Council approves AriseWell site plan but rejects permanent dead‑end water main

The Edmond City Council approved the site plan and preliminary plat for the Santa Fe and Mill Valley Addition — a proposed assisted‑living development branded AriseWell Residences — while voting down a requested variance to allow a permanent dead‑end water main.

Staff presented the project as a roughly 3‑acre parcel at the northwest corner of Santa Fe Avenue and Mill Valley with two proposed buildings of about 9,200 square feet each. The council considered a series of variances for sight‑triangle and driveway separation standards, which it approved, and the contested water‑line variance, which the council rejected by a 0‑5 vote.

The project engineer, David Jones of Orion Group, told the council the applicant had two options to avoid a true dead‑end main: extend the line north to an existing city line on Silver Fox Drive or shorten the proposed line to terminate at a service connection with a fire hydrant so the segment would remain flushed. "We're either gonna get this defined as a non dead end line or we're gonna extend it on, to the city's service already on Silver Fox," Jones said, describing how either approach would eliminate the need for the variance.

A citizen, Taylor Wilson, urged the council to "follow what the staff and support your staff by denying the water stubbing exemption." Council members cited long‑term maintenance and operational burdens of dead‑end mains in explaining their unanimous decision to deny the variance for a permanent dead‑end main.

The council approved three separate driveway and sight‑triangle variances (including reducing driveway separation along Santa Fe from 325 feet to 313 feet and from 150 feet to 141 feet for Mill Valley) by 5‑0 votes. After denying the water main variance, the council approved the site plan application (case SP25‑00012) with the previously granted variances and then approved the preliminary plat (PR25‑009). The motions to approve the site plan and plat each passed 5‑0.

Planning staff noted that Planning Commission had recommended denial of the dead‑end water main variance and recommended approval of the other variances; the council’s votes mirrored that recommendation. Staff and the applicant indicated they would pursue the alternatives discussed to avoid creating a permanent dead‑end main. The council did not specify a construction timetable; the applicant must next complete engineering and right‑of‑way work as directed by staff.

Actions at the meeting included approval of the side triangle and driveway separation variances, denial of the dead‑end water main variance (0‑5), approval of the site plan (5‑0) and approval of the preliminary plat (5‑0).