Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Large West Fork PUD advanced to council after commission approves mixed-use plan with commercial minimum
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 4–1 to recommend the 148‑acre West Fork PUD, which establishes two tracks of mixed uses, sets a 35% minimum commercial buildable area on Track 1 and allows a mix of residential and employment uses; developers said they will deliver trail connections and phased infrastructure.
The Edmond Planning Commission recommended approval of the West Fork Planned Unit Development (Z26‑00009) by a 4–1 vote on May 19, sending the 148‑acre plan to city council for consideration on June 8, 2026.
Staff described the PUD as a two‑track, mixed‑use campus along Sooner and Coffee Creek. Track 1 (northwest portion, roughly 45 acres) would allow a mix of residential and commercial uses with a minimum buildable area of 35% devoted to commercial uses; staff and the applicant discussed heights of up to four stories in most areas and the possibility of taller employment buildings where grades hide additional stories. Track 2 (northeast portion, roughly 61 acres) was presented as a mixed area with a maximum unit discussion that the transcript references around 320 units for that tract; staff said they expect integrated residential types rather than isolated apartment complexes.
Developer David Lambeth told commissioners the project would include public trail connections and that the applicant would pay to construct an Edmond trail segment and coordinate with the city about routing. “I put a minimum percentage of the land in tract 1 that had to be commercial…minimum of 35% of that entire track had to be devoted to commercial,” Lambeth said, describing commercial acreage set‑asides intended to preserve retail capacity along the corridor.
Commissioners questioned details about lot sizes, sale vs. build‑to‑rent housing types and how future employment uses would be attracted to the site. The applicant said the development would likely be phased over decades, with large amounts of commercial acreage (the transcript cites roughly 72 acres across multiple corners) and that some long‑range infrastructure (roundabouts and an on‑ramp) would be desirable but are not project commitments.
Public commenters were generally supportive of the trail system and sought clarity on private versus public streets; one neighbor said clearer lot‑size information in the PUD would aid review. The commission’s vote forwarded the PUD to council with the applicant and staff materials for further review and any required conditions.
