1

Steering Committee Meeting #5

February 1, 2017

MEETING SUMMARY

Steering Committee #5 Presentation

On February 1, 2017, the fifth meeting of the PlanNorman Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee was convened in the Lowry Room at the Norman Public Library. The two main purposes of the meeting were: (1) To present and receive input from Steering Committee members on the potential planning scenario options and evaluation metrics; and (2) To finalize the draft element goals and preview the supporting policies. The full presentation from Steering Committee Meeting #5 can be found on the PlanNorman website at: http://www.plannorman.com/documents-library. The meeting agenda can be found on page 12 of this summary.

This summary is organized into three sections:

1. Summary of Corridor Redevelopment presentation 2. Summary of Alternative Planning Scenario presentation and discussion 3. Summary of Plan Element Goals discussion

2

Anthony McDermid presents a case study on corridor redevelopment.

1. CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION

Anthony McDermid, principal at TAP Architecture, provided the Steering Committee with an overview of arterial redevelopment case studies and development trends in Norman and Oklahoma City. Anthony was the second “Element Expert” to present to the committee. Element Experts are brought in to provide their insight and knowledge on a variety of topics relevant to the development of the Comprehensive Plan. Anthony’s presentation and follow-up questions focused on redevelopment potential along commercial corridors. He presented several case studies demonstrating how existing strip centers and commercial centers can be redeveloped to provide new amenities and mixed use opportunities.

Anthony’s presentation can be found on PlanNorman website at: http://www.plannorman.com/documents-library.

3

2. ALTERNATIVE GROWTH SCENARIOS AND EVALUATION MATRIX

Following Anthony’s presentation, Dan Guimond from EPS, presented an overview of the three Alternative Growth Scenarios including a brief methodology and explanation of the evaluation metrics used to assess the different scenarios. The three growth scenarios presented were:

1. Continued Trends – This scenario explores the impact of population and housing growth on Norman if it continues to develop in the way it has traditionally.

2. Compact Connected- This scenario explores the impact of population and housing growth on Norman if it diversifies its development pattern to include smaller scale corridor revitalization, measured land development in undeveloped agricultural areas east of the urbanized area, and in underutilized infill areas in core Norman.

3. Mixed Large (Re)development- This scenario explores the impact of population and housing growth on Norman if growth is predominately focused into agricultural areas east of the urbanized area and in larger infill areas throughout the city’s core.

The nine-evaluation metrics used to assess the trade-offs associated with each of the three scenarios are:

Vehicle Miles Traveled- Average miles driven by passenger vehicles in Norman in 2040. Amenities Access- Number of housing units located within 1/2-mile of three or more

amenities. Amenities include retail shops, strip malls, restaurants and bars, fitness centers, arts and cultural institutions, schools and grocery stores.

Fiscal Impact- Potential fiscal impacts were calculated based on one-time construction costs for new fire stations and cumulative annual roadway maintenance costs needed to accommodate future growth.

Annual Water Use- Water usage is calculated based on gallons per capita per housing unit type. Many factors influence water consumption including the density of a development, number of people living in a household unit, and amount of landscaping that requires hydration.

Transit Access- Number of housing units located within 1/2-mile of a local or regional transit (rail or bus) station. Access to transit helps improve community livability and decrease traffic congestion.

Market Support- A calculation of a scenarios ability to meet projected market trends. The lower the score, the closer the scenario is to meeting the anticipated market support.

Public Parks Access- Number of housing units located within 1/2-mile of a publicly owned park. Access to green spaces fosters good community health and overall fitness.

Pervious vs. Impervious Surfaces- Acres of pervious and impervious sur faces created as a result of infrastructure development through 2040. Impervious surfaces, such as parking lots and roads, place pressure on the stormwater system, increase runoff and create heat islands. Pervious surfaces help mitigate these effects.

Land Consumption- Acres of undeveloped land utilized for housing growth through 2040. Land preserved from housing and infrastructure development can be used to create new parks and open spaces and as agricultural land.

4

Open House Following Dan Guimond’s presentation, the Steering Committee had an opportunity to review each of the scenarios in more depth and ask questions of the consultant team during an open house style session. To help facilitate feedback, Steering Committee members were provided with a comment card to record their view on each scenario as well as rank the scenarios on a scale of 1 (most favorable option) to 3 (least favorable option). The rankings will be used to help inform the preferred growth scenario. Of comment cards received, Compact Connected received the most favorable response (15 - #1 responses in total), followed by Continued Trends (4 - #1 responses in total) and Mixed Large (Re)development (3 - #1 responses in total). Continued Trends received the least favorable support (17 - #3 responses in total) compared to Compact Connected (4 - #3 responses in total) and Mixed Large (Re)development (0 - #3 responses in total).

Poster Boards of the Scenarios from the Open House

5

Facilitated Discussion After the Open House, Jay Renkens from MIG facilitated a large group discussion on the scenarios, evaluation metrics used, and the overall growth strategy for Norman. High level themes that emerged from the discussion include:

The Current Trends Scenario is not supportive of Norman’s desired future values and is not a sustainable scenario.

The scenarios should focus more on the idea of placemaking. Places created should be amenity rich, walkable, and unique and be of an

appropriate scale. Development trends need to evolve with changes in the political and economic climate.

Zoning and building codes in Norman frequently prevent or make it arduous for certain types of more compact, walkable, urban development to occur.

Norman needs more intergenerational neighborhoods. Aging in place strategies Designing accessible places for people of all ages and abilities

Preferred Scenario should offer a realistic growth and development pattern for Norman Norman is a largely suburban community There is currently little demand for high density development.

Potential areas to focus redevelopment efforts in include: North Flood Ave. Portions of Lindsey Street Main Street (East Side) University North Park Area Ed Noble Parkway Area

The wall graphic recording and complete list of detailed comments can be found on pages 6 and 7.

3. REVISED GOALS AND POLICIES

For the final portion of the Steering Committee meeting, Jay Renkens provided a brief overview of the vision, values and guiding principles and how they informed the development of the goals. He then presented the revised plan element goals and a preview of the policies that support each goal. Following the presentation there was a facilitated discussion. Comments made include:

Goal 2 – Does not address commercial properties Goal 2 – Should support ‘work where you live’ mentality Goal 3 – Multimodal transit needs to be integrated into greenfield developments. Goal 3 – Is it more clear to say ‘efficient’ as opposed to ‘high level’? Goal 4 – Should examples be outlined, such as granny suites and over garage units? Goal 4 – Increased housing density could have impact on park dedication requirements Goal 11 – Add ‘by supporting the businesses that provide these jobs.’ Goal 12 – Is the term ‘adequately’ the correct term? Group was mixed on this.

6

WALL GRAPHIC

7

DETAILED COMMENTS

Following are the comments Steering Committee Members recorded on their Comment Cards during the meeting:

Continued Trends Comments:

Norman cannot afford the continued trends growth scenario. This scenario puts too much stress on our limited water supply and increases cost to build and maintain municipal services and infrastructure.

We absolutely need to break with the current trends of swallowing up our green areas with chintzy housing projects that deteriorate in 20 years. Please limit greenfield development.

A healthy and realistic balance of economic and political realities. This is the most feasible option but we need to be flexible going forward and

incorporate the positive elements of the other two scenarios. Can’t see how you add 1,000 homes per year by simply refurbishing existing housing and additional multi-family infill development.

Seems not wise to continue down same path. Lost too much in many levels. We need some change to remain vibrant.

Revise codes to preserve neighborhoods. Terrible plan. Traffic issues. Little or no development around I-35 and west Norman and

west central Norman. This area is nearing decline and needs focus, otherwise will be a declining area.

Traditional development is clearly not the way of the future. It is not going to create more community, more transit or walkable neighborhoods. City has to be willing to commit to and pay for mixed-use development in order to change traditional development trends.

Compact Connected Comments:

This scenario may seem aggressive but this is the scenario that best represents affordable growth, responsible use of resources, and offers the best scenario to create a strong sense of place.

Definitely the best! I think its lower ratings under market support doesn’t take account of the increasing densities of both older and younger people to live in a walkable multi-use neighborhood. I wonder how the higher density in the east will be served by transportation. Also I wonder whether the higher density around the Little River couldn’t be shifted to the I-35 corridor (north) to protect the watershed.

Politically impossible. Economically premature. Infill first, no expanded development into greenfield until infill advanced.

8

For eastern areas use ‘(re)development” concentration away from watershed. Like: interstate dr. development; U.N.P. development; corridor focus. Less high density in above areas. Less residential along Flood industrial corridor. More medium density on Porter corridor. Turnpike? East or West of Third.

Without strong development incentives or large city infrastructure improvements / city capital projects this scenario isn’t reasonable given resources available.

Re: Market Support – If we build it will they come? Seems like demand is what it is now because single family neighborhoods are pretty much the only option aside from apartments. People may well be drawn to other options when they see benefits or quality of life in other unfamiliar options. This option just makes the most sense in so many areas.

Preserve existing neighborhoods. Develop transit system to link compact areas of housing, retail and office.

Corridor infill development is very important. Alternative transportation is important. Need to incorporate: Intergenerational; walkability; Aging in place, universal design.

Green spaces; trails; parks; bike trails need to be preserved, protected and accessible to all. City government needs to commit to pay for infrastructure improvements to support infill development.

Mixed Large (Re)development Comments:

Mixed large development scenario is an improvement over continued trends but will continue to promote sprawl which will continue to drain resources in maintain spreading infrastructure and municipal services.

Better that what we have, but I’d prefer a more aggressive approach. Preserve existing neighborhoods and provide mixed use within areas where appropriate. Keep focus on corridors as areas of (??) innovation and redevelopment. Incorporate

dynamic areas for mixed use and growth. If retail follows rooftops, where will the retail be on far east side?

Too much land use (new development). Too many vehicle miles traveled.

Additional Comments:

I support Tom Sherman’s comments about the city university in doing minor city infrastructure to support and promote infill development. How can we build a place with a strong infill development with the understanding that the city’s footprint will continue to grow?

Need to allow for significant incentives to development. Until future political climate changes to incentivize infill development. Should allow for development out to both side of 48th Ave. East. More efficient to develop both side of section along roadway.

9

55/10/35 – 62 Single family; 6 attached; 32 Multi family Northwest Norman is where most of the homes are going to be built. I am confused by

your maps not showing growth there. Keep it realistic. Divided communities can’t have a unified vision. We are currently a

divided community. Norman is too small to be a big city, too big to be a small town. I am not a developer/banker/attorney, etc. I want us to dream big and figure out how to

make changes to make it work as we go. Oklahoma is stuck in so many areas compared to the rest of the country. Norman needs to lead the way and be a more progressive place to live.

Need to focus primarily on preserving environmental quality/greenspace/watersheds. Minimize sprawl; minimize cars on the roads (already too many cars on the road, more will be awful).

Compact connected is highest of all evaluation criteria and is especially valuable because it de-emphasizes use of new land and emphasizes infill development and re-use of corridors.

Need to create city ordinance to be sure developers must use infill and re-use before new land can be developed. Promote walking and transit as better than driving of personal vehicles.

Goals Comments:

Community Character and Design Goal:

Amen! And the written goals of CCVP really misses the mark with the core district. I’m for higher density but not the way the area suggests.

Green infrastructure

Future Land Use Goal:

Mixed use is the name of the game in commercial areas. Missed mark with University North Park.

Allow smaller lots. Incentivize infill development on the main street corridor. To me, this goal speaks well in a general sense, as a goal should, to cover the concerns

voiced in the discussion tonight. I don’t see a need to change anything. Preservation and increased accessibility of greenspaces, water features such as rivers,

creeks Focus on areas to attract high tech industry, incubator areas, areas with industrial

flexibility

10

Transportation and Mobility Goal:

How will the city ensure a reliable funding source to implement the transportation plan? The transit piece is critical to make sure we build a multimodal network. Unfortunately the funding to create the multimodal network doesn’t exist right now. We can’t achieve the plan element goal without the multimodal network.

Not sure we need light rail if bus system expands (except for inter city travel) Green belt connections, less parking requirements Efficiency/Sustainability Delete ‘Implement Norman’s Transportation Plan to’

Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Goal:

Need to encourage higher density housing in transition areas not established neighborhoods. Also need a better mix for families, single people, seniors, millennials.

Need robust statement on low income housing and how to provide. Garage Apartments add density without additional traffic and parkland requirements ‘Choice’ – availability and affordability

Community Health and Recreation Goal:

Continue developing Legacy Trail to connect to other trails, paths and parks

Equity Goal:

Intergenerational and economic mix. Something about income access to housing could be here and would emphasize fair. Does transportation need to be listed specifically here?

Culture and Arts Goal:

Design Main street from East to West to support this Encourage growth too?

Education Goal:

Ultimately good – connect seniors to schools.

Sustainability Goal:

Allow front yards to be reduced to 5 feet the garage will still need to be set back 20 feet.

Resiliency Goal:

Add earthquake development rules

11

Economic Development Goal:

Support the businesses that create the jobs. I agree that adding some more about business (especially small/local) makes sense. Have regions where creative/dynamic economic development. Allow zoning for creative

retail, creative high tech industry.

Municipal Services Goal:

Invest in green infrastructure. Let’s build a street car on Main from East to West. Delete ‘adequately’

12

APPENDIX – MEETING AGENDA