At 535, I will call the meeting to order.

Could I please have a roll call?

Commissioner Brewer.

Commissioner McDaniel.

Commissioner McCowan.

Here.

Commissioner Jablonsky.

Commissioner Byrd.

Here.

Commissioner McClure.

Commissioner Griffith?

Here.

Commissioner Kindle.

Here.

And Commissioner Parker.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Starting with our consent docket.

Item number one, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of the minutes as follow, planning commission meeting minutes of October 9th, 2025.

I would like to request to remove item number two from the uh consent items.

Is there any other items commission wish to remove from the consent docket?

Seeing none, I would take a motion on the remaining consent docket for item number one, the minutes.

Move to approve item one of the consent pack packet.

Second.

And a vote.

We've got an inactive.

I'm having a remove the people that aren't here.

I know I used to view me expectative.

You may vote.

Moving to item number two.

Uh can this item has a correction to the titling, changing two hundred and twenty-nine point nine two feet to three hundred and twenty-nine point nine two feet read together.

Consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment and/or postponement of COS-2526-4 with a variance in the minimum width requirement measured at the front building setback from 330 feet to 329.92 feet for tracks one through four and a variance in the 10 acres requirements from 10 acres to 9.980 acres.

And one quarter of a mile north of Bethel Road, Ward 5.

Are there any presentations from staff that they'd like to make?

I know this was on consent docket prior.

Seeing none and any applicant comments.

Seeing none, I would take a motion.

Move to approve item two with the typo correction.

Second.

Moving to item number three, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-14, 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 part of the Northeast Corridor of Section 6, Township 8, North Range 2, West to Norman, from the R1 single family dwelling district and place the same in SPUD simple planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof.

1107 and 1111 South Chautauqua Avenue, Board 7.

And we would take a staff presentation.

Hello, Adjust and Fidget the Planning Department assay.

The developer is proposing a three-story microunit apartment building with 24 units.

The site will feature a parking area for approximately 21 parking spots and five bicycle racks for the residents.

To achieve this design, the applicant has requested to rezone the R1 single family dwelling district to SPUD simple planned unit development.

These are the existing zonings.

And a location map of the site.

Staff did receive a protest for this development.

The protest map that was submitted to the city, however, only had we only had enough information available to uh verify one of the protests we submitted.

So that is the one you are seeing on the map presented here with a protest of 3.4% of the notification area.

The proposed development is consistent with the AIM Norman Commerce of Len use plan because it proposes connections to the city utilities, encouragement of multimodal transportation methods, and residential structures with a gross density greater than eight units per acre.

However, the development is inconsistent in that it proposes setbacks are not typically found in the surrounding zoning districts.

Staffords have requested plan commission for consideration and recommendation to city council.

The applicant is present and has a presentation for the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Any question by commissioners of staff?

Can you clarify for me the property just to the north?

Is it what is is that R1, R3?

I in a protest letter, it was referenced as something different than what it was called out.

I just wanted to clarify.

Thanks.

Any other questions by commission for staff?

I did have a question.

You mentioned that there was not enough information to include other protests potentially, but that was the only one included on the map.

What did what did what exactly was the information missing that didn't allow that to be included?

That would be verification of the signatures collected.

That they were from the actual property owners and that they were collected on behalf of the property owners.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would take the applicant's presentation.

Good evening, commissioners.

Matt Peacock with Peacock Design here representing the applicant.

See here.

Okay, so this before I get into the slides, I'll just say that effectively this is the same project you guys saw in October.

Um we did take time to meet with the neighbors on October on November 6th.

Um feedback was you know very positive.

Um said that they appreciated meeting, uh, that my comments made them feel better about the project, but they still wanted to oppose it.

And I informed them that that was absolutely their right, and I respected their ability to do so.

And so we really tried to find a common ground compromise.

Um there wasn't much to know not much common ground to find, so that is why you're seeing the site, and I'm gonna go in through why I think this project is appropriate for the proposed site.

So uh I know you commissioners know what aim Norman is, but for everybody in the audience, uh Norman was the comprehensive planning effort the city of Norman undertook over the past two and a half years.

Um we the city of Norman explored land use, housing, storm water, transportation, parks, wastewater, and water, and uh did revised all of the plans to work together with each other.

Um I said there's a two and a half year citizen-driven process.

There was monthly surveys, pop-up events, media spotlights, neighborhood workshops.

Um this plan was formed by community engagement and feedback.

Uh it was very much a bottom-up organic citizen-led approach to city planning.

Uh this plan was by Norman residents saying this is how they wanted Norman to develop over the next 20 years.

And so why I bring that up is because you'll see on the screen.

Um, to the east of Chautauqua is urban medium.

That is the side of the street that our projects on.

As you can see, nearly all the parcels in that area are of a density nature.

Uh the R2, R3, RM6, all multifamily projects.

Uh you'll see by contrast west of Chautauqua that everything is urban light.

That's the classification in AM2545 is urban light.

And uh basically everything you see in the cream color, that is all R1 zoning.

I didn't label it just so you could kind of see what was R1 and easily differentiate between the rest of it.

But as you can see, to the east of Chauqua, uh, it's very much a dense mix.

If you zoom out a little further, this goes all the way from Boyd Street to Timberdale, which is essentially Lloyd Noble.

Um, you can see urban medium to the east of Chautauqua, urban light to the west, very much a dense housing pattern, um R3, R2, RM6.

There's a lot of fraternity and sorority houses here, a lot of student housing developments, uh, just a lot of multi-family projects.

And so we feel that you know it's really consistent with that.

And in fact, if you look there on the upper right, 63 of the 67 lots from Boyd to Timberdale are already rezoned, R2, R3, RM6.

And I know in the last meeting uh there was some comments from the people protesting that this that this project was gonna set a precedent for redevelopment along Chautauqua there, and I'd argue the precedent has already been set, and that um urban medium dense housing is actually what is not only built already, but what has been desired by our community.

Uh just to talk a little bit more about the urban medium designation.

Uh, you can see on the screen that it says, you know, gross densities, uh, any single development should be greater than eight units per acre.

Three story buildings are common.

Uh developments may go up to four stories when located along an arterial street.

Higher intensity multi-unit residential housing would be allowed when parcels are located along and with direct access to an arterial street.

I think this next point is very important to this project.

It's parking is secondary to the movement of people and visibility of destinations.

Um we underparked this project by three spaces.

We've got 24 units, 21 parking spaces, but we felt like this is very much in line with AIM 2045.

Uh, you can see in AIM 2045 Chautauqua Avenue is actually classified as a minor arterial urban street.

So these provisions that say developments may go up to four stories when located on arterial, we feel like we're very much in line with that.

Um and why is all this important?

Well, um, you planning commission on May 8th of this year unanimously adopted the land use plan, the transportation plan, and the housing plan.

All three of these plans call for the type of dense walkable multi-unit developments proposed in this item tonight.

And so again, we feel like we are very much in line with AIM 2045.

Here is the proposed site.

Uh the how image on the right shows the two existing houses, 1107 and 1111 Chautauqua.

Um, you can see to the left of those two houses is a pretty large-scale multi-unit project already in existence.

Here is the site plan.

Um you can see it's got again 21 parking spaces, five bar uh bike racks, uh really trying to promote the park once walk mentality or park not at all and forego a car uh in favor of an e-bike or just being able to walk, you know, being in this area of the city.

Um the reason I bring up this image is because there was some complaints last time from the protesters that we were going to create a part a negative parking condition on Hoover Street.

Um the three cards that we were not able to park on our site, we're gonna you know create a really undesirable condition for the residents on Hoover Street.

Uh the images you see on the right, it's kind of hard to tell, but um on the upper one, there is a no parking on that side of the street sign already, and the bottom sign, there is also a no parking sign on that side of the street as well.

And I actually committed to the neighbors that if they wanted to petition the city to remove the parking on either side of the street, I would absolutely help them do that.

I know that was a sticking point for them, and so want to try to address their concerns where we're able, and I feel like this is an area where we we could actually find some common ground.

Um, the unit plans, you'll see these are 330 square foot micro units.

They are one bed, very efficiency units.

Yeah, you see each one has its own kitchen, its own bath, its own wash laundry facility.

Uh the renderings on the right show that's a very efficient, minimalist layout.

There's not a lot to it.

Uh that's very much by design.

And we heard a lot of complaints last time about how this was going to be a student project, but I really want to talk to you about why it's not a student project.

Uh we've been very much intentional about this, and now I you can read it, but I'm I'll summarize it here.

Basically, if we wanted to do a student using a student housing project, and we wanted to build 24 units, it would be much easier for us to do six four-bedroom units.

Uh, that would equal 24 units, and in that situation, we would have six kitchens, six laundry setups, and six bathrooms.

But as you can see, we're going through a lot of extra effort and a lot of extra cost to build 24 kitchens, 24 laundry setups, 24 bathrooms.

And we are doing everything we can to make this a self-sufficient unit geared towards young professionals.

Um, the person that would be living in this unit would be somebody who has outgrown student life, outgrown roommates, um, not yet ready to set down roots in the suburbs, kind of in that little missing zone, uh middle zone.

Uh, that type of housing is often called missing middle because it fits in between the large scale apartment complexes and the single family zoning.

So City of Norman has had a really hard time keeping young professionals in town.

We have an endless supply of them that graduate from the university, but the main reason I hear that we don't attract them is a lack of suitable housing options.

And so, again, we're very much intentional about this project not being a student housing development, um, really trying to make something that's unique and something that Norman doesn't offer currently, and it's uh stock of housing options.

So, this is the exterior rendering what the project will look like.

Uh, again, trying to go with a very collegiate feel, trying to go with something that fits in the neighborhood.

Uh we feel that it's got adequate light, daylighting, uh, proper materials, it fits the neighborhood scale.

Uh, as I told you earlier, everything around this is already, you know, basically allowed to go but three stories by right.

So we feel much we're very in line with that.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Any uh questions by commission of the applicant.

Uh wanted to confirm from the map that the zoning is R1, but the land use from the AIM Norman plan is the urban medium.

Yes, sir.

On this side.

Yes.

Okay.

And you can see that even though this is R1, so that's the light cream colored parcels.

You see three of them on the screen, and everything else is R2 or R3.

So with R3, you can go up to three stories by right.

Um, I know most of those R3 projects have over 100 units in them.

So again, we don't think that we are setting a precedent.

We feel the precedent has already been set, and we are just leaning into it.

And also wanted to confirm you said you're underparked by three spaces.

How many parking spaces are there?

Twenty twenty-one.

So it's 21, 24 units.

And we have been exploring off-site parking arrangements.

Uh we've been in contact with OU, several of the churches that are in this area.

Um, it's it's been tough sledding.

I won't I won't lie about that.

I haven't given up hope on it.

I have a couple more leads that I think yield some positive results, but it's been a challenge up until this point.

To find off-site parking spaces.

Yeah.

Answers my question.

Commissioner Kindle.

That was my question was uh follow-up on your comment about off-site last time.

So any other questions by commission of the applicant.

Okay.

Seeing none, I would move to audience comments.

Do we do have a card up here for a Maggie Kaufman?

And just a reminder: if you will please state your name and address into the microphone when you get started.

If you want a 30-second warning, let me know.

Otherwise, I'll yield the full three minutes to you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

My name is Maggie Kaufman, and I live at 725 Hoover Street.

I wrote these thoughts down this morning, and it really um explains the um personal feelings that my husband and I have about this project.

Charming.

The Hoover and Chautauqua neighborhood is the perfect juxtaposition between Norman Life and Student Life.

West of Chautauqua, you have an established old Norman neighborhood full of family life, juxtaposed with the energy and vitality of campus life.

East of Chautauqua, you have the fun and energy of student life, quaint and charming with their porch decorations on game day, and their holiday decorations, as witnessed last night, right in this area.

That's where we live, that's where we choose to live, that's where we choose and chose to raise our children and choose to enjoy the rest of our days.

The proposed property will at least triple the amount of people in that very footprint, and we'll most likely quadruple it with the amount of trap with it, the amount of traffic will be quadrupled.

The cars will be quadrupled and noise will be quadrupled.

And the view goes from the quaint to the garish.

Is making Hoover no parking?

That is not something we want.

Remember, this is our neighborhood.

This is our home.

This is where we welcome our family.

We welcome our kids home and play with our grandkids and welcome family on holidays.

Where do you suppose our guests park?

Does someone valet our 93-year-old mother to the front door and go park a street over?

This is our home, this is our life.

Don't destroy the beauty and charm of living near campus because of greed.

Thank you for giving me the time.

Thank you.

Are there any other audience comments?

Seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion.

With the Aim Norman plan still being really fresh and getting used to this transition.

Could I ask clarification on he did great job of outlining some key points on medium density?

But I'm just curious with the 24 units.

Is it really medium density or is it closer to high density?

Okay, look at those same bullets.

Um I have my computer, but I don't today.

One moment okay.

So within within AIM Norman, um, under urban high, that's what you're referencing, correct?

Uh gross densities in any single development should be greater than 12 units per acre.

Okay.

And how many acres is this?

Go ahead, Commissioner Commissioner Kendall, to same question, I think, but to clarify it.

Does this conform with urban urban medium?

Is that the question?

Yeah, I I feel like there are some bullet points.

It does tick some boxes, but my concern is with the number of units that it's ticking some high density boxes as well.

Um which is it really?

Is it a high density project with a name of medium, or is it truly medium density?

So within AIM, as it was adopted, it specifically says in the urban medium gross densities in any single development should be greater than eight units.

So it's it doesn't have a cap.

And within this area, we expect an increase in density.

I mean, that was the whole goal, right?

Could I add something to that?

Yeah.

I will say that uh again, 24 units.

We could slice that up into eight three-bedroom units.

And so I think the fact that we are deciding to go with smaller bedrooms and smaller units, yes, that's going to yield a larger unit count, but I'd say that it's still relative to an eight-unit three developer or three-bedroom project.

And so understand the logic.

I definitely understand what you're coming from, but I think if we came as a 24 unit that was in the configuration I just described, it would be more in line with what we're just what we're talking about in the plan.

And so I don't think the two are that far off.

Okay.

Thank you.

Laura Hoggett with the planning department.

Um, so another thing that we look at when we are evaluating it is the height.

So urban medium calls for three to five-story buildings, and urban high would start at four.

So uh urban high is really like your large-scale apartment complexes.

So if that helps.

Yes.

Yeah.

Uh just clarifying, I'm seeing building types or an urban medium two and three story and urban high three and three to five for comparison.

So a three-story building potentially fits in either.

In either.

Yeah.

And I think that's also by design for tapering without speaking on behalf of the AIM program.

I think we have another member of the audience that'd like to come up.

Would you mind coming to the microphone and then just state your name and your address, and I'll give you three minutes.

Thank you.

I'm David Harper.

I live at 444 Chautauqua.

Um I've lived there for 40 years when um Linda Price knocked on my door and talked to me about developing a historic district.

At the time I was a little concerned about so many uh new things we'd have to adhere to.

Now I wish we'd adhere to those.

I have a question.

Why do you think they came up with a three uh people, no more than three people who aren't uh related?

Well, it was the other side of what we're doing tonight.

We didn't want these old houses to turn into a rental properties.

Um my neighbors uh to my to the north of me, rent.

There are two adults, they've been there for five years, they're gonna stay there until they can find a property they can afford in the historic district because they they love it here.

They're from California, so they like Norman a lot.

Um when we're thinking about 12 people who aren't related.

I ask you to think about why did we come up with the three people who aren't related?

It was for a reason, and now we're gonna destroy it at the wrong vote.

I don't want you to raise your hands.

But when I was uh heard about this, I thought, where did that come from?

So don't raise your hands, but I wonder if any of you have real estate license.

You know, if so, I hope you'll listen to those of us who live there and have lived there for a long time.

I'm gonna live there till I die.

Um, right now on Chautauqua.

I'm sorry.

It's turned into a speed zone at the exact time right now.

It's uh closed at Bury.

I mean uh boy, so it's not as bad.

But I worry about let me back up a second.

I live on the corner of uh Chautauqua and Juniper.

My uh entrance from from my cars to the roads is on Juniper.

Juniper doesn't have much traffic, but I think about my neighbors who live on Chautauqua and have to back out into the speed zone it's become.

And now I think you very much for your comments that your time is up.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

That's the end of your time.

Okay, I hope you're I don't want to disrupt, I do want to give everybody who would like to make a comment an opportunity, but not to disrupt the flow of the remainder of our meeting.

We actually did close our public comment section.

Are there any other public comments on this item that would like to come forward now?

I won't be hearing other public comments for this item.

Sure.

Am I allowed to address this as a council member?

Yeah, yeah.

Go ahead and state your name and address for the record.

Robert Bruce, I live at 5209 Lion Drive here in Norman.

And so when I think about this particular change in zoning, I think about property rights, and if I had visit my time and my money into an R1 area, uh, whether it be five years ago, 10 or 30 years ago.

And there's a submittal to the playing committee about changing the order inside be, well, hey, I bought into this neighborhood when it was R1.

And now it's changing to something else.

And my quiet enjoyment of that property has changed from what I bought into that neighborhood.

So I want people to think about, hey, I'm changing someone's life that bought in, you know, when you say for a house, it might take you years and years and years to finally get there to put that down payment.

Then you finally have you have your house you paid off, and all of a sudden the environment changes around you.

So I think you need to get some consideration of that before you make your next decision on that particular property rezoning.

That's all I have.

Thank you very much.

Are there any other audience comments on this item?

Okay.

Uh seeing none, I'd like to return to planning commission discussion on our items there.

We addressed the question about the stories.

Are there any other discussion items or questions of the applicant or staff by commission?

Um yeah, I uh appreciated Commissioner Kindle's question.

Um I think that was an important um thing to clarify and discuss to some extent.

Um the clarification from staff with the I with the four stories and heard conflicting information with the two to three and then three to five.

Um I when I look at this application, I think about the purview of our commission and purview of our commission is is it come in compliance with the land use plan, which is aim norman.

And um, and we just adopted this plan uh and it is urban medium, in my opinion, it is in conformance.

Um I could give my opinion on the project.

Um, but it is in conformance.

And and they're and and through the process of adopting AIM Norman, um, there was also an opportunity for neighbors to weigh in.

Very extended process, very comprehensive in nature to research and address what the definitions of these different land uses are.

Um, and this was a this is what was adopted.

Um just a couple notes on the project.

I I really actually like that it's I I really like that it's micro units.

I think that's a really good point that it could be eight, four unit um yeah, eight four-bedroom or four-bed units.

Um I actually think that this could be some great student housing, uh, but the the right kind of student housing that you would want in a neighborhood, um single unit uh or sorry, single bed units are very attractive in my opinion, um, from a neighborly perspective, in that who's gonna have a party in a micro unit.

Nobody's gonna do that.

That's not a fun party to be at.

Um it's uh I think it's gonna be a pretty great option for graduate students who want to cry quieter environment for um students who maybe are in their upper years, upperclassmen who are a little more focused and kind of maybe out of the party stage, if you will.

Um reality is we have a we have a housing shortage um and we need more units.

And um, and if I was a neighbor and I had the choice between eight four-bedroom units or 24 single unit, single bedroom units, it's 24 single bedroom units I would choose all day long.

Um and because it's in conformance with the with the land use plan, and they have the option of doing the other one, um, it's uh I think I'd be careful what you um wish for.

Um and and and just addressing the comment about uh buying into buying into a neighborhood.

Um I I I hear that um at the same time we have a housing shortage and we're in change is hard, and it's gonna be hard um to see this change in density over time, but it's necessary.

Um the for better or worse, um neighborhoods that are close to campus, um are going to be the highest um they're going to be the most attractive areas for higher densities.

Um this is coming from somebody who lives four blocks west of campus.

Um and so uh four blocks west, uh four blocks away.

I don't know where I live.

Um close to campus and season seeing a lot of this happen personally.

Um and so uh I I actually think from a quiet enjoyment standpoint, 24 microunits is pretty it's pretty gonna be pretty good.

Um I I actually agreed with the comment from the neighbor who pointed out that they don't want to get rid of on street parking.

I'm a huge proponent of on-street parking.

It makes streets safer, it gives people options.

Um, and this area, you want to keep as safe as possible.

You want as many cars parked on your street as possible.

Um I am very glad on my street on Lahoma that we have on street parking, otherwise it would be a speed zone.

So I I'm not uh this is again not our purview, but I I I appreciate that that was a concession.

I actually think it would be um uh I I like that there is on street parking available, and I think it's great uh great for uh compatibility with this project itself.

So um, but again, going back to the purview, I think that it seems pretty straightforward to me.

So I I personally I I like the single units.

There's a lot about this project that I really like.

I don't think that the number of units, in my opinion, and my interpretation, and we'll have to vote on you know our own personal interpretation of is this medium or is it high?

I feel like it is more towards the high.

Um being on the border of an urban light and an urban medium.

I I don't know that the very first project to convert that area into urban medium should be going to the very top level of maximizing as much as it can in that space.

I don't I personally don't feel that that is meeting the spirit of how I view what that area is supposed to be developing into.

Um I would be jumping up and down for 12, 16, maybe even 18, but um beyond that I I feel like it is putting high urban density into and medium urban density area.

Um those are those are just my thoughts.

There's there's there's a lot I like about this project, and there are some things that I don't and and I think the responsibility of of viewing each project, especially with these newly adopted um the newly adopted vision for where Norman is going, that it needs to be as thoughtful as possible.

Um I mean, we are in the Sooner area, but I don't want it to be uh a land rush that um creates ongoing conflict.

I want Norman to because it was involving a lot of feedback, and I believe truthfully there were people that perceive that urban medium different than your interpretation with this particular project.

So I I think that um especially as we start and especially as we're looking at those areas where it's a big change and it's um where two different development plans meet, we have to look at how those areas, the differences between those, how they can marry each other and blend and transition into each other and not be an abrupt maximum of what medium allows.

Um, and in my opinion, it's high and not medium.

Um but that could be potato potato anyway.

Those are those are my opinions.

But yes, I think single would uh the single micro units would be great.

That's actually what I had in Tacoma and um I grew up in Washington State and college and it had and met all my needs, and it meant it was very quiet to study.

And um, I grew up in Washington State and college, and it had and met all my needs, and it meant it was very quiet to study.

You didn't have to worry about there being a party above you to the left of you, to the right of you.

You were able to get things done.

Um, I do think there will be people really excited for this package.

I personally would just like it to have been an appropriately sized for medium.

Uh can I make a follow-up comment there?

Um, so the the challenge we're gonna be dealing with as a community with marrying a housing shortage and not maximizing units is everything has to do with the cost of construction.

And um during our presentation, we heard the the that each of these will have individual bathrooms and other amenities that in a eight-unit four-bedroom property, you would not have those same costs.

Um, and so I I can't claim to know exactly what the pro forma on this looks like from a from a financial perspective, but my speculation is that if you reduce the number of units, um you are not going to be able to make this project work, and therefore to make it work, you have to cut out bathrooms, which then turns it into more of a student housing dorm style project.

And and so um I I that's more of a common.

I I don't, I mean, I'm I'm not disagreeing with the idea of 24 units, like the the I think is okay personally, but I get why there would be hesitation there.

Um this is more to how do we marry uh increasing the unit count um in our city as a whole um and allowing for densities while also allowing for projects that actually can work.

Um it it's it's a challenge.

I mean, it is a huge challenge, and this is something that I have studied intensely uh uh with small lot development.

Um we just had a uh hosted a uh we are hosting a group incremental development alliance through the city of Norman that is that is directly addressing trying to address these challenges, and um and so it kind of that kind of goes to like my be careful what you wish for because if you reduce the unit count, then you're gonna have to cut out things that then turns into higher bedroom units, as I said, and um and and it's would you rather have 24 singles or 16 four bedrooms that could create a lot more disruption to the neighborhood, you know.

So I it it's it's a challenge.

And I um and again it's gonna be it's gonna be a hard, it's gonna create conflict, there is no doubt.

Um because this is gonna be uh something that we're gonna see a lot of it.

I don't know, you know, I can't say whether it's gonna be a land rush or not.

Um, but we're gonna see a lot of change here soon.

Um, and we're gonna have a lot of these discussions, and so it's kind of like if in someone's mind it might be pick your poison if this isn't something you like one way or another.

So is there any other commission discussion?

Particularly prior to making any motions.

Seeing none, I would take a motion.

I move to approve.

Is there any other discussion on the motion by commission?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

Yeah.

Jim, did you vote?

Yes, I did.

Oh, I thought I did.

I'll votes have been cast and it carries six to one.

Moving on to item number four, consideration of adoption, rejection, amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-16 and ordinance of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 20-109 to add massage therapy establishment to the fee schedule for licenses, amending section 20-202 to clarify definition of adult entertainment business, adding definitions and licensure requirements for massage therapy establishments to chapter 20 and deleting the definition of massage parlor and sexual encounter center from section 36 101 of the code of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, and providing for the severability thereof.

We would take the staff presentation.

Thank you.

Catherine Walker with the City Legal Department.

This ordinance came about at the request of the police department after noticing an uptick in certain establishments opening in Norman that purported to offer massage therapy, but were instead really a cover for prostitution, human trafficking, and drug trafficking, as well as other crimes.

The police look through uh data every day, every every week at least, um, for the type of ads that are put out there for these places, and just on average, over a hundred of massage parlor ads for locations in Norman appear on known prostitution websites each month.

Um, state law licenses massage therapists, but leaves open the possibility for cities to uh license massage therapy establishments.

Um without the a licensing structure, it's more challenging to identify which establishment is legitimate and which is not.

Um the ability of the city to regulate these establishments actually came about quite recently with the passage of Senate Bill 644, it became effective November 1st, which allows us to implement these licensing requirements and was passed explicitly to address human trafficking and the things that are going on in these illegal establishments.

This ordinance creates a licensing requirement for the the establishments, and then the reason why we're at planning commission, it also established or eliminates problematic and outdated zoning ordinance language.

I'll go quickly through the license requirements so we can get to the zoning ordinance piece.

But essentially, beginning April 1st, all massage therapy establishments would be required to be licensed.

We're going to be looking at uh the background of applicants for these establishments.

Do they have related felonies uh for you know crimes dealing with force, violence, sexual misconduct, drugs, or weapons?

Um do they knowingly make false or misleading statements in their application?

Have they had a license revoked in another city or by a state agency in the last five years?

And the reason that's in there is commonly we'll see establishments open in Oklahoma City.

They might get caught there operating these human trafficking operations.

Well, they'll just open up in Norman or in Noble or somewhere else.

And so that's one of the reasons why we're looking at that.

Um, and of course, no license if the applicant is under 18 years of age.

They have to meet certain requirements or face license revocation or criminal prosecution.

Uh, there are requirements in there regarding sanitary practices, posting prices, making sure that a registry of employed massage therapists who work there are is kept up to date at all times.

Unlicensed massage therapists would not be able to provide massage therapy at these uh establishments.

They're wearing appropriate clothing, we're limiting the operating hours to 8 a.m.

to 10 p.m., looking to make sure their advertising is not misleading.

No minors can work or receive services there without the written consent of a parent or legal guardian or their presence.

Uh no alcoholic beverages without an ABLE license, no indecent conduct, and then massages that are not fully clothed will be provided behind cubicles or booths for privacy purposes.

The reason we're here is is as I was drafting this ordinance.

I thought I better search the code to see if massage parlor is anywhere else in the code.

And it was.

It was in the definition of adult entertainment uses.

This is a definition that has not been updated since the 1980s.

We don't have any licensed adult entertainment uses currently, but they could be possibly allowed in certain zoning districts with the grant of a special use.

Included in the definition of adult entertainment uses are definitions for massage parlors and sexual encounter centers, which are basically the payment of consideration or gratuity in exchange for some type of sexual contact.

And this sounds a lot like prostitution.

Uh it really runs afoul of our criminal statutes uh that criminalize those activities.

We don't have any existing licenses, as I said, so we want to strike those two terms and their definitions from the zoning ordinance to make sure that if there was a request for an application or a license or special use at some point in the future, we're not doing anything that runs afoul of state law.

With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Uh thank you.

Are there any other commissioners that would like to ask questions of staff?

I will I have some, but I'd like to save mine to the end in case I have any duplication.

So I may be taking one of yours because you counter fed it to me.

But um I uh was this I this is not coming from I think these are all great updates, but has that was this run by any existing um above board uh massage therapists in our in the city for their feedback?

We have not met with any existing massage therapy establishments in Norman.

I will tell you that when we drafted this ordinance, we looked closely at Lawton, Moore, and Oklahoma City, who all have very similar ordinances in place.

I did see that you all received a couple of emails today, and I'm happy to reach out to them to talk through this.

It's I don't think there's going to be any negative impact to a legitimate organization or establishment.

Uh certainly we want to do education and make sure they know about the licensing requirements and things like that, and that's why we're not even making that effective until April 1st.

So I have a particular question as to exactly what the purview of our vote is.

So you had some licensing requirements that you identified in here, but from what I was reading, we were only looking at specifically those zoning code amendments.

Can you please clarify what we are doing here today?

And if somebody has concerns about how their licensing is going to be impacted, what is the appropriate avenue that they can take to be heard and make sure that they have a chance to meet before anything is enacted?

Yeah, we weren't able to get on a council agenda before coming to planning commission, but we do have a council meeting scheduled to discuss this with council members on December 2nd.

So I would encourage establishments to keep an eye out for that.

They could reach out to me anytime and I'm happy to talk to them about it.

The reason we're here before the planning commission is just that section of the ordinance that deletes the two definitions or sub-definitions from the adult entertainment uses definition in the zoning ordinance, and that's really why we had to come to planning commission is because of those provisions.

Okay.

I similarly would express some concerns about putting some language in that's affecting some of those particularly licensed individuals without having communication as to the drafting of it, especially now that that's a known concern.

So I would really like to see that meeting held.

And just again clarifying, our role is just the explicitly defined deleting massage parlors and sexual encounter centers from the adult entertainment use section.

Is there any other questions for staff?

Comment I noticed in some of the the language is very gender specific in some places, so I would just review that and make sure that we'll whatever's final put forward.

Thank you.

And although it was not specifically part of what we will be voting on, the comment about appropriate clothing, I think that's something that could probably warrant um some thought.

Okay.

Any other questions of staff or comments for staff?

Seeing none, I would move to I guess we have that was our applicant.

So audience comments.

I have a Mary Elizabeth LeBlanc.

Just a reminder, if you will please state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

Mary Elizabeth LeBlanc, 1630 Surrey Drive, here in Norman.

Uh I have great concern over this whether you guys are voting specifically to what she's proposing, but the city proposing and speaking to law enforcement without involving massage therapists in how to go forward in establishment licensing of our businesses.

I am a massage therapist.

I am a member of the AMTA Oklahoma chapter.

I am the GR chair, and I am the one who worked with Senator Sykes in our lobbyists to gain professional licensing for our profession.

Law enforcement comes at us the wrong way.

So I would like everybody to be very cognitive of how they engage with their language.

I appreciate that you are trying to eliminate the term massage parlors from ordinances.

The bill that I looked over today has very many problems with the language.

I had a client last week who came to me because his doctor said, I can't do anything for you, it's your piriformis.

If you don't know your anatomy, the piriformis is the smallest muscle deep in the box.

I can't address the piriformis if this law goes through.

So I just want to make sure law enforcement and the city knows they need to speak to massage therapists.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Kaylee Winchester Hi, uh Kaylee Winchester, 1228 Columbia Court.

Um I am a licensed massage therapist.

I've been licensed for 15 years.

Um 13 of those have been in Oklahoma.

And I only say that because I continue to hold my professional license from the state of Oregon, which was the second strictest state for requirements to call yourself a massage therapist at the time, until 2016, whenever I was able to get an Oklahoma state license, and then I held both.

So there are many, many therapists in town.

My peers who are trained and licensed and professional and have a high bar for operation and ethics.

And after reading through it, I have some concerns.

First of all, when they changed the language to say that we could go back to relating to zoning or licensing requirements for business locations offering massage therapy.

Well, it's it's confusing whenever you have massage therapists who are working underneath uh the supervision of a doctor, uh massage therapists who are working under the supervision of a nurse or in the same office as any of those things.

Um we're already being inspected by their professional boards.

Uh, if we have an esthetician or any other cosmetologist in-house, which I do, I also get inspected by the cosmetology board for our establishment.

We have an establishment license already with the cosmetology board.

Um the exceptions that are outlined in here would create a whole lot of like easy ways for the people who are working in illicit parlors, and we do in this business now consider parlor to be kind of one of those words that we don't use, it's cringe.

We tell our clients, we try to educate them that we are no longer we're not a Ms.

Seuss.

We are a massage therapist.

We are a trained allied health professional who is willing to help you with your pain and work with your other health care providers to that's the end of your time.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Okay.

Are there any other people like to speak on this matter?

Seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion.

No I definitely I definitely agree that we need to remove massage parlor and sexual encounter centers from our ordinances.

Um as far as adding additional verbiage, um is there a reason that um we're trying to add layers since there is state law and in place already?

Is that a question for the city attorney?

remove massage parlor and sexual encounter centers from our ordinances um as far as adding additional verbiage um is there a reason that um we're trying to add layers since there is state law and in place already is that a question for the city attorney yes it's really an enforcement mechanism that gives our our police an opportunity to go into the legitimate establishments and shut them down um so licensing requirement if you don't have a license or if you're or if you have a license and you're violating it allows the city to come in and inspect the premises and shut that kind of behavior down so it gives us an additional enforcement mechanism in addition to license verification we can charge criminal charges in municipal court the at the state level they really uh regulate um massage therapists more than establishments and so we had some old uh some ordinances from other cities where they they once tried to or did regulate establishments until the law to uh requirement licensing of massage therapists was passed hasn't been around as as long as as you might think um and then that law restricted us to zoning only so this the law recently changed again to allow licensing and so uh the police approached us about incorporating that into our code to be able to have just another mechanism to enforce uh the requirements against the illegitimate establishments um it's it sounded like we had some very qualified individuals in here um that would be happy to discuss verbiage yeah um so I don't know if you're open to organizing that between now and I guess read at council it won't go to council uh for uh second reading I don't think until January uh so we've got some time uh to to kind of assemble a group I get a massage every two weeks so I have someone I can I can bring into that conversation as well um and talk about ways that that it might be modified I I know uh the the first woman that spoke that's an easy fix that I think we can address um in the ordinance with the simple elimination of one word uh so that I think there are things in here that if they need to be modified or clarified that we can do that pretty easily before it goes to council Commissioner McClord did you also have a comment I did I had a question for the uh first therapist that uh spoke I've been an athlete my whole life I've had a therapist or an athlete trainer get into the puriformis there's nothing sexual about that why did you say that um if this passed you would not be able to work on a pure formus the language that's written in there it specifically specifically states what you cannot do and working on the buttocks and that's the way it's written in the language.

Okay thank you thank you if I can't work on the buttocks I can't work on the pure form.

No some people would like keeping your elbow away from it's uh I'll just make a simple comment uh it sounds like with our purview it's elimination of the language that um I'm fully in support of that there's work that needs to be done on the other language but that sounds like it's not at the council level so I don't know if I can make a motion but I would make a motion to approve are there any other discussion on this item before we have a motion I would just say um maybe more you know professional license massage therapists um there's other types of massages so like tie body work and stuff I don't know how they're regulated with the state boards um but that would be something that because my understanding is that they're not regulated as much as a massage therapist is and I'm that would be correct okay and unfortunately in language that we did our parent organization our national organization exempt in a lot of modalities because they didn't want them coming forward and uh binding our bill right we didn't want our bill to be killed because of people don't see themselves as massage therapists but other types of body workers yeah they're not and tie uh massage is a legitimate thing but unfortunately with everything both that want to work outside of that we'll find a way to work outside of that and elicit thing right yeah so we're you know in the mode of you know a lock only keeps an honest person out um so I would just say when we're doing that just make sure we're all encompassing of I don't know how to word that Catherine but just as note any other commission discussion before a motion and if none then I would take a motion I'll move to approve.

Any other commission discussion before a motion?

And if none, then I would take a motion.

I'll move to proof.

Second.

And a vote.

You may vote.

Although it's a bit casted.

Moving on to items number five and six.

Item number five, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-19, 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 that part of the southwest quarter of section 15, township eight north, range two west, and the east half of section 16, township eight north, range two west of the Indian Meridian to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from a PUD planned unit development and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof east of US Highway 77, south of East Cedar Lane, and north of Post Oak Road, Ward 5.

Item number six, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment and/or postponement of PP-2526-11.

Consideration consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Liberty Point Limited Partnership, SMC Consulting Engineers PC for Liberty Point Edition, a planned unit development for 151 acres of property generally located east of Class and Boulevard, US Highway 77, one half miles south of Cedar Lane Road and north of Post Oak Road, Ward 5.

I would take the staff presentation.

See hello, Justin Fisher, the Planning Department.

Okay.

So the applicant is proposing an amendment to the previously approved Liberty Point PUD.

This PUD currently allows for commercial and resort uses.

This is the existing zoning.

The PUD to the east is Destin Landing, which is another mixed-use type of development.

The one to the north is another PUD, which is the links, and it features more mixed use, primarily residential, but there are a golf course and a sorted commercial uses with that golf course.

To the west, there is some agricultural and R1 single family properties with the uses on those currently being single family dwellings.

This is the AIM future land use plan.

These items designated as commercial.

The residential structures are kind of centered on the development.

Those long skinny buildings are the multifamily structure they are proposing.

The proposed development is consistent with the AIM Norman Comprehensive Linux Plan by promoting mixed use and incorporating interconnectivity via streets, sidewalks, and trails, providing landscaping, including opportunities for big box stores, and preserving open space.

Stafford is request a planning commission for consideration.

Staff is available for comments, and the applicant is also available for comments and has a presentation prepared.

Thank you.

Any questions by commission for staff?

Seeing none, we would take the applicant's presentation.

So this property probably looks pretty familiar to most of you.

We came back and rezoned this property originally.

I think we're in front of planning commission like November, December of 2023.

And so we are coming back to amend the PUD and update the site plan and then add some multifamily residential uses.

So current zoning, you guys approved in 2023.

It's a PUD.

AIM Norman, the character area is mostly suburban with that little bit of corridor along Classan.

And then the future use is commercial.

We're not requesting any change to any of that.

Our proposal is in line.

So here is the updated site plan.

I'll have a comparison on the next slide, but just so you can see there's retail and commercial proposed along that western side.

And then the resort on the east is mostly the same.

We're just taking a little bit in the middle and converting it to multifamily residential.

So here's what was approved in 2023-2024.

And so you can see kind of we're reconfiguring the commercial, and then we're taking that resort portion kind of to the west of the pond and converting it to multifamily.

As part of the reconfiguration of the commercial buildings, you'll remember that we removed 24th Avenue and kind of reshaped it, and then we're doing that again in that north what northwest portion.

And so that'll be the new 24th Avenue, and then a new street will come down through the interior of the development.

So here's kind of a little bit more detail about the new plan.

And then we'll we're proposing 334 approximately multifamily units, and it will be a mixture of the traditional apartment building type and then townhouses.

And then commercial still along that western edge.

So here's the preliminary plat.

It's kind of less exciting than the site plan.

And then included this slide from the previous PUD presentations, which shows the pond on the property and some of the amenities that will be in the resort.

And then just kind of to recap, we're rezoning from a PUD to a PUD just to amend the site plan and add those multifamily residential uses.

It was a fee and loo request donated to the public park that is directly north adjacent to our property.

So it's going to be in between the links in our property, and then that's where our fee and loop money will go.

We are in line with the current zoning and with aim norman.

And then Justin already read that quote from the staff report, but it just says that the proposed development is consistent with AIME Norman.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions by commission of the applicant?

And I mentioned this the last time this was put forth.

And I mentioned I'm just gonna say it again.

So I don't know if that's been addressed or not.

Probably engineers, yes.

First at C staff.

Can you point out where the second egress is if there's a second one?

There's only one.

Okay.

So it's just along kind of the north of the property.

Oh, if it meets code, it meets code.

And it is the same as last time with less parking spaces.

Thank you.

Any other questions of the applicant?

But with the addition of mixed.

Or wait, just a moment.

We can zoom back so it's a little bit bigger.

There.

Is that bigger?

Would you mind returning to the previous approved and proposed?

Thank you.

Is there any other planning commission discussion that we'd like to have on record?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would be ready to move to audience comments.

Okay.

Are there any audience comments for this item?

I don't see any.

We could move to planning commission discussion.

Any other discussion by commissioners?

Okay.

If there's none, I would take a motion.

Questions in three.

What was uh Commissioner Parker?

And I would take a vote.

Oh, I'm sorry, any other discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Zero.

Moving to our next items number seven, eight, and nine.

Item number seven, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and/or postponement of Rosalie, excuse me, resolution R2526-83.

A resolution of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending the AIM Norman comprehensive land use plan so as to remove a tract of land lying in the northwest quarter of section 25 Township 9, North Range 2 West of the Indian Meridian, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the Urban Reserve Designation and Urban Low Designation and place the same in the urban low designation.

South side of East Robinson between 48th Avenue Northeast and 58th Avenue Northeast Ward 5.

Item number 8, consideration of approval acceptance rejection amendment and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-20, 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 a tract of land lying in the northwest corner of Section 25, Township 9, North Range 2, West of the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the A2 Rural Agricultural District and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof.

South side of East Robinson between 48th Avenue Northeast and 58th Avenue Northeast, Ward 5.

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

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Rebecca Burkett, Golden Land Surveying for Sterling Fields for 59.33 acres of property generally located on the south side of East Robinson between 48th Avenue Northeast and 58th Avenue Northeast Ward 5.

And we would take the staff presentation.

Laura Hoggett with the planning department.

So we have our first uh request for an amendment to the AIM Norman Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Urban Reserve and Urban Low to all urban low for uh approximately 59 acres.

So uh the urban reserve was chosen by the uh steering committee to follow topography for the western boundary.

Um so that's why we ended up with some lots that are kind of split like this one.

So the urban reserve section is uh on the northern end, and then it's urban low for the southern part.

And the character area is uh suburban.

And it's also a rezoning request from A2 to a planned unit development and a preliminary plat.

So they're requesting 59 um lots of approximately three-fourths of an acre.

It's currently A2 surrounded by A2.

Uh to the east, there was a special use for a public utility, and there's a solar farm there.

The subject tract is currently vacant, and except for the solar farm is mostly residential surrounding.

Here's an aerial.

And this is just kind of zoomed out.

Uh the preliminary plat showing the uh open space with the private park there on the west side in the green space exhibit.

We did receive a protest of approximately 19.6% within the notification area.

Um the applicant has a presentation as well, and staff is available for questions.

Thank you.

Questions by commission of staff clarify there are no current public utilities to that are on that property.

That's correct.

Is there a timeline in mind about when that might happen?

I don't have that.

Um so within AIM in the land use plan and within the water and wastewater plans, um, it's on the developers to add it.

Um the plan does say that to be developed at urban low, you should have urban utilities.

Thank you.

City use can we talk a little bit more about the specifics of mapping this particular parcel under the future land use?

Um if you wouldn't mind going back the few slides showing the surrounding area.

We have there's actually a line of development even further to the north here that was all urban low.

We have urban low surrounding on the one side, a very intentional break to the urban reserve.

We talked about following the topography, but the surrounding area to the north was not zoned urban reserve, probably because it just happened to have already been developed, even though the topography also would kind of put it in the same drainage area.

So with the aim being so recent and so intentionally and community driven, I'm very hesitant making changes to what citizens have set forth in that plan, but kind of understanding we also took a single unit parcel and more or less split it in half and also split the front half of it that was street affacing to the reserve and the back half low.

Um and we also kind of did this also with a neighbor to the side.

Um can we talk a little bit more about maybe some of these other properties that were zoned urban low right across the street, even though maybe by topography would have been in urban reserve.

Can you speak a little bit more as to how that mapping explicitly happened in the AIM process?

Well, I should preface by saying I didn't make the maps, they were determined by Garver with the drainage basins.

So I have very limited knowledge on uh how the basins work around here.

Um yes, as you said, so uh the committee, a lot of the designations were determined by what's existing.

Um there's a high unlikely unlikely hood, I guess, of it being redeveloped within the life of the plan.

Um not I don't know that I feel like that's probably more of an engineering question.

I don't know if I could answer exactly why they chose that boundary.

Am I going the right way?

There we go.

Sorry, I probably didn't answer your question.

No, but that's okay.

Are there any other questions by commissioner for staff?

Um this is you know, with three quarter acre lots.

I mean, they're looking at private well and septic, I think is kind of what maybe Liz was was going at with the public utility stuff.

Um my other question for staff is if we weren't changing um the urban restricted urban low, would would we be putting this into a PUD or would it even be would it go straight to development?

From A2, like if this was in agresidential, is that what you're doing?

Yeah.

Yeah, it would still have to be a PUD, um, but it could only go down to two acres then.

Okay.

Um and this may be something that we just to point out.

Um there's been preliminary alignments of highways, future highways that is going right through the middle of this property.

Um I think to date if we can't consider any of that and what we're doing here, and so um I think that it's it's still a viable development project.

And I'm just putting that out there.

Okay.

Thanks.

Just to uh have you clarify under urban low, what is the suggested um density for that versus what is being proposed in the PUD?

Right.

Um so urban low is three units per acre.

Let me turn a bunch of pages here.

Uh so they're about 59 acres with 59 lots.

So um we have it between 1.5 and 2.6, depending on if they include ADUs on every lot or not.

But you can't guarantee that an ADA ADU will be constructed in that.

So it's not consistent with what is being what is the tradition the suggested density.

Correct.

Okay, just clarifying.

I do think that Commissioner Parker's comment is something to consider that it is you are asking for a very distinct zoning change, and it is should be considered a viable development project at this time, knowing that it may change in the future what happens on that property.

But at this point, we are being asked to change the zoning, which is a permanent change.

So just putting that out there.

Any other questions for staff?

If not, I would take the applicant presentation.

Sorry, um.

Thank you, Commissioner Sean Rieger for the applicant tonight.

Um, and we are out in ward five tonight on this one.

This one is interesting, and you've you've sort of already hit on it.

Um it's unique in that we're we are the first to ask for an amendment to AIM Norman.

Uh somebody had to be the first, and here we are.

So, but it's it's interesting in what has been proposed in this project, and I I want you to think about this uh tonight carefully, if you will.

I know you always do, but uh what we're asking for is a development right on the edge between urban low and urban reserve.

And I'm gonna show you tonight how stark of a difference that is, and we're trying to hit the middle, not the missing middle that we talk about with Center City, but maybe it's a missing middle that we should talk about in terms of the edge of urbanism in Norman.

We've always had RE zoning in Norman.

And what we found when we got into this project and looking at AIM is that essentially AIM wrote away RE zoning.

It basically eliminated it.

And do we really want to do that?

Do we really want to eliminate completely the availability of RE zoning or acreage type lots that are not 10 acres, they're not 30 acres, but they're not 6,000 square feet either either.

And that's what we've proposed tonight, is basically a development that is three-quarter-acre lots with private utilities on it.

And what we found when we were looking at zoning this and and bringing it forward is there wasn't anything in AIM that allowed for that.

And maybe that was by design, maybe that was by intention.

Was that really what you want?

You really want to eliminate that missing middle, the missing middle of the edge of urbanism.

That's what we're proposing tonight.

And so we ask that you consider that.

Let me take you through it.

You see the aerial right there, as as Laura showed you, we're at East Robinson between 48th and 60th.

We are cognizant that there has been a turnpike proposed through this site.

We do think the site still works, at least half of it the way they, but it it will depend largely, of course, on how that comes through, and if it does come through, it probably changes this along with the whole platitude of sites around Norman that will be back in front of you very likely.

But for now, we know we have this, and we've proposed a development that we think works.

Here's what really I think a perfect illustration is the contradiction.

On the left from AIM Norman, you see the character area where we are fully within suburban, and we're not asking for any change to that.

On the right, it just seems to them no criticism, please, of the people that did this or or went through this effort.

It was one heck of an effort for two or three years to do this, and I applaud them.

But as we get deep, I could tell you uh this is gonna happen a lot, frankly, when you get into dealing with implementing a comprehensive plan.

I I was actually around back in 2004 when we tried to implement Norman 2025, and you will run into sites that just don't fit it, but just don't work with the plan that was adopted.

And unfortunately, perhaps for you, that's where you come in to see if we can find a way to maneuver through that and work it.

And that's what we're doing tonight.

Because on the left, you see this site was fully shown to be character map of suburban, which is basically an urban condition.

But on the right, the land use plan uh dissected the site.

And I get and understand that sometimes topography makes us do those things.

But if a developer can creatively and flexibly come up with a plan that makes that topography work, then I would urge you to let the developer do that.

I was at a conference today with Laura, and I talked about flexibility, and I that was sort of my uh push upon the planners in the room was let's let's let's free up flexibility for designers and developers to go make housing work.

Uh it was a conference on how do we how do we accelerate housing?

And I think developers and builders will help you do that if you can free them up and not lock them into pre-arranged plans and pre-arranged ideas that you have to meet that or go home.

That's where we struggle in the development community.

Let us get flexible with an idea that might work.

It might not fit your plan, it might not fit exactly what you have on your books, but does it work?

Is it a functional housing option?

If it is, then we would hope you would approve it.

Let that flexibility happen.

And then we can do that through PUDS.

We can do that through spUDs and and flexible options that the developer and the builder can come up with to make it work.

And so I'm asking you tonight to let that happen.

Does it meet AIM plan?

No.

On the right side, it doesn't.

Meets it on the left, doesn't meet it on the right.

And what we found too when we got into this is that AIM, again, no criticism, AIM, please don't take it that way.

But the intervening points of AIM were pretty interesting.

When we did Norman 2025, we had a layering that took us from urban, low residential, to country residential.

Or I'm sorry, I forget the descriptions, but basically it was the lighter yellow, which was the two acre RE, and then we went to 10 acres on Norman 2025.

What AIM Norman effectively did was took out the light yellow of two acres, eliminated it.

And as you see on the right, what it went to was urban reserve, which is a maximum of one unit per 30 acres, and put it immediately adjacent to urban low, which is a minimum of three units per acre, right next to each other.

There was no buffering, there was no down zoning, there was no sort of movement away from the heavy urbanism of three units per acre to one unit per 30 acres.

We used to have that with RE zoning.

We used to have that with the light yellow color on Norman 2025.

I think through PUDs we can still do that, and that's what we're asking you to do tonight.

But imagine this site if we did exactly what AIM anticipated, and we had one unit per 30 acres on the top, one home, and three units minimum, three units per one acre on the bottom.

Well, if we did the one site, 59 acres as three units per minimum, at minimum, three units per acre, that is 180 homes.

So let's imagine if we did that on the right, uh, you know, roughly what uh a little over half or so, so 90 or 100 homes we're gonna put on the south, and we're gonna have one road down to it with one home on the top.

That would fit your plan.

That would make it work.

But is that all we should be able to do?

Is that the end of flexibility for us?

We can't do anything different.

I hope not.

I hope that's not what AIM Norman intended to happen.

That you got away from the flexibility of a developer or a home builder or a designer to come to you with a plan that says, I have a way that will work.

Doesn't fit your map, doesn't fit your colors, but I can make it work in a method that has been long sought after and liked in those edges of our East Urban Norman, two-acre developments, things like that.

And so that's what we're asking you to do tonight.

And so again, I I put in the black line here.

This is the AIM Norman map.

That black line, the dashed line is is please understand, not on AIM Norman.

That was my addition to it.

But I'm hoping what it illustrates to you is is how this line meanders from from the maximum of one home per 30 acres to the minimum of three units per acre.

Do we really intend to make developers do that?

To the finitism of that.

That you're gonna say we have to have three units per acre minimum, make it six units per acre.

Make it five.

But right next to it, you gotta have only one home per 30 acres.

Did we really intend that?

I don't think we did.

I hope we didn't.

And so you saw probably the protesters' letters, the protesters' letters, or in all due respect what we often see when we're out in greenfield development, which is please leave the field a field next to me.

Please leave it an uninhabited zone, please leave it as nothing but the grass and the trees.

I totally understand that.

I faced it for a long time.

But as AIM Norman says, and as the commissioner said earlier, we have a housing problem.

We need more housing.

So we need more housing.

So I hope you will respectfully look at those letters and understand that we do have to keep building housing.

And those fields have to give their way to housing.

But perhaps we can hit the middle and perhaps help those neighbors that are not living next to 180 homes, but perhaps they're living next to large acreages, three-quarters of an acre, of more or less sort of RE homes.

Maybe we have hit the middle with a development that respects their concerns to the degree we can, but starts getting us to AIM Norman, which is important as well in building housing.

So if you take that site right through the middle of it, slash through the middle and put one home per 30 acres or minimum of three homes per acre.

We're basically 59 homes on 59 lots.

We're roughly one home per acre, or if you put in the ADUs, we're a little more than that.

Haven't we really blended the site to meet what Aim Norman envisioned for this locale?

I think we have.

I think one of their letters said leapfrog.

Well, I hope you will understand that the mechanics of development across America are not going to allow you to figure out how it's going to go parcel by parcel by parcel.

I wish it was that methodical, it's not.

What happens is it comes up when the owners wish to sell their lands and when the developer is able to buy it.

That's not going to be in a very methodical, we're going to go this street first, then this street, then this street.

And unfortunately, that's how AIM is probably going to have to evolve.

There will be probably some patchwork.

But if we can make it work within the confines of basically what you've proposed, we hope you would support that.

So I've talked long enough.

Happy to hear your questions and help you think through this as you can.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Moving to commission questions for the applicant.

Are there any commissioner questions of the applicant?

Sean, I appreciate your insight.

Thank you.

Any other questions before I let the applicant sit down and move on?

It's really okay if there's no questions.

It's okay.

All right.

We're making very sure this time.

We're we're being very specific.

Moving on then to audience comments.

And Mr.

Bill Swain.

And again, just a reminder, please state your name, your address, three minutes.

If you want a 30-second warning, let me know.

Otherwise, I'll let you know when the time is up.

Thank you.

Bill Swain, 1501 Burrow Wood Road.

Um, I wish it was just as simple as that, but but the AIM plan does have many other aspects that involves encouraging infill, transitional development, uh, not extending our infrastructure beyond the service areas and all that.

So that is also a charge and part of the AIM plan.

It's not just to say this line's mapped, so turn in your application, and here we go.

So we do have a leapfrog situation.

And I'm going to address a couple of the engineering aspects that are caused from lake fraud development as to why we want to encourage developing as it progresses.

Not to mention that it's more acceptable as time creeps in on neighbors and things like that.

But I I do want to have a couple of times to talk about some of the engineering challenges.

And I wish I had as long as Sean had, so I could I could have the opportunity to state the case eloquently.

But let's talk about drainage for a second.

When you do a subdivision, and and these are great development people, work with them all the time, they know what they're doing, but it's different in an urban environment.

When we do our drainage report, and we design for peak flow, and we try to keep that at a historical level.

When an urban environment, when you have storm sewers to go in, drainage easements, and improved channels, the peak flow is important because that's flood protection.

In the urban environment where most of this water runs across the brews, it's running through native pasture.

Poor soils.

They were terraced years ago to stabilize, and they are stabilized.

So when you design for peak flow, that's so the downstream system handles it.

In the urban environment, it's erosion, and you're releasing that on a pasture.

So there is more flow.

The rate's not increased above the peak, the worst case rate.

But there's more, the durations are longer.

More of those runoffs are at a higher velocity.

They're running off more frequent.

These clumpy native soils, poor soils, because they used to erode, they're stabilized.

You're now having more frequent longer duration erosion events.

Not through drainage easements, not through storm pipes, not through improved channels, but across their property.

When you have public roadways, drainage systems, you typically don't release those back on private property.

Thank you very much for your comments, and thank you for your letter as well.

Thank you very much.

Moving to uh Mike Brule.

All right, I will accept your 30-second warning on that.

Um, Mike Broll, I live at 1001 48th Avenue Northeast.

My house is the uh one that's currently in the graphic right now.

Um my dad, Lewis Brule, who's also with me, and my brother and uncle all own the properties immediately to the west of the proposed, all the way down to the bottom.

Uh as Mr.

Swain noted, uh, the property over the years, way back when my dad was a kid, uh, was terraced for a reason.

It was it was all farm and uh cattle for for us as a family.

This was our our livelihood, this is what we grew up doing, and it's always been in the family until just recently.

So the the terracing was there for erosion control because it was a problem.

And um, and even through the middle of the property, as you can see immediately to the left of West the development, you'll see the red, and it continues to be uh a concern and a problem.

So the detention uh is uh something that we are very concerned about.

Um we still have cattle and livestock all over this property, and so uh the the health and well-being of of our livelihood is also kind of a concern of what may or may not run off of this development.

So the 2045 map um shows the the reserve in the Mr.

Reger's comment about why it's split.

Um I'm a firm believer that it's split largely because of the existing contours of this property.

Uh what they haven't pointed out is down the right side of the development is a fluid 20-inch gas line.

It runs north-south the entire length of the property, and um it is what is considered plow depth, which means it's only a few inches deep.

And uh having having farm this property and and drive tractors and things over it, I can tell you there are places where it's only inches deep.

Um, and and we've actually had to push dirt over places of it just to move tractors over it to farm the property that's owned by Norman Public Schools north of the solar panels.

So all of this stuff is is just to say that we we are familiar with the project.

Uh we're familiar with the topography and uh the entire property, except for maybe the bottom quarter, bottom third, uh, will ultimately drain on to my dad and I.

Um, all of that ends up in that tree line, which is the low spot and just happens to be one of the initial inlets for the Thunderbird watershed, uh, which is also why I believe that the top half of that property is considered reserved 2045.

30 seconds.

Thank you.

And so um, you know, quickly going down the list.

There is no infrastructure, aquifer recharge is a consideration and a concern.

The city put a uh well house there, and uh that was told to us that it would be used limitedly.

Um there is a heavy influence of water runoff, and what Mr.

Swain was talking about as far as the leapfrogging, the 2045 reserve map specifically says that developments like this should have an adjacent or an abutting project.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Thank you, and appreciate your consideration.

Uh moving to Steve Lemke.

Think you know the drill if you've been here, but if you'd like a 30-second warning, let me know.

State your name and address, please.

Okay.

My name is Steve Lemke, and I live at 1301 Burrowwood here in Norman.

Um, to start off, uh, I want to say that I strongly support the AIM land use plan adopted recently.

It's a solid, thoughtful plan that provides guidance for Norman's growth eastward toward Lake Thunderbird over the next 20 years.

The plan emphasizes that suburban expansion in East Norman should be transitional, in field focused, and consistent with the existing rural character of East Norman.

Avoiding leapfrog development, and just drop in your lap subdivisions.

In other words, the plan sets a clear framework for orderly and respectful growth, and it gives the city the authority to decline projects that are out of step with this framework of the AIM plan.

Of course, my concern is this is this subdivision.

The engineering and layout of this subdivision are very well done.

And the developers clearly put effort into the design, but the issue is not the design or any part of the design, it's its location and the timing, most importantly, the timing.

This subdivision does leapfrog over large areas of undeveloped and sparsely occupied land and reaches right up to the easternmost boundary of the AIME 20-year plan.

According to AIME's thoughtful vision, this specific site, it's just not ready yet for serven develop suburban development.

Approving this subdivision now would undermine the plan, set a precedent that weakens AIMS guidance and erodes trust in our city's long-term planning process.

10 years from now, not today.

Not now, not at this location, not yet.

Approving it prematurely, uh approving this this thing prematurely effectively says that we could ignore the careful guidance of our own planning document, which I hope this commission would avoid.

And preserve the integrity of the AIM plan, ensuring that East Norman grows in a thoughtful and deliberate way that rejects both the plan and the community's character.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there any other audience comments for this item?

Come on up.

Yeah.

Same same thing.

We're gonna give you three minutes, name and address, and we appreciate you being here.

I would like the 30-second timer.

It should be short and sweet, but just in case.

My name is Brandon Nofire, and I live at 9801 East Boyd Street.

And they said a lot more eloquently, what I'm just gonna reiterate a few things here, a few key points, that there are no utilities from the city.

So you're gonna have 59 wells and 59 septic systems out there.

And the AIM 2045 plan was actually meant to help the watershed.

This development absolutely just does not do that.

And while I understand Norman is growing and needs more housing, we on the city council are actively working to create density in the city proper, specifically so we can leave the rural Norman rural parts of Norman rural.

And they're trying for three-quarter acre lots when the bare minimum of either side that they're saying is two acres.

And so I would just like to point that out.

And it's gonna stick out like a score thumb.

Everybody keeps talking about leapfrogging, and it does.

And it's honestly just incongruous with everything else around it.

You I know you all see the maps, there's nothing around it.

And just a personal opinion, I don't think a development like this belongs past 48.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion.

I'll make some comments.

Um first there was a really good question earlier um to staff as to why that urban reserve area was kind of cut in right there, and I think you know, it's somewhat answered through applicant presentation.

There were some comments from neighbors um or I guess uh residents of Norman that made comments um about the topography.

Um the zoomed out map of the urban reserve uh line um actually was most telling to me because that little cut in jut in uh was very intentional.

Um I mean, when you went north-south with the boundary right there, everything going up and down was fairly um linear north-south until you get a little further south, but then you have this jut-in.

So I um I don't think it was something that was random that was put in the um, in fact, it looked it seems to be the opposite that there was quite a bit of thought put into the inclusion of of that in the urban reserve area.

Um I I want to say I really appreciate both applicants' comments and uh the resident comments, that was very, very informative on both sides.

Um I agree that as a commission we're gonna have to have flexibility.

Um it also seems uh pretty dangerous when we have language in the AIM Norman plan that is specifically addressing um adjacent or abutting developments.

Um and this is clearly outside of that.

Um and so uh I I don't want to sound like I'm so talking out of two sides of my mouth, but I think uh Mr.

Swain put it very well that um yes, we have a housing shortage, yes, we have housing issues, we need to be adding units at the same time.

Um there are options for that within the plan, and um my biggest concerns coming into the AIM Norman process um was addressing density in areas that were walkable in addition to preserving the land closest to Thunderbird, um, because those were two prime things that we need to address.

And uh and so I with that being said, uh this may be development that is appropriate down the line, but at this point in time I I can't support it.

Okay.

Um just piggybacking on Commissioner Burr, I do feel like this is a premature presentation for this piece of land.

I do think that it was very intentional how AIM looked at the rural character as we go back as we get closer to Lake Thunderbird.

I think at this point, um it kind of ignores the protected watershed.

If you are gonna put 59 septic systems in 59 wells, that potential being there.

I I think that is a that is not the intent of what was um designated as urban reserve and urban low.

Um so I feel like well, maybe in the future, this is a more appropriate plan.

I feel like at this time it is not.

Thank you.

Um living out in Ward 5, um in the in the U of Lake Thunderbird.

I'm very cognizant of how everyone that lives in Ward 5 values conservation and preservation and protection of the watershed.

And that was very evident at Lakeview Elementary when we had a really great showing of community to give input for Ame Norman.

Where I live, I I think I I know where I live, DEQ puts limitations on even what I can do with septic.

And so the property that I'm at, um just as tangential, but I'll get back to the point.

Um it was grandfathered in an old well, the the well and the septic are over 40 years old, and uh and so if anything changes, we have to go back to doing like a percolation test, and if it was to fail, we would have to do anaerobic septic instead of in ground septic.

Um the idea of 59 anaerobic septics potentially is an offense on the sense of smell.

Um it's probably far enough from the lake that it has less intense regulation by the DEQ, but um all the way to our state level, there there is a an importance placed on this watershed being protected and any development being very mindful of that.

And I I just can't um I can't support this premature development that is um it's almost like an assault to the conservation aspects that our whole community agreed with for the conservation of and preservation of this area.

So I I can't agree with it.

Are there any other commissioner discussion or comments to make um I would just add uh this this one is a little bit challenging because of the I think I kind of got to it with my staff question, the intentionality in which these lines were drawn, but also taking an existing parcel of land and splitting that use in two.

Um I think that's also challenging for as a property owner to have to navigate and specifically cutting off the frontage, the street frontage parts of that from having a more accessible use on there.

Um great comments from everybody.

We always appreciate the audience comments, even though it is limited by nature of keeping things consistent, but we do always appreciate everyone who comes out and also that sends in additional information.

Um something else that wasn't directly brought up is the relation to residential next to agricultural use when it comes to runoff that may not be stormwater volume, but in the use of certain chemical components that are used in lawn care, um, specifically, usually those front lawns and some of those needs, and then similarly materials that are used in agricultural production and manures and things like that that can also impact water the other way.

So there can be some challenges sometimes with those two, and specifically with that runoff component in here.

Um this one's a challenging one.

I think this will be a hard one for council too, and we just appreciate everyone who came out and the applicant for making eloquent points on both sides.

Uh if there isn't any other planning commission discussion, I would take a motion to reject okay.

So typically we have a motion to clarify, or typically our motion would be to approve, and that we would typically vote yes or no on clarifying your motion would be to specifically recommend denial to reject.

Yes.

So in support of rejection would be a yes, and in support of potential approval would then be a no in this case, is the intent.

Yes, that is the intent.

Okay.

Is there a second on that motion?

I second it.

Any other discussion on that motion?

I will just say for ease of consistency, sometimes a motion to approve regardless of how you intend to vote, can make things a little bit more streamlined and seamless.

But I appreciate the comment.

That said, we have a motion to reject on the floor.

And if there's uh I just want to make sure I'm clear.

I so if it's a motion.

Yeah.

Yes.

The motion to reject is on the floor.

So if the you would like to reject said motion, your vote would be a yes.

If you would like to approve the application, it would be a no.

If you don't want to reject it, it would be a no.

Double negatives.

That's why we usually do a motion to approve.

Pointing that out.

Yeah, if um I I don't want their the this is just uh I I would have done the same thing.

I almost said our motion to deny.

Um but uh to make sure there's no confusion to anybody who is reading on this vote.

I wonder if you would consider withdrawing the motion and then resubmitting.

So then it, you know.

I can definitely do that for clarification.

Yeah.

Withdraw the motion to reject, and I will make a motion to approve for clarification purposes.

And I am in my second.

Is there any other as a point of order for the city of attorney?

Is there any other logistics we need to do to make that motion that's on the floor be amended?

Thank you so much.

Yes, it is our recommendation typically that we approve um so that it's it's it's easier to follow.

Um however, the clarification would be functional because there was a motion and a second on the floor.

It's actually proper to vote to amend it.

So I would say a withdrawal isn't functional at this point.

So if you want to change it to a motion to approve, you should probably vote to amend it.

So I can make a motion to amend it.

Okay.

And have that seconded to then vote on that.

Right.

Um yes, there would need to be a motion I'm an amendment to the motion to change it to a motion to approve.

Honestly, at this point, I think with the clarification on record, it would be cleaner to proceed to just vote.

Subject to that of this point.

I mean, if I can make a suggestion.

Okay.

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

I withdraw my amended second.

If you withdraw your motion, okay.

So at this point, as a point of order to clarify, our motion on the floor is a request to deny the application.

Therefore, if the motion is to deny, if you are in agreement with the motion, you would vote yes to deny the project.

And you would vote no to approve the project.

If is there any other discussion on the motion to be had?

And this is why we have discussion on motions built in.

Any others on there?

Yeah, that's we don't have audience comment right now.

Thank you so much.

So if we are if there's no other discussion, we can move to vote.

Okay.

We will take a vote.

You may vote.

Yes to deny.

Sorry.

It's all good.

We need to know we can all votes have been cast, and the motion to deny passes seven to zero.

Moving on to item number 10.

Uh consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-21 in ordinance at the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the code of the city of Norman, so as to remove lots 48 and 49 in block 4 of the state university addition to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma from a SPUD simple planned unit development and place the same in SPUD simple planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof.

765 Jenkins Avenue Ward 4, and we would take the staff presentation.

Hello, Justin Fisher, the planning department.

Um we have an application or the applicant proposing to amend their previously approved SPUD.

The proposed amendment would remove the allowance for commercial uses on the ground floor of the structure and instead replace those uses with residential uses.

And the parking area for the site has been reconfigured and consists of 12 parking spaces.

The AIM future line use.

Howard the applicant wanted to forego this requirement and stay with the approved version of the PUD where or SPUD where there was not a fence present there.

All right.

Staff for this request to plan commission for consideration.

Staff is available for comments.

The applicant is also available for comments, and they also have a presentation for the commission.

Thank you.

Any questions by commissioner for staff?

And just clarifying when this project last came before us was about a year ago.

Was that right?

Correct.

I want to say it was the last year.

So clarifying that this was a PUD that we approved one year ago, but the main functional difference is the retail on the bottom was changed to residential on the bottom.

Correct.

SPUD, and they are changing from commercial allowances on the ground floor to purely residential for the whole building.

Thank you for that clarification.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, I would take the applicant presentation.

All right.

Thank you, Justin.

Sean Reger on this one.

And this one I'll be pretty brief on, is it is one you saw previously, really quite recently in the last couple of years.

There really is just one change to this SPUD effectively than it was before.

And Justin said, well, it's basically taking away the commercial on the bottom and going full residential on this property as opposed to the mixed use.

So even though we took away the resident the commercial on the bottom, we are of the same uh density that was approved previously, so no change there.

Uh SPUD, you see on the right.

Again, it was already a spUD, so no change there.

Uh this is the site plan.

The site plan is really pretty similar.

In fact, I'm gonna go to a comparison of the site plan so you can see uh that's what you approved before on the left, and on the right is what we're asking you to approve tonight.

Basically, very similar.

Um in essence, we have the same number of parking spaces, one of them now is accessible parking space, and uh we had increased the impervious, I think, by one percent.

We now are at I think 67% impervious.

Um, so we were not up at the 85% or the 80% or anything like that.

Uh but that's basically the change.

Uh we moved the bike rack uh slightly, we removed an overhang from the upper floors, uh, we added accessible parking again.

The same number of parking and uh impervious is really essentially the same.

65.7 percent is the difference.

Uh summary again, Justin already kind of talked through this, but six units um on uh six bedrooms on the first floor, six bedrooms on the second, and the third floor would basically be the common living area uh for the different users in the property.

There are no protests, we're not aware of any controversy or negativity on this project as we've progressed through the the uh zoning.

So staff said it will blend with the existing housing in the area, and with that, I'll keep it that brief and happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh moving to questions of the applicant by commissioners.

Um this is uh as much curiosity as anything.

Um, first, this is not in the center city form based code, correct?

I'm sorry.

This is not in the center city form based.

It is is not commissioned.

Let me show you the separation point.

The light blue is the center city form-based code.

And this is an area that is intended eventually to be perhaps part of the center city code, but uh but is not at this time.

And this is more the curiosity thing.

Was this part of the area that was kind of carved out for the campus corner area?

Correct, Commissioner.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Seeing none, I would move to audience comments.

And then seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion.

Any discussion on this item.

Okay.

I would say comprehensively, it looks very similar.

There's just the use change of use, probably consistent with some other things we've seen, even in applications tonight.

Okay.

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

Motion to agree.

Any discussion on the motion?

If none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

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

Moving to item number 11, consideration of approval except.

Oh, so sorry.

We would uh yes, I'm sorry, item 11, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-17, an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-101 definitions of Article 36-I zoning in general within chapter 36 zoning of the code of the city of Norman to revise the definitions for family and dwelling unit and providing for the separability thereof.

So sorry.

Okay, so uh we are proposing to amend the definitions for family and dwelling unit to remove the three unrelated language.

Um this was originally adopted in our zoning code in 1954.

Um over the years, enforcement has really changed from uh who lives where to what's happening outside like parking, noise, party nuisance houses, things like that.

Um our current ordinance is really difficult to enforce.

The onus is on the neighbors to come up with all of the evidence.

Um proving familial relations can be quite difficult.

Um sorry, so there has been um a legal trend across the United States to update ordinances to um kind of allow more flexibility with um today's housing market as it is.

It can be necessary for um some people to need to live with roommates or what have you.

Um so this is an effort to modernize our code.

We do have a little information about um what code can enforce and police can enforce uh if you have more questions about other things that we can do to help the problems that we are usually um told from neighbors regarding uh like student housing and things like that.

So uh we have legal and code here to help answer any questions.

Um we forward this to you.

Sorry, that was awkward.

Thank you.

In this case, our staff is our applicant.

Um are there any questions of staff by commission?

Sorry, I didn't mean I wasn't like I don't need to talk.

I literally finger my throat.

Um I would like to hear uh I've just heard over the years that this the three unrelated persons ordinance is uh is essentially unenforceable due with the comment you made about proving familial relations, and um so I'd like to I'd like to hear more whatever can be explained relatively briefly with uh um related to enforce enforcement there.

Okay, yeah, we'll let Janita end.

Good evening, Janita Hatley, co-compliance supervisor.

So typically when we receive a complaint of this nature, we would send a letter to the property owner advising them that we've received this complaint, educating them on what the ordinance says.

Um oftentimes we receive no no feedback from the property owner.

We make you know do make site visits, drive by the property.

If we don't observe anything very obvious, such as multiple cars or other types of issues, we have little to go on.

If we continue to receive a lot of these complaints, I will say are submitted anonymously.

The previous complaints we received.

We've had one complaint submitted this year.

Uh there's it's been closed due due to insufficient evidence.

Last year we had eight.

Uh only one of them went to municipal court because of the neighbors providing the vehicle logs, the daily vehicle logs.

Um, and then the previous year in 2023, we had 19 complaints that were submitted.

Probably I didn't look up to see how many of them were anonymously submitted, but probably most, if not all.

Uh, and they were all closed due to insufficient evidence.

So uh we're not able to prove that.

We the landlords frequently will submit their lease to us, which shows three or fewer names on there.

So, you know, that's that's due that's insufficient evidence.

That's that's reason enough for us to close the case at that point.

Um we can't require or force our way in and you know, count heads, so to speak.

Um, so it does become very difficult.

We do utilize our off-street parking ordinance, so if they're parking on the grass, or if they have trash or debris out on the property, we do and can and will always address those issues.

The complaint that we had last year that did go to municipal court, there were not any complaints for those types of issues.

They had um the neighbors at that time had concerns because when they had parties, which I don't know how many of them they had, um it resulted in a lot of cars on the street.

So that was that was one of the main uh focuses that I observed in in the complaint that they had submitted, but we didn't have any code violation issues there to support anything else going on.

So in certain circumstances, I would say that if we have a complaint where there is 30 people living in a single family home, we could we do have a property maintenance code that we have adopted which regulates square footage and required for each occupant in a bedroom.

So we could send a notice to the owner saying we've had a complaint that you have 30 occupants in this two or three bedroom home or whatever it is.

Um would you schedule an inspection with us so that we can verify that you meet the minimum safety requirements and see how that plays out?

Uh we could might have to work with legal on adjusting that if that doesn't seem to work for us, but it's it's just not been an enforceable issue that we've that we've been able to handle.

But the number of complaints, um I will say I wanted to add this.

I had several people call or a handful of people call around the time students were moving in at OU.

And the bulk of those issues that were mentioned to me.

Um, you know, when I asked, are you having parking issues on the are they parking on the grass?

No.

Are they having a party?

No.

Are you having trash and debris in the yard?

No.

We just know they're not supposed to have more than three, and they have more than three.

We feel that they have more than three, and that was their main uh all these handful of of complaints that I got, that's what that's what it was.

So uh account of the 19, eight, and one this year, the with the one last year going to municipal court.

Um what so that that was ruled in violation of the ordinance?

And and what was the that one evidence behind that?

It was a four or a five, I can't remember exactly.

A four or a five-bedroom house, and they had an occupant in each bedroom.

Um the neighbors submitted those logs.

They we did file a citation based on their log evidence of five or six or however many vehicles there were.

Um it went back and forth in court from what I recalled, Miss Jeannie Snyder just recently telling me.

Uh, and the landlord eventually submitted a uh lease with the with three names on it.

So I don't know if an occupant moved out.

I'm not sure exactly what happened.

I I would I don't have that information for you, but um, it was resolved with fines being issued to the property owner, and I believe they sold the property after that.

So that's how that one resulted.

Thank you.

Sorry, I did want to add um the removal of three unrelated does not mean that that changes uses allowed on a property.

So the zoning does not change.

If it's a single family zoning district, that doesn't mean that suddenly you're allowed to have eight units, it just means you can have more than three unrelated living together in a unit.

Thank you.

Any other questions by commission for staff?

Looks like we have some audience comments.

If there's any other questions before we take audience comment.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um I would take the audience comments.

I'm gonna start with Carlinda Gravel and same thing as you've heard before.

Please state your name and address.

Um if you'd like a 30-second warning before your time is up, please let me know.

Otherwise, I'll yield a full three minutes for you, and at the end, thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Yes, Carlinda Gravel, 410, North Ponca Avenue.

Live directly uh west of Longfellow, so quite congested at certain points of the day.

And I would like a 30-second warning, please.

Um I am concerned, and I would like you to reconsider this.

The way this is stated, we would actually be not, we're actually making an allowance now for six people, possibly eight, when we change the code to be in with agreement with the Oklahoma Code.

So what the concern is that this will more than likely lead to other ordinance changes if we're going to allow eight people with eight cars to live in a single family unit dwelling and not require it to be where each person has a bedroom.

So we could put eight people in a one bedroom as long as they're not what eight people, six people?

That's quite concerning for the neighbors.

We've been through this, I think, in our past.

That's what got us to the three-person rule to begin with.

We have some college concerns, people concerns that we need to deal with, and I think from the documentation that was supporting this, um, citizens are very concerned.

We have had issues that led us to where we are now, and we have we've been doing well considering maybe we need to rechange things just so that we can have more enforcement.

Uh citizens IQ, uh, citizens are getting more involved.

I believe each of you probably received some emails today concerning this issue, as this is now all over Facebook.

Um, so yeah, so we would please ask you to not approve this the way it is at the moment, but reconsider a very cautious moving forward because this could really start a roller coaster in our neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cheryland Dawson Densao.

Sorry.

I'll let you state your name into the record.

Sure Land and so um property was inwards four and six, and um I live at 2925 Redwood Drive.

Um consider the possibility of um somebody moving in, uh, a gentleman moving in and having you know eight girlfriends in in a dwelling.

What does that look like to you?

Looks like human trafficking to me.

Okay.

If there's no teeth in what we do in our council or our planning, we have no way to control any sort of problem that arises in our city.

Um I know uh I didn't I wasn't born and raised here, but I've been living here since 197.

And um it's a slippery slope when you start allowing uh multiple unrelated people living in a smaller unit or a dwelling that's really made for families.

Um it will impact every single one of our neighborhoods directly, and um it'll be a problem for landlords.

The landlords in this town will have a real problem moving forward.

They had hard enough time right now keeping track of who's coming and going and um and who's trashing their properties and who's not trashing their properties and and maintenance and all of that.

Let's just take the equation of student housing out of it completely.

This is a social issue where you're wanting to stuff more people in a dwelling, okay.

Nothing good comes from stuffing more people in a dwelling.

If it's not a direct family member, there's complications, lots of it.

So say you have six roommates, and all those roommates have a significant other.

It's going to spill out into the street and it's going to impact the neighbors.

I'm sorry.

You have to look at this from a human perspective, not from well, you know, three seems like too small.

Six or eight seems way too big.

I implore you to vote no on this proposal and rethink how we're doing things in this town.

We're having a problem with criminal elements.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Elaine Boyd.

I'm Elaine.

Sorry.

I'm Elaine Boyd, 500 Chautauqua Avenue.

I'm here to talk about some new residents who have purchased a home directly next door to me, and they want to add a lot of uh amenities to the property.

Um that means that they want to add a house of approximately well, close to 700 square feet in the backyard, extra pads of concrete for parking, concrete walkways.

Uh they want to add a driveway.

There is an existing driveway, but it hasn't been in use for a long time.

They want to add a driveway, they want to widen the driveway that is already on the property.

Um they want to make several changes, and all of them sound very nice until you look at the plan, and um there's some green space on there, but there's now another building and a lot of concrete, and my part of my concern is the water that comes from that much concrete where there's not enough land to suck it up.

I will tell you that we spent a fortune this past year at my house because the water came pouring in from the rains in May, and I had essentially three rivers in my basement.

I have concerns about too much concrete.

I have concerns about using that additional living unit in the backyard for non-family members.

Um the person who is moving in has had it indicated to me that they were planning to rent out to college girls slash sorority girls.

I don't care who lives there, but I'm not excited about having anybody else living coming and going.

We raised four kids there.

Uh we moved there because it was quiet, it was picturesque, it was an old home.

We like old homes.

We fixed up our old home.

And um, I'm concerned about the number of people coming and going, the increase in human traffic, the increase in vehicles.

Um I'm not so sure about stuffing people into the house.

There's a main house that has several bedrooms, but this house in the back is quite elaborate.

I'm concerned about what's going to happen to the nature of the historic district because it no longer is looking historic.

People are using it as investment property, and we want it, and our neighbors want it, and pretty much everybody that I've talked to on the on two streets that would be Lohoma and Chautauqua, have they told me about their concerns and how they do not want the neighborhood to go in that direction?

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Yeah, thank you.

You bet.

Do we have any other audience comments?

Okay.

Robert Bruce, uh, 5209 Lion Drive and Norman here.

I could really think of tens of thousands of reasons why not to change the ordinance.

If you're a homeowner, you bought into uh HOA and uh the neighborhood, you came with certain expectations related to buying that home, putting that investment forward and living there, and then to change the framework where you've subject all these homeowners to increase what a little bit of risk.

Well, who's you know who's what's gonna live next door to me?

And I heard tonight about a cap, eight, six to eight people.

I wasn't aware of that if there was a cap.

When I read the initial change, I'm thinking, well, there's they've changed the definition of what a family is, meaning that blood related or instrument of law, some document through instrumental law like adoption, et cetera, to just a group of people who decide for some economic reason, hey, we're gonna live together, we're gonna rent this house, and we don't have a limit as far as the number of people can put in this house.

I can only imagine what will how that would change a someone living next door as far as their pleasable enjoyment of the property they have, how that would change a neighborhood over time.

And what you'll have eventually, I think in some areas uh is a bunch of houses that are rental houses that are bought by investors.

I don't think that's exactly what Norman wants, particularly if you've lived here for five, ten, fifteen, twenty, I heard forty years.

I don't think it's fair to change the groundwork related to a property owner and what they can anticipate relating to quiet and join with that property.

So if you've bought into an R1 and you've changed the definition of really, you know, what is an R1, it's a house where anyone can live in it as far as the number of quantities is right.

So I really want you to think about that.

And once again, I I you know, just like the person before me, uh, you know, vote no on this.

I think you're gonna have just a massive uproar of people that are homeowners.

I think the landlords are gonna say, hey, thank you for looking at the cap so I can put more people in the house.

Make a little bit more money.

But I appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see, we have another audience comment.

My name is Trent Baggett.

I live at 511 Chautauqua.

Uh I worked in prosecution for almost 40 years before I retired.

My point to that was a question that you asked, uh Commissioner Brewer.

Um I wasn't sure that I could hear the discussion of the two ladies with you all because they were kind of low talkers and I just didn't hear them.

But there was a question that you had about whether or not it was provable if a citation was entered against the landlord, I guess I believe it was against the landlord in relation to uh whether they were related persons or whether there were unrelated persons who were living in the residence.

Um I get the I get the impression I I know that there was an effort that was made by someone a couple of years ago that lived on Lahoma, and uh to try to prove that because of a neighbor that there was gobs of boys that were living in the house.

Um and it kind of gets uh it sounded like uh in the response from the ladies that it's a difficult to prove.

You can't prove it.

You really can prove these things.

It depends on whether you can prove it, or can't prove it, or whether you choose not to not to prove it, and you probably choose not to enforce it.

And just because you choose not to enforce something doesn't mean that you ought to take it off the books.

It means you ought to try harder to enforce it.

It can be done.

You just have to work hard at it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please come on up.

Hi, my name is Rick Pollen.

And my understanding is it's R1, which is single family dwelling.

And I'd like to share with you what's happened in the neighborhood over the years that I've lived there, and it started probably 20 years ago.

Someone bought a house down the street and said they were buying it for their kid to live in while they went to OU.

But immediately they rented at least one, maybe more.

Excuse me, um of the bedrooms to other unrelated people, and it's been that way ever since.

I don't their kids are not going to OU anymore, but somebody's retained the property because it's profitable.

Um this has happened in more than one instance, and as the line board said it's happening right now.

The people bought a four-bedroom house and are adding a two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit, and totally lying that they're gonna rent it to um sorority girls.

So I don't really understand how R1 means having these places that are retted to six different unrelated people.

That's not single family residences.

So I hope you'll keep this rule.

Um it at least gives us something that we can fight for, you know.

If you say, okay, there's no limit, there's no limit at all.

Um I think the fact that there is a rule, some people still like to follow the rules in our country, not all, but um I think it does discourage some people from buying these houses and then renting them out to multiple unrelated people, which is not something that most of us want to live by that chose to live in R1.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Are there any other audience comments?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion.

And I would also um venture to ask staff uh for some other clarifying questions on what what the other means of enforcement for nuisances are, and also if you can speak to occupancy in particular, and there were some specific comments about can six people share one bedroom.

Can you maybe address how that can be enforced or not and what what fire code maybe looks like and what the what either that property maintenance code how that functionally is enforced and why that's maybe more beneficial than this rule?

Cyber tag teaming.

Uh so the international property maintenance code requires 70 square feet for a bedroom for one for every occupant you add, you add 50 square feet.

So if you have two, you have 120 square feet.

If you have three, you have a hundred and seventy square feet.

So um very it would be very rare, I think, to have a bedroom big enough to fit eight people in.

Um I suppose it could happen in a really big house.

Uh maybe you should watch a little bit.

Sorry, that's my voice.

I don't that's just how loud I am.

Sorry.

What was the other question besides that?

So talking about that was on that ordinance, maybe that was the property maintenance code.

How would that get enforced?

And what determines occupant?

And is it the person actually in the space right then?

Is it the person that sleeps overnight?

Maybe defining that a little more.

That might be that might be we might need to get legal to help with some of that, I would think.

But um how would we determine occupants?

It depends if they have to get a building permit.

If they're getting a permit to do structural changes, then we're looking at that.

Building codes looking at that when they do permit review.

Umit, but we're not necessarily asking every time someone gets a building permit.

How many people are you gonna have living here?

That's not on a certificate of occupancy on let's just say an average size three-bedroom house approximately.

What would the occupancy limit be on something like that?

Is it the maximum number of people that could be there at any given point for a pro party, or is it the occupation?

When they just make sure you're meeting the 70 square feet minimum.

Okay, okay.

So, and if somebody wanted to enforce that, could you maybe go through the logistics of how that the mechanics of how that process would go?

If we had a complaint of an excessive number of occupants, we would reach out to the property owner and request an interior inspection to determine that.

If they chose to ignore us and deny that, uh that would be something we would probably visit with legal about our next steps that we could possibly take.

So I I can't say for certain how how that would play out, but if there was a concern that they were violating that in such a manner that it would make it unsafe for the occupants with multiple occupants in there, then that's that's what we the steps we would take.

We'd send a letter to the property owner and and urge them to uh pay attention to the property maintenance code for the safety of their tenants for their guests.

With how would that functionally be improved from the current investigation process of the three-person rule?

We currently have that, or we we have the property maintenance code that we utilize now for interior and exterior issues.

We have not come across a situation like this.

We have not had a a property that that had um uh enough occupants like that.

So we we haven't used that.

I I can't say that we've used that as of yet.

And what about fire code for occupancy?

Is that ever utilized and through your department?

For commercial structures, not for residential.

Okay.

Um I think that covered most of my questions on the inspections and I mean at least on the building code on there too.

Can you talk a little bit more about all of the nuisances that you might also address that might come from having a large number of occupants?

You mentioned off-street parking and trash, for example.

Any parking on the grass, um, trash in the yard, not putting their trash out, uh trash disposal.

We have a letter that we send advising them that you're supposed to put your polycarts out.

All trash has to be placed inside the polycarts, and you have to pull them back up to the house after after that has they've been emptied.

Um police department would handle parking on the street.

Uh, and then if there are vehicles that are parked in the driveway that are blocking the sidewalk, the police department, the parking services officers would handle that.

Um if there's an excessive amount of trash in the yard, it would be a health violation.

So in those instances, we send notices to the owner and sometimes the occupants, uh educating them on what they're in violation of and giving them the due process uh to correct the violation.

If they fail to, then other action would be taken, which could either be a citation or abatement action for certain types of violations, such as a health violation with trash in the yard, we would come clean it up.

Uh what about noise?

I know that's typically police department also, but yeah, police department would handle noise or for parties or disturbances, the police department would handle all of that.

How about light?

Light pollution if they've had a like complaint about light.

There is nothing of that for residential areas that's commercial.

Okay.

Um trying to get as many questions out as possible for us, but um, I think I will pause there and see if any other commissioners have have any other follow-up questions for our staff.

Yes, I'm seeking clarification with the revisions you are taking out the maximum number allowed in the policy or in the ordinance, like it's not addressed as a maximum number.

Correct.

Other than by square footage, correct.

Okay.

Is it less square footage?

Are you replacing it with a square footage verbiage?

No, that would be addressed by other codes.

So that would be addressed by other codes.

Yeah, go ahead.

I just want to modify the answer a bit to say what's being taken out is uh the necessity of a familial relation in the context of that number, because of course uh family related by blood never had a maximum, right?

We always that there's never been that could you speak a little bit about surrounding communities?

Do you see this type of ordinance uh in other communities around in Oklahoma or elsewhere?

Uh that makes it a familial requirement.

I'm unaware of any.

So we think that to the best of your knowledge that this might be more particular to Norman.

I would say that other cities that we have, previous research that was done.

Um I can't answer to specifics of that research.

I didn't do it, but the other college towns uh had ordinances like this from previous years and found them difficult if not impossible to enforce, and have either they're still either on the books and they're not enforcing them, or they've amended their definitions and their ordinances.

And have either they're still either on the books and they're not enforcing them, or they've amended their definitions and their ordinances.

Any other questions for our staff while they're up here.

This may this may have been clarified.

Um the language is removing the familial relations and it's also increasing the number of occupants.

Is that correct?

From I keep hearing six to eight.

What is that?

No, um I what I'm saying is with respect to members of the same family by blood, there never was a limit.

So I didn't want to give an answer that said we're removing the maximum because technically there never was a maximum when it came to a family related by blood.

Do you know?

Yeah.

Um that makes sense.

Um we're unsure of where the six to eight number is coming from.

Okay, so that's not that came from discussion with audience as an example.

So yeah, I've I'd heard that multiple times before this too, so I just wanted to make sure that so we're we're so there uh a group home by a state statute can have up to six.

They're licensed only for six occupants.

So maybe that's okay.

So it sorry, a lot of nuance.

Group home is defined by state law.

Um, and we obviously can't change anything about that.

Those numbers are going to stay the same.

They've never been uh written into, so no, we're not adding or removing any numbers like that.

Um and it is up to the state to follow that.

We don't in we're we're we're we're not in charge of how the state enforces that law itself, of course.

Where's the request?

There we go.

Any other questions for our staff?

Might stay there just in case.

Thank you so much.

Moving to planning commission discussion, I did um have a neighbor who was not able to attend who asked me to read his comment.

So I guess this would technically be audience comments, but I can read it during our planning commission discussion if that's acceptable.

I I think if it's part of something that's influencing your decision, I think that would be best to be put on record.

Okay.

Um this is from where I gotta find it.

However, just again making the note about we ask all these audience members that came here to stay within three minutes and just being mindful.

Yeah, please cut me off.

Yeah, I this is an audience comment, so you as a commissioner, but maybe keeping that consideration in mind for all the audience members that stayed through this meeting or put their letter and name on record.

Yeah, and I want to clarify these are not my remarks or opinions.

Um, but I'm just uh being a friendly neighbor.

So uh this is from uh Steve Ladner, he lives in the 500 block of Chautauqua.

I'm not sure of his exact address.

Um but he said, neighbors, please.

Oh, wait, sorry.

Lahoma, sorry, Lahoma.

He lives, I know that.

Um my name is Steve Ladner.

I live in Ward 4 in the 500 block of South Lahoma.

We have lived on that street for over 40 years.

In the span of 24 hours last week, we saw the end of our neighborhood and historical district.

The incentives for investors are too great for families to compete against unless the city listens.

We attended the Chautauqua Historic District commission commission meeting about approving an ADU in the backyard of a neighbor.

Over a dozen neighbors showed us, showed up to express their opinions that they did not want this in their neighborhood.

And it was compounded by the fact that the person applying was from Dallas and they had openly said they were going to rent to sorority girls.

I linked the ADUs to the discussion tonight about lifting the the limit of three unrelated residents because together they will continue to convert residential property to property to rental and eliminating the long-term residents in these neighborhoods at an accelerated rate.

This is the most expensive housing in Norman within three blocks of campus.

The homes are selling for around $300 per square foot now.

It is not the place for the ADUs, low income, too value too valuable to investors.

Uh the next night we watched the special session of the city council, debate the merits of doing away with the three unrelated rule for property in Norman.

Considerations for voting against lifting the three unrelated persons under one roof, include there's an endless supply of students at OU upon entering the SEC enrollment is predicted to rise by another 10,000 students.

The past two freshman classes are records and enrollment is up to 20% the past three years is up 20% the past three years.

This is stated in the OU Foundation magazine.

As evidence of this trend, when the Chautauqua Stork district was founded nearly 30 years ago, there were no rental houses on the 500 block of Lahoma.

Over 60% are now rental properties.

Only the larger homes survive, and if you lift the span, they will two they too will no longer be for families, but will be rental as well, packed with students.

At one time there were close to ten boys living in that house.

Even high school kids were in attendance.

To welcome themselves in the neighborhood, they yelled screamed and threw glass liquor bottles into the neighbor's pool.

It took months in a monumental effort for the neighbors to finally get the city to issue a notice of vacation to reduce it to three students.

It was miserable.

This is prime area for inflow to McKinley.

You will continue to reduce the opportunity.

Oh, there we go.

So can you summarize as to how that may be in discussion for planning commissioners and uh it was not really in summary for planning commission?

It was really considered to be a public comment because he was not able to attend, so that's I yeah.

But um but that was uh that was just uh yeah, again someone who was uh wanted to make comment on this.

So we do have a break requested.

Um so if I kind of have a sense of if we need uh a lot of additional discussion on this, we'll go ahead and take the break and then come back to continue discussion.

Or if we are close to finishing the item to wrap up, because we know we have other people waiting, that would be helpful for me to know.

Is there an other discussion intended maybe down here for this item?

You know, on here before we have some discussion.

I don't know that it'll be too long, but if I'm happy to do whatever, so maybe let's go ahead and take a quick break.

So, because I know it's been requested for some time.

So I'm gonna call a five-minute break.

Is five minutes sufficient?

Okay, we will return in five minutes.

I'm gonna call our meeting back to order.

We were in the middle of planning commission discussion on item number eleven.

Commissioner Brewer, I know you had some additional comments to make, so I will turn over to you.

And it is creating uh has created uh significant confusion in in our neighborhood and neighborhoods surrounding us because it is so hard to prove.

Um and so I I think it's um uh unfortunate that this ever went in place um because it again we heard the numbers, 19 applications three years ago, eight applications last year, one this year, and we've had one case um that has been that has resulted in fines to the neighbors.

Um I uh I think that this is a uh great move to ru get rid of this ordinance.

Um I think that uh I'm also a big believer in equity in housing.

Um and we are creating we at we do have a a huge affordable housing problem in this country, and we will have 10,000 new residents, as they've said, coming into our uh into our uh city through an additional enrollment at OU.

And um, and it's gonna be difficult for the um those those students to find places that are affordable to live.

And I um I live next door to college students.

I have uh for years.

Um I lived next door to six story girls for three years.

Um I I think that that's part of the choice of living next to campus.

Um these are my neighbors, they're good, they're great people.

Um and uh and I um I don't uh like you know conflict within the neighborhood, but this is this ordinance creates conflict.

And um and the given that it's unenforceable, essentially unenforceable by the resources that we have.

Um it's uh it it's it's just it's just a discussion that is kind of never ending, that there's no good result to it, in my opinion.

So um so that uh yeah, that's where I am.

Um and so I I think it was uh a smart move by city staff to put this forward as consideration.

Thank you.

Further discussion by commission.

I just want to say I've kind of feel like that this is removing a mechanism to actually formally file a complaint on something.

We've talked about that it's it's unenforceable and things, and I've heard if a complaint is filed several times, whereas we know that this is going on, but how prevalent is it, we don't know.

But if they're not causing issues and neighbors aren't complaining, then you know, no harm, no foul.

But if we remove this, does that remove the mechanism for the people when things do get out of control to actually file a complaint to have some kind of grounds to do it to rein things back in?

So I I think we we just heard from city staff that there are a number of mechanisms, um, whether party ordinances, noise ordinances, um, parking on lawn, um I mean it's there are a number of different to file complaints as a neighbor.

Um I said I've had college students living next to me.

I the first thing I do when a college college students move in is I go introduce myself.

I think that's the easiest way to have uh a friendly compliance in the neighborhood is to get to know each other.

Um but uh I've also said to the college students like, hey, you know, we've got kids.

We we there uh if you'll just keep it in check, um there have been two different times where I've called the cops.

I not I try not to be that person, but it's you know, when things get out of hand, you call the cops and and those parties didn't happen again because they're kind of on the radar at that point.

So um there are ways that both complaints can be filed and these can be tracked, and the police know where the party houses are.

I mean that's just it's just uh that's part of their job.

Um so I I hear you, but also I um we just heard a long list of ways that neighbors can file complaints.

I want to add that I think the definition of family um I think has changed on the federal level in since 1952 it was when this was put into place.

Um the ordinance maybe not being up to date with some of those more contemporary definitions, but I employ a young professional who is not a college student.

She has graduated, she lives uh in a four-bedroom house with two other women.

She has a longtime boyfriend, and if her and the boyfriend decided to cohabitate, that would be a violation of the rule.

They're also peacefully enjoying that property, they're planting bulbs that the property owner is very much going to be able to appreciate long term.

Not every um, and those people probably are not even hitting the radar, but would that maybe prevent them from continuing to occupy that type of house and then have to try to seek out apartments and not be able to be in those those houses or having to do those other things.

Um, I think there is an opportunity for this to be a deterrent.

I think that was um some of what Commissioner Parker was also getting to, and a mechanism for making complaints, but I think there could be some more thoughtful ways of doing that and addressing these problems, and maybe this isn't the ordinance as the way to do it without also taking away options and reasonable ways for people to do that.

So I'd like our young professionals to be able to stay and live in an economic means with the housing costs being what they are.

They aren't 40 years ago.

These people probably could have bought their own homes, and they absolutely cannot buy the same house today with the state of the economy.

And um housing affordability isn't just for students, it's also for a huge variety of people that maybe didn't get into that opportunity.

And it's easy to be on the other side as a homeowner and forget what it was like on that side.

Um so I do think finding some ways that people can find affordable ways to live is important, and this is a way that allows for some affordability well without breaking the law, but you know, these complaints and these concerns, the cars, all of that is also a problem.

So I do think that there are some ways that those can be addressed, but I don't know that familial living relationships is the way to address it.

So of that, because this ordinance is specifically addressing familial living arrangements.

I am in support of this ordinance change, but I am not in support of neighbors having these continued problems and not having means to be able to address them.

And I would encourage us to find some ways with code compliance to find equitable ways that are enforceable.

Um, some other options out there, because we're not the only college town, and we're not the only community that faces these issues.

And finding other ways, whether it is cars, parking, occupancy ways that we have rights to be able to actually make a difference, as it sounds like this ordinance wasn't necessarily able to impact in the way that we would have hoped.

That's my comment on that.

If there's no other discussion on this motion, I would or I'm sorry, not motion, uh discussion on this item.

I would take a motion.

I'll second.

And is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All that's have been cast and it carries six to one.

Moving to items number 12 and 13.

Item number 12, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-18, 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 a part of the south half of Section 9, Township 8, North, Range 2 West to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the A2 Rural Agricultural District, and place the same in the C2 General Commercial District of said city and providing for the severability thereof.

3400 Class and Boulevard Ward 7, and item number 13, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of PP-2526-10.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Greatest Hopes LLC, Golden Land Surveying for 3400 Class and Boulevard for 1.48 acres of property located at 3400 Class and Boulevard Ward 7.

On both of these items, the applicant requests postponement to the December 11th 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Again, that is the December 11th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

I would take a motion on this to postpone items 12 and 13 to the December 11 2025 planning commission meeting.

Second.

And if no discussion on the motion, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

I guess all votes have been cast in it.

Moving to item number 14, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-13 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 grant special use for a sorority house in the R3 multifamily dwelling district for the northeast quarter of Section 6, Township 8, North, Range 2 West of the Indian Meridian, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and providing for the severability thereof.

1401 College Avenue Ward 7.

The applicant request postponement to the December 11th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, December 11th, 2025.

I would take a motion on this one.

Move to postpone item 14 to the December 11, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.

Second.

And a vote.

You may vote.

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

Do commissioners have any comments to make?

Is there anything else to come before the commission?

I believe we had a miscellaneous comment marked on the agenda item.

As a point of order, is there miscellaneous comments?

I've not had anybody ask for a miscellaneous and planning commission, so it is a first for us.

So sorry, our city attorney representative has stepped out.

Just one moment.

Okay.

So on that comment, we would not be able to discuss any of the items, any of the matters that have already come before commission.

Again, this would need to be addressed to the commission as a whole, but I would allow additional public comment.

I limit the time, but I do I am in favor of allowing the comment to speak.

So just go ahead and state your name and address one more time for the record.

Same thing if you want the 30-second warning, I'll give that to you.

Yes.

I do want the 30-second warning, yes.

Carlinda Gravel Ward 4, 410 North Ponca, different panel.

I just want to make a comment about the planning commission and what you do.

And we're grateful for what you guys do.

You don't see us here as often as you do at City Council, but we have had opportunity to share what our planning commission does.

We have, I know there's a stigma associated, but we appreciate all the code enforcement.

The citizens do.

We appreciate all of the planning and everything that goes into planning our city.

As we do become more familiar with code, reporting violations, staying in close communication with our neighbors, and being friendly.

So I know that law enforcement is involved in trying to aid in that situation over by Longfellow as well as the neighbors in the neighborhood.

We understand the nature of that property and who their audience is that they're serving.

We also understand the children in the area.

And so Norman has a great code just to help us all coexist.

And I do want to do want to send some kudos out to you guys for keeping us going and keeping us on track.

And yeah, just appreciate all your efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I did have one other similar uh Cheryl and Denzo, you had the miscellaneous comment also listed.

So same thing, just in the general nature and not on the particular items.

And if you want the 30-second warning, let me know, and a reminder to state your name and address again.

I'll be brief.

My one comment would be that you guys are our line of defense in our neighborhoods and our community.

All we have are the laws that we have to live by.

Okay.

And so you guys pretty much direct those laws and enforceable or not, you know, we have to have something to go by, some rules to go by.

Okay.

And uh I understand that you know life changes and things are fluid, um, particularly in the economy.

However, um there are certain things that um can become a slippery slope.

And once you start down that direction and you're on the edge of that cliff, it's very easy to go over and find yourselves with in a situation where you've created slums instead of beautiful communities.

So I want you to be very mindful and very forward thinking about what every single step of the way.

Um, and and that I would really appreciate because I've seen the slippery slope.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's nothing else to come before the commission, I would declare the meeting.