Okay, at 5 30 p.m., I'm gonna call the meeting to order.

If I could please have a roll call.

Commissioner Brewer.

Here.

Commissioner McDaniel?

Here.

Commissioner McCowan.

Commissioner Jablonski?

Here.

Commissioner Byrd.

Here.

Commissioner McClure?

Here.

Commissioner Griffith.

Commissioner Kindle?

Here.

Commissioner Parker.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Starting with our consent docket, item number one, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and/or postponement of the minutes as follows.

Planning commission meeting minutes of February 12th, 2026.

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

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

Seeing none, I would take a motion.

Move to approve.

Second.

And a vote.

You may vote.

Hi.

Good evening.

Kelly Abel with the planning department.

Okay.

Then we have a rezoning from R1 single family dwelling district to SPUD, simple planned unit development.

There is kind of an overview of everything on the map with the subject tract.

The character area is core neighborhood.

The aim land use is mixed use.

No expansion of the building is planned, and all activity will take place within the existing building footprint.

As you can see, it does have two driveways.

There's one on the west and one on the east.

This is facing east.

Ben LaCourse is here with the applicant to review what they sent in for a presentation.

Do you guys have any questions?

Thank you.

Seeing none, I would take the applicant presentation.

Thank you.

Ben LaCourse on behalf of the applicant.

Ken and Sarah Hall.

Kelly did a great job with the overview, so I'll try to be as brief as possible.

Like she said, we are at 521 East Frank Street.

Just to the east is North Finley Avenue and to the west is I believe North Ponka Avenue.

Zoning currently R1 single family.

We are proposing to rezone to a SPUD.

Like Kelly said, future land use is mixed use.

Site plan and overview, an overview.

Rezoning to a spUD.

There'll be no change to the current building, so we're not knocking anything down, not building anything.

Everything's gonna be happening within those current buildings.

We'd like to retain R1 uses throughout the property while adding I know it says low limited impact commercial on the ground floor.

I believe that it's but actually the specific language on this bud is low impact personal service uses and specifically names uh tattoo studio by uh way of an example.

Um just a summary of the quest.

We just went over a lot of this, um, wholly consistent with AIM Norman.

So when we did um full transparency here, when we did submit this um, I guess this PowerPoint slide, there were no formal protests at the time.

We did have a late for uh protest that Kelly did mention, so that's why it says normal no formal protest right there.

Um so just so full for full transparency there.

Um like she said, the proposal is consistent with Aim Norman.

I think she read this exact exact same quote, so um I'm here to answer any questions you guys may have.

Thank you.

Do are there any questions by commissioners for the applicant?

Okay.

If there are none, I would move on.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh moving on to any audience comments.

Are there any audience comments for this item?

Okay.

Seeing none, we could move on to planning commission discussion.

Is there any discussion of this item?

Okay, seeing on, uh moving on.

We could move to taking a motion.

Just one sec, we'll get the microphones on.

Go for it.

I'm already move to approve.

I'll second it.

And a vote.

You may vote.

In cast, motion passes, seven to zero.

Moving on to our next items.

We're gonna read items three, four, and five together, starting with item number three, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-43.

An ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the Code of the City of Norman.

So as to remove the tract of land being a part of the Northwest Quarter, Southwest Quarter, and Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 9, North Range 3 West of the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from a PUD plan unit development, and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof.

Generally located south of West Main Street, west of Ed Noble Parkway, northwest Lindsay Street, and east of 36th Avenue Southwest Ward 3.

Item number 4, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance PP-2526-15.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Bob Moore Farms North LLC, SMC Consulting Engineers PC for Bobmore Farms North, a planned unit development for 55.7 acres of property generally located approximately one quarter mile south of West Main Street on the east side of 36th Avenue Southwest.

And item number five, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-46, an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, closing and vacating a portion of Norman Center Court right of way to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and providing for the severability thereof.

I would take the staff present.

Good evening, Logan Gray with the planning department.

So as stated, we have a rezoning as well as a preliminary plat and closing and vacation of a portion of the right-of-way on Norman Center Court.

You can see the current zoning here is PUD as stated.

This PUD was adopted in 2024.

And it also amends the site plan.

There are several other changes as well.

Future land use is Urban Living Center there in the brown through most of the subject tract as well as the southeastern corner there.

There's also parts that are urban high, and then the north northernmost part is mixed use there in the purple.

The existing land use is vacant.

To the north, you've got mostly commercial, north and east, mostly commercial uses to the south and west, largely single family residential uses.

There are some uh commercial and multifamily uses to the northwest of the subject track.

And you can see those here on the aerial.

This is looking um northeast on 36th Avenue at the entrance, uh, the proposed entrance on Willow Bend Road.

This is looking east on 36th at the subject property.

This is uh the portion of the right-of-way that they're proposing to close.

This is the preliminary, or this sorry, this is the greenscape plan.

Here's the revised preliminary plat.

This is the revised preliminary site plan.

Um this phase one preliminary site plan was submitted uh with the application, but it was not included in the uh PUD narrative as an exhibit.

Here is the right-of-way closure that is being proposed.

And here's the protest map.

We had 3.9% protest within the notification area.

Uh staff is available for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any questions for staff by commission?

I have a couple that I can go off of, and then if there's any others we can add.

Uh, starting with just a clarification point.

I know the there was a change to the actual map.

Uh would you just confirm that in the current site plan that is submitted, there is no ingress and egress across the library parcel.

Yeah, and I will I will defer to um one of my colleagues here from public works that is present to to speak on that.

Are you referring to the site plan?

Yeah, so I understand that there was an earlier site plan that was revised since the Friday when the original agenda went out.

And originally there was this drive that connected to what would be the parking lot for the library parcel, and that was the crux of the protest letter we received from the library.

Correct.

But this site plan does appear to no longer show that ingress-egress point and is revised.

I just wanted to.

Thank you.

While you're there.

Uh I also just as a clarification, there was a traffic splitter in addition to the circular roundabout uh common area.

And my understanding is that median that right now from the library, you cannot make a direct left.

You would have to turn right and circle around the roundabout, but that that traffic splitter median will also be removed.

So now that exiting the library from their rear point, they will be able to make a left turn.

Can you confirm that for me too?

Ken Danner confirmed it, but if you would just also confirm it.

Confirmed.

On behalf of Ken Danner.

Thank you.

And as one more clarification on the traffic, the site plan does include a portion of the legal description that goes across Willow Bend.

And we received some other protest letters relating to that, and some clarification on if any portion of the right-of-way and the street of Willow Bend would be closed, or will it instead be still dedicated to the public and an open road down there on the lookout?

I believe it'll it'll be dedicated to the public.

Okay, great.

That were those were my questions for staff, and really just clarifications of things I already knew.

I apologize.

And are there any other questions by commissioners for staff?

Yeah, that's one question.

So one second.

I know it's in the interview.

It looked like you're good.

Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Um I have some questions.

So it looked like there were some inconsistencies with um how the city wanted this area to be developed, that it was uh lower density than what the city was looking for, and there was a lack of mixed use.

Is can you can you give me an idea of what the city's plans for development are in this part of the city?

Yeah, so what's outlined in aim?

Let me see here.

Let me find that portion.

My apologies as I navigate my staff report.

So speaking to mixed use, um the urban high land use policy does express the desire to see more mixed use more mixed use buildings, including retail workspaces, um, along with residences.

Um as is proposed, it is currently just single use multifamily residential.

Regarding densities.

Yeah, so as proposed, uh this is 14 units per acre.

Um would uh would like to see at least 18 units per acre for the urban living center uh future land use category.

Thank you.

So ultimately, yeah, higher densities, just more mixed use is in this area.

Thank you.

Any other questions by commissioners for staff?

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Libby Smith on behalf of the applicant.

All right, so this is the aerial of the location.

It's just south of West Main Street and east of 36th Avenue Southwest.

The land use is urban high, urban living center, and mixed use, and then the character area is predominantly corridor.

Um the existing zoning is planned unit development.

We came through with the plan unit development in 2024, and then this is that site plan that was attached to that zoning.

So you can see kind of in the smaller version, all that red was preliminary plan to be commercial, and with this request, we are coming back and asking for the entire property to be multifamily residential.

And then with that, we're doing a site plan revision.

So here is a better look at the comparison between the previously approved PED site plan and what we're proposing now.

So here we have all multifamily residential buildings.

Um there's also been significant redesign of the streets within the property.

We think this will be much better for the neighbors as this kind of will slow down traffic and all the vehicular entrances to the property will be gated, and so there won't be any cut through traffic from Main Street down to Willowbend Road.

So here's a preliminary site plan of the whole property, and then I'll skip one slide so it's kind of zoomed in, but just wanted to see the whole property.

You can see all the development is planned on that north half, and then the bottom half is just gonna be green space and drainage.

So this will be the development part of the property.

We are planning two phases with the first phase being 444 units and the second phase being 360 for a total um dwelling units of 804.

There's a maximum height of four stories throughout the property to increase that density, and then all the vehicular accesses will be gated.

We're also including extensive amenities and landscaping, and this is um an improvement from the previous site plan.

Then also just some quotes from the staff report is the proposed maximum height of four stories is generally consistent with the surrounding zoning.

And then the proposed development includes landscaping buffers to remote a smooth transition to nearby lower density residential areas.

So here's the preliminary plat.

This is split into two lots that correspond with the phase one and the phase two.

It is a very green development with 43% green space, and then like I said, we'll have a lot of private amenities, including a pool in each phase, a clubhouse in each phase, pickleball courts, um, walking trails throughout the development, and then lots of landscape green spaces.

Um and another quote from the staff report is the proposed development includes pedestrian amenities tying into existing sidewalks along 36th Ave Southwest and Norman Center Court, providing pedestrian access to private recreational amenities within the development.

For these reasons, the proposal is consistent with the urban living center land use policy.

And then here are some proposed renderings, especially highlighting that landscape green space.

This is a lot prettier rendering than we usually have, so just take a minute to enjoy it.

And then also some interior spaces.

And we did have a protest from the library, which is the direct north neighbor.

So this is the originally filed site plan.

And then I'll kind of zoom in on this Norman Center Court was the main purpose of that protest.

And as originally designed, we contemplated kind of just an extra large driveway connecting the driveway to this property and the library.

So we worked with them and we redesigned to this.

So remove that connection, move that entrance further into the cul-de-sac.

And the library did approve this revised version of the site plan.

So while we're kind of in the area, the other part of this request, in addition to the rezoning and the preliminary plat, is the closure of part of Norman Center Court.

So that kind of highlighted circle area is Norman Center Court.

And you can see with the phase one, we don't anticipate to redo that cul-de-sac at all.

This is only for phase two.

So for phase one, which will be the first phase of development and much sooner than phase two, that cul-de-sac will remain as it exists and we'll take access as shown.

And then phase two will come through and we'll actually do the vacation in district court and make kind of that area that was the cul-de-sac more usable space for the residents, and then we'll redesign the cul-de-sac at that point.

So just a summary of the request is we're just asking to rezone from PUD to POD to remove the commercial uses and amend the site plan.

We'll have a total of 804 total dwelling units.

We receive unanimous approval at Parks Board for Fee and Lou with all those amenities on site for the residents, and then 43% green space with the closure of the right-of-way.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the applicant from commissioners?

One moment.

Real quick, I want to go back.

I know the first time this was presented, a lot of the concern was that there would be a cut through.

What you're saying is a cut through is gone, and it's a gated community, it's going to be gated.

Correct.

So that will eliminate that that issue or that concern from the initial.

Exactly.

I think there are four entrances to the property, or three, or one from Norman Center Court, and then three on Willow Bend, and all three of or all four of them will be gated.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Remind me.

Thank you.

Can you remind me what the development looked like before?

Was it six-story?

So my memory go back where I can get a picture.

And I'll I'll tell you where I'm going with that.

I'm trying to, I'm thinking about the density.

Um, was there a decrease in the density from the original PUD?

No, there was about a 200 unit increase.

Um, those shown in the blue were two stories, and then I believe the yellow were four.

And so the new proposal has a 200 unit increase from the previous.

Can I ask?

I mean, given I mean, we've we've seen presentations that development's not happening fast enough in Norman to you know meet the housing needs.

So why four story if in the center of town you can build taller?

I think that is just kind of what was planned.

A lot of it is probably considerations on cost of going up higher than that, changes the type of development.

Um then also just this is a pretty residential area to the west, so wanted to be kind of considerate to those neighbors.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay, seeing none, I would move to audience comments.

Uh we have received a few cards up here.

I'm gonna start with Rebecca Patter or Patton.

I apologize.

And then just as a reminder, when you come up, please state your name and the address or your address for the record.

Let me know if you want the 30-second warning, otherwise, I'll let you know when the three minutes is up.

I hope I won't be.

I hope I don't need a 30-second, but give me one.

Uh my name is Rebecca Patton.

I represent the Pioneer Library System.

It's comprised of three counties, 10 cities, and 12 branch libraries, including Norman and Cleveland County.

The administrative offices and the Norman West branch are located just north and east of the proposed development.

I'm a little late to the game because the notice went to the address shown on the deed, which when Pioneer bought the property in 2011, which is ironically that building where the planning commission now sits.

But we eventually got it.

And when I went to the planning department to learn the details a week ago, on the a week ago Wednesday, the site plan, as you noted, called for access across access to the development across the Pioneer Driveway to get to the both the dumpsters and to the apartments.

Libby showed you that map.

I have copies of it if anybody wants to know what our concerns were.

Go back if you want.

Oh, I don't have any idea how to do this.

So you're so they can see this?

Yes.

Oh my.

That's that's very magical.

Okay.

So I guess so you don't need my paper that I brought.

Um so we screwed around and tried to figure out how to deal with that.

Um then on the the day that we filed our protest last Friday.

Apparently, there was the revised site plan was also filed.

Um, and it moved the access point to a separate location, which is uh shown on the on the uh materials in your packets.

Thank you.

Okay.

Usually my son does this for me.

Uh but uh I would have to say we're glad that they're not going to try and use the the uh pioneer parking lot or driveway to get into the development.

We wish it could be a little bit further away.

It's about 30 feet away, I think, right now.

Uh it seems to me that that's that there is going to be some traffic issues, and Sean Haltman, who is the security and uh safety coordinator for the Pioneer Library System is going to talk a little bit about traffic flow, particularly with the new development that uh Pioneers are doing.

We're adding some um some outdoor programming space to help find uh increase our planning space or programming space while we're waiting for the central library to be uh fixed.

Um but I I understand that things move quickly on these matters on the 30 seconds.

Okay.

Uh and I want to make it easy to identify the applicable site plan.

Uh there's been some changes.

There's the one that's dated March 2nd, one that's stated March 6th.

The one that's dated March 6th is the one that we want.

I'm hoping that perhaps the zoning ordinance, or I mean sorry, the ordinance can refer to the site plan by its date instead of just saying the site plan.

Uh and I talked with Jane a bit about this earlier in the week, and and she may have some suggestions.

Thank you very much for thank you.

Uh and then uh you're gonna call him.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you very much.

Our next is Sean Holtman.

Same thing, just state your name and your address when you come up, and then let me know if you want a 30-second warning.

I don't think I need 30 seconds, I'll be brief.

Um, I'm the safety and security coordinator for Pioneer Library System addresses 300 Norman Center Court.

Uh I was asked to speak about traffic volumes and uh share concerns regarding the potential for increased traffic in the area.

Current usage at that entrance uh has increased as a result of the ongoing remodeling project.

If you look at the look the plan up there, the northeast corner of the building to the little leg sticking out there is being closed off, and that is gonna become outdoor learning space for the library system.

In doing that, we no longer have the roundabout access through our parking lot, which was utilized by customers and staff previously.

Uh prior to the remodel, uh a small number of staff in our delivery vehicles were primarily the only things that use that entrance and exit.

Since we've closed this off, uh now anybody coming through to use the book return, all of our deliveries and most of the staff have to use that exit.

Uh we have approximately 26 currently, we have approximately 26 people using our book return every day on top of 70 staff members.

Uh the facility also functions as the shipping and receiving uh for the entire library system.

Average about nine delivery vehicles a day that ranges everything from FedEx, UPS all the way up to full-size seminars that deliver books and items like that to our facilities.

From there, we have a fleet of vehicles that we transport and distribute all of our programming and materials to our 11 branches.

Our concerns that this proposed development would introduce significant additional residential traffic in close proximity to our access point.

As Rebecca mentioned, uh 30 feet is very close to this area.

What was once a low volume service drive now functions as a primary entry and exit for our staff, delivery use fleet vehicles and members of the public.

Because of this library system has concerns about how any nearby driveway access could affect safety, traffic flows, and the overall functioning of this location.

That is all I have.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We have a Mr.

Brett Bradley.

Good evening.

My name is Brett Bradley.

I'm a business professor at the University of Oklahoma, and my home backs up to some of the lot that is being considered for some of these changes.

Number two, I strongly encourage you to reject the closure of the right of way.

Please reject both of those changes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello, Cheryl Tatum at 3217 Riverwalk.

My I did submit the official protest because my home and I don't have a fancy thing.

So in the in the green little spot here, that triangle, I think you recognize my map, my home does back up right to there.

So the apartments are going right across, you know, from where my home is.

And so I think the concerns mostly lie in I think when Chair Byrd was asking some questions at the beginning.

I I'm still confused, right?

So I think there is still like kind of that lack of like clear understanding or transparency about what's happening with that willow bend road, because it the information I received looks like that was going to be closed, but then I think you asked questions that perhaps indicate maybe it won't, then that's what I'd be able to make sure that road is not closed.

Right?

I want to continue to be able to drive back there.

I walk my puppy there every day, you know, that's my neighborhood.

But then also not to have those apartments feel like they're getting closer and closer, and I don't want them to come that 20 feet closer, you know, from the road.

And so if we're 100% clear, that's not what's happening.

Um, but then also to your question about you know this the height of the apartments, right?

That is a concern for us.

So even at the four stories right now, I'm curious, you know, will they be able to see in my backyard?

I definitely in the future, because this keeps changing, right?

So I don't want them coming back in the future and saying now it's six stories, now it's eight stories, because I don't want people being able to appear into my backyard.

Um, and then finally, because it does feel like constant change and not really knowing what's gonna happen in that field behind us, I then I again don't want it to continue to expand now across the road and into that field behind us.

So those are the concerns that I'm bringing forward right now that we keep them across over there and not closing that road and not building where they can um see into my backyard.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Are there any other audience comments from anybody who did not already bring a card up?

Okay, seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion.

We'll turn our microphones on for everybody.

Is there any discussion amongst with commissioners?

On the question of um density, I kind of want to piggyback off what you were talking about earlier.

Um is this area also limited?

Because you were asking why not six, why is it four?

Is this area limited to only two floors above additional stories above those that are neighboring?

Sounds like that is a question for staff.

So just to clarify, you were are you referring to what's outlined under aim norm?

Yes.

So for urban living center, which is really where the bulk of the residential development is occurring.

Um building types outlined is large to medium, four to five plus story buildings.

Right are common.

Yeah, and so that's what that's kind of what it proposes in there.

Okay.

I'm trying to think of the ordinance, not the ordinance, but the the citation.

When we were talking with the about the the noun hotel expansion, and there was reference to limiting, even though like it had that same up to six floor floors, there was like a limit to how many stories above what the neighboring residential what you could develop.

Correct.

Sorry, I have allergy brain right now and partial allergy voice.

So the area that you're talking about is in the Center City Form Base Code.

That was a CCPUD.

And yes, that does have the restriction.

The area that we're talking about now does not.

I mean, it in the urban high, it also talks about three to five stories.

And then as Logan said, it's four to five but there's no limit.

We don't have to can necessarily consider what's right next to it versus the difference being that we don't have the overlay on the parcel.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brewer.

I was just gonna make a comment on the densities.

So why I would love to see additional densities that would be closer to the aim norman plan.

Um it's it's uh in building design.

There's a pretty well-known um issue with going over uh four stories and even five stories, and that's the you have uh with four stories you can do wood framing.

Um with five stories, you have to do wood over concrete podium, and then over five, you have you have to um use steel at that point.

So it's a cost issue.

I'm not I I'm not gonna claim to know what the development issues are here.

I mean, so the development costs and how um what could pencil out.

Um, but uh that my assumption is that the four-story limit is to limit the wood framing to make it cost effective.

So um anyway, just uh a note there.

Okay, I have some discussion.

Um just clarifying again from my questions that I had.

The site plan does show the overlap over the street, but legal descriptions do commonly go to the center line or across streets.

This is a normal thing that you see.

You legally, your property line may show that, but that doesn't mean that you get to do whatever you want there.

Those streets get dedicated to the public in a plat process.

Once they're dedicated to the public, you cannot change that and take that street back over without vacating it.

This is why we see street vacations, alley vacations come forward to planning commission.

So that street could not be closed without a new item coming forward, just like the cul de sac that they're talking about closing.

And just as a clarification, the part that they are talking about closing is the cul de sac that parcel that's close to the library, not Willow Bend.

That was I made sure to reach out to staff.

Willow bend is not being closed on any part of that.

But when you look at the map, you will see part of the outline over Willow Bend because it's part of their legal description to describe the land.

So I just wanted to clarify that because I think there was some confusion about that and making sure that that is clear that Willow Bend is not being closed on there.

Um I also uh wanted to just also mention I talk about off-site amenities regularly on here, and I really appreciate the library being a neighbor and being neighborly with the library because this is such a great resource for the people living there to be able to go and use the library and services there.

The changes they're talking about doing with the library.

I am a library user regularly and I use that driveway, but I drive all the way around the building currently, and I come back out on that road that connects to Sam's Club.

You will no longer be able to go through the book drop and go around the building up to the north here.

You will have to exit out to that back side.

That's also why I cared about that splitter and that median, because right now you cannot legally turn left.

You have a median to split the traffic going into a roundabout.

When the roundabout is taken out, you don't need that median.

And I actually think you will have easier access leaving the library now.

She'll be able to just turn left instead of forcing traffic to the right towards that 30 feet entrance on there too.

So that was a kind of crucial point.

And Ken Danner did confirm the intent to take that part of the median out as well for me.

Um I appreciate the walkability.

I hope there's some easy pedestrian access, even with the gating to be able to go through there.

Um I was the lone no vote last time we saw a project like this come forward.

A lot of that had to do with the connectivity to Ed Noble Parkway and the concerns of the neighbors that we spoke with at the meeting and in advance, and their concern about having that thoroughfare going connecting to Ed Noble Parkway and the traffic implications for Willow Bend.

So I am much pleased by this change of this uh map on here.

All the roads interior are private, they will be privately maintained.

Um we will won't be getting quite as much overflow traffic coming, I think, from Willow Bend, which was a major concern from the neighbors at that time.

I know there was also concerns that were brought up during the audience comments about changing things, and just as a reminder, things cannot change again without doing this process and giving notice, and to that effect, as a PSA item.

Uh, you can check on the county assessor at any point, your address to see what your notice address is.

Highly encouraged that you do that.

And if it's not right, please contact the county assessor and have that changed because that is how you get notice when something's going to affect you.

And it's very common to have your deed recorded and never go back and change it, even if your mailing address is changed.

So if you need to change your mailing addresses, use that as a note to make sure you get the notices should anything come forward.

But the fact that something has changed now doesn't mean that they couldn't come forward and ask for another change again in the future, but they have to do the whole process all over again and get a whole hearing and make sure everybody in the neighborhood are notified again and have a chance to be heard for their concerns again, just like we heard the neighbors previously on the last version.

So I wanted to make those couple of comments on there.

Um yeah, I think, and then I I do appreciate, I know it is hard having density changes that are so significant from what is currently there, but we had 642 units, I believe, last time, and now 806, which does provide more units.

And I do think that this height, even if it could be higher or could be lower, is a good in-between to provide some units while still being thoughtful to the neighbors.

So I'm gonna be in support of this project.

And yeah, if there's any other commission discussion, I'd be glad to hear it.

Um I did actually one other item.

Uh the libraries also spoke about requesting that the lock-in to the 3.6 2026 site plan revision that showed it did not have ingress or egress.

I personally would not be in favor of a motion that was specified to that date of a site plan because should something else need to change on the site plan that had nothing to do with the library's parcel, I'd like there to be flexibility for planning staff to be able to accept that and have that clarity.

So if a motion was potentially made that instead was had a caveat to not have ingress and egress across the library parcel or just clarifying that drive part rather than clarifying the date of the site plan, I would prefer that personally.

So I agree with that.

Can I ask can I speak?

Yeah, you're all on.

Great.

Can I ask the applicant a question?

They it sounds I might have misheard, but it sounded like that you said you worked with the library and they were happy.

But then the library came up and it sounded like they weren't happy.

So can you clarify?

Did you work with the library?

Yes.

And it was my understanding that they liked the changes that we made.

They may have more changes that they wanted, but as far as I knew.

Are you all willing to continue working with the library to to try and sort out?

I mean, it sounds like you've satisfied the biggest complaint.

But it sounds like there might be some minor complaints to so just smooth out iron out.

Are you all willing to continue working with the library to smooth that out?

Yeah, of course.

Thank you.

Uh, just to address the concern from the uh the neighbor that spoke to the change in the plan from mixed use to uh additional units being added.

Um I I had a similar concern.

Um the my the the challenge that we're gripping with in Norman is that we have very limited site locations to build densities for apartment units, and we are far behind the curve with the number of units that we need to build.

Um we we were showed a presentation at some point about just how many sites there are across Norman to build um uh a dense apartment, which is you know essentially three stories and up.

And it's uh the the it's it's extremely limited, I f if I remember right.

It was like 18 sites total.

Um, and uh it could be don't quote me on that, but it was something like that.

Um so it yeah, we got this push and pull of you know building commercial with sales tax for to increase sales tax or fitting in as many units wherever we can.

And um, I don't love that I don't I don't like the term mixed use for development like this anyway, uh, because when I think of mixed use, I think of you know more of a downtown Norman type environment where you've got a single property where you have a mix of uses within the building, not a mix of uses on a site plan.

Um, because that's not mixed use.

It's it's that's a separation of uses.

Um however, uh it we we we need to build as we need to build as many units as we can.

And so um I I don't I don't love that aspect of it, but uh but it unfortunately it feels like a necessary evil if you're kind of weighing evils if uh uh from what I've heard.

So um so with that, I I mean I'd I'm in support of it as well.

It's just uh it's just a challenge we're dealing with um in neighborhoods across Norman right now.

If I can add to that, um this also does not contribute to urban sprawl.

I I think that's important to note.

I've got one question for Brandon.

Um the sanitary sewer line that's there.

Have you looked have you looked at it just to make sure that nothing's gonna be happening with it for a very long time if we're gonna cover it all up?

Oh, for the where they're vacated.

Yeah, I mean it looks like a big trunk part of the condition for the vacation is that they uh make a connection um to reroute.

Oh, okay.

So yes and no.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that because I mean it's probably a major trunk line covered up, and then it's expensive for the city to come back and fix it.

But if they're rerouting, that's that's good.

Good.

I'm good.

Okay.

If there isn't any other discussion by planning commission, I would take a motion for this item.

I'll make a motion uh to approve with the uh specific change to the site plan that's been presented to us that you do not have access on Norman Center Court into this apartment complex.

Is that right?

Is that where we're going for?

Uh you you will have access, but maybe with the library parcel, is that where you were going with uh I'm gonna share.

I'm gonna try that again.

I'm gonna let Steve do it.

I withdraw my motion.

All right, let me go ahead and make a motion.

I want to make a motion that we we approve um with the caveat that the drive will not be a shared drive with norm with the pioneer library system property.

I second that.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote motion passes seven to zero.

Moving to our next non-consent items, uh I've got item number six, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and or postponement of resolution R-2526-113, a resolution of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending all affected maps within the aim and any of the seven distinct approved plans in order to update affected maps with the most recent demonstrated alignment of the alignment of the access Oklahoma termpikes according to information announced by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.

And I can read these together with it, right?

Or separate.

Okay.

And we'll go ahead and also read items seven and eight too.

Item number seven, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of resolution R 2526-112 of resolution of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending the AIM Norming Comprehensive Land Use Plan to remove the 30-acre urban reserve land use minimum requirement for development and to implement other consistent changes within the urban reserve and agricultural residential land use categories.

And item number eight, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment and or postponement of resolution 0-2526-47, an ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending chapter 30 subdivisions of the code of section 30-606A in order to remove the 30-acre minimum lot size requirement for rural certificates of survey with an urban reserve land use designation and providing for the separability thereof.

Okay.

Laura Hoggett with the planning department.

So our first item would be the AM Norman map updates.

So the steering committee came to consensus throughout their process of working on the uh comprehensive land use plan.

And so did the transportation subcommittee that they would like to show the alignment that was available at that time on the maps on a number of the maps.

So we have received new information as of September 23rd, 2025.

So we um would be updating.

I think there's 14 maps in the land use plan, um, two of which are also in the transportation plan.

I think it's two of them.

I didn't include all 14 because they're the same base map.

They're just some of them have call-outs of different colors on different pages.

So this would be our new character area map, and the new alignment is shown between 48th and 60th.

Our new uh feature land use map, uh land use map with the transportation categories, the transportation map, and another transportation project priority map.

Uh okay, so those are our maps.

Any questions on the map item?

Yes.

Okay.

All microphones.

I know that we ensured that there was verbiage with each of those, stating that it's proposed and not like a city of Norman plan.

I just want to make sure that that verbiage with any map updates is maintained.

Yes.

So you only read the distinct one and a new one or just the new one?

Yeah, just with the new one will say, that'd be great.

So the new one, um, so they're not printed right down the maps, they're on the page.

Correct.

And then we'll get there before council.

Um the A Norman does not endorse North Land is the development and alignment of proposed termpikes land and east and north norm by the local termpit and created OTA.

The North South and after turnpike, is that an allocation by the LTA on September 20 or 2025?

The locations for the east-west and north south locations are current and then we're all so the alignments change backward reporting at review and consideration by city.

Thank you.

I think it's on like four pages of the document.

Thank you.

Yes.

So uh I have a question.

Are we are we to that point or all asking?

Okay.

Um has OTA put out a the formal alignment?

Because my understanding is they have not put out a 30% set of an alignment.

This was this was their latest announcement on September 23rd.

Can I mean do we have to make an action on that until they find formally like submit the final alignment?

That would probably be up to council.

Okay.

But they requested we go ahead and bring it forward.

To bring it to council.

So that's kind of what we're voting on here, I guess, is approving to go to council for the discussion.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

I'm clear.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Seeing none, um, we can move on since that was also our applicant.

Uh move.

Oh, I still have two others.

Oh, so sorry.

Sorry.

Sorry.

I just wanted to do questions in little chunks.

Um, okay, so we also have some uh language updates in the agricultural, residential, and the urban reserve land use categories.

Um this was another large topic of conversation with the steering committee during the AM Norman process.

Um we spent probably four months talking about the urban reserve and what the acreage would look like, what the desired development style would be in this area.

Um so we adopted it or council adopted it last June with a 30 acre requirement in the urban reserve land use area.

Um since then, council has approached us about changing it to 10 acres back, which is what was allowed before AIM and is allowed in the rest of East Norman at this time or in A2.

Um so this will kind of be going back to how we were before.

And then in the I the AR land use, um the other land use categories that discuss cluster development use the term cluster development.

For some reason it did not make it into AR.

So we would like to add cluster development, which is the allowance to use a PUD or other appropriate regulatory process to go down to two acres where 65% of the land is reserved as open space.

So the easiest way to explain this is if you have a hundred acres, you could do 35 of those acres in two or more acre lots, as long as 65 of those 100 total acres are left as open space.

So it's often confused with um impervious coverage, which is also 65%.

That's different than when it the subdivision part with the open space.

So hopefully that makes sense.

I are we able to ask questions on this?

Yes.

I'm pretty flexible if you want to ask questions as we go because we're listening to three.

So was the change from the 10 acres to the 30 with all of the subcommittee and community input.

Okay.

So yes, that's how we ended up with 30 instead of 10.

Yes.

Just for the urban reserve area.

Okay.

But now just council is requesting it get changed to 10.

Uh, we've had calls from constituents who live in this specific land use area where maybe they have 20 acres and they've been hoping to split off 10 acres for their kids or to sell it or what have you, and now they can't.

Um I think that's probably where the calls were going to council and then if I could also just add just some insight.

10 acres is at the state level commonly used as a regular measurement for when lot split requirements are required or not.

So 10, 10, sometimes five, depending, is a pretty common measurement used in state language too.

Yeah.

There's not a ton of 30-acre lots left in this area, but that's where they ended up on.

You'd have to purchase neighbors land to end up at 30 in some cases.

Yeah.

There's not a lot of people in 30 acres.

Okay.

Um, I I this may be difficult to answer, but how how did we end up with 30?

I know that there was like the subcommittee, but I mean that was a pretty big increase, and so I'm just curious what the what the reasoning behind that was.

Do you want to take that?

The subcommittee and the community that we were uh hearing from when we would go to some of the uh listening sessions and such, they were really looking for an area that um would essentially be I I'll call it a stop gap probably between what we would be urbanizing eventually coming east, and then having that area where it would almost be a buffer to the A2, the more rural areas as you're going out to the lake.

And they as a group came up with the 30 acres.

I remember them saying like it's in keeping with the idea of ensuring not a quick sprawl of development east and um to help preserve, conserve, and protect the land out east while also encouraging infill.

Um so I I mean I remember feeling like it was good reasoning, but I can understand if someone's got 20 and they're wanting to split it for for um kids.

They could, but then they would also have to plat, which can be very expensive depending on public improvement and requirements and such okay.

Um and then in the UR, we are um just copying over the language with the minimum lot size of 10 acres and making the cluster development definition in the same subsection of UR.

Um making sure that the uses really show that um rural kind of area like the AR does.

Uh so really it's just a lot of language consistency.

And then I will point out um one thing council was asking us.

So in the there's the urban reserve land use category, there's also a 2045 character area.

That is where there's language saying um development must be contiguous, you must extend urban services.

And an applicant cannot request to be removed from a character area.

So those requirements will be in place for development in this area, whether it's 10 or 30 acres.

Okay.

Can you back up the slide?

I want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly.

Sorry, I am not uh a graphic designer, as some of you might know.

Um so I couldn't figure out strike through the the way we do in Word because the font that we use in this document doesn't allow for strike through.

So the gray is what will be removed, red is new.

Sorry, I should have said that first.

So is this saying that if you have a large um let's say a 10 acre property in this urban reserve area that you can now place an ADU?

Um you can now anyway, by right in zoning.

This is just including that it's allowed as a building type in this land use.

So that it also can include barn style stables, anything like that.

So just kind of to show the uses that are existing in this area.

Okay, now for number three, we have uh a very small subdivision regulation update.

So this will be uh in chapter 30.

There's a clause that we added when we adopted AIM for when you're doing a Norman rural certificate of survey, you have to have 10 acres if you're in A1 or A2 zoning in order to implement this part of the land use plan, council adopted this language.

Uh, if you're in the urban reserve land use, you have to have 30 acres or more to do a COS.

So should council adopt the 10-acre uh resolution, then we would need to update the subregs to match that.

Okay.

Sorry, that was a lot.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um, I'd like to just see if there's any other questions on any of these three items by commission for our staff applicant.

Okay.

I have a question.

What do you think is the impact?

So, you know, when I when I hear you say you can go from 20 to 10 acres, I mean that's a doubling of density.

And if the original idea was to promote infill development.

What what's gonna have you all thought about what the impact will be on in-filled development?

I don't know if I would call this infill because it's not really like in the urbanized.

Um like some pressure release.

People there will there won't be such a need to develop in the city if you can push out.

Yes, which I think uh, I mean, I can't speak for the Syrian committee as a whole, but from what I gathered from our two-year process.

Um that was kind of the goal was they'd like to increase density where we have services and parks and um kind of increased density in the core area instead of moving out east toward the lake.

There was discussion of when you have people who have 10 acres.

I mean, there are people who maybe only mow the area right around their house, but there's also people who treat five of those acres with chemicals to treat their grass or their yard or whatever.

So from the like runoff group, the storm water kind of people, they wanted to see less of that too.

So it's definitely kind of a double-edged sword.

I see both sides of, you know, if I had landed my family and wanted to split it and we were finally there and now we couldn't.

That's not great either, but um it is kind of a which theoretical side do you fall on for development?

Thank you.

Any other questions for the staff or applicant by commission?

Okay, seeing none, do we have any audience comments on any of these items?

If none, we could move to planning commission discussion.

Um we are gonna vote on these, I think would be best to vote each one separately, but we can discuss together.

Uh is there any discussion we want to have about the map changes?

Because maybe we can open to that item to start with.

I did uh have one clarification, so and sorry, this may be for staff, but the OTA requested that we change the maps or the council.

Yeah, we requested things a good question.

All right, clump back down here.

Um council requested because it was in the plan that the steering committee would like to see them the maps updated as new information is available.

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

I would say that they're the last update uh that I'm aware of which is December with the OTA alignment.

Um and not September, so it has changed already.

So I don't know.

It's it's moving to for me, I would rather just wait until they say we're not moving it.

Um because it is any time if you went to their public meetings, they would say it could move this way or that way, and we still have property owners out there that don't know which way what's gonna happen with their properties, and I I don't wanna so Devil's advocate of that could be people need to know so they can plan if they're purchasing or what have you.

Um also the maps were created in January or yeah, in January when we went to two different council meetings.

Um so the latest GIS data that's available is what's on the maps from OTA.

I just I have I have neighbors who are very close and they don't know which way and they're they they don't know.

Yeah.

And and they're being told not until we within like a thousand feet or something.

It's not that's my understanding, but I think uh our director has a comment to make.

So I just want to say that um you're right.

I believe that we will continue to see small changes.

Uh I mean if there was something in December, um I mean it's very possible we may be back two or three times before this is a hundred percent.

And when you're talking about the design, you said 30% designs.

You're talking about the east-west, right?

No, north-south.

North south.

Okay.

Again, I I I agree with Laura, and there's been many people that we've talked to about trying to get this forward, and it was a discussion when we were working on aim is to make sure that we keep these maps updated.

And I again I could probably see us come back maybe one or two times.

I don't know, maybe we won't, you know.

But um, I think keeping the maps as up to date as we can because a lot of people may not know where to find that information, and if they're Norman residents and they do want to look and it is on our map and we had it further east, but yeah, OTA is showing it further west.

I I would rather have what they have on their map right now.

And Rick in RGIS does take that layer directly from them.

Yeah.

So can uh look uh Laura, can you go back to the map that shows the I know it's quite a ways back?

Which one?

Yeah, uh the the one that has the it says the proposed route OTA on it.

I think it's maybe two or three Ford.

So these all have the new route on it.

Well, uh yeah, they see the dotted line, but one of them said on there, yeah, there we go.

Um is there uh like kind of to uh Commissioner Parker's comment.

Is there I don't know if it's on the map or like in it annotated below that shows the date of the latest proposal.

Um I think that that might be helpful as well for further clarification to show you know what what when that when the latest proposed um just a thought, you know, just just so that way if there is somebody who they don't know where to see where this proposal is, at least they can come to this map and say, okay, this is the latest proposal as of this date.

So I'm trying to, I can't that great anymore.

Um in addition to the statement we're gonna have under it about when this one was released.

Like you want the date that the info is taken from the I I don't know what else is on there.

It may not be a good suggestion.

I'm just trying to think about just so as we're updating maps, at least there's reference to this is the latest proposal.

Well, or or let me I I like your idea a lot, or just say that this map was updated as of a certain date.

To match OTAs.

I don't uh I would just say this was based upon the information, this is what it was updated to on that map.

Um so our current maps actually don't have that date on there.

I think a revision date would make sense, but we may revise for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with OTA specifically.

So I would be in favor of possibly a revision date, maybe a separate page, like a caveat about the when the dates were in there, but I don't know that I think it's as necessarily to put the OTA's date on each and every single map.

So we're hoping even annually.

I mean, I don't want to see plan changes really, but um that if council were to approve plan changes, they would be reflected in the document because 2025 was the same map.

Even after amendments, in general, I'm in favor of showing changes on here and having to come back a few times so somebody can look up their map and have an idea before they buy a property or maybe look at doing a development even if it's not perfect.

I think put taking some step, even if we only do this once a year and they update four times a year.

I think that is better than just leaving as is.

I would I'm appreciate the city coming forward to make that transparency a little better for development.

Out of curiosity, what is the cost of taxpayer dollars involved every time there's an update?

Like I know a lot of it's online, so I'm hoping it's nominal.

Oh but it's just part of staff time perfect.

So it's it's already duties as account, yes.

Yes, perfect.

Yeah, we have a GIS to pressure.

In the spirit of full transparency, yes.

So nobody believes that we're oh no, it's not date maps, willy-nilly.

Waterline map, or yeah, any of that.

It's the same people.

Yes.

We are here to serve, yes.

Sorry, you know, I'm looking at this.

I have a question.

I'm looking at this um proposed minor arterial rural that goes across this northern leg of Thunderbird.

Is the Bureau of Reclamation gonna approve this?

I mean, I'll be honest, I think this would devastate that part of the lake, just straight devastate it.

And I'm guessing a lot of people haven't been there because you can't get there unless you go by boat.

Yeah.

And or or if you're a hunter or a fisherman.

But yeah, the the nature of the lines shown on that map is if you don't put them on the map, you never get them.

Just because they're on the map doesn't mean anything's gonna happen with them.

Can I ask why we we would want it?

I mean, so I understand why I don't want to.

There were there were issues when when there were floods that people couldn't get from one point to another.

So it's trying to avert something like that from happening again.

Are there other ways to solve that problem?

Are you talking about the north?

I think he's talking.

He's talking about Franklin Road, I believe.

Yep.

Frankly.

The wildfires a year ago.

Yeah.

There people were um people could have been, I don't know if there were, but there was great difficulty fighting the wildfires and egress safely away from them.

So um that bridge would act if there was to be, that would actually be a safety feature, and the it it would mean not having to drive all the way around it with water tankers to refill and come back.

We don't have hydrants in the land out there that were on fire in those wildfires, if that makes sense.

It makes sense, but I mean I'm yeah, I'm wondering if the juice is worth the squeeze.

I would also just like to make sure we're talking about this agenda item.

Maybe we could table that for another discussion since that's actually not part of um this item on the miscellaneous on the map.

The map adjustment that we're talking about is for the OTA revision.

This was part of the AIM plan.

I would like to maybe see that as a separate item that maybe we would look at bringing, but it's not part of what we're discussing today for the OTA specific map change.

So if we could maybe look at bringing that up as a separate item that we can put on our agenda and discuss.

We've kind of talked about that with some of the traffic items before too.

Okay.

You might stay close just in case.

Okay.

And are there any other on the the map?

OTA map adjustments on there.

Do we have any other discussion for that item?

Okay, so I'm gonna move on.

Um they're very similar for items seven and eight, but talking about the change from 30 to 10 acres, can we maybe move to discussion for that item?

I mean, I sorry, I guess I'll just kind of repeat, you know, um I I think just by cutting cutting this size in half, what you're doing is you're doubling the density.

Um and if we're wanting to have infill development, then all we're doing is uh releasing the pressure valve to let people move out more than um you know you're taking people away from like the core city services.

So if you want people having access um to you know high quality bus routes, you're gonna need density.

Um and if we let that density just sprawl out, then it's gonna be harder to justify um having having these um high quality amenities that you see in um developed cities.

So it's well, I you know I'm sympathetic to this idea.

I like you know, if I had 20 acres and I could give half of it to my kids, that'd be great.

But when we talk about um making zoning changes, you know, one of the things we're required to think about is not just what the current applicant wants to do, but what are all the possibilities that can happen once you change that zoning?

And so um well, I'm sympathetic to someone who says I'd like to take my individual property and split it in half.

What we're saying is take all the properties and split them in half that are 20 acres.

Um that's that's that's a lot.

So I think I think if there were special cases, you know, those could be resolved through you know a PUD.

And so I think that I'd rather keep um keep that pressure um to create you know infill development by keeping um you know our our ordinance so that there's less density um in the rural area.

Um I so I'm probably not gonna vote to support that change.

Could I see the exact verbiage for item seven only, just so I can cement it in my brain with what language we were looking at for seven versus eight?

Yes.

So my thank you.

It's kind of hard to do like as a presentation, but um, do you have your packet?

Or do you want would you like to look at mine?

Um no, there are my computer.

Do you want this one?

Yes, that would be great.

Thank you.

Sorry, it's kind of hard to do presentations with the text changes, but um the full AR and UR pages are in your packets too, if you want to enter the entirety of them.

Uh can we just talk about functionality of what can be developed when it's a 30-acre minimum or a 10-acre minimum?

Does it change the number of houses you can put on a total of three 10 acres versus a 30-acre parcel?

No.

Uh it's one dwelling unit, one primary principal dwelling unit, plus an ADU is allowed, um, or a guest house, sorry, and uh A1 and A2.

So if you have three 10 acre lots, you could end up with technically six dwelling units, I guess.

If everyone had an ADU equivalent, if you had 30 acres, you'd have two.

So the zoning for these would more than likely be A2.

Um so the uses don't necessarily change, but it would be kind of like you're saying two versus six.

And what about you kind of mentioned about the cluster development?

Any difference in numbers of units and between a 10 acre or a 30-acre base or three 10 acres versus one 30 acre.

Uh since that's more percentage-based, it's kind of that is a little more like case by case, I think.

That'd be harder to answer from well, and but it's also referencing lots down to two acres.

But that's if you do the PUD, um, and then they would have to plat that you can't COS down to two acres.

So and that's my that's my point is then why are we putting that in there?

To me, that's fast tracking development out east instead of um keeping it at 10, like if we're changing the language to 10.

Let's yeah.

Well, that's already in there.

That's been allowed since 1999.

Right, right, right, right.

But what I'm saying is um what they're wanting is to go back to that plus add the down to two.

Yeah, I think they wanted to keep uh the option for council to approve things that have the creative development allowing for the open space to protect natural features.

Um clustering development was already an opportunity before we ever adopted aim.

So that's just a carryover.

Right, but that's like with actual neighborhoods, not necessarily splitting, like that's on the cluster.

So that's where my question came.

If somebody came to develop a neighborhood, what's the difference you would get on three 10 acres versus a 30 acre?

So just what are those possibilities on there?

Um just from research we've done on the two-acre thing.

So RE zoning, which is allowed down to two acres was something that was being requested a a number of times in like the 70s and the 80s.

This is kind of like RE, but still protecting 65% of it.

So you're still allowing people to do the two acres is more affordable.

You can cluster them while also protecting the natural part of East Marine.

That's what I gathered from research.

So my general perspective on this is I don't actually think that changing the base parcel requirement is gonna add a significant additional development.

I mean, you did say it would be four more units, potentially four more dwelling units, two primary and two ADUs, ADUs being six hundred and fifty square feet or less.

Um potentially not in A2.

Sorry.

So, oh, thank you for what's the limit on A2?

I can't remember.

Uh smaller than the principal.

Okay, so smaller than okay, that's thank you for clarifying the thank you for clarifying that.

I needed that reference.

So potentially two more houses per lot.

So you'd be looking on 30 acres, getting four more houses, which is more intense, but I don't know that that feels substantially more intense.

I do appreciate 10 acres comes up a lot in like surrounding communities, which not every community is the same as Norman.

We have many features that are unique to us and I appreciate that, like our watershed in Lake Thunderbird.

But 10 acres is a lot more uniform across other communities at the state level for land division.

Um affordability perspective, if you want to move out and have some land, 10 acres is a lot easier to find as an available parcel.

This was one of the comments that came up.

How many parcels are actually out there that are 30 acres or more?

And what are you looking at for the cost difference?

If you're not necessarily looking to build a ranch, but maybe have family land 10 acres makes that a little bit more achievable for a regular resident who does just want to have a house, maybe with an accessory unit.

And so in general, I I wasn't there for all of the listening sessions and being cautious of not changing something that was so well thought out by others.

I'm very sensitive to that, but this doesn't feel like it's actually making a lot of substantial changes.

It's bringing things more in line with where things hit with other communities, and I think it actually adds affordability for people who want to live in a rural area and build a house.

So just a thought that I had on that.

Uh Laura, you mentioned just kind of offhand comment that there weren't many 30-acre parcels left anyway.

Um do you do you have any idea how many that is in the world?

I was just thinking look.

Our consultant did count them, but I admittedly do not remember the No, that's fun.

I well, yeah, I was curious about 30 and 20, you know, just like how much we're actually talking about here.

I know they found 30 for us, but I'm not sure.

I mean, they probably did 30 and then less than 30, but I'd have to go back and hunt.

Sorry.

So I I'm open to some disagreeing opinions, absolutely, but I feel like 10 is reasonable.

I do think limitations should be on there, but 10 feels reasonable to me on there.

I don't disagree with the 10.

I just don't it almost feels like we're suggesting that people cluster develop a lot in the area by adding that verbiage where they can come to a PUD and they can take advantage of the opportunity to do it and just change the verbiage to 10.

Yeah.

But if they do a cluster, they have to come back in, correct?

And they have to plat with it.

They have to do everything that you know, and so that would actually be in front of us and yeah.

And I mean I can't see the future, obviously, but we've had three of those since 1999.

So the plotting is it's a significant expense.

Okay.

And also, oh sorry.

Yeah, go for it.

In the UR, we do still have the 2045 character area.

So they can take USN services.

I was forgetting that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we want to discuss this one any longer?

You want to move to the next one?

Let's move to the next one.

Unless somebody else.

All right, let's come on to eight.

You want to pull the language up for that one too.

Um discussion on this particular item.

I think this kind of falls in line with our discussion of item seven, but being as a distinct item, any other discussion or maybe another thought from the last item we want to visit on.

Okay.

If we don't have any more discussion on any of these m uh items, we could move starting with item number six, which again is the OTA map item.

Um, if we would like to make a motion on that.

Move to approve.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

Okay, seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Motion passes six to one with Commissioner Parker voting against.

Moving on to item number seven.

This is the major item for going from 30 to 10 acres of the two that were similar.

I that's not that it's more major than others, but uh moving from 30 to 10 as again the lot on there, minimum lot size.

Did somebody want to make a motion for that one?

Move to approve.

I'll second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Well, you show the correct slide that matches.

I think that that's isn't that showing again?

This is from item eight, but okay.

Sorry.

Run baby.

I know I'm off right, I'm sorry.

Which one?

Uh item seven, the language.

Yeah.

Which part would you like?

Uh the the annotated language change.

Will you go to that?

There's uh here's AR.

Cluster development.

UR, 10 acres.

Go back one.

Oh, sorry.

This one?

It's the first red highlighted there.

Future residential development should have a minimum lot size of 10 acres.

And then the cluster development language.

I'm gonna hold in case there's any other discussion or discussion on this motion.

Uh it can ask a question.

Yeah.

Um so the 65%.

Was that in the previous language from the 2025 plan?

Yes.

I have a copy of it too, if you want to see.

It was also a fun fact in the 2020 plan.

That's okay.

I have an employee that lives on one of these two-acre type plots too, out and the whole back is WQPZ of their property, and it's mostly open space.

They divide it off from next door neighbor, which is their parents.

So a lot this does happen very commonly on family land.

Now they're in the smaller items on there too, but um I think they actually had a similar type of environment.

It just it's very common to divide this up amongst family, and I know that they would not have been able to buy 10 acres from their parents.

They would have only been able to get the two.

So I'm just gonna add that comment too.

When you see some of that first hand.

How much land did your sister have beforehand and how much did they buy?

Um this is public.

I don't think she wants me to say.

Was it allegedly 10 acres or less that they bought from her?

Oh.

Um maybe you don't want to answer that question.

You know, I'm not sure.

It may have been it may have been.

Okay.

Uh moving on.

Do we want to discuss this item where we do have a motion uh for approval on item number seven?

Any other discussion on the item or on the motion that we want to make, or are we ready for a vote?

Um just one clarification.

Was the you the PUD thing down to two acres was there regardless of whether it was 10 acres or 30 acres, correct?

Correct.

We just moved it up from um it is now in description and context instead of under building types, because I'm not sure why it was there in the first place.

But we just wanted it to be formatted similarly to other categories.

Yeah, I mean, I'll just say I mean one thing I like, you know, about the existing language is that it's not that you can't develop out there, there's just a little bit of friction.

And that little bit of friction can push towards infill development.

And so I like that friction because I want I want us to infill, you know.

I'll be I'll be honest, I'm excited that we're building well, what is it, a seven to nine story uh building?

Uh seven to nine story uh building on Boyd.

And if we're able to sprawl, they're gonna sprawl.

But if we're not able to sprawl, then we're gonna have to push up.

Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and call our vote.

You may vote.

Motion passes five to two with Commissioner Jablonski and Commissioner Kendall voting against.

Moving on to item number eight, which if you will go ahead and pull that screen up again for us too.

Oh it'll change in a second, I guess.

Yeah, that is the language adjustment that one strike through is there.

There it goes.

This is the item we are now voting on.

Um I would take a motion for this item.

Move to approve.

I second it.

Is there any discussion on this motion?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

Yes.

Votes have been cast.

Motion passes 621 with Commissioner Jablonski voting against.

Okay, moving on.

We have a few postponement items starting with item number nine, consideration of approval acceptance rejection amendment, and or a 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 and 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 severability thereof.

420 East Lindsay Street Ward 7.

The applicant has requested postponement to the April 9th 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Again, that is the April 9th 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Since it's a postponement, we don't have any presentation or discussion.

Do we have a motion on that item requested to be postponed to the April 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting?

I move to approve postponement of item nine to the April 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

I'll second it.

And if no discussion, we'll take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Motion passes 70.

Item number 10, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-39, 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 lot three and block one of Springbrook Edition Section 2.

A replat of lot six, block one, Springbrook edition, Section 6 to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma from the C1 local commercial district and place the same in a SPUD simple planned unit development district and providing for the severability thereof.

1130 Rambling Oaks Drive Ward 3.

The applicant request postponement to the April 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Would we be able to get a motion on this one as well?

Yes, I move to um postponed.

Move to approve the postponement of item 10 to the April 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

I'll second it.

No discussion on the motion.

I would take a vote.

You may vote.

Moving on to item number 11, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-45, an ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove a tract of land located in the southeast quarter of section 27, Township 9, North Range 2 West of the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the R1 single family dwelling district, RM2, Low Density Apartment District, RM6, Medium Density Apartment District, A2, Rural Agricultural District, and C1 local commercial district to a PUD Planned Unit Development of said city and providing for the severability thereof, Northwest Corner of Intersection of 36th Avenue Northeast and East Alameda Street Ward 6.

The applicant requests postponement to the April 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

I would take a motion.

I move to approve the postponement of item number 11 to the April 9th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

And I'll second it.

Any discussion?

If not, we can vote.

You may vote.

I'll vote.

Process 7-0.

Okay, moving on.

We are in miscellaneous discussion for planning commission and staff.

Um, just as a note for planning commission, it's just staff and um we had some visitors, so I can stay after and visit with you, but this time we'll actually just be for staff and commission's miscellaneous discussion.

Um is there any items for the staff or commission?

I don't know why you keep going to the back of the room, Laura.

I know, I'm sorry.

Um, so we got our pro housing grant, we got our action approval plan by HUD in December.

We are finally on like I'm gonna say we're 98.7% finished with the contract.

So we are hoping to have it on the March 24th uh council agenda.

So then you will be hearing from us about um meeting with the consultant team, doing some listening sessions, um you guys will be a little more hands-on involved with the zoning and subregs update in the parking study.

Um like a little more hands-on than you were with AIM.

So stand by for info on that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other uh discussions for commissioners?

Do you want to bring up any other items for the map?

This could be.

And already we cut across Alameda.

Um, if you don't have access to natural resources, you can't enjoy natural resources.

And so um, you know, I think you could say, well, why would you want this this road going across um part of the lake, uh, which is out where Alameda is?

Well, it provides some resources, it allows people to see there is a lake, and it's something to enjoy.

But if we started putting lots of roads across the lake, um then we'd start to take away from that resource.

Um tell you what, I will take people up there in a boat, um, a cell boat, so it'll be fun.

Um, and you can see what it is because if you don't go on a cell boat, you're not going to see what that part of the lake is.

Yeah.

And it's a place where people fish and people hunt and recreate.

Um, and it's not it's not a place to motorboat.

It gets too shallow up there.

Yeah.

So it's a it's a certain kind of slow recreation.

And I need time we can do it a group trip.

We can take like, oh, we can fit all of us.

It would on a sailboat.

It would be a meeting though if we have a quorum, correct?

So no, not if it's uh oh, well, this is it.

Well, okay, well then we're gonna invite the public too.

Anyone who wants to come.

We can live stream it.

Yeah.

Um I would um assume our city attorney would caution us against any open meetings act violations, but maybe small groups on multiple trips.

Okay.

Yes.

Not discussing business.

It's about seven minutes from my house, so you know.

Yeah.

Yeah, we we boat out boat out there on sailboat and we fish all the time.

Um at the same time we have livestock, and I I know like I had the worries a year ago in with those wildfire conditions.

Um, and I know people that were impacted.

So um it's one of those things as a double-edged sword.

And sometimes if it's a safety related, sometimes I'm gonna tip that way weren't most of the time, you know.

I protect the trees, the water, and my A2 land.

But yeah, I'll be with those small groups.

Any other uh com comments or miscellaneous discussion by commissioners?

Okay, if there's nothing else to come before the commission, I will declare the meeting adjourned.