Although the Edmond City Council held its first meeting Monday night in the new $44 million Edmond City Center complex, the specter of an old issue made its way onto a fresh dais.
Following a June marathon meeting of the Edmond Planning Commission, which voted against the long-litigated Walmart proposal at the two-lane corner of Covell Road and Coltrane Road that it first shot down a decade ago, Edmond City Council members also reached the same conclusion as their 2015 counterparts. The council rejected the site plan in a 4-1 vote Monday.
The issue took up most of the Monday meeting’s time and attendees’ attention. Much like last month’s Edmond Planning Commission meeting, a long line of opponents from the Asheford Oaks neighborhood and others in the area addressed council. Unlike at the planning commission, however, some spoke in favor of allowing the site plan to move ahead.
“If we have this kind of subjectivity, I just kind of wonder, where does it stop?” said attorney Todd McKinnis, who spoke on behalf of developer Jim Tapp. “Where does it stop when a private resident’s rights are greater than private commercial rights when it comes to property? We have rules for a reason.”
Despite McKinnis’ concerns, the council voted against the project, but that likely will not put an end to the issue. An Oklahoma County District Court judge and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals determined in 2016 and 2017 that the site plan met all city codes. With the courts saying the role of the planning commission and council is a “ministerial” one simply to move plans along, it remains unclear a decade later what the legal ramifications of Monday’s new denial could be for the City of Edmond.
City spokesman Bill Begley said that, since the relationship between City Attorney Madeleine Sawyer and members of the council constitutes an attorney-client arrangement, the city could not reveal specific legal advice she may have offered ahead of the vote.
Ward 4 Councilman Phil Fraim, who cast the lone vote in favor of the project, alluded to potential financial consequences when explaining his decision. Part of Fraim’s professional background as president of Oklahoma Attorneys Mutual Insurance Company and former president of the National Association of Bar Related Insurance Companies includes risk and liability assessment in litigation.
“Almost every question that people have raised tonight was asked and answered in detail at the trial court level, painstakingly, at the appellate level, in a de novo decision, which means they re-tried it,” Fraim said. “They went through the issues, painfully. We can argue that this is a different site plan. It’s my opinion, from a legal standpoint, this is the same applicant, the same site plan, the same principles apply. (…) Keep in mind, everything has a cost-reward factor to it. (…) There will be consequences attached to this, all of which impacts city money. The only thing we don’t know is how much.”
While Fraim said during the meeting the project may not be his “ideal” occupant for the corner and that he “felt for” the nearby residents, the fact the case has already been litigated also played into his vote.
The 2015 plan was roughly 2,000 square feet smaller than the current one and had a different building color and landscaping features, so McKinnis argued the adjustments do not invalidate the courts’ previous decisions. As to Fraim’s question of “how much” money could be at stake for the city, he said the answer could climb into the millions.
“I think it’s going to lead to Mr. Tapp pursuing litigation against the City of Edmond like they did 10 years ago,” McKinnis told NonDoc Tuesday morning. “I believe there will be at least a claim for financial damages in the form of an inverse condemnation, that you’re taking my property without just compensation. I think the request will be whatever those damages can be. Is it the value he paid for the land in March, which was $2.6 million, or is it the value that Walmart would be paying for the land, which is exponentially higher? (…) I believe the potential claim is in the millions of dollars. And I believe if we are fortunate enough to get the same judge that had the case last time, it will be a very painful day for the City of Edmond.”
Moore: ‘I do have a choice’
Despite the multiple court rulings on the issue, Ward 2 Councilman Barry Moore — whose ward would be home to the proposed Walmart — championed his agency as an elected local leader to make his own decision on the topic.
“I’ve been told that I don’t have a choice. Well, I do have a choice. I can vote ‘Yes,’ I can vote ‘No,’ or I can abstain. So that’s the very definition of choice,” Moore said. “What I really don’t need is a company headquartered in Arkansas, listed on the New York stock exchange, to come in here and tell me as a Ward 2 councilman in the city of Edmond that I don’t have a choice, and that they know better than I do on how to represent the people of Edmond.”
Moore said he based much of his opposition on the aesthetic requirements outlined in the parcel’s PUD and in the Edmond City Charter, specifically Title 22.3.5 Section D4, which governs review criteria for site plans. Section D4 emphasizes “visual compatibility of the height, area, yards and overall mass, as well as parts of any structure or attendant facilities with the character and development of the surrounding area.”
Like many of the project’s opponents, Moore said the proposed building’s flat roof and use of grey masonry instead of brick and the new building’s larger size are “all issues of compatibility.” Issues also raised during the meeting included the potential traffic issues a Walmart could create on the narrow Coltrane and Covell Roads, though Mayor Mark Nash repeatedly asked speakers to avoid referencing traffic, as that issue is not handled in full at the site planning stage.
Arguably subjective criteria like visual compatibility were part of what inspired a renewed push this year at the Oklahoma Legislature for Senate Bill 647, which remains property of the State Senate for 2026. Sen. Avery Frix (R-Muskogee) is the author of SB 647, saying earlier this year that it aims to limit “NIMBYism” and would require city planning commissions or councils to approve “plats for any project that meets zoning and code standards.”
Edmond was one of multiple municipal opponents to the bill, citing similar concerns about local control that Moore articulated Monday evening. Proponents of the SB 647, however, have argued that some municipalities are creating unreasonable barriers to entry for developers whose projects already meet specific city guidelines for construction.
Chris Anderson, a local business owner and member of the Edmond Parks and Recreation Board, spoke to that sentiment during Monday’s meeting.
“At last count, I was told I was the second-largest property owner in downtown Edmond, but I’ve really slowed my property development here in Edmond because of this right here,” Anderson said. “It’s just become too hard to develop in Edmond, and it’s just not fun anymore.”
Anderson added that he believes the significant blowback to the project is mostly due to the “Walmart” brand attached to it.
“I really feel if this was a Trader Joe’s or Tapp’s Grocery, there wouldn’t be this resistance,” Anderson said.
However, while the developers have asserted they will not need to seek any variances on the site plan, Nash said in his closing comments that he identified aspects of the site plan that would require variances.
“The first thing I see is a driveway in a flood plain. It’s my understanding that would require a variance from [the Stormwater Advisory Board],” Nash said.
He added that other city transit plans stipulate there should be “no more than 12-15 driveways or unsigned intersections” along a mile stretch of a major arterial road like Covell. Nash said “there are already 20 from Bryant to Coltrane.”
“We must remember that what staff does is a recommendation, they are not the final authority,” Nash said.
Housing strategies for 2025 approved
Although the Walmart controversy took up much of Monday’s meeting, the Edmond City Council also approved $499,591 for the city’s 2025 Community Development Block Grant for the current fiscal year as part of a five-year plan lasting through September 2030.
The funds, provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, are intended to achieve several city goals aimed at addressing needs identified in its 2023 housing assessment:
- To eliminate barriers and improve access to affordable, energy efficient and fair housing;
- To supplement funding for public and social services related to housing and/or food security to help alleviate household costs;
- To support increases in public infrastructure and multi-modal access to healthy foods, jobs, heath care, recreation and education across Edmond city limits;
- To support neighborhood safety, health and quality of life; and
- To explore and utilize the expansion of community development and resources through additional federal funding.
Christy Batterson, the city’s director of housing and community resources, noted that 25 percent of Edmond’s households are “cost-burdened,” which HUD defines as households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing expenses like rent and utilities. Her presentation also acknowledged a “widespread public sentiment against apartments, townhomes and other moderately dense developments” in Edmond, where the average home price has climbed to more than $438,000, according to the Edmond Economic Development Authority.
With $300,000 rolled over from last year’s CDBG funds, this year’s $799,591 budget will be split up among multiple city programs:
- $464,673 to the city’s housing rehabilitation program;
- $60,000 to homebuyer assistance;
- $20,000 to EdmondBuilds, a city program with goals of mitigating gentrification and investing in under-resourced areas;
- $75,000 to infrastructure improvements; and
- $89,918 to “genreal administration.”
Some CDBG funds are distributed to local nonprofits to assist with achieving local goals. This year, $70,000 is being distributed among four groups:
- $15,000 to Edmond Mobile Meals;
- $15,000 to the Project 66 Food pantry;
- $20,000 to Hope Center Rental Assistance; and
- $20,000 to the Edmond Public School Foundation.
