There's a lot to be said for living in a city without neighbors on top and below you while you get to park your car in your own garage, not some distant parking garage. Not everyone, especially in Oklahoma, likes being overly crowed... Many Oklahomans like big houses, big yards, and big trucks (though I can do without the truck) and simply driving to a store of their choice (and being able to park nearby).

It's nothing to do with the soil, Regent Bank just north of here has a small structured garage so I'll grant that this property probably has similar characteristics. Going vertical drastically increases your costs so it's really a numbers game of whether the added benefit (higher valuation via higher rents and monthly parking fees) is commensurate with the elevated costs. My argument is that this makes much more sense, for instance in downtown Edmond (The Oxley), Classen Curve (The Canton) or even Chisolm Creek (Argon). These places already have, or are anticipated to have, substantial density and some form of walkability.

This site is not in a dense or walkable area. If you're going to build 200+ units in Edmond knock yourself out, I'm just saying to do it on a site where the underlying land is best suited for multifamily. In the current environment it's already difficult enough to get more conventional garden-style deals off the ground, so when you account for the added risk, investors would required a higher return which is difficult to achieve right now. Anyway, this site has characteristics that align much closer with retail than multifamily.

I typically disagree firmly with NIMBYs, particularly in Edmond. It's pretty well known by multifamily peeps in the OKC Metro that for MF you want to be OKC city limits but Edmond "Vibe". It's not impossible to do multifamily in Edmond but it is harder to get the appropriate approvals.

I guess we could put another OnCue here, or a fast food joint might make people happy. LOL

Structured parking can be valuable with any multifamily projects. People would prefer to park close and under roof. Why is everyone up in arms about structured parking anywhere but downtown?

I think the question is the cost per square foot for high rise residential and structured parking. Is a parking garage $75-100/ft? And then you build the concrete and steel tower that has to have enhanced water capacity for fire-fighting purposes in a poorly served area? Could this project wind up costing $400-500/ft all in?

I mean, as citizens keep moving there, more services are required. And if Edmond wants more people, then they need to offer more retail/restaurants to get people in.

Yep and right now those services, let’s say public safety are at the max. If citizens want to receive the same service they’ve grown accustomed too, they need to allow the growth to fund the service growth. Right now a city such as Bentonville (half the population, one third the landmass), has the same number of officers on duty and more fire stations than Edmond.

I live in the neighborhood to the west of this proposal. My single-story home that I share with my wife (so just two of us and 3 dogs) is on the same amount of land as this proposed housing for 204 tenants. This area has been the subject of neighborhood controversy for a few years now, mainly the large area north which a few years back had an apartment building proposal defeated due to a strong and organized neighborhood opposition. But this is the parcel of land to the south and it is really small. I wasn't a NIMBY on the last proposal because you can't simply hope that someone's going to develop this area as a zoo or 3 McMansions. I'm undecided if I'll be a NIMBY on this one, I'd rather have an apartment building than an OnCue or another truck stop. The city council agenda from this past Monday was rescheduled to February 4th as the representative for the developer was surprised to see that there was opposition. Looks like someone on that side skipped over some research about this neighborhood's highly organized NIMBY status. Me personally, I'm afraid to see any development because I have grown accustomed to the beauty of the deer that hang out on my front lawn and sometimes stroll down our sidewalks.

I live in the neighborhood to the west of this proposal. My single-story home that I share with my wife (so just two of us and 3 dogs) is on the same amount of land as this proposed housing for 204 tenants. This area has been the subject of neighborhood controversy for a few years now, mainly the large area north which a few years back had an apartment building proposal defeated due to a strong and organized neighborhood opposition. But this is the parcel of land to the south and it is really small. I wasn't a NIMBY on the last proposal because you can't simply hope that someone's going to develop this area as a zoo or 3 McMansions. I'm undecided if I'll be a NIMBY on this one, I'd rather have an apartment building than an OnCue or another truck stop. The city council agenda from this past Monday was rescheduled to February 4th as the representative for the developer was surprised to see that there was opposition. Looks like someone on that side skipped over some research about this neighborhood's highly organized NIMBY status. Me personally, I'm afraid to see any development because I have grown accustomed to the beauty of the deer that hang out on my front lawn and sometimes stroll down our sidewalks.

I believe an oncue is actually planned for somewhere at this exit in their plans over next few years

I believe an oncue is actually planned for somewhere at this exit in their plans over next few years

and the other 3 corners of this intersection are in OKC

I live in the neighborhood to the west of this proposal. My single-story home that I share with my wife (so just two of us and 3 dogs) is on the same amount of land as this proposed housing for 204 tenants. This area has been the subject of neighborhood controversy for a few years now, mainly the large area north which a few years back had an apartment building proposal defeated due to a strong and organized neighborhood opposition. But this is the parcel of land to the south and it is really small. I wasn't a NIMBY on the last proposal because you can't simply hope that someone's going to develop this area as a zoo or 3 McMansions. I'm undecided if I'll be a NIMBY on this one, I'd rather have an apartment building than an OnCue or another truck stop. The city council agenda from this past Monday was rescheduled to February 4th as the representative for the developer was surprised to see that there was opposition. Looks like someone on that side skipped over some research about this neighborhood's highly organized NIMBY status. Me personally, I'm afraid to see any development because I have grown accustomed to the beauty of the deer that hang out on my front lawn and sometimes stroll down our sidewalks.

I get this but please tell me you do realize this is a ridiculous reason to oppose someone building something on land they control? You want to stop others from building on a small piece of land because it might have an effect on the amount of deer that comes by your house? Because if you want to continue that line of thinking, your house must have had an effect on the deer as well, making whoever lived in your area before you possibly seeing less deer too. Maybe your house should have never been built?

Long story short, this is an absurd reason that gives you the idea that you should be have to power to stop the development of a tract of land.

Long story short, this is an absurd reason that gives you the idea that you should be have to power to stop the development of a tract of land.

especially along the I-35 corridor that will soon have 1 way access roads partly because they want to encourage more development

I get this but please tell me you do realize this is a ridiculous reason to oppose someone building something on land they control? You want to stop others from building on a small piece of land because it might have an effect on the amount of deer that comes by your house? Because if you want to continue that line of thinking, your house must have had an effect on the deer as well, making whoever lived in your area before you possibly seeing less deer too. Maybe your house should have never been built?

Long story short, this is an absurd reason that gives you the idea that you should be have to power to stop the development of a tract of land.

That's what you got from my statement? Where did I say that I should have the power to stop this development? I stated that I like to see deer. What the hell is wrong with you?

This past Monday the developer held a public meeting about this project to allow the neighborhoods nearby to voice their concerns. Very NIMBY. IMHO, it all seems a little sketchy to me. I feel as though they're throwing a huge and unattainable project out there hoping that the nearby residents will happily settle for something less. Just my feeling. My favorite part was when the developer Sabid Kalidy stated "There's not a home within 1.5 miles of this project, I looked at it on Google Maps !" The actual distance from this project site to the home at 4606 Karen Dr is 0.2 miles and 430 feet from the home at 5540 E Memorial Rd. If you get a chance to drive by this site just imagine your 10th-story apartment that faces east right with that I-35/I-44 interchange high intensity series of lamps on those high mast poles in your line of site. So far, there has been no talk of a subsidy for black-out curtains.

Karen Dr. being the name of the closest residential street is actually hilarious.

This past Monday the developer held a public meeting about this project to allow the neighborhoods nearby to voice their concerns. Very NIMBY. IMHO, it all seems a little sketchy to me. I feel as though they're throwing a huge and unattainable project out there hoping that the nearby residents will happily settle for something less. Just my feeling. My favorite part was when the developer Sabid Kalidy stated "There's not a home within 1.5 miles of this project, I looked at it on Google Maps !" The actual distance from this project site to the home at 4606 Karen Dr is 0.2 miles and 430 feet from the home at 5540 E Memorial Rd. If you get a chance to drive by this site just imagine your 10th-story apartment that faces east right with that I-35/I-44 interchange high intensity series of lamps on those high mast poles in your line of site. So far, there has been no talk of a subsidy for black-out curtains.

The more I think about it, a project like the proposed project is all Edmond should be allowing on this corridor. It can't entirely be lined with starbucks and sculpture gardens. But the NIMBYism here is so insane. There are folks as far away as NW Edmond who are going nuts about this project. My biggest concerns would be regarding infrastructure--this is on the edge of town--what will it cost to get adequate water and sewer out there and who is going to pay? If there is any kind of TIF, I'd be very against it. In principle though, I don't really mind it, and while I'm not on Karen Dr., I'm pretty close to that.

As I've said before, I have a hard time believing that someone who has done very little commercial development has figured out a way to construct a 10-story residential building with structured parking in a very suburban area when nobody has been able to crack this nut in the core -- even with ample TIF awards available -- for the last 60 years.

There are reasons new-construction housing downtown never goes above 6 levels and to go only slightly higher means you have a lot more cost without gaining that many units.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

If you drive around this part of town, Kalidy's name is emblazoned on almost every single vacant lot. It may not be so much a business thing as an ego thing.

If you drive around this part of town, Kalidy's name is emblazoned on almost every single vacant lot. It may not be so much a business thing as an ego thing.

He’s been underestimated a lot.

Here's the latest on this project from the developers' attorney's office:

Good afternoon,
This email is to advise that we are withdrawing this PUD application to assess this site and the proposed development. We will reach back out in the near future with revised plans.

Retail strip center with a weed store, liquor store, and a Chinese take -out restaurant. What Edmond deserves.

Here's the latest on this project from the developers' attorney's office:

Good afternoon,
This email is to advise that we are withdrawing this PUD application to assess this site and the proposed development. We will reach back out in the near future with revised plans.

This was never feasible in the first place.

It's all very strange.

This was never feasible in the first place.

It's all very strange.

It definitely was a strange proposal from someone with no experience building something of that magnitude. That said, I would welcome them having the opportunity to try it with their own money. It was in the far corner of Edmond city limits next to an interstate, it wasnt going to harm Edmond or residents. I at least give him credit for making NIMBYs waste their time and effort for a little bit, maybe they'll get tired of trying to tell everyone what they should build on land they own/control.

^^^ lol they won’t get tired. That’s what they live for.

Folks in Edmond are going to fight anything which doesn't fit what the community already mostly consists of--suburban homes on big lots with large setbacks. This is 1.5 acres of land which might host 500+ residents. It doesn't fit at all with what the rest of the community consists of. There are million dollar homes within 1/2 mile of this location. You'd better believe folks are going to fight it.

I know I am late on this but Edmond is one of the fastest growing cities in the state. They need to build up imo

I know I am late on this but Edmond is one of the fastest growing cities in the state. They need to build up imo

Their tax structure really doesn't make that a great idea.

From an infrastructure standpoint, I imagine that both water and electric and trash (all provided by the City) would need substantial upgrades in that area to support a development like this, and aside from revenue from usage, Edmond just handily voted down a pretty conservative GO bond package which was mostly widening roads in already developed areas (and one undeveloped area). Edmond is also very largely undeveloped east of I-35 and as a city, it still has tons of room to grow. I drive by this lot pretty frequently and it's no natural preserve. There's a lone bank ATM, some cedar trees and a grove of scrubby oaks. It sits next to the remains of the foundations of the old DOT sign plant.

Edmond's infrastructure is severely outdated and they are currently playing a huge amount of catch up. The water system is undergoing an overhaul after some pretty decent rate hikes and their electric company already carries a pretty large amount of debt (though that is pretty normal for municipal electric companies).

The City would do well to plan for these types of developments and come up with some guidelines for development impact fees so that developers would have to carry some if not all of the financial burdens of the necessary utility improvements to support their projects.

The meeting that the developers had with the neighbors a few weeks ago was a pretty weird one. The attorney for Kalidy asked for specific concerns and suggestions from the neighbors as the ones that the neighbors gave were pretty vague such as "Can't you build on the other side of I-35?" and "Why does it have to be apartments, can't you build retail instead?" They wanted to hear some concrete concerns that might lead to a compromise to show good faith. As a test, I threw out there "I would be against the rooftop patio on the 10th story of the building as the neighbors have concerns about the apartment tenants spying into their backyards." (in reality, I don't care if someone has a set of binoculars and enjoys watching me take my recycling to the curb on Monday mornings) but the developer responded "That's what we need to hear, specific concerns, there will be no rooftop patio. That's kinda where I thought that this was headed. Insist on something ridiculous and have the opposing side counter to what the developer probably wanted in the first place. "A ten-story apartment is too high!" "What's would you like then, 5 or 6 stories?" "Yes, that's better than 10." Some pretty good questions were raised from the audience such as "Your plan doesn't provide for a dumpster and access to service it." and "Do you realize that the frontage road for I-35 on that side will be changed to southbound only which will affect entering and exiting this complex?" The response from the developer was "Those are some things that we'll have to go back and look at." ... I just don't think that the owner building this 10-story apartment complex and 4-story parking garage on this small parcel was serious. I think that (and this is just me speculating here) it was an attempt to get the land rezoned to make it more appealing to a potential buyer and provide a lot more options for development. Was anyone else here at that meeting and did you get that same vibe?

The meeting that the developers had with the neighbors a few weeks ago was a pretty weird one. The attorney for Kalidy asked for specific concerns and suggestions from the neighbors as the ones that the neighbors gave were pretty vague such as "Can't you build on the other side of I-35?" and "Why does it have to be apartments, can't you build retail instead?" They wanted to hear some concrete concerns that might lead to a compromise to show good faith. As a test, I threw out there "I would be against the rooftop patio on the 10th story of the building as the neighbors have concerns about the apartment tenants spying into their backyards." (in reality, I don't care if someone has a set of binoculars and enjoys watching me take my recycling to the curb on Monday mornings) but the developer responded "That's what we need to hear, specific concerns, there will be no rooftop patio. That's kinda where I thought that this was headed. Insist on something ridiculous and have the opposing side counter to what the developer probably wanted in the first place. "A ten-story apartment is too high!" "What's would you like then, 5 or 6 stories?" "Yes, that's better than 10." Some pretty good questions were raised from the audience such as "Your plan doesn't provide for a dumpster and access to service it." and "Do you realize that the frontage road for I-35 on that side will be changed to southbound only which will affect entering and exiting this complex?" The response from the developer was "Those are some things that we'll have to go back and look at." ... I just don't think that the owner building this 10-story apartment complex and 4-story parking garage on this small parcel was serious. I think that (and this is just me speculating here) it was an attempt to get the land rezoned to make it more appealing to a potential buyer and provide a lot more options for development. Was anyone else here at that meeting and did you get that same vibe?

This is the folly of involving neighbors, they usually know zero about what theyre talking about and secondly, its not their money or investment going in to the project so I dont know why they think they get a veto on all aspects. Its ridiculous to bring up things like trash because there is city code that addresses this. You have to enclose it, provide space for trucks to pull in/back out, etc. The city will not give you a building permit unless trash conforms to code. And saying things like "cant you just do this somewhere else, and oh, can you just change this entirely from housing to retail" is some of the most absurd things a developer should have to listen to. Those arent real concerns or realistic solutions.

You may have veen half joking about people spying on you from the building but this was a real concern when hotels were killed by NIMBYs at fox lake. Neighbors really thought 3rd floor hotel guests would be watching them in their backyard.

It's not ridiculous at all. You're just failing, maybe intentionally to try to see it from the perspective of the NIMBY folks. Their perspective is just as valid as yours. The folks at Fox Lake built not inexpensive houses and will protect the character and value of their properties. They believe their lifestyle would be encroached upon by hotels overlooing their private spaces and that is perfectly reasonable. They probably bought homes in a neighborhood with a little bit of land so that they would have some greater degree of privacy.

I'm not sure the building would be the source of trash they'd be worried about either--the increased human traffic is going to bring on folks who think a good way to dispose of a thing is to chuck it out their window.

And the real and most valid concern is for these hotel buildings when they reach 20 years of age or so and no longer have their original flag. They might become an OYO like the old nursing home on Ayers in Edmond and might even lose their OYO flag and just become trap houses. Empty fields aren't so risky. The worst thing you'll get from those is the occasional critter.

It's not ridiculous at all. You're just failing, maybe intentionally to try to see it from the perspective of the NIMBY folks. Their perspective is just as valid as yours. The folks at Fox Lake built not inexpensive houses and will protect the character and value of their properties. They believe their lifestyle would be encroached upon by hotels overlooing their private spaces and that is perfectly reasonable. They probably bought homes in a neighborhood with a little bit of land so that they would have some greater degree of privacy.

I'm not sure the building would be the source of trash they'd be worried about either--the increased human traffic is going to bring on folks who think a good way to dispose of a thing is to chuck it out their window.

And the real and most valid concern is for these hotel buildings when they reach 20 years of age or so and no longer have their original flag. They might become an OYO like the old nursing home on Ayers in Edmond and might even lose their OYO flag and just become trap houses. Empty fields aren't so risky. The worst thing you'll get from those is the occasional critter.

This is where we disagree, I dont think a hotel 500 ft away from a house, with trees buffering in between, in any way harms the character and value of that house, nor is a hotel guest spying on a backyard a real concern. These are figments of their imagination, IMO. They wouldnt be able to show any harm to the value of their house either, that fox lake home isnt worth less from a interstate adjacent hotel 500ft away.

As for the litterers and hotels becoming run down, any single family homeowner can litter and let their home become trashy or have poor tenants.

NIMBY arguments are 99% of the time bad and wrong.

I knew this wasn’t going to happen, but it was very bizarre to see it even proposed. There had to be an ulterior motive behind it. Is this the same Khalidy who owns the Kia dealership?

I knew this wasn’t going to happen, but it was very bizarre to see it even proposed. There had to be an ulterior motive behind it. Is this the same Khalidy who owns the Kia dealership?

Kia dealership and a large number of commercial real estate properties and raw developments.

Don't count out something happening, even if it isn't 10 stories.

Kia dealership and a large number of commercial real estate properties and raw developments.

Don't count out something happening, even if it isn't 10 stories.
Oh I’m sure something will happen here. I just know Edmond very well and a ten story building will have Edmondnites claiming the city is being “manhattanized.”

Oh I’m sure something will happen here. I just know Edmond very well and a ten story building will have Edmondnites claiming the city is being “manhattanized.”

I haven’t heard that from Edmond citizens, but sure have seen it on this site. Oh the irony.

I haven’t heard that from Edmond citizens, but sure have seen it on this site. Oh the irony.
Well I can’t tell on this particular issue I haven’t either. I haven’t even seen it in news articles and I follow them almost every day even though I’m in LA. I still love and miss Edmond so I look at what’s happening a lot. Haven’t seen a word about it except here. But I will I don’t look at city council agendas anymore like I used to.