Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Heritage Grove topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edmond Planning Commission approves Heritage Grove preliminary plat amid neighbors' drainage and traffic concerns
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 5–0 to approve the 19‑lot preliminary plat for Heritage Grove (PR26‑00005). Neighbors warned 34th Street’s drainage and nearby utilities could be overwhelmed; the applicant and staff said stormwater modeling and city ordinances will govern final engineering.
Get email alerts on the Heritage Grove topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Edmond Planning Commission voted 5–0 on July 2 to approve the preliminary plat for Heritage Grove (PR26‑00005), a proposed 19‑lot subdivision on roughly 7 acres west of Bryant Avenue and south of 33rd.
Residents from Patterson Drive and adjacent streets raised repeated concerns during public comment about drainage, site maintenance and utility access, saying the property now functions as a neighborhood drainage corridor and questioning whether 19 homes can be added without worsening flooding. Elaine Pauley, who said she lives at 3404 Patterson Drive, asked, “Is this land capable of holding 19 homes?” and described repeated problems she attributes to poor maintenance and a contractor’s previous gravel delivery that damaged a manhole and waterline.
Why it matters: Neighbors said heavy stormwater flows on 34th Street create safety and property‑damage risks that they believe a new subdivision could increase. The applicant and city staff said engineering and city stormwater rules will limit post‑development runoff and that the plat complies with current code.
Todd McInnis, attorney for Turning Point Ministries, and the applicant’s team described the property’s zoning history and said the proposed plat complies with Edmond’s development standards. McInnis told the commission that modeling for drainage “comes from the City of Edmond” and that the developer is not seeking variances. He said the plan includes a dry detention pond at the rear of the development and that 20% of the site (about 1.4 acres) will be set aside for tree preservation.
Neighbors cited specific concerns during public comment. Liz Lane Harvard, of 3500 Patterson Drive, asked what hydrologic model was used and whether it reflects recent rainfall trends; she also raised traffic and utility‑access questions and flagged federally protected kites under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act near the site. Brent and others noted steep lot contour lines—several speakers pointed out lots with about a 7‑foot front‑to‑back elevation change and warned that inadequate grading or fill could lead to foundation or drainage problems. Heather Ryan, who lives at 3400 Patterson Drive near the proposed entrance, said she has video of deep flooding on 34th Street and measured water depths “between 16 to 18 inches” in recent storms.
The applicant’s response: McInnis said the development must meet city stormwater ordinances enforced through the city’s stormwater review process (the applicant noted the local stormwater board handles detailed drainage approvals). He said the plat’s design will not increase the volume or speed of water leaving the site compared with current conditions and that work already shown on the site was done by a contractor who lacked the necessary permits. McInnis also offered to meet with neighbors while the project proceeds through final platting and inspection phases.
Formal action and next steps: The commission approved the preliminary plat 5–0. If the developer proceeds, the project will return for final plat approval, followed by on‑site inspections as required by the City of Edmond before any building permits are issued.
Key clarifications from the hearing: the applicant said no variances are requested; drainage modeling and stormwater compliance will follow City of Edmond ordinances and review; the detention facility is described as a dry detention pond; and tree preservation standards will reserve approximately 20% (about 1.4 acres) of the site.
Votes and procedural note: The motion to approve passed on a 5–0 roll call by the Planning Commission and moves the project to the next technical and permitting stages with the city.
