If I remember correctly, that is a fairly heavily wooded tract of land.

If this does in fact get built (which I am personally against), I hope the city requires Wal-Mart to save as many trees as possible. It would be a shame if they took a "scorched earth" approach and removed all the trees during construction.

They will probably remove the trees and plant new growth.

If I remember correctly, that is a fairly heavily wooded tract of land.

If this does in fact get built (which I am personally against), I hope the city requires Wal-Mart to save as many trees as possible. It would be a shame if they took a "scorched earth" approach and removed all the trees during construction.I agree with you. I hate the disregard to trees developers seem to have here. These trees were here long before we were and we should show some respect to nature.

The big problem that I see with this piece of property is that it is mostly flood plan or a creek bed. I really don't think that it should be developed until the water issues and the widening of Coltrane/Covell is complete. I don't think many trees will be able to saved due to the fact that most of it will have to be graded and the level raised up. Just not a good piece of property right now.

Pretty sure I went by this site the other day and the trees were already removed. What shame.

The big problem that I see with this piece of property is that it is mostly flood plan or a creek bed. I really don't think that it should be developed until the water issues and the widening of Coltrane/Covell is complete. I don't think many trees will be able to saved due to the fact that most of it will have to be graded and the level raised up. Just not a good piece of property right now.I would like to see it just be a park with walking trails.

The tree were removed at Sooner and Covell, I went by the location this morning.

The trees were also recently removed at Coltrane at Danforth. That's for a self storage facility.

Nobody wants Walmart over there, another upscale store would be fine. But the people over there are not Walmart people

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/20/30/3a203010f3e54bf38ffc48799efa31dc.jpg

The trees were also recently removed at Coltrane at Danforth. That's for a self storage facility.

This is a HUGE disappointment. I hope they make it look decent from the street. And I wish they would just clear it and build. There have been just stumps left for weeks now...being a tree lover it hurts to look at every day. But what's being constructed is quite disappointing.

The question now is, what fast food and other joints will surround the market?

The question now is, what fast food and other joints will surround the market?
In-N-Out ;)

Driving down Coltrane this morning by Fairfax there was a large banner touting this: Halt Walmart (http://haltwalmart.com/)

"An investigation by the city of Edmond has determined too many trees were cut down and too much land cleared on the northwest corner of Covell and Coltrane roads, the site where Walmart officials want to build a Neighborhood Market."

Edmond Walmart market isn?t getting neighborhood welcome | Oklahoman.com (http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5454442?access=5da70c2ea96c9fc354a9e7adae7c3838)

Pretty sure this failed today. Will be interesting what happens next on if Walmart will fight things out, pick a new location or what.

It did.

Planning Commission turns down Walmart site plan - The Edmond Sun: News (http://www.edmondsun.com/news/planning-commission-turns-down-walmart-site-plan/article_71ff9122-779a-11e5-a117-77d027f1a2f8.html)

Pretty sure this failed today. Will be interesting what happens next on if Walmart will fight things out, pick a new location or what.

Hopefully they'll play by the rules for once. Walmart seems to be used to cities being so desperate that they roll over for them completely. Edmond isn't.

Plans For Walmart Grocery Store In North Edmond Fail - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/30311364/plans-for-walmart-grocery-store-in-north-edmond-fail)

Edmond commission denies Walmart's proposal to open store | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/edmond-commission-denies-walmarts-proposal-to-open-store/35951728)

http://kfor.com/2015/10/20/walmart-proposal-for-n-edmond-store-fails/

So they cut down all of those trees and cleared that land for nothing?

So they cut down all of those trees and cleared that land for nothing?

Right! How was that allowed?! What the heck is going here?

Walmart files appeal for new location in Edmond | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/walmart-files-appeal-for-new-edmond-store/36150686)

http://www.edmondsun.com/news/walmart-appeals-planning-commission-s-decision/article_a9b226e6-7f49-11e5-b65b-7b262e39f8bc.html

Right! How was that allowed?! What the heck is going here?
Don't worry, they reseeded the area once they realized what they did. It's okay.

This goes back before the city council on Monday for rehearing.

http://agenda.edmondok.com:8085/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=1&get_year=2016&dsp=agm&seq=7427&rev=0&ag=2073&ln=34714&nseq=7428&nrev=0&pseq=&prev=#ReturnTo34714

Edmond council to hear Walmart's appeal over Neighborhood Market | News OK (http://newsok.com/edmond-council-to-hear-walmarts-appeal-over-neighborhood-market/article/5471830)

http://okcfox.com/news/local/edmond-city-council-gives-final-defeat-to-walmart-plans

These kind of deals are made with a handshake under the table...... No way the citizens win this one.

Walmart appeal voted down - The Edmond Sun: News (http://www.edmondsun.com/news/walmart-appeal-voted-down/article_76dbde9e-b971-11e5-8299-73e306354126.html)

It is ridiculous that this failed. Again..

The only reason the homeowners are fighting this is because it's Wal-Mart. It it were Whole Foods then they would be doing back flips.

I am not ignorant enough to think that some of the homeowners concerns were not legitimate, but their expectations were completely irrational. This parcel of land was zoned commercial before one of the major neighborhoods fighting it was even built.

I am not advocating for Wal-Mart. I personally do not like Wal-Mart and try to avoid going there at all costs. But when citizens can influence a city council to dictate what businesses can and CANNOT open even when that business complied within the legal perimeters then that is a very slippery slope.

I do tend to agree with that and it seems that Walmart has taken all the necessary legal steps for this to open.

I do NOT want a Walmart to be built here, but if they have taken all the legal steps and the land is zoned as such, they should be able to.

Really what the homeowners should have done is let the thing get built and not support it and it would probably eventually go out of business unless people from Logan County started driving here.

Really what the homeowners should have done is let the thing get built and not support it and it would probably eventually go out of business unless people from Logan County started driving here.

I remember when the Fox Lake neighborhood fought the 15th & I-35 Wal-Mart SuperCenter tooth and nail.. I wonder how many of them shop there now..?

That is what I thought of too. I would be willing to bet if this was built, a good portion of the neighborhoods surrounding it would shop there.

But when citizens can influence a city council to dictate what businesses can and CANNOT open even when that business complied within the legal perimeters then that is a very slippery slope.

OklahomaNick,
So, you believe that the people should have no say in what their elected officials do? I thought they worked for us, not the other way around. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your comment caught my attention.
C. T.

OklahomaNick,
So, you believe that the people should have no say in what their elected officials do? I thought they worked for us, not the other way around. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your comment caught my attention.
C. T.

Sorry if I was unclear. The point that I guess I did not drive home was when citizens can influence a government to tell someone they CAN'T do something when clearly the law states that they CAN then that is a slippery slope!

You shouldn't be able to pick and choose who gets to follow the common law and who is held to a higher law!

The fact of the matter is the residents didn't want a Walmart in the area to drive down the value of their homes. They absolutely would not fight a Whole Foods. Congrats to the residents for fighting for their neighborhood! The City Council does indeed work for the residents on occasion.

Totally agree with the citizens here. The issue isn't about a grocery store coming in. It's that it is specifically a Wal-Mart. If this were an Uptown or Trader Joes or Whole Foods, there would be no issue. A Wal-Mart Neighboorhood Market isnot a decent representation of the people in that area.

Imagine, if you will, if Wal-Mart did this exact same thing with the old Cresent Market location in Nichols Hills. Very similar scenario. No way they would have been let in.

The fact of the matter is the residents didn't want a Walmart in the area to drive down the value of their homes. They absolutely would not fight a Whole Foods. Congrats to the residents for fighting for their neighborhood! The City Council does indeed work for the residents on occasion.


Totally agree with the citizens here. The issue isn't about a grocery store coming in. It's that it is specifically a Wal-Mart. If this were an Uptown or Trader Joes or Whole Foods, there would be no issue. A Wal-Mart Neighboorhood Market isnot a decent representation of the people in that area.

Imagine, if you will, if Wal-Mart did this exact same thing with the old Cresent Market location in Nichols Hills. Very similar scenario. No way they would have been let in.

That is the point I'm making.

Property owners of proposed Walmart development sue Cit of Edmond:
Property owners of proposed Walmart development sue Edmond | News OK (http://newsok.com/property-owners-of-proposed-walmart-development-sue-edmond/article/5476550)

Very interesting! I guess ALL property owners have rights not just residential owners..

So this is what they need to do. The city either needs to ban Walmart completely(I believe there have been a few cities that have done this) but that leads to a slippery slope and not one I particularly agree with.

Or they need to increase the requirements to build around this area such or establish a design review committee(which I don't think Edmond has), but that might take awhile.

Or they need to let this Walmart get built because it seems to meet all of the requirements and requires no variances and leave it up to the people to not shop there which I doubt they'll do because people usually seem to have little self-control(myself included and I'm working on it).

These developers know that if a Walmart is built there, a lot of people who even protested it would likely shop there and there is money to be made. If that isn't true, let them build it, go out of business, and leave the store there.

If the property already has the necessary zoning for commercial use (which I believe it does) then any municipality opens itself up to lawsuits if they just arbitrarily decide they don't want a particular business to go in.

If the property already has the necessary zoning for commercial use (which I believe it does) then any municipality opens itself up to lawsuits if they just arbitrarily decide they don't want a particular business to go in.

From what I understand though, and even from the story about the lawsuit, it doesn't look like they arbitrarily blocked the business from going in. It seems to be more about differences in regards to elements on the proposed site plan.

^

I think the site plan stuff is not the real reason they aren't approving their plans.

From what I gather, Wal-Mart met all the qualifications that were laid out by the zoning requirements and the city ordinances.
The homeowners wanted additional provisions put in.

From what I gather, Wal-Mart met all the qualifications that were laid out by the zoning requirements and the city ordinances.
The homeowners wanted additional provisions put in.

Which is part of the site plan approval process. The article those mentions specific issues with the buffering. Was that not asked for by the planning committee?

I thought the 125 foot buffer was a requirement on this site from when it was originally rezoned to commercial. So the property owner was all for it then to make their property more valuable, but now they are crying about it. Ever notice how most corporations act like 4 year olds, at least when it comes to PR and government?

The owners are saying how they are choosing to measure the buffer is arbitrary.

It's also clear that is not the only issue Edmond and residents have.

125 feet buffer of essentially unusable real estate is dead space. Someone as sophisticated as Wal-Mart will only pay for usable square footage of land, and not that buffer.

That definitely does not make a piece of land more valuable. It's actually the opposite.

The owners are saying how they are choosing to measure the buffer is arbitrary.

It's also clear that is not the only issue Edmond and residents have.

Will the other issues have to be proven versus speculated?

125 feet buffer of essentially unusable real estate is dead space. Someone as sophisticated as Wal-Mart will only pay for usable square footage of land, and not that buffer.

That definitely does not make a piece of land more valuable. It's actually the opposite.

It makes your land much more valuable if that is what it takes to get it zoned commercial vs agricultural. From my understanding, the buffer was a concession to gain the rezoning, now that it has been rezoned, they are trying to go go back on that concession. Which is fine, if they don't want to provide the buffer, rezone the land back to agricultural, and see what happens to the value.

From my understanding, the buffer was a concession to gain the rezoning

If this is the case then where was everyone when the rezoning motion was filed to remove the buffer? Everyone in the immediate area would have gotten notification! And they could have showed up and protested just like they did for the Wal-Mart site plan!

if they don't want to provide the buffer, rezone the land back to agricultural, and see what happens to the value.

When I look at situations like this I think to myself, "What makes sense. What is practical?"
Having a 125 foot buffer between residential and commercial zoned land is just NOT practical or rational. Anywhere. Period!
Not even the Woodlands in Houston has anything that crazy and their requirements are extremely strict in this regard.

The bottom line is that Edmond needs more commercial zoning. Only 5% of the total city land is zoned commercial whereas most cities are upward of 20%. If Edmond continues at their current growth rate and add no commercial development then they will lose a ton of sales tax dollars to OKC. Property tax is good but sales tax a HUGE need as well. Not to mention that there will not be enough services for all the neighborhoods being developed.

This is a hard corner on a busy street. IT MAKES SENSE FOR IT TO BE ZONED COMMERCIAL!

My issue is that the city has to get the water issues solved and the road/traffic widening done. Its going to be a problem with the gas pipeline next to the road as far as widening it. I'm not against it developing, its just some major issues need to be addressed by the city first. As far as commercial, I was at last nights planning comminsion meeting. I'm watching Woodland Park. I told them there needs to be more commercial in that project. Some folks that attended basically said they don't want commercial east of I-35, they want that to stay rural. For at least 20 years Douglas and Covel have been projected to be major atrial streets. People said they did not want those streets to become like 2 nd st. Well you cannot have every street a rural road. This is my beaf with Covel and Coltrane, it need widening and until that happens, development on this corner needs to be on hold.

When I look at situations like this I think to myself, "What makes sense. What is practical?"
Having a 125 foot buffer between residential and commercial zoned land is just NOT practical or rational. Anywhere. Period!
Not even the Woodlands in Houston has anything that crazy and their requirements are extremely strict in this regard.

The bottom line is that Edmond needs more commercial zoning. Only 5% of the total city land is zoned commercial whereas most cities are upward of 20%. If Edmond continues at their current growth rate and add no commercial development then they will lose a ton of sales tax dollars to OKC. Property tax is good but sales tax a HUGE need as well. Not to mention that there will not be enough services for all the neighborhoods being developed.

This is a hard corner on a busy street. IT MAKES SENSE FOR IT TO BE ZONED COMMERCIAL!

Glad you mentioned the tax aspect. Let's just remind ourselves... the City of Edmond DOES NOT received any of the monies paid to property taxes. The city receives a portion of the sales taxes received, and operates primarily off of those funds. So... commercial enterprises are critical to the "health" of the city.

http://www.news9.com/story/33680484/renewed-push-for-walmart-in-edmond-neighborhood

http://kfor.com/2016/11/10/judge-sides-with-landowners-who-want-to-build-edmond-walmart/

This just needs to be built if it meets all the requirements. People should make their voices heard by NOT SHOPPING THERE!

It depends on the judges reasoning. Personally, I don't need yet another Wal-Mart in Edmond. If anyone wonders why we can't get quality grocers in Oklahoma, Wal-Mart is the reason. Not NIMBY's or liquor laws.

It depends on the judges reasoning. Personally, I don't need yet another Wal-Mart in Edmond. If anyone wonders why we can't get quality grocers in Oklahoma, Wal-Mart is the reason. Not NIMBY's or liquor laws.Couldn't agree more.

I have a feeling if this was a specialty quality store, like Trader Joe's or Whole Foods or even Sprouts, the neighbors would have a lot less complaints.

I have a feeling if this was a specialty quality store, like Trader Joe's or Whole Foods or even Sprouts, the neighbors would have a lot less complaints.

Of course. The development would probably also be a bit better quality depending on the chain and Walmart's are usually 24 hours and attract a certain kind of people. I'm a supporter of the free market however, so if this meets all the city laws, I say let it be built and if the surrounding area doesn't like it, don't shop there. It will eventually go out of business, will it not?

That laissez faire approach sounds good if you have faith in people to do the harder or more expensive thing. But they won't. We could let slum lords build trashy apartments and drive development down and depress an area, and they'd do fine. People who say they want to help the environment don't spend the extra money to buy wind energy or the time to fill their recycle bin. It took years to get my wife to break the Walmart habbit and shop local. Sometimes communities and districts have to maintain standards. Would you support a giant Walmart in the middle of deep deuce, brick town, or midtown, or would you prefer the community fought for something better? And if the latter, why is Edmond different? It already has four Walmarts and a Sam's. When is enough enough?

My main objection to this or another development at this corner is the flooding issues and the need for the intersection to be widened. Let them hold off until the city of Edmond up grades the corner on roads, traffic control and storm water. Then at that time I would think it would be time to talk about developing the parcel.