There is a plan update currently going up the ladder in OKC government for the Lake Hefner area. The plan seems to be taking a turn for commercial development around the lake. This is contrary to the wishes of both the recreational users of the lake and local residents as expressed in a series of public meetings held last fall. What do you think? Make Lake Hefner a restaurant and shopping area or leave and improve it as a recreational/natural area?

SB

Are you referring to the portion of Lake Hefner Reservation located north of Edgewater-Lakepointe neighborhood and south of Lake Hefner Road?

Are you referring to the portion of Lake Hefner Reservation located north of Edgewater-Lakepointe neighborhood and south of Lake Hefner Road?The plan doesn't specify any area. Just future use in general. But, north from those neighborhoods all the way to the water is the area developers have been most interested in. The area just north of the fish hatchery/water treatment plant also has some interest.

SB

I think what you have to realize here is that the lake belongs to everyone in the city, not just the neighborhoods surrounding the lake.

Personally, I think we should expand development on the lake. I don't see any reason why commercial development and recreational uses can't co-exist.

Lake Hefner would be a much greater asset to Oklahoma City if its uses were expanded.

I think high rise hotels, more restaurants, etc. would be nice along the lake. And for the recreational users, how about a few bike shops.

It isn't like the east shore of the lake is natural. It's a pile of rocks, created by the city and state after the highway was built. Let's turn Lake Hefner into something nice, instead of the flat wasteland it has been in the past.

I'd limit development to the east shore. I personally think the south side of the lake needs to keep its natural setting, with the golf course and all.

I do think land along NW Expressway could be put to better uses though. The city could benefit from selling land off west of Red Lobster.

I helped spearhead the research on this. SoonerBent is right. It is just a proposition about what residents want for future use in general: industrial, commericial, recreational, residential, etc. Nothing is set in stone just a mere study and report for possible future use.

On a similar note, does anyone know how the city-wide trail system is coming along? I've noticed the construction crews are at it again along Council again in the wooded area between Wilshire and NW 39th. I know this is in the area that was proposed for the trails that would connect Lake Hefner with Lake Overholser. I'll have to do my homework again unless someone already knows what's going on.

Well, they have forever been trying to use the land I am referring to. There is a some history to that area.

Oklahoma City condemned that land for use of the Lake Hefner Reservation. They paid citizens money for this land and told them it would only be used for Lake Hefner Reservation.

In the 60's they wanted to sell this land for development. A lawsuit was brought up by the citizens and it eventually went to the US Supreme Court. Oklahoma city was able to retain the rights to the condemned property only if the use of the property continued to be for the reason the land was originally condemned, to be part of the Lake Hefner Reservation.

Are you referring to land south of the lake?

I can understand residents of the Edgewater area being upset about development south of the lake. I don't think that portion of the lake should be developed, especially when we have the entire east side of the lake, with perfect land to develop. I'd expand East Wharf.

Yes, the land south of S Lake Hefner Dr and Portland.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Oklahoma+City,+OK&ll=35.544344,-97.585309&spn=0.007909,0.021629

We need nodes of interest on the lake. I agree, land south of Lake Hefner Dr. should remain reservation. As Patrick said, develop the east side of the lake, but do it carefully, keeping in mind the present trail system.

My interest is in the safety and usefullness of trails and lake for recreational uses. While I agree that some development such as East Wharf can be done without much negative impact it wasn't. The present design of the intersection of trail and driveway was done to be as cheap as possible. Not as safe as possible. Assuming that this would be the future course of action any further expansion there or development on the south side of the lake could pretty much ruin the tral system. Also, Lake Hefner is known nation wide as a great sailing lake. The lake hosts, on average, one regional regatta per year and one national regatta every four to five years (such as the J-22 Nationals last summer). Building too near the lake will kill this as the whole reason the wind is so good is the lack of interference by structures.

SB

I believe that any commercial development around the lake should be kept to a minimum. Any development would inhibit the city’s ability to protect its watershed from pollutants that could contaminate the water supply.

Also, the city and others have done a great job enhancing Lake Hefner with the improvement to the trail system, which are being used more than expected. We need to carefully guage the type of development that goes on around the lake so it doesn't detract from its current recreational use.

If any development should be done, it should complement the existing usage of the lake. Such as putting in a kayak/canoe rentals.

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for development but I don't believe it should be done in a recreational area such as Lake Hefner.

SoonerBent: Thanks for mentioning the sailing. It totally slipped my mind and I was there watching some of the J/22 races last year.

Also, I should disclose that I am a resident of Edgewater-Lakepointe. However, I would still feel the same about this issue if I didn't live in the neighborhood next to the lake or if it were a different lake.

My interest is in the safety and usefullness of trails and lake for recreational uses. While I agree that some development such as East Wharf can be done without much negative impact it wasn't. The present design of the intersection of trail and driveway was done to be as cheap as possible. Not as safe as possible. Assuming that this would be the future course of action any further expansion there or development on the south side of the lake could pretty much ruin the tral system. Also, Lake Hefner is known nation wide as a great sailing lake. The lake hosts, on average, one regional regatta per year and one national regatta every four to five years (such as the J-22 Nationals last summer). Building too near the lake will kill this as the whole reason the wind is so good is the lack of interference by structures.

SB

If future development is built east of the trail system, similar to Louis, I don't see what difference it makes. Such commercial development WILL NOT impact the current trail system.

The wind comes out of the west, so buildings on the east side of the lake wouldn't affect that.

I believe that any commercial development around the lake should be kept to a minimum. Any development would inhibit the city’s ability to protect its watershed from pollutants that could contaminate the water supply.

That makes absolutely no sense. The buildings that are part of east wharf only help to beautify the area. They in no way pollute the water.



Also, the city and others have done a great job enhancing Lake Hefner with the improvement to the trail system, which are being used more than expected. We need to carefully guage the type of development that goes on around the lake so it doesn't detract from its current recreational use.

Further commercial development in the form of hotels, restuarants, etc. wouldn't take away from the trails, if it was designed right. The trails should be built closest to the water, with the commercial buildings closest to the street. Louis was developed well.

The two can co-exist.


If any development should be done, it should complement the existing usage of the lake. Such as putting in a kayak/canoe rentals.

And nice hotels, so tourists that will use the lake will have a place to stay.


Don't get me wrong... I'm all for development but I don't believe it should be done in a recreational area such as Lake Hefner.

So create recreational commercial development. Bike shops, trendy restaurants and food stands for recreational users to eat at, hotels for visitors to stay, etc.

We need more casual restaurants that the recreational users can stop at.

I agree with everyone here. I think we do need more development on the lake. BUT, we need to be careful with what we allow to be developed there. For example, I don't think a huge multi-screen movie theater and a Wal-Mart would fit in there. But, I do agree that more venues for the recreational users would be nice. It would be nice to have some short order restauraunts that the recreational users can eat at. Now, you'd have to go home, change, and then return to eat. I also agree that bike shops, sail shops, kite shops, etc. would be nice. And as mentioned, a few high rise hotels might be nice. But we need to keep the right balance of commercial and recreational use.

Remember, the lake belongs to more than just recreational users.

Also, I don't see how the intersection leading into East Wharf could've been developed any differently. Maybe a bridge going over the trails would've been a better option.

By the way, we were promised a boardwalk along the shore. I'm still waiting for it.

If future development is built east of the trail system, similar to Louis, I don't see what difference it makes. Such commercial development WILL NOT impact the current trail system.

The wind comes out of the west, so buildings on the east side of the lake wouldn't affect that.But the current configuration does impact the trail system. And any future shops/restaurants would want to be lakeside, just like the existing ones, with the exception of Louie's. Therefor, the trails would have to be to the east of the development and would have to be crossed to get to the development. This could still be done by putting the driveways partly underground and raising the trails above them. But the city isn't likely to spend the money to do this. In regard to the wind. The wind is usually from the south to southwest. Buildings on the east side don't pose a problem 99% of the time. But building condos or a Mariott destination resort on the shouth shore would put a serious dent in the sailing properties of the lake.

SB

That makes absolutely no sense. The buildings that are part of east wharf only help to beautify the area. They in no way pollute the water.

Actually, it does make sense if you think about the implications of additional development. The buildings may not pollute the water, but an increase in people and traffic sure will.



Further commercial development in the form of hotels, restuarants, etc. wouldn't take away from the trails, if it was designed right. The trails should be built closest to the water, with the commercial buildings closest to the street.

Oh, so if we follow that thinking, then it's okay to develop parts of Forest Park (St. Louis) or Central Park (NYC).


Louis was developed well.
I do not know to what you are referring.

http://www.okctalk.com/gallery/data/500/Jack.JPG

Sorry guys. Looks like more commercial development is already taking place.

Commercial development on the east side of the lake makes perfect sense, especially since there is so little residential and a big freeway running right by anyway.

I think a little commercial devleopment on the south side would be okay too, as long as more recreation was also added.

There are some really nice spots on the south side of the lake that could be developed into water-side restaurants and the like.


I lived right by Lake Hefner for almost 30 years and they only thing that was there was the golf course and Stars & Stripes Park -- and even that didn't happen until the early 70's.

Just like the river, OKC should be looking for ways to take better advantage for the benefit of all.

But the current configuration does impact the trail system. And any future shops/restaurants would want to be lakeside, just like the existing ones, with the exception of Louie's. Therefor, the trails would have to be to the east of the development and would have to be crossed to get to the development. This could still be done by putting the driveways partly underground and raising the trails above them. But the city isn't likely to spend the money to do this.

So, just require all businesses to be streetside, and trails to be lakeside. We simply need some ordinances for developing land on the lake. That's all. It can work. Louie's is proof it can work.


In regard to the wind. The wind is usually from the south to southwest. Buildings on the east side don't pose a problem 99% of the time. But building condos or a Mariott destination resort on the shouth shore would put a serious dent in the sailing properties of the lake. SB

Again, restrict development to the east side of the lake around the East Wharf Development.

Actually, it does make sense if you think about the implications of additional development. The buildings may not pollute the water, but an increase in people and traffic sure will.

Parks department seems to be doing a good job keeping trash picked up. Non issue as far as I'm concerned. The restaurants wouldn't be on the water but would be on the land.


Oh, so if we follow that thinking, then it's okay to develop parts of Forest Park (St. Louis) or Central Park (NYC).

Central Park is in the middle of an entire city of development. Difference is, NYC has a place for recreation and a place for commercial development. So we follow suit. Have commercial development on the east side of the lake, and recreatino everywhere else. Shoot, is developing 3 or 4 miles of the east side of the lake really going to take away from recreational users that much? They'd be left with over 20 miles of undeveloped shoreline.



I do not know to what you are referring. Louie's Restaurant. Trails are located on the waterside of the restaurant. Traffic is a non-issue.

Commercial development on the east side of the lake makes perfect sense, especially since there is so little residential and a big freeway running right by anyway.

I think a little commercial devleopment on the south side would be okay too, as long as more recreation was also added.

There are some really nice spots on the south side of the lake that could be developed into water-side restaurants and the like.


I lived right by Lake Hefner for almost 30 years and they only thing that was there was the golf course and Stars & Stripes Park -- and even that didn't happen until the early 70's.

Just like the river, OKC should be looking for ways to take better advantage for the benefit of all.

Exactly.

I bet soonerbent and keving miss the mound of dirt that once sat where Harkin's Theater now sits in Bricktown.

I bet soonerbent and keving miss the mound of dirt that once sat where Harkin's Theater now sits in Bricktown.Actually, I love Bricktown. We go down there at least twice a month. That was a depressed, dead area until it was developed as an attraction. Lake Hefner is not. I have zero problems with developing an area where no other existing activities are compromised or eliminated.

SB

So, just require all businesses to be streetside, and trails to be lakeside. We simply need some ordinances for developing land on the lake. That's all. It can work. Louie's is proof it can work.

Again, restrict development to the east side of the lake around the East Wharf Development.

So far, I like what they have done with East Wharf. However, there can be too much development. If you continue to develop the lake, then where are people going to fly their kites? Currently, the area south of East Wharf is this is done. Where are the windsurfers and other kiteboarders going to setup? Currently, they use the area to the north of East Wharf.

If the area is developed more, where will they go?

I bet soonerbent and keving miss the mound of dirt that once sat where Harkin's Theater now sits in Bricktown.

I like Bricktown as well. I'm down there at least once a week to watch a movie, go to a club or eat at a restaraunt. I also drive through there at least three times a week on my way to the new Chesapeake Boathouse.

So far, I like what they have done with East Wharf. However, there can be too much development. If you continue to develop the lake, then where are people going to fly their kites? Currently, the area south of East Wharf is this is done. Where are the windsurfers and other kiteboarders going to setup? Currently, they use the area to the north of East Wharf.

If the area is developed more, where will they go?

I see your point. I'm not asking for too much more development. As has already been mentioned, maybe a kite shop, bike shop, and surf shop to go along with what we already have there. I'd also like to see more places to rent boats; maybe a nice marina.

How would you feel about developing the lake more like Arcadia. More picnic areas, camping areas, etc.

How about a swim beach? I suppose that might take away from the beauty of the lake though.

I see your point. I'm not asking for too much more development. As has already been mentioned, maybe a kite shop, bike shop, and surf shop to go along with what we already have there. I'd also like to see more places to rent boats; maybe a nice marina.

Yes, I would love to see a place to rent kayaks or canoes, maybe even paddle boats. On the south side, there is the YMCA Sailing and there used to be another sailing place but I believe they closed last year.

When my aunt from California was down last fall, she was very surprised there was no kayak rental.


How would you feel about developing the lake more
like Arcadia. More picnic areas, camping areas, etc.

More picnic areas would be nice. I know there is already a problem with homosexual activity, so I'm not sure about the camping areas. Not that there's anything wrong with that, its just that a public area is not the right place.


How about a swim beach? I suppose that might take away from the beauty of the lake though.

I know swimming is illegal in the lake which might be due to the fact that it is water supply for OKC.

More picnic areas would be nice. I know there is already a problem with homosexual activity, so I'm not sure about the camping areas. Not that there's anything wrong with that, its just that a public area is not the right place.

A former elementary teacher of mine was actually arrested at Lake Hefner for public indecency with another man.



I know swimming is illegal in the lake which might be due to the fact that it is water supply for OKC.

I don't really see the issue there. Arcadia Lake is water supply for Edmond.

I'd also like to see a place to rent canoes, paddle boats, etc. I second the idea for a small marina to rent sail boats, motor boats, etc. I wouldn't be opposed to a nice bait and tackle store if it was unique, and not too large.

I don't really see the issue there. Arcadia Lake is water supply for Edmond.

I know... I'm not really sure why swimming is not allowed. There are lakes that are used for water supply that allow swimming and then there are others that don't allow swimming. So, I'm not entirely sure why swimming is illegal.

I don't believe that pwc, skiing or wakeboarding are allowed either. But this is nice... cuts down on noise pollution and I don't believe the lake is big enough to allow for it.

I see your point. I'm not asking for too much more development. As has already been mentioned, maybe a kite shop, bike shop, and surf shop to go along with what we already have there. I'd also like to see more places to rent boats; maybe a nice marina.

How would you feel about developing the lake more like Arcadia. More picnic areas, camping areas, etc.

How about a swim beach? I suppose that might take away from the beauty of the lake though.The kiters, sail boarders, sailors, cyclists and also a number of bike shop and boating shop owners are exactly the people who are against development. There have been a couple of attempts at boat rentals/schools that failed.

More outdoor recreation type improvements would be welcomed with open arms.

Camping and swimming are against city ordinance and it has been made clear by the city that those will never be considered. This is due to the primary reason for the lakes existance being water supply.

SB

I do agree with one thing Jack mentioned. Allowing swimming does destroy the beauty of a lake. The swim beaches at Arcadia always look like a trashy mess. I'd rather not allow swimming at Hefner.

This is due to the primary reason for the lakes existance being water supply.
SB

Again, that may be the reason given, but it's not accurate. Arcadia Lake has 3 swim beaches and is used as the water supply for the city of Edmond.

http://www.okctalk.com/gallery/data/500/Jack.JPG

Sorry guys. Looks like more commercial development is already taking place.

Jack, this is absolutely hilarious, but scarey all at the same time.

I think the real reason for no swimming is civil liability. Even this doesn't hold water. No pun intended.

The boat rentals didn't make it due to lack of interest compared to cost to do business. Canoe or kayak rentals would have the same problem. You have to rent a lot of canoes to cover 5 mil. in liability insurance because someone might sue you for not giving them a 100 hour "How to canoe safely" course before a $20 rental.

SB

The boat rentals didn't make it due to lack of interest compared to cost to do business. Canoe or kayak rentals would have the same problem. You have to rent a lot of canoes to cover 5 mil. in liability insurance because someone might sue you for not giving them a 100 hour "How to canoe safely" course before a $20 rental.

Agreed. I actually looked up what it would take to start a canoe/kayak rental business and it the ROI just isn't there for this area. Perhaps, it might work out if it were combined with a multi-sport rental/repair/sales shop.

I think that any more development on the lake should be very carefully considered. We have lots of good places for commercial development. Maybe Lake Hefner should remain a mostly recreational destination. The land to the south of the lake has some small tributaries and lots of trees and in my opinion it should not be touched, except maybe a few more trails or picnic areas. The land to the north of the lake has some of the best mountain biking trails in the state and it should remain city owned parkland, although I wouldn't be opposed to some recreation-related commercial development or other improvements. Besides, there is no view of the lake from this area, so it doesn't really make the best location for hotels or restaurants/shops. I guess they'd have the view of those fish hatchery ponds.

I'm all for high density hotels, residences, and offices in a concentrated area on the east shore. They could work the recreational trails through it along the shore. The commercial and retail establishments would flourish because of the recreational facilities- the recreation facilities would flourish because of increased traffic. Winwin, unless you don't want it to happen.

This is a prime area for OKC and if it were to be developed it would need to be planned VERY carefully, moreso than any previous development. For instance, Site A for a hotel, site b and d for office highrises, and site c for a high-end multiunit residential development, no building within 20 feet of the shore...

it would need to be planned VERY carefully

Let Randy Hogan take care of it. I'm sure he can handle this one. He's an excellent planner, don't ya think?

Yeah, Hogan's definitely the man for this job. [sarcasm]

I was being sarcastic as well.

If we leave Lake Hefner in its current state, and show Charles Barkley, it will most likely boost his opinion that OKC is vast wasteland.

The YMCA Sailing Center is about to expand and build a new facility on the adjacent peninsula, at least once they get the funding together. Maybe the city can help them out?

The YMCA Sailing Center is about to expand and build a new facility on the adjacent peninsula, at least once they get the funding together. Maybe the city can help them out?

Why should the city help them out? I'm tired of the city helping out private companies.

If we leave Lake Hefner in its current state, and show Charles Barkley, it will most likely boost his opinion that OKC is vast wasteland.

What in the world does that mean? If I saw a lake with parks and trails and trees around it, alond with some nice restaurants, marinas, etc, I would in no way consider that a vast wasteland.

This is a vast wasteland:

http://notquite.net/photos/the_move/slides/badlands%201.jpg

Look at the east side of Lake Hefner. You see a pile of rocks stacked up along the banks. Looks like the sides of a ditch. How natural and beautiful- NOT! Trees on the east side are very small. The east side of the lake is very flat. No scenery at all.

http://notquite.net/photos/the_move/slides/badlands%201.jpg

Pour a little water in there and you have the east banks of Lake Hefner.

I can see where you're coming from Jack. Comparing Lake Hefner to a nicely wooded lake like Grand Lake is like comparing night to day. Honestly, I've never thought Lake Hefner was all that pretty. Butit is pretty cool to have a large lake in the middle of the city.