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.

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

I would take the staff presentation.

Good evening, Logan Gray with the planning department.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

You can kind of see that creek there better here.

Um so the site is currently vacant, as I'll show in the next slide.

This is a map from the uh parks board meeting that happened earlier this week.

Uh the board voted uh five to zero for fee in lieu of land, uh, the fee to be dedicated to the further development of Royal Oaks Park, uh, which is the nearest public park to the northeast of this site, shown here in that uh solid green color.

This is a view facing north uh at the intersection of Alameda and 24th Avenue, showing some of the uh commercial uses on that uh northwest corner.

This is a view just further north of that, kind of looking towards some of the more residential uses there to the north.

This is a view facing east.

Uh the site, the subject property is to the left of this image here in that wooded area.

This is facing uh west, southwest, again, showing some more of the commercial uses there.

So here's the rezoning exhibit.

Uh the area that's uh outlined in pink is what is proposed as RM6.

Uh the white portion in the southwest corner is what is proposed to remain as C2.

Here is the preliminary plat that has been submitted with this application.

And uh the applicant has submitted a preliminary site plan showing a potential layout for the development of the site.

I'm available for any question.

Oh, and we have the protest map here as well.

Uh staff is available for any questions.

I believe the applicant's representative is present tonight and has a presentation.

Thank you.

Moving to commissioners' questions of staff.

Oh, yes, uh, real quick.

Uh, under the staff report, there are I believe two sections that show it's inconsistent with our aim plan.

Uh can you go through those with us real quick?

It's on page 22, uh the multi-use policy, and then also the uh building types.

Sure.

So yeah, the the proposal is um is inconsistent for the mixed-use land policy in terms of uh density proposed.

We calculated 13.8 uh units per acre.

Uh the mixed use land policy uh proposes or supports 18 uh dwelling units per acre.

As far as building types, uh the mixed-use land policy promotes uh greater variety of uses and and building designs and uh what has been proposed here in the in the site plan.

Um they are uh each structures of single use and uh of similar design.

So that's why those were listed as inconsistent.

So the first one was AIM has asked them to put more units per acre on the site.

Correct, correct.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question.

Okay.

I feel like I'm yelling at you in this.

Um, so there's WQPC on the site.

Yes.

Um, and so what are the restrictions as the developer goes in to put in this proposed plan?

Can you go in and clear clip trees?

Can you alter the direction of the stream?

Like what do you what are the rules and the limitations being that there is WQPC on the property?

Sure.

And I might defer to let's see.

Yes, sorry.

Uh Brandon Brooks Public Works Engineering.

Uh, there is no development allowed in WQPZ.

Uh just to preempt uh what I view to be a future question.

Um there are two ponds located in the WQPZ here.

We prefer that those ponds go in there so that they can't stage any materials on the uh on the dams.

And um also typically what you would see uh is a corresponding floodplain, but there's no floodplain in this WQPZ either.

And the floodplain doesn't start to north of the property at the pond.

And can you put detention ponds in the WQPZ?

Yes.

Okay.

Would you further clarify the clearing question as well about clearing trees and plants?

Uh yes, you actually I can't.

I don't know, I don't know off the top of my head if that is actually allowed in the WQPZ, but I can follow up with you for sure.

I I think uh there probably is gonna be more questions about that because I know even with the WQPZ line, there's things that you can't do for like 200 feet outside of that, too.

So I don't I don't know if all of that has been accounted for, but that may be an engineer question.

Yeah, that would be something I would need to discuss with uh Ken and Todd as I transition to Todd's role as he gets closer to retirement.

So can you all speak into the mics?

Can't hear you?

Yeah, apologize.

There was a question I had for staff before the meeting, just clarifying uh the RM6 use for duplexes because we do have other zoning types that allow for duplexes.

Um could you just speak a little bit for the audience and for commissioners' benefit as to why an R2 zoning would not work on a site plan such as this for a single parcel?

Um, I mean R2 as as it is proposed here would allow for allow for duplexes.

Uh it's my understanding that the applicant proposed RM6 for um because it aligns closer with the the objectives of the aim norman plan, uh which for this uh for this lot is uh kind of higher density uses which would be allowed under RM6 there uh through Logan to the wolves this week.

Um so for R2, every duplex would have to be on its own lot, and as this is proposed in RM6, you can have multiple dwelling units on one lot.

Um so the site plan would be a little different with an R2 or RM2 designation and just about the access requirements and changes that would be required for somebody if you could uh discuss that a little bit too with changing to 31 individual lots instead of having one lot.

Yes.

Uh so RM6, you can have uh private access, so you don't have to have a street or a designated right-of-way to access each unit.

Uh if they were to do R2, you would have to have dedicated right-of-way.

Um they'd have to be public streets unless you did a PUD and then they could be private.

Did that create any other questions for commissioners?

Okay, thank you so much.

Yes.

Are there any other questions for staff before we take the applicant's presentation?

Seeing none, we'd hear from the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Good evening.

Sean Regard representing the applicant here.

And do I point over there?

How does it okay?

I don't want to, I don't want to uh point to the wrong screen here.

So okay, so let's go to there.

We go.

There's our application.

So we appreciate staff's uh comments to you on that.

I'll try to highlight some of those as well uh as we go through it.

But that is the site.

You see it there, Alameda, East Alameda, and 24th Avenue Northeast.

This is uh a site that uh really has been sort of crossed over as you can see over the years, it is heavily developed all around this site.

You see 7 Eleven on one corner, Sonic and First Bank and other commercial units uses kind of small commercial uses on the corners there.

You see a Royal Oaks subdivision on the east and to the north, and then to the south, you see Summit Lakes.

I would note that on this screen, you can kind of see if I could point, and I apologize, commissioners like Daniel and McCown, but I'm gonna point behind you here.

So uh you could see multifamily over here, large apartment complex, and you see the Summit Lakes Villas down here is really a fairly dense product as well, right across the street.

So uh there is uh multifamily and and a larger density in the immediacy of this area.

This is GIS, and I just want to always show you GIS when I can, and this may help you sort of understand the question of WQPZ.

This I believe is this is your map, so I believe this is the WQ's QPZ outline over on the side here.

What you're gonna see on the site plan is we put detention basins in set here and inside up here, not within the WQPZ.

But the WQPZ to just illustrate further on that is uh a tool that was put in place in about 2007, and it requires that we leave it untouched unless we're gonna provide an engineered option to to change it, which we are not tonight.

Unless you do that, you have to leave it untouched.

Natural, it's intended to be a natural filter, it's intended for the water to filter through that prop through that property.

You're not even allowed to mow it.

Uh I remember when that got adopted.

Everybody was like, well, wait a minute, we can't mow it, and you you literally can't touch it.

And when we file the plat, the city staff requires us to file a covenant of record with the plat that says that we have to keep it as WKBZ and untouched.

And if you're on the dimension, if you go from basically uh around sort of the the edge of this to the east, that's about 260 feet.

You'll see it when we get to the addition.

But if I took a straight line down here, you'll see on the site plan to the east here, that's about 260 feet, and this is heavily treed in this green area, and we can't touch it.

So, really, you won't even see this development from Royal Oaks to the east.

It would not even be uh seen from that area.

You can see also on this map, or actually, I'll show on this one.

This is in fill development classic in the sense that you could see all the utilities and infrastructure.

This is your map, GIS showing the area with all the water lines and sewer lines and all the built infrastructure all around this.

So, this is an in-field development that we're talking about tonight, not greenfield as we would call it.

And so it's it's ripe for development.

Uh I think a lot of the protest letters that you saw and talked about basically leaving an environmental and open space and and uh uh ecology uh aim does not say that, and I'm gonna show you that here fairly extensively.

Uh staff talked about the current zoning, basically it is all C2.

C2, just so you recall, C2 is uh unlimited height, C2 is unlimited coverage, C2 is as intense of development category as we have in the city of Norman.

In fact, when we do condemnation work, C2 is the highest valued uh zoning category because it is so limitless on what you can do in C2 category.

So this is really a down zoning tonight.

We're taking this down from C2 to RM6.

We are retaining C2 on the corner because I'm gonna show you again.

We're retaining the four-corner concept of commercial, and I think AIM basically asked us to do that, but we're showing RM6 in the area, other area of the development, and you can kind of start to see now that's the detention basin carved up here outside of the WQBZ and the other detention basin down here again outside of the WQZ.

Let's talk about AIM, because AIM really is probably the focus of this discussion.

Uh when we had pre-development in this room, it was it was interesting, and then I talked about AIM that night, and it was clear that some of the residents were not aware of AIM, we're not aware that AIM had been adopted or that the planning uh directive of the city of Norma was that this was our new planning tool.

And so we tried to talk about it.

What's the sense of it and what's it what's it talk about?

What's it require?

And so let's talk a little bit about it tonight.

AIM talks about two categories always in AIM.

We have sort of the high-level thing called character area, which is just a very high-level altitude look of what do we kind of generally want this area to look like, and then we have the land use.

Now, character area you cannot amend.

Character area and aim is is just unamendable.

It is what has been adopted of what we want the area to look like.

Land use you can amend.

We can ask for an amendment to land use.

We are not tonight.

We are within the land use category.

I'll talk about the two inconsistencies they they mentioned.

I don't think we are inconsistent on one of those.

And the other one, I think the inconsistency is to the benefit of the neighborhood.

So character area.

Character area is basically saying you see the pink stripe through the middle, cuts just a little bit under half of the property to say that that is basically a quarter of, and you can imagine that is basically commercial corridor, arterial street.

They want it to mainly stay commercial and more high in density of high intensity intensity.

Suburban, the purple is kind of what you think of it as suburban, residential, uh more of the living area of the property.

But land use is probably what we need to talk about most.

The land use of this property is shown as uh purple mixed use.

I'll show you in a minute uh how we view that.

And then civic to the bottom left is basically Irving Middle School and all of those ball fields around Irving Middle School that are to the east of Irving.

A large site, if you're familiar with that property, it's a large area of land that Norman Public Schools has down there.

And then to the north is the Royal Oak subdivision to the north and east.

Interesting to note though that AIM actually, as adopted, said that Royal Oaks should be urban medium.

That's interesting because I'm gonna show you in a little bit.

Urban median actually talks about a much higher density than what Royal Oaks is right now.

So AIM, you can see really intends for this area to uplift in density.

So again, we're not changing any uses on that.

I wanted to show you just a broader picture of AIM as it's been adopted, and we're right in the middle there of that red circle, and we're again shown as mixed use.

But I thought we might just look at Alameda, and if you look at Alameda, you see LC on the left, you see MX, you see UH, and that mustard yellow color, which is Royal Oaks subdivision right behind us, again is UM.

Well, if you look at AIM, UM is gross densities that are greater than eight units per acre, is what they call for.

So all that UM, which is the mustard yellow there, AIM asked for all of that to be basically more than eight units per acre.

You heard staff tell you that we're proposed at about 13 units per acre.

UH, which is right there on Alameda in the same mile, but to the east a little bit.

UH is asking to be more than 12 units per acre.

So this area of Alameda is intended to basically build out as a fairly significant residential area for East Norman.

So let's talk about more closely of mixed use.

Staff wrote the overall the proposed development largely aligns with the AIM Norman land use and character area maps.

And as to mixed use, staff wrote that gross densities in any single development should be greater than 18 units per acre.

It's proposed as 13.8.

Now that is one of those points of inconsistency.

Let's talk about why we're not at 18.

Uh, really, it's topography.

The topography of this site flows downward quite a bit, and to get to 18 would take a pretty significant engineer solution to get us to handle that topography.

But we've tried to maximize it as we can.

But I think that also is a benefit to the neighborhood.

They basically are writing you and saying they want this to stay afield, they don't want the intensity of development for it.

And so I think it's a healthy compromise to say we're not going to do 18 units per acre, but we're going to do 13.8 and more of a duplex product.

You heard staff talk about why duplex because I mean why not RM2?

Because we would then have to do individual lots.

If we did individual lots, we'd have to have public streets, and we would be even less dense because we have to do much bigger streets and infrastructure to accommodate that, and we would do less density then.

I do question, I love staff, but I'm gonna I'm gonna doubt them on one point as to the inconsistency because they talked about in their staff report that mixed use did not allow for uh basically said they wanted mixed use within a vertical context.

AIM actually supports horizontal mixed use, and you see it on the screen there on page 180 167, and Norman 2025 did this too.

Both community plans have said that horizontal mixed use is just as acceptable as vertical mixed use.

And so what it says is the use of one area for multiple uses, such as commercial office and or residential, mixed use can be horizontal or vertical.

So you're right, we haven't proposed vertical mixed use because RM6 does not allow for commercial, and C do C2 does not allow for residential, but within the site, within the mixed use AIM plan, we are doing horizontal mixed use, and AIM recognizes that as an appropriate level of mixed use.

But within the site, within the mixed use AIM plan, we are doing horizontal mixed use, and AIM recognizes that as an appropriate level of mixed use.

So I think we do meet that category.

I've shown you these screenshots before, actually a few different ones this time, but this is AIM.

We know we have a housing problem.

We know we have a serious housing problem, and that's your document AIM, showing you that over the next uh 20 years now, and actually this was done a couple years ago, but next 20 years we're gonna have about 50,000 more people, 23,226 new dwelling units are needed.

We're showing you 62 tonight.

We're not gonna get to 23,000 tonight, but we better start somewhere, and all the ones we can approve and start developing uh we need them.

And you see at the bottom, AIM talked about one of their goals is to enhance and promote infill opportunities in existing neighborhoods.

It's going to be a challenge in policy making and for you decision makers because you're gonna have crowds like this show up as we do this.

But are we going to follow AIM or are we not?

Are we going to try to go in within field development and put more density as AIM calls for all over Norman, all over East Norman, West Norman, really everywhere to try to get to that goal.

We're going to try to do that, and every time we show up with these, we hope that you will accept that in keeping with the goals of AIM.

Here's the site plan that's shown to you.

62 multifamily units.

Basically, those are all duplexes.

Again, RM6 allows us to do that without each duplex being a lot, but RM6 allows for it in terms of duplex single family units, all of those things.

Basically, it's a fairly simple concept.

Duplexes around the perimeter and duplexes in the middle.

I would want you to look back at the AIM plan on the lower right, and you see it was corridor to keep the pink corridor across just a little bit less than the lower half.

We've done that, we think, with keeping the commercial on the corner and aim keeping suburban at the top.

We've done that, I think, with keeping basically the residential concept to the top.

You see the the WQBZ zone is all shown in in blue over here, basically untouched.

We're not allowed to make any changes in that area.

Uh we have to put the covenant that says it can be changed.

That is heavily treed.

So all these houses on the right, I don't think there's any way they would even see 260 feet roughly from that line to that line through heavy trees and WQBZ zone.

Uh the commercial corner, we keep the commercial corner, about a 10,000 square foot building, and you see the parking around it.

So that's the preliminary plat.

Plummy plat is two lots.

Again, for RM6, we could do one lot for all those residential uses.

If we did RM2 or R2 or R1, it would have to be individual lots for all of those different units.

We're just having one lot for all those units.

You can start to see the topography right there that we're having to deal with.

So we have to deal with that, and we can deal with that in a much easier fashion when we have multiple structures because we can we don't have to have the same finished floor on the one structure across that whole site.

WQPZ area is about four acres on the east side over here.

Uh each lot, two different lots.

One lot's about 8.57 acres, the one lot for the multifamily, another line is about 1.41 acres.

Plumry plat, uh, one of the protest letters.

I mean, the protest letters talked about infrastructure and congestion and and difficulties of the of the public systems.

Well, staff does give a recommendation on the preliminary plates, and here they recommend approval and and really a pretty glowing report for us.

They said access management code compliance, met it, no site plan distance, no site distance problems.

The location of this access meets all of the requirements of the EDC, the engineering design criteria.

They found no traffic operational issues, they found capacity exceeds demand in this area, and no additional off-site improvements are anticipated.

And when you look at the chart, if you ever look down in the charts of these things, they talk about a percentage of capacity for the traffic of demand, I mean of existing versus proposed, and we are way below uh max capacity on this for these arterials.

There's really quite a lot of capacity in this area of Norman.

There is a protest.

I assume they're all behind me tonight.

Uh you can see actually this map was updated.

I think there is one other protest on the adjacency to the property right up here that I'm not showing, so just be aware that I think that just came in after I put this up.

But let's talk about their their letter.

Basically, it looked like they circulated a form letter in the lower right here.

Almost all of the protests are signed on this form letter.

And when you look at their bullet points of protest, I think they're contradictory.

It's about an eight point, I think tonight is shown as a nine point something percent protest, 9.93, I think, Whitney.

Yeah, so we're still below a 10% protest, but a little higher than what I show on the screen here.

But if you look at these five bullets that they all signed on to, it's interesting that the first bullet, they actually talk about how the existing zoning have served them well.

Well, perhaps that's a misunderstanding.

I don't know, but the existing zoning is C2, as intense as you will ever find anywhere in the city of Norman.

It's not built, but I can go get a permit tomorrow to put a dollar general, fast food, a hotel.

I can cover that site with concrete buildings entirely under C2 as it sits right now.

So that bullet that they put on the first item, and it's been C2, by the way, since August of 1970.

It was adopted as zoning of C2 in August of 1970.

So over 55 years, fifty 54 years now, uh, it's been known to be commercial C2 intense zoning on that corner.

So the other four bullets they put on the on the protest talk about loss of open space and wildlife, preserving this space for environmental ecology, stormwater.

Well, those two bullets, we actually have satisfied by keeping the WQBZ zone as it is.

And open space and aim, when you read the report, the staff report talks about open space as meeting as basically providing those items.

It does a specifically say in reference to the protest letters, but if you talk about open space and aim, it talks about leaving that as a corridor for wildlife and ecology.

And so we've effectively done that in the open space of AIM.

And then their last two bullets talk about strain on infrastructure traffic and congestion.

Well, you saw the report from preliminary platform from staff, where we have no issues of any of that.

But I think it's interesting that the first bullet really directly contradicts the final full bullets in that protest letter.

We were at parks Monday.

We appreciate the city very much for hosting a special board meeting after the holidays to get us in before planning commission.

We were at Parksport on Monday.

And the city uh wrote in that staff report the city does not seek to acquire such a small parcel of land for park development as you're aware in park development.

When we do development, we have three choices.

We can dedicate a public part based on a calculation, a predetermined calculation.

In this case, that public park would have been a quarter of an acre.

So city staff did not want a quarter of an acre park.

That'd be about a hundred foot by a hundred foot park.

Uh instead, they uh basically supported us and and more of us uh encouraged us to just do fee in lieu of so that then they can take that money and put it into the parks of Royal Oaks Park to the northeast.

We will have sidewalks, of course, that connect to the arteries that take them straight up into those areas to get to those parks, and that was the preferred solution.

So unanimously, Parks Board uh agreed that we want fee in lieu of in this in this solution.

Now we're showing you the site plan in context.

And so you can see relative to the size of the structures.

What I wanted to show you is I put this red box on there, but you can see how I think the designers tried very hard to basically line up the commercial across the top and across the side with the commercial corner that already exists.

So they've basically tried to make it a four-corner commercial corner in relative similar scale and relative similar similar size to what is on the other three corners.

And then the rest of it becomes the multifamily solution of the RM6.

And if you look at the scale of those duplexes right there, think about first of all, it's not that different than the R1 behind it, but look at it as compared to Summit Villas across the street.

You're starting to be fairly similar in scale and concept of the multifamily in that area.

WQP zone WQPZ zone again fully protected right here, uh maintains the four corner commercial, and we're adding housings densities in keeping with the area generally and in keeping with aim.

I think in very much a similar way.

I'll finish with staff reports.

Staff wrote overall the proposed development largely aligns with AIM and the character and land use objectives, and the proposal will provide a different housing option and additional commercial activity to this area of Norman.

Again, unanimous approval at the Parks Department.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you have, and I thank you very much for your time tonight.

Thank you.

Any questions by commissioners for the applicant?

Yes, sir.

Oh, there it works.

The developer does it do they have any idea what might be proposed for their commercial corner?

No, Commissioner.

Oftentimes these are done as speculative elements with small units.

In fact, that's shown right now as six small units of commercial.

So we don't know what that would be, but C2 would allow it to be anything for a small site like that.

You're talking just a little over an acre.

Um you you wouldn't see anything too very intense for that small of a site, but I think it would be keeping with the four corner uh small commercial concept.

You mentioned something you've got a uh a dollar zero.

That might be profitable there.

Yeah, probably wouldn't fit on that site.

It would fit on the larger site if we left it alone.

But uh, but I don't think it would really fit on the small site like that.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, you you mentioned the current site is zone C2.

You mentioned a little bit about what could go there by right today.

Right.

Um what are some other things that could potentially go there by ride today?

C2 allows uh car dealerships, gas stations, fast food restaurants, uh offices, every form of retail, uh, everything in retail, uh, virtually everything in food.

Uh just really the full template of uses in Norman are allowed on C2 development.

Unlimited height as well.

Uh I could read you the list if that would be helpful.

Okay.

I yeah, I didn't put it on the screen.

I have a short look, but and it also incorporates everything in C1, which incorporates everything in C O, which incorporates everything in O one.

So it it is a waterfall cascading effect of basically everything.

I think Jane's maybe looking at it there, but yeah, it's so again by right today without any issue.

You could have a four-story building there right now on that site.

I have to go plat it.

So I still have to plot it, but uh, but as a building permanent after I'm platted, the zoning use is approved right now.

Yeah, I could I could do a actually you've taken off parking requirements now, so I could do a 20-story building there if I wanted to.

30, but unlimited height, so anything I wanted to.

Are there any additional questions for the applicant by commissioners?

Okay, seeing none, I'll move to audience comments.

Thank you.

I'm gonna call you up by name.

Uh sorry, I'm trying to work on the echo, but uh when you come to the microphone, please be sure to state your name and your address for the record.

I don't start the counter until after you've done that.

Again, if you would like a 30-second warning before your time is up, please let us know.

The end of the three minutes, I will thank you for your comments, and we won't be able to hear any further comments.

So the time does go quick and we appreciate everybody coming.

I'm gonna start with Patricia Kerr.

Okay, thank you.

My name is Patricia Kerr, 2709 Lockwood Drive, Norman, Oklahoma, 73071, which is pretty good because I just got here in 24.

So speaking of which, I am one of those protesters.

Um, and I'm not speaking on behalf of the HOA, I'm just gonna speak on behalf of me and what I've noticed.

So we are interconnected.

This little stream lakes you see over in Summit Lake over there, over there by the bank, our lake, the whole stream.

It's all one ecosystem.

And I just want to know if they did an EA at least, or did they do an environmental impact statement?

Probably not since very small plat, but an EA, right?

Environmental assessment.

16 years in an engineering firm.

I know a little bit.

Um, anyways, it's all interconnected, and I can tell you this because in 24, I was amazed by the amount of birds that I saw at our own little tranquility lake.

I saw egrets, I saw herons, I saw, can you believe it?

I saw um a whooping crane, I saw eagles, I saw everything.

I couldn't believe how many things were here.

Um Pelicans, 200 pelicans flew into our lake.

This year, nothing, but you know why?

They're working on the dam over at Summit Lake.

So that causes a whole impact on the whole ecosystem.

Now, I have no problem with them putting something in there.

I just want them to have an understanding that it impacts the whole environment.

So I just want them to understand that there's an impact, and maybe when they're planning what they're going to put in there, that they think of height, they think of sounds, and they think of lights.

Those are the three things that the Audubon Society says impact the birds the most.

So we've lost all but the Canadian geese, the ducks, and we've got two blue herons in our lake now.

But I'm hoping that they'll come back.

The second thing I want to talk about.

I noticed that they use the Google street on the Alameda and the corners and everything, and it doesn't show the bike lane.

So we have a library just down the street on Alameda, and that bike lane is crucial for all the kids and people who are traveling.

And I just want to shape make sure that when they're restriping whatever they're going to do to allow entrance on both the 24th, the Nalameda that they leave those bike lanes in.

And then lastly, aim, which is always a very good purpose for a planning committee.

I mean, you have to think ahead, right?

Um, but it's always done in relation to being good stewards, right?

And so that one little area that he was had the whole aim, and all I could see was that big old section of the river, right?

Thank you very much for your comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm gonna move to JC Crosby.

Yes.

These are photos of about a hundred to two hundred densely packed trees in the rezoning zone.

An important creek is also in this rezoning area.

The area of the creek is bordering on the eastern side of the rezoning area, and across from the creek is the water quality protection zone, which has been land has been set aside to always be undisturbed and kept in nature's uh habitat as it always will be for twenty five years.

The creek has taken storm water, put it into our lake, benefiting wildlife, and also uh benefiting our water, and then straight on down to Lake Thunderbird.

With this project, we will see a lot of trees taken down, a lot of erosion, and harm to the creek.

But the city has committed to uh maintaining our waterways, and this flyer, two-sided flyer, was in our water bill talking about what residents couldn't do and how important uh maintaining the water uh waterways is and I quote maintaining buffers in vegetation areas around waterways helps to provide wildlife habitat, reduces pollutants, and reduces erosion.

We were given a um map of some duplexes.

This means nothing to me because when the rezoning, if it is approved, at that time they have the right to change the design to anything that is in compliance with the building code of Norman's thirty-six-519 RM-6, which allows for three story apartments.

So to quote, can build up to three-story apartments, unquote.

So we have the possibility, the possibility apartment.

I'm gonna move to the next person now.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Thank you.

I have Matt McDonnahue Dono, sorry.

Yeah.

And same thing for anybody.

If you'd like the 30-second warning, let me know.

Otherwise, I'm gonna give you the full three minutes to speak, and then thank you.

Okay.

Uh my name is Matt McDonough.

I live at 313 Edgebrook Lane.

And uh I'm not originally from Oklahoma, I'm not a native Oklahoma.

Uh the US Navy brought me here, and uh we chose to stay here.

Uh we were lucky enough that I could almost begin and finish my career here.

I'm originally from Massachusetts, and I'm very familiar with medium and high density housing, and lived in and around it and have seen its shortfalls.

Uh the reason why we came to Norman and chose to stay was for its quaintness, and then the fact that I could afford my first home that we're still in now in Royal Oaks.

Uh, we love it here, and I chose to stay here, and now I have a very successful career.

And being a good citizen in and understanding now what more of AIM is, um, I get it, we're gonna grow, Norman's gonna grow, right?

And growing smartly, I think is the is the purpose of AIM.

But some of the comparisons are uh a very well spoken representative that he's good at his job, you know.

All I see a lot of my neighbors here, and no what nobody wants to see is three-story apartments devaluing our homes because that's what I think most of us are afraid of.

I don't want the value of my you know my first home to go down because we have you know high density or medium density, low cost housing.

And the comparison of the summit villas to the apartments, that's that's not a very good comparison.

That's a gated community with a very high value.

Not that those apartments aren't nice, but there's a difference between a three or four hundred thousand dollar unit and you know a thousand bucks a month.

There's a difference there, and for the the civic or the commercial use, there are so many commercial sites here in Norman that remain empty.

I think that is a tool that this group is gonna use to keep the mixed use, and I don't think there's any rules to yeah, they're gonna build it and it's gonna remain empty, like a lot of the other C2 use here around Lowe's, around you know, there's so many empty buildings here.

Maybe a grocery store would probably be better.

I mean, I would wouldn't mind either a neighborhood Walmart for that C2, would be great.

A new grocery store, something different.

Um again, I get it.

Progress is coming.

I know there's a development that's going further east.

One thing to consider with all this density is fire safety and safety.

We're gonna pile all these houses in, all these roofs.

We just got rain today after a month, and we're gonna pile high density or I don't know how many lots per acre, and we're gonna pile all these people in.

I remember Washington being overrun when my my kid who's now 24 was there, you know, 10-15 years ago, and we're gonna add more units, we're gonna stress out Irving and stress out Washington.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Mary Jean Green.

I'm married Jean Green, it rhymes, and I live at 116 Devonshire Drive, and I just have a few bullet points really because um you know you could talk on and on, and I'd go way past the three minutes.

I wouldn't want to do that.

Uh my first comment is the protest map.

I Mr.

Riger commented that one of the homes in the closest zone, their letter didn't get put on there.

My next door neighbor who could not come tonight but would have because she had surgery yesterday.

She had sent in a letter, it scanned in.

I checked for it because her uh her house was not on the map either.

So that's at least one more.

So papers could stick together or whatever, but the numbers should really be checked.

Um, our concerns, we are opposed to it.

Our concerns are, of course, for our property value.

As Mr.

McDonough just said, there's a big difference between a gated community of privately owned town homes and what this is going to be.

And we are concerned about property values.

And as far as the watershed area, we were all given an impression of we knew that this protection zone was there.

Our impression was that it was larger than it is.

And having taken a walk a week ago around our lake, the creek because of the work going upstream.

Um has spread out.

So I don't know how much more that's going to happen.

I don't know how this is going to impact it.

I don't know what the studies that they did before they started the work on the summit uh lake showed.

But sometimes reports and studies are not representative of what actual life turns into, you know, what the real story becomes.

Uh the numbers on the traffic count that they did when they turned this in, it just looks slow.

I don't know when it was done.

I it might have been in there.

I don't, I didn't remember seeing it.

But there's a lot of traffic on Alameda and 24th with the commuters right now.

So these are all big concerns.

There's these are concerns that I've been heard been hearing from other people.

And uh one more comment.

Our another neighbor who has young children.

Uh they plan to keep this as their home.

One of the reasons was because their kids walk home from will be able to walk home in the future from Irving, and they're concerned about it continuing to be a nice area for that.

So those are those are my points.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Rick Green.

Now you get the B side.

Rick Green, 116 Devonshire Drive.

Um, I have a few comments myself.

Um, because I just found out about AIM myself, really in the last six months.

Um, did not know about all the redistricting and different things.

And some of the things that are really concerning is just to be honest and blunt, is cramming in all these people in that small area with the traffic that was just brought up, the in and out, the people that live across the other side of Alameda on the south side.

Um they um are elderly, most of them, to talking about their property value, the gated place, all that traffic coming out of there as well as coming out of the corner at the same time of the day or different times of the day is gonna be a real hazard.

The the I don't think they've thought through the traffic.

They put a bike lane on Alameda and it made the the lane smaller.

So you've got to watch out if a guy's driving a trailer and they go over, you've got to try to swerve out of their way.

And I've only noticed like three or four bikes in the last six months using those bike lanes.

Um it's kind of sad that that they went ahead and did that when there's really no people really using the bike lanes.

Not four people in six months is what I've seen.

And one of them was coming the wrong way.

So the area that's west of Alameda is usually it's apartments, young people and college students for the most part that I see.

Um it's not and has been brought up the property value of putting those duplexes, however, they're gonna however high they're gonna make them is of a concern.

Um I first moved went out on Alameda at that intersection, my friend lived at 60th, and you could you had 71 and the Mexican restaurant that was there at the time, and there was a stop sign in the middle of the road, basically, and that was it.

Um I never thought about how much growth was gonna be in this area already, and then the with the future to um 2045.

I probably won't be here, but it looks like it's gonna be jam.

If you jam it in like you're doing here, people are not gonna be happy.

People like to have a little bit of breathing room, if you know what I mean.

You don't like to look right at your neighbors' windows and different things and people on top of you.

And if they build that three stories, my back deck, I'll be able to see those three stories.

I have a deck that faces the West.

Um, so the growth, um, I understand there's gonna be growth.

Um, I don't like the idea that it you don't know what it's going to be, how big tall they're gonna build the buildings, so that's a concern, and um I think I've said everything I wanted to say.

And um I think I've said everything I wanted to say.

May my main concern is the tracking.

Thank you.

I'm gonna move to Roger Gallagher, Roger Gallagher, uh 2513, Woodsong, Royal Oaks.

We've lived there 10 going on 11 years.

A lot has been said about council voting, and then coming up with a meeting and listening to something that you're gonna do.

Council has not done its job yet.

It's here for the Planning Commission, and when you see the housing with maybe 10 feet among the plan for the 62 homes, how many people here live in a house where there are only 10 feet for the next house, or with two cars?

How many people uh park their cars or fill their garages and then put them out in the road instead of they have to have no space?

The lake is another problem.

Summit Lakes had a crack in the dam, if you remember that years ago.

Jim, you do.

And they went through the people in Summit Lakes to get approximately $700 apiece to put together uh a surety money for fixing the lake, fixing the creek that was going to become a flu because the little earthen dam had cracks in it, and it was a poor job of what concrete they use on.

Now that's never been fixed yet, so that drains directly into that lake into Royal Oaks.

That's not a slush lake or not anything like that.

It's the main artery to that pond that's about uh three or four tenths uh long in Royal Oaks.

It's a nice scenic uh fish-filled uh lake, and you can fish there, and you can pull out five to ten pound bass now and then, not all the time, but it's uh it's good for recreation, and it's a centerpiece to people who want to walk.

It's around is surrounded by uh concrete sidewalk.

So those things now are falling into consideration because if you pass this, then planning has given permission to summit to uh the council to vote on it, and the builders now can do what they want within some expanded sits.

It's just it doesn't make sense that you vote on something through that has so many faults and so many people.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I that is the end of the cards that I have received.

Is anybody else here that wanted to make a comment that didn't turn a card in?

I would allow you to come up just the same way.

Make sure you state your name and address for the record, and we'll have you heard too.

I'm side B of what you just heard.

Um, Ann Gallagher, 2513 Woodsong.

Uh I have a couple of comments.

I made some of these comments at the pre-planning as well.

Um my first question though is traffic and crime.

Has anyone spoken?

Not you guys.

Has anyone spoken to the police department to discuss that kind of density going into that area?

I think that's something that needs to be looked at.

The second one is schools.

Irving and Washington are already overcrowded.

They're already prefabs at Washington Elementary.

Has anybody spoken to this the Norman Public Schools administration to get their input on how much of an impact that is gonna have on crowding in those schools?

We don't have enough teachers as it is.

I am a retired speech language pathologist with 40 years in the school system.

Somebody needs to pay attention.

Third, if we have any children in the area, and there's a 7-Eleven across the street, do you think they're going to walk down to the corner and use the light to cross that street?

There needs to be fencing totally encasing 24th Avenue.

Otherwise, you we're you're asking for trouble, not you.

You know what I'm talking about.

Um Royal Oaks Park.

There's no direct path to Royal Oaks Park from that area.

There's no roadway, there's no pathway.

That's a long distance.

I was on the parks board.

I understand this.

I understand fee and lieu of land.

But that's going to be an issue.

Um it lakes, summer is already brought on that, but if you're going to compare this area to Summit Villas, then it needs to be a gated community.

Problem solved.

If you're going to make that kind of comparison to very expensive, I had several friends living there who were retired.

There's no comparison to putting 62 units versus Summit Villas, Summit Lake Villas.

None.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And then I know he had another hand.

Thanks.

Hi, my name is Susan Parker, and I live at 312 Waterfront Drive.

And my house backs up to the lake, and we have this wonderful, wonderful walkway that goes around there.

I am really concerned about an influx of people coming in and using the walkway to go back to the park.

I I feel really safe right now with my neighborhood and all the people that walk around there, but I don't think I would have that kind of feeling of safety to have an apartment complex or a whole bunch of other people that have access to the lake area and to the park area because our lake is supposed to be fishing for residents only.

You know, are you going to include them?

This is this is really empowering the safety of the neighborhood.

Thank you.

May I make one point about the weight?

I'm so sorry, but we since you've already had your comment, we wouldn't be able to take an additional comment.

Did anybody else want to make a comment?

Go ahead.

Hello, Keith Steinkamp 441 Waterfront Drive.

And thanks everybody for your service.

I think that several things that have been stated tonight are really significant.

There's some very differing views between the presentation that was made, which I think is very pro let's do this project, but uh I think the reality of the life and being in the neighborhood is gonna be quite a bit different than um some of the comments that were made on that.

So, first of all, it's been covered, it's not appropriate to compare um Summit Lakes to what's being proposed here at all, especially with that these can be changed to three-story apartments.

Um the traffic congestion is gonna be pretty significant.

This is proposed to put all of these units right here on the corner where there's already congestion, and then everybody's supposed to be coming in and out and trying to make turns into there.

Uh so that's that's gonna be a big problem.

Uh the uh lake access that Susan was talking about, the the Royal Oaks uh neighborhood, their homeowners uh the homeowners pay for all of the maintenance of that area, not the park that's on the other side, but that whole area is paid for by the Royal Oaks residents, and uh partly because we want it to be more safe, and uh so that's definitely gonna be diminished with all these people having additional access to it, and so this is very inconsistent with the character uh of the neighborhood.

It's a complete clash with the Summit Lakes area and the Royal Oaks area.

Um, and then on the wildlife issue, um, that's another thing that this is very, very much going to significantly impact the wildlife.

I know that there's that little area that's gonna be left there, um, but the area that's being blown out and developed is a completely heavily wooded area, so that's gonna be all torn down, and I mean there may be some little strip that's left, but there's not gonna be any animals that are gonna be able to uh stick around and be safe in that little strip compared to what it is now.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Were there any other audience members that wanted to make comments?

Yep, go ahead.

Hi, Sandra Whalen, 325 Waterfront Drive.

And the one thing that the last two speakers said, and I noticed on one of the slides was the park.

I mean, not the park, sorry, the pond.

And we are HOA members, we pay the fees to maintain that.

And just the idea of that being open to this dense area of just anyone coming in, and um the safety of it is just very concerning to me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other audience members?

I'm Bonita Kubert, 316 Waterfront Drive.

Two things that I did not hear mentioned is the number of pets that will be moving in to that area with whoever comes.

Um big dogs, little dogs, snakes, you name it, whatever.

The second thing I want to say, well, I need to say my property backs up to the lake.

I've been there 25 years.

We have one entry in and out with one light, one lane coming, one lane going, and a bunch of people from the 36th development on the corner of 36th in Alameda will be coming through our area to exit as one of their four egresses, as the design I saw recently showed.

And it's my understanding that that's in their design.

So that really bothers me since we already have a hard time getting up the hill when it's icy and waiting and waiting for the light to change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other audience members?

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay.

Um, before we move on to discussion, do any commissioners have additional questions for staff to start?

I will do a separate section for the applicant if there's any questions for the applicant, but do you have any questions for staff?

I do.

Um, is there someone here from Parks and Rec?

No, okay.

I I had a similar question when the NLUV was mentioned, um, and the public and HOA parks were taken into consideration.

Um, because I don't know that we have the option as a city to dictate how an HOA is using their private park.

Um, and so I didn't know if part of that fee, if this was to move forward, could actually be used for fencing for some kind of access protection for those living in that area.

Uh before we have the applicant come up, could I have a staff member come show the slide again with the parks on it?

Included the private park and the public park.

They're next to each other.

Um Sean said they actually talked about that at park board.

So if you want him to tell you what they said.

Use mic, please.

Yes, I would love if Sean was there and heard firsthand.

I would love to hear from him.

That would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll try to be uh that it was Monday, right across the hall.

Uh it came up uh actually quite a bit of discussion on that because of that map.

And what came up on Monday was the park commissioners were asking that question to ask James Briggs, can we use the money to put into basically the pond area?

And James told them no because it's private property, you cannot take public money of fee in lieu of funds and pay on the private property.

I'll expand a little bit on that.

Uh there was more discussion about sort of Roy Oaks and the pond.

Uh, it was discussed how uh James I hope I remember this actually.

James was saying he gets a lot of calls on can we fish that pond because people think it's the city pond.

And he said he's constantly telling people we don't we don't manage that pond, uh you'll have to talk to the HOA, and that's that's up to the HOA.

And then he told the parks board about how some HOAs uh heavily restrict their ponds and have massive signage all around them saying don't come on here unless you're a neighborhood.

And he talked about how some HOAs don't.

I I want to be very clear tonight.

We have not asked for, don't expect, don't anticipate, have no uh intention of our residents to use the private HOA and pond, and was mentioned we don't have access.

What James Briggs talked to the parks board about and what he proposed to them through our application is this will have sidewalks that connect directly to Alameda Street.

If you go down the public sidewalks of Alameda Street and then go up through the public sidewalks of the neighborhood, it will take you straight to Royal Oaks Parks.

We have no intention, desire, plan, or anything else to go up through the private HOA neighborhood.

So I hope that answers your question.

Thank you for clarifying that.

While you're there, another question.

Can you clarify the height that you're intending the duplexes to be?

Yeah, two stories would be all we end uh to put up there.

So not three.

No, ma'am.

No.

Uh RM6 allows for three.

We have no intention to do three, and it wouldn't be affordable to do three either in this context.

So yeah.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

Thank you.

Uh in relation to the fencing question, could the city also possibly clarify on because we do have a gap between this parcel and this park.

We know that we can't build in the WQPZ, so I don't believe this applicant would be able to put a fence on their property because of the WQPZ that would prevent physical access.

Could the HOA put a fence on their part, or are they also in a WQPZ?

So I would like to know if that HOA could put a fence there.

It's my understanding nothing can be placed in the WQPZ.

So let's see if it's on another.

The microphone there for a reason.

Yeah, I'm using it.

Thank you.

I'm gonna ask to refrain from any comments, please.

Thank you so much.

Uh so the WQPZ does show to go on their property to the north, so no fence could be placed there.

Um that would be a question though.

So that parcel, I don't know if that is also the HOA, but they privately maintain a pond.

That pond, theoretically, depending on when WQPZ was put in, could have been before before the WQPZ, but possibly is not technically in WQPZ, or maybe became WQPZ, because I don't know how they're able to maintain it if it is in a WQPZ.

So I would be very interested for council to know at this point if that HOA would be allowed to put a fence in because I think they're I know one of the neighbors in here who also backs up to that lake.

They I mean most of these neighbors don't have fencing necessary.

They're you're using this backyard as part of the amenity to appreciate the lake there.

So in many cases, if somebody did wander through and went all the way to the lake, they could get right into somebody's backyard pretty easily.

So I think it would be helpful to know for the neighbors in the HOA if they could put a fence there, and I think that would be valuable for council to know, I guess.

So if this was platted before the stream planning corridor was adopted, then it would not apply to their plat.

So they could fence around it.

Thank you.

Should they cheat?

And to clarify, this applicant cannot fence theirs because they have a new project while a WQPZ is in place.

Correct.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um I had a couple of others, these are more just I think clerical points on here.

So this is a straight zoning request.

So there's we have been presented a site plan which is required for a duplexes, but there were some audience comments.

It is technically anything within that zoning could be built should the plan change, and that's where the comments about the three stories are.

We understand the intent is not, but to clarify for everyone, a three-story apartment could be put in there under that zoning at a future time.

Correct.

Thank you.

And could anybody possibly at the city speak to the effect of the work that's happening at the Misty Dam at Summit Lakes on this area?

Uh Brandon Brooks Public Works Engineering.

Did you have a specific question about the work at Mysti Lake?

Well, are is there a known effect that is happening because of the work on the dam that is trickling through this property, the WQPZ, and into that lake?

A known effect would be that we are discharging at a constant rate, not to exceed the historic discharge rate of that pond in any given rain event.

And so as we draw down that lake, that's probably why they're experiencing larger volumes in that channel.

But it's uh like the during the rain this morning, we were not pumping, so the capacity the lake was filling back up with uh capacity from the rest of the watershed as we continue along.

At some point, we will draw the lake down far enough that we won't be discharging anymore.

Um, and so uh in the event of uh a rainstorm because that lake catches so much of the watershed, uh, you would expect to see reduced rates in the stream to the north.

Um but when we complete the lake will fill back up and it'll be business as usual.

Can you provide some information for residents if they have questions about the process, if they have concerns, where should they reach out uh to the city to address those?

Uh they could call public works engineering and they could ask for Jason Murphy, they could ask for Brandon Brooks, uh, they could ask for Tim Miles, or they could ask for Scott Sturts.

Thank you.

Um would you repeat those names, please?

Jason Murphy, Brandon Brooks, Tim Miles or Scott Sturts.

Starts with a Z.

Is there's a B.

Uh we uh public works would not have the ability to address Beavers.

I know, so there he lives on that the property that they're trying to do, and uh that's why we're having okay.

So um I think oh, and uh just confirming if bike lanes will continue to be maintained following this development by the city if the city could confirm that that is true and sidewalks.

David Rieslin, transportation engineer.

Yes, those bike lanes were put in with uh federal congestion mitigation air quality funds.

We would have to have a very good reason to remove them.

There is no intent to remove them whatsoever.

Thanks for that clarification.

Um I am at the done I'm done with my list of staff questions.

Do commissioners have any additional questions for staff.

Okay.

Seeing none, do commissioners have any questions, additional questions for the applicant?

Okay, go ahead.

Yes.

Um there was a a mention in in one of the comments about the duplexes being low cost housing.

And can you clarify what I know you cannot set a rent now for future um homes, but it there I'm sure that there's a factor figured in there in the performa of what an average rent right now would be.

Could you comment on that?

Yeah, I can only say uh this comes up every time we stand in front of uh commission and council with zonings.

Uh this is not a low-income project.

We have not asked for any tax uh incentives, rebates, low-cost uh section, none of that.

We've not asked for any of that.

And uh we were just talking about in the back, the engineering uh what's happening in multifamily right now is it's incredibly expensive to build it.

Uh you have to come up with uh significant financing, significant property insurance coverages.

Uh so these are not low-income projects.

Far far from it.

I don't have a rent number for you, and I would never have one at zoning stage because it happens so much farther out in the process after they do lending and construction costs, which they don't do at this stage.

Uh so I don't have that number for you.

I do a little bit to the point, realize earlier tonight when I compared to Summit Lakes, I did not compare it to Summit Lakes in terms of of cost, I compare it in terms of density.

That was my comment as to Summit Lakes villas, and I think it does compare to that in terms of densities.

I make no comparison as to valuations of the properties nearby.

Would you go ahead and speak to how schools get funding with ad valorum taxes and how um in general just the school concern about uh um the crowding of schools and where some funding may come from this project or students may come from that and end up?

Yeah, I am far from an expert on that, so if there's others that can answer better than me, I don't know, but I will tell you what I I understand.

I was on uh citizens finance committee of Northern Public Schools and I've represented them before on on projects.

Um I believe they are paid mostly by pupil per the state uh counts by their pupils.

They do get ad valorum taxes, which is county property taxes.

Um that pay I do not know the percentages or the the mill levels, or I'm I'm just I apologize, not enough of an expert to tell you that, but they do get property taxes paid into the school district, and so as this builds out, then the ad valoran property taxes would increase from this property, and presumably some part of that would make it to the school system.

Uh as to pupil council, largely uh school districts are also funded by the state legislature based on their student count, I believe.

Ms.

Kindle may be able to tell it, or maybe be able to answer all this better than I, but uh so as students go into these that raises the population of the school district and they get additional funds in that manner.

Uh it comes up a lot of times in zonings, housing, schools.

How do you deal with that?

Um it's it's not really connected in a lot of ways.

The cities don't, I've in my experience of all these years, never really have seen the city uh discuss that or consider that in the zoning process because I think the schools uh generally plan for growth uh and generally plan that growth will happen in their districts and plan for that in the same way you're planning for it, they're planning for that in terms of additional student accounts.

Are they planning for it on specific sites?

I doubt it, probably not, but in a general context of planning for growth in the schools, I I think they do that all the time.

I hope that answers your questions, and if there's others, hopefully could answer it better.

Yes, thank you.

Are there other questions for the applicant before we let him sit down?

Okay, thank you.

And I I can answer the question on the millage if you want to know, you can look up your property tax bill, Cleveland County Assessor.

Um, you will see millage for schools on there, you will also see bonds on there as well.

Uh when the base assessment increases, the percentage, the amount of money based on that percentage would also increase.

So potentially these schools would be getting more money from the county than they were previously if the value of that property increased.

Now, what the schools do with it, I can't speak to.

I think other people are more an expert on that.

That's more of a school board question, but redistricting happens to help with the offload.

The pre-fab buildings happen, additions are happening at all the schools all the time too.

So I don't think that's necessarily something we can address at planning, but I did know the ad valorum part, so I want to make sure we address that.

I also think it's important to note um pre-pandemic and post-pandemic.

That's a completely different question.

Um post-pandemic, you have a lot more families considering alternative options to enrolling in the local public school.

We have a high number of charter schools and private schools in Norman.

Um, so it's it would be really hard to say what percentage of those houses would actually have students going to Washington and Irving.

And I don't know if that would be Norman North or Norman High, I think Norman North.

Um so I I think it's important to also consider that it's not a direct translation into houses equal number of students in the school down the street anymore.

Thank you.

Okay, if there's no other uh questions that we have for staff or applicants, we would move to planning commission discussion.

I've just got a few things.

Um I live in the Summit Lakes edition.

Um we've been there for 10 years, so we know and have been through the process of paying our you know fees to rebuild the lake almost 10 years ago, and then it's finally come out and something's happened with it.

Um but I've I've also seen 24th Avenue be widened through there.

I've seen Alameda be widened, like we know that these things have been coming.

Um there's also been a homeless encampment that was there for several years with a lot of people living in that area that has to my knowledge vacated.

I haven't seen them in a while.

Um there is that aspect of you know safety with kids walking back from Irving, and and you see that there's safety going across the library, I think is the more uh where we walk to the library at the top of the hill, it's almost like you hit the button and run.

Um so this part is is is gonna be, I think is fairly safe.

The other thing that I imagine um with where we're at, if you go on Lindsay, there is a development that's what is gonna be similar to what I'm imagining this is, and they're really cute, little duplexes and two-story um things.

The other thing that I imagine um with where we're at, if you go on Lindsay, there is a development that's what is gonna be similar to what I'm imagining this is, and they're really cute, little duplexes and two-story um things, and so I feel like it's gonna be an improvement um to what to what the the area is, um, and then also keeping all of the trees and the WQPZ.

I don't feel like it's gonna be quite this huge uh disruption of of the of the space.

Um so I'm gonna be in support of this one.

I'll go ahead and speak.

Um I feel like I beat Sean up quite a bit on um two months ago on a proposal that I felt did not lend itself to to blending and marrying to what was near it very well, and I feel like this is so much better than what that is.

Um I understand that as much as AIM Norman is um new to many of you, it's been something that we've talked about on a daily basis for years.

Um and so it is new to developers, it's new to us, it's new to the council, and so all of the plans that we're listening to, we are looking back and forth between documents to make sure that something is not too aggressive um or out of place, and I do feel like if done as two-story, I don't think you're gonna have loan cum.

I do think it is going to be complementary to your um property value.

I do share concerns about traffic.

Um currently I'm not commuting into town on Alamina, but when I was particularly at the hours right before school, as a school teacher driving to one, um it that intersection is where all of a sudden you go from if you're heading west, no traffic to traffic, and um so I do feel like uh especially at school zones, and then everything from 3 30 to like six is gonna be um a little trickier.

So I would like you know, to echo the comments about fencing or whatever to really direct where people are crossing streets, make it really um common sense and safe and a way to detour the young from making the unsafe decision because it would be difficult to do so if that makes sense.

Um I'm trying to think there was one other comment I wanted to say.

Oh, the other thing, um, the other comment I wanted to make, not on the project but on the process, is someone had said um they didn't want us voting to approve and it moving forward and or making the decision, I should say, and moving forward.

So I just wanted to clarify, unlike um zoning where they make when they vote, that change happens.

When we vote, it is a recommendation.

So whether we all agree it should move forward, or none of us agree it should move forward, or somewhere in between, when it gets to council and is heard again, it can go completely different, or it can go exactly the same.

And I've seen an equal number of both.

So we are tasked as volunteers to get to know what is the aim plan, what are the ordinances, um, and we ask lots of questions because there's a lot of newness.

Um, so that we can make the best recommendation we can, but regardless of what our recommendation is, it is up to council whether it is approved or not.

So hopefully that clarifies what our role is and um what your next steps are, and that's it.

I had a comment related to that, so I'm just gonna jump in and then maybe we can go down the line.

Well, we're going.

Um so the comment was specifically that planning commission gives permission to council, and we don't permit anything.

We um we serve them, so thank you.

We we serve them to give them a recommendation vote, and as she said, we've had our version of an upset where we have voted unanimously to approve, and they've unanimously voted to deny, and vice versa.

Um, the process from here, remember your council members are elected officials, they have public contact information, including emails and phone numbers that you can reach out to them.

Uh we do read every single protest and piece of paper that comes in.

There was like I think about 120 pages of the form letter, but I still click through every single one to make sure there wasn't something different on any of them.

So we do read all of them.

I do encourage you to put your thoughts in writing because you are timed for public comment at council as well, but there is no time limit on the number of pages or comments that you make in writing.

Um, and there was a comment about the additional protest that maybe had been left out.

There is an opportunity to do the protest process and for those maps to change when they go to council.

So uh that was my comment for that.

I also had one other comment about knowing didn't know about AIM, which I understand it was a big project that was taken on by the city, but the Free Day citizen didn't know.

And I wanted to also share that we have another zoning initiative coming up following AIM.

We are planning to redo the entire zoning code.

So that C2 that that we're talking about, RM6 is going to be completely probably replaced and redefined in the coming months, year.

Um there was an RFP out, which I believe a vendor has been selected for.

And do we maybe have an ETA, like a very loose ETA of when that might get started, Jane.

So we did select a consultant for that.

We're still working on the scope with them, and the contract has not been sorry, the contract has not been completed yet, but we're hoping within the next uh three months or so we will have that before council for approval, and then we'll get the um advisory committee together and start working on that.

Thank you.

So those will be opportunities to engage in the process and learn about it and uh before it goes into effect.

So um I will now continue down the line if there is more discussion from Commissioner Griffith, uh, but wanted to interject while it was fresh.

Well, I would like to make a comment about this project, and uh as a former Ward Six City Councilman, um the thought of a C2 project being uh put on this site uh that could possibly be a huge huge detriment to the neighborhood uh is quite frightening.

Um everything about this particular project, granted we're gonna lose some trees, but the density is nothing like it could be even with our M6.

And the fact that a C2 God only knows, as Mr.

Riger was kind enough to point out.

Um yes, I really appreciate the fact that the uh that the water quality protection zone is a third roughly of this project.

So the problem with wildlife, um, yeah, there's gonna be a loss of some habitat, but the density of this project is not gonna be a huge deterrent of the water quality protection zone, in my opinion.

Um I'm in full support of this.

I because it this is a whole lot less than it might have been.

And um the the developer has has been very conscientious about what's going on in your neighborhood.

I was looking uh at some photographs of the density of the structures, and it completely mimics the neighborhood to the west.

There are 10 feet between most of the houses on the west side and the north.

Some are blessed with a little more.

So I'm um I I think this is a great project for this area, and and uh I'm in full support.

So uh there are some kinks to be worked out.

I like the idea of the fencing to protect the kids on uh on the 24th Avenue side.

There, there's the really nice uh uh rail like fencing that doesn't have to be stock aid fence.

I mean, uh I built a house out of Sitown for a while, and we had this wonderful fence that you could see through, kept kept people and critters out.

Um, and we certainly use deterrent for kids trying to cross the street where they shouldn't be.

So there are possibilities to work out some of the cases that you guys are talking about.

So anyway, uh I think that's something that will come about uh in comments and council, and uh certainly encourage your council members to uh your ward six council member to to fight for some of these issues and make those changes uh to satisfy the neighborhood.

I think this is a decent development, and uh um and certainly far it's far far superior to what might be as a C2 project.

So anyway, I'll show that.

My th my three minutes are up.

Well, I would like to continue with it.

Um as the commissioner said one of the one of the protesters made the comment about we don't want to be right here 10 feet away from somebody.

And I was sitting here and I'm looking at uh Google maps, and over on the left side, there's 42 homes that look like they're about five feet away apart from each other, they're probably 15, 20 feet away at most, but they are tight, tight tight.

That's number one.

Number two, we talk about the um the slowing down at the traffic.

There's I don't know, 300, maybe more homes in Royal Park or uh Royal Oaks, excuse me.

I suppose to 62 different families or single people or whatever coming in and out of there.

Um and they'll have two entrances or exits.

There's got to be some give and take when it comes to this in reference to the the environment.

Totally on board with that, totally on board with that.

Maybe there is something that be can be done, whether it's by the people where at Royal Oaks or the EPA in general, getting them involved to make it so that those things come back.

The the Ingrets come back, the Eagles come back, um, make it more appropriate for them in the pond area.

But I'm absolutely on board for this as well.

I wanted to move into uh Royal Oaks in 1999 when it was really getting started, and I couldn't afford it back then.

Now that it's way up, I can't afford it now either.

Okay, so um so I won't be moving over there, but um I'm I'm in favor of it as well.

So thank you.

Um I guess I'm in line, so I'll go.

I just wanted to say I appreciate everybody coming out.

I know it takes time out of your day to come down here and to take the time to put in your letters.

We do really appreciate that, and I appreciated some of the additional information we gained from there.

Um, for example, the pelicans, I was very surprised by that.

And then I heard about the five to ten pound bass, and then I knew why the pelicans came.

So we do very much appreciate it.

That said, sometimes we will vote in ways that you may not like.

Hopefully, you got the information on how to continue along your process.

I plan to vote in support of this project.

I did feel like it was appropriate for this hard corner for this commercial district on here.

Um I think hopefully there's some information to help you guys uh going forward and some tools that you'll have with working with the city.

But uh I did feel like this was an appropriate project, appropriate density.

I liked putting some more residential in instead of having the entire site as commercial.

Um, and we voted not to allow uh we voted against some other projects that also didn't have any open space protections, and I did appreciate that WQPZ protection and open space on there.

So um I think there's maybe some improvement with the parks.

I just it'd be remiss because Jablonski is not here today, but Commissioner Jablanski would very much have pointed out how far that walk was.

And so I just on for his sake, since he is not here, he would have acknowledged that was a far walk, and we understand that as well.

So thank you so much for coming out, and I'll move along okay.

My turn.

Um I do want to say that I'm very familiar with Royal Oaks.

Um 313 Edgebrook Lane was my first house as it we actually built that house.

So um questions for you.

Okay, it's been a while, but sure.

Um so I am sympathetic to I appreciate everybody who came and spoke this evening.

Um I'm sympathetic to your concerns about wildlife and the habitat that will be lost.

Um I hope that some assurances and more understanding about what you can and cannot do in the WQPZ will help.

Um I do think that I'm gonna I'm a broken record when it comes to this, but I would you know encourage the developer to go beyond what is required in landscaping requirements.

Um, you know, put back some of what has been removed.

Um but like my fellow commissioners have said, it is our job to analyze the projects that come before us.

And though you may not like how the vote turns out, it is our job to look at them and make sure that they are um following the recommendations made in the comprehensive land plan.

And that plan was months, months of of many people looking and making decisions, and uh it is our job to look at those recommendations, and I will support the project.

It does meet their requirements.

That's it.

All right, I'll I'll be real quick.

Um I echo a lot of the comments that were said by the other commissioners, but I do believe that this is a project that under its current state at C2.

There's no telling what could be built here.

I love the fact that that they've shrunk the C2 down and created a buffer.

That's exactly what we're telling developers to do.

We don't we don't want Wonderfore Family and C2 touching each other.

And in this case, it does not, it creates that buffer, and so I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna be voting in favor of this this project.

So if there's no other planning commission discussion, I would take a motion.

And is there any additional discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, uh, we would take a vote.

Commissioner McDaniel, yes.

Commissioner McCowan, yes.

Commissioner Byrd, yes.

Commissioner McClure, yes, Commissioner Griffith, yes, Commissioner Kindle, yes, and Commissioner Parker, yes.

This passes seven to zero.

Moving on to our next non-consent item consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of O 2526-37 and ordinance approving requested detachment of certain property located at 2800 and 2801 Hensley Road in the city of Norman, Oklahoma.

I'm gonna pause and just ask if everybody could please quietly exit so we can go to our next item and hold discussion for outside the room.

So again, we need to continue.

We've got to continue our business.

I really need everybody to quietly make take their discussion outside of the room so we can continue.

Okay, thank you.

I would take the staff presentation.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name's Beth Makala.

I'm with the city attorney's office.

Uh, we are here to discuss a petition for detachment.

Now it's been since COVID that we've had one of these.

So I know a lot of you uh won't have done one.

I'm going to go through the basic requirements, but as you know, this isn't a very common thing.

Uh so uh I'm obviously going to be open for questions at any point.

Uh there really isn't a city specific process for it.

So when these come forward, applicants are following state statute.

So we're enforcing that.

Um, but we're also doing it in conjunction with what little reference there is in our code, which is specifically that it has to come before planning commission before it goes to city council for consideration of the ordinance, and so that's why it's here.

Um otherwise, we are looking at issues of format, are the notices required, and then the specific things that are laid out in statute, which aren't incredibly detailed.

It's kind of broad brushstrokes in a lot of ways.

So what happens is um, like other petition processes, uh when it is individual instituted, they're going to bring their petition signed by a certain percentage of owners.

I believe 75% is required, but as you'll see in our staff report, we have 100% of these owners that have actually brought the petition.

So everyone's represented, and they are in turn represented by a legal counsel, which I've been in in touch with during this process.

Um so what happens is the clerk, like in other situations, will be verifying those signatures, and the other city departments are evaluating what other requirements, what other requirements there are so that we're sure that all of those statutes are followed.

So the additional considerations are has it been platted in lots and blocks.

And of course, we need to know this because if they've taken advantage of a city project uh process, uh installed infrastructure or any other stuff we've invested in, that obviously matters.

Uh so that they really can't be platted in lots and blocks, and this one is not.

Uh is it located on the municipal boundary?

As you'll see from the maps that I've shown you, and probably you've seen in the staff report, it is um on the southernmost boundary of Norman.

And uh have they followed the form?

Well, that's something that I work with applicants on before we even get to use.

So, yes, it's in good shape.

We verify that they've provided their two uh statutorily required notices in the paper again before it even comes to you.

They completed those notices before they even set it on this agenda.

And so public works and utilities are the most important departments that look into these for the infrastructure issues.

Um however, this has been in front of planning and the fire department as well.

Uh so this property in particular was originally annexed in that humongous annex back in the 60s, uh, where uh the city was acquiring East Norman for the Little River Reservoir in the Lake Thunderbird watershed.

This property isn't platted.

However, interestingly, there is a survey on file for it that's titled HL number nine.

Now I've confirmed that this is not a Norman specific survey, even if it were, that is not considered platd.

Uh so uh still not an issue, but I wanted to make that clear because if you've looked closely at the maps, you'll see that with the exception of these two lots, I believe the rest of it is entirely outside of municipal Norman.

Uh so this is zoned, these two parcels uh which are a combined 20.1 acres more or less, they are zoned A2, and uh each parcel appears to have been owned by these named petitioners for more than 10 years already.

Here is the map that was generated by the city clerk's office when the petition was received.

And as you'll see, uh these properties are located at the northernmost terminus of Hensley Road, and again you'll see Hensley Road uh is entirely outside of Norman until it gets to these two parcels.

They're literally the last parcels on the road.

Here is an aerial of the property from the GIS that shows the A2 zoning, the municipal boundary, and if you'll notice it also shows the floodplain off to the left.

Both of these parcels are entirely outside of that.

WQPZ, stream planning corridor, none of that is implicated in this case.

So following your consideration tonight, the schedule looks like the ordinance going to first reading February 10th and then second reading on February 24th, and we as the city are required to post a notice 10 days in advance of that.

So you see the timeline there for us doing our state required publication by notice.

And then upon an approval, if it's received, what would happen is we would then send the ordinance to the county for recording and to the tax commission, obviously, for those purposes.

So I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Yes.

Um, so I am unfamiliar with this.

I was not around uh commission during COVID.

Um, can you speak to the reasons why someone would want to annex their property?

So I can't speak for the applicants.

Um I I do understand very generally, and by the way, they have a representative here, they'll be able to speak to that, that they're evaluating it from the standpoint of their own benefit, right?

Um are they receiving a benefit from being within the municipal boundary?

Um you're gonna be looking at it from the standpoint of the city's benefit, obviously.

Uh so um if that answers your question not specifically.

Okay.

What advantages would be would there be for someone to de-annex from the city?

Again, I'll let them speak for their specific reasons, but one might be um when they're in the city of Norman, they're subject to our regulations.

They're subject to our zoning, our building, our development codes.

Um, if they are de-annexed, they will be unincorporated county, which has significantly fewer regulations.

Also taxes and bonds.

Also taxes and bonds.

Any other questions for staff before we bring the applicant up?

Are they receiving any benefits from the city currently?

Oh, I'm sorry, uh, that was in the staff report, but uh no, there are there are no infrastructure that's been installed.

These properties are receiving services, but that's a separate matter that can be dealt with even if they are de-annexed as a separate issue.

And we have areas of Norman that are serviced by more utilities, for example, and maybe areas outside of Norman getting Norman utilities, isn't that the case?

Um I'm not aware of specific examples, but as far as the provision of services, cities do act outside their municipal boundaries upon certain contract principles.

Uh, and I would just say that we wouldn't encourage making it a part of the actual detachment process.

It's a separate matter to be handled based on our utilities department's individual determination of feasibility in each case.

Any other questions for staff?

If there's a presentation by the applicant, we would take that.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is James Carleton, representing the applicants.

Marshall Britton, Douglas Burton, and Nicole Burton, who are sitting right back here.

They are seeking as was presented to uh D annexed from the City of Norman.

The the primary uh reason they are seeking the de-annexation is they have all the burdens and really no benefits, even to the extent of when anything has gone wrong out there, they've called the city of Norman, and the response is oh, you need to call county, or you need to call some other agency.

They're they're getting none of the benefits.

The burdens are not great, but they because just by definition, because they are in the city limits of Norman, they have very heightened contracting requirements if they ever try to do anything out there.

Everything out there they've done themselves at their own expense.

Norman has provided nothing to them for this, and probably the reason you even have it annexed in was way back in the in the years when it was first annexed.

You were concerned about the watershed and about like Thunderbird.

And so I think as many years as we are down the road, you would know if if there was a concern over this particular 20 acres that we're dealing with.

We have two owners of that 20 acres.

I said they're both here, 10 acres apiece, and they just they get no benefit from Norman, and they're not they're not complaining about Norman, but they're complaining about the impact of anything they try to do out there from third-party private contractors.

Well, we're in the city of Norman, so we've got to do this, and it's considerably increases their costs for all of that without getting any attendant benefits at all.

So with that, I would welcome any questions you may have for the the Burton uh the applicants or mean any questions by commission for the applicant.

Okay, seeing none, uh we would move to any audience comments, and seeing none, planning commission discussion.

Beth, would you be able to just hit that microphone button?

Thank you.

And if there's no discussion, 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, absolutely, yes.

And Commissioner Parker, yes.

Passes 7 to 0.

Uh, moving to our next item, item number five, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or a postponement of ordinance 0-2526-31, an ordinance of the council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of chapter 36 of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove a replat of the east 236 feet of lot six and the east 200 feet of lot seven of Elmwood Edition and lot 12 in block one of Park View addition to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from a CCPUD center city form based uh center city planned unit development and place the same in a CCPUD center city planned unit development and providing for the separability thereof.

542 and 534 South University Boulevard Ward 4.

Uh the applicant requests postponement to the February 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

Again, that was February 12th planning commission meeting.

Uh would I get a motion for that I move that we postpone item five to the February 12th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting?

Second.

And a vote.

Oh, I'm sorry, any discussion on the motion.

Seeing that now a vote.

Commissioner McDaniel?

Yes.

Commissioner McCowan?

Yes.

Commissioner Byrd, yes.

Commissioner McClure.

Yes.

Commissioner Griffith.

Yes.

Commissioner Kindle?

Yes.

And Commissioner Parker.

Yes.

This item is postponed to February.

Moving to item number six, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-30, 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 lots 14 through 17 and lots 28 through 36, all of block 4 in Hardy Rucker addition to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the R1 single family dwelling district and R3 multifamily dwelling district and place the same in a spUD simple planned unit development and providing for the separability thereof.

420 East Lindsey Street, Ward 7.

The applicant request postponement to the February 12th 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

I moved I move to postpone item six to the February 12th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Second.

And a vote.

Commissioner McDaniel?

Yes.

Commissioner McCowan?

Yes.

Commissioner Byrd?

Yes.

Commissioner McClure?

Yes.

Commissioner Griffith?

Yes.

Commissioner Kindle.

Yes.

And Commissioner Parker.

Yes.

This items postponed.

Moving to item number seven, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-27 and ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the Code of the City of Norman so as to remove lots 7, 8, and 9 in block 20 of Westport Professional Park, Section 7, part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 9 North Range 3 West of the Indian Meridian, and a replat of lots 2 through 8, Block 9, Westport Professional Park, Section 2 to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma from the C1 local commercial district and place the same in the C2 General Commercial District of said city and providing for the separability thereof 809-813-817-26th Avenue Northwest Board 2.

This item has been withdrawn by the applicant, so no items needed on there.

We have a motion.

Oh sorry, we need a motion to postpone the general discussion regarding the warranting of traffic signals.

Thank you.

I moved to postpone the general discussion regarding the warranting of traffic signals to the February 12th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

And a vote.

Yes.

Commissioner McCowan.

Yes.

Commissioner Byrd.

Yes.

Commissioner McClure?

Yes.

Commissioner Griffith?

Yes.

Commissioner Kendall?

Yes.

And Commissioner Parker.

Yes.

This has been postponed.

Now moving to miscellaneous comments of Planning Commission and staff.

Do staff have any information for Commission?

Seeing none, do commissioners have any comments?

I have one.

There, I don't know if it's exactly a city-sponsored event, but there is going to be a small-scale development workshop going on, um, put on by the Inc.

Dev Alliance, who there recently was a guest lecture for.

It will be February 2nd, 830 to 5.

So it'll be before our next planning commission meeting.

It's going to be at the standard 313 East Gray Street, Norman, Oklahoma, 73069.

There is a fee, but scholarships are available, and it is really intended to be from the ground level, somebody with zero experience in development, learning some basics in a way that's very attainable and accessible.

I have done this workshop before.

I think it's fantastic.

And I highly encourage anybody who especially has never built or developed something or wants to know more about the process to attend.

So if there's uh no other comments for commissioners, I would declare the meeting adjourned.

And at what time are we adjourned?