00:01:32,100	Yes Which is an update and discussion on mandate and zoning study. Andrew, good evening, Chair Robinson, Commissioners. And I didn’t wanted to walk through a bit of an update on where we came from since last month on the zoning ordinance study, uh, for folks who have been here for a while or just getting used to things,

00:01:53,000	uh, this is an update to chapters 101, 105, 109, and 115 of the city’s code of ordinances and these are ordinances that we as staff in the planning and zoning commission encounters as the community grows and develops and redevelops and contain uh zoning regulations right away regulations, subdivisions. etc.

00:02:13,830	and cover a whole lot of topics so I’ve put together an outline for what I hope to be casual uh discussion tonight. Uh, since we’re all in different spots, I thought. It would be best to kind of keep it fairly low key in general, but um, I have a very brief update on how things are going, uh, presentation of key changes.

00:02:33,230	We’ll do a temperature check at the end, which will be interactive in nature and all kind of tease some next steps since next month we have some activities coming up.

00:02:50,630	I guess We’ll go into park dedication, but before I do that, uh, the general update on things is we’re progressing on schedule, planning public engagement for August. We have a planning and zoning commission workshop and a working group meeting as well in August, which will get kind of the next big probably quarter of the ordinance, um, in the kind of playing field for what.

00:03:12,570	Is uh being looked at, being redrafted, the project’s kind of getting to a critical mass where small changes are having ripple effects if we’re changing what we’re doing, it can kind of ripple down into things we’ve already sort of conceptually agreed to doing so, um, nothing set in stone, but we are getting a sense of the interconnectedness between some of our aspirations and some of our, uh, shortfalls and everything that falls in.

00:03:30,700	Between that spectrum. A couple of the big topics that uh. This ordinance is focusing on in which we’re. Prioritized include land and open space dedication, landscaping, vehicular access management. Certain zoning districts and the right of way. If you recall, we were going to kind of zoom in to the private property from 30,000 ft down.

00:03:58,430	Which would involve the large scale subdivision and dedication of parks and right of way as key topics there within. And as we continue to drill in, um, The first kind of site plan specific component that we decided to land on is landscaping due to the scale of the changes that are proposed to that.

00:04:18,270	So, using the handout, uh, as a guide I did prepare a presentation to talk through visually and interactively some of the changes that are being proposed. At our last meeting, I teased that park dedication is something that this ordinance project is to address.

00:04:36,900	Um, our current practice in place is that a fee is charged at the time of a building permit being taken out. The fees that are charged are on the screen. And I put a picture of the Stargazer Park to be kind of the idea of what a neighborhood park would be. A subdivision, um, it’s typically assessed based on. A number of projected units that the multi-family structure would have.

00:04:58,930	And the commercial and industrial site plans are just a flat rate. I’m told that A good year would result in 400 or $50,000 worth of revenue for the park district to be able to use to acquire park land at its own kind of. Separate effort to the city process.

00:05:21,800	Issues that have been identified with our current approach, uh, places kind of a lot of responsibility on the Park district for purchasing parkland in new developments are in a speculative way prior to a development being kind of contemplated or submitted, um.

00:05:44,130	Or in a sort of rush scenario where people are trying to get things lined up for construction and Kind of doesn’t give a lot of time for a transaction to take place given some of the the stipulations that public entities have to follow with purchasing, so creates a lot of a rush in in certain scenarios, um.

00:06:05,130	We’ve identified that we’ve had issues acquiring sufficient parkland in new developments as the city grows and code audits find that our benchmark communities are employing park dedication community or park dedication requirements in new developments and dedication is a word to just basically in place of donation. The city does prefer a process that requires land to be dedicated or parkland during the subdivision process and we’d prefer to rely less on fees than we currently do.

00:06:26,970	This adjustment is based in the city’s future land use plan, which was adopted in 2015. P10 is a collaborative goal between the city and the park district. We were to identify and develop 185 acres of parkland by 2030 and to my knowledge we have developed one park.

00:06:48,430	Um, 86 of those, uh, Aspired 185 acres would be neighborhood parks as defined in the future land use planner being about 1.5 to 3 acres in size. I mentioned Stargazer Park earlier is kind of the bread and butter example of what a neighborhood park would be.

00:07:10,770	The future land use plan was adopted after we um employed the building permit dedication, so it was kind of already an idea that we weren’t quite happy with it after it’s 2013 adoption or 2012 rather. And by 2015 we had already been studying alternatives and park dedication was that which was preferred.

00:07:31,630	Probably wondering, OK, how many parks are we talking about? Um, the red circles on the screen are where the land use plan identified neighborhood parks to be developed. There are. 7 or 8 in the next probably 50 to 80 years of growth of Mandan. This is just a projection, but when you take what the city’s land use plan projects for. Residential dwelling unit density per acre and correlate that against growth projections for the community.

00:07:55,800	It’s thought to be that. Mandan’s growth would likely occur within about 1 mile of its current city limits, and each of those subdivisions as they come in would, um. Require about 8 parks.

00:08:13,430	To do so, so I’ll zoom in a little bit and you can kind of see where these are a couple in the Sunset Valley north of the middle school, a couple west of the high school site currently won by Rough Rider, um, one in the title subdivision area, I guess I can’t scoot to the east, but. One in the Plainview subdivision area. Fairly reasonable projections we think for.

00:08:34,130	But our large growth areas of the community to have one neighborhood park within them. Particularly given that some of these such as that West of the high school face pretty significant challenges to the immediate realization of development in these areas, as we understand. Sorry about that. So the rationale for change.

00:08:57,370	Is the concern about insufficient development of neighborhood parks in Mandan, I think our most recent neighborhood park came in 2008 to 2013, the Stargazer Park again. Um, the burden would be alleviated from the park board to acquire parkland at the pace of development.

00:09:18,300	There’s also like technical benefits of this, whereas you already have someone with a surveyor engaged to describe and create new parcels, for example, so a place is less responsibility on the public entity to do all of that work of surveying and describing land, and it can be done in the most cohesive manner that the developer is kind of already laying out. I did outline the future land use plan goals.

00:09:36,900	And the last sentence kind of just details some of the broad brush benefits that open space dedication can have with a new subdivisions. So how this will be proposed to work. I detailed this at our last meeting, but 5% of low density residential developments and 7% of higher would be dedicated to the parkland at the time of the development.

00:10:00,530	This would be considered of master planned phase development, so in a situation where we have Lakewood 1st through 10th edition, not every phase would have to have a park, but we would look at the holistic master plan and determine the phase at which the park is relevant to be brought in.

00:10:18,670	Um, in, in the instance where a development is in an area served by parks already or where another characteristic prevents the park from being necessary, a fee per unit would be charged to the developer of the park of the development, uh, the current practice is particularly weird in a way where you could take out a building permit, pay a fee in the subdivision that does not have a park, so you’re paying

00:10:35,630	for a different subdivisions park. It’s kind of peculiar in that way where it’s not really directly able to be tied to the neighborhood park in your subdivision, for example. and It’s kind of thought that the.

00:10:55,430	The most uh Capable and the individual coordinating this significant growth of the community is the real estate developer bringing in the acreage, bringing in the rights of way, for example, and therefore they have a greater capability and a greater responsibility to to do the holistic community development project with the Land Dedication Incorporated. Um, the change that was made was rather than. Last month when it was proposed to be a percentage of the county’s assessed value.

00:11:16,270	It’s been determined that a per unit cost would be the best approach as the the county’s assessed value and the percentage was uh significantly less than what we’re currently getting in the instance where a park is not taken. We’ve also removed the requirement for commercial and industrial subdivisions to require parkland as a concept.

00:11:38,630	So If we could go back in time and kind of look at a case study example. This is a subdivision in Southwest Mandam that was brought in at 80 acres or so. And it was proposed to have around 160 lots within it.

00:11:59,030	Today we have about 60 and uh future phases are yet to happen if we had the park dedication in place, we would have a 4 acre park in the subdivision for free. Um, And if a payment was to be charged based on the calculation $80,000 in fees would be recouped for the park district to spend. Um, lacking this requirement, the Park District was offered a 1 acre park in 2023 for $80,000.

00:12:22,530	They chose not to develop a park in the subdivision due to the economics of it not making sense. Um, but again, in retrospect, had our ordinance applied a 4 acre park would have been the standard donation to the Park district with no fee, um, to them.

00:12:41,670	Any questions on park dedication? There will be a survey at the end, but I just wanted to kind of pause for a second before we shift gears a little bit. OK. So it’s a survey question, um, the fee in the event that a park is not to be dedicated or donated.

00:13:09,530	It’s understood that the park is not necessary and is therefore the neighborhood has already benefiting from parks and open space in some way. That’s kind of how we’re approaching this discussion just to help you understand our perspective on it. So, given that the Arc waiver is really only supposed to happen in instances where there’s adequate park coverage. It’s thought that the park fee.

00:13:30,270	The in lieu of dedication could be used for the maintenance of existing parks. For the purchase of excess land beyond what would be donated. Or for um. For other kind of general park district operations of neighborhood and regional parks, but.

00:13:50,030	That’s sort of where we’re kind of trying to meet in the middle, we’re creating some cash flow for the maintenance of existing parks and also for uh the pipeline of creation of new neighborhood parks too. Does that help? Or is it Uh, the fee is a one time and the dedication is a one time.

00:14:06,700	And there wouldn’t be an instance where a developer would pay or would donate land and then the building permits within the subdivision would pay a fee, it would be either or. Andrew, for reference to sky. Stargazer Park, how big is that? Is that 4 acres? It’s 2.5 acres. Andrew, um, do we have. Do we have the right to stay where the park is or do the do the. Builders have the right.

00:14:33,830	Yeah, so the characteristics of acceptable parkland would be um topographically suitable for park development. It couldn’t be a stormwater pond or a steep, uh. Fluffy area, for example, so it have to be suitable land for park development.

00:14:55,230	Um, That last bullet you had indicated that the fee would only be allowed if there was other park development, but right now it just says if it’s not an appropriate location. So I think there is a difference there in, in the judgment and I guess my question then was who will will that be subject to, um, review by which body city commission or planning and zoning commission. So our recommendation, Comm.

00:15:17,030	Huber would be for projects to approach the city with the park dedication. Um, already hashed out, which would be up to the park board to determine based on criteria, um. And the word, uh, the word that I use perhaps in the earlier screen would not be maybe the right word to use, it would be.

00:15:36,770	Rather than inappropriate, it would be maybe based on its proximity to other parks, for example, uh, but the park board would be the, the one who decides on the, the terms of an agreement if it’s all land, if it’s all fee, if it’s a hybrid of both or a subdivision.

00:15:52,330	Um, and, and the understanding would be that they would approach the city with that already figured out. And then use the city process, for example, as the, the mechanism of actually acquiring the land with. A lot being dedicated to the park district that way.

00:16:11,230	And then just one more question along those lines if there’s an elementary school with a playground in the area that would that be considered sufficient, even though those aren’t available many hours of the, the day and days a week, or would there still need to be a A park in the area. Comm. Hubrew as it’s written, it would be a separate, uh.

00:16:28,570	In order for this requirement to be met, there would need to be a park district playground separate from a school district playground. The best practices in the planning world are Mixed on this, there are folks who do not feel comfortable going to schools for recreation, and there are people who do, um. So Can go both ways. I think the recommendation would be for the thoughtful.

00:16:51,670	Consolidation of public facilities within developments in a perfect world, we would have a school and a stormwater pond and a park and a lift station, probably all in a really thoughtful way, and we could maybe take care of each other that way in some way too, but sometimes it doesn’t always work out that way.

00:17:06,130	At the end, like I said, there will be some polling on, on kind of the ins and outs of how this should work, um, that might help get your wheels turning a little bit, so if it’s all right, I’ll move into landscaping. This is uh another big part of the ordinance.

00:17:26,230	Um How it’s working today, it’s, it’s a really manual process that relies on quite a bit of back and forth to be able to understand the spirit and the intent of certain landscape plans within the community. Uh, the principal requirement is that properties be landscaped, but Does not go further into what can, um, what constitutes, uh.

00:17:48,200	Uh, sufficient landscaping plan, for example, the characteristics of a complete landscaping plan as well. And our audit found that generally our ordinance requirements are lower than many of our benchmark communities, um. And I’ll pause and mention that that does not mean that site plans that are developed in Mandan are lower in standard than other communities.

00:18:08,970	It just means that we work a lot harder for some of those plans to be realized and we have. We have less in place, um. As a standard front line of defense to be able to offer to people to design sites off of.

00:18:28,270	So a couple examples that show properties new and old and Mandan that have a lot of the ingredients of these site plants I see, um, the Burlington Plaza, which has been around my whole life, has a lot of these requirements, so they’ve they’ve been achieved over the years in different portions of the community. Just take a, take a little bit of work to get there.

00:18:48,000	Um, a lot of the ordinances reference Mark evaluating what would constitute an adequate landscaping plan. It does not tell Mark what to ask for on landscaping plans. It just tells them to look for them that are nice. There are no specific submit criteria or plant requirements. It’s really common to say you need like 10 shrubs per 50 ft. Um, we don’t have anything like that.

00:19:06,170	There are limited guidelines for the Mark review process. Relying on appointed boards to enforce city ordinances is difficult because we sometimes have folks that are really gung ho on landscaping and will have a really good batch of site plans approved and then it can kind of fall on the wayside.

00:19:25,330	And having standard ordinances across the board help folks that are interested in this topic and that are just interested in making sure that things follow the rules, have the equal kind of equitable chance to review those site plans. So when it’s really open ended, it makes it hard for folks who are looking for just what to submit to the city.

00:19:42,000	Um, which As staff as we continue to work with site designers, particularly site designers from out of the region. They’re never going to come to Mandan. A lot of times if they’re just working on a site plan for like Walmart. They probably won’t ever be be here and they just want to know what we require for this stuff.

00:19:56,230	They want to be, they want to be told a lot of times like how many trees to put on a site plan. And it makes it more manual of a process for site designers and staff when we’re opening plans and studies to see what the city commission’s authorized mark to go after in certain areas of the community.

00:20:13,830	Speaking of that, different parts of the community are kind of held to varying landscaping standards. Um, I’ll call out the downtown fringe. I’ll call out the gateways, for example, it’s somewhat arbitrary in nature, um. To perhaps hold like Forty-Sixth Avenue Southeast, that’s a higher landscaping standard than Old Red Trail. Or have.

00:20:35,770	Sunset Drive, not have to be landscaped as nice as the Memorial Highway. It’s kind of weird in a way, and what we’re looking to do with this is just kind of standardize it so across the board whether you’re on 3rd Street. Or 46 or Badan Avenue or Collins, the landscaping standards are generally the same. is what we would like to move towards.

00:20:55,430	This creates some inequities what we currently have that. Kind of imply in the ordinance that other areas are more deserving of specific attention than others. And as I mentioned, despite a lot of really commendable landscaping plans and historically well landscaped properties and businesses in Mandan. There is a need for some standardization here.

00:21:16,930	And like I said, the objective is to just refine some of these. So what we’ll begin going after will be a new requirements for the the mentioned landscaped properties, so around parking lots standard around utilities and refuse areas right now the ordinance really only allows us to do this in the gateway. We want to do this citywide.

00:21:35,570	There are properties that aren’t in the gateway that should be protected from some of these nuisances. Foundation landscaping around buildings can kind of soften the look of commercial site plans and uh allow them to be a little bit more adaptable they’re able to work around for heavier industrial and commercial uses, but they’re also um more

00:21:54,630	adaptable for softer retail and service uses as well, so. Um, the standard can create site plans and properties that are more adaptable for economic change and for reuse and redevelopment.

00:22:16,100	The last component is uh buffers and screening between non-complementary land uses which are being carried forward in a street and boulevard tree requirement with a new subdivisions. Um, So what is proposed, I’ll go into the street trees first. Um, it’s kind of a. It’s kind of a component of of town that must have gotten lost at some point. Mandan’s always been a city that’s full of trees in my memory.

00:22:37,930	And as we get into some of our new subdivisions, there’s less of a requirement and less of a culture of tree planting and this this would, um, this would be considerate and acknowledge the the.

00:22:58,230	Kind of the time tested benefits that trees have had nationwide and in Mandan, citing a couple news articles with headlines, street trees are worth their weight in gold, calming traffic, rooting roots of a strong town, um. Being considered these benefits, we would require these to improve air quality, moderate temperatures, reduce noise, traffic speeding, erosion control, they can promote longer pavement lives. There’s a lot of benefits that comes from trees and the recommendation is that we begin requiring these in new subdivisions.

00:23:19,570	I think I have a visual later on that kind of shows you what this looks like from an aerial, um. Better that slide kind of fell out of place, but. Here’s just a visual that shows. Where some of these requirements would be on kind of a high level site plan. You see a round parking lots, around waist uh screening sites.

00:23:37,570	Um, islands within parking lots for us, for example. These standards have been met by site plans and Mandan for a long time. This is a property on Forty-sixth Avenue that’s been there my whole life. They have the perimeter parking lot landscaping. There’s parking lot landscaping, um, within the parking lot screening between noncomplementary land uses.

00:24:03,970	Landscaping in front of the building, that would be the foundation requirement. Um, screening of waste facilities. Just general site landscaping. And the street trees. I’m showing you this to kind of build a little confidence, these requirements are, they sound like a lot.

00:24:24,270	A lot of site plants have many of the ingredients and we’re doing a really good job of having them standardized in the code of ordinances will allow for a much more equitable and consistent execution of this going forward. You’re just some more examples of additional site plans in Mandan being developed without incentive, without push. Without pushing back either, um.

00:24:48,970	Folks are receptive to these requirements and and it’s the recommendation that we standardize these so that it’s less of something that we have to catch in the few minutes that someone’s designing a site and uh it’s something that that site designer can be aware of right away and submit something that that follows our rules and reduces touch points there.

00:25:05,900	Again, you’ll see some of the varying examples of this around town where maybe we have everything except the street trees, or maybe we have everything except the parking lot screening landscaping, and you can see.

00:25:21,900	That if one of these was told to um address some of the nonconformities, it would be fairly easy for say this restaurant in southeast Mandan to add shrubs around its parking lot. It would be fairly simple for this multi-family complex in South Mandan to add street trees, um, we’re not really asking them to remove buildings to be able to adhere to these requirements, for example.

00:25:43,970	Back into order on street trees, this uh this development in South Mandan has been constructed for A little bit over 15 years now. And there’s less than one tree per home. In this example, where we have a pretty consistent standard of one tree per home or higher in core parts of Mandan.

00:26:04,300	This is um introducing a deficit where certain residential portions of Mandan have the benefit of an urban tree canopy and others do not. It’s been recommended that the city take more of a proactive stance on this, and we’re hoping that there’s some support with that. And that we can kind of gauge what some folks concerns with with this approach would be as well. Um, a couple other examples where nonconformities are present.

00:26:25,970	Uh, here are some site plans that I think might landscape might lack landscaping entirely. These include fairly new site plants developed in all portions of Mandan, north, south, downtown, and southeast. To retrofit some of these would be difficult and it’s.

00:26:51,200	Partially because the minimum standards right away were didn’t really create a whole lot of opportunity for more landscaping, I guess, but. Um, you can see what some of these site plans that it would be as simple as adding shrubs around them and landscaping the the islands within, um, to be able to achieve some adherence with them. Or perhaps adding shrubs along the street edge or. Trees and rocks, etc.

00:27:14,570	Um Some of these site plans are in what would be considered the city’s gateway district where some of these aesthetic controls should be caught by staff, but given Kind of the limited. Uh, poll that they have, I think they can get missed. What does it look like when a nonconformity is addressed with a landscaping plan.

00:27:31,730	There’s an example just down the street, um, upon the redevelopment of the central market site, the city commission adopted downtown plan direct demand and architecture review to enforce landscaping standards to be tailored to the parking lot edge, and that’s kind of how we’ve been going about this.

00:27:50,130	Instead of it being in the code of ordinances when someone’s trying to design a site plan, we have to go through this whole train of thought on like what these plans are and how the city landscaping thing works and they just kind of want to be told how many shrubs to put on the plan most of the time, so it would be nice to be

00:28:02,100	able to point them to something like that instead. Moving on from that. Properties that do not meet the proposed landscaping standards today would be considered non-conforming, so they would be grandfathered into this. They would not need to make any changes to their property to.

00:28:28,770	To be open tomorrow, for example, however, should they desire to make significant improvements to their property. This would be one of all of the kind of zoning nonconformities that would need to be addressed, so that could be land use, it could also just be the appearance of the property. Typically, um, 25% of the structure is assessed value is what is used.

00:28:47,370	So when a project exceeds 25% of the structure’s excess value. That’s when the city’s ordinance, um, direct staff to begin identifying and correcting nonconformities on sites. While these do we’re not, it’s not uh definitely not missed by any of us that these can add to project costs.

00:29:12,570	There’s pretty significant benefit that this brings as well, um, case studies that connect landscaping to property value that connect landscaping to a sense of place, landscaping to economic vitality as well. Certain applicability thresholds are proposed for different types of landscaping, and we would also more explicitly maintain or more. Define what maintenance would be, excuse me.

00:29:37,570	Um, so we would stipulate within the code of ordinances, things like weeding and pruning, all of the components of maintaining these site plans where. Some of them have been a little bit hard to work with um today for an enforcement standpoint. There would be uh just kind of a explanation for how the hierarchy of things would work.

00:29:57,900	We do have some rather efficient site plans I’ll call them, uh, just small, tight in a way. If, uh, say for example, if you needed 10 parking spots for the code of ordinances and we also wanted landscaping, but you could only provide one or the other parking would be the hierarchical one, but if you had 11 spots, the 11th parking spot would be expected to become a landscaping area just.

00:30:15,500	Letting you guys know how that would work. Um, And this is a kind of a common approach where kind of the the most beneficial thing is having parking, we think, and then when there’s room for it and new site plans and redeveloped site plans, the landscaping is something we’ll go after.

00:30:33,630	Uh, one thing I wanted to talk about as well is Boulevard plantings periodically we get asked about the legality of these kind of boulevard plantings and right now we have ordinances that really only allow kind of the homogeneous grass and trees, um, within the right of way and I think in layman’s terms, people are moving back from cities,

00:30:52,500	for example, this is a common thing that people do in urban areas and you’ll see around historically within the core areas of communities you’ll see people take a little bit of alternative. Means of ownership of the boulevard and um at the end I’ll kind of, I think I’ll be gauging your preference on.

00:31:08,900	On this, I think we’re kind of lukewarm to the idea, um, of course, it’s not going to fit in every subdivision or every area, but it can add some eye catching appeal, we think in certain areas too, um.

00:31:25,530	Some of the things we’ve talked about are, well, maybe if it’s a couple feet off the curb and a couple feet off the sidewalk, it’s not so bad and as long as you’re not eating the food grown there, you’re probably good, but other folks would just like to see a grass, other folks would just like to see it rock or concrete or go away, so.

00:31:39,370	Um, I don’t know if there’s any thoughts on if things like this should be allowed or not, but. Um, I’m personally kind of a fan of it. And the last one, in landscaping and ground cover is gravel. It’s been uh something that we see in boulevards. Um, Primarily and on some residential site plans and just wanted to see.

00:32:03,900	If there are any temperature checks on this, um. One side of the planning world will say this is sustainable. This is er escaping and it um. Water and grass is wasteful, for example, is that argument, the other argument is it’s um, it lacks. Appeal visually so.

00:32:27,900	I don’t know if uh if we have strong feelings on that in the room today, but going through some of those requirements, street trees, retrofitting parking lots to have new landscaping, having uh more tailored landscaping requirements as opposed to this kind of crazy wild goose chase process that we go on right now.

00:32:45,900	Um, any thoughts from the board at the end we’ll have a survey on your. And I do have some comments or questions on boulevard trees. Uh, particularly in residential areas, and I’m in the Lakewood area and I think he showing probably a plot that might have been from Lakewood.

00:33:07,430	Um, I’m concerned where we’re going with it in terms of traffic safety, and I think that has to be the number one priority, um, we have several areas where the intersections are almost impossible to see and sure we don’t have a tree every house, but then on the corners. There’s 6 trees and you can’t see, um, and the other thing you could go down Bay Shore band.

00:33:28,730	Uh, with a pickup truck, and if you need another car, you’re gonna hit trees that are hanging over and so if we’re gonna require these trees on the boulevards, who’s gonna maintain them? How’s that gonna be enforced? And I see some problems there, um, you know, some communities.

00:33:48,530	That I’ve researched, they don’t even allow the trees on the boulevard, they have to be back. You know, like 1820 ft from the curb or whatever. And I’m just wondering if uh the committee is considering those factors too, those are all definite concerns, um, I think one of the.

00:34:09,100	One of the issues that we’re dealing with is the city not having a sight triangle ordinance that’s really um enforceable. Currently, the site triangle would be the area that you kind of want to remain free around intersections, driveways, etc. um, some folks kind of call it the Cle zone.

00:34:31,800	Um, ours is contained within the sign code and it’s ability to be enforced to things other than signs is legally iffy, so we will have a site triangle ordinance in place that will restrict trees from being planted, I think within 30 ft of intersections which should help with that. We’ll also be making some adjustments away from the ornamental trees in the right of way, which are the ones that never really grow to a stature, a kind of a statutory height.

00:34:48,930	Uh, so those are two adjustments that might help with that. Overall with this project, I encourage you to use two sides of your brain, your pragmatic. I’ve been here for however many years I’ve lived here, brain, and your, what is my dream for my community brand and. Kind of find a balance between the two.

00:35:09,770	so I would encourage you to think about what it would look like if they were maintained properly as well and if we could aspire for that too, but definite concerns that we need to uh take into account with this project for sure now the homeowner is responsible for the maintenance of it, correct, and that’s not happening.

00:35:27,370	Yeah, it’s, it’s limited in effect, um. We’ve historically been responsive to complaints and not super proactive to go out and identify them. We’ve also, um, another approach that I can detail is every 7 years we have a street maintenance plan, for example, and we’ve began adding to the contract tree trimming.

00:35:48,870	Um, we don’t have a forester as a city. But we do have the ability to add on to the street improvement projects, tree trimming, so once every 7 years they do a pretty deep dive and this is something that has not made its full way through the city, um.

00:36:07,370	We’ve gotten through one of 7 neighborhoods so far, but uh all different kind of various things that can be used to address the problem, um, and then is a tree city USA. We are the first tree City USA in North Dakota, the National Arbor Day Foundation has a lot of might behind it, and there are a lot of folks that want to see trees and tree equity addressed in the United States.

00:36:21,800	So hopefully we can come to a solution that kind of meets in the middle. Yeah, I like trees. That’s not a problem, it’s the. Just how we’re gonna Control that, make sure we preserve traffic safety, so. And skipping questions. OK. Ah, let me get back up to where we were.

00:36:49,100	Zoning districts, I have some more slides on this. We talked about a couple of things at the last meeting, not having a rural residential district, but having. Um, hundreds of acres of land designated for rural residential development in our future land use plan is an issue.

00:37:11,370	Um, having Really nominal difference between certain industrial districts creates um just excessive ordinances to have to kind of keep track of and. In reality, there’s largely not much of a difference between different industrial districts in Mandan today. One of them is the only one that allows like livestock when that should probably just be a conditional use permit and not its own zoning district. Um, Today.

00:37:30,670	But different approaches have been taken over the years and that’s what brought us to this project, I guess. Um, and then the special purpose district that was kind of addressed as the downtown fringe. So starting with the rural residential district. I think we’re all not, um.

00:37:49,470	Not kind of missing the fact that rural residential uses make up a lot of the residential, um, land use pattern of the metro area. This would be the two acre lot septic system oversized shop, for example, there’s thousands of people who live in these in Bismarck Mandan. Uh, we think a district should be established for areas where that’s appropriate.

00:38:08,570	We also think that there are areas where that is probably not appropriate as well if you build it too close to town, it can kind of become a boundary to urban development, so you don’t want it to really get in the way of us, but we want it to be something that we’re considerate of as well.

00:38:23,330	We do have some existing subdivisions that should be rezoned to this today and as the city’s ETA continues to expand, we can kind of um. Make sure that we have relevant zoning for these newly annexed areas.

00:38:44,300	What I’m talking about would be, say, for example, we annex in and so acres or that becomes our extraterritorial area, very feasible as we reach a population of 25,000 people. The state allows our ETA to expand in size, um, areas like Maverick estates around Mandan Airport, again, feasible over the course of Mandan’s history for that to be within our jurisdiction, and we should be prepared for that.

00:39:04,630	And uh last additional rural residential subdivisions may be developed if development yields or proximity to municipal infrastructure can support it. Like I said, we don’t want this to get in the way of Mandan, but we want it to be something that rural residents could live in. This is what we’re talking about. We’re talking about whispering hills. We’re talking about. Um Some of Zach Myers up along the river and the acres.

00:39:23,230	And we’re talking about areas um southwest of Mandan Airport that are thought to be within our development jurisdiction or. Far northwest of the new Mandan High School site beyond the Beltway that are within our jurisdiction where rural residential is really the only sensible development type.

00:39:44,630	This will be because of topography or because of other issues that would really prevent municipal infrastructure and municipal services from being there. We never used the R-12 district, the R12 district was weird in a way where.

00:40:05,200	It actually had a minimum house size and we, we think it’s original adoption was for some of the uh lots within the marinas of Southeast Mandan to stipulate minimum home sizes. And uh like I said, since it’s never been used, we don’t really have much of an issue if we were to retailor it to this rural setting.

00:40:22,030	As a ripple effect, it could in the long term be further differentiated from urban zoning to allow perhaps different home occupations as it trended east of the river in Bismarck. It could allow separate animal husbandry activities to take place and uh and separate building placement rules as well. Again, it’s kind of a whole different beast than city living and city zoning, and it should be treated separately. There’s some technical language that’s proposed to be swapped.

00:40:42,230	I don’t expect that we’ll be talking about this for very long, but kind of abstract things like the floor area ratio. Which stipulates how much of a lot could be covered instead just being replaced with more common sense stuff like building setbacks and height regulations that. Accomplish the same point.

00:41:02,070	About 30% of Mandan zoning ordinances use the floor area ratio to tell you where you can build and the other 70% use setbacks. We just kind of wanted to pick one or the other here and setbacks are a lot easier, I find. Um, so assuming not any pushback on that, uh, a couple industrial districts are to be consolidated as well. The MC Industrial District, um.

00:41:21,700	It’s basically everything that the MA district is except no animal hospitals. That can be handled differently. We don’t need a whole different zoning district for that. And the MD industrial district is everything that the. And B district allows and livestock and a medical marijuana growing facility. Those can be handled differently.

00:41:41,500	They don’t need to be their own zoning district. Um, The 4 pictures below. are for average industrial site plans and each of those are from a different zoning district. It’s like largely speaking, they’re all about the same, we’re yielding fairly similar land uses aside from the maybe strata, the kissed livestock, um, some of those more intense uses, for example,

00:42:07,730	we’re really not seeing anything drastically different and we’re hoping to get a little bit of consolidation there. Another one that’s been important for quite a long time is to. Adress some issues with our downtown fringe district. Um, I put on the screen just a couple of bearings.

00:42:31,170	It’s probably one of our largest zoning districts in Mandan, and it ranges from 10th Avenue, the viaduct. About to the high school halfway up the hill on Collins and take it over to Chevy on Mandan Avenue. It’s fairly large area that. Creates a kind of obscure commercial zoning entitlements in inappropriate areas and uh causes a little bit of heartburn from the residential folks within.

00:42:54,100	How did this come to be? It’s thought that this was meant to be an overlay and. Upon its enactment, it was just not done that way and it repealed underlying zoning and replaced it with this. Um We have been reviewing it as it is a standard district.

00:43:16,170	And As recent as fall of 2023, you were approached by someone looking to establish a commercial land use in a single family home within the downtown Fringe district on a block with no commercial uses on it, right? Um, it was a concern and we’re looking to address some of these concerns. There are certain blocks within here that are.

00:43:33,770	Hm Rather inappropriate for commercial land uses and actually get in the way of certain other goals that we have surrounding preserving traditional residential neighborhoods, for example. Uh, so the reduction is based on its identification as being oversized. And it would be reduced to areas immediately surrounding the DC downtown core and other blocks that are kind of characteristically similar.

00:43:55,530	If I put it in the layman’s terms, maybe from like. And spot to Om’s Cafe and to the post office that triangle, but not getting into the residential areas as far. Based on our land use plan, we would make that reduction to prioritize residential uses in the residential. Portions of that area.

00:44:20,170	And uh more clearly support the resident or the commercial and residential mixed use areas, uh, and those fringe areas that are most appropriate and the direction is um. What we’re going into is sort of Uh, directing that downtown fringe in downtown court to kind of fall within the profile of these red blocks on the screen here which would be with the downtown or what

00:44:36,630	the city’s future land use plan identified for commercial. Uh, so you’ll see up to 20 plus blocks of downtown fringe being removed and replaced with an RM district, which is essentially what was there before it allows a range of residential uses to take place.

00:44:59,030	Um, very, very light commercial uses and it focuses that commercial downtown fringe area to areas that are urban character, commercial character today or immediately next to for kind of the gradual expansion but not the leapfrogging and Swiss cheese of uh character it had.

00:45:21,470	We have, uh, as an idea, just kind of limited, and I mentioned this, um, maybe keeping the commercial land uses and commercial zoning to being that first block off of Main Street to the north. Any concerns on zoning, um, any support for the rural district and the opposition to making some changes to industrial.

00:45:41,830	These are Minor in nature and have been kind of in the hopper for a while, so I understand if um if there aren’t any comments on this, but. Any questions on downtown industrial rural stuff. If not, I can gauge your feedback with the pole at the end. Uh, this is the last chunk, just a few slides were like over 80% of the way through. So thank you for bearing with me.

00:46:05,230	As our current practice for access management, and this is vehicular access management primarily, um, we’re accomplishing this right now through a kind of. Um, Collaborative manner of dealing with the The OT and working with the Bismarck Man and NPO to determine which facilities, uh, they maintain or have planned as arterials and we also use our driveway ordinance to manage access to the public

00:46:26,770	right of way. But we can go a little bit further and adopt our own kind of local standards and and local um protocols for access management. Um, below are just examples like a non-access line on a plat is how this actually works in the real world and site designers see those and know not to put

00:46:45,900	driveways in that location. Typically And um again just as you get into the. Intersection control area. Or major streets, that’s where a vehicular access management is something that. Becomes more important. We’re recommended to set specific standards for this. Um, They’ll be kind of context based and vary by area.

00:47:15,700	But for minimum spacing, commercial and industrial, um. Leaning would be every quarter mile on principal arterials and every 18 mile on minor arterials. We’re working on an impact analysis to see what this.

00:47:33,630	Or how this would have worked if we could try again on certain corridors or how this would work on certain projected growth corridors, uh, to see how this will work in the real world, but that’s been kind of the drilled in approach. Um, we would obviously allow for. Kind of the best case scenario to come from a redevelopment on the strip where it’s kind of already out of control in a way, um, or some of our downtown blocks where.

00:47:51,570	There’s just an understanding that there’s a little bit more conflict in the built environment, but These are going to be applied for when we get to try something new in the greenfield development on the edge of town, for example, so not something that we necessarily need to go back and take away from someone, but something that we would

00:48:08,200	maybe a retailer new growth standards too. We would allow for things like shared driveways, of course, I think we’re doing that on the rock prairie development fairly well and the DOT is retroactively doing that on the on the Memorial Highway.

00:48:26,770	Intersections as well need to be spaced at least a half mile on principal arterials. This is out of everyone’s best interest, traffic safety, um. Traffic speed, consistency of getting from A to B, it’s just, uh, it’s better when we can plan and have those intersections placed in a thoughtful locations.

00:48:44,530	We would allow for a quarter mile spacing on minor arterials and 18th mile on collectors, and that’s going to be streets. This isn’t going to be residential driveways. We’ll still allow homes to have driveways on these roads, but this would be for. Um Kind of new developments to be lay out in a way that allows for traffic to flow efficiently. And there are a lot of ways that.

00:49:03,100	Surveyors and engineers can lay out subdivisions that fit these standards fairly well. Um, I’ll kind of gauge your temperature on this as well, just non-conformities, um, help us kind of understand what we should do when we didn’t do it right the first time, like we have, we have a rule that says you can’t have more than 2 driveways.

00:49:18,830	These were all constructed under that. Role I don’t understand how this came to be, but it’s like now what do we do? So in a case where these are redeveloped, the question would be. And they have all those driveways still, or should they have to get rid of some of those. All these driveways create issues.

00:49:36,970	Where do we put snow? Where do we put trees? Where do we put the storm water that comes from all this stuff, it’s creates a big ripple effect, um, do we need to have 5 driveways to one site plan.

00:49:55,500	Probably not, especially when all 5 of the driveways are on an arterial road, um, some peculiarities and the question is, should this really be treated like a nonconformity or is this something that we kind of let the cat out of the bag with and have to let. Um. All things that we can kind of set. Our recommendation would be to kind of.

00:50:12,670	Um Treat it like a nonconformity and it’s kind of the one shot you have to get it right the next time in a way. Uh, so that would be how it sits. In our gut, but. Again, we work with others and work with others perce perceptions as well. So the proposal, uh, I think that got copied, um.

00:50:34,400	Proposal would be, like I said, to treat those like nonconformities, and the last example that we have to get through, I think is our right of way and street with. I’ve talked about new things that developers will have to do. You’ll have to give us parkland.

00:50:47,630	Uh, you might have to give us more space between intersections like we’re asking for a lot more, but we can meet in the middle in some ways too. We have, we have drastically oversized streets in new subdivisions, um. Streets that are 6 times the width of a vehicle but only meant for two lane traffic.

00:51:07,930	These cause high speed traffic in residential areas, which has a connection to property value, which has a connection to sense of place, neighborliness, etc. Streets that have similar traffic volumes with drastically similar widths, um, is one of those things that we’d like to kind of address with this, um, it’s been recommended that we do two things. One, we would increase what we would be asking for on busy streets. Arterial roads and allow for decreased width.

00:51:35,100	Local streets or neighborhood streets, not require them to be smaller, allow them to be smaller in the sense where we’re asking for parkland. Maybe if you do less right of way, we can meet in the middle on the amount of stuff that you’re losing, for example.

00:51:50,630	Currently we’re asking for 66 to 80 ft for local streets. We’d be going from that to 54 to 66. And our non-residentials would stay at 80. Collectors would stay at 80 and arterials would increase from our 100 to 220 ft up to 150 ft for right of way.

00:52:11,970	Changes here, um, they make a little bit more sense today than they maybe would have a long time ago when you just kind of laid out a grid and you weren’t quite sure what street was going to take off or what business was going to take off in your community. We do planning differently now.

00:52:26,000	Man Dan was platted before zoning was allowed, for example, so it was less clear what was going to happen where and now we have a better sense of what’s going to happen where. So you can kind of.

00:52:44,030	Taylor early on the busy street versus the local street, right? Um, we just, we have an idea which ones will be busy and which ones won’t, and we have a better understanding of things like the disastrous impact that wide streets have on pedestrian safety in the United States, well documented studies, albeit by peculiar NPR studying roads is kind of funny, but um. People are talking about this problem in this country. The benefits of doing this to Mandan are.

00:53:06,670	Pretty clear, um, we wouldn’t make developers spend as much money constructing new developments which they pass on to homeowners and residents. Increasing home costs. We would reduce the cost that’s assessed to homeowners as streets are reconstructed, especially in the, in the instance where they’re unnecessarily oversized from the get go. You have to catch this when the curb is laid. I’ve learned this in the last 3 years.

00:53:27,370	The curb is the most expensive thing to move. The asphalt’s not really a big deal apparently. So when you let them lay the wide curb, the curb’s gonna be there for a few maintenance cycles and it perpetuates the condition that requires high cost maintenance to take place as long as that curb is there.

00:53:43,300	So if you let the curb go wide, you’re always committing to 38 ft of asphalt to maintain. Your car is 8 ft wide, where what’s all this space for is kind of the question, um, arguments that folks in favor of narrower streets would make would be it’s maybe OK for me to have to pull over for a second for an

00:54:00,530	oncoming vehicle. The past, um, that might not be OK to everybody. You might want to always be able to drive in a certain direction, um, but there are there are instances like cul de sacs, short blocks, neighborhood streets where maybe it’s OK for the benefit that we see for someone to have to maybe pull over for another

00:54:20,700	vehicle in the event that they’re passing. I grew up on a neighborhood street on a pretty narrow one. It’s honestly fine, um, most people will be perfectly OK and get where they need to be. When they need to.

00:54:38,800	Other benefits, you get the traffic calming, reduced stormwater because of reduced impervious surfaces, reduce snow removal and street sweeping. And like I said, as we ask for you to give us more, here’s a way where we can meet in the middle and require less. reduced right of way with would be optional and increased right of way with would be mandatory. Be kind of scary.

00:54:54,830	I know we like the consistent experience we have as motorists in the in the community. But how are these changes sitting with you? For New standards for where driveways can go, allowing narrower streets, etc. Any anxiety with these ideas. I need support for these ideas.

00:55:21,130	Should we go right to the pole? I think I might need a second to get this going here, but Andrew, I got a question before you go on to your pole. Yes, Comm. Mudder parking work on a narrower steep street.

00:55:39,030	Uh, one side, it would be stipulated that parking would be on one side and as part of the street improvement project for that new subdivision, we would just spec in no parking signs and they’d be there on day one. I need to get myself signed in here. I’m trying a new thing. It’s called Poul Everywhere, so you’ll need your cell phone for it and it’s an interactive way just to make sure that uh everyone’s getting their thoughts down, you’ll be able to say yes, no to my ideas.

00:56:01,230	I’m used to it. I’m fairly resilient as a person, so just kind of let me have it, I guess. And I just want to make sure I do it right. OK, so if you scan this QR code, you should be let in to the to the party. It’s like a Big Apple crowd here tonight.

00:56:31,030	I think it’ll prompt you to enter a username. So are you all into the username or into the first question? OK. The first question I have for you is. Is the current approach to park dedication. OK, or does it need to be adjusted and you’ll respond by I agree This does not need to be adjusted.

00:57:20,700	Yeah, the status quo needs to change being the question. I mean Andrew who’s on our work group with behind us. I have Comm. Huber and Chair Robinson. OK for I, I don’t know if there’s a way for me to see if everyone’s answered, so I’ll just give it a couple more seconds. Um, Is anyone shocked by what they’re seeing up here.

00:58:16,170	Nod your head Not just whatever I’m not seeing shock. No, I’m not. I’ve. Nationwide best practices are often about the same as what your community wants. So I’ve learned that. OK, if it’s OK, I’m gonna move on to the next question. Which I think I maybe took myself just to make sure it worked.

00:58:47,700	Uh, so I’ll remove one of the agrees. This statement is that land developers play a primary role in the community’s growth and development, and they should dedicate land for parks, like they do for streets and infrastructure. Are you, are you seeing this question on your screen? Went back to the first question.

00:59:29,900	See How about now? OK, I have to press activate on my side, so my apologies. OK. I What I am Andrew Strommi 895. Wait for me. I want to talk I I have to back up. Overachiever. Yeah Have folks responded to the question regarding land developers dedicating land. What are we thinking? 90% of us agree.

01:00:53,570	10% are neutral. It sounds like something that we should kind of carry forward as a understanding or an agreement of the planning commission at this point. Knowing that we’ll of course hear how this will affect developers and folks like that too and and consider that too.

01:01:15,830	I’ll move on to question number 3 here in a second. Unless I hear we need more time. If land dedication is not desired by the Park District, the a fee should be charged. I agree, I am neutral, I disagree. Agreements being that.

01:01:44,230	Or understandings with this that I’ve heard from folks are, well, if there isn’t a park necessary, why should they have to pay anything? The park’s not necessary. Other folks say, well, maybe it’s because they could contribute to improvements at the park that already serves them, so that’s how we’ve kind of been understanding this issue. Money could also go to trails, um. For example.

01:02:15,630	With this topic, are there any comments that you’d like other commissioners to hear or? Concerns with the approach? Yeah, it would be a replacement of our current mechanism right now regardless of if a parks planned or not, everyone’s paying a fee. This would just tailor it to either being a land dedication.

01:02:54,170	Or a fee Um, I think in the event where maybe you’re in a sub like maybe if you take out like I think right now if you take out a building permit two blocks from here, you’re probably paying a building permit fee for park dedication, for example, because I don’t think we’re really treating them that separate, so that’s sort of how it’s working today. Is anyone shocked by the results? I think this is something that represents.

01:03:11,400	A pretty substantial shift in how we’ve been going about things and maybe something that we should focus on a little bit, the mechanism for the fee, etc. Jamie. Really Parks are going way up. Like you look at RVs or it’s used, it’s not necessarily just that.

01:03:35,570	that Everybody used it, so people are going to the newer part. Right away So if you say you wanna do title and you wanna have. Put two of them up in that area. I think you can get away with just putting one. I could go less parts with the 4 if you had a 4 acre partial instead of doing more parts.

01:03:54,800	That’s Most cities are going to. Mm. That make sense? Yeah, we’re seeing a mix, um. Definitely seeing a mix depends on kind of the community’s priorities. The city of Mandan did adopt a desire for for more neighborhood parks, um, which is directing this ordinance.

01:04:16,970	What I’m guessing is that uh you’d like a little bit more influence in this area to come from the Park district as opposed to the planning and zoning commission perhaps dictating where parks are maybe enabling them to do a little bit more of this.

01:04:34,130	Yeah, I think kind of maybe on the flip side to that I would express concern and I don’t know the name of the development, but it’s near the Lakewood Elementary School, I think probably to the north of it, and it’s extremely dense and there’s no um park at all in that area other than the You know, the recently opened elementary school playground, which I don’t, you know, again, for reasons of hours and days of the week and, and such, you know, doesn’t really substitute,

01:04:51,900	so, so that’s one where I think they got by with just paying a fee that went toward a super park or a facility elsewhere, but it leaves that area really dense and underserved.

01:05:13,630	My, my recommendation for the board is to adopt kind of enabling ordinances that permit the park district to either take the fee, which is essentially what they’re already doing today or to uh be able to acquire the parkland dedication, um. Given the kind of boots on the ground experience we’ve had and uh some of the issues we’ve had with. Creating new parks.

01:05:31,230	I would also add, I think there is one subdivision where park has been donated to the park district and that the developer may realized some sort of. Um, benefit by making a donation to a public entity that was worth a substantial amount of money, so. Some folks with a lot of tax liability may be able to do that. Next question. Looks like we had some early.

01:05:51,630	Poll takers here, the fee charge should be the same as what’s charged today except for, except only for developments that do not have parkland being dedicated, so that would be just the status quo for parks or for subdivisions that won’t have a park, kind of more of a drill in the last question.

01:06:10,730	Again, the understanding being there right now, the resident or the builder in the subdivision pays the fee, not the developer bringing in the whole tract of land. This would switch it to being the developer paying the fee at the upfront. Are there any thoughts about it being increased, decreased again, the fee.

01:06:49,700	Should it about stay the same where it is today? housing Mhm. And and get Don’t just So way Single mom, 6 kids, and she’s got. Go $1000 than You go there for some ideas. And I really hear what you’re saying, and I think, you know, as Andrew stated going forward, if they’re able to reduce street width then. Putting an investment into park space.

01:08:08,270	Um, might be a trade off. And I think this having park accessibility is extremely important in those most affordable neighborhoods because, again, like the density in the neighborhood that I cited, they don’t have yards, you know, it’s just.

01:08:26,630	Went home after twin home and so that’s where if they’re going to be, um, children and families in those areas, they, they need some place to go. I’ve got a little bit of a concern because we were talking about inflation and stuff like this. I just helped out with some. in new playground equipment, Rough Rider, which has been there for 25 years.

01:08:49,970	I Uh, they were thankful, but it was $70,000 and they didn’t get too much of anything. So if we keep everything the same. How much less and less of. Care do we take care of these, all these parks, that’s what that’s that’s one concern I’ve got a little bit, um.

01:09:09,730	And I, I agree with what Will said too, but we’ve gotta make sure that we, we see both sides of the story that, you know, we have to keep things low, but we also have to take care of this stuff and it costs money too, so. It was So And maybe that’s not the norm minim I It can run into some issues just give.

01:09:59,300	The intergenerational nature of park and open space demand, um. It’s not a given that because the child is in the classroom that open space is not necessary at that same time, there are perhaps adults that desire to recreate, for example, and open space is necessary for everyone, the elderly community as well.

01:10:22,170	Um, and there are some issues obviously with safety that prohibit folks from accessing school sites during the day, so. That was one thing that was tough, um, one of the. Not Hop on my soapbox very briefly. One of my like peer city planners is Gil Penalosa.

01:10:42,570	He was a city planner in Toronto, running for mayor there as well and that was his big idea, this emerald, this kind of like orchids and impatience being orchids being delicate flowers that require a lot of tending and impatience being something you could like scatter and they’ll bloom, right? And the idea was, well, your city could just create parks by letting schools open.

01:11:02,770	Like Canada versus United States is politically and socially huge differences on how schoolyards are approached as open space, so it’s a really common thought in the community development world and something that we could dial into a little bit more here.

01:11:17,470	Um, I think one thing that I was going to mention while we stay on this topic is, um, there have not been any communities that have shared to me that development has hit a standstill or that community development and growth has really slowed down at all following the adoption of a park and open space dedication requirement. If anything, new developments are being perhaps right sized to um.

01:11:41,630	Kind of what is necessary in the moment, given the need to provide a more full circle holistic uh neighborhood package with that project, so we might end up with less of big big booms, but that can be OK in a way because sometimes it’s limited staff and as a small community we really can’t handle too many of those at once, so pros and cons that we need to drill into some

01:11:58,070	more. Looks like we got into this one. I teased this earlier so we can kind of cruise past it. Um, but it looks like support for purchasing equipment for existing parks using that fee. Purchasing excess park land or an oversized neighborhood park.

01:12:22,300	And um The one, the last one I put on there just to see what folks thought, although I’ll be candid and admit that I don’t know how that would actually work, the fee being somehow spent on the development that’s paying the fee. If there’s not a park, it’s kind of hard to figure out how we would do that.

01:12:38,400	Um, as it’s been understood, like I mentioned as I introduced this is. The Park District would be able to accept a fee in the event that the subdivisions may be adequately covered by parks, right, meaning that maybe that money can be used to maintain those parks that are currently covering that subdivision, right? Um.

01:12:57,430	Without I think without that park, it’s gonna be the the tricky part, and this is where the question is. Kind of Same question we have today, is it right to charge people a building permit fee when there probably isn’t going to be a park in their subdivision. For making a change away from that.

01:13:16,270	Um, The idea to allow a little bit of flexibility in this area is is considerate of the pretty significant shift that this is, um, we acknowledge Comm. Mutter that there is a cost to the creation of new parks. I was told that over the course of multiple years of development, the Park district accrued $80,000 to purchase parks and park equipment.

01:13:33,330	So there’s something not working, right? Like if the last part came in 2010. If a play package costs $70,000. Land is going to cost $80,000. How are we gonna get to this 86 acres. That’s my question. Um, Next question. Developers and should they have to sort this out with the park board before they talk to us.

01:14:00,200	My recommendation is yes, I would like that to be sorted out first, and I would like to build a culture of making sure that entities such as the Park district and the school district are really proactively approached. Um, there’s work I can do to Improve in that area, but there’s also just getting it into the ordinance is a requirement would help too.

01:14:17,630	Looking like a lot of support, um, any comments on this approach, having developers. Talk to the park board and have an agreement amount of land to be donated. Bees, etc. prior to approaching the planning commission. Any concerns with this approach.

01:14:42,170	I’m seeing some disagreement and I’d like to understand that a little bit better so we can drill into that some more. this is generally about the parks. I look at the Bo Harbor Park. It’s like 2.34 acres. It is rarely used.

01:15:02,100	rarely used Down there and we have how many houses down in Lakewood? And it’s Partly because it’s Not nearly as good as some of the new parks. There’s hardly any equipment in there. I think that’s part of the reason. The people will shift their other ones so. Maybe it’s I get the new developments and we have to, I understand what you’re talking about like the other liquid addition, but.

01:15:17,100	We have a nice park there that isn’t utilized, so you’re, you’re telling me we need all these parts, but we have a nice one right there that has almost 3 acres and it’s never used. Maybe we have to do something with our existing parks to make them better, to make them.

01:15:33,430	That’s My only concern, major issues with some other stuff in the city and that’s, that’s just my only concern about it is like. I really, my kids go over there quite a bit when they’re younger and they were always the only ones on the at that part. That’s a concern for my. The concern being it being it being a waste of maintenance. developments and they’re never utilized, we just.

01:15:55,470	We don’t have a portable husband we could put, you know. Never, well, I won’t get on my squat box on that but. You can, you can understand we’re using 4 acres for a park that isn’t gonna get used, that’s not a good use of our resources I.

01:16:11,970	Yeah, it’s it’s an interesting comment, um, in my previous role, I was on a flight and I was sitting next to the CEO of this group called Bright Horizons. They do corporate daycare, and she was talking about. Her first facilities and they were in the subdivisions because that’s where the families were and that’s where the kids were.

01:16:28,000	And those were the first facilities to close because people don’t move. They live in their house, their whole entire adult life. They have children there and they grow old there, right, and there are, there are a lot of developments we have where there just aren’t kids in them, and then something happens and there’s a ton of kids in them, so there could be some

01:16:43,000	generational aspect to that, but we can look into that too, um. There are some parks that that the Park District has chosen to get rid of as well, um, based on utilization that could be looked at. I haven’t heard of Borden Harbor Park being one that was kind of on the chopping block.

01:16:57,770	I know, I know some folks do embrace that one, so it’s used more for the hockey rink in the winter than it is like the parks in the summer, you know, that’s. Yeah They’ve heard kids play hockey.

01:17:15,500	Yeah, that’s a, that’s a great example of the adaptability of open space, why we would want to make sure that they’re suitable for different, different methods of recreation, right? Um. When they’re really only developed for one thing, maybe with just a playground or something, it kind of limits what they can be used for and different generations have different interests in park, park uh park use.

01:17:36,900	Um, I can definitely say as well there’s a lot of effort behind winter recreation now in the last few years, uh, winter placemaking, etc. um. That is causing a lot of interest in uh different ways that parks and open space can be used as well. How about this, Parks should be allowed to be phased in while a development project is underway.

01:18:00,270	Um, I agree with this meaning that they can get to it when they get to it, maybe when 50% of the homes are built, they can get to it then. Or something like that or the latter being. This is something I want to see folks benefiting from in the park should be there on day one.

01:18:18,430	What are folks’ thoughts on that? Cities do it both ways. There are ways that we can perhaps use our financing to allow for certain park improvements to be made and put into specials. That’s what’s done in West Fargo. Other people have also told me that the specials in West Fargo are way too high, so. Help me understand.

01:18:39,770	Sounding like we’re OK with a phased approach here. This is a multi-tiered phased approach that we are kind of blessing. This would be a uh supporting us as we continue to develop this ordinance to say that parks could be in phase 4 of 10.

01:19:00,800	Meaning there could be 15 or 20 years of residences prior to a park, tidal edition, for example, folks have always said they were promised to park. The homes have been there for 20 years. Recognizing the benefit should they be required to come earlier. I will move on. It sounds like it’s OK for them to be a phased approach. I’m favoring kind of an earlier on in the phase approach.

01:19:20,370	Any objection to an earlier on in the phased approach, as in it can’t be in phase 10 of 10. Everybody will grow old by then. Maybe it needs to be in the 1st 50% of. Homes in your master plan. Cool. I like a phased approach.

01:19:44,370	Getting into landscaping, we are out of parks, noncomplementary land uses should have buffering and screening between each other. Yes, always, most of the time, and no. Enter with the burden in this case lie on the industrial property owner? On the more intense, correct, yeah, there could be certain heavy commercial, heavy industrial uses that if developed by something else would be required to implement the

01:20:14,200	buffer. Not seeing a lot of, OK, there we go. I know it’s working now. It’s like this might not be working. I don’t come to you guys for consensus. Controversial questions though. Of frame. They’re probably coming actually. OK Most of the time, yes, I agree with them most of the time approach.

01:20:56,930	There are a lot of properties that don’t need to be buffered from each other. It’s been recommended that they should, um, maybe landscaping between. My restaurant and your restaurant probably OK if you don’t have landscaping between the two, or maybe reduced in between the two.

01:21:18,300	Um, Folks like it because requiring it is future proof, it just always has your property have everything it needs to have on it. Other folks view it as overkill. Another question I have, landscaping should be required within larger parking lots, as would be within peer communities. Um, Yes, always, yes, if they’re visible or facing the street, and no. Some folks view parking as a utility, other folks kind of view it as.

01:21:49,230	Um, a component of sights and beautification. Kind of necessary in a way and we have a whole lot of it. I would say yes if facing the street is pretty in the spirit of the city’s adopted plans, and that’s what we have been working toward towards.

01:22:19,730	Any comments on landscaping? OK I think I can get you out of here by 7 if we move. that OK. Thanks, Comm. McLean. Landscaping or screening or other sorts of enclosures should be required around. rash collection areas. Utility equipment. That sort of thing, yes, always, yes, it’s, yes, if it’s going to be highly visible.

01:22:44,330	Um, if it’s going to be highly visible. I’ll let you sit in my perspective would be if it’s kind of between a building and the street would be highly visible. Andrew, have you thought about how you’re going to handle the downtown alleys where buildings are lot line to lot line.

01:23:09,400	Then an enclosure would have to be in the public right away of the alley? Comm. Huber, I believe most of these are. Um, kind of stipulated in the suburban sense and I can dive into that a little bit more. As a related idea of my one of my friends works for the city of Mankato and and their community had a.

01:23:31,200	Garbage dumpster painting party and everyone got to paint. Different shapes and one of them was like a a train with all the dumpsters that were lined up and it was kind of cool, um. As A way to create more art in town.

01:23:51,500	Cool, we will work on ways to uh get some trash screening, as I mentioned today, we can really only do this in the gateway today. And we would like to be able to have these same standards throughout the community. I’d like to be able to require this downtown. I’d like to be able to acquire this on Old Red Trail, etc. Related landscaping standards should not be different for Gateway versus non-gateway sites.

01:24:15,570	Um, I think for a while there was. Um, A a fair understanding that certain streets should be prioritized and focused on because they’re the busy streets in town, for example, um, we’ve kind of departed from that a little bit and are trying to spread the benefits out into the neighborhoods too, um, it can be kind of difficult to lean on

01:24:37,500	the gateway given. It only works on certain streets, so. And a question I had here, um, is with regard to like designated industrial parks and whether there would be any, um, thought of a lesser standard there, um, to, to help keep the community competitive for, um, attracting and diversifying the economy.

01:25:05,770	I will let the team know that we’d like to look into that some more. OK. Landscaping should be required around building foundations. This will be a couple of the examples I showed you earlier. Um Meet this today So the answers are yes, always, every time, yes for apartment buildings, commercial sites, and no. Andrew, I got a question on this, um.

01:25:45,270	Just because we were just talking about the cemetery, how. I know that sometimes people put stuff at their foundations that wreck the foundations, how concerned are we? For stuff like that, it’s a concern we wouldn’t be approving site plans that have like trees right next to foundations we’d be looking at setting those back 1520 30 ft

01:26:09,370	away from building foundations and shrubs primarily near the building foundation. Um, this would be for a large sites we’re talking. Uh, national Information Solutions cooperative, for example, large sites where you’re viewing them from 400 ft away. Um, We have We have and and that would allow for them to be a little bit further away where like.

01:26:30,100	Larger properties is what I mean. Not every site’s gonna be able to have building foundations that have landscape and it would be out of character, um. So what we can maybe perhaps tailor this some more. I’m seeing. I’m seeing some. Uh, disparity in response. Are there any comments on this one.

01:26:51,930	As I understand how this should be applied, yes, always versus no, never. Um, any comments to help me carry back to the working group and project team. On this We are just against it in silence, OK. Landscaping should be required within larger parking lots. Yes, for public, commercial and residential site plans, yes, always, and no, never.

01:27:21,470	You will see properties in Mandan that meet this today, you will see properties in Mandan that do not meet this today, and if this were incorporated, they would have to adhere to it. Upon significant improvement. Of course, unless it resulted in the removal of required parking spots.

01:27:47,000	Seeing some folks who like to park in the shade here, is that true? What a tangential benefits that come from higher landscaping standards. Appreciate your feedback on this one, I guess I was kind of rambling on with this one, the open-ended nature of Mandan’s ordinance should be standardized with required quantities to reduce inequity between site lands. Right now, the ordinance says.

01:28:11,570	Your landscape plan has to include trees and shrubs. This would mean 5 shrubs per 100 ft of lot frontage, that sort of thing. It would tell folks what to to submit to us and it would allow me to review site plans for accordance with criteria rather than. Whatever just looks good that day.

01:28:40,370	Yes constant I Like Something that Yeah. Yes, and, and as detailed, I think within the memo that was given to you under landscaping. Um, Something is stipulated that would allow me to to make some kind of waivers administratively where they don’t make sense, um, but what you introduces. It’s an inherent conflict.

01:29:11,900	With just ordinances in general, they are either. Black and white Or they’re what we have today, basically, so they, they almost kind of have to be and there is a there is a process in place for a site who’s just not able to achieve our standards, there would be a variance presented to you so that they’re always afforded that option.

01:29:30,030	We try not to enable them to to do things substandard uh with ordinances we try and direct them to a standard and then use those relief processes for instances where they don’t make sense. Does that help? OK. Street trees are an important component of a traditional neighborhood and should be required in Mandan.

01:29:57,230	Yes, when they When they won’t affect traffic safety, no and yes always. This will mean more people will be raking. I got a question on this too, Andrew, and this comes back to the meeting that we had this afternoon, um, are you gonna have minimum requirements on how far trees can be at Boulevards or maximum, um, I, I guess that’s, that’s one thing

01:30:21,400	I would like to see. Yep See in this. Yeah, thanks, Comm. Mudder. Yeah, we, we would be using a. a species. Diversity requirement and a and a spacing requirement. It’s not good for an entire town to have one species of tree we’ve.

01:30:43,830	Lived through that in the United States, um, with the emerald ash borer, for example, it was catastrophic, so we’d require a mix. We would also require a trunk every 40 ft. That doesn’t mean that you need to plant a tree in your driveway, but it means that if there’s 300 ft between that corner and this corner. There need to be 7 trees somewhere on this block.

01:31:01,300	Right. Uh, so that’s how that would work. This is something that could be required as part of the development. It could be required as part of the certificate of occupancy. It depends on who you want to be responsible for the tree planting and selection. I would recommend a hybrid approach.

01:31:19,600	Let the homeowner pick and plant their tree. Along the local street. But have the contractor plant the tree along. The arterial road. That, you know, can be, we want to make sure that that’s done in a really cohesive way on some of our busier streets because the benefits that trees have on traffic calming really work best when they’re done in a

01:31:38,100	thoughtful, consistent way. Seeing some support for trees when they make sense. I found myself almost wishing there were another choice, and that might be something along the lines of encouraged, you know, and so I’ve always, I don’t know if Mandan still has the boulevard tree planting program in which various businesses had contributed so that homeowners

01:31:57,830	could apply to receive, um, a stipend toward Boulevard tree planting, but I like that sort of carrot approach, you know, sometimes as compared to a requirement. Yeah, and, and perhaps it’s uh, perhaps it’s a.

01:32:18,730	Even more dialed in where it’s really encouraged with a supplemental program for that homeowner and local street, but something that we claw a little bit more on larger developments and commercial site plans too. Um, but yes, that program is still around and I wish I could plug it better right now.

01:32:39,670	Since we introduced a good topic as well, I’ve been in discussion with um our business development director Starmak just regarding, these are some big changes, and we’ve historically met some of these big changes with some tailored incentives fire code, sprinkler system, a program, right, um, downtown Fringe Gateway resulted in um a use case for the storefront program, perhaps there’s an incentive program that could be tailored to to assist with some of the changes that the ordinance would

01:33:01,200	require. in, uh, in the case where need is evident for our assistance there. Nothing, uh, nothing set in stone there, but as these requirements are drastically altered. Um, it’s something that’s been offered uh for our growth fund to discover or to discuss.

01:33:22,230	Any final thoughts on street trees? I say that not knowing the next question we might continue on street trees. Nonconforming sites should have to address landscaping when improving their property, even if it adds to project costs.

01:33:42,030	Um, argument for this would be when else will we ever get to this an argument against it would be a lot of folks kind of like this idea of being perpetually grandfathered in. We’ve, we’ve considered some kind of context based approaches on landscaping, say for example, if I were.

01:34:04,070	Um, Just to move us all out of mandate entirely if I were Kirkwood Mall and I was adding on to shields should the target side of my parking lot need to be improved because Shields got improved. Maybe not. Uh, so those are some approaches that we’ve kind of considered. Why, OK, help me understand why this would be treated as a separate type of nonconformity.

01:34:32,770	And I and I think just I struggle because there were so many times when it might have made the difference between whether the property got improved at all then and so again I maybe looking is there some sort of compromise or happy medium between. Between those two, I’m not sure what that looks like, but. And, and you’re right, Comm. here, we’ve encountered this before where.

01:34:56,170	The city would have approved a steel building on the Memorial Highway in the 90s that as of 2006 would not be allowed to be reconstructed. And if you want to take out a $700,000 building permit for this property. You have to address siding parking lot issues, landscaping.

01:35:14,830	A whole slew of things that because of what we didn’t require back in the day are now things that someone 3 generations later is trying to address. Um, these are things that we have to be kind of considered of as we, as we consider these, um, so any other thoughts on Nonconformities. Are we looking for maybe uh.

01:35:34,870	Compromised approach to landscaping maybe a maybe it’s something where you submit a master plan or a big picture vision for your property, and if you can only get to the siding now, but you have a plan for landscaping, you can get away with it. I don’t know what we could work with, but something like that or I don’t think we’ll be able to get to a full waiver, but maybe it’s a.

01:35:51,530	Maybe it’s a context-based approach some more. Help me understand your preferences here. where I’m coming from just in general. I think Our Some of these But I love the idea of guidance. This is Is put out there Looks like Mm That’s where I’m Walk enough miles in your shoes or.

01:36:52,170	I probably First I see some of the frustration All the guidelines Mhm. Finding myself trying to figure out Mm OK Comm. Muder? Is there, and I’m, I’m looking at the mayor right now. The poor guys can already drilled, but is there a way we can do some grant writing or grant money or I know um I don’t know if that’s through Madison Cermaker or.

01:37:29,370	Or whoever to do some to help to help some of this, I think it’s a, it we have to do stuff like this and if we let them to grandfather in, I’m afraid it’ll never get done, and that’s my biggest worry is that we’ll have areas that that we’ve done new and now we’re, we’ve got areas

01:37:46,600	where it doesn’t get done. What does the value happens to those properties, so that’s my, that’s my comment. Yeah, we are seeing it it’s interesting it’s certain corridors I’ll name the Memorial Highway, for example, as they do kind of change over, you start to see a mix where there’s starting to be kind of

01:38:04,700	a critical mass in some area of more retail commercial, newer site plans that adhere to any community standard and and others that don’t, and it and you kind of wonder if that’s going to create a catalyst effect on the area or not and to what extent that will have, um, I’m interested in exploring

01:38:24,900	how an incentive could could work, although that is external to zoning, and I, I would not encourage this board to support something if the growth fund has something in place because they’ll be. Detached from each other, um. But I think that is, that’s one way that um different boards could maybe work together to.

01:38:47,430	Assist in the kind of front end of of it. So let’s come back with a more context-based approach I’m hearing on industrial sites and I’m hearing on existing site plans as well, uh, to see how. We can kind of soften the blow of this a little bit.

01:39:10,900	OK, residents should be able to landscape their boulevards with trees, shrubs, and other eye-catching vegetations? Should I be able to plant? A potentia and lilies in my boulevard, or should it have to be grass? Yes or no. On the inside, we are on the fence on this one. So as staff, we have some folks who don’t want to see it, others who are totally fine with it.

01:39:37,570	OK Rock or gravel is an acceptable ground cover in urban residential areas. Yes, allow it. Yes, allow it sometimes and don’t allow it. Andrew, I get a question for you and I’m, I guess I’m going back to some some of the questions and maybe I’m really new, so I’m gonna really be careful here, but some of these,

01:40:01,600	how much of this are we gonna throw on to code enforcement who are already busy and we, we say, OK, we’re, we’re gonna do absolutely no rocks and gravel in this area, and then we throw more work on code enforcement.

01:40:21,330	Is there Do we need to talk to them about some of this stuff? Yeah, it’s it’s a good question, Chair Robinson, Comm. Mutter, with this, um, it’s probably gonna end up being in that wash, we end up with a lot of obscure zoning ordinances or incomplete zoning ordinances that require more complex code enforcement to take place, whereas if you just wanna do a certain thing but you have to piece 33

01:40:43,230	ordinances together to be able to accomplish that goal. It’s a little arduous in some way. So while we will continue to work with code enforcement to understand the enforceability of some of these and likely remain. A um responsive rather than proactive code enforcement. Um, it’s something that we are taking into consideration.

01:41:03,500	I think with this one, it’s kind of an example of. It’s really not clear in the code of if this is allowed. So should we be doing code enforcement on Rock Boulevards, or should we not? Um, Some folks want them for er escaping. They want to be able to pull a trailer onto their.

01:41:20,570	Uh, camper pad and the city told them they can’t have a wider driveway and this is the only thing that works for them. I’ve heard that. I’ve heard it’s sustainable to have rock.

01:41:37,900	I’ve also heard that rocks get into snow plows and get into snowblowers and can cause damage and people are worried about that too, so I’ve heard rocks left and right. Um, hearing that they’re acceptable sometimes but that we maybe shouldn’t um. Be too promotional of them perhaps. Mandan should have zoning regulations that support rural residential land uses, yes or no. I’m interested in the know. Was that taken and is our.

01:42:05,630	Is our nay voter in absence already maybe they cruised through the bowl. Well, we’ll drill into that some more seeing general support for it. Technical language in the ordinance, again, not expecting this one to be. Uh, controversial. Get rid of the technical language and put stuff into layman’s terms. Yes or no, seeing a lot of agreement there, I would like that too.

01:42:28,070	That he should look for ways to reduce the number of zoning districts, yes, I’m seeing a lot of support. This is kind of what I just wanted to make sure we were very clear that I had your support on, so I’m sorry if it’s like a little elementary.

01:42:42,300	Downtown Fringe should be made to be smaller, I agree. Leave it as is. I agree is an argument that would support the folks who talked to me about preserving the residential character, and I disagree. I leave it as is would perhaps be in favor of allowing additional commercial uses within the area. Seeing general support for a reduction, um, it’s replacement would be. Fairly similar in character.

01:43:05,770	Like I mentioned. Cities should adopt access management regulations into its code of ordinances. Going back to my slides, the current approach is to um schedule meetings and coordinate with the city of Bismarck’s employees that manage the stuff or the DOT we’re kind of leaning on different people who have other priorities in a way, um, and

01:43:30,300	the, the replacement would be kind of a locally controlled, locally endorsed option that city staff can can work with on our own. It can be difficult sometimes if it’s a busy construction season in Bismarck to get their staff to be able to help us with this issue with the NPO is.

01:43:46,870	The office and they’re the ones who coordinate transportation planning in the area, um. We as staff we kind of think it would be good to have someone who Works. In and out of the city of Mandan all the time to understand some of the nuances that we have, but.

01:44:05,030	Um, we also acknowledge that there are a lot of best practices that come out of the NPO and the DOT as well, so pros and cons we’d probably continue to work with them at some point with our local line of defense as a first, um. Seeing general support for that. Sites with nonconforming access points should be required to um conform upon redevelopment or a significant investment.

01:44:26,300	This would mean if you ended up with extra driveways somehow and you’re making your property drastically different. Do the driveways get to stay or do they have to go? If they’re safe, if they’re not safe. If they have enough, if they don’t have enough. Seeing support for um. Eliminating some of those as long as the property has.

01:44:53,030	Most of its access. Um, And I disagree. I think this will be a fun one to work on if it’s approved. I’m sure people will love having their driveways taken away. Uh, the proposed and reduced. The proposed reduced and increased with streets and rights of way are sensible. I agree or I disagree.

01:45:17,730	Um, it would be helpful if some of the, the concerns could be characterized with the um. Understand how to carry these forward. Any comments on this one? OK. That is the end. I appreciate you guys participating, um, next month we do have a, a working group.

01:45:53,470	I believe we are scheduled for Monday, August 19th, and I think I have us in at 3 o’clock p.m. Earn, uh, who drafted this memo, will be here, and so will Will, and they’ll be talking about uh kind of the final final on a lot of these, I think, um.

01:46:11,170	At least What we kind of need to just close the book for a little while on some of them and move on to some other stuff and of course come back to make sure that they remain relevant as we change our minds a million times in the future, but. Um, you can look forward to that. It should be an interactive in-person working session.

01:46:24,400	I am really excited for you guys all to meet her and she’s um really been really great to work with. Andrew, um, since I am not available on that date, would it be appropriate for another planning and zoning commission member if someone’s available to participate in that and yes, and that’s a cabin clarifier, we do have a planning commission working session and

01:46:44,830	a working group. Meeting at the same time, so someone to fill in for Ellen, uh, to sit with Bill at the working group meeting in August would be helpful. Comm.

01:47:00,330	Smith already volunteered himself, so maybe over email we can find someone and see if he still wants to put himself out there, but I appreciate the reminder on that. Um, Like I said at the beginning, which was supposed to be only 45 minutes ago.

01:47:19,300	Uh, we are pretty much on schedule aside from tonight and uh and you should expect to see a whole slew of of additional stuff, almost all the zoning districts are coming up, um, and, and kind of the wrap on right of way and land subdivision going full into how does it work to develop an R7 lot, for example, it’s kind of the focus from here on out.

01:47:35,370	And uh the last few months are really just to kind of make sure that we’re looking at this and thinking like staff in a way so that when we’re done with this, it leaves the project in a really good spot. Um, still on track for this to be recommended for adoption in December of this year by December and December, and then the contractor would be on board for 6 months following ordinance approval.

01:47:55,700	For Any additional tailoring that we need or for uh for me I guess in case I forget why we were doing something or how I was supposed to read something a certain way, it will be helpful to have them on board.

01:48:09,230	And I’m sure as soon as our contracts over we’ll end up wondering how did this all work again and and we’ll get to. Get to Solve it all on her own, but I appreciate you all participating tonight. Any questions for me? Thanks again. And this survey helped you with the second half of this project? Yeah, I think it did.

01:48:27,670	It was, it was good to kind of pull some feedback out from folks. I hope folks understand that this is, these are the priorities that we will be considering the planning and zoning commission having and the feedback that we will consider the planning and commission having.

01:48:44,700	So as I come back with future surveys like this, that’s how I’d like you to approach the survey taking is like what am I gonna be OK with here? And, and I think you guys did a good job of that tonight, um, so we are sitting pretty good. And we’ll plan for some more updates um in the coming weeks and for sure uh that August working session. Thank you. Thank you.

01:49:02,730	Anything else? I return a motion to adjourn. So moved motion the 2nd to adjourn. All in favor signma by saying aye. All the same sign we are adjourned.