Alright, everyone, we're gonna go ahead and get started.

Welcome to the Thursday, May 7th meeting of the City Council Business and Community Affairs meeting.

Today we have one item on our agenda, and that is a update and discussion regarding the scope of the plans funded by the Pro Housing Grant Award, including impacts on pre-approved plans, parking, and minimum lot size regulations.

And I believe we have a brief presentation from staff.

Yeah.

Okay, awesome.

Well slides.

No problem.

I'm here.

So I think we would just wanted kind of an update on where we are on these items.

Right.

Okay.

So as you guys know, we got the ProHusing uh grant.

So we have until September 2030 to use all of those funds, and we have four projects.

So we're starting on the first two, which is uh the zoning and subdivision regulation code update and the parking study.

So uh for the first item, the pre-approved plans, that is uh well for anyone who might not know.

Those are uh essentially like architectural plans for building permits where someone can come in and pretty much have a set ready to go.

That's kind of a design we want to see in an area.

Um so it's it's quicker, it's supposed to be like a more streamlined process and save them a little bit of design cost.

Um we will be putting for that out in the first part of 2028 according to our action plan that was approved by HUD.

So we pretty much finished the first two projects and then move into the pre-approved plans and the affordable housing action plan.

And so it's a four-year grant, if I understand that right.

Essentially, we lost a lot of time with the federal shutdowns.

Right, like that.

So three and a half year.

Okay.

Um yeah, so we did have to kind of push everything back essentially a year.

Um, and then we're giving ourselves a little bit of wiggle room at the end just to make sure we get all of our reporting finished and are totally closed out by September of 2030.

Um for parking, there's I know the uh parking maximums have been of interest, and we've discussed that before.

So our parking study, uh, they actually started collecting data last week, last Wednesday, I think, over at downtown campus corner, kind of the center city area.

We wanted to get started on data collection before school let out.

So they started that area.

Um they're gonna come visit in June, probably end of June, and then we'll do more data collection in the fall when school's back in session.

Um so we we have heard a lot about how um parking for residential can impact affordability.

So they'll be looking at um the effects of that and um just kind of looking at how parking is utilized throughout the city where there's too much pressure, maybe where it's not as much of an issue.

Um I want to say there's four study areas, like data collection areas that they'll do.

Taylors.

He's my my bud on this project.

Um so we wanted to take like a more holistic view of parking instead of just trying to pick some I just say like arbitrary or random numbers for maximums.

Maybe there's maximums we can put in place plus XYZ to really hit all the goals that we have, not just parking.

Um, and then minimum lot size.

We've talked about that a couple of times.

Um, and we did hear about it when the consultant was here this week.

Um it is radical is probably not the right word, but it is uh kind of an out there concept, a new concept.

There's not really cities around the country that have done that yet.

There's a lot that do are looking at it right now, even just with Clarion, the consultant we're working with, they said another city um that they're working with is doing no minimum lot size but a minimum lot width.

So we'll be exploring it and we'll see.

We might not end up with that.

Um, because we kind of have to balance the people who want that with people who don't.

So we might end up with the compromise somewhere, but that's the the quick rundown of where we are.

On the uh minimum lot size piece, uh my my preference uh that that be zero.

We have no minimum lot size because we have other controlling factors like frontage, lot width, there's other things that come into play that are requirements, and so I think if you're able to satisfy those set of requirements, that the overall lot size number should be there, should be no requirement there.

So that's that's kind of my approach on that one.

Um on the parking piece, and anybody chime in at any time or just giving my thoughts here.

Uh the parking piece, you know, we we abolished parking minimums a few years back, and so they're now recommendations, but those recommendations are still very bloated.

Like those numbers are still the old numbers from the 1954 zoning code, and so even though we don't have any parking minimums, I'd love to take those numbers and actually make them more based in reality.

Um, and then when we apply a maximum, I've looked at that as almost a soft cap.

So to say that yes, here is our here's our threshold for how much parking we want you to put in.

If you want to go over that, you're allowed to, but there's some fee or extra requirement that you've got to you've got to compromise, or we've got to um reconcile to base go over that soft gap.

So um customer grant.

Uh I don't hate the fee idea, but where would the fee go to?

I've always thought stormwater.

I don't disagree.

I think that's an excellent place for it to go.

Just a great way to like, hey, if you want to put in all this impervious surface, that's fine.

We've got to offset it somehow with the stormwater solution.

So let's put that money into I mean, I don't know, we don't have stormwater utility.

Ideally, that's where it would go, but uh I think just even a project by project basis.

Something even on that project, just say, hey, we're we're going over, but we're gonna provide an extra stormwater solution.

It's kind of like there's a there's a compromise there.

We'll give a take.

So if you actually had a fine that was generating money directly for stormwater.

The thing that I worry about the most on this idea is getting preempted by the state.

Well, and so I don't want to call it a tax.

I don't want to call it a well that's what I'm thinking too.

Like you kind of got an apron system kind of like the NBA does.

Right parking.

Yeah.

First apron, second apron, but then that goes directly into a stormwater something, and at that point, you could have a trust and you could issue revenue bonds on.

I mean, it would be way far out, but at least it would give a working mechanism that would, you know.

I don't know.

That's sort of that's way far away, but just a they also kind of throw around with the consultant, like maybe if you want to go over, then you have to put some of those LID techniques on your own property.

So you're you're solving the problem before it even really becomes the public problem.

Exactly.

Um that's part of the good part of doing it with like a parking expert for the consultant team.

Um there's two companies we're working with.

It's Nelson Nygard and Parcolytics.

Yes.

Um so they know all the they should have all the ideas, I think, and just kind of help us figure out what works best here and what works with our code and well, that's why I was willing to kind of punt these ideas a little bit and get it get it out of council's hands and get it to a consultant's hand to like look give us a recommendation and then we could say yes or no to that recommendation.

So customer grant.

Also, do we get to discuss uh some of the things we talked about in our small meetings with the consultants in this one?

Uh I we can, I think so, yeah.

As long as it's related to the three things on the agenda.

This would be in the housing part, because we talked about stormwater and I brought up like you know, certain parts of town are a little hampered than others when it comes to that.

And I asked maybe for like a phasing in um when zoning changes is when the infrastructure catches up.

Uh because I do want to get there and do info, but again, not having a stormwater utility fee is a big deal.

And you know, I think about the noun and how they had to over-engineer uh to address stormwater issues that have been kind of neglected, and or you've got a project on the other side of the university.

I think it's off park that wasn't done well, and so it caused extra issues.

So I think the parcel by parcel method is not it.

Right.

So I agree.

It's what we have right now, but I think we can work towards a better, like a holistic approach, like you said.

So we're holding.

Uh so minimum lot sizes.

Um I'm definitely on board with the zero, but with uh some minimum width or other ways to address it.

Um in regard to specifically new developments.

Right.

I'll just can't go back.

And in a lot of cases, it's hard to go back, but um new developments, uh that being the case.

Or, you know, we talked about just reducing it from 6,000 and I thought at the very minimum we should cut it in half for sure.

But I'm still in favor of zero when it comes to new development and just a whatever a recommended one might be.

Well, that's why I mean I I prefer zero as well because we don't know what kind of creativity the building market's gonna provide, like you know.

If we say a thousand, well, there's a there's a parameter they gotta work.

If we say zero, then that's all the creativity in the world is possible.

So I think we should allow people to um and just yes, and uh I mentioned it when we were talking to the consultants that some of our best neighborhoods, best commercial districts were developed before they were minimum lot sizes before there were any zoning.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I was like, I I'm supportive of having zoning, but generally the best parts of every city are the older the places people love the most tend to be the old parts that were developed before we tried to regulate everything.

Yeah, and that our best some of our favorite best buildings on Main Street would not be you couldn't build them today without going through this whole process and coming to city council like we've seen a couple of them do.

But those were all built and they're being used a hundred years later for businesses right now.

And so um for the for continuing to pursue that, and if if anything though, if not the full elimination at very minimum cutting it in half and going from there and seeing how that goes.

And then parking minimum, same thing.

Um did it for commercial, which I think has had a really big impact positively that we've seen.

But we've still seen some developments come forward that are that are still going with the old.

And that's and by choice, choice it's sometimes you can talk them out over, yeah.

Exactly, like um that's less pavement, less.

Um so I do want to continue to look at that, but also want to um look at expanding the allowance of street parking.

Um I've been to many bigger cities that are older also that have their arterial streets, have street parking.

Yeah, they're five lanes wide, they've got they've got high moving traffic, but they have parallel parking on both sides of them.

Yeah, and some of them they use those as lanes when they're not there, like there's only parking allowed in certain times, and then other times that's a travel lane, and then after a certain time it's parking and it's parallel parking.

And it's on a street like West Lindsay Street or West Main Street or 36, it's on main roads.

Northwest 23rd Nokia City is like that.

We don't have to limit parking to just parking lots.

I think we can expand street parking to all streets in more than uh well, you know, for the relative matter.

But uh, but yes, so that being a thing, so maybe we're not relying so much.

Businesses aren't relying on individual single parking lots if there's more publicly available street parking options, like we do in Center City where we say you can absolutely count your thing toward you you put the street parking in, and even though it's not guaranteed it becomes public, you that can still count towards your thing.

So continue to explore that.

Well, and the on-street parking, you know, it provides a lot of extra benefits aside just from the parking space.

I mean, just having the buffer with the sidewalk.

Absolutely, there's a lot of added some of those more suburban areas of Norman where it's big wide street and there's a little s tiny sidewalk up next to it and there's a parking lot and it feels really uncomfortable to walk.

Well, what if there was street parking?

That would make those areas much more comfortable for people to be walking about.

Right.

I think, and potentially do some traffic calming, perhaps.

Yeah, force help reduce some of the severe accidents, crashes that we see at major intersections in Norman, which we all know about.

Um so very interested in not just parking minimums and or maximums, but expanding where we think about parking and especially street parking.

And then um I understand what Council Marinka was kind of getting at, or like so aren't able to do a utility yet, but like a stormwater trust where we can at least that's the dedicated fund for stormwater.

It has just to get something off the ground, and then maybe that and that could turn into the utility if voters ever are willing to be interested in that, and that's where all stormwater funds go into, and we know where it's going out, and I think that could be well.

You know, if it's in a if we're looking at some doing a stormwater upgrade that's in a TIFF district, then we can use the TIFF as the backstop for the financing, and then the bonds get issued on like a tenure basis where we don't have to start paying until year eight.

So it gives it eight years of time for money to build up before we're actually making principal and interest payments back on the bond.

So it's kind of it would be kind of a way to back into something like that.

But we've seen that model be pretty useful on some of the other projects that we wanted to do.

And if it's generating revenue and it's not a general obligation bond that we have to tax people on, then we would get more support.

Already dedicated to it from the general fund.

And then any fees that we get from stormwater.

Right.

So I like that idea, actually.

So the only flaw in it is that you know those kind of projects are not a consistent, it's not a consistent revenue, like parking fees would be daily churn.

Well, but if you're talking about having an apron system and you got new development, people want to pay a luxury price a luxury tax for parking, then after six months you can annualize what that is generating based on the projected development.

Like there's all sorts of things that will go into that.

Um I think that's uh you know a good stepping stone idea and a way to get just to get something get farther down the road.

I think everybody agrees that you know a stormwater utility is a must.

I mean it's it's pr basically a requirement at this point.

We've got to do those so um getting it done by another name, I think is it may be easier to to have a trust and a fund where it's got money already in it to get voters to be like, well, there's already skin in the gives them seat.

Yeah.

I see Beth.

You have thoughts?

I I just want to make sure we stick into the agenda.

Uh gotcha.

All right, housing parkings.

It's parking, it's it's parking.

Yeah, the housing part is.

Thank you though.

Can you imagine just pulling up on Alameda and parking your car on the curb?

Like right in front of little Caesars and just going to do some.

Um with the pre-approved plans, are we talking essentially pattern zoning or pattern book type of plans?

Uh pattern book, yeah.

Okay.

Uh I think we decided to forego the zoning piece of it and just kind of make it a program at itself.

Yeah.

Um, so we're talking patterns for like ADUs.

Would it are we we'll probably pick a couple like go for a couple design types for like maybe three typologies?

We'll we'll probably start pretty small because it'll be I mean the we don't have a whole lot of funding for it, and we obviously can't really go over.

Um so would it be like detached, attached, and or probably like an ADU a duplex and maybe like a triplex or something, showing people how they can do it in a design that we like.

And when you say an RFP, I'm sorry, we finished.

Oh, yeah, Q.

So you were saying like an ADU does it when you say that like your funding or limited by the typology.

I so within the ADU would it be like attached, detached, and if it was a duplex, it'd be like this is what a duplex can look like when it's a duplex, or it could be um kind of like what we saw.

I forget the name of the mats, but oh uh Matt Petty and Matt Hoffman.

What was their business called?

That part.

So we always say the mats because I'm just thinking about how they had flexibility in those designs.

Uh are we talking like patterns, a pattern book like that that supports kind of, but it won't be as expensive, probably because it also comes with like the internal process.

So the all of the money won't go just to the designs.

We'll also have to kind of gotcha.

It's that money goes away quickly.

Um and after going to sessions at a few conferences about it, it's and Logan's actually going to is it CMU next week in Arkansas.

There's like a whole day about this.

So Logan on the planning staff is gonna go and that crazy.

Um try to go.

So anyway, after listening, it a lot of people who have this already, it's kind of if you start with too much, it's just unwieldy.

Yeah, and um, it's just it it's a big undertaking.

Um but that isn't to say like you start small and then maybe in another budget cycle might add to it.

Yeah, yeah.

So uh I'm trying to think where it is where they're on they literally call it like 2.0.

I can't remember where it is now.

But they're on their second phase of it.

Okay, Claremore?

Maybe or Guthrie.

I remember they had done maybe one up there.

I feel like country's got a pattern book too.

It's probably clear more.

And what council member grants referring you're referring to like a modular setup where like you know, you could have an ADU, but then if you stack two of those ADs together, you get a duplex.

You've stack three.

You can stack two on top of each other.

There's it's like a kit of parts almost where you can start combining different maybe pre-approved there yet.

Because we gotta get through the other two first.

But yeah.

Well, when you describe RFP, what it what do you mean exactly by that?

Who is the who would be we'd be seeking proposals from?

Hopefully local architecture.

Okay, so that's it's not a consultant that's gonna come in and do that piece.

It would be we'll see.

It might have to be kind of a hybrid combo, but we admittedly have not written that yet.

No, I understand.

Yeah.

Because we want to make sure it's stuff that also kind of supports the new code.

Sure.

So I won't be sitting in this chair in 2028, so it's our goal for it to be more local.

I would be great.

That would be great.

I think that would be good too because local would understand what the challenges are.

And we've seen again just at conferences, but like somewhere a city hired someone to do this and it was where it snows a lot, and they didn't design for like snow loads and stuff, so they were unusable.

Yeah.

So I think that's it.

Why you have to have local.

Yeah.

So awesome.

All right.

Is there anything else for anybody?

Uh catch up.

So where would I go to find that that agreement that came back from you got the grant?

This is the scope.

Does that make sense?

Uh like our action plan that got approved.

I imagine it's a promise for promise, right?

We submitted an application.

Yeah.

So yes.

And or but, I don't remember when they came back and there was an agreement when that was that's on our website.

Uh it's on the if you go through the C D BG pages, there's a pro housing page.

Pretty much everything we've done is posted there.

And so this particular grant was worth like a year ago.

Yeah, we got the award uh January of last year, maybe February, and we didn't get under contract until was that September or December.

So that's what September maybe?

With HUD was approved in December of 25.

And we signed a contract with HUD in like September, maybe.

I can't remember what I think.

I can't remember exactly.

Sorry, I should know that.

I don't remember.

It's been a while.

It has been a while.

Yes, and then the action plan took like forever because they were closed and we're rolling, here we go.

Well, we went, you know, Councilmember Bruce, just so you have the history, and when we went through the whole aim process, um, that's what we kept hearing from the consultant over and over is that it's great if you do this comprehensive plan, but if you don't do those the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations as a companion piece, it's basically like you didn't do anything.

So right now we've got a lot of conflict between the comp plan and our zoning ordinance and trying to reconcile the two, essentially with this grant.

Yeah, I get the the the zoning and the parking, and there are two other areas.

You mentioned affordable housing, I think it's the third.

Yeah, there's uh so we're doing the zoning and subregs and then a parking study, an affordable housing action plan and the pre-approved plan book.

Okay.

And then and then you know, from for my background, grants DOD.

It's very specific.

You gotta produce this product.

Best faith effort.

I mean, and best faith effort.

So when when that didn't happen, that grant would be reflected on for future grants.

Does that make sense?

And I don't even know the oversight program related to hey if we get a report card at the end of a grant from the you know, the housing department about okay, they got an A on this one.

So we can put past performance release the grants, where you can give them a plus, that common when it comes time for next year or the year after, or whatever grant we may have.

That makes sense.

I don't know that rule.

Uh I don't did they do things like that with HUD?

Do you know?

Terra's back there.

Are you talking do you talk about the compliance and the in-product?

Anytime the federal government gives uh contracts or grants, there's a past performance criteria, usually in this mandate.

You have to look at the past performance of that organization as it relates or reflect with the the funds you gave them.

And that's used for future terminations with awards.

So if you perform poorly on a grant, and if the if the agency's doing their job, they'll say no, they're not getting another one.

Is that does that make sense?

Yeah, and our deliberals for these are the plans, and as far as further than that, I don't know what HUD will ask of us yet.

Yeah.

So they should share that, share that.

Hey, your your past performance rating for that, you know, in the aggregate for your grants or individual grant.

This is your you received.

Because you're gonna get a path performance rating related to future grants.

Yeah.

Yeah, no, I get what you're saying.

And I think we've been really successful in getting CDBG money and HUD money.

And so I think we've I don't want to I I would guess the track record is something on 30 years.

Uh how long have we been getting dollars?

CDBG money since 1975.

Okay, so funds since the 90s.

But we are entitlements, so we don't apply for those.

This grant, this pro housing grant, um, pathways to removing obstacles to housing, what is one we actually applied for.

So since I've been here, this is the first one that you know we went out and sought.

Um, but we were so excited with you know the aim process, and we wanted to keep that momentum going, and so uh staff wanted to apply for this.

So um we'll have to see as the process goes what they say, I guess.

And this was the second year they've done this program, so we're kind of the second batch of guinea pigs for yeah, the HUD Pro housing has been cut in half almost.

So um a lot of the HUD staff is new as well.

So usually on a grant, you'll have your grant administrator, and it'll be a name, and then you can call the questions on your grant, and so it can take her a month to get back to us.

And there are quarterly reports, right?

So HUD will be updated quarterly by Tara.

Yeah, I have to do quarterly reports, and uh it takes her about a quarter to get to them.

I should have laughed at that.

Good.

It's a good data point to have if you have grants and money's coming, you know, they're gonna be an assessment on performance, so how is that used in the future for sure?

Well, we want to make sure that we uh can secure as many of these grant opportunities in the future as possible.

So I agree wholeheartedly, you got knock this one out of the park.

So I think uh I've got full faith and trust in city staff.

I've seen you guys work miracles before, so I think I'm good.

Roman, were you did you have something you want to say?

Okay, I saw the hand going up.

I don't know if it was a good meeting with the consultants the other night.

Okay.

About we talked a lot about zoning, so and uh how that relates to affordable housing and uh density and sales tax generation, more people, less infrastructure obligation.

Yep, is the direction that we need to go.

I agree.

Yeah, the consultants seemed like they were very on top of things, less expensive infrastructure obligations, more people, yeah.

Yeah, it's a great way to put it.

This is good, awesome.

Well, I just wanted to get everybody an update on those things.

I know we've talked about them several times over the years, but now that we've got a consultant that is actually lean the charge on this, um, I think we should get to some good stuff here pretty soon.

Awesome.

We should have our existing code assessment.

Um probably end of the summer.

Okay.

So it'll be posted for the public to check out, and we will keep you informed.

Excited.

Love it.

Thank you very much.

All right, if there's uh nothing else, this meeting is adjourned.

All right, so