At five thirty PM, I'm going to call the meeting to order.

If I could please have a roll call.

Commissioner Brewer.

Here.

Commissioner McDaniel?

Here.

Commissioner McCowan?

Here.

Commissioner Jablonsky.

Here.

Commissioner Byrd.

Here.

Commissioner McClure.

Commissioner Griffith.

Commissioner Kendall?

Here.

Commissioner Parker.

Here.

Starting with our consent items.

Item number one consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of the minutes that follows.

Planning Commission meeting minutes of July tenth, twenty twenty-five.

Item number two, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of PP two five two six dash four.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Heritage Fine Home Investments LLC, Crafton Toll and Associates, Inc.

for St.

James Center, Section Two, for five point seven seven acres of property generally located at the southwest corner of East Cedar Lane Road and Twenty Fourth Avenue Southeast.

Item number three, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and or postponement of PP two five two six-five.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by James and Jackie Palisano, Johnson and Associates for one five zero eight Shady Brook Drive for nine point seven six acres of property located at one five zero eight Shady Book Drive.

Does any member of the commission wish to remove any item from the consent docket?

Does any member of the audience wish to remove any item from the consent docket?

Seeing none, I would take a motion.

Move to approve.

Second it.

And a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Moving to our non-consent items, we'll read items four and five together.

Item number four, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-4.

An ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the Code of the City of Norman so as to remove the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 9 North, Range 3 West of the Indian Meridian, to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the A2 Rural Agricultural District and I2 Heavy Industrial District, and place the same in SPUD simple planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof, generally located north of West Tecumseh Road on North Flood Avenue.

And item number five, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of PP-2526-3.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Power Homes LLC, SMC Consulting Engineers PC for North Flood Business Park, a simple planned unit development for 3.65 acres of property generally located north of West Tecumseh Road on North Flood Avenue.

I would take the staff presentation.

Hello, Justin Fish here of the Planning Department as stated this is a rezoning from A2 and I2 to SPUD civil planning and development.

And it is accompanied by a preliminary plat.

So this is the subject property with the existing zonings of surrounding properties.

There are PUDs located to the east and to the south, with I2 located across uh North Flood Avenue to the east or the west, and there is A1 located to the north.

These are the existing land uses of or the surrounding properties.

There is a residential use to the north of the subject parcel, and there appears to be an abandoned building to the south with a military facility across North Flood Avenue to the west.

This is an aerial photo taken in 2023.

This is a photo looking north on North Flood Avenue.

A photo looking south on North Flood Avenue.

Looking east towards the subject site.

And looking west across North Flood Avenue towards the military facility.

And this is a picture of the private road that currently giving uh gives access to the parcel that's north of the subject parcel, the residential use, and as well as the subject parcel itself.

This is the proposed green space plan for the development site.

So they're proposing around 43% of the site being green space.

This is the accompanying plenary plat.

And this is the site development plan.

So they are proposing six buildings ranging from 3,500 square feet to 5,000 square feet.

They will be used for industrial and uh commercial purposes.

A full list of uses is within the SPUD narrative.

They're also proposing two areas that will help with drainage, and they are proposing a circle drive that will be where the current private drive is.

This will be used to gain access to the site.

It connects to 24th Avenue Northwest, and that also has access to North Flood Avenue.

So if you want to go into the site, you can get in there from North Flood Avenue.

Staff for this request for rezoning from A2 Rural Agricultural District and I2 Heavy Industrial District to SPUD simple planning unit development and ordinance 250-2526-4 to planning commission for consideration and recommendation to city council.

Staff is available for comments and the applicant has prepared a presentation for the planning commission.

Thank you.

Any questions by commission for staff?

Just one.

Did I misread that?

No limit on the building heights.

Correct.

They are listing no height for buildings.

I don't have my code with me at the moment, but I believe it is around 45 feet.

I want to say, or two stories, three stories around there.

I'm more than happy to get back to you if official answer on that.

Sure.

Yeah.

So within the uh commercial, so C2, there are no uh height limits for any buildings within that district.

And did you say one I1 within the I1 district it states where a lot adjoins a dwelling district, the building shall not exceed three stories or 45 feet in height unless it is set back one foot from all yard lines for each foot above the 45.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff by commissioners?

Okay, seeing none, I would take the applicant presentation.

Thank you, Commissioners Gunner.

Joyce, on behalf of the applicant here.

And uh just really quickly, Commissioner Jablonski, we have a slide as I thought this might come up.

Uh we are going to be heavily controlled in height because of proximity to the airport.

And so we fall within that what orangish shirt circle on screen there where the red outline site, and it basically says that a permit's required at any height.

So part of development here will have to go through the FAA process, can exceed anything that they would have any objection to.

So we haven't drafted in any height limitations because this one is gonna exceed anything that zoning would do.

So uh that's why you don't see anything uh in the PUD there.

Uh but specific, I'll move pretty quick because I think it is uh fairly straightforward, except for uh a few things that we can talk about, kind of like the height one.

Uh, I do have some updated information for you on exterior materials, a conversation with one of the neighbors.

But here is the subject site.

So, as you can see, right there on Flood, it is just uh it's basically almost two and three quarters of acres, so 2.75 acres.

Uh, right on a pretty uh heavily commercialized corridor here on Flood as we develop out the on queue relatively new, same with Starbucks.

And so the idea here is taking a kind of an older zoning, agricultural zoning, a leftover of industrial zoning as well.

So you can see there on screen that kind of eastern part of this southeastern corner there that's highlighted in is an I-2 holdover.

So that piece is industrial, the rest of it is agricultural.

But again, as we see kind of on screen there, and if you drive up and down flood, you know that this is quickly kind of becoming more commercialized by the day.

So that is the request here is to make it allowable for commercial users to come in, more tenants uh and things of that nature for these buildings uh to utilize.

So as you can see on screen, the idea right now is six buildings commercial industrial uses.

Uh we have added in the exterior materials language that is kind of typical of our PUDs.

Uh that has been uh a discussion point with one of the neighbors to the east.

Uh, and our intent there was really just to match the PUD ordinance that says buildings in a PUD have to be a minimum of 80% masonry.

Uh that 80% number is not drafted in the PUDs.

We're happy to do that.

If you want to make recommendation on the vote tonight, or we can unilaterally do that following this, but we're comfortable with that 80% requirement that uh the overarching PUD ordinance would probably apply to this, but we can spell it out specifically.

Uh here's the preliminary plat on screen.

It is one lot, so all those six build excuse me, six buildings would be on the singular lot in the plat, and then the common area uh is the drainage and the uh detention retention areas.

Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat.

And it is substantially green.

I know Justin already showed this on screen, but uh, we're at 43 percent green space there.

A lot of it will be the uh improved attention ponds, bioretention ponds here.

There is WQPZ on site, so all those ponds that you see will be heavily uh filtrated.

A lot of BMPs are involved.

This is SMC and Mohammed Khan.

So if you have questions, he is here to get you uh really into the details of the drainage plan on the site.

It is impressive.

I tried to follow along with some of the emails, uh, but they have added four bays, which is a technique that could be used to help filter the water as it gets into the bioretention pond.

So a lot of BMPs are utilized here as SMC often does, uh, and that is the summary.

So just kind of trying to more modernize this specific site.

It's kind of a holdover of agricultural little bit of industrial on a site that is uh certainly uh wanting to be commercial with uh the developments that are coming up and down flood.

Uh like we are happy to make that uh clarification on the exterior materials, and with that happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Moving to questions by commissioners for the applicant.

Um could you just re-clarify for me the agreement though with the neighbor?

It was to change the PUD building materials so that the buildings had 80% masonry.

Did I have that correct?

Yeah, just to clarify there, because I don't want to necessarily speak uh for the neighbor that that is an agreement, but that was always our intent was kind of to match the PUD ordinance, which would impose an 80%.

Right now, that percentage is not drafted in, it's just our usual paragraph.

I I believe staff would require 80% anyway at building permit review because this is a PUD, but we're happy to enumerate that in so that there's no misunderstanding that it could be 95% untextured metal with a little bit of wood or brick throat on there.

So happy to draft in an 80% minimum requirement for these buildings.

Thank you.

Any other questions by commissioners for the applicant?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would move to the audience comments if there are any.

Seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion.

Just real quick it'd be nice if the staff could tell us um what the requirement is because if it's 80 percent, I don't think there's any reason to write it in their narrative.

You know, if that's just the rule, then that'll be imposed by the city.

Yeah, please go ahead.

Within the uh so this is a SPUD within the SPU.

Oh, do you want to?

I'm sorry, do you have that?

I don't have it with me, but sorry, didn't mean to jump in front of you.

So uh within the SPUD document or in the uh ordinance it says a description of the architecture of all buildings, including exterior building materials is required.

And I'm thumbing through this, but I am not seeing uh the statement of the 80 percent requirement.

This may be a question for Miss Mugala, but as a point of order, would an amended motion be necessary if commissioners were amenable to that, or could that be something that could be drafted in later for council?

Is a is it a changed or amended motion necessary?

Um so are we talking about a situation in which you would like to approve or consider approval with recommended conditions?

Because that's one of the specific things you can do with PUDs here at Planning Commission.

So to my understanding that we have an applicant that's requesting a change that was maybe presented later than was able to be provided to us.

Um and he posed the comment about an amended motion.

If we wanted to agree to that change, would that need to be amended into our motion, or can we just submit as approved now and have that be amended later as they move forward to council?

Do we have a motion on the floor right now?

We do not.

Okay, so no, um, I would make the motion stated I move to approve uh subject to the condition of this being added to it.

Um alternatively, uh, when things are discussed here at Planning Commission, but there's not a specific motion or recommendation made about that.

Uh they can be placed in uh to the PUD and then pointed out separately to City Council when they go forward.

It'll be pointed out in the staff report.

We've done that too.

But here I would because it's a PUD, I would approve it as a special condition of the actual motion.

So it would be to that extent if commission's intent is for that to be allowable going forward.

You feel it would be best if we did the amendment on our motion here or you wouldn't need an amendment because there's not a motion on the floor.

Yes.

But you would state it as part of the motion, part of the motion.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Sure.

Okay.

Any questions by commissioners regarding that item?

Uh or any other discussion on there for staff?

I would have a quick question.

Maybe for staff.

This may be a Todd question.

Um are there requirements for building setbacks on the ponds?

I mean, the the ponds look like they're right up to the parcel line, so no, I'm not aware of any setback requirements, but those ponds are all an easement, so they can't encroach the easement.

Yeah.

But I'm just for the adjacent property owners, like they developed next to it.

It shouldn't be an issue then.

No.

Okay.

That's it.

You can have seats.

Thank you.

I have a question for the developer.

Gunter, do you know how many aeronautical miles from the airport this location is no?

No.

But I can maybe try and work it out here with you.

Is it sorry?

No, I have my reading glasses on.

Is it within three nautical miles?

Is the crow flies is a nautical mile?

Um I'm guessing here, I would guess yes.

Thank you, Mohammed.

Go ahead.

No, you've finished, please.

Mohammed Khan with the SMC consulting 815 West Maine is less than a mile.

It's less than a mile.

Okay.

Um what I'm looking at uh on the federal FAA height standards.

Um it says under FAA regulation structures or structures are considered obstruction to air navigation if they exceed certain heights within three nautical miles, they are not allowed to be over 200 feet above ground level.

Is that the same understanding you have?

Yeah, so I was the engineer on on Q further south as well as for a Starbucks.

So as Gunnar mentioned earlier, it has to go through FAA for air clearance study.

So there will be a survey, there will be an as build uh survey showing the elevation proposed elevation there.

And uh after the assessment that it did what is called ARIS study, which takes like a 60 days plus, they'll establish what is the maximum allowable height will be for the building.

Okay.

When you developed on queue, did they give you a limit that was lower than 200 feet?

Uh no, uh that's not how it works uh with my understanding.

You propose the structure, the high, the as built elevation there, you submit it to FAA, then they do the obstruction evaluation, and based on that you get yes or no.

Okay.

That's it.

All right.

So I don't know if it matters to any commissioners, but if they base their yes or no on that 200 feet within three nautical miles versus the limit of 45 previously plus a foot of setback for each foot from uh property line.

I I don't know if anyone cares to discuss that or or anything.

I just wanted to say that's what I found on the FAA site.

Thank you.

Um since it's discussion time, I'll just jump in.

So my understanding from staff was that um we were comparing this PUD to both C2 and industrial, and with C2 there is no height limit.

Correct.

But with industrial, there was this height requirement, and so it's kind of like I don't know which what are we really comparing it to?

Um I'll be honest at first my feathers were a little ruffled when I saw no height requirement, but if I compare it to a C2, it's like well, there's no height requirement.

So perfect.

There will be a height height requirement.

Yes, yes, exactly.

Exactly.

Sorry.

Exactly.

Any question?

Any other questions?

I can't regarding height or any other discussion.

Okay, great.

Uh we've already reviewed the audience comments and move to discussion.

I would take a motion.

Second?

No.

And a vote.

Oh, wait, point of order.

So we can have discussion after there's a motion.

So the motion that was just made had no requirement on the 80% for masonry.

So now that there is a motion on the table, if we want to change things, I believe it has to actually be an amendment at this point, a friendly amendment.

So I'm gonna offer a friendly amendment that we include uh you know, a subject, you know, that we approve subject to the condition of 80% masonry.

Um we might have to ask staff, but my understanding is that this will be the friendly amendment would have to be accepted by the mover and the seconder, and if they do, then that would become the new motion.

Correct.

So that's that's my friend proposal for a friendly amendment.

Uh you can take it or leave it.

So do I need to make a new No, you just have to accept it or not accept it.

Okay, well, I'll accept the friendly amendment.

Okay.

As will I.

Okay, so then maybe um can ask the chair to tell us exactly what we're voting on.

So my understanding just in can correct me if I am wrong that we have a motion to approve subject to additional language of the 80 percent building masonry requirement being added going forward.

Okay.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All right.

Uh moving on to item number six, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection, amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-8, an ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the Code of the City of Norman so as to remove Springbrook Edition 11, lot one block one to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma from the C One local commercial district, and place the same in the C2 General Commercial District and to grant special use for a bar, lounge, or tavern and providing for the separability thereof.

3250 West Robinson Street.

We would take the staff presentation.

Good evening.

I'm Kelly Abel with the planning department.

Let me figure out where we are here.

Okay.

On tonight's agenda, we have a rezoning from C1 local commercial district to C2 General Commercial District with a special use for a bar lounge or tavern.

The subject location is currently C1 and the s the per the building is vacant.

The rezoning would allow for all of the C2 uses and the special use for the bar.

This will also be a second location in Norman for Cruz In Auto Spa.

The original location is on Main Street.

This is also a busy commercial area with our Arby's and Waffle House to the east.

This is looking north.

This is west.

This is directly south in front of the the building.

And this is looking back east.

Are there any questions by commissioners of staff?

Okay, seeing none.

Does the applicant have a presentation?

Hello.

I'm coming before you to request a rezoning to allow us to sell or allow us to apply for our ABLE license through the state so we can sell beer and wine at our store.

Our new location will hopefully be up and running by February.

We'd like to serve beer and wine inside the waiting area to customers waiting on services while they wait.

Our average uh customer wait time is around 30 minutes to an hour.

We've come before you before about two years ago for our main street location.

Um it's been a really good, a really big success.

Customers really enjoy being able to have a drink while they're waiting on their services.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Any questions by commissioners for the applicant?

Uh will operations of the bar size of the bar offerings be different than what you have at your current location where the setup be pretty similar.

No, it'll be the same.

And for a point of reference, would you clarify that that is uh what exactly the alcoholic beverages are?

Would it include a mixed bar?

For example, no, there's no liquor.

Uh it is beer and wine only we are applying for any other questions for the applicant by commissioners.

Any other questions for the applicant by commissioners?

Seeing none, I would move to any audience comments.

Seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion.

I good now.

Um I would just I was just gonna make a note.

We had a pretty robust discussion about this uh for Main Street.

It seems similar to me, and um we had the same planning commission at the time.

Not to say that it's not case by case, but um glad to hear it's working and uh seems to be um a nice amenity for your customers.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would take a motion.

I'll move to approve.

Go ahead.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast in one.

Okay.

Going to our next items.

We'll read items number seven and eight together, together, excuse me.

Consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-5, an ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the Code of the City of Norman so as to remove the east half of Section 9 and the west half of Section 10, Township 8, North Range 2 West of the Indian Meridian to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the R1 single family dwelling district, and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof, generally located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Class and Boulevard and Cedar Lane Road.

Item number eight, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and/or postponement of PP-2526-6.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by St.

James Park LLC, Crafton Toll and Associates Inc.

for St.

James Park edition, a planned unit development for 95.08 acres of property generally located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Class and Boulevard and Cedar Lane Road.

I would take the staff presentation.

All right, Justin Fish with the Plan Department.

As stated, we have a rezoning from R1 single family to PUD planned unit development for St.

James Park.

This is the existing zoning of the surrounding properties.

It is surrounded by R1 to the west and to the north.

To the south and to the east, there is PUDs.

2D south, there is Walmart zone C2.

And there are some multifamily residential districts to the west as well as parkland.

These are the existing land uses.

It is surrounded primarily by single family dwellings and a couple two-family dwellings, multi-family dwelling developments with commercial to the south across Eastar Lane.

This is a 2023 aerial photograph of the subject site.

This is a photo looking north towards the subject site.

Looking south towards 24th Avenue southeast.

And looking west.

And this is the proposed preliminary plat for the site development.

So they are proposing two different development areas.

The site will consist of single-family homes on lots of varying sizes.

They are allowing for a 10-foot rear yard setback as opposed to the standard 20-foot.

They are allowing for lots in development area one to be 40 feet wide as opposed to the required 50 foot, and they are still required to be 6,000 square feet in size in the moment area one as they are in R1.

In development area 2, they have the same setbacks as the moment area 1 with the 10 foot for the rear yard.

However, they will have a minimum width of 30 feet instead of 50 in R1.

And they will have a maximum size or a minimum size of 3,500 square feet as opposed to the five or 6,000 that's typically found in the R1 district.

The proposed development is consistent with the AIM norm and comprehensive plan because it does propose single family development featuring a variety of lot sizes, connections to existing neighborhoods, and access to existing utilities.

However, it is not consistent with the locational requirement for the urban low land use policy because it proposes lower intensity development, residential development along an artillery or arterial road.

This is the protest map that was submitted.

It is at a point seven percent protest area.

The applicant has prepared an uh presentation for you guys.

Um staff does forward just request for rezoning from R1 single family dwelling district to PUD Planning Development and Ordnance O 2526-5 to the planning commission for consideration and recommendation to city council.

Staff is available for comments.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff by commissioners?

To the open space requirement.

It seems based on the size of the property that the amount of green space is small as a percentage.

Does it meet the required percentage?

Like how does the city view the amount of green space offered in compared to the amount of developed space?

So is my understanding that they will be using the common space that is already found within the neighboring St.

James developments as part of the green space for this site.

Where is that?

So I don't know exactly where it is on this aerial, but I do know that, for example, on this uh screenshot right here, the parkland over on, I believe that is South Oak Boulevard, I want to say.

That is one of the neighboring parklands.

So if I could just add to that, I'm I'd like for the applicant to address some of those questions, but um I don't believe that we have the uh aerials, but I believe this uh area in the middle, this roundabout area is where the pool and the clubhouse is.

Is that still up on that?

Okay.

It's uh zoned R1 by ordinance uh two, three fifty-nine, and then uh there's some other green space areas that would be to the north east up here, uh, kind of a budding where the industrially zoned area is located.

But again, I would I would like for the applicant right, yes, exactly.

To reflect on some of that.

As a an extension of that question, I'd uh well really maybe it's for staff.

Um to clarify, so the existing development St.

James, this being an is this an addition to that, so it's you include green space for both developments combined, it's not standalone.

The PUD ordinance designates that uh 10% of a PUD that comes through should have the 10% designation for for open space.

I'm I'm making sure I'm saying this correctly.

So, yes, as we bring as we bring uh applications forward, they should plan to meet what the requirements are in the um in the PUD ordinance, but again, because this is a continuation, it's a minimum of 10 to 15 percent of the gross area of any residential plan unit development shall be designated as common open space.

But in discussing with the applicant, uh the representative, because this is a continuation of the St.

James area, they're asking to be uh allowed to utilize that existing area to the north.

Can I ask a related question?

It's it's related in terms of density, um, but it's not about green space.

So basically the lot sizes are cut in half as if compared to an R1.

Um, and so this is gonna pack more people in there and more cars.

What what kinds of complications is this gonna cause for traffic in the area?

I think only the the lots in the area two are cut in half.

Am I correct?

Correct, only development tool will have the 30-foot wide lots and and area one.

How do those compare to R1?

They will be the same um square footage size, but they will have 10 feet reduced from the required minimum width.

So from 50 to 40.

So they'll just be long and skinny.

I mean, if it's the same area.

Yeah, there's still 6,000 square feet required, just less width.

Thank you.

Any other questions by commissioners for the staff?

Um with the applicant's request to consider the pre-existing.

Did we add that in to see if they're hitting the 10 to 15 overall for the overall space?

I would defer that question to the applicant.

Okay.

Maybe as a point of clarification, what is the percentage of green space just within the proposed area that is being presented today?

It's about three percent 2.35 acres, which is about 2.5%.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would move to the applicant presentation.

Thanks, yes.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Sean Rieger for the applicant.

The Survey Brothers are here tonight, by the way.

This is this is an extension of the St.

James neighborhood that has been a really successful neighborhood in uh Southeast Norman.

Let me get to there we go, our presentation.

I'll I'll talk about open space here in just a minute, along with parks and uh the different sizes as well.

But first, let me just warn you, Justin did a great job of showing you where this is.

This is again really the completion of St.

James Park.

Uh it's already zoned R1.

We're really here tonight because there's one part of it that we have put into a much smaller lot product, and so for that reason it doesn't meet R1 in that one area, and the minor adjustment that justin talked about in terms of the rear setback and a couple other minor adjustments is is really why we're here.

But the applicant could go back and just do straight R1.

It's already zoned for that, but they want to go in and do these minor adjustments to bring it uh to more uh uh of an appealing nature, such as AIM asked for, and I'll show you all that in just a moment.

But it's about 95 acres, basically open land at this point.

Uh all along planned is to be a continuation of St.

James Park.

Uh one of the protest letters I would I would suggest said that they like the field and they liked the open space behind them.

We see this often in real estate, in that uh a lot of people think the field behind them was is never gonna be planned for development when such as in this case, it's already zoned for development, it's already zoned for R1.

So a lot of times there's a misperception as to what these fields are behind neighborhoods as to whether they're available for development or not.

So and there you see it.

This is a city's locational map, the the hatched area is what we're talking about tonight.

You see the R1 zoning spread all over it, and you see really pretty intense zonings all along the western edge of this site with a large area of parkland, which is gonna be relevant to our open space discussion in just a moment.

And then to the west on the lower left end, you see kind of a striped area.

That area is actually zoned RM2.

It's built out as single family houses with some very small product single family houses along Cedar Lane, but that is actually zoned RM2 in that striped area across the the lower left part of the site.

And then at the bottom you see uh red C2.

This is in field development.

You see all of those crazy lines and red dots are fire uh hydrants and sewer lines and water lines.

Uh this is all in field development.

Utilities all crossing this site at various points.

Uh many different stub streets are all stubbed into this site, so ready to be connected into the St.

James Park development as it continued on.

So this was all along intended to be a continuation of St.

James with stub streets all the way through it.

So there's no WQ QPZ zone on this, there is no floodplain on this, no blue line streams, uh, none of that.

There is no floodplain on this, no blue line streams, none of that.

Very usable able land to be developed and extensive utilities all in place at this point.

Again, the adjacencies are you, and now you see it on the lower left.

You see the mustard color of yellow is the RM2 and the C2 across the street of the Walmart Super Center to the south.

So again, really a continuation of the zoning.

We could come back tonight with just with a preliminary plat for the whole site under R1, and that could be it.

Again, the surveys want to get a little more creative this time and move with some different site dimensions and setbacks and sizes of the lot.

So that's really why we're here tonight.

This is the preliminary plat as proposed, and as Justin said, there's two areas.

Area one is mostly straight R1.

Again, he mentioned the setback on the back could be 10 feet.

The lot width could be 40, but as you said, Commissioner Jablonski, the side of the area still has to be 6,000 square feet.

It's written into the PUD.

So R1 is 6,000 square feet minimum.

This does not change that.

So it still has to be a 6,000 square square feet minimum on area one that you see there.

It's just area two that really is the reason we're here tonight.

Area two is is a is a departure from R1 significantly in that it's much smaller lot.

So area two, the lower left side, and outlined in red, is the 3,500 square foot lot area.

So that's a different product than R1.

And so that's really the main reason we're here is that that area changes quite a bit.

We think it's a very appropriate area for the smaller lots.

AIM calls for different size lots now.

RM2 is right next to you.

I'll show you that all in just a minute.

But this is basically current zoning R1, 6,000 square foot lots with ADUs in the in the area one.

ADUs are not allowed in area two there.

The lots are just too small for that.

Um the acreage is about 95 acres, 373 single family lots, which you used to see me put on the screen the minimum that the lots, the dwellings we're needing to catch up to the population growth.

Didn't put that on there this time, but uh but I hope everybody's cognizant of the housing shortage and how much housing we need.

This is a successful neighborhood that's done very well, and it will be great to get it to go to its next level with its next edition.

This is AIM, and this is the first time now we're starting to deal with AIM, and we're digest digesting the document along with everybody else.

Uh it's really a great product of work and gives us a great deal of information as we look through that document and sort of start to understand it and what it calls for.

And we appreciate the staff reports now that take us methodically through it and talk about what is planned and what is needed.

This site you see now on the upper right, you're used to seeing us show Norman 2025.

You'll not see that anymore.

Now you will see AIM Norman and what it shows.

And AIM Norman on this site shows UL, which is low urban residential plan designation.

Again, our proposal is 373 single family lots, 95 approximate acres, that equals 3.92 lots per acre.

And if you read uh AIME Norman for UL on the lower right there, it says gross densities in any single development should be greater than three units per acre.

So we meet the density of AIM Norman for this site.

AIME goes on to say under under UL, it says that the variety and diversity of housing stocks should be improved as should the functionality of these areas, such as extensive street and sidewalk connections.

And as I showed you earlier, we are connecting to all of those streets that are stubbed in.

We're connecting all of that.

We have to do sidewalks, of course, at every street, and so there will be sidewalk connections all across this entire area.

And a wider, wider variety of lot sizes.

Again, we could have come back with all straight R1, sorry zone for R1.

We could have just done 6,000 lots all across the site.

Instead, we're back with a variety of sizes and the different variety to show you.

This is an example of that.

So as Abe Norman says, variety of diversity of housing stocks should be improved, and this is what we've done.

So on the lower left, we now have a small lot product, which is starting to be you're starting to see that across the metro and across Oklahoma, and this is that smaller product.

I would encourage you to look at the very lower left part of the screen though, and you can see there already is a small lot product existing just across Cedar Lane, right at the same location.

And that is that RM2 zoned part of the neighborhood right next to us to the west.

So we're butting up against that RM2 zone neighborhood, and you see the small lot product right across Cedar Lane right there.

We're connecting these streets.

They're stub streets right now, they're dead-ended to go into this development.

We're connecting those streets.

And so we believe we've met AIM very significantly right on target in this point.

Now, Justin mentioned that AIM that is not consistent in one point, and basically it is across Cedar Lane across the bottom.

And what AIM said is that on arterial streets, such as a main arterial like Cedar Lane, AIM suggests that you should not have basically uh typical lot R1 single family development.

So that is, I believe, what Justin was mentioning when you said we weren't consistent.

That's the one aspect that we didn't meet AIM.

Everywhere else, if you read the staff report, we are consistent with AIM, I think in every other way.

And so we felt it was important to continue St.

James, it's been planned this way all along, and as the current zoning of R1, we could do that under the current zoning.

We felt it was it was appropriate to keep doing that.

So uh so this is the parts.

Let me talk about the open space a little bit.

Commissioner, I appreciate your question on open space and the percentages.

I think it's more of a consideration beyond the boundaries of this, and and let me explain.

So, as Justin said, and and I'm apologize we don't have a pointer on here, but if you look at basically their offsite, there are two green areas, one to the left and then one on the upper right, Peple Pebble Brook Park, and just right.

If you see a box that says St.

James Park Edition from original plat, on the right edge of that box is a sort of north south linear, large open space with a trail around it that the ND DC business park uses in collaboration with our neighborhood.

That is really part of St.

James, and if we had just platted the whole thing together, that would be part of the open space.

Another significant part of this, really significant, is to the west, the parkland to the west.

And we were at Parks Board just a week or two ago, and we could have written this PUD to say that it includes all of that open space on the left.

This developer owns most of that open space.

There's a large pond there and a treat area.

You see the green area that is outlined, there's sort of two green areas.

There's a small linear piece of green, and then uh sort of trapezoidal shape of green.

Those two green spaces are parks, and parks board approved unanimously that as the parkland solution for this development.

And there's a street that will connect now, once this is done now, fully connect into the neighborhood and take them to that park.

But the open space that is between those two green areas is owned by this developer, and no intention to develop that.

That will be open space along with the park on either side of it.

In parks discussions with James Briggs and the Parks Board, they would like to eventually consider buying that middle area, at least part of it, probably not all of it, but some part of it.

Uh there's discussions going back and forth as to whether at some point they want to buy part of that and make an even bigger park than what is required of us.

Instead, we're basically leaving it as open space, and the discussion has been back and forth between the developer and the city as to at what point when and how much they want to buy of that to make a bigger park.

When we are at Parksport, James Briggs told the Parks Board that they have money in the bank right now to build that park.

They've just been waiting for St.

James to basically build closer to it and connect to it, which is now going to happen with this development.

So I would ask of you to consider the open space in terms of the context beyond the physical boundary of just this development, because really it does incorporate this large area to the west that's connected to it.

We could reboundry the PUD to include that open space.

That would more than excessively pass uh the open space requirement of the PUD if that was something that people felt strongly about.

Um, but that is is already there in place, and and that's been the discussion with the Parks Board as we've moved through the process.

So I hope that sort of covers or answers the question of the open space.

In sum, uh basically again, you see it's uh staff found in overall context that it's consistent with the aim norm and comprehensive plan because it proposes single family development featuring a variety of lot sizes, connections to existing neighborhoods, and access to existing city utilities.

There was the one aspect of Cedar Lane, which we felt was okay to leave as it was since it was already zoned R1.

Uh, there are protests, there were two homeowners that protested.

I understand today, I think two others wrote in letters, there may be four at this point, but 0.4% protests when we drafted this.

As Justin said, today it's risen to 0.7, I believe, 0.7% protest tonight, as the two other letters came in.

So with that, happy to answer any questions you have.

Uh the engineers are here as well to discuss anything civil engineering-wise, and we thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions by commissioners for the applicant?

Sure.

One quick real quick question regarding the uh the pond and the is that gonna that's not gonna be a part of the park, that's gonna remain with the developer, correct?

Right.

The the pond is actually going to be probably expanded a little bit um to it could to allow for a little bit more detention coverage, but it is basically staying.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah.

Are there I can't tell from the map it does not look like it.

Are there trails around the detention pond?

On the left side?

Yes, on the left side.

Uh I don't know that there's really a trails at this point.

I know it is planned.

Parks has as plans to connect from the north down through this site.

In fact, that's part of the discussion is when they buy, they want to connect the northern strip.

Let me go back to that.

Yeah, that northern screen strip would be connected.

And I know Jane James has mentioned that they would do some sort of a trail element in that area.

And so it's sort of uh the park is uh I don't know if he's got drawn up plans yet or not, but I know he said he has money to to build it, and that's what they're planning is to get after this park.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions by commissioners of the applicant?

Connectivity to Renaissance Drive.

What was the philosophy with that?

Which one is Renaissance coming?

Is that the one coming down just the by McDonald's, maybe?

Yeah, it's the one that's just north.

If we go back to the front, yeah, there is a green space of connectivity.

If you could see, is this why I believe you're talking about on the upper left, Commissioner?

Oh, yep.

So there is a green space connection that we have left that open as an opportunity to connect.

Uh, but we did not do it do a uh a street connection at that point.

Okay.

I just yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant along that same point?

Was there a reason that there wasn't a street connection there?

Uh I don't think it was anything discussed really.

The the other developments around that have pretty significant, it's basically two apartment complexes.

So I think it was considered to just leave them as their own connection point back into the arterial and not uh mix the two.

But to leave a green space and a path connection through there so that from a pedestrian standpoint, you could you could utilize that.

I have a question.

On part two, so the little square.

Yes.

Um I understand the reasoning for along.

Oh goodness, for a long cedar lane size.

And I can kind of understand the middle section because regardless, the two houses to the west will each have one neighbor behind them, and they would have one neighbor behind them for if it was R1 to remain R1.

Um, but on the northern strip, um kind of what was the rationale to not have it R1 in consideration of the adjoining that neighborhood above Yeah, I I I wouldn't get too detailed in the design concept, but I would say that the street where these homes will be facing each other, we've kept the same.

So the street concept, and I don't see the name of that street, I can't read it from here, but uh I understand the the rear of the houses will be different, but the frontages, which is where you would be driving down the street, will be the same on each side that way.

I just know if I was in a pre-existing neighborhood and I thought development was gonna happen behind me.

That's R1.

I would expect it to be like one neighbor behind me and not necessarily two neighbors.

That's a lot of if there's all if everyone's in their yards, it's a lot of it changes the ambience of your personal space in the back.

Perhaps, but you you won't go very vertical here.

That at most you can go two stories, and so you you wouldn't have a large and you could see a large uh uh open space behind those homes, pretty significant backyard.

So I think it is a minor step up, Commissioner, if you would consider that in the sense that we're gonna need to densify as we move forward in Norman and growth.

That's been a constant theme.

AIM suggests that.

AIM suggests that we move into but greater densities and more varieties, and I think that's an appropriate area for area for it.

I I agree.

Uh I like the I I definitely like along Cedar Lane in that middle section.

I just I think the um the vision of AIM is to make sure where we are making it more dense that we marry that development um to be similar like kind to that that it's gonna neighbor, if that makes sense.

It does, and I would encourage you to consider though, Commissioner.

I didn't put it on the screen, but if you look at AIM and they show their character maps and AIM is a departure from Norm 2025, and that a lot of planning tools now are going to character maps.

Right.

We see this in other communities as well.

And the character maps actually show quite a bit of interfacing between different uses.

When you look at those character maps, it is sort of a mosaic fabric of the different uses.

So I think it is contemplated in the next stage planning to do some of that.

Okay.

Uh just as a point of reference, it was Shadow Street is the street that is further to the south that is closer to Cedar Lane and Fountain Street is the street to the north that you're referring to.

Thank you.

From the preliminary plot.

Any other questions from commissioners of the applicant?

I have one additional item on there too.

I think um something that I was interested to see is as we were adjusting these lot sizes.

I noticed we did not change the standard 25 foot build line.

And that might have been something that I would have been amenable to having seen a smaller build line on there as we were looking at smaller lots and kind of maybe allowing for more backyard space and less front yard space and lawn care space.

So I'd like to just make that comment on there that I would have been amicable to a smaller build line and with all the other adjustments.

If you have any notes as to why I think for the St.

James Park number one keeping consistency with the neighborhood, uh, as Commissioner Kendall also mentioned, you know, on there that I can understand why that wasn't adjusted, but especially in this smaller piece, uh I would have found a 15-foot building setback line to be favorable.

It would still hit the same um impervious area requirements, everything else would be the same, but giving possibly more buffer to that backyard neighbor too.

I agree.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

Along those same lines as the the existing uh residential homes that are just to the west right there.

They have a 25-foot build line.

I would think they do.

I don't know if they uh existing South Lake, you're talking about.

Yeah, just to just to the west of Yeah, I I I would think so.

Uh Shadow Street.

I think Yeah, it is owned R1.

Exists you see the little bump out of R1.

Is that what you're talking about, Commissioner?

I think I'm looking at the RM2 of this the okay.

So it would be whatever RM2, the zoning districts are the open category zoning districts, R1 and RM2 is what those current zonings are.

So they're not a PUD, so it wouldn't be anything unique.

It would be whatever RM2 is.

I don't know what RM2 is it 25?

Yeah.

So I think it is 25 RM2.

Yeah.

I like the comment though.

I agree.

I think it's interesting.

Appreciate that.

Okay.

If we don't have any other questions, thank you.

For the applicant, are we waiting on an additional?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh I would move to audience comments.

Do we have any members of the audience that like to make comment?

Okay.

Oh, yeah.

Come come up to the microphone.

Um, if you will please just state your name and address for the record.

We'll allow three minutes for your comment if you'd like a 30-second warning, please let me know.

Otherwise, I'll yield the full time to you.

My name is Lisa Summers, and I live at 3417 Larry Street.

I've lived in the South Lake Edition for 41 years.

And when we first moved in, that park that he's talking about was supposed to have been turned into a park.

And it is not a park, it's just a pond with trees around it.

And our homeless people live down there in that area.

And I really don't want to see the PUD change the area around us because we're all residential one homes.

We all look a similar to each other, and these would just be like stuck there like a rabbit without a uh tail because we we like our residential ones.

I live behind an open field and I realize that St.

John's is gonna be moving in there, but I would feel better if they were all residential one areas instead of the the PUD.

Thank you for your interest.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you have any questions for me?

I don't believe so.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the audience that'd like to make a comment?

Thank you.

I would move to planning commission discussion.

I'll go ahead and turn the microphones on if they're on.

I like this the spirit of embracing aim norman right away.

I think we're gonna see, you know.

Um I don't know.

There'll be lots of ongoing conversation about how embracing that should look with each development.

Um I do wish that it would take into consideration just a little more blending at those edges and a little more buffer with adjusting the setback as you suggested.

I would also like to see it include the green space as it moves forward to make it clear that um like to adjust the line as as a developer suggested to include that so that it does stay as dedicated green space.

Umgoing conversations can end up positive or not coming to anything.

So I would just feel better if we're making a decision based on the intent of it remaining green to clearly indicate that.

Yeah, maybe I'll follow follow up with that.

One of the things I like about a PUD is it locks everything in.

And it sounds like there's some nice discussions about um how do you how to alleviate concerns about the green space?

But um if we approve this right now, you know, it's like if you get the milk for free, why buy the cow?

So I think it would be great if if all of this was resolved and put inside the PUD and locked in.

Uh it'd be a lot easier to support uh the development if there was some resolution of the green space concerns.

Can I ask a question of staff as far as if we are able to add land to this PUD with the noticing requirements and and so forth at this point, um, and any other insight as to what that might look like from being here today?

So I want to answer the first part of that, I think is what it was.

And I want uh legal to answer about adding uh and I want to make sure I'm understanding.

So when you're talking about locking in, so the areas to the north of this are already platted.

The green area that you're seeing on there to the north, that's already a park.

The area to the east that you can see that has the um water feature.

There's a uh trail, a sidewalk that goes around that.

And then the green area that uh Mr.

Reger was talking about over at South Lake.

So that already went to park board and those others are already platted.

Okay.

So they are locked into place already.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure of because there was reference to ongoing discussion, and that always makes me a little nervous.

And I don't want to speak in a PUD.

And I understand, and I don't want to speak for Mr.

Riger if he wants to get up and and comment.

But what I believe he was talking about was this area that was between the two green spaces that he had on his map that he said that the applicant still owns.

Yes, that's what's still in discussion.

And that's not part of this anyway.

Okay, but the two areas that are on the west side that are designated as uh green right now, those are already uh those have already gone to park board.

Okay, perfect.

Could we possibly have someone advance the slide back to show those two green?

Thank you so much, just for the visual reference.

Get it to that slide.

There you go.

And that's not existing, right?

That's existing and proposed, all combined in green.

Am I misreading this picture?

It's both actually I have a better slide just remembered.

Let me take you to the one that shows this is if you want the great detail of the part, because this is what we went into at Parks Board of uh exactly when everything had been deeded to them.

Uh this is not our slide.

This is James Briggs' slide from Parks Board.

But you can see uh that basically each one of those shaded areas is when the parkland has been deeded to the city.

So to answer your question, Commissioner, those shaded areas have been deeded to city, city owns that land, and you uh can't use a pointer here, but it just on either side, left or right of those shaded areas is sort of a red dashed area.

That is the additional parkland to go into the city's uh ownership with this, and then you see the green outline, and James Briggs wrote here that the heritage fine homes to keep for access to expand capacity of retention pond city to purchase land in the future to expand park if available.

And so basically the the goal is to expand that area into that into that park zone.

There is detention moving into this site, so basically it would be pretty hard for the developer to do anything on this because they'd have to keep the detention and the drainage as it as it flows into that that pond area.

So that is what was discussed as parks board in detail that evening as as to how we would treat this area of land.

So it's very helpful.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

I didn't want to board with in earlier, but I think I'm understanding just to fully clarify.

Um I know that Jane said it, but you had made a comment about offering to draw in to the PUD certain areas, which which areas specifically would that potentially be.

It would be the green dash area, but you Jane is right in that you get into a no notice situation where the commissioner said it, and that if we if we expanded the PUD, we it is a challenge.

I don't think it's necessary.

I think this is the plan that has been discussed with parks all along, and I don't think that's a developable piece of land, frankly.

Um so I don't think it's necessary.

I understand your concern and discussions, uh, but in all practical context, I I don't think that can be developed or will be, and that's been the discussion back and forth with parks all along.

So uh so I I will have to I apologize.

Let me kind of retract a little bit on what I said drawing in because we would have to start over basically with a notice if we drew that into the PUD.

Um but I think that's that's probably one of the challenges is that this PUD was outlined without those two areas shown within it, but those are basically the areas that have been used as open space uh in context with this with this development.

So I've got a question um more for staff side, and I know that no commitment can be made, but there's just the I know this is part of a retention pond, but if that's the intention is that this is going to be included in the overall percentage of open space.

I didn't see a commitment from the city that it's going to be developed as a park.

And maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I didn't hear that correctly.

Uh let me I apologize.

Go ahead.

That's it.

I mean, I you can clarify if I've well, as General Joyce is always fantastic on everything.

He came up and reminded me to show you this graphic.

That is the zoning map.

That's your zoning map.

And so that entire area is zoned parkland right now, the green.

So if we were to do anything, we would have to come back and rezone it to put anything on it at all.

So and platted because it's basically one large, you could see the plating lines on it right now.

So thank you, Jeremiah.

So to follow up on uh Commissioner Brewer's comment.

So uh on the prior slide, we saw what was deeded.

Does the city have a plan on when they're going to develop the deeded portions?

Or that's just board.

Anyone here know that?

Can I address I don't have an answer for you, so I will just say that.

But uh I would ask if they did they say anything at Parks Board about a timeline for develop.

Okay, I didn't think so.

He just uh being repetitive, but he just said he had money in the bank was the comment I heard him make to the board that they had money in the bank and they were sort of waiting for the connectivity.

There's a main street that will now connect, and I think they're waiting for that to connect and then basically do the project.

So and that makes sense because from a point of access.

So and if it's already deeded.

Those one pieces are and pieces on each side will be.

Correct.

Yeah, the uh I'm referring not to the one that's up there now, but the one that had the shaded portions.

Yeah, if you want any more context, uh before the meeting, James Briggs walked right by us and said, You got the deed for me.

And I think Jay said he he had it in his office, but uh that's sort of what the discussion has been back and forth with parks for so yeah, and this really has nothing to do with the applicant, but I would just encourage the city to follow through that with that plan.

Um, and I know that James isn't here, but that can be passed along because that seems like that's a pretty important piece that if the money's in the bank, as is as has been said that that's developing to a park, um, is it's that's within harm uh in harmony with how other developments have been developed with parks in neighborhoods throughout the city.

So and and I would just say uh I agree completely with you on the on the park development, and maybe that would help some of the concerns with um the issues that are going on right now that um that was that was that you actually told us about with some homelessness and things like that.

If we can if we can develop that park and get it into a sense where people can see, that'd be great.

And hopefully that will help fix that issue.

Uh in discussion, I'd like to add uh additional comment that has not really been posed yet, but was a prominent discussion item from the pre-development meeting, which was the traffic and the South Lake community.

There were many members of that neighborhood who came and expressed some concerns about additional traffic going through their streets.

Um the South Lake Boulevard has one point of ingress and egress right now that connects over onto Class and Boulevard.

Um I do definitely I believe them when they say that they think they will see an increase of their traffic through their streets.

I think people probably from this community will connect through now that those streets are connected.

I also believe that it's possible that that traffic would go the other way as well, as people might go down to Cedar Lane to hit a traffic light if there's a lot of traffic other places through there.

Um so I just wanted to point out that I did recognize the concern of those neighbors, and um I I still would feel comfortable with that connectivity through there, and from a safety perspective and for emergency vehicles, I feel better having a second point of ingress and egress if there was a major collision at class in there.

Um they have no other way to get out of their neighborhood.

We saw people discussing this actually with St.

James Park previously, and some of those that came to speak at other items about not having many ways to get out of their neighborhood.

And similarly, from the traffic, and there was people from the St.

James Park that were concerned about additional traffic now that they would have a connection point to Cedar Lane.

I believe it was only a few months ago that we looked at, I believe this is on a section line, and we vacated that section line specifically, and the plat was drawn, so that there was not this straight thoroughfare that would run from Cedar Lane directly to that clubhouse, and to kind of reduce that from becoming a boulevard.

The plat actually has some streets through there, so somebody could take many turns and go through the neighborhood and go from Cedar Lane and get to that 24th Avenue, but it is not as direct shot.

It would be deterred on there.

So there were a lot of traffic questions.

I felt it was worth bringing those up for discussion here on behalf of those homeowners.

Um I still feel comfortable with the traffic at this point.

Uh something else, just as a comment for the city for consideration, is that South Lake Boulevard, which is not signalized, I believe, currently, but maybe looking to see if there are some improvements at that intersection that might help those neighborhoods that would be within the city's budget and reasonable, feasible to help their traffic concerns and make that a little safer for them on that major class and road.

Any other discussion by commission?

Just one quick comment, and um maybe more for a city staff.

When I'm looking at this, and I'm I'm looking at the far corner, I'm thinking how long is a as a pregnant mom with a baby and a stroller, how long is it gonna take her to get to a park?

And so I'm trying to compare this to my neighborhood where I know the streets really well, and so it might be nice to have a sense of like how many blocks is it gonna take for someone to walk from right that that far that bottom southeast corner near the the PUD over to that uh park land next to RM6.

So it would be helpful for me at least when I'm comparing these different proposals to have you know almost like a radius distance from parks.

I do have one more comment just because it was discussed earlier the the Renaissance Drive connection.

Um I'm not gonna make a recommendation, um, but I do think that uh it's worth further discussion uh about a connection there because you're talking about traffic, and I think that that's one additional point to alleviate traffic coming uh in and out of the neighborhood that would create the connection over to Classen.

Um and so um I understand there's gonna be green space and you can walk through which I appreciate that there's kind of the pedestrian connection side, but um any anything to help another connection uh that would um alleviate the kind of the collector points would be helpful okay excellent.

If there's no other discussion, I would take a motion.

I'll move to approve.

Second.

Is there any other discussion on the motion?

Okay, seeing none, I would take a vote.

All that's to zero.

Thank you.

Moving to items number nine and ten to read together.

Item number nine, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-6.

An ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the Code of the City of Norman so as to remove the southwest quarter of Section 4 Township 8 North, Range 2 West of the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma from the A2 Rural Agricultural District and I-1 Light Industrial District and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof.

1751 East Mhoff Road.

The applicant has requested postponement to the September 11th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Item number 10, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment and/or postponement of PP-2526-7.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Colrain Capital Group Lane Capital Group Inc., Crafton Toll and Associates Inc.

for 32.50 acres of property located at 1751 East Mhoff Road.

The applicant has requested postponement to the September 11th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

For again, the request was postponement to the September 11th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Okay.

I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All that's have been cast.

Moving to items number 11 and 12.

Item number 11, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-7 and ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the Code of the City of Norman, so as to remove the northeast quarter of Section 2, Township 9, North Range 3 West from the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from a PUD planned unit development and place the same in the I-1 Light Industrial District of said city and providing for the severability thereof.

5451 Hutner Drive.

And then item number 12, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection, amendment and or postponement of PP-2526-8.

Consideration of a preliminary plat by High Flyer Holdings Inc., Johnson and Associates PC for Hutner Industrial Park, a replat of lot two, block one value place addition for 6.18 acres of property located at 5451 Hutner Drive.

I would take the staff presentation.

Good evening again.

I'm Kelly Abel with the planning department.

Okay.

On the agenda, we have a rezoning from a PUD planned unit development to I-1 light industrial district for a proposed 6.1 acre industrial park and the accompanying preliminary plat.

Here is the subject track.

And again, it's currently zoned PUD and it's the back part of it is undeveloped.

The rezoning would allow for all of the uses of the I-1 light industrial district, which includes the typical industrial and manufacturing uses.

That is south, and there's York and the I believe that's called the Value Place Hotel there.

That's looking back west towards the I-35 service road.

Here is the preliminary plat.

And this is the site development plan.

This is a predominantly industrial slash commercial area.

Um it is off the I-35 service road, extended extended stay.

America is there to the south.

Metro Power Turf is to the north, and York International is also to the south.

The applicant rep representative Mitch Moore is here to answer any questions you have.

Of course, staff is here and we forward this item to you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions for by commissioners for staff?

Sorry.

How much square footage did you say?

The combined would be combined potentially for all six structures is two hundred and sixty-nine thousand.

Where's that number coming from?

Um if you add up all of the square footage on all six buildings on each of the lots.

It looks like the biggest is like 9,000 square feet.

And if I multiply by six, that's like fifty-four.

Okay.

I may have done the math wrong.

Oh, okay.

My bad.

Fat finger.

I'm okay with striking your math.

You're okay straight.

Yeah, please strike my math from we we can view the plat in full to see the square footage of each building.

Yeah, they're they have it on there labeled.

They're about 5,000-ish square feet each.

Will any of these uh buildings be multi-story?

I mean, I can see if it's 200,000 square feet, you can have two or three stories in each of the buildings and come pretty close to that.

So yeah.

Let me look to see what the high restriction is in I-1.

A question the applicant can answer as well.

I imagine maybe part of the presentation.

Probably so buildings cannot exceed three stories or 45 feet in height.

Uh in I-1.

Thank you.

Your math may have may not have been that far off.

Well, and you know, potentially I we'll we'll see it development.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other questions by commissioners for staff?

Seeing none, I would take any applicant presentation.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Mitchell Moore with Johnson and Associates, one East Sheridan Avenue in Oklahoma City.

Uh with me tonight are Tim Johnson and Adam Ross, the engineers on the project.

Um, like she stated, uh, this is six industrial lots.

Um I wouldn't trust my math either, but I calculated approximately 40,000 square feet shown on here.

But uh this site plan is purely conceptual.

Um this is a speculative industrial project.

Uh we do not currently have any users for the site.

Uh these building shapes could change uh depending on um who we have in place.

Um, like she stated, this is a fairly industrial area.

We feel like this is consistent and um an appropriate use for the land here.

Um happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant by commissioners?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would move to any audience comments.

And then if none, I would go to planning commission discussion as I turn your microphones on.

Or if no discussion, I would take a motion.

Okay.

Move to approve.

Second.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Okay.

I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast in.

Moving to miscellaneous comments.

Uh does staff have any information for the commission?

I I don't have any information, but I have a question for you.

Um I sent an email to you.

Did you guys get okay?

I just want to make sure you got the email, and I am open to suggestions about how we could better.

vote you may vote all votes have been cast in moving to miscellaneous comments uh does staff have any information for the commission i i don't have any information but i have a question for you um i sent an email to you did you guys get okay i just want to make sure you got the email and i am open to suggestions about how we could better i mean we've redone the staff report so if there's something that you guys come up that you think would get us through faster be more informative than I I really do I I want to know what you what your thoughts are thank you I really appreciate that any other staff items any commissioner comments I did have a question um Laura gave some updates on other grants and things and projects that we have going I know this stuff doesn't happen overnight but I was just curious if there are any updates on any of that or um with the would you like to come down and give us an update please we're still waiting hello so the zoning RFP is uh well it's zoning subdivision regulations and a parking study proposals are due August 25th so that's a week two weeks two weeks so um we're hoping to be under contract and ready to start beginning of 26 so fingers crossed it goes according to plan we had some questions yeah questions were due two weeks August 1st or something sorry clearly I don't have the days fully memorized but uh we got questions from three different firms so um we'll see we'll see what we get I'm excited thank you I would just like to say uh I would thank Laura and Jane for being they hit the road this last week um to talk about aim I know they they presented in couple of different venues and I appreciate you guys for being there so I'd like to just add of public record I would be amicable to other smaller lot sizes and lesser setback requirements.

I know we will have a new zoning ordinance that may take that into consideration but we have a couple years before that so I would be in favor of efforts to maybe make some of those improvements if it is what the city desires in advance of that with smaller ordinance changes similar to how we addressed accessory dwelling units so okay I don't want to have a huge discussion here but it is miscellaneous so I'm kind of looking at Beth for her um that has been the topic of conversation in several meetings I don't disagree with you but at the same time uh there hasn't been a consensus of what that setback would be if we did change it so uh due to locations of water meters or sewer line water stuff like that so um I do hear you but I am concerned if we if we move ahead before we are able to work with the subdivision regulation updates because we're looking at the improvements that would go in I'm afraid we'd be getting the cart before the horse in some situations but I we I'm I'm happy to talk about it I'm uh I'm not gonna make it any worse Jane I'm just gonna get wild with it I think we should get rid of minimum lot sizes altogether um setbacks are a lot more discussion there but um I've just never seen the point personally and I think that that would help our identification with what we needed and creativity and development um we could go a long way with that um people are gonna develop what they need so um anyway that's uh just throwing the bomb on on your point one thing I like about the PUDs is you can have uh really small lots but then you lock in some shared common space and so while I like the idea of smaller lots I'm I'm left wondering where are children gonna play if you don't have a backyard what are you gonna do and so that's you know if if we had small lots but then we didn't have common space I think there'd be a decrease in quality of life I I completely agree I am also in favor of removing the or changing maybe to a recommended rather than required that could also be a simple stop gap that would not necessarily something that could be more brought forward a little sooner than the new zoning regulation I think we could make adjustments on there without changing impervious area and other things that limit how much of that land could be built on there's already other provisions for that so I would be in favor of that earlier if it made sense any other discussion by commission if none then I will declare the meeting adjourned