Tower at Memorial and I-35?

[Rover]

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.

[rayvaflav]

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.

[bison34]

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

[Pete]

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.

[onthestrip]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[TornadoKegan]

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

[Midtowner]

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.

[rayvaflav]

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?

[onthestrip]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[onthestrip]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Rover]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.”

[Rover]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.