Commission approves St. James Park PUD for 373 homes after debate over lot sizes and open space

The Norman Planning Commission approved rezoning and a preliminary plat for the 95.08-acre St. James Park addition, a planned unit development proposing 373 single‑family lots and a mix of lot sizes, after extended discussion about reduced lot widths, rear‑yard setbacks and how the project meets the city’s open‑space requirements.

Justin Bishop of the Planning Department described the application as a rezoning from R-1 to PUD and noted the proposal’s variances from standard R-1 rules: Development Area 1 would allow 40‑foot lot widths (instead of 50) while keeping a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum; Development Area 2 would allow 30‑foot widths and 3,500‑square‑foot minimum lots. He said the applicant proposed roughly 2.35 acres of green space inside the PUD (about 2.5% of the area) but planned to rely on existing common open spaces in adjacent Saint James phases to meet the PUD open‑space intent.

Applicant representative Sean Reager said the property is a planned continuation of the Saint James neighborhood and emphasized that utilities and stub streets exist to connect the new development. He described Area 2 as “a different product” with smaller lots designed to add a variety of housing types; he told commissioners the submission “meets AIM Norman” density guidance for Urban Low (about 3.92 lots per acre) though staff noted one locational inconsistency with AIM regarding lower‑intensity residential along an arterial road.

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on open space and connectivity. Planning staff and the applicant explained that two sizable parkland parcels to the west and other platted park areas to the north are already deeded to the city or under discussion with Parks Board, and that the developer retains an undeveloped strip between those parcels. Parks Board had discussed purchasing a portion of that middle area; Parks staff told commissioners they had funds available but were awaiting stronger connectivity before proceeding. Protest letters were submitted by several homeowners; staff reported a protest area of 0.7% at the time of the hearing.

Traffic and neighborhood edge issues drew extended scrutiny. Commissioners and the applicant discussed pedestrian connections, a preserved green corridor in lieu of a street connection to Renaissance Drive, the possible need for additional points of ingress and egress and whether rear setbacks and the 25‑foot building line should be adjusted for smaller lots. Commissioners suggested the applicant could lock in open‑space commitments in the PUD if desired; the applicant noted that some parkland already is in the city’s ownership.

After discussion and a motion to approve with details to be resolved in the staff report, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval; the transcript records the vote carrying 8-0.

Next steps include final PUD documentation and City Council consideration; Parks Board discussions about expanding parkland will continue in parallel.