Council delays vote on large PUD amendment at Covell amid density, drainage and traffic concerns

The Edmond City Council on a recent night continued consideration of a proposed amendment to the Legacy at Covell planned unit development that would increase the maximum number of residential units from 600 to 950 and allow a third monument-style ground sign.

Ken Bryan, Edmond's director of planning, summarized the application and noted the planning commission had recommended approval at a 4–1 vote. Todd McInnis, representing the developer, told council the increase is market-driven and intended to support adjacent retail by bringing more residents and daily foot traffic. “We’ve had national retailers say they need more density out there to make their projects work,” McInnis said, adding the developer has experience with the site and that the application has been under review for months.

Council members pressed the applicant on traffic, drainage and whether the proposal conflicts with long-range overlay planning for the I‑35 corridor. One councilor said the proposal “gives up that opportunity” for retail in the corridor, while another described the application as “too much” and said they were not prepared to vote for the change. Residents who spoke during public comment urged council to require a detailed engineered drainage plan and pointed to existing erosion and breaches at nearby retention ponds. Rita Miller said she found evidence of a breached pond and “bleeding mud” that has not been properly addressed.

Bryan told the council that engineering review of stormwater and other public utilities typically occurs at the preliminary plat and site-plan stage, and that more detailed plans would be required before final approvals. McInnis said the site currently has no recorded stormwater violations and that the city’s engineering department conducts thorough reviews.

Several council members said they want more specificity in the PUD’s commercial provisions and clearer commitments regarding drainage and traffic mitigation before changing long-term zoning. One member moved to continue the item to allow further conversation and possible compromise; the motion to continue passed on a 5–0 vote.

Next steps: the council continued the public hearing and requested additional details from staff and the applicant, including the specific filing date of the amended PUD, any engineering drainage analysis, and clearer commercial-use commitments for the affected tracks. The item will return to council on the date set by staff and the applicant.