Edmond Exchange for Nov. 29 | News OK (http://newsok.com/edmond-exchange-for-nov.-29/article/5371247)

I hadn't heard about this until I went to my parents house for Thanksgiving, and saw all the signs on all the lawns. I'm sure I'll get called a NIMBY but for the life of me I can't figure out why this is even being considered...

This is what really gets me.


Due to the narrow private streets, even with the no-parking fire lane strictly enforced, solid waste trucks would not be able to maneuver inside the addition because there is no opportunity for turning the vehicle and backing movements are not appropriate, Schiermeyer said. Emergency vehicles also could not maneuver as they need to, although there will be fire hydrants in the addition, Schiermeyer said.

What they are wanting to do is put the dumpsters on the Fink park land. I also saw elsewhere that this construction would require new sewage lines that would run through part of Fink Park and would require removal of some trees. So not only are they wanting to cram 18 units onto a 1-2 acre lot, they want special exceptions for emergency vehicles, and they want to use city land for their trash?

Fink Park is a beautiful (if small) park, and is a core part of the running trails. Where they're wanting to build these units is already crowded and that park services the neighborhood kids (the playground is on the neighborhood side of the park). Increased traffic right there, on top of what the damage this could do to the park, would cause some safety concerns for folks living in the neighborhood.

I really like the proposed development and hope it happens. There are plenty of developments like it in other cities and somehow they managed to do it, I'm sure we can. Perhaps this is too urban and progressive for Edmond.

When I get home, I'll upload the proposed development and explain what can be done.

My question is, does it have to be on that spot, in a way that is not safe, and will damage/abuse a city park?

I also am not sure I agree with the "urban and progressive" description. I don't have a problem with the development in general (again, if it could be done without getting exceptions and exemptions), but it's 18 stand alone units packed into a 1 acre lot. This seems closer to a mobile home development than anything "urban and progressive".

My question is, does it have to be on that spot, in a way that is not safe, and will damage/abuse a city park?
I honestly don't know. Have you seen the layout yet? It's been continued a couple times and I'm betting it doesn't get passed. I'm on my mobile pine taking a break from all my school finals, but I'll post the development soon.

I honestly don't know. Have you seen the layout yet? It's been continued a couple times and I'm betting it doesn't get passed. I'm on my mobile pine taking a break from all my school finals, but I'll post the development soon.

Yeah, I have seen it (assuming it hasn't gotten changed since the initial proposal). One other thing I didn't like is that it seems to depend on Fink Park for parking.

So I did some research here, and re-looked it. There is dedicated parking.


8. Two garage spaces will be provided per unit but not all garages will be attached
9. Some guest parking is available

Furthermore, there is even some guest parking. I don't mind a couple cars being parked at the Fink parking and I rarely ever see that lot full.

Here are a couple photos to give an idea about the development.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/1412309_10204352242558699_2446304169270441342_o.jp g

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/10835156_10204352242478697_5779912816758255929_o.j pg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/10620027_10204352242518698_5796583061289063614_o.j pg

My thoughts: it doesn't hurt the park at all and, in fact, will compliment it. More people=more activity. This looks to be a quality mini-urban development(something I think we need more of) and I don't think it will attract a bad crowd. I actually think this will deter any malicious activity.

The garbage issue is very simple. Supply containers to each residence, have a maintenance guy in a utility vehicle go around collect it during trash day and put it in the dumpster.

As for the emergency vehicles, ambulances and police cars should be able to navigate it fine. They are able to in a bunch of other cities with tight turns and corners. As far as firetrucks: there are fire hydrants and they can back the trucks in if needed. It isn't hard. Again, plenty of other cities manage to do this somehow. There are places in Europe where a golf cart would have a hard time managing to turn around, yet millions of people live in those sorts of places. I think it can be done.

Will be interesting to see what happens, but I won't be surprised if it gets turned down, and I expect that will be the case.

I just thought this was a really cute little development and depending on the build quality, could be really nice and something Edmond doesn't have. Ever since you posted about the Agenda and minutes the city posts online(thank you for that by the way), I have been checking it weekly and I was really surprised when I saw this proposal.

Here are two different PDF forms if anyone wants to see them:

http://agenda.edmondok.com:8085/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=12&get_year=2014&dsp=agm&seq=5974&rev=0&ag=1280&ln=27980&nseq=5975&nrev=0&pseq=5973&prev=0#


The October 31, 2014 PUD Design Statement attached is a revision from the original submittal. The Fire Department has been working with the parameters of the PUD Design Statement to evaluate the accessibility issues. At this point the Solid Waste Vehicles cannot access off the public street of Park Place into the project because of limitations. Based on all the operational conditions, the Fire access is still not adequate.

Attorney Todd McKinnis is representing Spring Creek Community Partners, LLC, and is requesting 1.997 acres east of Park Place to be zoned to allow 18 living units. This PUD would provide for single family detached units but the applicant would be requesting setback variances as part of the PUD to situate the two story structures on the individual lots. Streets will be private and have been increased to 22 foot paving instead of the 20 foot described on item number 8 of the PUD Design Statement. The development will be served with full public utilities and there would be drainage detention provided for in the northeast corner of the parcel. The OSBI Forensic Science Center is located to the northeast, Fink Park is located to the northwest, the Park Place Addition is located to the west and the Clegern Place Addition is located to the south and southwest.


The developer will need to request approval from the City Council for connection to the utilities which are offsite for this development to the north. The City Council will also have to approve Solid Waste service in Fink Park as proposed by the owner. The preliminary plat cannot be considered until the zoning is approved. The overall density is 9.04 units per acre. This density would be slightly above “B” Two family or duplex; the “C-2” multi-family district allows 12 units per acre. The lowest density multi-family “C-1” allows 8.7 units per acre. The minimum lot size for the addition is planned for 1560 square feet. The homes would range from 1200 square feet to 2200 square feet. The homeowner association will maintain the following: Private streets, curbs, gutter and driveways.
Detention area and all drainage structures. There will be a common dumpster enclosure located on Park Place with residents walking their trash to this location. Enforcement of “No Parking” in the fire lanes. Common areas and all improvements related thereto. Detached garage buildings and any other common structures, including fences and community building.


Due to the narrow private streets, even with the “no parking in the fire lane” strictly enforced, the solid waste trucks will not be able to maneuver inside the addition because there is no opportunity for turning the vehicle, backing movements are not appropriate. Emergency vehicles can also not maneuver as they need to, although there will be fire hydrants within the addition.

http://agenda.edmondok.com:8085/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=12&get_year=2014&dsp=agm&seq=5973&rev=0&ag=1280&ln=27979&nseq=5974&nrev=0&pseq=5972&prev=0#ReturnTo27979

As far as backing fire apparatus in. Not good. I could put T-1 in a location with a one inch clearance on each side but the problem is you don't want to make an exposure out of a million dollars of fire apparatus. Another issue is having the space to pull off the attack lines from the engine. You just have to have the space for your 200" lines to lay out and not kink. Been there, done that. Not fun. Also when units are tightly spaced, the other units become exposures. You have to have the space to get in there and protect them. We already have a few areas that I'm glad never burned when I was on duty.

As far as backing fire apparatus in. Not good. I could put T-1 in a location with a one inch clearance on each side but the problem is you don't want to make an exposure out of a million dollars of fire apparatus. Another issue is having the space to pull off the attack lines from the engine. You just have to have the space for your 200" lines to lay out and not kink. Been there, done that. Not fun. Also when units are tightly spaced, the other units become exposures. You have to have the space to get in there and protect them. We already have a few areas that I'm glad never burned when I was on duty.Well, I'll just have to wonder then how it's done in other cities that have extremely dense developments with narrow roads. I do know these are only one story and if a fire would occur, coupled with today's fire-resistant building materials, could probably be managed pretty quickly.

I'm assuming you're a firefighter, so I'm not going to argue with you about what can and can't be done with the vehicles, but I was thinking a large fire truck would probably not be necessary here. The only real concern in my book would be an ambulance navigating the area.

I'm a retired firefighter. (28 yrs paid and 5 yr vol) 23 yrs of it as a fire apparatus driver. As far as not needing large engines. That won't work. We have engines, a ladder truck and a rescue, plus tankers for areas without hydrants and brush pumpers for wild land fires. On occupied structures in areas with hydrants the response at least 2 engines, the truck and the rescue and the batt chief (shift commander) Its not that you always need so much equipment but you need the manpower. We take our equipment with us. If we don't need all the man power it can be sent back. Better too much then too little. I hope if it does get built that they will put in a residential fire sprinkler system.

One other little point, I'm a women. I also have a AS and a BS degrees in Fire Protection and Industrial Safety. So Yah I can talk a bit about emergency response. I'm trying not to brag, sorry. Just saying, been there, done that.

18 on Park Place - The Community (http://www.18onparkplace.com)

That's awesome.

One other little point, I'm a women. I also have a AS and a BS degrees in Fire Protection and Industrial Safety. So Yah I can talk a bit about emergency response. I'm trying not to brag, sorry. Just saying, been there, done that.

No it's cool I'm not going to argue with you on that then because you seem like you know your stuff when it comes to that and I don't, so I'm going to believe you.

So I just checked their website in full. It first says the neighborhood is designed for people not cars. Something Edmond needs more of. This also looks to he of great quality and I fully support this. I will post more later.

http://www.18onparkplace.com/uploads/4/2/5/1/42514055/1491073_orig.jpg

http://www.18onparkplace.com/uploads/4/2/5/1/42514055/1899417_orig.jpg


Important Community Features
Three uniquely-programmed common areas that each have 5-7 homes clustered around them.
A well-manicured central green where children playing tag and adults enjoying conversation over a glass of wine are both welcome.
Small, well-designed luxury homes ranging in size from just over 1,400 SF to 2,200 SF.
Shared community building - perfect for card games, grilling out, or birthday parties on the lawn.
Detached, single-bay garages for homes without an attached two-car garage.
Preservation of existing mature trees whenever possible, including a 56" elm near the Central Green.
Community amenities such as a fire pit, outdoor grill, bike repair station, and raised gardening area.
Access to the Arcadia Running Trail, which passes just feet from the northwest corner of the community.
Proximity to Fink Park, just steps to the northwest of the site.
Usable, full depth front porches that foster conversation and community.
Wooded forest along the northern and eastern community boundaries (city-owned land).

The developer:

http://www.18onparkplace.com/uploads/4/2/5/1/42514055/1415760248.png

Lance Humphreys

I make my living in "front porch" towns that are built for people, not for cars - places that celebrate simplicity, beauty, sustainability, and community - places like Seaside, Seabrook, and Carlton Landing. As a 20 year resident of Edmond I believe that now is the time to connect a great town and great people with new thinking about the neighborhoods we build. 18 on Park Place is one small but important part of a story about how Edmond and the Greater Oklahoma City area could become a leader in the new American lifestyle.

--------------------------


Future Scenes from 18 on Park Place
When we picture 18 on Park Place three years from now, we see things like...

It's a beautiful September evening and everyone is gathered for the Thursday night community potluck. It's build your own pizza night and the kids think it's so fun to use ingredients fresh from the community garden. John Rankin, a professor at UCO, has become the resident expert at turning out perfect pies from the outdoor community pizza oven.

Several of the cyclists in the community are geared up and headed out on the trail for their weekly ride. It's a 25 mile loop from their backyard around Lake Arcadia and back on the Edmond Multi-Use Trail. Heather Timberlane loves to serve cold drinks on her porch for the returning riders.

Sarah Jackson has lived in the Cleghern area for 30 years. 18 on Park Place has given her the opportunity to stay in the neighborhood yet downsize to a smaller, well-appointed house - but without the yard to maintain! She loves living so close to other seniors but also the young families. She feels safe, taken care of, and just loves to sit out on her porch to greet the neighborhood kids walking home from Cleghern Elementary.

Jessica and Laura send the kids to school then set out on their Friday morning "loop." They walk to Cafe Evoke, have coffee and catch up, then hit Sprouts Market on the way home - just because they can.

The Jennings' grandson is in a bluegrass band. Every year they host a "bluegrass and bar-b-que" night for the community. The music, food, and laughter make for an almost perfect evening.

Brad and Joanna Kickingbird never really thought they would move. They raised their kids in northeast Edmond. A friend told them about 18 on Park Place and they went to check it out on a whim. Joanna always dreamed of a front-porch house. They both loved the idea of looking at a park, not a street. The idea of a shared green space sounded great compared to a Saturday of yard work. Now they regularly walk to arts and sporting events at UCO and enjoy date nights at Cafe 501.

This is what is known as a pocket neighborhood. First time I've heard of it, but I like it!


What is a Pocket Neighborhood?
Although there are historical precedents for compact communities like 18 on Park Place that date back to the 1920s and 1930s, pocket neighborhoods as they currently exist began gaining popularity in the Pacific Northwest in the late 1990s. These "neighborhoods within a neighborhood" are generally described as clustered groups of homes that orient around a shared green space. This orientation fosters a clear sense of territory and shared stewardship while creating relationship building opportunities and protecting privacy.

"It is the opportunities for informal interactions that allow people to get to know their neighbors, and it is these interactions that provide the roots for true community to flourish."
- Sarah Susanka, author of "The Not So Big House"

-------------------

Why here?

We believe that Edmond is ready for this type of community. We also believe that Oklahoma needs more neighborhoods where people have the option to walk or drive to nearby restaurants, schools, grocery stores, and civic amenities like libraries and parks. After evaluating many sites in our quest to develop the state's first pocket neighborhood, we ultimately decided that central Edmond - and specifically the area around the Cleghern neighborhood - provided greater access to amenities within a 5 or 10 minute walk than almost anywhere in the Oklahoma City metro area.

We feel certain that this site is not only the right place for 18 on Park Place, but that the project will enhance the existing neighborhood through a pleasing aesthetic, increased property values, and new neighbors who care deeply about the future of Edmond.

http://www.18onparkplace.com/uploads/4/2/5/1/42514055/8390771_orig.jpg

I wonder what JTF thinks of this... I really like it. I know I'm being a bit redundant, but gawd I hope this gets built! Will be really cool.

Hello everyone. I am one of the developers of this project and would be happy to answer any questions about 18 on Park Place. The project is slated to go before the Edmond Planning Commission on Jan. 20th.

When Lance and I set out to develop a "pocket neighborhood," we spent a good deal of time looking for the right piece of land within an existing neighborhood that would be a 5 or 10 minute walk from many of Edmond's best amenities (library, UCO, Jazz Lab, Sprouts, Evoke Coffee, etc.). Unlike most developers, we didn't acquire the land and then think, "how do we squeeze the most money out of this property?" We both worked on the Carlton Landing project on Lake Eufaula and had the opportunity to visit many highly-regarded traditional neighborhood developments that focus on people rather than cars. It has proven difficult to garner support for such a concept (a neighborhood that de-emphasizes vehicles). We hired what we believe to be one of the best small neighborhood architecture/planning firms in the county - Home (http://www.unionstudioarch.com). A very similar project they did in Massachusetts has won numerous accolades, including "Community of the Year" by Builder magazine.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation - both intentionally and unintentionally distributed - on the project. So let me start with a few big points:

- These will be for-sale, fee-simple homes, not apartments, not condos.
- The price point will not erode surrounding home values. We expect homes to be priced at a PSF price of around $170. The thirty closest homes average around $105 PSF.
- We don't see solar access and privacy as an issue. These homes are only 1.5 stories tall and are "nested" together to provide each home with privacy despite the density. This is a key design feature.
- Utilities, guest parking, and trash collection will all be handled on-site after a few small tweaks to the site plan.
- Fink Park will not be damaged. This is the last thing we want and the proximity to park (as well as the Arcadia trail) was one of the biggest reasons we were attracted to this site.

Ultimately, this project is about creating community and offering a lifestyle that we don't believe is available in Edmond today. Please feel to post any questions and I will do my best to answer them.

I wish you the best of luck! I really want to see more of these kind of projects around Edmond and OKC entirely.

Are you doing residential fire sprinklers in the homes? This would help as far as lifesafety. The times that I ran on a building with fire sprinklers (residential,) they held damage to minimal. Just asking if that was thought of.

One thing related. It would be nice if someone would develop more high end patio homes (detatched) with lawn maintenance for active seniors.

I wish you the best of luck! I really want to see more of these kind of projects around Edmond and OKC entirely.

Thank you. I wish more of the surrounding neighbors shared your (and our) enthusiasm. We would hope to do more around the OKC metro in the event that this one is successful. We believe that if we can get the project entitled, it will be very well-received by potential buyers.

oklip995:

Yes. We have discussed residential fire sprinklers with the Fire Dept. At least a few of the homes (and perhaps more) will be sprinkled in the event that we get the opportunity to move forward. Life safety is of the greatest importance (both fire and ambulance).

Regarding patio homes. I am not sure what qualifies as a patio home, but it is expected that the HOA will handle all lawn maintenance. These communities have been very popular across the country with a few different buyer segments:

1) Down-sizing baby boomers who no longer need a 3,000 SF home and would rather have a well-designed, nice 1,700 SF home amongst a community of neighbors. Lock and leave type of situation in the event that travel is priority (with friends nearby to feed the dog and check on things).

2) Young families that value a front-porch community with shared green-spaces where their kids can safely play (rather than in the street with vehicles).

3) Older singles (divorcees, single moms, those who simply decided never to get married) who value walk-ability and the opportunity to gather with neighbors for a glass of wine or cup of coffee on the weekends.

Thank you. I wish more of the surrounding neighbors shared your (and our) enthusiasm. We would hope to do more around the OKC metro in the event that this one is successful. We believe that if we can get the project entitled, it will be very well-received by potential buyers.Yeah, I am confident Edmond is slowly becoming a more progressive city. I do think when your development is approved(I bet it will be) that when built, the people who opposed it will like it and understand it better.

Just read this plan was pulled. It's too bad. Thought this would have been a great development for Edmond.

Just read this plan was pulled. It's too bad. Thought this would have been a great development for Edmond.

Do you have a link or anything? I'd love to confirm this.

NVM - just saw confirmation on the Edmond Sun website. :Smiley051

I want to read confirmation before I post what I'm about to post.

Do you have a link or anything? I'd love to confirm this.
Of course you would, Jerry. I knew from the f#cking second I read about the proposed development, you would be against it.

I would be very interest if you would find an hour or two to go back several months, go through every city council minute log, and provide a link to me of all the developments you approved of. I'll return the favor if you do.

Of course you would, Jerry. I knew from the f#cking second I read about the proposed development, you would be against it.

I would be very interest if you would find an hour or two to go back several months, go through every city council minute log, and provide a link to me of all the developments you approved of. I'll return the favor if you do.

No thanks. There are plenty I'm in favor of though. In fact, the ones I don't like are very, very, rare.

No thanks. There are plenty I'm in favor of though. In fact, the ones I don't like are very, very, rare.That's pretty much what I thought. I have a good idea of what you were for and what you weren't.

I had a huge post written out, one that probably would've gotten me banned, but I'm not going to post it, instead, I'm going to leave it at I'm extremely disappointing in this city and I completely give up.

I will never post in the Edmond subsection again.

If that's what you thought why did you ask me for a list? I imagine our overlap is pretty high on the projects we like. I just don't understand the point you were going for. Sometimes I wonder if you're on something when you post. :)

BTW - This is the confirmation I found, in case anyone is interested...

Edmond Planning Commission 1-20-15 - The Edmond Sun: Meeting Agendas (http://www.edmondsun.com/news/meeting_agendas/edmond-planning-commission/article_62792720-9bfb-11e4-9cc7-d330724f40ca.html)

There is an actual article on the oklahoman.com, but it requires a password so not sure all what information it gives (such if they are going to try in a different location)...

Application for controversial Edmond development is withdrawn | News OK (http://newsok.com/application-for-controversial-edmond-development-is-withdrawn/article/5384411)

If that's what you thought why did you ask me for a list? I imagine our overlap is pretty high on the projects we like. I just don't understand the point you were going for. Sometimes I wonder if you're on something when you post. :)I don't do drugs. I barely drink.

I don't do drugs. I barely drink.

I just know I often get confused reading your posts. Maybe I'm the one on something.

I just know I often get confused reading your posts. Maybe I'm the one on something.Sorry man. I'm not sure how else to word my posts better. It is hard for me to put things in words regarding how I feel about something.

I think the concept of this is fine. I just did not think it was the right location. Hopefully there will be more like it coming soon. I like living on a acreage but I know that there are others who don't. Just saying there needs to be a variety of housing options.

Great development in a great location. Too bad for Edmond. Their loss.

I don't know how we'll survive...

huskysooner: Do you have any interest or plans to develop in the Wheeler District? I am disappointed that Edmond could not embrace this concept but am confident that urban Oklahoma City is ripe and ready.

I'm sure Edmond could embrace this concept, if it's done in a different area.

Still not sure why the area was not ideal, besides the neighbors. It is the most historic, traditional neighborhood in Edmond in close proximity to a park and trails.

Still not sure why the area was not ideal, besides the neighbors. It is the most historic, traditional neighborhood in Edmond in close proximity to a park and trails.

Because it required rezoning a single residence property into a PUD, required putting dumpsters on park property, required running sewage through public park property, and would drastically increase traffic in front of one of Edmond's oldest parks. And it's not like Edmond is short of developable land. It also wouldn't meet normal fire and safety requirements, and they were asking for exceptions to those rules.

Not sure how 18 new residences would drastically increase traffic other than more people actually using the park. This kind of development has been done all over the country and world. Urban OKC is ready for this even though Edmond is not.

It's unfortunate to see a great project in my hometown killed by a misinformation campaign. Husky is a great guy and this would have been a first-class development and unlike anything in Edmond. I have a feeling we'll be hearing more from him in the future...

Not sure how 18 new residences would drastically increase traffic other than more people actually using the park. This kind of development has been done all over the country and world. Urban OKC is ready for this even though Edmond is not.

A single small road leading to 18 new residences wouldn't increase traffic?

It's unfortunate to see a great project in my hometown killed by a misinformation campaign. Husky is a great guy and this would have been a first-class development and unlike anything in Edmond. I have a feeling we'll be hearing more from him in the future...

What misinformation? That's the thing. Most information I've seen is from their own filings with the city. I'd love to hear something otherwise that was missed...

What we really missed out on was the revenue the city would have made towing cars parked at the park after dark. They're pretty aggressive about it at Fink.

I was think of a good location for this project. There is an old brick house with lots of land behind it on Bryant just across the street from the aquadic center. There is a new nursing home next to the property. Anyway, I was thinking that if would be a good transition from singe family to office/etc. Also being across from a large park with walking trails. Near shopping and hopefully on the bus route. The land is most likely already planned for something.

A single small road leading to 18 new residences wouldn't increase traffic? Not drastically, as you said.

Not drastically, as you said.

Great example of Loki's wager. We can niggle over quantification and how much of an increase is too much, but that's going to differ on a persons personal opinion so there is no point once someone starts playing those type of games. Its all moot anyways since this development is dead.

Great example of Loki's wager. We can niggle over quantification and how much of an increase is too much, but that's going to differ on a persons personal opinion so there is no point once someone starts playing those type of games. Its all moot anyways since this development is dead. We can agree to disagree on the perceived negative impact of the project. It is peculiar that Edmond is overly concerned about traffic as the entire town is congested with cars and intersections with cars. Every new development increases traffic within and between the existing neighborhoods.

I don't know how we'll survive...I'm sorry, I know I said I wasn't posting here anymore, but I have to respond to all of this non-sense.

Who is saying we will not survive? All we're saying is Edmond can have better. In the long run, Edmond will lag behind Norman and eventually Yukon, Moore and Mustang. Now, Edmond is already behind Norman. Norman has a much larger population and has more developments going on. You can point to OU being the reason for that, but bottom line is, they have a city council that is more progressive than ours even though they denied a high-density project a year or two ago. No one here is saying Edmond will not survive.

Because it required rezoning a single residence property into a PUD, required putting dumpsters on park property, required running sewage through public park property, and would drastically increase traffic in front of one of Edmond's oldest parks. And it's not like Edmond is short of developable land. It also wouldn't meet normal fire and safety requirements, and they were asking for exceptions to those rules.So lets look at each concern of yours.

First off, what is the issue of rezoning this into a PUD? This will benefit Edmond. This would've raised property values AND provided the city with more tax revenue than than a single residence would.

The dumpsters will be ON SITE "- Utilities, guest parking, and trash collection will all be handled on-site after a few small tweaks to the site plan. " The park will not be affected in anyway.

The park will actually become more lively and safer due to more people living next to it. Parks will built for people, were they not? Do you expect to drive to every park surrounded with single family residences?

Sewage running through park property is interesting. Is there not a current sewage line they can tap into? By running it through you mean running it under? I'm sure plenty of parks have a sewer line running under it. What is the issue again?

Drastically increase traffic? Are seriously telling me 18 new residences is going to drastically increase traffic? The road is going to be barely has any traffic as it is. Have driven around that neighborhood? I drive around Edmond all the time for fun and to see what is going on and every time I'm here there is minimal traffic. Also, you ought to factor in where downtown Edmond is, or now it should be might be, going. The people living in this development are likely going to be geared towards a more active lifestyle. For someone that lives in single family home next to this development that takes a car across the street to UCO, a person in this development is more likely to walk there, thus them choosing this type of living to begin with.

It actually exceeded fire requirements where they planned to place sprinklers in every residence. This isn't going to be a retirement home where an ambulance is going to be there every day. This would have likely been occupied by younger, more healthy and active people seeking an alternative to endless cookie cutter sprawl crap that has been approved all last year with the usual one or two people complaining about increased crime and traffic, but always passed with flying colors.

Edmond is not short of develop-able land and that isn't the point. This location was actually perfect. I couldn't think of a better location for something like this. It is on an existing historic park that will be better utilized with a more active demographic, it is in a low traffic area, it within close proximity to a university, it is close to downtown, it is also close to a medium sized shopping center. I mean there are always a million other places you could put something in the eyes of a million different people.

Great development in a great location. Too bad for Edmond. Their loss.Yeap. I hope the developer takes this too OKC or Norman. I would really the developer collect the info after a year or so that shows no drastic increase in traffic, probably a lower crime rate, if they place it next to a park a noticeable increase in foot traffic traffic, and the additional tax they gained vs. a single family house and mail it to the city of Edmond showing the cost of their ignorance.

It's unfortunate to see a great project in my hometown killed by a misinformation campaign. Husky is a great guy and this would have been a first-class development and unlike anything in Edmond. I have a feeling we'll be hearing more from him in the future...I really hope anything future he does is around downtown OKC or Norman. Deserving towns that are on the brink of greatness.

I don't know Husky, but I'm sure he is a great developer and this really looked to be exactly of what you said.

Great example of Loki's wager. We can niggle over quantification and how much of an increase is too much, but that's going to differ on a persons personal opinion so there is no point once someone starts playing those type of games. Its all moot anyways since this development is dead.So I've seen you use this twice in a fairly short period of time which causes me to think you just discovered this term. I knew nothing about it and went and researched it- this is what I got:
Loki's Wager, a form of logical fallacy, is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed

- Loki's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager)

So how did Krisb's post cause you to think he thought the concept of drastically increased traffic could not be defined? He clearly outlined it and knew what it would take to cause a drastic increase of traffic as he said 18 additional people won't cause a drastically increase to traffic.

Will traffic increase? Sure. A three year could tell you that. Will it drastically increase? No. Who lives in a city like Edmond that constantly has a clusterfuk of traffic and the complains about an additional 18 people moving next door? I mean we a suburb of a major metropolitan area. How do you not expect to have some traffic?

A single small road leading to 18 new residences wouldn't increase traffic?You're now the one pulling the true scottsman debate. You originally said a drastic increase of traffic now you're claiming just an increase.

Traffic will increase. Assuming there is a 100 or so cars that rely on that road to get in and out, on average, that road will see 200 cars a day use it. Now it will be 236 cars a day. Wow. What a drastic increase. About 18 new cars going out and in which amounts to 36 new cars a day and 99% of the time there won't be more than one or two cars traveling the same way at the same time on that road. Like I said, I go on that road all the time, and there has been one or two instances where I've been behind someone or they've been behind me when I was driving on that road.

I was think of a good location for this project. There is an old brick house with lots of land behind it on Bryant just across the street from the aquadic center. There is a new nursing home next to the property. Anyway, I was thinking that if would be a good transition from singe family to office/etc. Also being across from a large park with walking trails. Near shopping and hopefully on the bus route. The land is most likely already planned for something.That is a good location for something like this. Hey, I know, what about, bear with me here, ANOTHER development like this that will again be a better use of the land? How about that.

What misinformation? That's the thing. Most information I've seen is from their own filings with the city. I'd love to hear something otherwise that was missed...
There were people saying these were going to be apartments for rent. That is not true.

There were people saying there was absolutely no fire protection. That is not true.

There were people saying there was no guest parking and guests would have to use the existing parking lot used by the park visitors. That is not true.

There were people saying the proposed development was going to devalue home prices. That is not true.

You yourself posted misinformation claiming the trash collection was going to be off-site on park property. That is not true.

There were people claiming there was going to be an increase of crime and that the park was going to be "molested" by the renters who don't care about the surrounding community. That is not true. The homes that would be for sale were going to have active occupants that would use that park and by having more people watching the park, would have decreased crime.

You sir, are either (a) trolling (b) spreading ignorance (c) have an agenda or bias and purposely lying. The facts are there. Extremely dense cities that are unable to have firetrucks and ambulances go in parts of them are able somehow to survive and take car of what arises, despite of what oklip says, I'm sure there is a way to do it. Perhaps if I get bored tomorrow at work, I'll do some research on it and post how they are able to do it.

I just know I often get confused reading your posts. Maybe I'm the one on something.Just curious: what exactly confuses you about my posts? Perhaps I misspell my words, but I strive to use proper grammar whenever I notice I misspelled something. I am very careful about that and I notice you misspell words all the time. One area where I sometimes have trouble is properly using punctuation. Please let me know whenever that happens or I can't fix it if I don't know I'm doing that.

If you could be specific, that would help.

My replies. I disagree with quite a bit.


There were people saying these were going to be apartments for rent. That is not true.
Can't speak to that... didn't do it or see it.

There were people saying there was absolutely no fire protection. That is not true.
Again, can't speak to this since I never claimed this, nor saw it claimed. I do know it's true that emergency vehicles would be unable to enter the property.

There were people saying there was no guest parking and guests would have to use the existing parking lot used by the park visitors. That is not true.
I didn't see that, but I did see people mention that they wanted to use park parking for overflow parking. That's in their variance request, so that's data from the developers.

There were people saying the proposed development was going to devalue home prices. That is not true.
That's your opinion.

You yourself posted misinformation claiming the trash collection was going to be off-site on park property. That is not true.
Actually, it is true, from every report. Evidently, from their variance request, they were requesting an easement to put the dumpsters on park property. If it's not true, they were the ones lying, or there's a massive lie out there. Feel free to provide evidence of the negative

There were people claiming there was going to be an increase of crime and that the park was going to be "molested" by the renters who don't care about the surrounding community. That is not true. The homes that would be for sale were going to have active occupants that would use that park and by having more people watching the park, would have decreased crime.
Blah blah blah, lots of opinions.

You sir, are either (a) trolling (b) spreading ignorance (c) have an agenda or bias and purposely lying. The facts are there. Extremely dense cities that are unable to have firetrucks and ambulances go in parts of them are able somehow to survive and take car of what arises, despite of what oklip says, I'm sure there is a way to do it. Perhaps if I get bored tomorrow at work, I'll do some research on it and post how they are able to do it.
I'm not even going to justify this