The Edmond City Council rejected a site plan for the Gardenia Apartments on Monday after its developer appealed the Edmond Planning Commission’s Dec. 2 denial of the 69-unit, three-story complex proposed just east of the University of Central Oklahoma.
The controversial decision underscores broader concerns about housing needs and property development processes in Edmond, which have spurred legislation that is pending in the Oklahoma State Senate. Meanwhile, the Edmond City Council’s decision last summer to deny the development of a Walmart Neighborhood Market led its developer to sue the city in a case that has seen several recent filings.
At Monday night’s Edmond City Council meeting — about 110 miles southwest of where the Broken Arrow City Council was voting to deny the Islamic Society of Tulsa’s application to build a mosque, retail space and health clinic — discussions about the proposed Gardenia Apartments divided council members into a 2-3 vote. Arguing that denial of the long-proposed apartment complex would be unfair, Ward 1 Councilwoman Maggie Murdock Nichols and Ward 4 Councilman Phil Fraim cast the two votes supporting the housing project.
“I think it comes down to, ‘Do they meet the requirements? Do they meet the PUD? Do they meet the letter agreement?’ If so, we’re down to a ministerial decision,” Fraim said. “If we start changing rules and changing patterns on every single one of these projects, we’re going to be so upside down, we’ll never get right side up.”
Residents who had spoken at the Edmond Planning Commission’s Dec. 2 meeting returned to city hall Monday and raised privacy concerns over the 35-foot building proposed for the north side of Ayers Avenue, west of Bryant Avenue. The project received pushback when the land was rezoned in 2018 for a planned unit development.
Fraim cautioned council members against overstepping their roles.
“I think we’re in dangerous grounds here when five people up here are redesigning a project that’s already been approved (in terms of zoning),” Fraim said. “That’s not what any of us are here to do.”
David Box, the attorney representing developer Denton Parker, argued that based on a letter approved by the Edmond City Council in 2018 pertaining to the development, it falls in line with city ordinances. The letter, Box said, only specified a height limit of 35 feet but lacked any prohibition against a three-story building.
However, area residents involved in discussions about the project in 2018 had a different interpretation of the agreement.
Nicole Petersen, an Edmond resident who attended a community meeting about Gardenia in 2018, spoke Monday night about the expectations neighbors held.
“We understand that they have rights within the zoning laws, but this is very different than what was presented at the time of rezoning,” Petersen said. “The 35-foot height restriction was meant for a two-story building with significant slope roof, just like our neighborhood.”
Wastewater, flooding and tree preservation concerns were also raised Monday. Parker, who spoke about his challenges trying to obtain state tax credits for the project during a marathon meeting of the Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency in November, defended his project to Edmond council members.
“A very extensive storm water drainage plan has been done by Johnson and Associates to ensure that we do not have any runoff to the north,” Parker said. “We are detaining all of our water on site. (…) There is a native tree preserve on the northeast corner that has been identified, and the architect has gone through and marked all the trees.”
But Mayor Mark Nash and Box butted heads during the presentation.
“I’m looking at an agreement that was made with an HOA and a group of property owners who thought that they were getting two-story buildings,” Nash said.
Box said he cannot speak to what was in the minds of residents after the 2018 meeting, but he held his ground that the documentation provided is legally binding.
“All I can speak to is what this city’s council agreed to,” Box said.
Nash experienced some confusion over what was included in the packet for the evening, especially when Petersen supplied the council with an additional document.
“This city council has not done anything. Previous city council, I can’t tell you without looking at minutes from a meeting,” Nash said.
Box referred to his supporting documents again.
“I read you the minutes. I can read you the minutes again,” Box said as he held the paper in his hand. “Yes, it wasn’t this makeup of humans, but the decisions of those humans in 2018 are binding on you guys, and that zoning runs with the land forever and ever and ever.”
Fraim erred on the side of holding to the past zoning agreement.
“I do have a problem with changing the rules on a capital investor when it’s been agreed to,” Fraim said. “I think that’s the big problem that we don’t want to fall into a pattern (of doing).”
Murdock Nichols wrestled with the idea that a 35-foot-tall home could be built without retaliation.
“I think it’s difficult because people have feelings about apartments,” Murdock Nichols said. “And I hear them. But to me, it feels unfair to say you can’t have a 35-foot apartment but you can have a 35-foot home.”
Ward 2 Councilman Barry Moore said every time workforce housing is talked about, there is a problem that causes citizens and developers to disagree. Moore advocated for Parker to alter the north building, which residents were most concerned about as it is closest to their property.
“This is going to continue over and over and over again with workforce housing every time,” Moore said. “And here’s an opportunity to get it, get your project, get the workforce housing and accommodate the neighborhood.”
Parker said project layouts were looked at extensively but that no other option would facilitate 69 units, a sentiment he reiterated through the discussion of alternatives.
“I felt like I met all those requirements,” Parker said.
Moore, Nash and Ward 3 Councilman Preston Watterson voted against the site plan.
Box said he and his client would not make comments at this time.
Follow NonDoc’s Edmond coverage:
‘Staff opinions simply do not matter’: The Walmart feud continues
Documents from the past used as evidence to support approval of a PUD in the present may sound familiar.
RELATED
Council denies long-litigated Edmond Walmart proposal as legal ‘consequences’ loom by Blake Douglas
The site plan for a Walmart Neighborhood Market at the corner of Coltrane Road and Covell Road was denied again last summer by the Edmond City Council despite two courts’ prior admonishments in a lengthy court battle over the project. But when Edmond council members again blocked the Walmart project, the developer sued for the second time in 10 years.
Now, in a motion for partial summary judgement, Box, who also represents Coltrane Land Development, LLC, has accused the City of Edmond of openly refusing to comply with the court’s prior rulings. But according to the city, the 2025 Walmart site plan does not comply with zoning ordinances.
The city’s response attempts to draw distinction between the current lawsuit and the 2015 case, calling the prior ruling “a red herring” that does not correlate to the current site plan. While Box’s motion argues the site plans are so similar the differences are “negligible at best,” the city’s motion to strike would rather disregard the deja vu.
“To what extent a previously proposed or approved site plan resembles a more recent proposed site plan is not listed as a basis for decisions denying, approving or conditionally approving a site plan,” the city’s motion to strike reads.
The city also asserts that the developer is at fault for not acting more quickly.
“Edmond did not fail to take action necessary to approve the 2015 site plan. Rather, after receiving judicial approval, the then-owner took no action to develop the property in accordance with the 2015 site plan,” the motion reads. “As such, the 2015 site plan and associated approvals expired.”
Both the plaintiff’s motion and the city’s response reference statements from Ken Bryan, Edmond’s director of planning, and his assessments of the PUD’s adherence to city ordinances.
While the plaintiff argues that Bryan confirmed the compliance of the project, the city took a stance that places less weight on staff recommendations.
“Certain aspects of the review criteria are considered only by the final decision maker, because, quite frankly, staff opinions simply do not matter when it comes to non-technical determinations,” the city’s motion argues.
A hearing for partial summary judgement is set for 9 a.m. Wednesday, March 4.
