Community Planning & Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting

At 5:35 p.m., I'll call the meeting to order. If we could please have a roll call. Commissioner Brewer here. Commissioner McDaniel here. Commissioner McAuen here. Commissioner Jablonsky here. Commissioner Bird here. Commissioner McClur here. Commissioner Griffith, Commissioner Kindle, Commissioner Parker. We have a quorum.

Starting with our consent docket, item number one, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of the minutes as follows. Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 13, 2025. And item number two, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, andor postponement of COS-2526-5. Consideration of a Norman rule certificate of survey submitted by Doyle and Janet Reich. RDM surveying for Fiser acres 2 for 61.61 acres of property generally located approximately 1 half mile south of East Lindsay Street and 1/4 mile west of 156th Avenue Southeast off of Hayfield Road, Ward 5. Does any member of the commission wish to remove any item from the consent docket? Does any member of the audience wish to remove any item from the consent docket? Seeing none, I would take a motion.

Motion to approve. Second. And a vote. You may vote.

All votes have been cast and it carries six to zero. We've had a request for a postponement of item number seven. So I'm going to read that one out of order for that change. Item number seven, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-27, an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the code of the city of Norman, so as to remove lots 78, and 9 in block 20 of Westport Professional Park, section 7, part of the northeast quarter of section 26, township 9 north, range three west of the Indian meridian, and a replat of lots 2 through eight, block 9 Westport Professional Park section 2 to Norman Cleveland County, Oklahoma from the C1 local commercial district and placed the same in the C2 general commercial district of said city and providing for the severability thereof. 809 8138172 26th Avenue Northwest Ward 2. The applicant has requested postponement to the January 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Again, that was January 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Is there a motion on that item?

I move that we postpone uh this item to the January 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

Second and a vote. You may vote. All votes have been cast. Moving to our regularly scheduled programming. Item number three, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-13, 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 grant special use for the fraternity or sorority house in the R3 multif family dwelling district and for the northeast quarter of section 6, township 8 north, range 2 west of the Indian Meridian, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and providing for the severability thereof 1401 College Avenue, Ward 7. I would take the staff presentation.

Hello, Laura Hogget with the planning department. Uh, so we have an application for special use for a sorority house in R3 for Alpha Fi Sorority at 1401 College Avenue. Uh, so it's currently zoned R3. There is obviously special use required to have a fraternity or sorority. This one has been here a very long time, but um they're making some improvements. So, they're bringing their zoning um into compliance with current codes. The AIM uh land use designation is urban medium. And the house uh is there already. So, here's an aerial. Uh this one's just zoomed out a little bit to kind of show that they are uh surrounded by other Greek houses and uh U campus is to the east. Here's a site plan showing um they're kind of changing the circle drive and just a few adjustments to the building. This is their trash exhibit or sanitation exhibit. Okay. Uh the applicant is here and I'm available for questions as well. Thank you. Any questions by the commission of staff? Seeing none, I would take the applicant's presentation and welcome back.

Thank you.

Good evening. Colton Weman with Wallace Design representing Alpha Fee. Uh Lord did a really great presentation. I'll be really really quick um to try and not be super repetitive. Um so on the site plan, the existing parking lot, there's really no changes there. We'll uh the plan is to restripe to allow for some additional accessible spaces. Um but outside of that, there's no changes to the existing parking lot. To the west, like Laura mentioned, there's a circle drive that exists there currently. The plan is to elongate that to allow for parking spaces within the circle circle drive and that will enable uh Alpha FE to be able to meet Norman parking requirements. I believe that's one space per bed. Um moving to the the building, the hatched area is where that addition is going to be. So the west side, the facade is going to see some some changes and then the the porch is going to get extended out kind of in that courtyard area uh on the east side of the building. And then also the plan is to improve storm water drainage. So there's a plan to have a detention facility along the east side of the property. But outside of that, I don't think I have any other anything else. I don't know if this is a clicker or not. Is that it? There it is. Yeah. So this is kind of the the vision for Alpha Fe. Um so maintaining kind of that same beautiful landscaping they currently have and just adding to the aesthetics of the the Greek area. but happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Any questions by commission for the applicant?

Seeing none, I would move to audience comments if there's any for this item. And if none, planning commission discussion. If no discussion, I would take a motion on this item. Move to approve. Second. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I would take a vote. You may vote. All votes have been cast and it carries. Moving. And is today your birthday? [laughter]

Happy birthday. Thank you. Happy birthday. We know that because he was a former planning department staff member that now works separately. So to see you here.

Moving to items number four and five. Item number four, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-18, 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 part of the south half of section 9, township 8 north, range 2 west to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, from the A2 rural agricultural district, and place the same in the C2 general commercial district of said city and providing for the severability thereof. of 3,400 Class and Boulevard Ward 7. And item number five, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of PP-2526-10, consideration of a preliminary plat submitted by Greatest Hopes LLC, Golden Land Surveying for 3400 Classen Boulevard for 1.48 acres of property located at 3400 Classen Boulevard, Ward 7. We would take the staff presentation.

You'll be seeing me a lot tonight. It's me again. Um, so this is a request for straight resoning to C2 and a preliminary plat for 3,400 Classen Boulevard. Um, so it's kind of one of those rare pieces of A2 that's kind of in the middle of town. Um, so it has C2 to the north and then another A2 lot to the south with um some residential around it. The uh AIM designation is urban living center. There are currently five buildings that will be demoed as part of this project. Then this is just kind of zoomed out to show uh the general area. We've seen a lot of development recently along class. These are the houses that are currently there. And then looking south on classic. Looking north on classic. And here's the site plan. Nope, that was a clap. But here's the site plan. Uh this is C2. So they um any use that's allowed in C2 would be allowed on this property. Um and they're not necessarily tied exactly to this site plan. Um the applicant is here with the presentation. And I forgot to show you the protest. We did receive one protest, which is 1.4% within the notification area. Um, an additional comment on this protest. They're asking for a traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 77 and South Lake Boulevard. Staff has collected traffic impact fees for sever several years to signalize this intersection, but it is not clear if it qualifies at this stage. Of course, ODOT is involved since Classen is their roadway. we can begin studying to see if it qualifies and if it does have construction plans prepared and David Reeland is here if

you have further questions about that as well. Thank you. Any questions by commission for staff? Have a question? Yes. Am I speak I'm on. Thank you. Um so I think I saw that it um there are elements that are inconsistent with the urban urban living center designation. Is that right? Yes. And so, you know, one question I had is um what would what would being consistent look like? Do you want to for example, is the city expecting to see like multi-story development?

So, within the urban living center, uh it really is looking for uh residential non-residential uses. It's more of a mixeduse development. That is one and the gross densities uh of any single development should be greater than 18 units per acre. But again, this is straight C2 zoning. So, you know, we're just going by sections as we look at it, but this is what they proposed, right? Thank you.

I I did have a question. And it may be for David, but um the what I was curious what what uh qualifies means. Is that more of a design consideration or more of a monetary consideration as far as there needs to be enough impact traffic impact fees collected to justify that? David Reach, transportation engineer, has nothing to do with the fees collected. It has to do with does is there traffic volumes sufficient to warrant the installation of a traffic signal? and we haven't collected those volumes to know the answer to that yet. Okay. So, is that would that be next steps to before council approval or uh or is that uh

No, that's some something we would do separate from this. Okay. I mean, we're kind of in that time of year where it's hard to collect traffic volumes right now because they're not typical getting into the holidays. Uh, so we really need to have good weather perhaps in January to collect some data to see if it warrants a traffic signal. Then we'd have to do enter into a contract with a consultant to do the construction plans and then we'd have to discuss with ODOT how to fund it since it's their road. They pay 80% of the construction cost. Okay. Thank you.

They're strapped like a lot of people are right now. I'd like to interject that I spoke with staff and asked them to discuss about that intersection being signalized because this came up when we did the addition for St. James Park as well. It was something that residents had mentioned and requested and because it came up again in this protest letter. I thought it would be helpful to know what the city's plan was, if any, for signalizing that and what the path forward would be for those residents. So I did request that the staff put that consideration in and be able to answer questions regarding a potential light there mainly because it has come up before. So I hope that was additional helpful information for residents that might be interested as well as commission.

And just to clarify the traffic impact fees that we've collected would pay the 20% share that the city would have to provide. Any other questions for staff from the commission? Okay, thank you very much. I would take the applicant presentation.

Good evening. My name is Libby Smith. On behalf of the applicant, um I'll go pretty fast because Laura pretty much covered it all. Once again, this is a site on the northwest corner of Classen Boulevard and Cedar Lane Road. Um we've seen a lot of development in this area and just an example of that is this slide kind of extended out from our site. Um you can see that recently adopted St. James neighborhood. Um and then further to the south is the St. James Center which is a little commercial development and then the Armstrong project and then even further south the Liberty Point project. So, lots of development in this area. And then the subject property on this view is that kind of little red triangle. So, kind of in line with all the recent developments. So, this is the street view currently. And the existing zoning in a Norman, it's urban living center and then the character area is corridor. Um, so AIM recognizes that this is a kind of central corridor in Norman. And then like Laura said, this is just kind of a leftover A2 um agricultural piece that doesn't really fit anymore in this area. So we're proposing to reszone it to C2 general commercial, which is more in line with um all of the recent development in this area. So this is the proposed site plan. Um the site plan is required to be submitted as part of the zoning, but the end user is not tied to the site plan. Um, this is just a speculative reszoning, so we don't know exactly what that will look like once the end user comes forward. And then this is the preliminary plat. Um, you can see those existing buildings kind of underneath the overlay of the site plan. Um, and it'll just be one lot.

And so this is the summary of the request. It's about 1.5 acres, a little bit less, um, a straight reszoning to C2. And then from the staff report, it says that the proposed use for this site aligns with the AM Norman land use and character area objectives. This proposal is comparable in scale and form to adjacent developed commercial properties. And then with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you. Any questions by commission of the applicant? Okay, seeing none, is there any audience comments for this item? Seeing none, I would move to planning commission discussion. I uh I I don't have any issue with the reszoning on this as far as like this seems appropriate for commercial use, but I am I I'm curious a little more as to what does it I and David this is maybe I just didn't ask the right question, but is this um is the plan to do the traffic impact study It's just not the right the the timing of the year is uh not appropriate to do that right now.

As soon as the time is right, yes, we will collect the data to see if it a traffic signal is warranted. Yes. Okay. And just to sorry, clarify that further. That means like the study will be done in the foreseeable future. It just is a matter of the right month essentially. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Before you sit back down too, will that study also take into consideration this development as well as the other developments that are proposed even if they've not actually been built out yet? No, because you have to have the traffic volumes present to warrant a signal. You can't it will not it would not be approved if we based it on future volumes. Okay.

We would have to collect other data after the after things develop. How how are those typically if the traffic impact studies go toward funding the uh the the next study I guess in the next few months? Um uh what is the you know causation to to warrant an additional study down the road after after a site site or sites have been developed? If a traffic impact study is done that includes a signal warrant study, often it does look at future volumes, but that would not be again would not be approvable by in this case ODOT. They would want to see actual volume. So that's what would cause another study to be done. And they're two very different studies. We're not looking at traffic impacts. We're just looking at volumes at the intersection. Does it meet the warrants? Is that is it I'm just curious as much as anything. Is that driven by ODOT? Uh like the

No, that's nationwide guidelines. That's not just ODAT. No, sorry. I mean like the um the decision to do an additional study for a traffic impact study. Is that that's is that city? We're mixing terms here. Well, I know I know traffic impact study is generally done. I realize we're not doing a traffic impact study, right, upcoming, but I'm just I'm just thinking about future. This is just for concerns for the the the neighborhood to

Right. the the the original traffic study, it was before it predates my time at the city. I want to say it was done between 20 and 25 years ago that identified this intersection as a future candidate for a traffic signal and it established the traffic impact fees that should be collected towards that signal. That's what we've been doing over the years is collecting those impact fees for developments that impact that intersection. But we still have to do the study to prove that it's warrant it meets the traffic volume requirements to install a traffic signal. Okay. Thank you.

For the St. James neighborhood is as that St. James develops out. Um, we're going to add additional entrances on Cedar Lane Road and so those residents will have another access point to get out of that neighborhood, but it would increase the traffic volumes and therefore probably result in a warranted traffic sign. Okay. Well, I have a question on that as well because um, obviously 25 years and actually it's about 30 years ago when St. James started to go in when it was first starting to be developed. Renaissance Drive was not even imagined, I'm sure, back then. Um, would this make a difference?

Renaissance Drive was also one of those same signals that was identified as as being needed at some point in the future in that same study for park. But we wouldn't look at putting two lights, one at here and one it's not a great idea down the road. probably study both and see which which meets I guess is probably what we should do. Okay, because the one at Cedar Lane does a very good job right now as it is. It slows everything down. A traffic signal will create gaps for other intersections. So if you had a signal on either side, you would have gaps to be able to get out better than you do without any signals.

All those restaurants is what's slowing most everything down right now. Agreed. which is good. I live over there. Good discussion. Thank you very much. Any other planning commission discussion? Seeing none, I would take a motion on this item. I'll move to approve. Second it. [clears throat] Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I would take a vote.

You may vote. All votes have been cast and it carries six to zero. Moving to item number six, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-24, 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 part of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the section 34, Township 9 north, range 2 west of the Indian meridian to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma from a PUD planned unit development and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and provide fighting for the severability thereof 2525 East Lindsay Street Ward 1. We will take the staff presentation.

All right. So, Mission Norman would like to amend their uh existing PUB. It's largely a site plan amendment. So, it is currently a PUD um mostly surrounded by A2 and then to the south there's some C1 and some R1A. The AIM designation is mixed use. So there is their office building. Um and then they have one residential structure at this time. This is kind of an old area. So we'll go with this one that's a little zoomed out to kind of show in a landing and then uh Summit Lakes. Summit Lakes. I always get the Summit ones mixed up. Sorry. Um okay, here's the site plan. So the number of units is remaining the same. It's just a different mix of um building types. Here's a green space exhibit. And then this is showing where parking will be. Uh the applicant is here with the presentation and I'm available with for questions as well.

Thank you. Any questions by commission for staff on this item? One moment. Question. Almost. Okay. Thank you. Quick question about the phasing. So, it looks like this uh application doesn't meet the city's requirements. How far off is it from meeting the requirements? Um, it's kind of hard to So, we require people to lay out their phasing plan in a PUD by ordinance. For an organization like Mission Norman, it can be difficult because they rely on donations to be funded. Um, but we are kind of required to point out what they are or are not meeting. Sure.

Does that answer your question? It does. Thank you. Any other questions for staff by commission? Seeing none, I take the applicant presentation.

Good evening. My name is Ben Lor on behalf of the applicant. Um like staff said, this is an application to modify the existing PUD and amend the site plan that was adopted back in 2010. And um here is kind of a aerial view just so we can orient ourselves. That's 24th and East Lindsay. Uh subject property right there is about 5.75 acres. And before we really get into the substance of the actual request itself, kind of a 50,000 foot overview of what the mission Norman is and what the organization is. Um it's been around in Norman for the last about 27 years um and serving the community in a variety of different ways from um everything from they have a food pantry on their site. They have go out and do a bunch of community outreach events. Everything from um food drives, toy drives, clothing drives. I mean, you can imagine this is a really, really busy time of year for them. They've they've really their hearts deserve the people of Norman and they also have transitional housing on the site itself. Um, and one more thing about this particular application compared to the one in 2010. 2010 there was a lot of a lot of protests, a lot of uh a lot of push back, a really an uphill battle and um compared to the one today that we we do not have to date any letter of protests, which really speaks to, you know, the caliber of neighbor that they are, the quality of organization that they are, the fact that, you know, they the fact that they're they're such good neighbors. So, um, now to get kind of get into the substance. Again, Laura Laura kind of, uh, went over it. Um, so we'll we'll speed through this quickly. Uh, again, aim is mixed, uh, future land use is mixed use, character area is suburban. Uh, current zoning is a PUD. There's no change there. We're just amending the early amending the site

plan um to allow no changes to the proposed land use as well. Um, here is a comparison to the 2010 approved plan on the left and then the proposed plans on the right. We'll have a a a larger uh more easyto read proposed plan here in a second, but uh the the current approved site plan has five quadlexes uh across kind of the outside um of of the property. And there's that new there's the main building kind of on the on the left and on the bottom right is a um a storage barn. And what they did is they are moving all of the transitional housing to the east side of the property. Um as you can see they're adding nine duplexes. They're keeping the one existing quadplex um and freeing up a bunch of green space on the west side of the property just north of the existing BA building to be a community garden. Um and here is a more zoomed in, easier to read version of the site plan. Uh as you can see there's there are all the proposed duplexes. There'll be playgrounds for the uh the families and the kids that are that are living on property. And you can see that community garden there. And one really cool thing about the community garden is and one of the main uses there is um like I said earlier they're they currently have a or they have a um a food bank there. And the goal for that community garden is to make that food bank more sustainable which I think is really cool and a really great use and future vision right there. Um and moving again moving all that all um all of the housing over to the east side um opens up about 60% of open space as well.

Here is the site plan in context. And just again a summary, modifying the PUD uh to amend the existing site plan, removing the quadplex, barn usages, and adding um transitional housing duplexes, playgrounds, gardens, associated amenities. Um adding nine duplexes instead of those five uh quadlexes. And it is overall consistent with with AIM Norman. And again, there are no official protests. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions by commission of the applicant?

Sure, I'll follow up. Thank you. Um, it looks like a a really nice plan. You know, I think the green space is wonderful. Um, adds to a lot of quality of uh of life. Um, since we were asking about the phasing, uh, does Mission Norman have a rough idea of of how quickly they plan to build it out? Um, I don't have an exact timeline. I know that like Laura said, it is very much um donor-based. Um I know it's it's a really healthy organization and this is a plan that uh I know they want to act on quickly. Um but I don't have specific dates. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant by commission? Seeing none, I'd move to audience comments. There's none, I would move to planning commission discussion. Any discussion on this item? And if not, I would take a motion. Motion to approve. Second it and a vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Any discussion on the motion? None. We'll vote.

You may vote. All votes have been moving to items number eight and nine read together. Item number eight, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance 0-2526-25, an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, amending section 36-201 of the code of the city of Norman, so as to remove the lot 1 block 1 of 36 North Business Park and a and a replat of lot one, block one of SCMC edition and lot six block one of Brock Industrial Park of the Indian Meridian. in to Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma from a PUD planned unit development and place the same in a PUD planned unit development and providing for the severability thereof generally located east of 36th Avenue Northwest approximately 1 half mile north of Rock Creek Road W 8. And item number nine, consideration of approval, acceptance, rejection, amendment, and/or postponement of ordinance- 0-2526-26, an ordinance of the council of the city of Norman, Oklahoma, closing specific 15- ft utility easements within lot 1, block 1, 36 North Business Park. A planned unit development, Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma, providing for the severability thereof, east of 36th Avenue Northwest, approximately 1 half mile north of Rock Creek Road, Ward 8. and we would take the staff presentation.

Hello. Um so this is an amendment to an existing PUD mostly site plan amendment um with some use changes and then a closing of a specific 15t utility easement. So, like we said, it is uh already a PUD with mostly um commercial and residential uses, some office uses uh largely surrounded by I1 to the east, north, and south, and then to the west there's residential. So, uh it's kind of split with its a Norman land use designation. It's part commercial and part interchange mixed use. So, uh, the west side of the development along 36 has been developed. That's development area one in the pud. Development area 2 is where some changes have been made on the site plan. Here's an aerial of what's existing. and then just zoomed out a little to kind of show the industry and office uses surrounding a site plan development area and green space exhibit and then um Nathan from utilities gave me a little bit to read for you. So, uh, just one statement, the city will need to reserve an easement for the existing water line until such time that the water line is removed pursuant to the construction plans received um, related to the easement closure. And the applicant is here with the presentation and we're available for questions as well.

Thank you. Is there any questions for staff by commission? Seeing none, we take the applicant presentation. All right. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. And excited to show you this one because this is one I think we've all driven by for many years and wondered when is that going to get done? Well, hopefully after this one, it will get done. This is one that the applicant came to to city staff and uh really approached them and said, "Can we just proceed with they showed them their new plan?" And I think really uh we felt it was probably in line with the existing PUD but the existing PUD was done in 2008 and there was some ambiguity as well are we sure that residential can go here and commercial year and there definitely was some site plan changes on what I'm going to show you from the existing pud. So I think everybody basically ultimately decided let's just run it back through as an amended pud just to make sure and clean it up. But uh but it's really very close to what was already approved in 2008. And as as Laura said, it really largely is just a site plan amendment here. So, it's about 20 acres. Uh I'll be very quick because Laura really showed you the same stuff I'm going to show you, but this is one of those developments that had parking already built. And this was sort of in vogue back in this time frame. There was several developments that did this. There's another one south of this a little ways called Greenway Park that tried the same thing and building out parking lot and hoping that then that users would come in and the sale point was, "Hey, we've built your parking for you. Come on in." and it it just didn't work obviously because it never developed out. So, uh this developer has is more cohesive and has a much better vision of what they want to do and so we're pretty excited that I think this will actually coalesce into an actual completed development. So, uh that's the development you're familiar with that uh has been put forth in the front but nothing in the back. Uh Laura showed you the the land use and the character areas. Uh we mostly are in line with all

that. This is the existing uses. PUD surrounded by industrial. Although I would note that in the industrial areas there are some things that are not really industrial. There's a music academy in there. CCS school is in there. Bark Connor gymnastics is in there. So actually that in so-called industrial park actually has some things that would be pretty compatible with a residential complex nearby. So I think it works pretty well. This is city GIS and just to show you exactly how much has already been developed and we're going to work within the confines of the those are water lines all through there, fire hydrants all through there. They've been there for 20ish years almost and we're going to work within that. A couple of the easements will be changed as uh as Laura's read from from Nathan and we're fully fine with the reservation of a waterline easement to deal with that. So, so this is really just some modification of the site plan to to deal with the new development. And here is the new development. I'll show you a better graphic that shows the green space, but uh it is roughly there's the three existing buildings on the west side or left side. And then this is basically 21 new buildings that will be mostly multif family about 220 units and you see the arrangement there. Uh staff wrote that it is consistent with the surrounding zoning and uh and fairly compatible. This is the the green doesn't come through on this slide very well, but there is green shown on that. Um, and that is basically the two different development areas that Laura mentioned. Basically, in general fashion, the front end is commercial with residential allowances on the upper floors and the development area two on the backside is primarily residential with commercial allowances on the first floor and commercial across the top. You see the northern zone there probably gets into some office and commercial uses instead of the residential on the south side of the space. So that is uh the context of it you can see there and

again really not very different than what was proposed previously just uh a little bit of a different arrangement. So some of that concrete will be changed and the particularly on the south end there's an area of parking lot that will be removed with two new apartment buildings put on it. So enough of a site plan change that needed to be brought back through. Uh staff wrote the proposed development aligns with a Norman comprehensive land use plan by providing greater variety of housing options and densities. There were no protests on this. We're not aware of anybody that's adverse to it. I'll have one slide to show you just for the easement vacation. You see these occasionally this is just a couple areas of utility easements to basically modify so that we can fit with the new site plan. Of course, we're welcome to we're open to the staff and the reservation of water lines until the new water lines are in place. We don't have any problem with that and that's what's being asked of you tonight. So, happy to answer any questions you have and we thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Are there any questions by commission for the applicant?

I have a quick question. I'm just curious. How much of the concrete do you think you're changing or or leaving in place? I don't have a square footage for you, Commissioner, but uh I can kind of describe it a little bit. On the bottom part down here, uh you see the two lower left uh our apartment buildings. Right now, that is basically one large parking lot. Well, I can kind of show you if you go to the aerial, you can see on the aerial on the bottom end of that is all concrete. And uh what will be changed is there will be apartment buildings on that instead if you see the bottom left. And then as you go up into the development, some of those concrete spaces will have uh sort of the parking edges taken off of them so that the apartment building will fit into it. In fact, I I wish I had a pointer on these. I don't. But if you were to look right in the middle, if you see where it says development area too and come down page from that and you can see the long just below development, there's a clubhouse right there. And then down from that, you see a long linear drive with parking. If you see how the parking is on the north side of that drive, but not on the south side. It is built with parking on the south side, but that edge will be taken off. So there's little adjustments like that happening sort of throughout the site plan.

Great. Thank you. Just related to that is the you may have said this and apologize if so did um the concrete that's there is that is that going to stay or you like uh meaning like do you have to put in new concrete? I I think they'll assess it as they proceed to see whether they can reuse that or not. and and uh that would be more of a uh you get when you get into construction permitting and design construction design drawings, that's when they would really decide what they can use, what they can't, but the layout they've pretty well laid out as as that.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant by commission? Okay, seeing none, I would move to audience comments. And if none then planning commission discussion and if there is no discussion then I would take a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none I would go to a vote. You may vote. All votes have been cast and it carries six to zero.

Moving to miscellaneous discussion. Does staff have any information for the commission? Does commission do commissioners have any comments to make? I sent an email, but I just wanted to um also say that I very much appreciated the additional staff comments on the urban living center contact notes. Um that was very helpful. So, thank you very much for putting those in when we had that item. And if nothing else uh to come before commission, I'd say merry Christmas and I'll declare the meeting adjourned.