Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Meeting

CENTER CITY ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MARCH 17, 2022 The Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee of the City of Norman, Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma, met in the Executive Conference Room of the Norman Municipal Building, 201 West Gray Street, on the 17th day of March, 2022. Notice and agenda of the meeting were posted at the Norman Municipal Building and online at https://www.normanok.gov/your-government/public-information/agendas- and-minutes 24 hours prior to the beginning of the meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT Councilmember Lee Hall Councilmember Stephen Holman Councilmember Matthew Peacock Keith McCabe Jim Adair Richard McKown MEMBERS ABSENT Autumn McMahon A quorum was present. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Jane Hudson, Director of Planning & Community Development Logan Hubble, Planner I Lora Hoggatt, Planning Services Manager Colton Wayman, Planner I Anais Starr, Planner II Rone’ Tromble, Admin. Tech. IV Heather Poole, Assistant City Attorney Scott Sturtz, City Engineer GUESTS Peter Petromilli Elizabeth Bevel Councilmember Hall called the meeting to order at 11:34 a.m. 1. WELCOME Councilmember Hall – Thank you all for being here during Spring Break. We have one member that is not able to attend today. I believe Councilmember Peacock will be here, but I haven’t heard from him one way or the other. Before we get started, I want to reiterate a comment that I had made last week that we’re going to be following going forward, and that is we are not going to have time to allow for public comments during the meeting because we’re already challenged in getting through all the content that we need to in a timely manner. I just want to make clear, again, that there is an option Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 2 for feedback. If anyone that is here today or is listening to the proceedings of our meeting this morning, you can offer feedback. Please send it my email address: Ward4@normanok.gov, and then I will make sure that it’s distributed to the committee. The reason we need to do this this way is we have a very clear understanding of how we want to be in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, and I firmly believe in transparency and accountability, so that is the best way to offer feedback that can be distributed to all committee members at the same time. I hope that’s clarifying. I do welcome feedback, but we’re just not going to be able to take it today. 2. DISCUSSION OF CONSOLIDATION IN NUMBER OF FRONTAGES Councilmember Hall – Moving along, the second item for discussion this morning – actually, our first agenda item is discussion regarding consolidation in number of frontages. I believe Mr. Hubble has the floor. Mr. Hubble – Here’s the map that you have seen multiple times. This has not changed from last week. It’s just for reference; we might need to go back to it at some point during the presentation. We sent out to everyone our rough draft of what we have for Urban General and Urban Residential and we also gave copies out so you can have a physical copy to look at during the meeting. The first change we made was to remove the diagrams that went across the top of both of the Urban General pages. I may be wrong, but I don’t think they were useful to developers. They definitely weren’t useful to staff. Everything contained in them was already in the text, and in some cases they actually had discrepancies from the text, so things were just totally untrue. This happened at some point with the consultant; we were unable to edit them, so they weren’t able to be salvaged. We would have had to make totally new diagrams, so we ended up just scrapping them. Mr. McKown – Can we put that on the agenda, to make new diagrams after we make these changes, because that is one of the most important tenants of a form-based code, is that it be filled with pictures of what we want, and not based on words. It’s really important. Councilmember Holman – But updated to reflect our current text. Councilmember Hall – I also want to make sure – this is the recommendation with staff, based on how they use the code and how they work with developers, so this is feedback that’s important. But that had been their recommendation that, because they were in conflict and frequently offered opportunities to have multiple interpretations of the code, in the interest of simplicity that, I think, was the aim. Mr. Hubble – It was really the not allowing for any sort of loophole to get around the text, and we’ve had some issues with that. That was part of our intention. Moving on, then we also added in the first section, a thing that says that all the buildings have to be limited by the maximum height shown in the height map, which was on the previous slide. We’ve already discussed that. Then near the top of the second column, we switched the numbers between what’s allowed to be private open area on balconies and what has to be located Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 3 behind the structure or behind the parking setback at grade. Basically, we just allowed for a greater use of balconies – of front-facing balconies, so got a little bit more private open area to be on the streetscape, so hopefully more interaction. Councilmember Hall – Could you explain your rationale for that – what the thinking was based on? Mr. Hubble – This was actually Anais’s idea, if she wants to jump in. Ms. Starr – We were getting a lot of open space in the back that was not very quality open space, so it kind of made sense to us to want to encourage private quality open space. We had some feedback from developers that they were having a hard time putting anything in front of the building and have it count for anything. So by switching these numbers around, because previously it was the 67 had to be in the rear and on the ground. This way 67% of it can be in balconies or frontscape – out in front of the building – we’re trying to make it walkable, so you have some kind of interaction between the building and the pedestrians that are walking. That’s the thought process behind it, to allow more private space, but provide interaction. Mr. Hubble – These wouldn’t be front yards, really. It really is for balconies. We do have the courtyard allowance in the Urban Residential, but it wouldn’t be front yards. They would still have to meet the RBL façade requirements. Just allowing for a little bit more in the way of balconies. Next mid-way down the second column. We want to require exterior walls to follow the fenestration requirements. What we wrote in here was within 3’ of the lot line, although now we realize that, after talking to the building code side of things, that may be a little too small, so we’re going to actually change that to 5’. What we want to do is any exterior side wall – or really any exterior wall – rear or side wall – we need to change that to include the back walls. So any exterior wall – so that would be walls around a courtyard, obviously the front, back walls – any wall – that’s not within 5’ of a side lot line would be required to meet the fenestration requirements. As it is now, we’ve had a lot of projects that have almost totally blank walls or mostly blank with really small amounts of windows – like 1 or 2 – on the back. These are taller buildings that you can see sometimes from down the street or from behind. So we think it would really help the look of the area if the fenestration was required on all sides. Mr. McCabe – Item 2 – adherence to the BFS height map – can you go back to the height map, please? Everything is moving up to 5, some 6. If a house is demoed, is that what has to be built back? Mr. Hubble – No. This is the maximum. Mr. McCabe – So we’re now going to use that as a maximum. Mr. Hubble – This has always been the maximum. For the height, it has been maximum. They can build as low as, I believe, 2. So they can still do as low as 2 if they want to. But this is the maximum. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 4 Mr. McCabe – Okay. So that’s on the height. Is the unit count in this same part, or is that in a different … Mr. Hubble – That’s in the same part. It will be on the next page. Mr. McCabe – Okay. When you get to that, I’ll have that question, too. Thank you. Councilmember Hall – I have a question, too. When I was reviewing this last night, just on the very first part, under Building Height, you’ve got number 3 that, I’m assuming, is going to be omitted completely, or moved someplace else? Mr. Hubble – Omitted completely. We took what was in that number 3 and put it on the height map. There’s really no need for number 3. One part of that needs to be – the 5th story being stepped back – that needs to be actually pulled out of that. But number 3 a-b-c – is basically redundant because it is already shown in the height map. Councilmember Hall – Okay. Well, just to be consistent, if we’re talking about taking diagrams out and sticking to the words, then we’ve got a diagram but not the words. I don’t know how you want to handle all that, but I think we need to be consistent one way or the other. I just wanted to make sure because the same number of stories is reflected in the diagram basically with these definitions, I think – if you would flash back to that – because I think we talked about … Mr. Hubble – It’s exactly the same. Councilmember Hall – One of the points I had brought up previously was – one of my concerns is making sure that we still are keeping in mind that in the original plan there was a transition from the different housing types into the yellow Detached single family homes, which is already an historic neighborhood. It just seems like that’s still important to accomplish, and it looks like that’s what we’re still adhering to, just taking the words out. Mr. Hubble – Those words that we’re taking out are only for orange. We haven’t changed those at all. The Urban General orange section is – at least the heights – are exactly the same as they have been. Councilmember Hall – I understand that, but we just need to be consistent. Mr. Hubble – We can leave them in. Councilmember Holman – On the step back thing – on Main Street there’s no height limit, but after the 5th floor would they have to do a step back on Main Street? Mr. Hubble – It’s red, so it’s not Urban General on Main Street. Councilmember Holman – The step back only applies to the … Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 5 Mr. Hubble – Urban General. I’m not sure. I haven’t worked on an Urban Storefront project. Ms. Starr – It says it’s only designated on the regulating plan – the 5th story façade – so it’s only where it’s designated. Councilmember Holman – So Main and Gray Street you could build a taller building and it doesn’t have to step back. Mr. Hubble – Right. If you look down on Boyd, down at the very bottom right corner, you can kind of tell next to the orange, there’s a little bit of purple. That’s what that’s referring to. At the 5th story it has to be stepped back. The 5th story steps back at least 10’ behind the RBL. Councilmember Holman – But on Main Street and Gray Street they can build a square if they want to? Mr. Hubble – Right. Councilmember Holman – I don’t really like the step back look very much when I see them, but I don’t really care. I just wanted to clarify where that was required or not. Mr. McKown – I want to go back to the fenestration requirements. I’m unclear on 2 on that topic. What does this say? A side wall? Again, I’ve got to draw this thing. You’ve got a minimum of 12’ that’s got to be on the property line. Right? Mr. Hubble – From the property line back, it has to be 12’. Mr. McKown – From the front build line back, you have to be on the property line with zero setback. Right? Mr. Hubble – Yes. Mr. McKown – And then once we step back from that 12’, if we step back 5’, we want to see a minimum of 30% glazing? Is that what this says? Mr. Hubble – Yes. Mr. McKown – Okay. But it can be up to 70% glazing? Mr. Hubble – Yeah, if someone wants to put a lot of windows. Mr. McKown – Alright. That’s a lot of glazing. Mr. Hubble – I’m not necessarily attached to these percentages. This is what we have right now for the front. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 6 Mr. McKown – I think the rule – and we’d want to consult an architect on this – we’ve got at least one in the room. On a side wall, if you’re less than 5’, it can’t be more than … Mr. Hubble – From 0 to 3’, you can’t have any openings; 3 to 5’, you can have up to 15%. Mr. McKown – Okay. On these side walls, do we want to make that something less than 33%. It’s just a lot of windows. Mr. Hubble – That’s fine. I’m willing to discuss that. I don’t have a strong opinion on that. Mr. McKown – Is there a number? Mr. Hubble – Right now we have 20% for the upper story. We could change it to 20% for the ground story. Mr. McKown – On a side wall that seems like 20% would be fine. Mr. McCabe – It seems like a lot of windows 5 and 6 stories tall looking into 5 and 6 story tall – that’s a lot of glass. Mr. McKown – You can’t exceed 70% -- that’s the way this reads. Okay. Councilmember Hall – And our resident councilmember architect is on his way, so you can ask him when he gets here. Ms. Starr – Are you saying, Richard, just 20% for the side wall only? Mr. McKown – Yeah. The façade is fine to still have lots of windows. I don’t see that as a problem. Ms. Starr – But the side wall on the ground or on the upper story you want it to be 20%? Mr. Hubble – On the ground story, he wants it to be 20-70%, rather than 33-70% on the side. Mr. McKown – What’s confusing there is we’re lumping the ground – it’s almost like there needs to be a separate category just talking about sidewalls. Mr. Hubble – Sure. We can do that. Councilmember Hall – Okay. We’ll circle back when Councilmember Peacock gets here. Next page. Mr. Hubble – For the street wall regulations, basically we moved them into one section. We did have the height requirement and access gate requirement separate in this BFS section. We moved them together. No change at all to the actual text, though. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 7 We added the unit minimum section. It’s pretty much the same as we already discussed, but in addition to that – and this is how we are already interpreting what we have in the Townhouse – in the Townhouse area all structures must be attached by a common wall or a common roof. That text is a little different than it is in the Urban Townhouse right now. We tried to clean it up a little bit, but that’s basically what it’s saying is they have to meet the unit minimum of 3 or 1 less than the height maximum, and on top of that all the structures must be attached. So you can’t have 3 separate structures on one of these lots. Mr. McCabe – I will agree that, with what you have in the blue existing, you’re pretty much narrowing it, but you are completely changing the pink area, adding the 3 or minimum unit to where I have the ability to build a single family, I can build a duplex so, in my opinion, you’re severely changing that area that was pink, and I have a problem with that. I understand you’re doing it for uniformity, but you’re really drastically changing that pink area and I’m not ready to do that, personally. I think that there are – I understand the fact that there have been no applications for single family. Since our last meeting I have done a ton of research on Seattle, Dallas – all of these places – and what’s amazing to me, if I have just a moment, is the bringing back basically co-shared units. This is what we’ve had, but we got away from because we called them mini-dorms or student housing and so we ran away from all of that. Now that’s all coming back because of the price. As Richard mentioned, the one product you cannot find on the market today is a 1-bedroom apartment. You read in the Transcript last week that 1- bedroom apartments in the City of Norman are 43% higher this fiscal year than they were last year. I am not ready to just completely concede a 3-unit minimum in that pink area that we have right now. I understand the single family home, and I can agree that nobody has ever done, but I know that there are people doing it. I know there’s a want. So I can’t get off of that change yet in the pink. Mr. Adair – Pink is immediately east of Campus Corner? Mr. McCabe – Pink was basically east of Campus Corner to the railroad track, to Boyd, up to that first cross street which is Duffy. That little corner there. Everything else north of that line was orange. Councilmember Holman – In this area the height maximum is 5, so they’d have to put 4 units. Right? Could you not put 4 single-family units on a lot? I mean, the units don’t have to be multiple bedrooms. You could build a single family unit that’s 1 bedroom. You could have 4 of them on one of these lots. I’ve seen pretty skinny single-family homes that are 3 stories in these areas. Would that be allowed? Mr. Hubble – Yes. That’s really the idea with this, is to encourage fewer bedrooms per unit. By requiring more units, there’s less room to have a whole bunch of bedrooms per unit, so we’re hopefully getting 1 or 2-bedroom units that is a different housing type. Councilmember Holman – They wouldn’t be able to take one of these lots and build one single building that was a 1-bedroom apartment. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 8 Mr. Hubble – They still could go through the Center City Planned Unit Development process to do that. That is still totally an option. Mr. Adair – Stephen, we talked about this I think afterwards a little bit last week. When I think about a single family unit, something that could be condoed, I’m thinking a townhouse structure where you’ve got a multi-story unit. I’m not thinking one apartment – a one unit over the other unit. On a 50’ lot, you can’t build a unit that’s 12’ wide. Councilmember Holman – This is a picture I just sent to Keith that I saw on Facebook. That’s a single-family residence that’s 3 stories. Mr. Adair – I’m not saying you can’t find examples. Councilmember Holman – I’m just saying you could build 4 of those on a single lot, probably. Right? Mr. Adair – I think the market will accept a 16’ unit; I don’t think it will accept a 12. If that’s really what we want, I think we need to talk about a 3-unit minimum there. Councilmember Holman – Yeah, 3 or 4-story building. That is one unit – a single family unit and then there’s another single family unit and then another one that’s a single family unit. They’re not stacked on top. They’re stacked next to, I guess. Mr. McKown – But that’s not what we’re actually wanting. Councilmember Holman – We’re wanting more density. Mr. McKown – What we’re wanting are units stacked on top of each other. That’s what we’re wanting. Mr. Adair – Then we need to quit talking about building something that’s going to be single-family occupied. I think you’re going to build rental units then. Mr. McKown – Of course you’re going to build rental units. But what you get down to is you get down to the 2-bed apartment stacked on top of another 2-bedroom apartment stacked on top of another 2-bedroom apartment. Right now, correct me if I’m wrong, everything is 3-bedroom. All the example plans that got sent out were three bedroom. Mr. Hubble – Almost entirely. That’s almost all we’ve gotten. Mr. McKown – That’s not where the young professor is moving into a 3-bedroom. The grad student that came here to invent the new weather app isn’t going to live with a couple of roommates that they’ve never met who are undergrads. So the 2-bedroom/1- bedroom product – you can’t get it unless you start stacking those on top of one another. What we’ve got to do is we’ve got to make that economically viable. We’ve got to make that the most economically viable thing, and then we’ll get it. That I don’t know how to do. But I feel like we’ve made a lot of progress in that direction. I think we’ve Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 9 made some improvements toward parking, because you’ve got to have plenty of parking to support all that as well. I think we’re getting there. Mr. McCabe – As we’re building those 2 and 3-story townhomes, typically we’re adding an elevator. Cost of a residential elevator will run about $25,000-30,000. That is now a purely functional, affordable system in a townhome. If you tell me I have to stack them 3 and 4 stories tall, there is not going to be anybody of age wanting to traverse 4 flights of stairs to live. It’s not going to happen. I don’t have room for an elevator. I can’t do it. If we’re really truly talking about a housing type that we’re wanting to bring – I’m not walking up 3 flights of stairs to get to an apartment, and I’m 57 years of age. So you’re totally taking out all of the new stuff that they’re building in the city – in Midtown – like I said, Dallas, Seattle – that’s what they’re building. They’re building these skinny townhomes and they’re 20’ wide, but they have a personal residential elevator costing $25,000 up through the atrium and that’s how people are getting – with their laundry rooms on the second floor where now they’re putting their washers and dryers by their master bedroom, as we’re doing on all the house plans. They’re throwing the laundry in the elevator and I’m watching it go up – it’s the neatest thing in the world, but I’m not going to be able to build a product like that. I am building, in my opinion, apartments – 5-story, single sided, single floored apartments. If that’s what we’re going after, I think we have a whole lot of town, instead of making everything 5-story apartment buildings. I just really hate you taking away my residential ability, because we’ve always talked about I used to get ornery with Stephen when we would do build lines and his words were, Keith, if it takes 70 years to get it, but we’ll get there. It doesn’t matter that we’re not getting residential today; we’ve got it coming. The fact that when you say I have an avenue that I can go in front of City Council to get special permission – that’s a maybe; that’s not a definite; it is purely based upon that City Council’s opinion at that time. I don’t like the fact that is my only option is at somebody else’s whim and you’re getting rid of residential. Mr. McKown – Is the compromise position to treat this pink area differently than everything else? Mr. McCabe – If I may, Richard, we are right now, and now you’re trying to combine it into the blue. Mr. McKown – Right. What I’m asking is, if we take a step back and look at the pink area, because there’s already so much built down there that is very undergraduate focused student rental. A street has a character and they’re taking on a new character. Do we want to try and deal with the old map and this pink area and just try and refine it, and then also refine the blue separately, because there hasn’t been that much built and rebuilt in the blue area on this map? Councilmember Hall – Well, that was the whole idea of trying to approach it from a more uniform – if we could address a lot of the issues that we’re having as a Planning staff, and also another whole conversation of what is not working for those that are choosing to develop in this area. I totally understand where you’re coming from. This is what we’ve been operating under now. It is not a smooth process. It is not a process with a lot of Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 10 room for interpretation that we’re trying to address all of that with this approach. So I hear what you’re saying. Mr. Hubble – The idea is that in bringing the pink into this was to increase density closest to campus – the place where we need the density the most. That was the idea and that’s why the pink was included. Councilmember Hall – This committee was involved in putting the pink back in in 2019. My comment about this, in general, is what has happened since 2017, and then going through all of the work that a committee very similar in makeup went through in 2019, we still have the same – maybe different housing types, but we are appealing to one demographic group, whether it’s pink or blue. Right now, in spite of what was designed in 2017 and executed for 2 years, in spite of all of the changes that we’ve made, I literally cannot name one project that has been built since 2017 in Center City that is intended for any other demographic group other than student housing, no matter what it looks like, no matter how many bedrooms it has. Ms. Hudson – I just want a clarification. Within the pink – I know it’s blue up here – but within the pink – so you’re saying you were comfortable keeping this the way it is right now, but are you also comfortable with these changes that we’re suggesting up here? Councilmember Holman – I am. Councilmember Hall – I am. Mr. McCabe – I am, if you’re asking me personally. Ms. Hudson – I am. Mr. McCabe – Yes, ma’am. Ms. Hudson – So you’re saying that the changes here are okay, but you want to keep this as the pink? Mr. McCabe – I feel like, in my opinion, the changes you’re making to the blue, I see it as streamlining the process. I do see it getting easier, and I understand that. I think you’re completely changing the attitude of the pink from what it is now, and I understand it’s all about location. I have said it a thousand times that that is beachfront. I get it. And to where you’re telling me that if I want to go lower than this number, there’s legal avenues I can take. But could I not use the same argument and say if you keep it that I can do a single family, that I could do a duplex, and I had the same legal option to go up? Ms. Hudson – You could. Mr. McCabe – So I do. So that option, to me, is wash because it works going up as it would the same as coming back. But if I’m at the very top, I’m very restricted to what can happen. I do believe, with me being in the market daily, and I do have a lot of those Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 11 properties. I know what phone calls I’m getting. Three to 4 years ago any 6-bedroom home that I had was the first thing rented out. Since COVID, that has completely changed. The phone calls I get now are my 1, 2 and 3-bedrooms. It all comes to economics at $325,000 for 7,000 sq. ft. dirt. Nobody is going to pay $1,200 to $1,400 for a single bedroom apartment. If you have a 2-bedroom, that’s $2,800. That is not feasible. This market will not carry that number, but yet that’s the number going to be attached to build your product. And I have a problem with that. Ms. Starr – I just want to clarify, last time you all asked for some examples of some drawings that had gotten submitted to us and made it through the approval process that show the 4th bedroom option, so that is what I sent out to you. So on all the ones I think I sent to you it shows that there are 3 bedrooms, but there is a study, or a sitting area, or etc. That’s what I sent out to you. There are some developers who did build 1 and 2 bedrooms. I did not send those to you. Pete has some on Eufaula, next to the railroad thing, and then 207 West Apache, which has the tanks, it’s 5 units and they’re 1 and 2- bedroom. They’re out there. It’s just that’s not what I sent to you. I just wanted to clarify that. Councilmember Hall – So there are 1-bedroom? Ms. Starr – I think they’re 2 or 3 bedrooms. I think Pete’s is 2 and 3. Councilmember Hall – I’m not familiar with one project in Center City that is a 1-bedroom apartment. Correct me if I’m wrong. We have 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom, and we literally have one developer that I’m aware of that has done those since our last round. Mr. McKown – Keith, I thought I just heard you say you had some 1-bed that have been really in demand. But are they already older units that you have? Mr. McCabe – Yes. Mr. McKown – So you haven’t built any new 1-bedroom? Mr. McCabe – No. Councilmember Hall – Have you done any since 2017 in Center City? Mr. McCabe – Can’t afford to. It’s a cost factor. Councilmember Hall – Okay. But there wasn’t a demand, either, until – now you’re saying it’s reversing itself. Mr. McCabe – COVID has changed the world. Councilmember Hall – Well, that’s what I’m saying. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 12 Mr. McCabe – There is a change. So that was where we’ve all talked about it and I’m that guy that I believe in flexibility and I’m always able to adapt my properties as need to be. Those examples that Anais did send out to us – I think those were examples of how people are skirting the system. It’s not necessarily just a product – it’s how they’re skirting the system to get away from the special use of the 4th bedroom, which we are identifying by the bedroom definition. So that, to me – we’re handling that. We haven’t handled the fact of a residential unit smaller than 5 units – 4 units for that entire area. If I’m wrong and it changes, we’ll be back here in 6 months. But I just – the argument about how I can go get permission, I can use the same argument get permission to build down. I just hate seeing the pink completely changed that drastic. Councilmember Holman – Under this proposal, the way I’m understanding it, you could build a single building that’s 2 stories tall, that has 4 units in it that are 1 or 2 bedrooms. You could do that with this. It doesn’t have to be 5 stories. It could be 2 stories and it could just be one building that has 4 units in it, and those 4 units have 1 bedroom in them, and two of the units are upstairs, two of the units are downstairs. You could do that under this. I guess I’m having a hard time following what the problem is. Keith, I’m sorry. Mr. McCabe – No. You’re okay. This is me. Every meeting we talk about the one certain building type, which we’re really talking about use, not building – we’re talking use, who’s renting it. That’s what our conversation is. We constantly try to figure out a way to build to decrease student living. If I’m building a 5-story building, that’s the only person renting it to walk up them stairs. And that is where my … Councilmember Holman – You don’t have to build a 5-story. Mr. McCabe – Stephen, it all has to – everything deals with economics. It really does. Back in the day when we purchased these lots for $100,000 and was able to remodel a house, and maybe the economy will go back there. It’s not showing that trend. Just within the last 2 years, since we had the meeting in 2019, I was here stating that we were buying the lots at $200,000. They’re now paying $330,000, $340,000. That’s just the way it is. That’s the market. In my opinion, what you’re suggesting in this code, and what you’re wanting to change – to me, this is requiring me to build more student housing. I’m building one type. I’m building that. Maybe there’s not as many and maybe that’s our intent is to get off of the 6-bedroom, which we got away from that. We brought it to 3- bedroom. They found a loophole to do 4. Let’s close that loophole, which I think the bedroom does. But now we’re even taking this even further – just this area even further, saying that there is no option for that townhome that somebody wants to buy, live in themselves. There’s not even an option to do that product, what you just sent me. Ms. Starr – I just wanted to remind that we did make changes, and I don’t think Logan highlighted them, to make it 14”. But you haven’t gotten to this section. We’re going to make it 14” to allow for ADA accessibility for the ground floor. Mr. McKown – I want to propose a compromise here, and that we change the pink to light purple. Here’s how I want to define that. I don’t want to make the developer that wants to do a lot of density – I do not want to make that developer have to go get a Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 13 CCPUD. I don’t want to do that. I also don’t want to make Keith have to go do it, either. I want to allow both. Right? Both. This pink area is what it is. It was what it was before we ever went down this path. The horse had left the barn before we finished the first draft of the Form-Based Code. Councilmember Holman – The first project. The first redevelopment of the mini-dorms was on Jenkins and Duffy. Mr. McCabe – We’ve been through here, to back up to the blue, which didn’t work. That’s why we brought it back to the pink, which seemed to be better for that area. Now you’re suggesting – which I get it. You’ve got a fresh set of eyes, which sometimes I wish I had – to go back to where we’ve been that we’ve already brought it back from. We’ve been there, done that. Again, I will just reiterate the fact that it is one word – maximum or minimum. By using the word maximum, it means I can build that 5-story, 4-unit – that’s it. But I don’t have to. If you use the word minimum, which is how we’re identifying these properties, that means I have to do that. So just that one word, in my opinion, is all the difference in the world. Councilmember Holman – Five stories is maximum. That’s the way it’s listed. Right? So 5 stories is the maximum, though. Mr. McCabe – But they’re using it as the word minimum that you have to build this, or you can build up but you’ve got to do the one story below. It’s just like how we are in the blue currently. You have to build a 3-story. You have to build 3 units. So everything I’ve ever read in zoning it gave me the option up to this point. I can build from the first floor, single story, to here. This is telling me that if I go to the ground I can build a 2-story, but I’ve got to build 4 apartments. Mr. Adair – We’re saying maximum on height, but minimum on units. Mr. McCabe – I guess I’m adamant about it, because when we did form-based code – form-based code is truly all about the form of the building. It doesn’t talk about the use of a building; it talks about the form of the building. We’ve all become really good experts on this. You are drastically changing that area to try to make it easier on these larger developers, who have yet to appear – and not saying that they won’t, but it is amazing to me because we constantly hear of people who want housing that is not student related, and if I pay $300,000 for a piece of dirt, any bank makes me put that 20% of my project, so I’m $1.2-1.5 million project to build. To make that work, you’re 4 bedroom – your 4 single bedroom status would be at $2,500 per unit. I never want to hear somebody say affordable housing again. Councilmember Holman – I really don’t understand how that works out, though, really. Mr. Adair – You’re not having a problem with saying a maximum height. Mr. McCabe – Correct. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 14 Mr. Adair – You’re saying a minimum of units. I think the reason we’re saying that is we’re trying to get away from the 6-bedroom, or even the 4-bedroom, unit. We want 1s and 2s. Is there an option … Mr. McCabe – And we have that language already existing. Mr. Adair – That’s what I’m trying to say. I think we’ve already restricted the bedrooms down sufficiently. Ms. Hudson – With our definition? Is that what you’re saying, Jim? Mr. Adair – With our definition of bedrooms. Mr. McCabe – We’re closing that loophole – that I’m thinking, we’re closing that. Because that’s what they’re doing. They’re using flex room, they’re using study. They’re putting in a master – excuse me, we don’t use the word master bedroom anymore – primary bedroom at 15’x30’, which we know what’s happening. Okay? The City has no way to come back after the fact to get it done. But the definition of the bedroom, the way I’ve read that, and my interpretation is that you’re truly trying to stop that loophole. We do that through the parking and we’re doing that through the bedroom definition. So, to me, that’s the problem we’re having is that loophole and you’ve got language to correct it. Mr. Adair – I’d be happier with a 3-unit minimum in that area, I think, than a 4, which is what we’ve got now. In the old pink area, we’re saying it’s 5 stories, which means it’s a 4-unit minimum. I think I’m happy with the 5 stories. I think I’d be happier with a 3-unit minimum. In my opinion, that would let us go back to a townhouse. Councilmember Holman – I’m trying to figure out here is, yeah, we’re trying to encourage more density in this area because it’s closer to the campus and we’ve kind of been limiting it, where we’ve been seeing multiple bedrooms but not a lot of units. I think we all understand that if we built a 1-story single-family suburban subdivision home in Center City, students would live there. No matter what housing is built in this area, no matter what it looks like, students are going to be the ones that live there. You could take a home right out of Eagle Cliff in Ward 7 and plop it in the middle of Center City and students are going to live there in this era. Maybe in 10 years or 15 years, there’ll be another place that they like, but I don’t think it matters what type or what it looks like goes in here, students are going to be the ones – especially in the pink, blue – south area. That’s who is going to live in that area, no matter what we build, in my opinion, at least right now. I want to get us over the idea that if we just change the design, other people might move in there right now. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Maybe one day. And making these buildings so that they can be – single family is never going to move into a building that has 6 bedrooms in it, or 10 – one unit. But someday they might be interested a 2 and 3-bedroom unit. When I looked at those diagrams – the plans that were sent about the 4th bedroom thing, I noticed one thing about a lot of them, though. They had access to a bathroom that was in the hallway, but that bathroom did not have a shower or bathtub. I don’t Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 15 know about you all, but I am not going to pay to rent a room that I have to go through somebody else’s bedroom to shower and bathe. I’m not going to do that. So that may be me, but unless it’s my partner’s … Mr. McCabe – They’re being added after-the-fact. Ms. Hudson – I need a clarification. This is why we’re around the table here, to get this all out. It’s not just Logan. I want to make sure we’re clear on that. We talk about this as staff – it’s all of us. Jim, so you’re saying that – because currently in pink we are 1 dwelling unit, 1 dwelling unit with an accessory building, or duplex. If you have 75’, you’re 3 units. So you’re saying across the board you want 3 units in pink? Or do you still want this 75’? Mr. Adair – I’d like to see you be able to do 3 units on a 50’ lot. To me, that permits what I’m calling a townhouse development. It is not our highest density. But if there’s going to be any single family ownership in here – you could take a 50’ lot and you could condo it and you could own your 16’ and it’s a single family house. I still like moving the density option up there. Councilmember Holman – There are some single families that live in the Center City area, but the ones I know of lived there before, like on Dean’s Row. There is a house on the corner of Monnett and Eddington that was built, I think, before we got – it looks like a house in Brookhaven or something. It’s a single story, all red brick – completely stands out like a sore thumb, in my opinion, from everything else in that area. But it looks like a single family suburban home, but I’m pretty sure students live there. Councilmember Hall – I don’t think it’s a single family. Councilmember Holman – No, it just looks like it from the outside. Mr. McCabe – It is a single family home, legal definition, but it’s an 8-bedroom home. That was one of the houses that started the conversation. That is an 8-bedroom home. Mr. McKown – I had to pull a lifeline here and ask an architect. Fire code is a big deal and it’s going to have a huge impact on the cost of building these buildings. What I was asking Mr. Peacock is there’s this fire escape, but because we’re over 4 units, we have to have a second fire escape. So you can’t just drop another fire escape on this side of the hall, because the way you get down these stairs is you run down them and then you go back into the hall, through a fire door, mind you, that swings out, which is its own problem, and back down and around and around. So the other fire escape using that same hall isn’t contained. So you’d have to have 2 halls. Does that make sense? So it’s really punitive, elevator aside. There are 3-story apartment buildings all over the whole metro – garden apartments. I hated living on the 3rd floor, moving in and moving out, but it keeps you in good shape. Councilmember Peacock – Elevators don’t satisfy fire code. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 16 Mr. McKown – Elevators don’t satisfy fire code, and if you start putting an elevator in a building like this, it all of a sudden has to be a big elevator so you can get somebody in a gurney out the building. So you’re not going to get elevators in buildings that are less than 100 units. The numbers Keith is talking about is at $42/sq. ft. You’re also not going to get somebody coming and buying up huge blocks of this stuff and building big urban buildings. I know there’s interest from out of town, but once they pencil out the kind of rents, because I was also running that. One bedrooms aren’t even bringing $1.75 rent and to justify those kind of land prices and that expensive construction, you’ve got to be north of $2/sq. ft. on rent. So we’re not there yet. Norman hasn’t been that high on rent. What I’m looking at is this is a 2-bed on this side of the hall, a 1-bed on this side. You’ve got 10 parking spaces; you only need 9 to get to 1 parking space per bedroom. That’s a market-driven rule, not a form-based code rule. So then we threw on another fire escape here on the back of the building. Councilmember Peacock asked me is that allowed in the code. I don’t know. Can I have an exterior fire escape on the back of the building? If not, we’ve got to figure that out, because we’ve got to make it totally feasible to build what we’re asking to have built. Ms. Hudson – As IRC or IBC, depending on how many units you’re under and all that stuff, I believe it is. I will verify that. But the only reason I say that is because we were working on a project that was going to have a second story … Councilmember Holman – The Eufaula building has a fire escape on the back. Mr. McKown – So newly built building. Okay. Councilmember Peacock – I know they’re required by the building code. I didn’t know if it was outlawed by form-based code. Ms. Hudson – And that’s the 5-story. Is that what you’re talking about? Mr. McKown – Even up to 5 stories, it’s practically – I mean, it’s not practical. You wouldn’t be able to park it. But this would be allowed in the purple and allowed in the blue. You’ve got enough parking spaces there to support a 3-story version. If you wanted to make them all 1-bed, you could go up 2 more floors. Ms. Hudson – So where did you come up with the second fire escape is required, because of how many units or because of … Mr. McKown – Once you go over 4 units, then you’ve got to have a second fire escape. Correct? Mr. McCabe – If I may, just the cost of construction, from a one and 2-story building, stepping up to a 3-story building is almost 40% more to build that third story. Now you’re asking me to build story 4 and 5 and try to maintain, because … Mr. McKown – No, no. You don’t have to. We’ve not said that you have to build 5 stories. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 17 Mr. McCabe – I agree that you don’t have to, but knowing cost and you’ve built a 5- story or higher, do you see that even being close to being feasible on a 50’x140’ lot? Because that’s how we purchase this property. We don’t buy the block. We buy it 50’ at a time. And just the pure cost factor. I’m in agreement with Stephen. I can build a 2- story with 4 units, single bedroom. I have that existing on McCullough and the City came to me when I got my building permit – pre Jane and Anais – and asked me to take it away because it didn’t fit code. So we took that 4-plex to a duplex – 207/209 McCullough; I’ll give you the address. We took that one away. I had no call forever to rent that that way. These are the phone calls we’re getting and I can see the options that we can do. I just don’t like being forced to completely change the pink to something so more drastic than what we have. Mr. McKown – So that’s where – the last thing I’m going to say is that the purple is a compromise where you’re allowed to do what we’re describing in the blue, so you’re allowed to do more density in the pink if you can make it work, but you’re allowed to also do a version of what’s been going on. Ms. Hudson – Okay. I just have to say this last thing, and I know we have to move on. I need to get some verification from building code requirements on that, because 207 Apache has 5 units and they do not have a second fire escape. Mr. McKown – Are they stacked on top of each other? Mr. Hubble – Not five up, but they … Mr. McKown – The ground floor units don’t count, because they’re not using a fire escape. Councilmember Peacock – Two means of egress is what it is. So it’s a fire escape if it’s upstairs. Ms. Hudson – Oh, and he does. He’s got front and back, but he doesn’t have a fire escape. Mr. Hubble – He uses a central staircase and then front and back. Mr. McKown – But only 4 units are using the central staircase, because the 2 ground floor just run outside. Mr. Adair – How many have we had that are 5-story? Councilmember Hall – None. Mr. Adair – Fifth floor takes you either to steel or treated lumber. Mr. McKown – Treated lumber. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 18 Mr. Adair – The cost change – we’re not going to see 5 stories. Councilmember Hall – So here’s where I think we are. Lots of really good discussion. This is the whole point of this. However, we already had reached consensus on going forward with this, and based on the feedback today, maybe there’s a little adjusting or wiggle room that we can do. Mr. Hubble – Very briefly. It could be as simple as we add a sentence in there that says south of Duffy there is no unit minimum. Ms. Hudson – Basically, that’s what it is now. Mr. Hubble – Right. But it would still allow more units. No longer the 2-unit maximum, but just no minimum. So we wouldn’t have to add a new color. Councilmember Hall – Okay. How does that sound? Does that help you? Mr. Hubble – Basically just add a sentence into there that says south of Duffy you can have any number of units. There’s no unit minimum south of Duffy. So you can still go up – you can still have as many as you want, but you can also do one unit if you want to. Would you be fine with that? Mr. McCabe – I think that’s fair. Mr. Hubble – Okay. So one more for Urban General. We brought over the use table from Section 7. We did not change it whatsoever, but just put it in this section for clarity. Councilmember Hall – And same thing for Urban Residential? Mr. Hubble – Yeah. Then, if we want, I can talk about the Urban Residential next time. Are there any further Urban General comments? Councilmember Hall – I was going to say, depending – because it’s 12:35. Were we going to talk about the use table later anyway? Okay. So I would suggest that everybody carefully reviews the text that we have not covered today, because we are going to talk about the use table in general at a future meeting. Does that work for you for right now? Mr. Hubble – That’s fine. Councilmember Hall – Any other comments, but we really need to move on. Okay. Mr. Hubble – I still have not gotten to Urban Residential. Councilmember Hall – Okay. Go ahead. Mr. Hubble – Urban Residential we made the finished floor elevation change; it can now be as low as 14” – that’s what was mentioned as two steps – two 7” steps is 14”. That Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 19 allows for a much shorter ramp than what is required now. We put in the courtyard allowance and, based on the feedback we had received, we made some changes so now, rather than it being allowed to go up to 50% of the frontage length, now it can go up to a maximum of 30% of the frontage length, which would be 15’ on a 50’ lot, so that’s still leaving quite a bit of room for the side wings. There’s only one courtyard allowed for 50’ of frontage, and that’s to avoid some sort of toothy development that has multiple courtyards with real skinny wings. Then each wing has to be a minimum – and when I wrote this, I wrote it as a minimum of 30% of frontage. Going back, I realized that maybe we have an actual footage there, so maybe a minimum of 15’ that each wing has to be. That way you don’t have to have – say there’s a 100’ lot, you don’t have to have a 30’ wing. You could have them be only 15’. Then, lastly for the courtyards, the courtyard can be used as private open area, as we had discussed. So basically just having a little bit of usage in that front area so that you don’t have to have a courtyard and then still your whole private open area in the rear. Does anyone have any comments on the courtyards? Street walls – we would like to make them 4’ to 8’ in the Urban Residential. That’s what they are right now in the Townhouse area. So no real change there, but it is a difference from the Urban General. We’ve brought over the Live/Work option, which is in the Urban Townhouse. So Live/Work is not currently designated on the Regulating Plan, so this is supposed to be a building in which a baker has their bakery down below and they live right above it. So it’s supposed to be the same person living there and working in the establishment. We don’t have that designated on the Regulating Plan yet, but we wanted to leave that option in there for if we decide to do that in the future. Finally, basically for the use table we directly brought over what is in the Urban Townhouse/Small Apartment. That’s to allow for the Live/Work stuff. Ms. Hudson – Are we good on the 14”? There was a discussion – was it 12” or 14”? Mr. McKown – 14. Councilmember Peacock – You can actually do 7.5” risers in residential. In commercial construction, it’s 7” per riser, but on residential you can actually do 7.5”. Seven inches works just fine. We could make it 15 if you wanted to. But I’ll defer. Mr. McKown – I like the idea of 14, just because it gives you that wiggle room. We usually build them at 7.25. Mr. Hubble – I think it’s 4 units or above it would be considered commercial. So I think the 14 would be good for that reason. Councilmember Hall – Any other comments. Alright. 3. DISCUSSION OF REFORMULATION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS Mr. Hubble – We had been discussing before 1 space per bedroom. After receiving feedback from both developers and hearing what you all had to say, we looked at it again and made a few changes. Now we’re thinking about doing, for a 3-bedroom unit Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 20 or higher, 1 space/bedroom is required. Below that, though, 2-bedroom, 1-bedroom, or studio units, you only need ½ space per bedroom. That is further incentive for building the studio, 1 or 2-bedroom type of housing. Mr. Adair – I likey. Councilmember Hall – Okay. I was going to say that’s – you know, sometimes we look at this and we think, oh, this is obvious. But I’m seeing everybody nod their head. Councilmember Holman – Can building the parking in the front count? Mr. Hubble – Yes. The inset front parking would count toward that as well. Councilmember Hall – But it is not reserved parking. Mr. Hubble – Well, it won’t be reserved, but it would count toward their requirement. Mr. Adair – We will have public that still says we need one bedroom per unit. It’s not what we’ve had. I think this is a genuine incentive to moving us toward more units with less bedrooms. Councilmember Hall – That’s how it’s supposed to work. Mr. Adair – And it’s a reasonable standard. Councilmember Hall – That’s why you’re here, to poke a hole in that and go, no, that’s not going to work. Ms. Hudson – Clarification. Just because of something Logan said, I want to make sure we’re clear. If Keith builds something but does not do the cutback parking and he has on-street parking in front of his units, as long as his spaces are within his 50’ or 60’ wide, they’ll still count. He doesn’t have to do the cutback for it to count toward the parking requirement. Are we all on the same page on that? Councilmember Holman – What’s that second part? Ms. Hudson – He doesn’t have to build the inset parking. So if he’s got on-street parking in front of him, like we do right now. Councilmember Holman – If he’s got on-street parking in front. Ms. Starr – Do you mean that’s not cutback? Ms. Hudson – Right. He doesn’t have to spend the … Councilmember Holman – I would prefer that we move away from on-street. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 21 Ms. Hudson – Okay. That’s what I wanted to know. Councilmember Holman – I would prefer there be inset parking so that the narrow streets aren’t full of cars. Mr. McCabe – I would be in agreement with that. If you want that parking to be counted toward your spots you’ve got to do the inset parking, because, again, from Duffy to Boyd, Asp to the railroad track, we have stopped just about all on-street parking. And we’ve done that voluntarily ourselves. Ms. Hudson – We need to say that in there. That’s why I want to … Mr. McCabe – But I would think if you do the inset, that does allow you to count it. If you have actual street parking, it doesn’t count because that’s when we get into trouble where we’ve had to use the safety issue and the fire trucks and whatever to get the one- way because they were parking. It’s too small. The streets are made for Model A’s, not Texas pickup trucks. Councilmember Hall – There’s, I would say, continual feedback from residents who travel and live and work in that area about how congested that is. My understanding was this was if you did inset parking. Ms. Hudson – Then we’re going to make sure it says it in there, because it was in question. Mr. Sturtz – I’d like to just point out a problem that we’re starting to realize on our point of view with this cutback parking. It was just something that I want to bring up or we’re going to be addressing this later, and I don’t want to do it later. They’re coming in and they’re putting in two spots in front of their 50’ wide lot. Now the next person is building and we’ve got this weird knockout. Well, we’ve got to take that out, and now we’re going to wind up saying the longest block we’re going to go every 23’ and do a parking spot, and now they’re not lining up in front of a, b, and c. They’re lining up partial in front of one and partial in front of another. So how do you want to address that? Before we get to the problem, we need to consider it. Because you’re not going to have – well, I built those 2 spots. Well, yeah, but now the next person built and we took it out and now we’ve got 5 spots. Who gets the half spot? Or the way it shifts you’ve wound up – you see what I’m saying? We’re going to wind up with not a direct correlation between your lot. I mean, it’s going to get complicated and it’s going to come up. Councilmember Hall – Do you have a suggestion? Mr. Sturtz – No. Ms. Hudson – We’ve got one. Mr. Hubble – So he said 23’. So then basically 1 parking spot per 23 or 25’ of inset parking that you build in the front of your lot would count toward – so basically 1 spot per … Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 22 Mr. McKown – You’re talking about parking in the front streetside? Ms. Hudson – Um-hm. Councilmember Hall – What was your suggestion? Mr. Sturtz – That’s what we’ve got to do. We’ve just got to say that – you know – but the problem is the two people on the end, because of the landscaping and the sight triangles, aren’t going to have that same ability to get 2 spaces on their frontage every time. So if we’re going to say by convention we’re going to allow you 2 per frontage – I don’t know. We’re going to wind up where it’s not going to be a simple little … Councilmember Hall – And if you’re talking about at the end, that’s a corner lot, which we’re also kind of taking out of all of this to address with possibly pattern zoning. Point taken. Thank you for raising that. Mr. Adair – I want to be careful because parking is a practical problem. We really do need the parking spaces. But, Scott, lots of times in subdivision development, we deal sometimes with a fee in lieu of. On paving, we have what we call gap paving. You might pay in a fee instead of putting in your 2 spaces or 1 space, you’ve got a fee in lieu of. When we get to a certain point, then the City comes in and does the block. If you’ve got the right-of-way – I may be getting into right-of-way issues here. Mr. Sturtz – No. Right now, what we’re building, we’ve been doing the parking within the right-of-way. I think the original idea was that we’d use the TIF and we’d come in and we’d do a roadway. Mr. Adair – Our gap paving ordinance says that if you’re the last little piece and you haven’t developed, we don’t make you pay it, but if you ever do develop you have to pay it back. The City comes in and does a gap paving piece. And you might apply a standard like that to have the City do a whole block at some point. Mr. McKown – But here we’ve got the TIF funds to do that. I hate to go down the path of making it even more expensive. If you really want to put them in, for whatever reason … Mr. Adair – Okay. So just let Scott pay for it. Mr. McKown – Yes, thank you Scott. Mr. McCabe – Currently on a 50’ lot, you can get two 19’ parking spots with two 5’ radius curb cuts. That is your 50’. So if you do 2 in front of each 50’ lot, how we build it, and you take out the whole little green spots in between, that’s still 5’ and 5’, which is not even 19’ to put a parking spot, so when that day comes that the entire block is done, that we start taking all of the 5’ radius, then I can understand where we go. But right now, building on a 50’ 50’ 50’, they’re 19’, they’re 19’, there’s a 5’ radius, there’s 5’ radius, and that’s all I can do on the front. That’s it. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 23 Ms. Starr – I think they’re 22’. I don’t think you can do 19’. Ms. Hudson – I want to get with Scott. Can we bring this one back? Councilmember Hall – Yeah. Well, we’re close. Okay. Generally, the concept we’re good; it’s the devil in the details. Right? Great. It’s 10 til 1:00. Mr. Hubble – We did have some more on parking. Councilmember Hall – Okay. You’re killing me. Mr. Hubble – We removed references to the commercial parking requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, because those no longer exist, and there were a few references to that. We’ve already discussed the new minimum parking. We’ve already discussed counting the on-street. We removed the shared parking – she’s busy now, but she may want to talk about that, because the shared parking is never used. We’re not really making any headway toward getting a parking garage or anything. Then also we removed the maximum parking requirements, because the new parking minimums could, in some cases, exceed the current maximums. So those couldn’t be left in. Jane, do you want to talk about removing the shared parking? Ms. Hudson – The way it’s written right now, depending on who you can argue with, basically it says that I get to park on your property and I don’t think that’s really what we want to do. So we were just going to take out that discussion about – it says all parking within the Center City Form-Based Code area is shared parking, and I don’t think I’m allowed to park on his back lot. Councilmember Holman – All street parking … Ms. Hudson -- It needs to be clarified. Councilmember Hall – Do you want to take it out, or say street parking? Mr. Sturtz – On street. Ms. Hudson – Say on street. We can clarify it. Mr. Hubble – That’s the end of the parking stuff. Councilmember Hall – A few little clarifications that we need to do, but it sounds like we’re on the right track. Everybody is nodding their head. That’s good. 4. DISCUSSION OF ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE QUALITY STRUCTURES Mr. Hubble – Currently, the RBL is not a plane – it’s a 2’ wide line that allows for jogs in articulations in the façade, usually for architectural purposes. We’d like to allow applicants to now request an administrative adjustment, which would be approved by the Planning Director, for an additional 3’, for a total of 5’, for architectural and Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 24 landscape features, like balconies or planter boxes. We’ve run into cases where the RBL is at the property line and you can’t build your stoops or your balconies or your landscaping in front of that, because you’re right on the right-of-way. That’s nearly impossible, so we wanted to allow for an avenue for particularly those cases to be able to have balconies or some landscaping. We talked to Legal about this yesterday, but we still need some criteria for what qualifies here and for requirements for what they must show – like balcony details or a landscaping plan. Now I’m done. Councilmember Hall – My only comment is I am very aware, just in my own discussions with developers with projects that are coming along, that may need CCPUD or something like that, but we have encountered this multiple times already. This is an opportunity for the Planning Staff to actually get into writing and a clear path without multiple ways to interpret how to go about that. So this is helping you out. Okay. Councilmember Peacock – Just one thought on that 2’ ribbon – the required build to line – if we could make that 3’. I mean, I hate setting it back any further from the road, but that would allow for a 3’ wide door to swing out and not swing into the sidewalk, which is illegal. You can’t build a building right up to the sidewalk – or right up to the build line, because the door then swings out onto right-of-way and that’s illegal. So if you gave them that 3’ of distance, instead of 2’, I just think it might be a nice nuance to it. Ms. Starr – For a total of 5’ still? Councilmember Peacock – A total of 5? I was thinking just a total of 3. Ms. Starr – This 3 plus … Councilmember Peacock – Okay. I thought it was just 2. Councilmember Hall – So we’re already covered. Okay. Great. Any other comments? Mr. McKown – Did we skip over anything relative to parking regarding like the porous paving or tree wells or those stormwater – or is that somewhere else? Mr. Hubble – That’s somewhere else on the parking section. That’s in Part 9. The impervious coverage. Mr. McKown – Did we get any resolution on the water storage tank? Or was that still a ball up in the air? Ms. Hudson – That was still supposed to come back. Mr. McKown – Next time? Ms. Hudson – Yeah. We’re just not – this week being Spring Break. Center City Administrative Delay Ad Hoc Committee Minutes – March 17, 2022 Page 25 Councilmember Hall – We roughly have the rest of our meeting times sketched out to make sure that we’re tightening – keep closing all the loops. I think we’re going to get there. Any other general comments or any other staff comments. 5. DISCUSSION OF NEXT STEPS Councilmember Hall – It’s a miracle. It’s 12:57. Good work Ad Hoc Committee! I just want to say thank you to all of you. I appreciate your input, how you think things through. This is the whole point of moving forward and hopefully getting the improvements that we’re looking for overall. I appreciate all of you. I appreciate your time this week. We will be meeting next week at 11:30 to 1:00. Ms. Hudson – Do you want to talk about food? Councilmember Hall – Sure. Ms. Hudson – I’m double checking everything. I know this has been over the lunch hour and I know we’ve had COVID, but since we are without masks now, we did feed you guys last time. If you guys are good, we’ll get some sandwiches and stuff for you guys next time. Sound good? Councilmember Hall – Yes. I think that would be lovely. Mr. McKown – I’ll bring my own. Mr. McCabe – Me, too. I’m gluten free. Ms. Hudson – No worries. Mr. McCabe – But I appreciate you pre-sending out the agenda and the minutes. It allowed me something to study and to read before I walked in here cold. Ms. Hudson – We’re trying. Mr. McCabe – I’m just saying I was able to sit down and read and feel educated what we were going to discuss today. Ms. Hudson – So I’ve got 5 committee members that will take food. 6. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF Councilmember Hall – Thank you all so much. I just want to say one more time before we adjourn that if you have public comments, please forward them to Ward4@normanok.gov and this meeting is adjourned. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:58 p.m.