e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e out of the ti you didn't get you just moved into that area you didn't get tax it was all new business well no oh yes okay at 6:36 I'm going to call the meeting to order and Renee if I can please have a roll call Mr Brewer here Mr McDaniel here miss maowen Mr jablonsky here miss bird here Mr McClure Mr Griffith here miss Kendall Mr Parker here we have a quorum moving to our consent docket item number one consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of the minutes of the April 11th 2024 regular Planning Commission meeting and item number two consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of SFP 23 32 4-12 consideration of a short form plat submitted by Carl bad Plaza LLC Ryan dudin for Cambridge coroner SFP for 0.84 Acres of property generally located at the northwest corner of West Main Street and 48th Avenue Northwest uh does any member of the commission wish to remove any item from the consent docket does any member of the audience wish to move remove any item from the consent docket seeing none I would take a motion for our consent items move to approve second and a vote you may [Music] vote everyone has voted and the motion carried six to zero moving to our non-consent items starting with items number three four and five uh item number three consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of resolution are – 2324 d126 resolution of the Council of the city of Norman Oklahoma amending the Norman 2025 land use and transportation plan so as to remove part of the Northwest I'm sorry part of the Southwest quarter of section 11 Township 9 North range 3 West of the Indian Meridian Cleveland County Oklahoma from the office designation and place the same in commercial designation east of 36th Avenue Northwest north of West auma Road and West of I35 item number four consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of ordinance number 0-23 24-42 an ordinance of the Council of the city of Norman Oklahoma amending section 36-21 of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove part of the Southwest quarter of section 11 Township 9 North range 3 West of the Indian Meridian to Norman Cleveland County Oklahoma from the Pud planned unit development district and place the same in the Pud planned unit development district and providing for the severability thereof east of 36 Avenue Northwest north of West TOA Road and West of I35 item number five consideration of approval acceptance rejection and Amendment Andor postponement of pp-2 32415 consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Carol Farm LLC SMC Consulting Engineers PC for Carol Farm addition a planned unit development for property generally located east of 36th Avenue Northwest of north of West to kumsa Road and West of I35 with alley waiver for commercial Lots less than 1 acre I would take the staff presentation hi Laura hogot with the planning department I won't re or say everything that she said again but um so for our 2025 land use plan Amendment this is showing the section of the development that is currently office designation that the applicant is requesting to change to commercial they're also requesting uh a new PUD and a preliminary plat so this was originally um rezoned back in 1999 I think and then they've redone it twice since then and then the preliminary plat has since expired and so they're they're back again this is showing the entire subject tract uh it is currently PUD and they're doing a new one the land is currently vacant um this is on the north side of Tuma across from the hospital the health Flex uh here's an aerial showing the property and all the surrounding development we have the preliminary plot showing the different lots and here's the site plan so on the North side they're proposing a senior living facility and then uh the rest of it is office and Commercial [Music] development um so staff fors this request um to the Planning Commission for your consideration and the applicant is here with the presentation as well thank you I'll take uh any questions from staff by commission just had a quick technical question so there's a request for an alley waiver um is this common um and and what exactly was the like what I guess what are the alleys for I will let Todd answer that for you Todd mlen development engineer uh yes commissioner the the alley waver is something that's pretty common anymore since we don't really do alleys yeah thank you okay any other questions by commission for staff seeing none I would take the applicant presentation good evening Gunner Joyce with rer Law Group here on behalf of property owner and developer Carol Farm LLC Terry Haynes in the back with SMC civil engineer on the project and Libby Smith here with us as well uh just real quick because I thought it was interesting too commissioner uh I hadn't seen the alleyway waiver so I looked it up and the last preliminary plat had the same request associated with it but basically talked with Terry and with the larger commercial lots that we have you can take care of deliveries and access without needing the alleyway in the back uh so that's the request here like it was back I think 2015 2011 was the last time the ponary plat was brought so no change to that request but that's the reason for it so still requesting that here's the location we're just north of tumpa uh next to or we're east of 36th Avenue as you can see there's I35 I actually uh kind of cheated tonight and just copy and pasted this slide from the storage Oklahoma site that we had in front of you probably about 5 months ago is just right on the other side of 36 so you can see the commercial developments in the area Norman regionals to the South Bob Moore and Fowler Toyota right on I35 Frontage and then the uh fire station to the North and then as we go up the the Catholic school there Ruby Grant Park obviously farther north so the zoning in the 2025 request the legal descriptions are different on that because the 2025 reflects basically the zoning of the prior PUD and a lot of that is remaining the same so as you can see there it's just three acres right on 36 that was originally planned in the prior zoning as office use one of the requests tonight is to make that allowable for commercial uses so they can expand the allowable uses right there on the Frontage match uh the rest of the development with commercial right there on 36 uh and really that's one of the um kind of the major intents of this rezoning other than bringing the preliminary plat back into uh compliance and allowing them to move forward with their development so ponary plat has expired for the whole 44.6 Acres so bringing the zoning and the ponary plat back a lot of it remains unchanged but you will see uh I've got a next slide here comparing the two this is actually much more green uh it's reduced parking substantially and I think the main reason driver of that is that there are no more commercial parking minimums so you'll see here in a second uh much less parking much more green space uh a more creative layout allowing more buildings less parking uh the summary of the the Pud is that it allows for really a a horizontal mixed juice uh throughout the site with commercial office multif family as Laura pointed out the far north next to the detention Pond is Senior Living site and then there's 42 townhouse units that are proposed just south of that uh detention pond so really kind of trying to draw all the residential living up there by the detention Pond and kind of use that as an amenity for the development with walking trails around it and the rest of it will be commercial and offense allowances so here's the comparison and I apologize you don't have the original one green but if you can see in there all the parking lots are kind of the typical big box buildings with massive parking lots not allow of break in between there and then at the Hard Corner um not the hard corner just north of it but at 36 intoa you can see what was originally planned to be a gas station if you can I don't think you can see the mouse there but uh that is now broken up into um I think three commercial Lots uh with much more green space than what was originally proposed so a substantially more green kind of a more modern design than what was originally appr approved and uh really the zoning request changed from just office to allowance to be commercial those those three lots north of that interior Road right on 36 Avenue then the last item you vote on so the 2025 the the zoning and then the preliminary plot there is the preliminary plot it's 30 ploted lots and again 44.6 eight acres and that's what it looks like uh with showing that storage Oklahoma site that you guys uh approve very recently and then again calling out some of the other notable um uses in the area uh just to uh kind of wrap it up we've had no protest throughout the process no filed protest uh here as well and no negative traffic impacts a full Tia was done uh by Tec reviewed by staff and a a positive staff report on traffic as well so happy to take any questions thank you any questions by commission for the applicant just one question um and this is just to refresh my memory that storage Oklahoma that was the one that had like the kind of residential look to it okay uh I saw that uh all Saint School came to predevelopment and had some concerns about some of the specific uses I'm curious to see if this current list that is in this PUD has been presented to them and if they were in approval um specifically because I know some of the things they were concerned about liquor stores adult shops and um I still see we have like smoke tobacco vape shops included in the uses and uh several medical marijuana uses too so curious if there was input after the predevelopment meeting on that from yes so I had a great conversation with the owner um and haven't protested or filed post uh that predevelopment meeting but the owner was able to satisfy them with their are substantial and very restrictive covenants filed right now so a lot of those uses in the allowable use list are prohibited today under the current covenants and there uh might even update further based on uh some of the new allowances that are are applicable uh through this PUD so that list that you see in front of you is not what'll be allowed on that specific site through restrictive covenants the private agreement on the entire side or just uh kind of like a certain radius within the school so the that radius extend to the entire site I guess that's my question yeah my my understanding of the school school's comments where they attended predevelopment I I didn't attend that one Sean handled it but uh they wanted to make sure they've had a good relationship with this family they want to make sure none of those sites will be developed any noxious uses and in that conversation they were assured that uh the private covenants prevent throughout the whole site any of those noxious uses because because like those other developments the senior living the other commercial sites they want to make sure that they control the tenant mix and the end user mix so that it's you know keeps all the property values to the highest they can get them so if they let in some of those end users that the school doesn't want to see other commercial users that they're trying to sell to also won't want to be around them so very restrictive uh they have substantial Landscaping substantial signage substantial architecture review already in place uh and want to continue to keep that so all of that is applicable just a private document that's separate from zoning level so question with that and this might be just a technical process question but if it's already restricted then why include it as an allowable use in the Pud yeah so our thought process and this is more of like a technical zoning discussion is we have had sites throughout the city before where circumstances change 20 30 years later and we come back for a a PUD where we change one word right and it's just adding liquor store now and you could Envision where it would be a very high-end liquor store that would be attractive and if at the Covenant level everyone was happy with it we wouldn't have to come back we could just allow it at the private level we wouldn't have to go through the full resoning process just to say we're not changing any of the site we're not changing any the uses except for adding one so we've had zonings like that before it happened a lot whenever medical marijuana was first allowed and a lot of these sites had to come go through kind of the rigorous rezoning process just to add words um there have been comments before from Planning Commission and city council that maybe we should look at administrative mechanisms to not make those Property Owners go through the three-month process for some minor tweaks like that but that we've always tried you know at our level to if we can allow that and not have to go through the full process to add you know kind of smaller work words like that we would try to but to your point there are private covenants that don't allow liquor store today could you go ahead and refresh mine and the other Commissioners uh memories on how private covenants can be adjusted uh after the fact including how many ownership how much percentage of ownership is that controlled by the individual document and at the statute level just so everyone knows what could change in private covenants later absolutely so the statutes uh and I'll kind of bumble through this um there there's a timing mechanism so I think it's 10 years might be 15 years but if somebody files covenants and they don't have an amendment procedure then it's uh 65 75% of the owners that have to agree and sign off to amend a covenant and then after that timing mechanism is up I think it's 50% of the owners if the covenants have an amendment procedure listed out which most of them do now because everyone's aware of that statute then it's whatever they agreed to at the time of filing the covenants what's most common is that the declarant will keep the declarant is the developer so the developer that puts the covenants on the lot will keep kind of unilateral Amendment rights until a certain number is sold off that way if they are having trouble selling lots or they're too restrictive in architectural control it's very common they'll be extremely restrictive and then somebody will come in like a Chick-fil-A not saying this site and that specific user but just an example in Chick-fil-A will'll say our design is what we do Across the Nation it doesn't comply with your design guidelines so the developer say okay it's more important for me to get that user than to make you match my aesthetic pleasure so they'll amend the covenants thank you yeah um I just also want to clarify how many compared to the prior plat and maybe pulling up that slide from before how many additional Lots in individual Lots were created from the change I don't know the specific number it is more Terry do you know off top of your head I we can kind of just ballpark it like this big gas station site um which is kind of the bottom you know 36th Avenue to comps the corner uh has turned into looks like three maybe four so there's a couple spots like that where it was uh originally planned probably proba a very large box store uh with the kind of the Sea of parking lot is now broken up into smaller Lots thank you I have one more technical question so in the in the description I think it said a minimum of 10% uh green space but when I'm looking at this picture that looks like a lot more than 10% yeah it's currently at 35% of the whole Development Area 10% is the minimum that comes from the Pud statute that the city has so we usually just take that language and say it has to be a minimum of that we've talked about this at link to where you're prohibited like if you move forward with this site plan if you approve it then they have to stick very rigorously to what is shown and they would have to there's a small percentage change 5% 10% that would allow them to adjust so if it's shown currently at 35 they could maybe get something approved at you know 32% but even in the Pud uh the multif family stuff to the north is capped at 65% per lot thank you thank you any other questions by commission for the applicant I have one um I have two actually um when is the proposed uh well once it gets past Council when does the proposed start for construction I don't think they have a specific date in mind but I do know that sort of the purpose for bringing it now is that there are very interested parties so there's transactions being contemplated excellent well the other thing is it is an ambitious project so does the Carol Farm do do they have kind of a rough idea when this might be built out is it 10 years 20 years uh what are they looking at to make it worthwhile yeah I think um their expectation is you know sooner rather than later I don't mean to give you a vague answer but I think they had that plan in 1999 right and so they have tried to let's get something going turn dirt and and make it happen uh and they've piece Meed it together because this whole area basically in between I35 and 36 was under the same ownership and it was an original zoning in 1999 and so the first one's out of the ground where the two car dealerships and then uh you know Victory Church the church building there and then from there it kind of slowed so I think you know originally when it was taking off they probably thought hey this is going to be quick and now it's kind of gone around it so were it were it year 25 so far of the development I don't think it would take another 25 to finish that I hope to live that long me too as a comment that you could possibly just confirm I did see that the Lots were actually marketed for sale and they were seemed to be kind of aggressively putting out some marketing material so I do think they are seeking sales on there and that is probably the transactions being contemplated as mentioned so that would probably affect some of your build timeline is seeing that they're actually being offered for sale currently and you can confirm or correct yeah thank you any other uh questions for the applicant by commission seeing none I would take any audience comments and then seeing no audience members I would move to Planning Commission discussion I just want to add since I brought it up on the RV park that I did note and appreciated seeing some smaller Lots being available um a comment that I made on that project just to show some consistency that I appreciated seeing smaller develops that were a little bit more accessible for a local and buyer to be able to buy and build a business in there compared to for example um that much larger parcel that would have been a much more costly Pur square foot cost on there um so I was excited to see some change into a smaller option um some smaller buildings rather than maybe one giant end user kind of in mind so just wanted to make that comment for consistency if there's no other Planning Commission discussion I would take a motion move to approve second and a vote you may [Music] vote everyone has voted and the motion carried six to zero moving to our next items I'm going to read items six and seven together item number six consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of ordinance number 0-23 24-35 and ordinance of the Council of the city of Norman Oklahoma amending section 36 the code of the city of Norman so as to remove the part of the East half of the section 14 Township 9 North range 3 West of the Indian Meridian to Norman Cleveland County Oklahoma from the Pud planned unit development district and place the same in the Pud planned unit development district and providing for the severability thereof generally located east of I35 between Corporate Center Drive and Rock Creek Road and item number seven consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of pp-2 University North Park LLC for University North Park Entertainment District a planned unit development for approximately 90 Acres of property generally located on the east side of I35 between Corporate Center Drive and and Rock Creek Road the applicant has requested continuance to the June 13th 2024 Planning Commission meeting again that is June 13th 2024 Planning Commission meeting uh any discussion or I would take a motion move to approve uh to just to be specific move to approve uh the requested continuance to the June 13th yep the June 13th Planning Commission meeting and a second second and a vote you may vote everyone has voted and 6 to Zer moving to items 89 and 10 item number consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of resolution number r-23 2476 a resolution of the Council of the city of Norman Oklahoma amending the Norman 2025 land use and transportation plan so as to remove part of the Southwest Township 8 North range 2 West of the Indian Meridian Cleveland County Oklahoma from the industrial designation and place the same and mixed use designation and change approximately 11.5 Acres from future urban service area to current Urban service area Southeast corner of Highway 9 and Jenkin Avenue item number nine consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of ordinance number 0-23 24-28 an ordinance of the Council of the city of Norman Oklahoma amending section 36-2001 of the code of the city of Norman so as to remove part of the southwest corner of Section 8 Township 8 North range 2 West of the Indian Meridian to Norman Cleveland County Oklahoma from the i1 light industrial district and place the same in PUD plant unit development district and providing for for the separability thereof Southeast corner of Highway 9 and Jenkins Avenue and item number 10 consideration of approval acceptance rejection Amendment Andor postponement of pp-2 32410 consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Highway 9 Jenkins M&J inv vestman LLC craft and toll for sooner Village a planned unit development for 56.5 four acres of property generally located at the southeast corner of Highway 9 and Jenkins Avenue the applicant has requested postponement to the A August 8th 2024 Planning Commission meeting is there any discussion or I would take a motion and again that date is August 8th 2024 Planning Commission meeting move to approve the postponement to the August 8th 2024 me Planning Commission meeting of items 8 n and 10 second and a vote you may vote everyone has voted and motion carried 6 to zero moving to miscellaneous discussion does staff have any information for the commission could we confirm our next meeting time and location time and date thank you that's what I was going to say so I have to look at my calendar make sure so we have uh due to the legals not making it going to meet next Thursday May 16th and that will also be 6:30 there'll be two items on the agenda for that meeting I'm sorry about that but I really do want to try and keep them on track if we can but then our uh meeting in June so June 13th that will be our first meeting at 5:30 thank you any other miscellaneous comments from staff or from commission if there's nothing else to come before the commission I'll declare the meeting adjourned 33 well no we didn't start till 6:36 look I said 45 I was reading fast you read very fast you of linking it out
Tax-Free Retirement Planning