Council fails to overturn Planning Commission denial of Walmart Neighborhood Market site plan at Coltrane and Covell

Edmond City Council declined to approve a site plan for a proposed Walmart Neighborhood Market at the northwest corner of Coltrane Road and Covell Road after a lengthy public hearing that included more than 100 speakers and protracted debate about compatibility, traffic and tree preservation. On the motion to approve the site plan the council recorded a 1–4 vote (one in favor, four opposed), so the Planning Commission’s earlier denial stands.

The proposed building would be about 44,000 square feet and roughly 27 feet tall. Ken Bridal, Edmond’s director of planning, told the council the application included two driveways (one on Covell, one on Coltrane), screening and landscaping on the north and west sides, and that “no variances are being requested or are required.” Bridal noted the Planning Commission denied the plan on June 17 after public concerns about traffic circulation and safety, outdoor lighting spillover, tree preservation, drainage and visual compatibility.

Todd McKinnis, attorney for the developer, said the appeal posed a narrow legal question: whether the site plan meets the standards in the PUD and the city ordinance. “The site plan is the issue,” he said, arguing the plan complied with the PUD and noting a prior Court of Civil Appeals decision on a substantially similar 2015 site plan.

Residents and neighborhood representatives urged denial. Barry Black, president of the Ashford Oaks Homeowners Association, said the PUD requires a buffer and urged the council to respect that design intent: “This PUD goes back to 1990. ... Mister Shermyer says this entire plan should be shifted 125 feet to the south.” Matt Farley, a nearby homeowner, told the council the proposed flat roof would be visible from second-floor bedrooms and cited Title 22 provisions on visibility and architectural treatment: “Title 22, page 110, section g 1 is explicit that flat rooftops shall not be visible from the adjacent property.” Other residents raised stormwater and flooding concerns, arguing the site drains to a low point that already causes problems in heavy rains.

The developer presented traffic and drainage analyses and said engineers had worked with city reviewers. BJ Hawkins of Traffic Engineering Consultants described proposed roadway improvements—left-turn lanes and additional through lanes on Covell and Coltrane—while advising some platting and right-of-way matters would be handled later in the review process. The developer’s counsel urged the council to focus on the site-plan criteria and not on policy arguments about future platting or broader street improvements.

Council discussion repeatedly returned to two legal questions: (1) whether the site plan meets applicable PUD and ordinance standards, and (2) what deference the council must give to the Planning Commission and to court precedent. Several council members who voted to deny said massing, façade materials and visual compatibility with the immediately surrounding residential properties were the decisive issues. One councilmember described the gray masonry and flat-roof design as inconsistent with surrounding brick and pitched-roof buildings and said those differences were material under PUD paragraph 12 and Title 22 site-plan criteria.

Because council membership and votes are limited to the record before the body, the council’s failure to approve the motion to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial leaves the denial in effect. The developer and opponents each indicated the decision could prompt further review or legal action.

The council’s vote was recorded as one in favor and four opposed on the motion to approve the site plan; no further action on the appeal was taken that evening.