The document provides an agenda and overview for a 90-day due diligence and feasibility study for a proposed multi-phase, mixed-use development on 237 acres southwest of the intersection of I-35 and W. Main St. in Norman, Oklahoma. Key factors being analyzed include site geology and civil considerations, market demand for residential and commercial space, potential zoning changes, and community impact. The new development approach proposes reconfiguring the site plan based on these factors to maximize developability while minimizing negative impacts.

1. BOB MOORE FARMS
Due Diligence and Feasibility Analysis
June 14, 2023

2. AGENDA
Team
Summary
Prioritized Variables
Site Geology / Civil
Site Geometry
Zoning Analysis
New Approach
Dashboard
Market Demand
Community Impact
Development Overview
Development Approach
Discussion
Development Budget
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14

3. THE TEAM
• Project Management Advisors, Inc., Development Management
• Black Oak Partners, Owner Consultant
• Hitchcock Landscape Architecture, Architect
• Humphrys & Partners Architects, Landscape Design/Land Planning
• Smith Roberts Baldischwiler, LLC, Civil Engineering
• Engineering Consulting Services, Geotechnical Engineering
• DBG Construction, General Contractor
• Rieger Law Group, PLLC, Legal
• Zonda Advisory, Residential Market Analysis
• Price Edwards, Retail Market Analysis
• Avenue 5 Residential, Multifamily Market Analysis

4. SUMMARY
90-day due diligence and feasibility
assignment to assess the viability to
begin Phase I of a multi-phase,
mixed-use development.
[Located on 237 acres southwest of the intersection
of I-35 and W. Main St., Norman, Oklahoma.]

5. Site Geology/Civil
Capacity of site relative to soils,
stormwater management
requirements and topography
Market Demand
Impact of market demand on
development potential
Community Input
Impact immediate neighbors will
have on potential to develop
Site Geometry
Shape of site and how it impacts
development
Zoning Potential
City of Norman will
permit/recommendation
PRIORITIZED
VARIABLES

6. INITIAL SITE
PLAN
• Not market responsive
• Not inclusive of civil considerations
• Does not address retail problems
• Traffic circulation concerns
• Does not maximize greenspace
• Program density not inclusive of
neighborhood tolerance
• Building types not economically
viable
• 4-story elevator

7. SITE GEOLOGY/CIVIL
TOPOGRAPHY

8. SITE GEOLOGY/CIVIL
SOILS

9. Design Parameter Column Footing Wall Footing
Net Allowable Bearing Pressure 2,000 psf 2,000 psf
Bearing Soil Material Natural Soil or Compacted Fill Natural Soil or Compacted Fill
Minimum Width 24 inches 18 inches
Minimum Footing Embedment Depth
(below slab or finished grade)
24 inches 24 inches
Estimated Total Settlement Less than 1-inch Less than 1-inch
Estimated Differential Settlement Less than ¾ inches between columns Less than ¾ inches per 30 linear feet
SITE GEOLOGY/CIVIL
SOILS

10. 1
2
3
1
Exist. D.A.1
to DP#1
DP#1
Exist. Detention
Pond #1
2
Exist. D.A.2
to DP#2
DP#2
3
D.A. 3 Bypass
TD
Total Developed
Runoff
Exist. Detention
Pond #2
SITE GEOLOGY/CIVIL
REGIONAL STORMWATER

11. SITE GEOLOGY/CIVIL
ONSITE STORMWATER
• Regional stormwater flows south along I-35
and into South detention pond
• Stormwater from the north half of the site
flows into detention pond which in turn flows
downstream into south detention pond
• All water from the south detention pond
essential sheet drains onto southern half into
the Canadian River

12. SITE GEOLOGY/CIVIL
REGIONAL STORMWATER
D.A to DP#1
D.A. 3 Bypass
1
DP #1
2
D.A. 2 to
DP#2
DP
3S TD
Total Developed
Runoff
Combined
Detention Pond

13. • Accommodation of regional drainage
• Suitable for 100 yr. flood event
• Consolidated storm retention areas
• Fits geometry of the land site
• Maximized developable land
Storm Event Q100 Historic (cfs) Q100 Developed (cfs)
2 Year 555 542
5 Year 766 713
10 Year 903 875
25 Year 1,214 1,149
50 Year 1,576 1,396
100 Year 1,893 1,668
SITE GEOLOGY/CIVIL
SUMMARY

14. MARKET DEMAND
RESIDENTIAL
North Side Rec Actual
Garden with Truck Under Garage
Garden w detach garage 576
Big House 250 66
Single Family Rental 60 48
TOTAL 610 690
South Side
Single Family Rental 140
Garden w tuck under garage 250
Garden w detach garage 300
Big House 250
TOTAL 940
2.60%
Projected annual population
growth over next 5 years
3.60%
Projected annual household
growth over next 5 years
2.90%
Jobs increase over next 5 years
0
Pipeline of future projects / units
1,550
Zonda recommended total
units for entire 237 acres

15. North Pad Sites
Behind an existing development along Maine St.
Potential Uses
• Fitness
• Physical Therapy
• Health Care
• Retail-office Tenants
• Destination Oriented Retailers
South Retail Sites
Limited visibility to I-35. Nearby restaurants have
not performed well. Not expected for traffic to
increase.
Potential Uses
• 1-acre pad site on the SEC of parcel
• 1-2 retail strip centers (8-10,000 s.f./ea.)
• Dry Cleaners
• Urgent Care
• Tax Preparation
• Insurance Office
• Nail Salon
MARKET DEMAND
COMMERCIAL

16. Concerns to the local community
• Traffic impact
• Additional renters within neighborhood
• Building Height
• Reduced greenspace
• Impact to property values
• Crime / perception
• Schools / Civic impact
COMMUNITY
IMPACT

17. Benefits to the local community:
• Downzoning/reduction in intensity
relative to current zoning
• New construction will stabilize/lift
property values
• Parkland, walking trails, ponds
• Retention of greenspace
• Farmer’s market concept
COMMUNITY
IMPACT
Big House Concept

18. SITE GEOMETRY

19. PUD 9798-11
(Zero Lot line Single Family)
C-2
(Broad Commercial)
ZONING
CURRENT

20. ZONING
FUTURE
Market Factors Impacting Zoning Considerations
Key Norman, OK Housing Drivers:
• University of Oklahoma SEC move and the need for additional
dwelling units per intent to increase student body
• Supply of housing need within Norman - Increasing demand with
insufficient rental supply
• Significant vacant commercial space currently within the
Norman market
• The market currently cannot absorb the intensity of C2 zoning
allowable uses
• PUD Zoning Considerations
• SDA 1 – Multi-family: RM-6 - Highest density MF zoning (Norman)
• SDA 2 - Big House: RM-6 - Highest density MF zoning (Norman)
• SDA 3 - SFR: R-1 - Single Family Zoning
• SDA 4 - Commercial - Generally echoes C-1/C-2 allowable uses

21. NEW APPROACH
NEW SITE PLAN

22. NEW APPROACH
Rethinking the land plan:
• Creekdale Dr. extension
• Norman Center Ct. extension
• Commercial district
• Reclaimed detention land to max site
Living at Norman Landing:
• Greenbelt and trails
• Targeted parks and open spaces
• Cultivated ponds connected to trails
• Dog park
• Multiple playgrounds
• Farmhouse concept/coffee
• Farmer’s market
Creekdale Dr.
Reclaimed
Detention
Land

23. Project Description
Total Phase I Phase II Phase III Retail
Land (Acre) 43 18.60 15.2 4.70 4.70
Land (SF)
SF SF SF SF SF
% of Total Land 100% 43% 35% 11% 11%
Gross SF
SF
414,579 SF 268,408 SF 68,640 SF 26,316 SF
Net SF
SF
355,216 SF 227,821 SF 68,640 SF 25,000 SF
Units 690 390 252 48
Parking Spaces
624 403 96
Parking Ratio 1.77 1.60 1.60 2.00 N/A
NEW APPROACH
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

24. Site Geology/Civil
• Civil engineering and
site hydrology are
principal drivers.
• Regional storm water
drainage not to code
per Norman.
• New impervious cover
requires roughly 25%
increase in
detention/retention.
• Retention area chosen
to create an amenity in
lieu of an eyesore
Market Demand
• Market limitation
for north and
south sites = 1,550
units.
• Retail/commercial
demand is quite
limited. Retail
district fronting
new road will
boost potential.
Site Geometry
• Rebalanced site is
maximized to
accommodate
residential
development.
• Development site
is maximized
Community Input
• Greenbelt designed
to minimize
community
impact/frustration.
• Amenities (other than
pools) open to the
public.
Zoning Potential
• Reducing intensity of
potential development
and creating a
community that
neighbors will accept
• Transition from
commercial to
residential zoning with
a mix of MF zoning
and single-family
zoning
NEW APPROACH
INPUTS AND OUTCOMES

25. DASHBOARD

26. DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III
Cash on Cash
Five-year average 10.0% 10.1% 10.3%
Cost to build
$/NRSF
$202 $209 $222
Starting Rents/SF $1.81 $1.80 $1.70
Total Project Cost $71MM $47MM $15MM
NOI at Sale Event $7.6MM $5.1MM $1.6MM
CAP Rate at Sale Event
5.00% 5.25% 5.50%
Net Sales Proceeds/
Levered Exit Profit $151MM/$108MM $96MM/$61MM $30MM/$20MM

27. Development Budget
Total $ Phase I Phase II Phase III Retail
Total Land Costs 6,211,159 $2,863,683 $2,176,641 $636,862 $533,973
Total Hard Costs $120,982,083 $61,633,661 $41,016,633.61 $12,878,396 $5,433,464.31
Total FF&E Cost $500,000 $265,362 $173,608 $44,116 $16,914
Total Soft Costs $10,300,780 $4,987,788 $3,148,367.68 $1,334,832 $829,792.37
Total Financing Costs $3,654,601 $2,021,232 $1,103,555.52 $353,305 $176,498.57
Total Project Costs $139,375,350 $71,771,727 $47,618,805 $15,247,513 $6,990,642
DEVELOPMENT BUDGET

28. NEXT
STEPS…

29. DEVELOPMENT APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS
FEE DEVELOPMENT FULLY INTEGRATED PMA JV DEVELOPER
Speed to Market ✔
Yes – but not available at all times
✔
24/7 Strategic “Sounding Board.”
✘
Upfront Learning Curve.
Market Knowledge
✔
If local developer chosen then yes.
But if national or regional not likely.
✔
Local Market Presence.
National Relationships.
✘
Expert in Their Market.
Consistent Project Delivery
✘
No guarantee.
✔
Leadership and Team is Structured for
Longevity Across Project Portfolio.
✘
Varying Project Teams = Inconsistency.
Communication/Reporting
✘
Not customized. Designed to suit needs of
developer.
✔
Transparent model. Proactive. Meaningful
Reports. Customized for Bob Moore Farms.
✘
Filtered Communication.
Scalability
✘
Not designed to scale. Typically one-off with
no particular relationship focus.
✔
Agile Organization. Thoughtfully Structured
Teams. Deep Bench. Reliable and Prepared to
Respond to Evolving Needs.
✘
Difficulty Keeping Up With Immediate
Demand.
One at a Time.
Strategic Business Advisory
✘
Interests are not aligned. Not necessarily
structured to provide objective advisory
services.
✔
Deal-Agnostic Strategic Consulting.
Holistic Industry and Portfolio-Level
Perspective.
✘
Narrow “Deal-Only” Perspective.
Common Service Agreement
✘
Potential conflicts of interest and complicated
agreement that will need to be negotiated.
✔
Master Agreement.
Added Level of Consistency.
✘
Conflict of Business Interest.
Complicated JV agreements.
Guarantees ✘
Excluded
✘
Excluded.
✔
Cost/Completion Guarantee.
Cost Effective
✘
Expensive. Typically 3% to 5% of total project
costs. May include bonus and/or equity
upside.
✔
(< 3%) & No Promote Fee.
Financial Alignment.
✘
(>3%) + Promote Fee.
Opportunity for Misalignment.

30. DISCUSSION