The Edmond Sun
The Edmond Planning Commission opted to continue a rezoning issue to change a 22-acre undeveloped retail zone to allow the proposed 3-story multifamily Arbor Creek at the Summit apartments.
“I think this application could use some work,” said Barry Moore, Planning Commission chairman.
Arbor Creek is north of East Second Street and south of Danforth along Saints Boulevard, just east of Interstate 35.
The request by the Bomasada Group development firm of Houston continues to draw opposition from Arbor Creek home owners. A common point of contention among the homeowners is that they have purchased their homes during the past two years expecting the City of Edmond’s zoning to stay the same.
“One of the biggest complaints that I’ve heard is this is a significant deviation from our PUD,” said Todd McKinnis, representing Summit Property, a development group that purchased the property in 2005. “Quite honestly in looking back seven years and projecting forward, it’s incredibly compliant with the PUD we rolled out in 2006 as far as the general nature of the development.”
Arbor Creek consists of 166 family lots and 78 town home lots, said attorney Kelly Work, representing the Arbor Creek Homeowners Association. The neighborhood PUD was approved in 2006, he said. Today, there are 109 occupied homes within the addition, he said. The entire PUD is 111 acres, Work said.
“When the PUD was approved in 2006, it was a significant change to the Edmond Plan,” Work said of going from agricultural zoning to commercial with a mix of residential properties. He said the 2006 PUD was approved with the requirement of a road extending from Danforth to the PUD area on Second Street.
The 2011 action by the City Council was an extension of the PUD and not a consideration of the projected use of the PUD, Work said.
“In all fairness I don’t think there was consideration in 2011 of what was approved or whether there was a re-approval,” Work said.
The 2006 planned unit development of the 53 acres identified it as retail and office zoning, said McKinnis, representing Summit Property development. McKinnis said the PUD included permission to ask for up to 32 acres of multi-family. The PUD design statement was referenced again in 2007, he said
“In 2008 we did a traffic study that reference 228 multi-family units,” McKinnis said. “And in 2011 we came back and had our PUD renewed.”
In 2011, Summit Property renewed the same PUD with the City Council. The current rezoning request occurred in 2012.
Plans are to construct no more than 285 apartments, which is less than the 361 apartments that would be allowed if rezoning the land is approved, said Bob Schiermeyer, city planner.
The class A apartments would rent at a $900 a month minimum for a 700-square foot unit, Bomasada Senior Vice President John Gilbert said in November. Class A means they would include finishing close to those of an upscale home with upgraded cabinetry and kitchen island, he said.
The city ended the special use permit for residential multi-family in 2007, Schiermeyer said. McKinnis pointed out that Summit’s special use permit was approved in 2011, giving permission to ask for multi-family development and restricted commercial use.
“We notified everybody in the city’s process of our C3 (high density multi-family) intentions or possibilities,” McKinnis said of when Summit built its houses from 2008-10. “We never communicated anything contrary to that to anybody.”
McKinnis suggested for the City of Edmond to conduct a workshop about how a developer can do a better job in communicating the potential for possible development in an area.
“We have this conversation every time. We had it when we did multi-family in Coffee Creek a couple of years ago,” McKinnis said.
McKinnis said Summit is willing to conduct conversations with Arbor Creek residents about how the apartments will look. However, he said Summit is not willing to remove multi-family from the development.
“It’s always been contemplated. We’ve been consistent in the way we’ve communicated that,” McKinnis said. “I understand it hasn’t been consistently communicated in some of the private conversations.”
The Planning Commission will hear the item May 7.
“I would hope the applicant will come back with something different from what we’re reading tonight,” Moore said.