Covell and Coltrane

[Pete]

^

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

[OklahomaNick]

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.

[jerrywall]

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?

[Zorba]

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?

[Pete]

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.

[OklahomaNick]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

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?

[Zorba]

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.

[OklahomaNick]

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!

[OklahomaNick]

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!

[oklip955]

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.

[MCC]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

http://www.news9.com/story/33680484/...d-neighborhood

[Plutonic Panda]

http://kfor.com/2016/11/10/judge-sid...dmond-walmart/

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

[jerrywall]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[jerrywall]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[jerrywall]

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?

[oklip955]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

Can't say I disagree with you.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

That issue will have be to fixed at the same time this development starts underway.

[Plutonic Panda]

This is not over.

http://www.edmondsun.com/news/busine...0cc4653bb.html

[Rom]

Not sure why Walmart refuses to hear what everyone is telling them, no one wants them there! Surrounding neighbors don't want them and the city of Edmond has told them repeatedly they aren't wanted there. Go away and find another corner to build your 200th store in the metro.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thing is, they know a lot of people would shop there and they're right.