Spring Creek Plaza

[Plutonic Panda]

Is there anything else that can be done or is this the nail in the coffin for this development?

[Zorba]

https://theoklahomabreeze.com/2017/0...-consequences/

I disagree with some of the author's perceptions but this is relevant.

Zoning laws have consequences, welcome to Democracy...

Comparing Edmond to SoCal is stupid to begin with, but Edmond also has some of highest earning zip codes in the state and is full of young professionals. Building 350 more apartments close to a handful of restaurants would not have made Edmond Manhattan or even Bricktown.

I also work with a ton of high earning yuppies and 70% of them live in a standard apartment complex right to the South of Tinker with nothing around (pretty much the unmarried ones). Almost all of the rest live in Norman, Moore or Edmond. There are a handful that live in midtown. My point? True young professionals what jobs, more than trendy shopping areas. The idea that yuppies (that actually have the professional part of the title) will flee the state because there is no Brooks Brothers or Apple store in Edmond is FUD at its finest.

[jerrywall]

Is there anything else that can be done or is this the nail in the coffin for this development?

If the developer is interested they could come up with a revised proposal and go through the process again, I imagine.

[jn1780]

This far north OKC resident is glad Edmond residents voted this down. It increases that chances that Chisholm Creek will actually get built as imagined.

[Zorba]

Zorba, in what ways do you envision this affecting Hafer Park because that is a vague term. It can be affected in a good way or a bad way but people need to be more specific.

Based on the rendering, the park would only having 1 row of trees between the creek and this development at best (assuming they didn't remove the mature trees and replace them with new trees). So instead of the park having an urban wilderness feel, it would have an urban feel, and not even a good one at that as the park would look at the back of box store and a parking lot. Leave a tree buffer, and I would probably change my opinion.

This far north OKC resident is glad Edmond residents voted this down. It increases that chances that Chisholm Creek will actually get built as imagined.

I agree with this too, and part of my anti-feelings. I'd rather us actually work on developing one large good commercial area, than continuing to shotgun small ones all over. I'd really like to see Chisholm Creek do well, because it will help pull more to that area. No it doesn't directly benefit Edmond City, but it does help the area if it does well.

[jerrywall]

This far north OKC resident is glad Edmond residents voted this down. It increases that chances that Chisholm Creek will actually get built as imagined.

That's my backup relocation plan when my kids move out.

[jerrywall]

Based on the rendering, the park would only having 1 row of trees between the creek and this development at best (assuming they didn't remove the mature trees and replace them with new trees). So instead of the park having an urban wilderness feel, it would have an urban feel, and not even a good one at that as the park would look at the back of box store and a parking lot. Leave a tree buffer, and I would probably change my opinion.

There was actually a decent sized buffer plan, plus the developer would have been investing lots of money in retaining walls and erosion prevention which is a big problem for Spring Creek through there. Guess us taxpayers will just pick up that tab now. And we'll be leaving the junk heaps and trash in those woods.

[bradh]

This far north OKC resident is glad Edmond residents voted this down. It increases that chances that Chisholm Creek will actually get built as imagined.

Same here

[jerrywall]

FB_IMG_1491361758360.jpg

[Zorba]

FB_IMG_1491361758360.jpg

They smeared those trees to make it look like more. In the package on the city's website, with satellite views, you can see it is one row of trees. If they planned on building retaining walls, there would probably be no trees left.

http://agenda.edmondok.com:8085/docs...%20Rez_001.pdf

[Anonymous.]

In general, I think long time Edmond residents are out of touch when it comes to private development and the economic benefits of it. In addition, I also think those same residents have a weird nostalgia with Hafer Park and a big part of the against vote had to do with that park.

[jerrywall]

They smeared those trees to make it look like more. In the package on the city's website, with satellite views, you can see it is one row of trees. If they planned on building retaining walls, there would probably be no trees left.

http://agenda.edmondok.com:8085/docs...%20Rez_001.pdf

You realize the required buffer is on Spring Creeks side of the property line, right? There are places they come close but against the park there tends to be plenty.

Regardless, I guess we'll just leave an eroding creek and trash heaps there. Yay!

[jerrywall]

In general, I think long time Edmond residents are out of touch when it comes to private development and the economic benefits of it. In addition, I also think those same residents have a weird nostalgia with Hafer Park and a big part of the against vote had to do with that park.

Of course, we're talking 5000 or so people. Not exactly the majority.

[Plutonic Panda]

This far north OKC resident is glad Edmond residents voted this down. It increases that chances that Chisholm Creek will actually get built as imagined.

Chisolm Creek is getting built the same as it would with or without this.

[Plutonic Panda]

They smeared those trees to make it look like more. In the package on the city's website, with satellite views, you can see it is one row of trees. If they planned on building retaining walls, there would probably be no trees left.

http://agenda.edmondok.com:8085/docs...%20Rez_001.pdf

That is not correct. They would have built the buffer as shown and stated as such as they still have yet to submit to the city for landscaping plans.

[jn1780]

Chisolm Creek is getting built the same as it would with or without this.

Well, my magic eight ball says leave nothing to chance when I have no vested interest on what happens at 15th and Bryant.

I can't even guaranteed things I have directed control over will happen. I can just assign probabilities.

There was talk of a theater at Chisholm Creek at one point. I don't see that happening due to 1: AMC having exclusive rights and 2: Warren theater going in at Eastern and Kirkpatrick. Don't get me wrong, I'm still glad Warren is still being built down the street. That's just one example of how things can evolve and change.

At the end of the day, there are only so many retailers that can fit in a niche market.

[Plutonic Panda]

Well, my magic eight ball says leave nothing to chance when I have no vested interest on what happens at 15th and Bryant.

I can't even guaranteed things I have directed control over will happen. I can just assign probabilities.

There was talk of a theater at Chisholm Creek at one point. I don't see that happening due to 1: AMC having exclusive rights and 2: Warren theater going in at Eastern and Kirkpatrick. That's just one example of how things can evolve and change.

At the end of the day, there are only so many retailers that can fit in a niche market.

The theatre thing at Quail Springs makes no sense. If that's been the case all along, you'd think they know before CC claimed they wanted a theatre. I wouldn't be surprised if they still build one as they were shooting for an Alamo Drafthouse or the like. Not competing with AMC.

I highly doubt that this development would have any impact on Chisholm Creek and me saying that is just as valid as someone else saying that it would have. If you don't have any stake in this than I really don't see the point in commenting let alone saying things that would put this development at a disadvantage.

If your fear is Chisholm Creek being affected, competition is good and if anything, I think there would be more of a chance of Chisholm Creek being better because of this than worse.

Anyhow this is my last comment. I'm super bummed this didn't pass and I don't have anything good to say so I just am holding my thoughts back. I need to focus on my acting anyways more than what's going on in a city 1,200 miles from. I just saw this as a super cool opportunity for Edmond to become a shopping destination with an actual cool development and not the typical cookie cutter crap that gets proposed.

While the I-35 Covell development is cool, there is nothing at all special about it. My only hope is somehow they find a way to get this forward or change the dumb law that allows a vote to be called with only 690 signatures in a city of almost 100k in a state with some of the lowest voter turnout rates in the country.

I also want to add, I was blocked by the Edmond Neighborhood Alliance and called by some lady named Cathy who called me a liberal pos who should keep my nose in LA and not Edmond. That should give you an idea of the opposition. These people don't give two craps about the city. They care about their little bubble. That's it. They wanted Hafer Park to be more a private park than a public one. They want as less amount of traffic as possible. There is middle ground with these people. The apartments only made it worse. They would have fought it tooth and nail regardless.

I even called way before when this announced that this would fail the second it was put to a vote. Less than 5,000 people voted. That's probably less than the amount of people that would shop and live here on a daily basis. So I have no one to get mad it other than the stupid laws and the people who didn't turnout because I guarantee you if every single eligible voter would have shown up, this would have passed with flying colors.

This is a very sad day for the city and reflects a broader issue. No one is trying to turn Edmond in SoCal or Disneyland(yes people actually compared this development to Disneyland), but it shows how the minority can affect the majority by sleezy tactics.

Again, hopefully the city will find a way around this and this gets built though I'm not holding my breath. If nothing more, maybe this will be a wake up call to change the voting laws regarding how many signatures it would take to get something on the ballot because it seems in Oklahoma it's either too many required or too few. As far as Edmond requiring 690, I'm sure you can guess which one this is. Maybe something good will come out of this and the city can change that number to put nimbys at bay over future projects which I'm sure Edmond will get. How many more years will we have to wait though? How many cities would kill to have something like this proposed. The Edmond stereotype is reinforced and a project like this won't come along very often so have fun waiting.

[jerrywall]

Just to be clear, over 9000 people.voted. Still a small percentage but curious how it compares to the marijuana vote.

And one of the complaints in Oklahoma is the large number it takes to get something on a ballot. So. Curious when that's good or bad?

And I say everything as a proponent of this.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thanks for the correction. 9000 is still an extremely small amount.

I also pointed out that there is an issue with requiring too many votes to get some on the ballot which if Edmond makes changes to how many signatures would be required I hope they don't go overboard.

That high number of required signatures presented a large problem for the advocates of medical marijuana and it took them years and years.

Now I in all honesty don't know what a good number would be. But 690 seems way too low.

[Zorba]

Chisolm Creek is getting built the same as it would with or without this.

Yeah, extra directly competing retail space built in a similar style, attempting to attract the same demographics, population and tenants will have no affect on each other. Just build buildings and the great restaurants and retailers will come flowing in. Don't forget, all the highly paid yuppies will all of sudden stay in Edmond instead of moving to SoCal or DFW where they can actually get a job.

That is not correct. They would have built the buffer as shown and stated as such as they still have yet to submit to the city for landscaping plans.

They show the development right up next to the creek. Not sure where you think they are going to put a buffer. This is in their own PUD plans presented to the city. Also noticed in the PUD, they had the option of actually building it as a life style center or not (duh).

Direct quote "Some trees may be able to be preserved along the creek running along the west and the north sides of the property." There are also no requirements in the PUD to make any type of creek bed improvements.

It also appear they were not going to put in any green space for their renters, and instead be dependent on Hafer to provide their residents with green space.

[jerrywall]

It's based on a percentage like the state is. Don't know if it's the same percent.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, extra directly competing retail space built in a similar style, attempting to attract the same demographics, population and tenants will have no affect on each other. Just build buildings and the great restaurants and retailers will come flowing in. Don't forget, all the highly paid yuppies will all of sudden stay in Edmond instead of moving to SoCal or DFW where they can actually get a job.



They show the development right up next to the creek. Not sure where you think they are going to put a buffer. This is in their own PUD plans presented to the city. Also noticed in the PUD, they had the option of actually building it as a life style center or not (duh).

Direct quote "Some trees may be able to be preserved along the creek running along the west and the north sides of the property." There are also no requirements in the PUD to make any type of creek bed improvements.

It also appear they were not going to put in any green space for their renters, and instead be dependent on Hafer to provide their residents with green space.

Zorba, I honestly don't have the energy to argue about this anymore. I understand your points and many of them are valid though I simply disagree with some and don't think they are worth this development getting canceled over but "we" lost and "you" won so that speaks for the residents since the majority didn't vote.

[Zorba]

Thanks for the correction. 9000 is still an extremely small amount.

I also pointed out that there is an issue with requiring too many votes to get some on the ballot which if Edmond makes changes to how many signatures would be required I hope they don't go overboard.

That high number of required signatures presented a large problem for the advocates of medical marijuana and it took them years and years.

Now I in all honesty don't know what a good number would be. But 690 seems way too low.

The final total was 9337, which is about 17% of the city's registered voters. Or about double the number of people that voted in the last Edmond School bond issue, which covers far more voters. This is a massive turnout for an April special election and is not just people in the immediate area that are NIMBY people. It also clearly shows that the people of Edmond put their parks above the promises of a corporation (who gave themselves every possible out).

It is okay to not like how the vote turned out, but to try to delegitimize it based on poor turnout doesn't hold water, in this case (many elections like this do have crazy low turnouts that delegitimize the results).

Noes carried 64.5%, BTW.

[Zorba]

Zorba, I honestly don't have the energy to argue about this anymore. I understand your points and many of them are valid though I simply disagree with some and don't think they are worth this development getting canceled over but "we" lost and "you" won so that speaks for the residents since the majority didn't vote.

Everyone has different priorities. Out of everywhere in the OKC metro, I chose to live in Edmond due to the parks. If the Edmond parks weren't here, there is a pretty low likelihood I would've accepted my job in OKC and would've relocated to DFW or ATL instead of OKC. I understand a lot of people wanted this, and I understand, development can bring in a lot of great things and opportunities.

At the end of the day, it is mostly speculation, opinion and emotion, because no one knows for sure what the final result would be until it happens. In this cause I erred on the side of scepticism while you and others erred on the side of optimism. Doesn't mean we are different teams, we just disagree on one specific item due to having different priorities and experiences.

I am definitely not against development, I am just hardcore when it comes to protecting public parks.

[jjjumper]

Based upon the voter turnout, the signatures needed on a petition goes up to over 2300 until the next local election.