't stand in the way of quality in-fill development.

I am for this development. I used to live in the adjacent neighborhood and would have loved to walk to restaurants, movie, etc... Grant is comparing this to some extent to the West Village in Dallas; I have spent time there and love it. It always irritates me when people complain about traffic in the city. Action is good!!!

Its a PUD not a TOD! I have never heard of this development before, is this the first time its been made public?

Another thought is, yeah they should incorporate transit options into something like this, but I have no idea about the details.

Down here in Norman if you wanna get your PUD approved and land use changed you go through the Planning Department first. Is that how it works in OKC? once the planning dept hears it they recommend 'yea' or 'nay' to council to approve the land use changes. Thats why I'm confused about the bickering NIMBYs being given any attention at this point, unless its all about lobbying the councildude.

Maybe I'm unclear on the process for OKC development approvals.

I'd support it if I had any say. It reminds me of something like Mockingbird Station just north of downtown, thats why the transit thing makes sense. Maybe OKC can exercise some forethought on something like this.

Oh, last thought: the current neighbors prefer looking at the raised interstate over this ? LOL!

I agree with Pete.

It the old "not in my backyard" deal.

While you certainly want the surrounding neighborhoods involved and supportive, if the city's projected use of the land calls for, or allows for a mixed use development, then it will be done. If the neighbors don't want anything to happen, then they need to buy the land themselves.

I always find it somewhat amusing when the people who own adjoining parcels of land think that they have the final say in what somebody else does with a tract of land by them. City planners and zoning regulations have that power, not the neighbors. Nothing would ever get built if you had to get permission from the neighbors.

Humphreys is doing the right thing by involving the surrounding community and keeping them informed. But in the end, who cares what Mrs Crown Heights thinks?

It's in a prime spot for any future rail, as the existing tracks are directly on the other side of I-235.


The more I think about this, the more I am thrilled we have local developers working hard to come up with interesting and forward-thinking projects.

There is still tons of empty or nearly-empty land within the I-44/I-240 loop and if we ever want OKC to have a truly urban core and all the related amenities then this is exactly the type of development that is needed.

If this doesn't get approved or has to be substantially watered down I'll be very concerned about OKC ever truly changing the way it's developed. It we can't get these things through, might as well just keep building tract homes in the middle of cow pastures.