Probably one of the most exciting things Edmond has ever done.

“ Edmond City Council Adopts Tree Preservation Ordinances
At the March 8th City Council meeting, the council unanimously passed the community’s first ordinances for tree preservation in new residential developments. These ordinances will shape how future residential developments are carried out when it comes to removal and planting of trees on undeveloped land.

The major change requires that when a neighborhood is designed, at least 20% of the area will be set aside for tree preservation and open space. If there are no trees to be preserved, the planting of trees will be required. The area that is set aside will become a common area for all future property owners within the neighborhood.

A companion ordinance was developed to allow tree removals once a plan that complies with the design standards has been approved. Prior to that, the removal of trees from some undeveloped areas will be prohibited.

“I’m impressed with the big picture sense of community of the stakeholders,” said Director of Community Image Ryan Ochsner. “Throughout the three-plus year process there was respect, understanding, and sometimes compromise from all involved. The result is a set of standards that is right for Edmond and will touch the daily lives of many residents as they have the opportunity to live next to part of the historic Cross Timbers forest.”

This topic was identified several years ago by the City Council and their desire to support optimal amounts of tree canopy. The Urban Forestry Commission and City of Edmond Community Image staff began working on the ordinances in 2017 with a multitude of community stakeholders that included residents, local developers, designers and elected officials. Before the City Council vote, the fully vetted ordinances received a positive recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, Urban Forestry Commission, Development Impact Review Committee and the Edmond Planning Commission.”

- https://www.edmondok.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=815

I wish this was passed about 20 yrs ago.

This is great. Maybe OKC will follow suit.

Excellent news.

Will make it more expensive for lots but the quality of life will also improve as well.

I wish this was passed about 20 yrs ago.

Amen! But better late than never!

i think the intentions are good but i guess property rights is a sore issue with me. i assume edmond is like okc in that it also requires new developments to have a retention pond. so, any property owner who wants to develop their land has to set aside a portion for that and now another 20% for this. from the homeowner perspective, it's another step that ensures any new neighborhood will be governed by an hoa which is a hassle and expense not every consumer wants... and since 20% of the land now requires hoa maintenance, you can bet that hoa dues for these new neighborhoods will be much higher. don't get me wrong, i wish we planted and/or preserved more trees but my feeling is that there are unintended consequences here.

i think the intentions are good but i guess property rights is a sore issue with me. i assume edmond is like okc in that it also requires new developments to have a retention pond. so, any property owner who wants to develop their land has to set aside a portion for that and now another 20% for this. from the homeowner perspective, it's another step that ensures any new neighborhood will be governed by an hoa which is a hassle and expense not every consumer wants... and since 20% of the land now requires hoa maintenance, you can bet that hoa dues for these new neighborhoods will be much higher. don't get me wrong, i wish we planted and/or preserved more trees but my feeling is that there are unintended consequences here.

At least it only applies to residential developments, where you do have the ability to design around trees. If this applied to commercial developments, it would certainly make many developments impossible. The numbers wouldnt work and projects wouldnt happen. So at least they stopped from going too far with it.

At least it only applies to residential developments, where you do have the ability to design around trees. If this applied to commercial developments, it would certainly make many developments impossible. The numbers wouldnt work and projects wouldnt happen. So at least they stopped from going too far with it.

I know a handful of commercial developers who simply refuse to consider any project in Edmond. Between the rampant Nimbyism and the existing zoning/landscaping requirements, it’s just a lot easier to get things done and earn your returns in OKC.

No coincidence that Costco / Chisholm Creek / etc. ended up in OKC.

All these critical comments just prove that many Okies just want whatever is cheap, not what is done right. We SAY we want to compete with the nicer communities in the country, but we just can spend a dime to do it and we can't make any rules that insure it. SMH. We aren't blessed with beautiful hills and backgrounds of oceans or mountains, but we still won't apply any standards that help make our communities more livable. Cheap, cheap, cheap. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

^^^^ +100000

All these critical comments just prove that many Okies just want whatever is cheap, not what is done right. We SAY we want to compete with the nicer communities in the country, but we just can spend a dime to do it and we can't make any rules that insure it. SMH. We aren't blessed with beautiful hills and backgrounds of oceans or mountains, but we still won't apply any standards that help make our communities more livable. Cheap, cheap, cheap. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

I don't think that's specifically an Okie problem, that's just the general suburban operating procedure.

Martin, I might be wrong but I was under the impression from attending lots of Edmond Planning commission meetings that the storm water retention requirements are not just an Edmond thing but has to do with federal laws. The city is trying to stay out of trouble with the feds on this.

Martin, I might be wrong but I was under the impression from attending lots of Edmond Planning commission meetings that the storm water retention requirements are not just an Edmond thing but has to do with federal laws. The city is trying to stay out of trouble with the feds on this.

i imagine you're right in that the requirements are coming from the federal level. however, i would think that municipalities aren't locked into any particular strategy to meet those requirements. in other words, i don't think the epa specifically mandates that new commercial/residential developments each have their own dedicated water retention structures, just that storm water runoff be adequately managed according to the regulation.

obviously these structures cost money to build and maintain and many municipalities have chosen to shift the cost from the taxpayer to the developer. honestly, this might be the most 'equitable' strategy to choose... but my point is that it does have consequences in that it forces many property owners to be subject to the regulation of a private entity such as an hoa.

As someone who is on our HOA board everyone hates us until they need us :) We actually have a pond like this next to our neighborhood at 150th and Western. We've added sidewalks, pergolas, and seating around it to make it more enjoyable for the neighbors.

Needing a HOA lolollollololol

As someone who is on our HOA board everyone hates us until they need us :) We actually have a pond like this next to our neighborhood at 150th and Western. We've added sidewalks, pergolas, and seating around it to make it more enjoyable for the neighbors.

i know i'm probably coming across as "hoa's are the devil!!!111" and that's certainly not my intention. i live in a community with an hoa and have had zero problems. my only issue is that a person wanting to buy a new house is pretty much locked into having to be in an hoa-controlled community.

i know i'm probably coming across as "hoa's are the devil!!!111" and that's certainly not my intention. i live in a community with an hoa and have had zero problems. my only issue is that a person wanting to buy a new house is pretty much locked into having to be in an hoa-controlled community.

People in neighborhoods are glad to take the added value HOA can bring, but quick to criticize. If the residents would actually take the time to volunteer to serve and to show up to meetings with well thought out and supported ideas, they would find it a good way to influence and get much of what they want. It is like with most of governance ... easy to criticize, especially by those who don't actually participate and know why and how they work. Living in a great community requires some give and take as you don't get EVERYTHING you want.

The HOA in my neighborhood is great as are the officers. They contracted with a management company who took on that NAZI attitude and adherance to bylaws and was promptly fired.

Rover is correct in that you need to get involved and know the HOA officers so you can decide for yourself if these are the right people for the job. If they are, the HOA will help enhance the value of your property. The only major problem we've had are with a couple of residents who made changes on their homes without getting HOA approval.

As for Martin's comment, buyers should absolutely be informed if a home has an HOA. Let the buyer beware, otherwise. It only takes one purple and pink house or, as l had next-door for a while years ago, one hand-painted POS car spray-painted with "f*** Bush" all over it to destroy your own investment.

It is mandatory that if you put an offer in on a home with an HOA both sides have to sign the "single family mandatory HOA doc" that states the seller has to provide you with all bylaws, ccrs, ect within 5 days of accepted contract. If you don't like any of the language in those then you can bail and get your earnest money back.

I dont live in a neighborhood. I would not get along good with a hoa. I would not be painting my house to ggo along with the others. I am Serb and like bright colors. I also garden and front lawn would be a veggie garden. I would be an hoa's worst nightmare.

I dont live in a neighborhood. I would not get along good with a hoa. I would not be painting my house to ggo along with the others. I am Serb and like bright colors. I also garden and front lawn would be a veggie garden. I would be an hoa's worst nightmare.

A lot of people aren't compatible for many reasons. That's why most neighborhoods don't have them.

Honestly too lazy to start a new thread but this does kinda fall in line with preserving trees so I’ll put it here. I wasn’t aware of this but Edmond is proposing or considering it’s first nature park/preserve. They posted a survey here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EdmondNaturePark?fbclid=IwAR1Vs_hNkz_XiKHysMbcaNfx Kk40t7-n-WI69rWsLW119GeXtWyGkZLvOhs

^^ Here's an article/news bit about it from a few weeks back, but it's rather shy on details (or to be specific, there aren't any details to be had yet).

https://kfor.com/news/local/city-of-edmond-surveying-residents-about-possible-first-nature-park/

I would love something like Martin Nature Park in Edmond. It doesn’t look like there will be many places to put one other than East or NE part of the city. There is a big plot of land it looks like at 33rd and directly west of I-35.

Buy the land up just south of Hafer park and invest a bunch of money into fixing up the park and turning part of it into a nature preserve? That would be one way to settle all the Spring Creek fights.

In all likelihood, I expect it would be somewhere east of I-35.

I had thought about converting Hafer as well but I thought that would receive pushback.