Council reviews RDG prospectus for Griffin site, leans toward Concept 3 and supports keeping Lamont School

Norman City Council members on July 22 considered an RDG prospectus for redevelopment of the former Griffin Hospital site and discussed keeping Lamont School on the campus as the plan advances to committee review. The consultant presenting the study described the document as “not exactly a master plan” but rather “almost more of a prospectus,” a set of ideas and patterns to test how the site could reconnect neighborhoods and accommodate higher‑density housing.

The prospectus matters because the property sits between established neighborhoods, Sutton Preserve and commercial corridors and could provide significant new housing choices and a civic arts anchor while helping avoid density pressure on adjacent historic residential areas. The consultant said the concepts aim to “bridge” the east and west sides of Norman and accommodate a meaningful share of the city’s projected housing demand over the next 20 years.

RDG presented five concept sketches and recommended carrying forward two alternatives for further study: Concept 3, a more ordered main‑street alignment with higher‑density mixed use, and Concept 5, a lower‑rise, surface‑parked, walk‑up multifamily approach. The presenter said the two preferred options could accommodate “somewhere between 1,300 and 1,800 housing units” across the site depending on the final configuration, and that the concepts include a mix of housing types to serve younger households, singles and empty nesters as well as some single‑family forms. Councilors repeatedly expressed a preference for Concept 3 for its stronger street grid and clearer pedestrian and traffic flows; Councilor Pico said, “I really like the main street alignment.”

Council discussion also focused on how redevelopment could be financed and phased. The consultant listed likely implementation steps: partnership between state and city, conveyance or subdivision of the state property, selection of a development entity (a local nonprofit developer or a master developer), creation of a master plan and financing plan, and establishment of development standards and agreements. The presentation identified tax‑increment financing (TIF) as a probable financing tool and included a preliminary TIF capacity calculation in the prospectus; council members asked that financing implications be analyzed further before a preferred plan is finalized.

The council also discussed Lamont School’s request to remain on the property. A school representative told the council the school is “growing… we’re over 500 students,” and the council agreed to include a school site or placeholder in future planning. Staff noted that because Lamont is tax‑exempt the school would not generate property tax (ad valorem) revenue for any TIF district, and the consultant and councilors asked staff to account for that when modeling TIF receipts.

No formal ordinance or rezoning was considered on July 22. Council directed staff to take the two concepts to the City Planning and Transportation Committee (CPTC/CPC) for further review, and several council members said they preferred to continue discussion there before selecting a final concept. The presenter emphasized phasing that builds early anchors and a critical mass of uses to avoid slow starts, and councilors asked staff to return with more detailed cost, density and financing comparisons.

Next steps: staff will present the two concepts to the planning committee in August or September and return to council with additional financial analysis, potential phasing and recommended development standards.