Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pud Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Kelly Corner PUD amendment, adds units and sensitive buffer
Summary
The council approved an amendment to the Kelly Corner planned unit development that raises the senior living cap and increases common area while adding a 30–70 ft east buffer; the applicant said oil‑and‑gas issues are legally separate from the city's land‑use decision.
The Edmond City Council voted 5–0 to approve an amendment to PUD Z22‑35 (Kelly Corner) that keeps the project's new‑urbanist concept while authorizing several changes: removal of references to specific zoning districts, an increase in senior living units from 120 to 130, a 300‑unit cap in a central residential area with allowance for offices in townhomes, and an increase in common open space from 15.8 to 18.4 acres.
Ken Bridal, Director of Planning, summarized the amendment and noted a Planning Commission recommendation to approve by a 3–2 vote on January 6, 2026. The amendment also adds a “sensitive border” buffer along the east property line ranging from 30 to 70 feet; staff and the applicant described the buffer as a mitigation for adjacent single‑family areas.
Todd McKinnis, representing the property owners, said the PUD amendment reflects two more years of project development and improved information about eventual users. He said an adjacent project (Highland 55) accounts for the 10 extra senior units. When a planning commissioner raised oil‑and‑gas activity and related litigation, McKinnis said such matters are addressed by the Corporation Commission and district court and are not relevant to the council’s land‑use decision: “There’s loads of regulatory authority through the city, through the state, and through the corporation commission about what happens if you want to explore oil and gas activity,” he said.
Mark McCann, a nearby resident, said he was concerned about oil wells and ongoing litigation and asked whether the roads shown would be built around wells. The mayor and staff replied that the council’s review tonight is limited to the street‑width changes in the PUD and directed McCann to planning staff for technical questions; the mayor noted the PUD challenge is a separate court matter.
After questions about unit types along the east boundary and other parcel details, a council member moved to approve the amendment and the council voted 5–0. The amendment will be incorporated into the PUD documents and engineering conditions if final approvals proceed.
The judge‑level litigation and any Corporation Commission proceedings mentioned by speakers were discussed as background and were not decided or resolved by the council tonight.
