OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Norman, Oklahoma/Public Meetings & Live-Streams
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Norman Planning Commission Meeting Summary 2026-01-08

Public Meetings & Live-Streams — Thursday, January 8, 2026
BodyNorman, Oklahoma
SessionPublic Meetings & Live-Streams
DateThursday, January 8, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:58:17

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
2:26

Are there any other uh people that want to make a comment today that have not already brought up their sheet?

2:32

If not, I could take those now before we start our page.

2:40

Okay.

2:42

At five thirty PM, I'm gonna call our meeting to order.

2:46

Could we please have a roll call and a reminder for commissioners to pressure button?

2:51

Commissioner Brewer.

2:53

Commissioner McDaniel?

2:55

Here.

2:55

Commissioner McCowan.

2:57

Here.

2:58

Commissioner Drablonsky.

3:01

Commissioner Byrd.

3:02

Here.

3:03

Commissioner McClure?

3:05

Here.

3:06

Commissioner Griffith?

3:07

Here.

3:08

Commissioner Kindle?

3:09

Here.

3:10

And Commissioner Parker.

3:12

Here.

3:12

We have a quorum.

3:13

Starting with our consent items.

3:15

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

3:22

Planning commission meeting minutes of December eleventh, 2025.

3:26

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

3:30

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

3:34

Seeing none, I would take a motion.

3:39

Second.

3:40

And a vote.

3:43

Commissioner McDaniel?

3:45

Yes.

3:46

Commissioner McCowan.

3:47

Yes.

3:49

Commissioner Byrd?

3:50

Yes.

3:52

Commissioner McClure?

3:53

Yes.

3:54

Commissioner Griffith?

3:55

Yes.

3:56

Commissioner Kindle?

3:58

Yes.

3:58

Commissioner Parker.

4:00

Yes.

4:00

Passes seven to zero.

4:05

Uh moving on to our non-consent items.

4:08

Items number two and three to be read together.

4:11

Item number two, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance O two five two six-two eight, an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section thirty-six-two oh one of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove a tract of land being a part of the southwest corridor of section 27, Township Nine North, Range 2 West of the Indian Meridian, to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the C2 General Commercial District, and the R1 single family dwelling district, and place the same in the RM6 medium density apartment district of said city and providing for the separability thereof.

4:52

Item number three, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of PP 2526-13.

5:00

Consideration of our preliminary plat submitted by Norman Premium Real Estate LLC, Cedar Creek Inc.

5:05

for Norman A24 edition for property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 24th Avenue Northeast and Alameda Street, Ward 6.

5:13

I would take the staff presentation.

5:16

Good evening, Logan Gray with the planning department.

5:19

So we have a rezoning from C2 General Commercial District in R1 single family dwelling district to RM6 medium density apartment district and preliminary platform Norman A24 edition.

5:31

I should note that while uh the request is for a large portion of uh the the site to be rezoned to RM6.

5:38

Um the southwest corner uh is proposed to remain as C2.

5:44

So you have the subject track, the existing zoning as you can see is mostly C2.

5:48

There is a small sliver uh on the north side that is still R1.

5:55

The feature land use designation for this site is mixed use.

5:59

Uh, there's a creek that runs along the eastern side of the lot that is designated as open space, as you can see in the blue there on the map.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████48%
Procedural████████9%
Community Engagement████████8%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████7%
Environmental Protection███████7%
Public Engagement██████6%
Transportation Safety████4%
Public Safety████4%
Parks and Recreation███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Norman Planning Commission Meeting Summary 2026-01-08

The Norman Planning Commission met on January 8, 2026, to consider a rezoning and preliminary plat application for a medium-density apartment development in Ward 6, a petition to de-annex two parcels to the south, and several other zoning amendments. The Commission also addressed public testimony regarding environmental impacts and neighborhood character, and postponed two additional items and a general discussion on traffic signal warranting.

Consent Calendar

  • Approvals of the December 11, 2025, Planning Commission minutes: Passed 7 to 0.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Patricia Kerr: Expressed concern regarding the interconnected ecosystem of Summit Lake and the stream, noting a decline in bird populations (including whooping cranes and pelicans) due to upstream dam work. She requested an environmental assessment and urged the preservation of bike lanes on Alameda and proper lighting/height considerations to protect wildlife.
  • JC Crosby: Opposed the project, stating that dense tree removal and creek disturbance would cause erosion and harm to wildlife. They expressed concern that the RM6 zoning allows for three-story apartments in the future, despite current plans being for duplexes.
  • Matt McDonough: Opposed the project, arguing that high-density housing devalues existing single-family home values. He compared the proposed units unfavorably to the high-value Summit Lake Villas and raised concerns about fire safety, traffic congestion, and strain on local schools (Irving and Washington).
  • Mary Jean Green: Opposed the project due to concerns over property values and the discrepancy in the protest map count. She questioned the accuracy of traffic studies and raised concerns about the safety of children walking to schools in a high-traffic area.
  • Rick Green: Opposed the project, citing traffic hazards for elderly residents and questioning the utility of bike lanes due to low usage. He expressed concern about the visual impact of potential three-story buildings and future traffic congestion.
  • Roger Gallagher: Opposed the project, referencing the history of the Summit Lake dam repair issues and the perceived lack of sufficient spacing between new units. He argued the project has too many faults to be approved.
  • Ann Gallagher: Opposed the project, requesting clarification on police safety assessments and school overcrowding impacts. She suggested fencing around 24th Avenue for child safety and noted that comparing the project to Summit Lake Villas was inaccurate due to the lack of gated community restrictions.
  • Susan Parker & Sandra Whalen: Opposed the project, expressing concern that new residents would gain access to the private Royal Oaks lake and walkway, diminishing safety and privacy for current residents who pay for maintenance.
  • Bonita Kubert: Opposed the project, citing concerns regarding pet density and the proposed egress point through a single-entry residential area causing traffic delays, particularly in icy conditions.
  • Commissioner McDaniel: Expressed that while traffic was a concern, the project was an improvement over current conditions, noting the removal of a former homeless encampment and expressing support for the preservation of the WQPZ and two-story height limit.
  • Commissioner Byrd: Expressed support for the project as a better design than previous proposals, noting the need for the city to make recommendations to the Council, though the final decision lies with Council.
  • Commissioner Griffith: Expressed strong support for the project, noting it reduces the potential intensity compared to the existing C2 zoning, mimics the density of the immediate neighborhood, and creates a necessary buffer between commercial and residential uses.
  • Commissioner Kindle: Expressed support for the project, acknowledging the loss of habitat but emphasizing the Commission's duty to follow the AIM Norman plan. She encouraged additional landscaping beyond code requirements.
  • Commissioner McCowan: Expressed support, highlighting that the project downzones the site from C2 and creates a buffer, aligning with city goals to prevent high-intensity commercial development adjacent to residential areas.

Discussion Items

  • Rezoning and Preliminary Plat (Item 2 & 3): The Commission discussed the application by Norman Premium Real Estate LLC to rezone a 10-acre tract from C2 (General Commercial) and R1 to RM6 (Medium Density Apartment) and R1 (retained C2 corner). The proposal includes 62 duplexes and 1.41 acres of commercial space. Staff noted two inconsistencies with the AIM Norman plan: lower density (13.8 units per acre vs. 18 recommended) and lack of building variety. The applicant argued the lower density was due to topography and better suited for the neighborhood, and that the horizontal mixed-use concept aligns with AIM. Public Works clarified that detention ponds could be placed in the Water Quality Protection Zone (WQPZ) but natural vegetation must remain untouched. The Parks Board unanimously voted for a fee in lieu of land dedication to Royal Oaks Park. Commissioners debated traffic, school capacity, and the potential for future three-story buildings (allowed by right under RM6 but currently planned as two-story).
  • De-annexation (Item 4): The Commission discussed a petition by three property owners to de-annex 20.1 acres from the City of Norman to the unincorporated county. Staff and the applicant stated the owners bear all contracting burdens without receiving municipal benefits, citing the area was annexed decades ago for watershed concerns unrelated to the specific 20-acre parcel. No infrastructure had been installed by the city on the site.
  • Postponements: Items 5 (Replat at 542/534 S. University Blvd) and 6 (SPUD at 420 E. Lindsey St) were postponed by consent vote to the February 12, 2026 meeting. Item 7 (C1 to C2 at 809-817 26th Ave NW) was withdrawn by the applicant.
  • Traffic Signal Warranting: General discussion regarding the warranting of traffic signals was postponed to the February 12, 2026 meeting.

Key Outcomes

  • Approval of Rezoning and Plat: The Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the rezoning to RM6 and the preliminary plat for the Ward 6 site, with the motion noting the developer's commitment to two-story duplexes and the retention of the WQPZ.
  • Approval of De-annexation: The Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve the petition to de-annex the Hensley Road properties, recommending the ordinance to the City Council for adoption.
  • Postponements: The agenda items for the replat on South University Boulevard and the SPUD on East Lindsey Street were postponed. The general discussion on traffic signal warranting was also postponed.
  • Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned after a recommendation to attend a development workshop on February 2.

Meeting Transcript

Are there any other uh people that want to make a comment today that have not already brought up their sheet? If not, I could take those now before we start our page. Okay. At five thirty PM, I'm gonna call our meeting to order. Could we please have a roll call and a reminder for commissioners to pressure button? Commissioner Brewer. Commissioner McDaniel? Here. Commissioner McCowan. Here. Commissioner Drablonsky. Commissioner Byrd. Here. Commissioner McClure? Here. Commissioner Griffith? Here. Commissioner Kindle? Here. And Commissioner Parker. Here. We have a quorum. Starting with our consent items. Item number one, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of the minutes as follows. Planning commission meeting minutes of December eleventh, 2025. Does any member of the commission wish to remove any item from the consent docket? Does any member of the audience wish to remove any item from the consent docket? Seeing none, I would take a motion. Second. And a vote. Commissioner McDaniel? Yes. Commissioner McCowan. Yes. Commissioner Byrd? Yes. Commissioner McClure? Yes. Commissioner Griffith? Yes. Commissioner Kindle? Yes. Commissioner Parker. Yes. Passes seven to zero. Uh moving on to our non-consent items. Items number two and three to be read together. Item number two, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance O two five two six-two eight, an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section thirty-six-two oh one of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove a tract of land being a part of the southwest corridor of section 27, Township Nine North, Range 2 West of the Indian Meridian, to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the C2 General Commercial District, and the R1 single family dwelling district, and place the same in the RM6 medium density apartment district of said city and providing for the separability thereof. Item number three, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of PP 2526-13. Consideration of our preliminary plat submitted by Norman Premium Real Estate LLC, Cedar Creek Inc.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com