Thank you.

All right, everyone, welcome to the Wednesday, January 7th meeting of the City Council Business and Community Affairs Committee.

This meeting is actually rescheduled from New Year's Day last week, so that's why we're having it on a Wednesday this week.

But uh we excited we have one item on our agenda today, uh being a discussion for determining direction for future development code regulations, chapter 30 and 36, previously minimum lot size discussion.

I believe that Ms.

Jane Hudson has a short presentation for us.

I do, thank you.

So you summed it up pretty well with the agenda item title there, but just for those uh watching as a staff, they did they we uh presented the findings uh regarding the minimum lot size back in December.

Um we've had multiple discussions about this, you know, and and we also have that grant coming in, so that's always been something that we've you know been concerned with making a lot of changes before we do that.

But um, between the December 5th and today, we went back and we uh looked at some of our PUDs that have come through, and so I just wanted to have some of those guidelines that we could kind of outline today as well, and um just give us a basis of you know where we might go.

But um the PUDs that we've seen, and and I I mean it's probably been the last 20 years, so we went back pretty far, but we went back far because I wanted everybody to understand that this has been going on for a long time.

Uh but just on average, the front yard setbacks have been zero up to 20.

Uh 14 and 15 being the most common, and then of course the additional required setbacks for the garages currently, and I put in forens here that we know what our current setbacks are, front yards 25.

Uh but through these PUDs that have come forward, you know, they've varied.

The side yard setbacks, those have typically stayed at five feet.

Some of them have had a zero lot line when they've done the design and they know they're gonna skip a lot and they've continued on with that zero lot line, but for the most part, we've had five foot setbacks.

The most common rear yard setback within these PUTs, it is 10 feet.

Some of them even have an allowance to go uh back to the back property line with uncovered paved areas, and then our standard currently is is the 20 feet.

The overall coverage that we've seen through the PUTs uh has gone up to about 75 percent.

There may be some that are at 80, but for the most part, I think 75 is what we've what we've seen.

Currently we have uh 65 as our requirement.

We talked about this as well a couple times, the opportunities for creative development.

We've talked about the short form plat process, uh allowing the larger lots within, and we see those within the core area uh already having uh infrastructure provided to it, but we've seen some of those opportunities where they can uh process a short form plat and create two lots, uh three lots out of a larger lot that's been left over, and then also we included the the PUTs and the spUDs because that is our opportunity for creative development that we have right now, right?

Um we have some initial legal considerations, and this really goes back to what we had been talking about when we were talking about zero setbacks or zero uh side yards and the coverage requirements, and I'm going to let Beth Muckala with legal go over this slide for you because you can have questions about yeah.

So I was asked just kind of spotlight the discrete legal issues that appeared to me.

And this was following the December presentation where the minimum lot size discussion kind of evolved, and it became clear we're not just talking about the area of the lot, we're talking about other development standards like setbacks.

Um the first thing, uh and it's really what I put in the staff report, is really summarized well here.

The first biggest thing I noticed was hey, those numbers that we're talking about are all the numbers that literally the BOA is charged to enforce and vary.

So if we don't have numbers, what are they doing?

So we need to think about how we're impacting that process and how they would function in a situation if we were to move to a recommendation only standard.

So that's the first one.

Um the second is just a matter of zoning enforcibility, and I the word zoning is very um important here because we talked about administrative only processes.

Well, city staff isn't empowered to give statutory notice and a public hearing to enact a zoning change.

So if people are determining their own numbers and they're bringing it through that process, we don't have something that can be enforced through zoning.

It doesn't become zoning.

So that's another thing to think about.

And the third thing is, and this is actually probably the one that's on everyone's radar to some extent.

If we make it recommendation only and we make it administrative, what is staff using to evaluate?

What are the parameters we're going to give them to know?

This is when they can say to an applicant, we need you to do this in order to protect the city's interests here or this commercial buffer there.

So there's a lot of those little things.

I just wanted to summarize them quickly.

Well, I think you highlighted the reason why it's come back today, is as we kind of I used the analogy last night, pulling threads.

You know, as we start to pull a thread, it's like you know, you start to unravel more threads come out, more things you've got to chase down.

So we kind of had Miss Hudson, Ms.

Michael, um she's over there.

We had a brief call over the break, um, just talking about you know what's the real world applicability of what we're trying to do here.

And so I think you know, taking a couple steps back looking at all the issues and all the potential pitfalls is uh kind of why we're back here today.

So thank you.

So moving forward uh and identifying the priorities that as we uh establish the um scope, establish the contract with Clarion for the updates that they're going to be looking at, the priorities that we will reinforce to them is what we've been talking about, you know, the lot size, setbacks, street frontage, coverage, uh, you know, and and I think it'll be really good to have that platform while there's no numbers here, it really reinforces to them and what they can reinforce to the community as we move forward that this is something that matters to council, and and as it's you know, we say here that you know you will be briefed throughout this process as they work on the rewrite, but we will continue to go back to these priorities that we've established here.

So um yeah, just to let everybody know that's kind of what we landed on in that discussion is that instead of trying to create the rules, the you know, all the legalese, flush it all out ourselves.

Why not instead we identify what the priorities are for us as a council, give those to the consultant and let them go put the puzzle together?

Um, you know, for me it's not just residential properties.

The more I thought about this, like we should be talking about commercial properties as well, which is a whole nother set, a whole other bucket of worms that could potentially take five, six, seven of these meetings, and it's just seems counterproductive to just sit here and rehash the thing over and over when we're hiring a consultant that is tasked with doing exactly what we're trying to do here today.

So identify priorities, make sure that it's caught codified is not the right word, make sure it's um established given to the consultant and then cut them loose.

Councilmember Brennan.

Um I was gonna ask for the technical committee.

What might be the timeline uh for assembling them?

Like we have to do the contract with Clarion.

Is that like a month-long process just to get uh that contract?

So we're still working on the scope between go ahead.

We have some questions for HUD when it comes to contract language since we're using federal dollars.

So we have to they're closed for the holidays too.

So it could be maybe a couple months before the contract is like finalized and we're voting on it, and then the technical committee would have you know, people would have to be identified, then we have to vote to uh you know accept those names or do how does the technical committee work?

So the technical committee in my view would be uh we we reach out to people in the community, you know.

We are going through this process, we would like to invite you to be part of the technical committee.

Honestly, uh, we hadn't gotten very far on that right now, only because I really wanted to go back and talk to uh public works on they've had a technical advisory committee when they did the EDC updates, and so I wanted to see how they manage theirs, and if we have that type of committee, then we will be saving um time and money over time because we wouldn't have to have staff uh after hours taking minutes for those meetings, and that's really the goal.

We want to be able to have it during the day.

So we're gonna have to vote on those names.

This would be something staff puts together with identified um folks, and yeah, and then I mean we're welcome names, please, but just we just didn't want it to uh be something that had to be a public meeting that we had to advertise and have minutes.

Well, and from my perspective, this one's a little bit different than a lot of our other citizen-led committees.

In fact, that we like absolutely have to have subject matter experts and really only subject matter experts, nobody that wants to talk politics or agendas and things like that.

This is really just black and white zoning ordinance, how we accomplish a lot of the goals the council has, but without the politics involved.

Yeah, like I would assume somebody who knows who could see pitfalls, yeah, because they're used to going through this type of and I uh you know, I know we're all giving our best here trying to tease this out, but we're not we're not the consultant, we're not the the registered professionals that are do this for a living, and so I don't think we're gonna come up with the best solution in this meeting, and that's not to discount anybody's input or their uh their expertise.

I just think we've got somebody coming online that has that expertise, and so we should defer to them where possible.

Um so could that be potentially late spring or early summer when that committee is reviewing uh the priorities and the drafted standards?

Probably uh late spring, early summer.

Well, they'll do a color diagnostic first.

Uh so the very first stage will be meeting with staff.

So they'll meet with staff planning commission, um, you guys, pretty much anybody who's seen as like a stakeholder for development in Norman to go over what issues we already have in our codes, like what we're aware of that's not working well, then they'll do a diagnostic report that goes kind of sex and section by section of what needs change, not necessarily like oh, we're gonna change 10 to 5, but um, these are the areas we know are not working well or that conflict with another section, and then there will be a public review of that.

Um so people can give comments on it, but it won't be edited after that.

We'll just move right into drafting once we get feedback on that.

So after our draft is finished, then there's a technical committee reviewing it.

And then um they're supposed to you know, we just got aim over the line, so they'll be looking at what we want to accomplish through that aim process and you know, updating our code to make it reflect that.

Yes, okay, yeah.

So we're hoping to have someone on the technical group who can represent at least like the housing subcommittee because they talked about a lot of zoning and subdivision items.

So we're gonna try to have some overlap to keep the continuity, but are they still doing the stop gap?

Yes, so there are stop gap measures that they will be if we can find some things that would be good to go ahead and implement just to kind of smooth things out in the interim to keep things moving forward, yeah.

Uh good.

Okay.

I don't know if Beth had something to add.

Yeah, I I just wanted to point out that this the minimum lot size stuff can be a part of that discussion of whether it is a possibility for a stop gap of any kind.

Awesome.

Okay, all right.

Uh that kind of and then after the technical committee, there's another is there a public review after that?

So there's a there's public review on each step of it.

So um instead of doing like they I guess they said they usually do a draft of like uses and development standards, and then um extra stuff like landscaping and parking, yeah, stuff like that, and then administrative procedures with a public review in between.

But given all the feedback we've had and just kind of how Norman residents do feedback, we're gonna do the full draft and then go into a long public input period.

So people have something to really read and put it all together before giving us their comments.

Okay, and then after the public comments, there's another revisionary process, and then we're looking at adopting that at the process or it's currently scheduled for 24 months.

So whenever we can get this, I'm hoping the contract is to you guys.

I'm gonna say early March.

That might be too optimistic, but it could happen.

That's what we're hoping for.

Yeah, okay.

So 24 month process overall.

Okay.

Um, I appreciate the timeline.

That's where Bruce.

Just trying to acclimate myself.

So like my word, let's say you have an existing addition.

And then you have a homeowners, you know, uh, it's everyone bought into certain concept, and then they think houses are a certain distance from the street and certain distance from each other.

Let's say those neighborhoods grow older and some of those houses get knocked down.

So does that mean within if it did if it's not addressing an HOA rules and all that stuff, which I don't think any of that stuff is, then I could go in there and sit two units on uh an existing lot.

Well, not necessarily.

I mean, it would depend on what the zoning would be established for that neighborhood.

It's R1, say well, in R1 right now, you couldn't do two units on one lot, you could do an ADU.

But if someone came to demolished the single family home that was there, and depending on the zoning that gets adopted, if it states in there that you could now have two structures on one lot, then yes, that new state's in there where in the new code.

Okay.

Well, that would be amending the R1 definition to say you could put two, yeah.

So it would no longer be single family housing, it would be multi-family.

Yeah, so you change the character of the zoning overall, which I don't think is necessarily the intent of this.

Um I agree, ADUs are different than a second structure because we have a very fine limitation on what those can be.

Um sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your train of thought there.

I'm just thinking forward, and you know, I I can see there are certain lots that are very nice to have, and then you might want to stack that up with units you know, now there's a not so nice in the existing neighborhoods.

So I think a lot of this is geared towards new developments.

I mean, that's how we've kind of talked about it.

That if you're gonna do a fresh out-of-the-box development, and you don't want to have a request, a minimum lot size, that's that's the new development.

That's not an established existing neighborhood.

It's kind of so it's like it's trying to make the best of both worlds here.

Yeah, but you know, I'm then just um you're opening up risk to existing frameworks that were solidified with certain neighborhoods, and I I don't know how many HO uh neighborhoods that are in uh ward three that are formally governed on the uh homeowners association stuff like that, so they have a certain concept.

If this will apply to the future to those where hey, look, I'm gonna buy that bot, I'm gonna I'm gonna tear down that unit, I'm gonna put up a multifamily house, or you know, to go from R1 to R whatever it is.

Or two or two, and uh or I mean it's at the house right up against the sidewalk, or I'm gonna say to the far right or the far left or the far back when those ambersuits were originally laid out.

Now there's a certain cement you know, symmetric.

You gotta do this.

Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense, and that is the possibility in some of those neighborhoods.

I mean, that's exactly what we just uh brought forward with AIM, you know, within the core area where these are but there are some other neighborhoods that we looked at as far as increasing the density, but remember you know, aim is a 25-year plan.

Yeah, and to that point, um, you know, in that scenario, they would still have to come back to council for a rezoning or a special use or something.

You couldn't, I don't think you could take an R1 lot without rezoning it and put two structures on it, even if we change, even if we made all these changes.

So you'd still you're still looking at uh some checks and balances where they you'd have to come apply, you have to ask for permission to be able to do that, so it's not gonna be a buy right on every lot.

Um I interpret it.

And then always remember as Flora pointed out, this hopefully will be incremental changes.

Yes, yes, so well, as far as priorities go, um, I kind of distilled it down into two buckets for myself.

Um, you guys tell me if there's any cries of outrage with this, but um I wanted to say no minimum lot size if possible, and to make everything as pot as many things as possible recommendations instead of requirements.

Now I know we'll have to have a requirement on a setback, probably on a side setback, probably have to have a requirement on frontage just because you've got mail, you've got fire, you've got things that need to have a certain amount of frontage to be able to access that property.

Aside from those two, I want to give the consultants the flexibility to tell us these can be recommendations, these can be requirements, but they know what the goal is for us.

Okay.

Did I explain that accurately?

And you want it for uh commercial?

I would love for commercial as well, yeah.

Because I think we're seeing now that the parking is no longer required.

We've got a lot of you know, um, very unproductive, large, unused parking lots that could be you know split off, redeveloped.

You see like a scooter's coffee go into a parking lot.

You see just a lot of these uses that again.

Why should we tell scooters what their minimum lot size should be?

If they can make it work, let's make let's make it work.

So any other thoughts on that.

Okay, love it.

Well, if there's nothing else, um are we gonna see any kind of document at the council level, or is this good enough to establish the priorities?

Do we need to vote this as a resolution?

What what do you think would be the next best step to get this kind of I'm gonna use the word codified, but just get this formalized.

I think is a better way to put it.

I mean, you could bring it forward as a as a resolution, I guess, if if that's what you want to do.

I just want to make sure that it outlives this iteration of council.

I mean, I don't want you know, this is a two-year process.

Don't know that any of us will be here in two years, and so I want to make sure that the priorities are set and established in a document that can't be ripped up, basically future council could pass a different resolution that would not do this, but I think we here.

It's gotta be here.

Oh if I could just uh uh it doesn't it does not have to be in a resolution to form to be input.

I know that this process is going to involve lots of meetings, and again, you might not be the person in the chair at the time, right?

So I mean I would definitely encourage whenever you have any idea that you want passed on that we can form some kind of system where we are gathering that input as it comes in, and it's all part of the body of information that makes it to the consultant.

You can pass a resolution, absolutely.

Um, but as you know, I mean you can't find a future council with a vote any more than anything else.

For sure.

So I mean you can do it that way, but we can definitely do a more administrative system for just inputting it and cataloging it too.

Okay.

Well, I'm open to both paths.

Um just want to make sure it gets done.

That's all I really care about.

So it's got another rotation.

So if I want to do something different when it related to building on a lot.

What's holding me back now, but coming before council and asking for a particular thing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

You come forward now for rezoning.

If you were doing a single lot, you would be a simple planned unit development.

But a lot of feedback we got during aimless people would rather have more things by right than having to go to council and spend money in 90 days and or six months for final planning, I guess.

Because to do that, spell you're hiring a zoning attorney, you're going through a 90-day process of planning commission, council, like there's a lot of time and expense involved with that.

Um just like everything else, time is money.

So you're talking about developments and especially affordable housing.

Um, those costs are passed on to the consumer.

And so if we want to create more affordable housing, take as many barriers out of the way as possible to grease the tracks for lack of a better word.

I understand what you're saying.

I'm just looking at it from all over just one aspect of the other side of that coin where they're going, you know.

I can understand certain a certain places, I can understand that while the other place I know.

Okay.

I would see just the reverse.

I would see people say, I don't want that.

I'm gonna fight that tooth and nail.

And for sure.

Well, like I said, I think this is mainly geared towards newer newer developments in neighborhoods, things that haven't been created yet.

And currently, right now, our our minimum loss size is 6,500 square feet.

It depends on the zoning.

Okay.

So it's R1.

R6,000.

6,000 and 5 for two so 6,000.

So they have to build a 6,000 square foot lot.

We've we've seen that that's not always necessary.

And so just again, giving letting the market, I keep using that phrase, letting the market tell us what they want to build.

So we'll have administrative, we won't do a resolution.

I think so.

Okay.

Just want to make sure.

Okay, I guess we know what I'm saying without getting a stop, so for sure.

For sure.

Okay.

Well, I think we've got clear direction here.

So uh if you need anything else from us, just please let us know.

But if that's it, this meetings adjourned.

Thank you.

Short sweep.

Love it.

Thank you, Steph.

Thank you.

Maybe I'll stop using all my questions on phone calls with you during the day, so maybe I'll have one for these meetings.

Yeah.

I don't mind uh doing the homework.