Okay, five thirty PM.

I'm gonna call the meeting to order.

If I could please have a roll call by staff.

Commissioner Brewer.

Here.

Commissioner McCowan?

Here.

Commissioner Jablonski?

Here.

Commissioner Byrd.

Here.

Commissioner McClure?

Commissioner Griffith?

Commissioner Kindle?

Here.

Commissioner Parker?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Starting with our consent items.

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

Planning commission meeting minutes of April 9th, 2026.

And item number two, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment and or postponement of SFP-2526-2.

Consideration of a short form plat submitted by Russell Ventures LLC for 2710 36th Avenue Northwest for 0.49 acres of property generally located one quarter mile north of West Rock Creek Road on the west side of 36th Avenue Northwest.

2710 36th Avenue Northwest Ward 8.

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

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

Seeing none, I would take a motion on our consent items.

Motion to approve.

Second.

And a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Motion passes.

Moving on to non-consent items.

We'll read items three, four, and five together.

Item number three, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-48.

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 lying in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section two, Township 8, North Range 2, West of the Indian Meridian to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from PL Parkland District, and place the same in R1 single family dwelling district of said city and providing for the severability thereof.

Near Wiltshire and Arcady Avenue, Ward 5.

Item number 4, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or postponement of PP 2526-16.

Consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Shaz Investment Group LLC for Bellatana Edition for 104.49 acres of property located near Wiltshire Drive in Arcady Avenue, Ward 5.

And item number 5, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment and or a postponement of ordinance 0-2526-49.

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 lying in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 2 Township 8, North Range 2, West of the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from R1 single family dwelling district and place the same in PL Parkland District of said city and providing for the severability thereof near Wiltshire Drive and Arcady Avenue Ward 5.

I would take the staff presentation.

So I'll read them together.

And the third item is the companion rezoning request from the City of Norman requesting rezoning from R1 to Parkland District for the existing Bentley Park area, which was constructed and accepted by the city in 2023 and satisfies the parkland requirements for the development.

Uh which modified the park location, but at that time a rezoning request was not completed.

So essentially these requests are to align the zoning map, the preliminary plat, and the current site conditions.

Here is a zoomed-out aerial that shows the complete plat area.

And here are a couple of current pictures of Bentley Park.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff by commission?

Seeing none, I wouldn't take the applicant presentation.

Good evening.

I will go pretty fast because I think that Jonah pretty much covered everything.

But here is an aerial of the entire plot property.

You can see the areas that have already been developed out, as well as Bentley Park, and then the remaining development area.

And here is a slide stolen from Sean's presentation in 2013 that shows that park location being changed.

And then here's the zoning.

You can see that the entire neighborhood area is zoned R1, and then that piece is on the west side is the park.

And then here is the zoning with the city's park overlay.

So it's kind of hard to see on this screen, maybe, but the park is shown in that light green, and then what's actually zoned is shown in the dark green.

And then aim matches with the actual park location.

And so this is really just a little ask to clean up that zoning leftover piece.

And then aerials of Bentley Park.

You can see that green slide where it's zoned, and then where the actual park improvements are.

And so then the request just to kind of explain, make sure you know what you're voting on.

Item three is to change the parkland to R1, which is the light green, um, where the lots are shown on the plat.

And then I've an item four is the plat, and then item five is the dark green, which is currently zoned R1, and then change that to parkland.

And so here's the preliminary plat that we're updating.

The previous one expired, and so that's how kind of all this was caught.

And so that's kind of our ask.

I'll have happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions by commission of the applicant?

Yes, I'd like to uh ask a real quick question.

So the old park space is it is it I guess the same size as what is the existing park space?

There's been no rule of change on that.

Yeah, I think in 2013, when the plat and zoning went through last time, they changed the location of the park.

Um, but it still satisfies both the requirements for Bellatona and um Summit Valley to the West.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Can I just ask a question about the connectivity getting from Lindsay Street to Highway 9?

If this is built out as proposed, potentially if there was an accident, for example, at 36th and Lindsay Street.

Could neighbors on the east side be able to go through that neighborhood to be able to get out alternatively to Highway 9.

Yes, Chris, the engineer says yes.

Okay.

I bring that up because we had some significant issues with the tornado damage and servicing areas out there.

So potentially I could see that being, you know, although it's additional density and additional traffic, it does give an extra egress point.

So thank you.

Any other questions by commission for the applicant?

Okay.

Seeing none, I would move to audience comments, and we do have some comments for this item, starting with Norman Davis.

So you'll come up, say your name and your address.

You'll have three minutes.

If you'd like a 30-second warning before your time is up, let me know.

Otherwise, I'll give you the full time, and then thank you for your comments when you're okay.

Thank you for letting us be here.

Um, Norman Davis, um, I'm in the track just west of the where the exit goes on to Lindsay up there.

I have that those three sex, those three lots or areas.

Um my big concern is the water issue.

Um we have a tremendous amount of runoff in this area.

It uh on a topo map, it goes from about a half a mile to a mile up on both sides.

It all comes down to where our creek is where the uh uh the right just east or west of that area, and uh it's part of that wetland, and that creek runs all the way through there.

When we get any kind of rain, it really feels up big.

Comes all the way up to our property line in the backyard, and um I know when they start to go across that from from that addition to Lindsay, they've got to flatten that put plateau off, and it's gonna run towards the west or it's gonna run towards the east.

That's the only way it can go.

And we're already got a lot, a lot of water.

And uh I have talked to several people about it.

We've got multiple pictures w of what it is right now.

And uh I really feel like I know on the other 80 acres they had a problem with with the water issue as well.

And uh about you wanting to get that addition put in.

And um, you know, we know things can be worked, but at the same time we have to take accountability of of the property owners just to the side of excuse me, side of those areas, and we're right against it.

So it's very important to us.

Uh we've been there almost 30 years, and back then I was out in the country, now I'm in the middle of town, so it's really I've grown.

Also, I'm really concerned about the traffic.

Lindsay Street has just boomed lately with all the additions, the schools, uh you name it, it's all been out there, and uh it's getting very, very congested on Lindsay Street, and this will add to that as well as the turnpike.

So those are our major concerns.

Um like I said, we have a uh almost a flooding situation as it is.

We built terraces in our fields and stuff to try to deter the water to the lowest away, away from our home and away from the barns and things like that, but at the same time, there's only so much you can do with that much water coming through there.

Okay.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Billy Jewel.

And then same thing, three minutes.

Let me know if you'd like a 30-second warning.

Start by saying your name and address, please.

Billy Jewell, 5201 Rustic Acres Trail.

I'm in Ward 5.

My biggest concern on this whole deal is we've got investors coming in here building houses, and our city is running out of water.

We're running out of electric.

We got an unsightly electric substation being built right next to my neighbor's house because OEC says we're out of electric.

We have to build this.

What are you gonna tell the city, the citizens that already live here in Norman?

Oh, sorry, we built too many houses and we don't have any water.

Do we have a plan, a future plan for what we're gonna do with water and sewer and electric?

Or we just gonna keep building until we fall down around ourselves.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments for these items?

Okay, seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion or any other questions that commission may have.

I'd like to get uh the applicant to look at the stormwater issue.

Um I'd like to know, Chris, if you've what your thoughts are with that, and I didn't quite follow along where the gentleman's property was specifically.

Um my concern I guess is if there's gonna, you know, with more houses that are in the area, if there's runoff, is it gonna create situations for liability on his part if it's coming off of so I I wasn't quite following, but yeah, Chris Anderson with SMC Consulting Engineers, and we were at the uh pre-development meeting, and the gentleman was there and expressed his concerns about uh runoff on his property.

He's just to the west of the the neck that goes up to Lindsay Street, and so they've got a low area that comes through there where we have our property there, the north-south street.

We're gonna pick up the majority of that water will come south and then back west into the the open space area there where we'll uh deal with the tension in that area.

Okay, so everything is coming.

We're not putting everything that's gonna affect this property is coming off of his, and we're not putting anything back into his or no, we there is a part that drains toward him, but we are intercepting that and taking it south and then back to the west, so around his property.

There may be some of the backyards there that go towards his property, but uh we will take care of that that area.

Okay.

When you talk about intercepting, could you clarify a little bit more how that gets the the road pattern we'll we'll we'll pick it up and if we need to we'll have a storm sewer in there to take it take it that way.

Thank you.

I have a question for city staff.

Is now a good time.

Yes.

Um so my question is about recourse, you know.

Um I think it's Eagle Cliff that has these chronic problems with stormwater runoff, and so I'm sensitive to you know, by the way, I'm pro-development.

Pattern we'll we'll we'll pick it up and if we need to we'll have a storm sewer in there to take it take it that way thank you I have a question for city staff is now a good time yes um so my question is about recourse you know um I think it's Eagle Cliff that has these chronic problems with stormwater runoff and so I'm sensitive to you know by the way I'm pro-development you know the city needs more houses we need this um but I'm sensitive to developers coming in changing the shape of the land and then making it someone else's problem um you know I live in Summit Lakes we have this problem you know everyone has had to pay about a thousand dollars because developers came in they modify the land which is fine you have to do this when you develop but then uh they walk away and they live leave the people living there to to foot the bill and so I mean I'm in the abstract I support this you know I think this looks you know like good development you know I like that big park you all know you know I'm always you know beating that drum you know how our kids gonna find a park to go to this looks great but um I don't want to support development if we aren't ready to talk about what's what's going on in 20 years so my question for staff is what recourse does this gentleman have if um the water situation changes and he's getting flooded out more in 10 15 years than he is today hi my name's Beth Makala assistant city attorney um if you're speaking in terms of legal recourse what we're here to do today is look and see if they have met the standards that are in place that's what our staff does and that'll be set out in the staff report so to the extent that what they have done is is meeting the standards that meets their public obligations here whether there's a private right of action I don't know and I wouldn't advise on that but that's where that would go I think you answered my question.

Okay thank you you're welcome uh I had one more question for Chris with the applicant try to catch you before you made it back but um not trying to pick apart words but the there you mentioned that um the roadway will catch the water and then additional stormwater drainage will be put in if needed um what stage of the development process is does that happen is that post development or is that no is that a staff directive yeah no that's right now we're at the preliminary plat stage and as you can see we've already done five final plats in in this preliminary plat.

So the next step would be where the next area is to do a final plat and a set of construction plans and a detailed drainage report that has to be reviewed by the city engineer and their staff and approved before any construction can can go forward.

Okay thank you yeah thank you any other discussion from planning commission if none I would take a motion on this item make a motion to approve second I would like to discuss the item okay we will move to the discussion on the motion thank you um I live thanks I I think we need more houses but I want to reiterate that my understanding of the current lay of the land with the city is if we do development in Norman and this guy gets flooded out then it's just tough luck for him that the the the procedures and processes that we have in place in the city just offer him no protection and I don't want to hold up development for one man but I also don't want to make a problem for this man.

So I think the right the right time and place to fix this is on the front end and I'm not I don't know what that solution looks like but right now I don't think we have a any solution to work with and so it makes it really hard to support um it makes it really hard to support development that will cause future problems or it looks like it has a strong potential to cause future problems.

Like I said I want to support this but I think that we need to get a handle on stormwater management.

That's all thank you.

Thank you any other discussion on the motion okay if there's none I would take a vote you may vote all votes have been cast motion passes six to one with Commissioner Jablonsky voting against moving on to next item numbers six and seven item number six consideration of approval acceptance rejection amendment and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-50 and ordinance of the council of the city of Norman Oklahoma amending section 36-201 of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove a tract of land part of the southeast quarter of section 13 township nine north range three west of the Indian meridian to Norman Cleveland County Oklahoma from C2 General Commercial District and place the same in Spud Simple Planned Unit Development District of said city and providing for the severability thereof near the northeast corner of the intersection of North Flood Avenue and West Rock Creek Road Ward 8

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, part of the southeast quarter of section 13 Township 9, North Range 3 West of the Indian Meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from C2 General Commercial District and place the same in SPUD simple planned unit development district of said city and providing for the severability thereof.

Near the northeast corner of the intersection of North Flood Avenue and West Rock Creek Road, Ward 8.

And item number seven, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment and or postponement of PP 2526-17 preliminary plat submitted by Cradle Investments LLC for Dolisi North for 4.32 acres of property located near the northeast corner of the intersection of North Flood Avenue and West Rock Creek Road, Ward 8.

I would take the staff presentation.

All right.

Laura Hoggett with the planning department.

So we have an application from Cradle Investments LLC for a simple planned unit development and a preliminary plat for approximately 4.32 acres.

On the east side of flood, uh a bit north of Rock Creek Road.

So it is currently zone C2 and surrounded to the north, east, and south with I2.

And then to the west is A2.

That's uh Westheimer Airport.

The current character area is corridor with some um protected and sensitive area on the north side.

There is no development proposed in this area.

And then to the west is uh no character area because it's state owned land, and then future land use is job center, uh to the northeast and the south, and then uh civic for the airport on the west.

The land is currently vacant.

Uh here's an aerial showing you can kind of see even like with the tree line where the WQPZ area is uh here's an aerial just looking at the land, it's just raw land, and then looking north and looking south on flood.

Uh here's a copy of the preliminary plat.

And then the site development plan.

The they're proposing mostly commercial uh uses with uh billboard.

Uh and the applicant is here with the presentation and I'm available for questions as well.

Thank you.

Are there any questions by commission for the staff?

Thank you.

Um the first is can you remind me about the the city's rules on billboards?

Um do you have your sign code?

And it might be related to my second question, which is what are we getting out of a spUD that we aren't getting with C2?

So the question is like why the zoning change.

Sorry, I didn't bring my third giant binder with me.

Um they can be in C2 and I2, but it depends on the road classification and their proximity to I-35.

Um, also they're requesting 600 per side, and on an arterial close to I-35, you can only have 300 square feet on each side.

So what was your second question?

I'm sorry.

What are you getting from a SPUD versus C2?

Uh I think pretty much the billboard here.

But the applicant can also answer.

Follow up to that.

Um so the 300 per side is allowable by right.

Is that right?

It depends how you read the code.

We were looking at it earlier.

The very first part of off-premise signage, which is a billboard, says uh permitted only on parcels abutting interstate highway 35 and within 660 feet from the center line of 35.

Um, but then as you go on, it goes into street classifications.

So we've interpreted it as you have to be within that proximity, and then it's the street classifications.

So you have to be on 35.

I might be oversimplifying that, but they're too far east.

The inclusion of a billboard.

If they were included, billboard, they would have to come back.

If they were included billboard, they would have to come back, they would have to get a spud either way.

Is that to include a billboard?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

And I don't expect you to know this answer.

Maybe the applicant does or nobody does.

But the what is the size of a billboard, typical billboard on I-35?

Uh off I-35, it they're allowed up to 672 square feet on each side.

Sorry, Jane was motioning.

So, but also I just think I want to clarify.

We've actually had a couple applications come forward to uh Board of Adjustments to get a variance on that square footage.

So I can't tell you exactly what they are, but it's pretty close to that.

But we have had variances on them.

For the I-35 billboard.

This is another one of our codes that's in need of an update.

Any other questions for staff before we take the applicant presentation?

Okay, seeing none, we'll take the applicant presentation.

Sorry.

All right, good evening, Commissioners.

Matt Peacock here with Peacock Design.

Um, joined tonight with our civil engineer Steve Rollins in the audience.

So if you have any questions for civil, we can address those.

Uh Ms.

Hoggett actually did a pretty solid job on the presentation here, so I'm just gonna go through it pretty quickly.

Um you guys are already seeing this.

This is the aerial showing uh the existing zoning, which is C2 surrounded by I2.

Uh Max Westheimer to the west there, uh, existing aim is corridor.

So here's a close-up of the aerial.

Uh you've got images on the right looking north, looking south along Flood Avenue.

Uh and this is two items tonight.

Uh the first one is the spud, and the second was the preliminary plat, but I'm gonna cover the plat first because it's more straightforward.

Uh here's it here's the preliminary plat.

It's currently unplatted lot of uh 4.32 acres, as was mentioned.

Uh it's got partial coverage of a stream planning corridor that will become WQPZ upon adoption.

Uh this actually to the south of the lot, there is the runway protection zone for Max Westheimer.

But as you can see, all our development is outside of the RPZ and the WPQZ.

Sorry, it's a lot of P's and Zs.

Um, it's gonna have five office buildings, office warehouse buildings, um, approximately 113 parking spaces, uh 51% impervious area coverage, 14 new trees are being planned.

Uh the primary entrance and exit is off Flood Avenue.

Uh it'll actually have a shared access drive with the platted lot to the south, and you can see on the screen there's two more additional office warehouse buildings uh just south of the property line.

Uh all the surrounding uses are currently very um comparable to what we're proposing.

Uh basically about 90% of what's already over here is the office warehouse, with some of it being a little more industrial than what we're proposing, but still very much in the vein of uh what we're proposing.

Uh we had a traffic impact memo put together on this.

Um TEC found that there was no traffic control or geometric roadway improvements recommended as a result of the proposed development.

And here's the spud.

Uh as was mentioned, you know, we're we're allowed to do everything that we're asking for here by right except for the billboard.

Uh the applicant saw the opportunity on this site to include a billboard and felt it was appropriate asked because if you look uh here on Flood Avenue, you see the three stars.

Those are actually already existing billboards, and ours would be a fourth one uh up in the upper left corner of the screen.

So you can see on the right about what the scale looks like for these billboards.

Um the top image is the existing one, and the lower image is the the one we're proposing.

So, you know, again, very comparable to what is existing already.

Uh and I'll mention that this project had nobody show up at pre-development and nobody uh protesting.

So with that, I'll just answer any questions.

Mr.

Peacock, could you please show us on your site plan where the billboard would be oriented?

Is it at what that star there?

And it would be uh perpendicular to the road it just from your assessment.

It does look like it is a little closer to flood street than the other three examples on there.

Go back real quick.

So yes and no.

Um the most southern billboard is actually about the same distance, but as you get further north, flood pulls away from the railroad track.

So perceived distance is a little little greater as you go north.

Thank you.

Can on the example one that you have there, is this exact the red one is your site correct and where it would kind of fit in?

Yes.

Is the picture that you have in the top right uh the furthest south one?

Do you know?

I believe it is.

I believe uh the building in the background is the big white square that's right there on the site plan, just north of the first star.

Thanks for the perspective on that.

I jumped in.

I apologize.

Is there any other questions for the applicant by commission?

Yeah, just real quick, and you have verified that there's no additional issues with the airport or so it does not encroach upon any of the um the flight plan or anything like that.

No, we've worked closely with the FAA to get approval on everything we're proposing.

We submitted building corner heights, billboard heights, and everything, so they're they're on board with what we're looking at.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions by commission for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing none, I will move to any audience comments.

Seeing none, we can move to planning commission discussion.

I'll just say thank you.

Um I'm not a fan of digital billboards.

You know, I feel like you know, my life is my attention is constantly under assault, you know, from from lots of stimuli.

And I just don't see how this is value added for the city, to be honest.

But the development um I'm a big fan of the is uh it may have been said, but is this a digital billboard?

Yes.

Is there openness from the applicant to not be a digital billboard?

I think that would be under consideration.

Uh we wanted to ask for the best case scenario, uh, but obviously a spUD being a negotiation of sorts, uh, I think we would entertain you know what it would take to get it approved.

I will just say for my own discussion point on here that I do see that it is in line with existing development in that industrial kind of corridor.

Um I I think that it does make sense, but also those example billboards are not digital, and I would potentially be in favor of a non-digital approval of in the PU.

I will absolutely take that back to my applicant and see if we can work with it.

With that, is there still a request to move forward with a motion for recommendation or potentially any recommendations to that to the proposal?

Or would it be make sense to postpone for any reason?

Uh we were kind of under a timeline, and so I would I would hate to postpone without getting the blessing of my applicant first.

Um so I think we'd prefer just uh an up or down vote tonight.

And I will say that if you have heartburn with the billboard piece uh and you feel like you need to reject the spud, please still uh try to approve the plat.

I don't think our just real quick, uh is there a differentiation in any of our codes or that would parse out a digital versus a traditional you think inside of our inside of our code or or um um design code or anything like that?

Sorry.

Yes, there's just regular billboard and then there's the digital okay.

But uh are there any requirements to in order to get digital versus a regular?

I mean what what are the what are the specifications?

All the uh like placement requirements still stand is just extra like you can only be so bright and things like that.

Okay, so it's just the functionality of the billboard.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, they uh there's uh prohibition against flashing images, moving images, it's got to be static on the screen, I think for 10 seconds.

Um so it's not it's designed or protect the the idea is that the billboard is not as intrusive as Commissioner Bolonski.

But but that is planned to fit the requirements of the city.

Okay.

Yes, we actually copy the requirements into the SPUD documents of the part of the SPUD.

So if I'm understanding the applicant's asking that we vote on items six and seven independently.

Yes.

Any more discussion?

I think there's no problem, especially as votes may be different to vote on items six and seven separately.

Are there any other discussions regarding the platically?

Okay.

Um I'd like to go ahead and move forward with taking uh a motion for the plat item number six.

I'll move two proof.

Um I think platform.

Sorry, seven.

Oh, wrong one.

Sorry, seven.

Thank you.

Thanks for clarifying.

Well, I guess we should probably do six first because it's in order.

Any other discussion about the billboard and the spUD?

Yes, I I think I need I'd I'd like to say if there is a if there is a tendency not to want digital billboards, then that needs to be placed into our overall design code.

Uh just because I have a preference that I don't like digital billboards, it's not what I'm here for.

So if the applicant is conforming to what our design codes are stating, then it's not I don't feel like it's my place to say here and say I'd prefer you to have a different one.

So that's for me, I will be in favor of what the request is.

Um I may not like it, but I'll be in favor of it.

I I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um can I get some clarity from the city staff?

Um does the this billboard doesn't comply with our existing rules for billboards, is that right?

It's off by size and placement.

I just want to make I agree with what my commissioner is saying.

So I I wanna I want to make sure I understand how this billboard fits in with the landscape of billboards and Norman.

So it should it it's supposed to be if we're gonna have a billboard along 35 and it's not, and um if it were in the city, can it exist as a smaller size?

Is that correct?

And that size is about half as big?

Thank you.

Follow-up to that, is there if if it if it was allowable in the city, would it would it be required additional approval to be digital or not?

That's a good question.

Say that again.

If if it if we they complied with what was allowable within the city limits, uh would you be able to approve a digital billboard, or is that require a additional um permissions, I guess, approvals.

Can any billboard be digital?

Yeah.

Yes.

Uh can it be a digital billboard?

Yeah.

As long as it needs on the editing.

So whether it's a digital okay digital is just like we're like he said, it's the brightness, no flashing, things like that.

Okay.

Excellent questions by commissioners.

I appreciate it.

The distinction I have with this is that it's not allowable and it's a larger size, and so I I I hear what you're saying, but also um we have discretion as far as if we're gonna allow a dill a billboard, then I think we can recommend make a recommendation as to what is included on that billboard, what type of billboard it is, I guess.

So um that's my heart burn.

I don't like billboards, but there's precedent for that, and if there's precedent for it, then I'd rather follow what's existing there than veer further outside of what's not allowable.

Can I ask a question for staff too on one of the other existing non-conforming billboards that are there?

Could they be converted to a digital billboard at any point?

Uh if they're legal nonconforming, they can't change.

Okay.

And just to remind you, if you will, you can add conditions.

So you could say we want it to be X number of square feet or not digital or as part of your motion.

Yeah, I don't I don't have a problem with the size based on the applicant's presentation that this is comparable to existing size.

So that's my if this was larger than existing billboards along there, then I'd probably push back on that a little more so it's less about the size and more about the type.

I agree.

Um seeking variance is one of the things we need to look at is what's already existing.

Does it fit in or is it gonna stand out?

And I think it should be more uniform.

Um its application for what it's what it'll look like and its variance.

Sorry, I have one more question for staff.

If you all know the the three billboards to the south, were those part of past spUDs.

Not to my knowledge, I think they're or they grandfathered.

I'm going to go.

Because of the railroad track.

Are they large?

Do we even know?

I'm so many questions.

I hate to give you the wrong information.

I don't know the answers to those right off the top of my head.

And our uh sign person is not here.

Uh it doesn't go down right now.

I hate to say the wrong thing, so I'm hesitant to answer here.

I'd have to look at that up.

Just a point of clarification.

I think the first one coming going south on the west side is actually digital.

It's not as big, but I do think it's digital.

Wait, these are all on the east.

This is on the east one.

Yeah, you're thinking of one of the frankly.

Yes.

Okay.

So we we do have digital on flood, though.

Yep.

Okay.

And that one is very close to 35 too.

And it's proximity.

I'll reiterate that I feel pretty comfortable with a billboard of comparable size to existing billboards, but in an existing kind of same style as being a non-digital.

So should a motion exist to approve conditioned to it being a non-digital billboard?

I would be in favor of that.

Sorry, I might have missed it.

Do we know the size of these three billboards?

Are they all I think these billboards were brought up thankfully because the applicant gave us these for context?

So I wouldn't expect the city to know those offhand, but yeah, I think we the picture is probably the best.

He has a size comparison there to kind of give a sense of this billboard to an existing billboard.

Does the applicant happen to know the size of those other billboards?

Thank you.

I should have asked.

We will have that information for the council presentation.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there's no other discussion, I would take a motion for our billboard item, spUD item number six.

Thank you again for clarifying the order earlier.

I will make a motion to approve as make a motion to approve uh as presented, but the billboard be non-digital.

Is there a second to second that?

Would you accept a friendly amendment that the size be in line with the existing billboards?

Yeah.

I don't know what we do there.

Would would you like to withdraw your motion and make a new motion?

I will withdraw my motion.

Do I need a second?

I withdraw my second.

Okay.

I will make I will make an amended motion.

Uh to approve as presented conditioned upon the billboard being non-digital and in line with surrounding billboards.

Existing non-conforming along flood?

Yeah.

Existing non-conforming long flood billboards.

I second that.

Okay.

Is there any other discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Moving on to item number seven.

We um already heard the item.

So is there any other discussion for item number seven?

The plat.

If not, I would take a motion on this item.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion on the motion?

And if none, then I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Moving on to item number eight, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection, amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-58 and ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of chapter 36 of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove lots 19 and 20 in block 3D Larsha's first edition to the City of Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, according to the recorded plat thereof from CCFBC Center City Forum Based Code District, Urban Residential Frontage, and place the same in CCPUD center city planned unit development and providing for the severality thereof.

126 West Apache Word 4.

Take the staff presentation.

Good evening.

No, I'm not.

Okay, yes, I am.

Okay.

Hold on just a moment here.

Uh Ana East Star in the planning department here at the City of Norman.

Let me get this up to now.

I went too far.

Sorry.

I'll get this yet.

I think I'm clicking too fast.

Okay.

Good evening.

Um this is hold on.

I'm on the wrong one.

I was like, that's not right.

Threw me off here.

Okay, good evening.

126 West Apache is the um address we're dealing with, and they are requesting to go from center city form-based code, urban uh residential fronting to uh center city planned unit development, and it is CCR uh LAN LLC that's making the request.

Here's look at the existing zoning uh map, and uh all the subject tract is surrounded by um center city form-based code and it's all urban residential frontage.

Um this is the character area, which is um core, and then the future land use is uh urban high.

And here's the existing land use map, and there's a uh currently there is a um duplex on this subject tract to the uh north is it is a duplex and a uh center city form-based code uh duplex that developed in recent years, and then to the east, there's another center city form-based code duplex, um, and then to the south is a single family detached uh home with a garage apartment as well as um a multi-uh family uh structure.

And here is a look at the structure.

And this is looking south um towards it, and this is the building to the right, and this is the building to the left of it, uh east of it, and to the north, and then uh looking east down the street towards the railroad tracks, and then looking west to towards um Santa Fe.

Um, and then this is in the alleyway, and looking to the east in the room and sorry, to the west, and then I think I missed one, and that's to the east.

Okay, so um this property is uh.16 acres, and they're requesting to do a duplex to match um to kind of bridge the gap between the uh duplex that's to the east and and the multifamily that's to the west.

Um it's gonna be a 25 uh hundred square foot three-story duplex, and it will meet the required build line as it is setting uh right now.

And it'll all it is asking though for five foot setbacks, which doesn't meet the code, uh center city code uh currently but does match uh some of the other structures that have developed under the center city form based code in the past years in recent years actually, and then there have been uh I will say that um there are some amendments that the applicant is going to request, and they have been given to you in your um red folders that you have.

Um and he will present those.

There have there is not any um protest uh in regards to this item.

And I think let me see if I have nope, I think that's his.

And then he uh, like I said, the applicant is here and can present those uh proposed revisions that are different than what was submitted in your original packet.

And with that, I can try to answer any questions that you might have.

I have some questions about staff that hopefully they're prepared for.

Um I'm gonna start with the frontage of this property.

Can you please uh just addressing where the actual property line of this property ends versus to the street?

There's a pretty significant strip in the front.

And I already got this question clarified, but just so everyone else can hear.

The property line starts right on the other side of the sidewalk.

No, if I can do to the right of the sidewalk that you're looking at right there.

That's correct.

Excuse me, that's correct.

So to um the the back, the side closest to the structure is um the property line, and then uh the sidewalk on out to the curb is all right away.

And the owner of the property has to maintain that property, correct?

Even though that's correct.

Yeah, even though they aren't the fee simple owner, they have to maintain that.

Yes.

But and that land is also not included in the square footage, it's also not the basis of any required build line.

Okay, so uh can you tell me what the width is of that tree lawn?

Do you happen to know I see a six foot sidewalk?

But is it about 12 feet?

I believe that's eight there.

Uh no, it's maybe 12.

Hold on.

Hold on.

Let me see.

It's hard to tell.

I I looked before and it I guessed about 10, but looking at the bigger picture now, it looks more like it might be about 12 feet.

Uh let me see if I can figure that out.

Um I know.

I was gonna ask, are you are you headed towards impervious surface?

I am.

Okay.

So I am not sure.

I don't know if anybody else has numbers.

10 feet.

Okay.

SP.

Yeah, the width.

It's not the nine.

Okay, so here's where I'm going with this.

Because you know, we care a lot about the impervious area surface, and I do have the amended plan here.

But something that really stuck out to me is that this property owner has to maintain this property, including there is also more impervious area on the front of this that isn't being added in, as well as more pervious area that is also not being added in.

If the sidewalk, six feet by 50 feet, is an extra 300 square feet of impervious area.

That tree lawn, if it's 10 feet by 50 is 500.

If it's 12 feet by 50, it's 600.

The difference is if that was able to be counted into their square footage, if they have to take care of it, if they were able to also count that for their benefit, all burden, no benefit, as we've had alley vacations before come up before.

The city already confirmed no intent to widen this road, anything else.

It's always gonna stay as pervious area, but we're not letting it be counted into the square footage because it's outside of their fee simple lot.

So I bring that up because it is as presented before this amendment, which I'm glad to see they were in favor of gonna let them talk about it, bringing it to 65%.

But as presented, had they been able to include that, if it is 10 feet of tree lawn, they would be at 66%, not 70.

And if it was 12 feet, they would be under 65% had they been able to account for that.

And that is significant to me as we're looking at this because this is a unique feature of this part of Apache Street that these that where the actual property lines fall have this no man's land in between that they still get to take care of, but it's not part of what they count on their lot.

Now they also don't have to pay taxes on it.

So there is the taxes also aren't very much, but that's probably the only benefit they're getting out of it.

A little bit of land use on there.

But that is was significant to me as I was looking at impervious area calculations, and I just wanted to mention that.

So and just clarifying, no no plans to widen the road.

No.

Okay.

All right.

And agreement with everything I kind of said that they're not counting that into their impervious.

That is correct.

It's not counted uh as part of their impervious surface.

Um that though I I would like to point out that is true of all properties in Norman.

Everybody has right-of-way, and when people apply for um a structure and paving, it's not included in theirs either.

So I'm I just to point out that it's it's not special to this place that they have right away, all lots have right away.

So okay.

I'm gonna politely disagree that it is special for this road because a lot of property lines actually are in the middle of the road.

The many fee simple actual legal descriptions that people have go to the center of a road, and then it is an easement of right-away across.

This is different because the property line boundary actually ends for the plat before they're creating that no man's land.

So there are properties along Robinson, for example, that ODOT took in uh silk stocking area.

They took some of the yards along Robinson, ODOT did.

And if I'm not mistaken, ODOT actually maintains behind those fences in some of those areas too.

But that property is not part of the fee simple ownership there, for example.

But in this case, this is property not part of the fee simple ownership that is also not counted into the impervious area.

We've seen plenty of other people bring plat or alley vacations, alleys that are never gonna be developed that they have been mowing, because if it doesn't get mowed, whether they own it or not, it's platted dedicated to the public.

Is it really the responsibility of the neighboring owner?

But yet they don't get to count it in their impervious area.

So they have to spend thousands of dollars to vacate it in order to account for it.

So this would be something that is that could make a decision maker for me.

If had somebody been able to count it, would they have hit the requirement or not?

And so just pointing that out.

So okay, thank you.

Um question for city staff, real quick.

Sure.

Um, I'm always asking the question, what what are we getting by changing the zoning?

And so it looked like one of the requirements was uh did I get this right?

Three units instead of two is the expectation in uh city center form-based code.

And in this particular section of the uh center city form-based code, it's a minimum of three units is what's called for for three dwelling units is what's called for.

So, yes, they're requesting uh two dwelling units instead.

So I'm but I'm looking at this and I'm trying to figure out how could I fit three units in here?

So do you know what I'm saying?

I'm looking at the I'm trying I'm looking at this picture and just trying to imagine what's the other one.

Oh, they they would just go up taller and and add more units in.

It's it's it's you know, there's there's one next door that's multiple units.

And just have separate units, is this what you're saying?

Well, sometimes in this case, they're kind of doing a uh what what some people refer to as a town home.

So they're they're doing a side-by-side attached unit, which they can explain, but it's it's going straight up and and um and instead some people have one stacked on top of each other in the three floors or four floors that they're asking for, so they can get more than one dwelling unit.

Um yeah, yeah.

Can I ask what do we get out of that?

I mean, so I'm looking at this, and if we look at the number of bedrooms, we're getting more than what the city is asking for.

So what would we be getting from the requirement under the the CC FPC?

You you will be getting more residential units, and you will probably getting uh you do meet the um urban high requirements for the density that's required for the area.

Uh I so you are getting residential use, and it's a different type, it's a type that was fairly popular, and then and I think the uh structure to the east uh is the same thing, but I'm not positive, but I think it is, and there's several of them like that that you have more bedroom units um but less you uh dwelling units, you have more bedrooms and yes, less dwelling units.

So you come out the same number of people, it's just configured a different way.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Any other questions for staff?

Seeing none, I would take the applicant presentation.

Good evening, commissioners.

Gunnar Joyce on behalf of the applicant.

Uh, this item and the next item are essentially the exact same request.

So I will talk through both of them, but happy to come up uh on the next item to answer specific questions.

Uh but essentially the ask here is that we turn back the clock and allow us to build as was allowed in 2017.

That's essentially the ask.

This applicant has uh I believe three of the exact same product type on this street, and so they want to rinse and repeat.

Uh, and we deep we feel it is appropriate because this is an area that has built out as student housing.

This is an area that's called for for density, and a lot of the code changes.

I don't want to speak for what the intent was behind it, uh, but it has resulted in a difficult ability to put density in some of these areas because of the unit requirement.

And so, what what had been discussed?

I don't know if it ultimately was the reason behind some of the changes, but was a desire that some of these dense units in the area could be for single families.

So the unit minimum would be three units with no more than three bedrooms.

So the maximum under code right now would be nine units, but it's an area where density is appropriate and desired, and so we're asking to go back to what was allowed in 2017.

These duplexes that I'll show you on screen were all center city form-based code, not center city PUDs.

So it was allowed under the code.

Now with these changes, we have kind of a laundry list of variances, except for two that were originally submitted to you.

A parking variance and impervious coverage.

We asked to go above to 70% under the original design.

At pre-development, two neighbors showed up.

They were the only neighbors on this street that still lived in a single family home.

Uh, and they said those were their two main concerns.

Parking's an issue here, and stormwater is an issue.

They mentioned they have a basement and they don't want to increase any more runoff.

So the applicant and the engineer went back to the drawing board, and we have an amendment to show you tonight to address both of those items.

So the remaining variances are essentially allow us to please go back to 2017.

Zoning is uh all urban residential, everything in the area is blue.

Here's an existing look at 126, and it's very interesting because to the north, uh that pro that product that's on my left side of the screen is the exact building that we're asking to put in here.

It has the side yard setbacks, it's a six-bedroom duplex.

The one on the right is a corner lot, so that's why it's different.

It does go more to the south, uh, but it is the same developer, and it is actually built under uh a different version of the code.

So he is calling this lot a Frankenstein lot that we're gonna piece together because this would be uh the third rendition of form-based code on this direct street if he built it to code.

So the ask is for consistency on the street as opposed to a third design that really doesn't fit in.

This was the original submission for 126.

It asked for only 10 parking spots for 12 beds, so it was a variance of two spots.

Um it's a tandem parking layout now that achieves two things.

It lets us get two more additional parking spots in the rear.

So we have 10 in the rear.

We have two that are in set off of Apache, which is consistent with this street as you look up and down with the insect parking.

So this now meets the code minimum of 12 parking spots for 12 beds.

The impervious is not on screen, but I just want to kind of go slow here to give them their kudos.

They had asked for 70%.

This is at 58.9% impervious.

So this is a very substantially green pervious project.

You'll see aerials of the area up and down the street.

It is covered in parking in the rear.

This has two very large usable green spaces that is not really seen with these student housing projects.

So this is a real commitment to green space because that was the reoccurring comment this development team heard.

The elevations look identical to some of these that we will see because there is no change.

126 and 214 are exactly the same product type.

The current code requirement requires you build lot line to lot line.

We will do that with the street walls.

You can see those five-yard setbacks.

That is consistent with again what was allowed in 2017, and you can see it on screen there.

That is how this street has developed out.

Six bedrooms per unit, two unit minimum side yard setbacks.

That was what was built, and there's three of them already on the street.

We're asking for the ability to put two more in this area that has developed out this way.

And in context, I don't know if you can see the green very well, but the three that are outlined in green are those three properties that exist right now.

It's the same product type, same design, and our two are in yellow there.

And again, it's not a colorized site plan, but when you visually look at the backyards of all of these homes, you see it covered in parking, and we will be an outlier with that with 58.9% uh impervious coverage.

Uh otherwise it matches the existing style and use of the area.

Uh and I will touch on this last little piece.

Uh I move quickly through 214.

Let's see if I have that.

Oh, thank you.

Okay.

Well, then I'll come back up for 214.

Uh with that, any questions on 126 for the applicant by commission.

Yeah.

I always have questions.

Um yeah, I I I think I understand everything, but I just want to make sure I do.

So on the the five foot side setbacks.

Um on both sides of this, it's already been developed in a way where building out to the line just I don't think you achieve what the code change is is looking to achieve.

On one side I definitely see it, but it looks like on both sides.

That's the case.

Is that right?

On the on this specific property on 126, the right side of the screen is to the property line.

So in theory, you could build and touch up to that one.

Uh our ask is that uh since we already are kind of Frankenstein in nature that we just be consistent with uh the side yard setbacks, it also allows us to get more of that pervious because we're we have that strip.

It's also usable.

We show that's where we'll have polycarts and where the air conditioned units go.

So uh this specific applicant really likes the side yard uh for for various reasons the pervious, the polycarts, the air conditioning.

Uh and we've also talked about it's not shown on the plan yet, but there's a expectation that that's where bike racks will go.

Um apologize if you did and I've missed it.

But will you explain the street width and the buyer access?

Absolutely.

Um, I'm going to flip quick through 214, so I apologize.

That was on the next one.

No, you and you're good.

I I was getting ready to touch on that because this is where it is uh the most impactful.

So it's it's a new enforcement of existing rules.

So it's the 2018 International Fire Code that has a apparatus and they call it addendum D that says if you are 30 feet tall or less, the clearance for a fire truck has to be 20 feet wide.

If you go above 30, it kicks up to 26 feet wide.

All of these up and down Apache are above 30.

They're they're close, but it should be a 26 foot clearance uh for Apache.

That has not been enforced with all the prior projects.

Uh again, right, right, wrong, and different.

Now there is that extra review.

And so the street of Apache is actually only about 24 feet wide.

And so what we are doing uh both on 126 and on 214 is doing an extra widening into basically that right of way where where you see in set parking.

You a parking spot on street needs to be eight feet wide.

And so for uh both of these, let's talk about it on 126 first, and then I can show you 214 after.

But on 126, we are you would be allowed to go uh eight feet into your property to achieve those uh in set parking right there on the left side of the screen.

We're taking that cutout 10 feet, so that gives Apache two extra feet to make it 26 and compliant with the with the code, and still allows for two parking spots.

The key on 126, and that's why you see the parking spot variants crossed out there, is that parking on street of Apache is not allowed for this specific area.

When we cross the street to 214, the other side does allow for on-street parking.

So where you see the in set on 214, it is a designated fire lane to comply with this new enforcement of 26 feet wide.

When the other side develops out, now both sides have in set parking, so there's no more parking on the actual street of Apache.

You get to take advantage of the inset.

And so 214 has a essentially a temporary variance request of two spots, and then if and when development happens, everyone would get to have in set up and down the street, and then there's no more variants needed for parking.

So 214 is the one that's really impacted by it, but both sites achieve that design that has not historically been a forced on Apache.

And I've never had to go that deep into the fire code.

So I Aaron Easter here at the city gave me a crash course.

I'm very appreciative of him.

Are there any other questions by commission for the applicant?

I have one follow-up question for city staff regarding the street width, which might be a good public works question.

If maybe we could clarify, I know that this part of Apache is one of our older neighborhoods in Norman.

So this has been an existing street that likely was built less wide that made sense at the time.

Can you just describe for me how this fits into the framework of other street widths?

What's the usual street width?

If you were building a new street, how wide would it be?

So Brandon Brooks Public Works Engineering, if we were building a new street, uh it would be 26 feet wide in a residential neighborhood.

And do you think it's pretty fair to say as these properties have developed because they've gotten a significantly more intense use?

Basically, these property owners are in effect widening the street as they go with these inset parkings.

That feels more like a philosophical question.

Uh, because I would classify the street as the the lanes that the cars are traveling down, not necessarily inside parking.

So uh are they widening curb lines?

Sure, but the cars that are occupy those widen those cutouts are parked and they're not moving.

So yeah.

Uh thank you.

Yeah.

Does anybody else have any questions for public works while he is up there?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Okay.

Is there any other planning commission discussion or any other questions that have arisen?

I just have uh just a few comments.

Um in short, I'm in support of this as proposed.

Uh I do think it's important to say though, that we I in in past meetings I have um said that changes to the code, we need to honor those.

Um, and I think that that's really important to do because that came through a committee discussion.

This change from two units to three units uh arose from a 2021 committee that was a change to the 2017 code, and um I think the intent can be debated as to why that was put in place.

Um but uh it it does make dense housing difficult um to achieve.

Um I know that there was a comment about going further up to add a third unit.

The property that I think is just to the east, um, I believe is a corner lot, and so they have an additional entry way to add three units into that um area.

Uh I know that there's been a lot of heartburn over the duplex that you know the but you know, call it a mini dorm or not.

Um I mean, my my issue's always been more about the design.

Um, and we've got mismatched design because some is pre-form-based code and some is post-form, like current inform-based code when it's been developed.

Um the what I think is important to consider with changes to the code is block-by-block consideration and context sensitive development.

Uh, this particular street is uh has a very similar design to what's being proposed.

And so achieving that continuity with this project, I'm okay with that because that at least you know the street look has that same main maintained feel and continuity going down.

Um I can't speak to specifics of hopping you know up to Sims or every follow or down to you know just any of those streets along there.

But um, I don't I don't want this to be again a precedent that oh hey, you can do this on any block.

Um I think context sensitive is part of our um does it fit within the context um of the sites that are being proposed, and in this instance, I think it does.

So um I'll have one more comment on the fire thing on the next app on the next application, but um otherwise uh it does achieve that continuity, and so that's that's why I'm okay with it in this in this in this instance.

Okay.

I do worry about a precedent that gets set by approving this.

I realize that what you say is true.

Continuity here makes sense.

Um looking at that from a broader perspective, what does that tell another future applicant about we're regressing to the 2017 standard?

And I don't know that I'm okay with that.

Um I might be okay, I haven't decided yet.

Um I might be okay with that in the context, but I am not okay with regressing to that when the purpose of the City Center Form-based code committee was to address this issue of the mini dorm.

This is an essence of mini dorm.

So I think it is very important that we consider how this will be interpreted as we go forward with future applicants and the precedent that we might be okaying if we approve this project.

There I am in favor of the design just because it does fit.

I have a the same reasoning that Commissioner Brewer has that it it's it fits the same characteristics of what's on that street.

Um I I agree, like we don't we don't want it to be just a let's say yes to every variance.

Um I my husband and I were a military family, we have four kids, and we would have loved a six-bedroom unit to rent.

Um we had to buy every single time we moved.

And um at one point that put us with um we had three different tours go from three-year orders to a year and a half.

So we we own three houses at one time, and um, and that's difficult.

I I feel like the design does allow for single family use.

I would have loved this um as an option to rent instead of having to buy yet again.

Um but also with proximity to school, yes, it it could very easily be student housing and probably will, but it does it does lend to either of those, I think.

Um that's just my two cents as a family of six.

Excellent comments and yeah, go ahead.

Can I can I just ask if anybody uh has a good sense of what we're missing out if we if we had to build out these extra five feet on either side?

I agree with my fellow commissioner.

It fits the area and it makes a lot of sense to have this design right there on this block in that location.

Um, are we missing out on anything by not including these five feet on either side?

Um could it be more dense, for example?

I it does affect your coverage, I agree.

But they also squeaked in under 65, so they might they might still be under 65% even if they built out.

I like the use of the bike racks.

I think um this would be a very walkable location.

I think it is used very walkably, and as we have a lot of interest in the parking spots, having a good spot where a bike can easily not have to be in the back in the alley, you could go out through the front potentially.

Um in the block by block context, just bringing up some other examples that we've had.

We've had two different times on Comanche Street in particular that we've talked about block by block consideration of where I know I personally felt that we had one block of Comanche Street that maybe didn't get quite the right color coding on it initially, and it was the first time that something was a PUD out of the single family detached, and we had a lot of conversation about concern about precedent.

I don't know if we've seen many PUS for changing anything out of single family detached out of that one, but my argument was that it was maybe a neighborhood that didn't represent well because there wasn't much on there.

It was parking lot, and um that one maybe should have just been a different color from the beginning and um without disrespecting the heavy intensive map use that went in there.

So when we looked at Comanche Street, I really felt like that was a very specific to that block consideration, and I feel very similarly about these two blocks on Apache Street near the railroad track, specifically with their proximity to campus.

How likely is it that somebody may be actually a walking user?

Um I don't know if any of the neighboring churches here would be open to a relationship, but I know many of them have parking relationships.

There are five churches with parking lots within a five-block area of this area, which is kind of a unique feature, many of which are within one block.

I think there's like three within one block.

There's also city owned parking along the railroad tracks, and there's the ASP lot too that are available to the public too.

So we do have some additional parking.

All of those things kind of make this unique.

And also, this was a block that was an early adopter of center city form-based code, which was also not easy.

And granted is the same developer that has done other things, but I I don't necessarily want to be penalizing people for having been early adopters of form-based code too, as we've continued a refine too.

Um speaking from perspective of property owners, tying into a direct building is very problematic from a construction perspective, and we see a trouble with this all down historic main street where they have shared walls that are literally being held up without the additional engineering just by the actual bricks themselves with the pressure on there, and they've had to do some heavy repairs to hold up as it's all starting to lean one way.

So as we built along a property line, my husband did.

So speaking from that perspective, I understand why somebody would want to have a side set back that they can just own their own little parcel on their on their own too, without having to also have a huge developer redevelop an entire block, too, which may or may not be the case.

I think there's plenty of use cases for that, but I also appreciate somebody in Norman, a Norman citizen could develop a lot like this and potentially do that within their wealth capacity, whereas an entire block that might be a little bit harder to achieve.

So I am in favor of this.

I am very glad to see the developer come back under the 65% tandem parking is common in this area.

I think we brought up a lot of questions about that historically.

We haven't even brought that up because I think we've seen that as a use case already working here.

I agree that there's some additional grass, so I would be in support of this for this block for this consideration for a street that is 254 feet wide, and they don't get to count their tree lawn towards their impervious area.

And had they, they'd be significantly below that 58.9, even with the sidewalk.

Maybe not with the inlet parking if they had to count that too.

But just for that consideration, I think that this makes sense.

So I will be voting in favor of it.

And uh the irony of you saying the we have not commented on the parking.

I mean, this is in favor of this, but one benefit of tandem parking is that it discourages people to drive their car, um, because they have to coordinate that.

And so um what that's one thing that was one of the initial tasks of, or I guess, um, goals of Center City Form Based Code was to create a park once environment and walkability.

And um and I, you know, no matter the opinion on students or non-students, there's a lot of students that are walking in this area, and that's that's the idea, right?

Um, and uh and if you go to the Winston patio at four o'clock any day of the week, um, it's all students who have walked there for happy hour.

And so that is the idea.

Um that I mean it's uh I think it's pretty neat to see um that you're that you're kind of seeing that overflow, and that's that's what density creates.

All right, is there any other discussion on this item?

If not, I would take a motion.

Move to approve.

Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Moving on to the next item number nine, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment, and or a postponement of ordinance 0-2526-59 and ordinance of the Council of the City of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of chapter 36 of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove lots 25 and 26 in block 6 DL Larsha's first edition to the City of Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, according to the recorded plat thereof from CC FBC Center City Forum Based Code District, urban residential frontage and place the same in a CCPUD center city planned unit development and providing for the severality thereof.

214 West Apache Ward 4.

Good evening again.

So this is 214 uh West Apache.

The uh uh owner is 208 Apache LLC.

Um again they're requesting to change from center city form-based code to a C CPU D.

Um here is a look at the existing zoning again, surrounded by urban residential center city form-based code urban residential.

Um, and then it is still in the core area character area.

Um, and then for future land use, it's still urban uh high.

So, and then the existing land use you can see here currently this is a vacant lot.

Um to the north is a uh duplex and um a single family home and then a duplex to the south is just recently uh developed multifamily unit.

Um and then to the east is is a uh uh center city foreign-based code duplex, and then to the west is a single family house.

So oops.

If you're out at the site, is actually vacant right now.

There's not anything on it.

This shows uh some uh storage buildings on it, the subject track.

Um, and then you can see uh the uh adjacent uh properties.

So this is looking uh south towards the uh vacant lot, and this is the house to the west of the vacant lot, the subject tract.

And to the east, this is the duplex um east of the vac uh the subject tract.

And then uh north is this house and another um multi uh center city foreign vacation, but center city form based code uh duplex looking east towards the railroad track, and looking west towards uh I guess that would be Webster.

And then this is the alleyway looking east, and then looking west, and you can see that new multi-family uh center city form-based code uh development there on the on the left-hand side.

So again, um this is the site plan that was um given to you in your packet, but the uh applicant representative is here tonight to present um revisions to that um request to that site plan.

Um again, they're asking for a three-story duplex uh with two dwelling units and six bedrooms on each side.

Um and with that, I and no protest on this one.

Um with that, I think that is um it for my presentation.

I can answer any questions that um commissioners might have.

Thank you.

Any questions by commission for staff on this item?

I I do have one question, and it may I don't know if anybody's here to address it, but the the discussion about the fire lane there is my question is is this ever been like done where you just widen the street to make a fire lane only that's that's not allowable for parking on any other street in Norman?

Uh I will attempt to answer that.

So uh in the center city foreign-based code area.

I don't think we've had this done yet, but this is uh recent developments with the with the fire code and and and working with that.

So we've had applications come forward um to the DRT, which is where you go if you're just asking to meet the center city form-based code, we just kind of do a compliance review, and and so I think we've had one in there ask for a fire lane, but uh other sections of the of the city.

I can't answer that, and I'm not sure because I deal primarily with this inner city and the historic districts.

Would you like Mr.

Brux to come up and and address that?

Possibly.

Yeah, I was thinking there might not actually be someone who can address it, but let me see if I understand your question.

Are you asking if the city has ever required the street to be widened?

Um when we're not developing a new lot, like taking an existing street and making it wider to accommodate the fire rules?

Uh when we're developing a new lot.

If we're developing a new lot, then um uh and especially in a residential area, it'll be 26 feet wide and it will meet our our fire code standards.

But for an existing neighborhood like Apache or any other old older part of town, no, um, because you you can't you can't bump out in what in front of one lot and then taper it back in to go on, and you you wouldn't be able to require a single developer to carry that build out all the way down a block.

Okay, and I know uh I'm assuming I'm not saying this was you who made this decision in the past, but the why is this the first time this is being requested?

I cannot answer that question.

Yeah, that's fair.

Anything?

No one else?

Any other questions for staff by commission?

Seeing none, I would take the applicant presentation.

Awesome.

Thank you, commissioners.

I will basically, unless uh you guys want to hear more and you maybe do that during questioning.

I can just talk about the difference here.

And so it is the fire lane.

Uh and the difference is that on this specific piece of Apache, the opposite side of Apache, so not our side uh that that our property fronts, but the the other side of the street does allow for on-street parking.

So that means anyone can park there all day long.

That means that the city uh looks at the width of on-street parking, be eight feet, and they are taking out eight feet from the calculation of the width of Apache for purposes of the 2018 international fire code for the apparatus clear lane that has to be 26 feet.

So on 126, when we widened uh when we do the inset into the right-of-way, uh, I mentioned we are going two feet farther into the property than is typical.

So the typical would be eight feet for the parking on 126, we're going 10 feet.

That gets the roadway 26 feet, which is consistent with the application of the 2018 fire code, and still allows for eight feet for the parking.

On this side, we lose the eight feet because somebody can park on street, so we are still going the same inset into our property, uh, but we need all of that distance to meet the 26-foot clearance lane.

So what you'll see is it's the same design.

You see the inset parking on our property, and then it goes back off property to Apache at the uh approximately 24 feet wide.

Um we do not get to count those two spots as parking currently.

So there is still a variance.

Uh we have revised, so originally submitted uh like we talked last time, there were eight parking spots.

So this was a requested variance of four parking spots for 214.

The revised plan is the exact same from 126.

So we are doing 10 parking spaces in the rear.

We do not get to count the two in the frontage right now.

So there's a temporary uh variance request of two parking spots.

So there's 10, there's 10 parking spots for 12 beds on 214.

The the triggers that will allow those two onset parkings to count is whenever on-street parking is no longer allowed on Apache.

That's a petition process that the uh property owner would have to sign off on.

So we can pursue that, and then immediately if we get that through council, those two spots would count.

Or the other option is if that property owner right across the street redevelops consistently with the form-based code, they get to have inset parking.

So they'll have parking on their side of the street.

That means Apache now is 26 feet, and then the fire lane on our side gets to be parking spots.

So it's a essentially a temporary request.

I think as you guys all know and see, this area is very active, so I don't believe it would be too long until uh it is redevelopment, but that is completely speculative.

So it's possible that no change ever happens, and this is a designated fire lane for eternity.

It's uh possible that in two weeks from now, a developer comes in and wants to redevelop, and so the uh this could be a non-issue before we even go vertical.

So that uh is the nuance here.

Otherwise, it's exactly the same project, exactly the same uh variances and the same amendments that we are proposing tonight in your packet.

Um otherwise, happy to take any questions specific to 214.

Clarify the amount of impervious surface.

Uh of the total buildable area.

Same thing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh this may not be a question for you, maybe for city staff, but what is the lot across the street like?

Meaning, is that uh has that been redeveloped already?

It has not, it's a single family house.

It has uh, and one of the reasons why if you can see there, um you can't really see the home there because the trees, but there's a driveway that goes into that site.

So it's one of the reasons why we did not pursue building in set parking for them to solve this issue uh because they still will need that driveway for as long as it's single family.

When you develop under form-based code, you give up your curb cuts and driveway on the street proper and have to take access through the alley.

And this is uh in form based code, both sides of the streets.

You've seen that slide already tonight.

So there is no risk that somebody develops and keeps the driveway off Apache uh without a CCPUD that you all would have to approve.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Maybe I've got one, it's more of a comment.

Um it looks like there's a difference between these properties where um on one in the original on both sides it had been redeveloped here, only on one side it's been redeveloped, and so there is potential for the the next one down to actually build out to the property line and for these to actually satisfy that point of the the form based code.

That is correct.

This specifically, that um western property is a single family house.

So we thought as an added um reasoning that side yard doesn't impose so much on the existing single family house being right up to their lot line.

So we felt also appropriate on this one uh to give a little bit of a buffer for as long as that remains.

I don't know.

I think I do have a slide on that uh or an image.

Yeah, it's that white single family home, and that fence is on the property line, so you would build all the way up to that fence.

Kenner, could you advance back into Anais's slide to see if we have the house across the street too?

Just yeah, it looked like a pretty uh pretty house.

That's oh that one just since we talked about that's what's across the street.

Yeah, and it looks like that house is probably right on that property line, the building, the center city for base code by comparison one additional question.

Um the I liked the comment about this being potentially temporary in nature in the event that the lot across the street is developed.

Is the fire lane being built out to spec to be converted to on-street parking in the future?

Yes, okay.

Would you go back to the parking view slide?

Um the proposed amended.

Nope, nope.

Uh, just like the street view down Apache.

I think we've got one and Libby worked hard on it.

So let me see if there's kind of yeah, that's a good way in context up there.

So you can see that in set parking on all the ones that have been developed out.

That is now what we would be proposing.

But since you can see those cars parked on Apache right there, uh that's the basically new enforcement that you would not get to have those be parking spaces, they should be under the new enforcement striped as a fire lane.

I'll also just add there's kind of not in every parcel, but some of these jet-outs that happen from the grass where you're parking, no parking, parking.

Um I would be in favor of seeing the whole street just all converted into this on street parking all at once and solving this issue, which I know would not be within the city's budget, but if there was a center city TIFF that could be utilized for such a purpose, I think that would be an interesting use case that could help spur some other development and give some options, but not while there's still single family homes that need their driveways.

Any other questions for applicant?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, moving on uh to uh I guess at this point we don't have any audience comments, but is there any other planning commission discussion regarding this item, maybe the fire lane parking, any other comments that we haven't already addressed?

Uh this is not a comment on the development because all my comments previously uh are the same.

Um so it is it's really not fair to the developer to comment on the fire lane, but it is a comment on the city's development of these blocks or lack thereof uh with the streets.

I mentioned there's Center City TIFF.

Um there's plenty of money in that TIFF to go and do this work.

Um while there would have to be some consideration of driveways and some other items um been beating this drum for nine years now, could have bonded against this uh TIFF in 2017 with the development we knew was coming.

Um and there is now plenty of money in the bank to go do this work, and it makes our jobs more difficult to consider this um when we're talking about future development when the street could be built out to how it was intended to be in the first place.

Um I I also have some heartburn just about uh I know uh the that this is just now being enforced.

Um this is uh we have had plenty of development that's happened um and uh to from to a developer um to now say okay, now we're going to enforce this.

There's some real inconsistency there.

Um and uh and again that's just another reason that those funds should be used to go build out the streets as intended to um build to the form based code from the public side to match the development that's occurred.

Um so uh I don't disagree that this the uh lot across the street uh will likely to be developed at some point if the if the owner sells.

Um but uh we're gonna see this more and more on other streets, and um and I I this is a recommendation uh for the presentation from the city that fire be present when this is presented to council so they can address that a little more clearly.

Um so they're if any of these questions come up, they're that can be answered.

Um but otherwise uh this is not the developer's choice to put in a fire lane.

I imagine they'd probably want parking if they could.

So thank you.

Any other comments or discussion?

Quick comment.

Um, you know, thinking about the context here with the previous property.

Um they were already redeveloped on both sides.

And so I agree that it it didn't make sense to make them built out to the uh property line here.

It's a little bit different.

And I think we might want to ask ourselves do you want a hodgepodge um where you can you can satisfy the current the current code when possible?

And so looking at that one one side of the property's not been developed, would it make sense to actually have those two properties built out uh to the property line and satisfied the code where it can be satisfied in the future?

Um I think the answer is yes for me.

Um but I'm not sure.

I'd be happy to hear any other opinions.

Yeah, my uh for my understanding, the it's really a four-inch change in the property line because there's this two foot kind of, you know, you have the choice to build to the property line or not, as I understand it.

Um the rest of the street based on the 2017 code had been built to the two foot four inches.

Um so this is kind of matching that consistency going down, which I appreciate.

You you can that is on the um RBL recession, and I believe Commissioner Jabolanski's asking about the side yards.

Oh, sure.

Okay, gotcha.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, yeah.

Yeah.

And and that and that we've had this discussion on uh Boyd and you have those different front setbacks um that create this kind of inconsistent look.

Um so yeah, I was very much in favor of that.

Um I also this just another thing with if the committee is ever reconvened to look at the code, um, probably need to take a closer look at a lot by lot um as opposed to just a blanket we've changed from two foot four to two feet um because that at some point somebody will build by right and that will create that inconsistent setback that's just uh you know, just from a design aesthetic is not gonna look right.

Um so uh that's again just one more thing to consider that um we need to look at what's been built and then try to match that as much as we can.

Any other discussion or would someone like to take make a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Any discussion on the motion?

If none, I'll take a vote.

You may vote.

All votes have been cast.

Motion passes six to one with Commissioner Jablonski voting against.

Okay, I'm gonna read items uh 10 and 11 together.

Uh item number 10, 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 the intersection of 36th Avenue Northeast and Alameda Street Ward 6.

Uh the applicant request postponement to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Um then item number 11, consideration of approval acceptance, rejection amendment and/or postponement of PP-2526-14, a preliminary plat submitted by Kalera Group LLC for Alameda Trails, a property located near the northwest corner of the intersection of 36th Avenue Northeast and East Alameda Street Ward 6.

The applicant request postponement to the June 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Second.

And a vote.

All votes have been cast.

Motion passes seven to zero.

Moving on to miscellaneous discussion.

Does staff have any information for the commission?

Any updates on code?

Anything?

Okay.

All right.

Um any discussion by commission?

Seeing none, uh, I will declare the