Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes down Club Car Wash PUD amendment amid neighbor concerns; item still heads to council
Summary
The Planning Commission rejected a proposed PUD amendment to allow an automated Club Car Wash at Covell Crossing by a 1–4 vote, following resident testimony citing noise, traffic, and groundwater risks; the item will be transmitted to city council for further review on June 8, 2026.
The Edmond Planning Commission voted 1–4 on May 19 to deny recommending a zoning map amendment to add an automated car wash use at Lot 4 of Covell Crossing, but the item will be forwarded to the Edmond City Council for final consideration on June 8, 2026.
Staff presented the one-acre PUD amendment and explained that the proposal would add automated car wash operations (including vacuums) to the allowed uses. Kurt, the engineer of record for Club Car Wash (Cochran Engineering), answered commissioner questions about technology and mitigation: “We put them in housings. We try to shield it,” he said when asked about vacuum noise, and he confirmed proposed operating hours of 7 a.m.–8 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8 a.m.–8 p.m. on Sunday.
Several nearby residents strongly opposed the amendment. John Laws, who lives immediately south of the proposed site, told the commission the car wash was not part of the original PUD and called the request a “backdoor rezoning.” Laws added concerns about vacuum noise, sustained operational noise, lighting and the risk to private wells from runoff and chemicals, saying the proposal would harm the “quiet enjoyment” of the adjacent neighborhood.
The applicant’s representative said water management measures are part of the design: the applicant stated on the record that water would be captured on-site, grease trap interceptors used, and 30% of water recycled. “All our water is caught on-site…We recycle 30% of our water,” the applicant said.
Commissioners asked about the surrounding pads and future uses south of the site, and one commissioner said the proposal would be difficult to support because the PUD’s original expectations for compatibility had been altered by the amendment. The commission’s negative recommendation does not block council review; staff materials and any required site‑plan conditions will accompany the item to council on June 8 for final decision.
