[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6086819,"mediaKeyId","2894178-3db022cbf7febf3d84398bdd0e04d712","parentId",2894178,"title","Council reopens discussion on minimum lot sizes, ADUs and subdivision rules","audioSeconds",1609,"startMs",2018630,"endMs",3628070,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2894178-3db022cbf7febf3d84398bdd0e04d712&start=2018&end=3628","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2894178-3db022cbf7febf3d84398bdd0e04d712/thumbnail_2018630.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6086819/Norman/Cleveland-County/Oklahoma/Council-reopens-discussion-on-minimum-lot-sizes-ADUs-and-subdivision-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086819-d343729fd81c94839d5c5192ebb97375/orig.mp4?Expires=1770707524&Signature=Jrfft3dm3xndfon8dWZwqu-rAOioXj0O99lW3t4ID8yLgW2u2bY1Eqj~GK3Hx3ky3aHkmrzo6QXOLz44dYmGCtJs0YaZ2nwWsEKci0sGb4ocowoXffTX1WaL2LfzEPBiIX~shjT29SggYQCNLV2mkDmOC8YDIZ7kbIyggreXYGCxeTkyOXLNvvCvsST03nTrd2qNQRvP2sQLkrVT1mz~HFKYRbejOGcHy0ELpZYz61IRnpTQNGVsfdlBce2La76hW6MM-z5dtfVlGjt65ijgXTMv~1ImlEXHAKFS80r-LqScYGNNxtUV4oVxwG-QX18t9S~sAu5U5f-GbWFhZUHOAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Norman, OK","date","2025-04-08T09:51:54.847Z","article","The Norman City Council discussed potential changes to minimum lot-size rules for residential development and the implications for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and infill subdivisions during the same meeting; Jane Hudson, a staff member, presented the item and answered council questions.

Jane Hudson said the council's earlier conversations about ADUs prompted a broader look at minimum lot sizes for both greenfield subdivisions and infill parcel splits. \"Once you sell off that back lot, it's no longer an ADU. It becomes the primary structure for that new lot,\" Hudson said, summarizing a recurring issue that can change setbacks, coverage and utility connections when an ADU is converted into a separate lot.

Staff walked the council through two primary scenarios: new greenfield subdivisions where minimum lot-size standards set the number of lots that can be created, and infill subdivisions where existing lots are divided to create smaller parcels or flag lots. Hudson and staff showed recent local examples — flag-lot configurations and short-form plats used in Fountain View North and other recent subdivisions — and explained common technical constraints including setbacks, required street frontage or access easements, water and sewer connection locations, and stormwater runoff calculations tied to the city's 65% impervious-coverage standard.

Engineering staff raised concerns about alley access, addressing and emergency-vehicle access when lots rely on alleys rather than conventional street frontages. One staff speaker said engineering is \"not in favor\" of designating alleys as primary addresses at this time because of emergency access and addressing challenges; the transcript records a council discussion of naming or numbering solutions but no policy change was adopted.

Council members asked whether minimum-lot rules would apply only in the core downtown area or citywide. Hudson said the rules could be applied broadly where public utilities and required services are available, and that homeowners associations or covenants could limit subdivision outcomes on private property. She noted the policy work would be part of the broader zoning and subdivision code updates the city plans to undertake as part of the pro-housing grant process.

Councilors and staff discussed trade-offs and potential unintended consequences, including:
- Loss of existing smaller housing stock if lots are systematically redeveloped into larger, higher-end homes.
- Increased impervious coverage and localized drainage concerns if lot coverage and setback rules permit very small lots without coordinated drainage plans.
- The limits of variances: staff reminded the council that variances are adjudicated case-by-case by the Board of Adjustment under the legal standard of undue hardship and are not a reliable substitute for citywide code changes.

No votes were taken. Council members asked staff to gather additional examples from other cities (including those that have removed or reduced minimum-lot-size requirements), to examine utilities and drainage capacities, and to return with draft code language and targeted recommendations — potentially including a new zoning subcategory for smaller-lot neighborhoods or standards that apply only where engineering and addressing requirements can be met.

The council agreed to continue the discussion at a future meeting as part of the zoning and subdivision code rewrite; staff said some of the technical provisions (stormwater, alley access, addressing and emergency access) will require engineering review before any code changes are proposed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Business & Community Affairs Committee, 4/3/25","oneSentenceSummary","Councilmembers and planning staff discussed changes to minimum lot sizes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), infill subdivision impacts and engineering constraints such as impervious coverage and alley access; staff said revisions will be considered as part of future zoning and subdivision code updates and no ordinance was proposed or adopted.","taxTitle","Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma","taxId",2684,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":44,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6086824,"Norman council continues review of Griffin TIF master plan as consultants update development estimates",1991,26660,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2894178-3db022cbf7febf3d84398bdd0e04d712&start=26&end=2018","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2894178-3db022cbf7febf3d84398bdd0e04d712/thumbnail_26660.jpg","/articles/6086824/Norman/Cleveland-County/Oklahoma/Norman-council-continues-review-of-Griffin-TIF-master-plan-as-consultants-update-development-estimates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086824-fe46e6c167dbe919b2b3387a21fe0dc4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770707524&Signature=J01TXsbW2FYRAE2Q4kJtA3M2xGwkI9ELl~zR3rob4CCyQ0PA348ZGR1X973WpvwmmqOe7RxKRWjdTaZe1fpoBA7nlwGlZhyP7GSnnGKPulXSHQZQoTMLVqBiOj5KKHDQizXOY5UCGUSKaP37T6Sd-paiWvXMMIWJrYEOtGSlBzAWcQqbZ1e5cVZNN0yCLY0sb1a4R4w0lrrimGZe35zaWlWV9je-2EdeuttOK369QrbauT94wQ0guNVv6cEv~iLopx4stH7s1cKqwWPWhSH5iEDGA5G-BnwdoQFCFm4bJ-4TSRgkhqNtV2ogMcsBurQb1J3xZtROpuAo7Jr7EAn0sg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff resumed discussion of a proposed tax increment finance master plan for the Griffin property, a large project area north of downtown Norman, at a regularly scheduled Norman City Council meeting; Miss Walker, a staff member, presented updated concepts and estimates.

Miss Walker said the proposal envisions a single large project area split into three increment districts, with boundaries that extend north to Rock Creek Road, include Andrews Park and parts of the Center City footprint, and extend south past Split Avenue and over the railroad tracks. \"This proposal is a large project area, with 3 increment districts within it,\" Miss Walker said.

The council heard updated development concepts from RDG that staff used to rework earlier, older assumptions. Miss Walker summarized two preferred concepts: one that included roughly 269 small-lot single-family units, 567 three-story \"walk-up\" units and about 740 multifamily units in RDG's concept 2, and a concept 3 that showed roughly 242 single-family units, 849 three-story walk-ups and 600 multifamily units. Using conservative construction and phasing assumptions, staff said buildout could translate into roughly $200 million–$250 million in new development over a 25-year horizon and that an updated estimate of increment generation could reach \"maybe up to $126,000,000 generated over 25 years.\" Miss Walker noted she excluded certain historic uses from taxable-value calculations where it was unclear whether they would generate increment.

Staff outlined how a Griffin TIF could be structured and spent. The three increment districts would generate increment that could be used anywhere within the larger Griffin project area. Miss Walker described possible uses that fit local law, including public infrastructure (roads, water, sewer), business enhancement grants for existing downtown businesses, and targeted development assistance to incentivize affordable or workforce housing. She also explained assumptions used in the draft modeling: 100% capture of the property-value increment and an assumed 60% capture of the sales tax increment for purposes of the scenario calculations.

Council members pressed on specific boundary and policy choices. Several members discussed the option of removing city-owned parcels currently inside the Center City TIF and adding them to Griffin so increment from redevelopment could fund non-infrastructure assistance (Center City is limited to infrastructure uses). Miss Walker described the amendment process and said a \"5% rule\" normally separates a minor amendment from a major amendment: \"Generally, it's the 5% rule. So 5% increase in boundaries or 5% increase in value\" would trigger the full statutory review process.

The council discussed a pending state bill that could constrain options for moving a downtown homeless shelter. Miss Walker warned the council that \"I think your options are gonna be more limited\" if Senate Bill 484 were enacted as written, because it would grandfather existing shelters and impose a radius restriction on relocating shelters; she said the bill had passed the state Senate and was referred to the House committee on county and municipal government as of early April.

Members asked about including existing, high-sales locations (examples cited included the Eastside Walmart and other existing retail) inside a TIF boundary to boost revenue; Miss Walker said those sites could be included but staff initially omitted them from conservative estimates to avoid diverting existing general-fund sales tax receipts. Council members also raised questions about whether public entities such as Lamont School (a charter school) could receive TIF assistance; Miss Walker said tax-exempt schools do not generate increment but that some cities use TIF funds for school-related public improvements as a policy choice, not because the school would generate increment itself.

Other topics addressed included:
- Main Street two-way conversion: staff said TIF funds may be used for public infrastructure within a project area, but each TIF is limited to spending within its project area, so a Main Street project that lies in two TIF areas could require splitting costs or other plan adjustments.
- Borrowing against anticipated TIF revenues: staff explained borrowing is possible but interest rates and bank appetite depend on how certain the revenue stream is; speculative early-stage districts may face higher borrowing costs.
- Possible phasing and triggering of increment districts: Miss Walker said each increment district can start its 25-year clock at different times and that a district can remain dormant until activated by planned public improvements or development.

No formal motions or votes were taken on the Griffin TIF master plan during the discussion. Council members asked staff to continue refining boundaries and cost estimates, to coordinate further with RDG and with the state regarding land transfer and statutory constraints, and to return with more detailed project-plan materials and a proposed policy guide for development assistance consistent with council priorities.

The item closed with staff and council agreeing to continue work on the plan and to bring missing pieces and specific cost estimates back to a future meeting for further direction.","City staff presented updated concepts for a large Griffin tax increment finance (TIF) project area that would include three increment districts and could support substantial housing and infrastructure investments; council members pressed on boundary choices, shelter-related state legislation and revenue assumptions, but took no formal action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council reopens discussion on minimum lot sizes, ADUs and subdivision rules

Norman council continues review of Griffin TIF master plan as consultants update development estimates