The old adage that history repeats itself received emphatic reenforcement in the Edmond City Council chambers last week.
The saga that replayed at the June 17 Edmond Planning Commission meeting began in front of that same body a decade ago. In 2015, after two and a half hours of discussion, commissioners denied a proposal to construct a 44,000-square-foot Walmart Neighborhood Market on nearly 10 acres of land at the northwest corner of Covell and Coltrane Roads, plans that had drawn sharp community backlash. After developers appealed the planning commission’s decision to the Edmond City Council, that body also shot down the site plans at a meeting attended by roughly 100 residents.
However, judges in Oklahoma County district court and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals subsequently ruled in favor of developer Covell Creek, LLC, despite multiple judicial appeals by the city. The City of Edmond attempted to take the legal feud to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which declined to consider the case but affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals decision.
Fast forward to 2025, and the situation at the June 17 meeting seemed nearly identical. Roughly 100 residents showed up to the crowded Edmond City Council chambers, with many forced to watch from the lobby or in the overflow room. The proposed site plan was, as attorney David Box noted while addressing the Edmond Planning Commission, highly similar to the one that had been litigated already. And, as Box noted early in his address, the stated reasons of opponents remained largely the same — protecting property value, preserving natural features and limiting traffic at a troublesome two-lane intersection.
Box, however, said the site plan already meets all municipal development code requirements with no planned variances. That being the case, Box argued, the Edmond Planning Commission’s duty in the process is “ministerial” and the site plans should be approved, per the Court of Civil Appeals decision.
In the past, Box has represented developers who made similar arguments regarding the Arcadia Peak housing project that, like the Walmart site plan, met zoning and engineering codes but was also turned down by the Edmond Planning Commission in 2018. Frustration from developers who see projects turned down despite meeting the city’s code requirements has resulted in builders supporting legislation like Senate Bill 647, proposed in the 2025 legislative session, which would strip cities of their ability to deny plats for developments that adhere to the requirements outlined in municipal code. The bill, against which Edmond was a leading opponent, did not become law. However, it remains property of the State Senate for the 2026 legislative session and could be voted on again.
Although city staff recommended the Walmart site plans’ approval, the June 17 planning commission meeting concluded with the project rejected by a 1-3 vote after a procession of displeased residents pled their cases.
‘We urge you to follow the law’
Fittingly, after multiple years of litigation at several levels of judicial authority, the site plan’s public hearing began much like a court proceeding. As residents who were forced to stand in the lobby just outside council chambers kept their eyes glued to a small TV displaying the meeting, Box outlined the numerous judicial rulings that had taken place during his client’s effort to move the project forward.
The area has been zoned appropriately for a store since 1990, Box argued, before the nearby Asheforde Oaks neighborhood was constructed. While the zoning could have been changed at any point by the Edmond City Council, it has remained as E-2 for “open display commercial.” Owing to the appropriate zoning and conformance to city building codes, Box said, courts deemed the previous site plan’s denial “arbitrary and unreasonable.”
“(The) city’s claim that the site plan would ‘create a threat to the life, health and general welfare of the community’ is based upon vague reference to ‘insufficient traffic flow and congestion.’ (The) city presented no evidence regarding traffic conditions,” Court of Civil Appeals Judge Robert D. Bell wrote in his 2017 decision. “On the other hand, the site plan detailed offsite street and signal improvements to be paid for by developer that, according to (the) city’s engineering director, will improve traffic in the vicinity of the subject tract.”
Bell cited the 1978 Kelly v. City of Bethany case in his decision, which noted that “it has long been a breach of the 14th Amendment to empower a city at its absolute and unrestrained discretion to give or withhold permission to a property owner to use his property in any lawful manner, in compliance with zoning ordinances and other reasonable legislative requirements.”
“We urge you to follow the law that was set by the Court of Civil Appeals on this very issue, on this very piece of property,” Box said in his opening remarks.
One of the first issues raised by members of the planning commission was the architectural compatibility of the proposed Walmart with surrounding structures, which Commissioner Austin Gotcher noted.
The proposed structure would be a grey, flat-roofed building with some masonry materials on the outside, which Commissioner Ryan Chapman criticized by noting he “did not see any (…) grey cinderblock buildings” in the area.
“In terms of you not seeing another cinder block building, compatibility doesn’t have to mean there has to be another one next to it,” Box argued. “What it means, I think, is it’s a masonry product. The product we are using is specifically authorized under Edmond’s ordinances. Therefore, we check that box. These aren’t my words. This is what the state Court of Civil Appeals told us. That issue was litigated, ad nauseam. That exact issue, that exact argument, failed both at the district court and the Court of Civil Appeals.”
While traffic impact analysis is not handled at the site plan stage, congestion became one of the most referenced points by opponents of the proposal as the two-hour meeting wore on.
Follow NonDoc’s Edmond coverage:
‘Untold’ traffic impact drives opposition
Box said developers would happily work with city staff in determining what ingress and egress modifications might be necessary to meet the city’s standard for traffic flow around the project. In the city staff memo regarding the site plans, staff members note “the developer will be responsible for improvements to both Covell Road and Coltrane Road incompliance with the platting process.”
“Because these requirements are associated with platting (Title 21) versus site plan (Title 22), many of the roadway components shown on the site plan will need to be modified to meet platting requirements,” the memo states. “These requirements include right-of-way dedication, sight triangle(s), public sidewalks, a traffic impact analysis, access management, and many other street improvements.”
Barry Black, president of the Asheforde Oaks Homeowners Association, argued that the left-turn lane included in preliminary plans for the Walmart would complicate traffic at an already “failing” one-lane intersection. He also said it would clash with the city’s designation and future modifications of Covell Road as a major arterial street. Black questioned whether delivery truck traffic, in conjunction with customer and employee vehicles, could be reasonably introduced at the Covell and Coltrane Roads intersection if a left-turn lane creating further complications is involved.
“It adds untold numbers of customer traffic turning in. How many will that be? We don’t know,” Black said. “We don’t know because nobody’s seen the traffic impact. How can we approve a plan if we don’t know what will happen?”
Black further argued the City of Edmond’s future traffic plans lean heavily into creating major arterial roads with unbroken medians to reduce left-turn lanes and improve traffic flow. In the city’s EdmondShift transportation plan, multiple strategies to retrofit existing streets and improve safety speak to that goal. One section of the document notes “unsafe” left turns on undivided roads such as Covell should be mitigated by creating center turn lanes or medians “where pavement space allows.”
Other residents spoke to the impact of bright commercial lighting in the area, as well as the removal of long-existing Cross Timbers flora and fauna on the parcel. During his final remarks of the evening, Box reiterated his client would work with city staff to “meet or exceed” all city codes related to preservation of nature and lighting.
“What more can a property owner or developer do, other than comply with the rules as prescribed by the city?” Box asked. “There’s nothing more they can do. To put additional requirements would be absolutely subjective and violate every principle of development and every principle of legal authority that exists for the State of Oklahoma.”
Decision could be appealed to Edmond City Council (again)
Prior to the Edmond Planning Commission’s June 17 vote against the project, Commissioner Ryan Chapman issued a sharp rebuke to Box and his client’s process on the proposal.
“Before my current role, for my day job, I used to work for a developer here in Edmond, Oklahoma. It’s very normal for there to be a dialogue between a developer and the community and to come back after to fix requests,” Chapman said. “I think it’s a shame you prefer to litigate than be flexible. I believe, and I see a path forward where this gets approved and a Walmart’s on that corner following the code and a majority of people can be happy. But it appears to me you prefer to go to court and fight than work with the community.”
In the final 1-3 tally on whether to approve the site plans, Commissioner Mark Hoose was the single “Yes” vote. Following the vote, Vice Chairman Chip Winter said he expects to “see this again.”
After the original 2015 proposal was defeated, Box and his client appealed the decision to the Edmond City Council. Contacted by phone Wednesday, Box declined comment about their plans now.
Chapman said he did not view the previous court rulings as strictly binding in the manner Box presented them to be.
“My understanding was, that was then, this is now,” Chapman said. “Now, I understand the applicant saw that differently. There’s a reason it was brought before us: It was a site plan that needed to be approved based upon the site plan review criteria, and that was the basis of our decision. (…) I could foresee a day in which this gets passed, but we still have concerns, and until those concerns are addressed, you know. If they were addressed, I don’t see why we as a commission wouldn’t pass this. But there was just no dialogue, no indication that those concerns are going to be addressed. So I believe it will likely be appealed to the city council, from what I understand.”
If history continues to repeat itself, the issue could appear on agenda for the next regularly scheduled Edmond City Council meetings, which are scheduled for June 23 and July 14.
(Editor’s note: This story was updated at 3 p.m. Tuesday, June 24, to correctly attribute a quote to Edmond Planning Commission Vice Chairman Chip Winter rather than Chairman Brian Blundell.)
