Five thirty PM.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

If staff can please do a roll call.

Commissioner Brewer.

Commissioner McDaniel.

Here.

Commissioner McCowan.

Here.

Commissioner Jablonsky.

Here.

Commissioner Byrd.

Here.

Commissioner McClure.

Here.

Commissioner Griffith.

Commissioner Kindle.

And Commissioner Parker.

We have a quorum.

Starting with our consent docket.

Item numbers one, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, andor postponement of the minutes as follows.

Planning commission meeting minutes of August 14th, 2025.

Certificate of survey items number two and three, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, andor postponement of COS-2425-8.

Consideration of a Norman Rule Certificate of Survey submitted by Heritage Infinity Living Trust, Pollard and Whited Surveying Inc.

for Ridgeline Estates for 338.27 acres of property generally located a quarter mile west of 144th Avenue Southeast and south of Cedar Lane Road.

Item number three, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment andor postponement of COS-2526-1.

Consideration of Norman Rule Certificate of Survey submitted by Megan Moroni Pelafiague Succession Trust Pollard and Whitehead Surveying Inc.

for Joshua Oaks Estates for 79.77 acres of property generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Bethel Road and 108th Avenue Northeast.

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.

And a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast and it carries seven to zero.

Moving on to non-consent items, reading items number four and five together.

Item number four, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2425-38, an ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the so as to remove the east half of the northwest quarter of section two township eight, north range two west of the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the A2 Rural Agricultural District, and place the same in PUD Planned Unit Development and providing for the severability thereof south of East Lindsay Street between 36th Avenue Southeast and 48th Avenue Southeast.

And item number five, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment andor postponement of PP-2425-12.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Premium Land LLC for Ironwood Hills, a planned unit development for 77.97 acres of property, generally located south of East Lindsay Street between 36th Avenue Southeast and 48th Avenue Southeast.

On both these items, the applicant requests postponement to the October 9th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Again, that is the October 9th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Move to postpone to the October 9th, 2025 planning commission meeting.

Second.

And if there's no other discussion on the motion, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast and it carries seven to zero.

Moving to items number six and seven.

Item number six, 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 I1 Light Industrial District and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof.

1751 East Imhof Road.

And item number seven, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment andor postponement of PP-2526-7.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Col Ring Capital Group Inc.

for coal rain multifamily, a planned unit development for 32.50 acres of property generally located north of East Imhof Road between Glass and Boulevard and 24th Avenue Southeast.

Both of these items the have been postponed to the October 9th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Move to postpone to the October 9th, 2025 planning commission meeting.

Second.

And if there's no discussion on that motion, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

Moving on to items number eight and nine.

Item number eight, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or a postponement of ordinance 0-2526-9 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 19 township 2 west of the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the C2 General Commercial District, RM6 medium and city apartment district, and A2 Rural Agriculture District, and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and providing for the separability thereof.

Generally located up the southwest corner of the West Rock Creek Road and North Porter Avenue intersection.

And item number nine, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or a postponement of PP 2526-9.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Toll Commercial Properties LLC, Cedar Creek Engineering for 2200 North Porter Avenue, a planned unit development for 69.68 acres of property generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Porter Avenue and Rock Creek Road.

I would take the staff presentation.

Hello, Commissioner's Justin Fidget Plain Department.

As stated, we have a rezoning and plenary plat running together for a rezoning at the property generally located around 2200 North Porter Avenue.

So this is the existing zoning map.

So to the north there is existing R1, it is the Hawthorn Place addition.

2D South, there is RM2, which is where the Crystal Heights neighborhood is located.

To the east is R1, where the IOF cemetery is located.

And to the west, we have Norman North facilities, which are zoned uh RM6.

These are the existing land uses, which I just mentioned.

An aerial photograph of the site from 2023.

A photo looking north on North Porter Avenue.

This is one looking south on North Porter Avenue.

Looking east towards the cemetery.

And looking west towards the subject site with an additional picture looking south towards the subject site off of West Rock Creek Road.

This is the location map for the PUD.

Here is the uh plenary plat.

Plumary site plan, green space plan, and a plenary park plan.

Going back to the green space plan, I would like to state that the developers are proposing a mixed-use development.

It will feature two development areas.

In development area one, it will contain a majority of the commercial office uses with allowances for residential above the ground floor.

While development area two will allow for a bulk of the residential uses, including things like duplexes, large apartment buildings that also allow for commercial uses on the ground floor of those larger apartment complexes.

It is allowed to stay there and exist under its current use under the R1 single family dwelling district zoning ordinance uh regulations.

However, if the home is ever removed, it will revert to the standard uses allowed in development area one they are proposing.

The proposal or the proposed development is consistent with the AIM Norman Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

It does propose a mix of uses, increased interconnectivity, and utilizes extending existing utilities or uh utilities.

Inclusion of open space around the pond, it provides increased pedestrian infrastructure and a mix of housing types as proposed in the attached PUD narrative.

And with that, staff does forward request to planning commission for consideration and recommendation to city council.

Staff is present for comments and the applicant is also available for the other I have a question for staff.

Could you show me the map for green space again?

Um asking as you said that this uh single single family home, if it uh it could be torn down later, and something else could be built.

And I'm looking at the details of the PUD, and they say there's no maximum impervious coverage on individual lots in the property.

So I'm just trying to understand what exactly is that single family home if it's torn down, what is the lot that it sits on?

It would be on lot two okay.

So the picture I'm seeing the PUD would lock in green space, and what I'm saying is green is the green space.

Is am I reading this correctly?

No, I think can I see uh so I think Commissioner Jabonski, what you're asking is what we're seeing on the green space is we've got uh over here on the right hand side on the the east side of it, south of that single family home.

If they demo the single family home, would they uh essentially be able to duplicate this building and put it up here on the corner?

And I don't know that we have that.

I think the applicant might be able to answer that.

So I don't think you have anything on that.

No, I would defer that question to the applicant.

So I thought you were asking about which lot the house was on specifically.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff by commissioners?

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

Thank you.

I don't have a lot to add.

Justin did a great job.

Sean Rieger for the applicant in this case.

Thank you for being here this evening and giving us this consideration.

Commissioner Jablonski, let me cover that very quickly if I may.

Uh, first of all, the existing zoning on this is C2 in the upper right quadrant, so there is no impervious limitation on that right now.

Uh, there basically wouldn't be as developed, but it does have setback requirements of 20 feet on each of the fringes, and the pond is WQPZ zone, which has a buffer area beyond it as well.

So there would be some buffering space from those aspects, but within the confines of it beyond that, it would be allowable to be built out as as uh basically commercial.

Let me go through the presentation.

I don't have a whole lot more to add than than Justin did again.

He did a great job of explaining it there just to see the aerial there.

You see the cemetery on the right and Norman North on the left with their new uh stadium, really nice, and their uh new trail or uh running track around on the north end over there.

Uh GIS always like to show you the pond itself is the WQPZ zone basically with additional buffering beyond it, and we are uh absolutely honoring that.

We're not making any changes to the WQBZ and have put in the buffer, which you will see around the pond uh throughout its entirety.

A large sewer line coming through the site already, so we don't really have to extend uh significant utilities into it.

You see the zoning is existing, is already RM6 and already C C2.

We really aren't changing the zoning significantly here.

Um you'll see on the layout of the of the plot, it is basically honoring that existing zoning, although we are we can't use those existing zonings because C2 does not allow for residential, and RM6 does not allow for commercial, and we are blending them to have some abilities to do upper story residential and ground story commercial in the RM6 area.

So we wanted to make sure we had that uh flexibility and feasibility as it develops out.

So existing zoning you see at RM6 C2A2, existing AIME, no changes to AIM, and the proposed zoning is a PUD.

As Justin mentioned, some of the comments from the staff report, I'll sprinkle those in too.

The proposed development is consistent with the urban highland use policies in AIME.

The site plan you see it here, you see now those two development areas outlined.

The upper part area one is in red, the lower part is outlined in blue, that is area two, and those are basically the distinguishing areas of commercial on the top and residential on the south end.

Again, mixed though with the allowances for commercial on the first floor of the residential and residential on the upper floors of the commercial.

So the site plan you see there, uh I don't have a pointer, but on the area one on the upper right there, you see the commercial center out in front on Porter Avenue.

Uh, that is likely one of the first things to be built, and then behind it is also the commercial allowances, and those would likely be office, but also it could be the mixed-use component of the residential above the commercial on the back side of that property.

You see now kind of the buffering all around the pond, basically roughly a hundred feet at least, all the way around the pond of green space buffering to protect that pond and make sure we have some natural filtration and natural distance of buffering between any could any structures and the pond itself.

On the lower end, you see the street, the public street coming through that is connecting down into the neighborhood below.

I would remind you the neighborhood below is basically already zoned RM6 and RM2, it is already multifamily.

It's actually built more as a single family product south of us, but the zoning is RM6 and RM2 to the south of us.

Uh, we're not aware of any protests from the south at all or or anywhere on this project.

I mean uh uh uh sort of garden story walk up multifamily, and then the lower left is more intended as probably a 55 and older uh senior housing product model.

On the left side of the site is Norman North.

You see a trail, I'll get to it on a different slide here that will go all the way around the pond.

We are hopeful that Norman North High School would incorporate that trail into the pond on their side of the site.

We of course have no control over that.

Uh we will certainly be helpful and cooperative to the extent we can to help them do that.

So development number one again, commercial retail office uh with allowances for residential and development area two, multifamily residential.

Staff said the proposed development is consistent with the residential policies and that it will accommodate a variety of housing densities, and we're starting to see this in the projects that are starting to come through after AIM.

We're starting to see more of a mixture of different housing types.

I know I've shown you several now that have duplexes and single family or mixed use in single family.

So we're starting to see that mixture sort of percolate through as we go.

This is the preliminary plat.

This is something we always like to show you.

It is something you're voting on.

69 acres roughly, protected WQPZ.

You see again the pond is protected.

Um, and staff wrote that it promotes interconnectivity by extending Crystal Circle, which is that public street coming up through the center of it, an existing street into the development site.

This is the green space, large amount of green space.

This did go in front of parks, and parks board looked at it as a private park solution, and you see kind of the dark green area is the private park solution.

So basically we have taken the whole shoreline space all around that edge where we do have the bulk of the development and created that as the private park space and the trail itself that will go around the pond as it develops.

So we're we're excited that I think that will be a pretty special place in the green areas.

And you see how far the structures have been pulled away from the from the pond itself in both this the senior housing area and the the back side of the commercial area there.

So I think it'll be a pretty special place as they as they develop this out.

Um green space is about 24 acres, about 35% of the entire area is green.

Unanimous parks board approval, and staff wrote the proposed development is consistent with the protected and sensitive areas policies due to no proposed development within any areas designated as protective and sensitive.

So in closing summary, there you see the site plan in context again.

That street coming up from the bottom, uh just continuation from the bottom on through the site, a public street, the only public street, and then it will come over and connect into Porter.

Staff finished with saying that the proposed development is consistent with the AIM norm and comprehensive land use plan because it proposes a mix of uses, increased in interconnectivity, utilizing existing existing sitting utilities, and etc.

I won't read the rest because I think Justin read the same thing, so I'm not gonna repeat uh what Justin told you.

No protests that we're aware of, and it looks fairly quiet in here tonight.

So we're happy to see that.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have, and we thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions by commissioners for the applicant?

And everyone's microphone is on.

Maybe I'll ask one question.

So the in this picture, um, you have 96 acres in the development, and that includes the lake.

Is that right?

Sorry, 69.

Okay.

Um, and how many acres of green space?

Uh 24.

24.

Um roughly like what does an acre look like on here?

So if I'm looking at that top right corner, um, like how many acres is that roughly?

That's a good question.

And so this this kind of gets to the question that I was asking before.

That looks like a huge chunk of the green space.

The PUD itself is actually the zoning, but the PUD doesn't say a minimum amount of green space, it says approximately.

But if you're allowed to change this huge chunk of the green space into something else, I just want to know what I'm voting on.

As I usually answer that question, you heard me kind of say this over here, but uh first of all, we can't do less than 10 to 15 percent for a PUD of open space.

But if we were to dramatically change that site plan, we would have to be back in front of you with a site plan approval modification.

So if we started just blanketing that site, uh we we couldn't do it without coming back in front of you and and get a site plan approval.

Asked and answered, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Any other questions by commissioners for the applicant?

Okay, seeing none, I'd move to audience comments and planning commission discussion.

And if none, I would take a motion for this item.

Make a motion to approve.

I second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast and it carries seven to zero.

Moving to miscellaneous discussion, does staff have any information for commission?

Seeing none, do commissioners have any comments they'd like to make?

Seeing none, if there's nothing else to come before the commission, I will declare it adjourned.