00:00:12,430	Today is uh September 24th, 2025, and this is a meeting of the Bismarck Planning and Zoning Comm. I’d like to welcome everyone that is, uh, joining us on site today and those that are online also. So with that, I’m going to call the meeting to order and ask Sarah to call Roll.

00:00:36,500	Comm Bittner Comm Field Yes Mr. Johnson. Comm Larson Comm Lukins Comm Schell, Comm Schmitz. Yeah. Mr. Seva here Wangan, here, Comm Zent here and Cher Schwartz. Here, thank you. With that, we’ll move on to the first item in our uh in our agenda this evening, which is approval of the minutes for the August 27th meeting.

00:01:09,000	Commissioners, what are your wishes? Motion to approve. We have, we have a motion from Comm Wa Wagen to approve a second from Comm Zent. Any discussion? And I’m not seeing or hearing any. So Sarah, would you please call Roll? Mr. Wongan Yes, Comm Johnson, yes. Comm Schell, Comm Field, Yes, Comm Schmitz. Yes, Comm Seak. Yes, Comm Zent Chair Schwartz.

00:01:39,530	Yes, the motion is approved. With that, we move on to the public commentary of our meeting this evening and, uh, again this is a, is a new item in our agenda. and uh the, the intent is that it’s going to be about 30 minutes long.

00:01:59,270	We’ll allow 5 minutes per person and, uh, the, the rules would be is that you can address anything that was on last month’s agenda or anything on this month’s agenda that does not have a public hearing. So with that, I would open the podium, uh, for those that would care to address that would care to speak publicly this evening.

00:02:21,630	and I’m not seeing or hearing any. I’ll ask again, Is anyone care to come to the podium? and I’m not seeing any, so I’ll ask a third time if anyone is interested in coming to the podium to speak.

00:02:44,100	and with that I’m gonna close the, uh, the public comment portion of this tonight’s meeting and we will move on to the next item in our agenda, which is a consent agenda and there are two items in our consent agenda this evening. The first being parts of Riverview Edition and McKenzie’s edition. and, uh, it’s a request for a planned unit development amendment. and staff’s recommendation is to call for a public hearing.

00:03:06,000	The second item in our consent agenda is for the 2025 amendments to the growth phasing plan. And again, it’s a plan amendment and uh staff recommendation is a call for public hearing.

00:03:29,470	So with that, uh, commissioners I’m asking, uh, what, what are your wishes for the consent agenda? Motion to approve the consent agenda. We have a motion to approve from Comm Zent. Second, a second from Comm Seach. Any, any additional discussion? And I’m not hearing or seeing any, so with that, Sarah, would you please call Roll? Comm Field Yes, Comm Seak, yes, Comm Johnson, yes, Comm Wongan. Yes, Comm Schell, Yes, Comm Schmitz. Yes.

00:03:58,270	Comm Zener Schwartz, yes, a motion is approved. With that, we’ll move on to our regular agenda this evening, and the first item on our regular agenda is item A, which is a William Blackstone edition and Jenny is going to provide us with staff report.

00:04:17,530	Good evening, Chair Schwartz, Commissioners, Michael Ward is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment from the A Agricultural Zoning District to the conditional RM 10 residential, R 10 residential, are 5 residential and Public zoning districts, major subdivision plot titled William Blackstone Edition and annexation of all of the proposed latt and all of Tyler Parkway from 5/7 Avenue Northwest to the northern boundary of the Platte.

00:04:41,070	These requests are located in northwest of Bismarck, West of North Washington Street and north of 5-seventh Avenue, Northwest along the west side of Tyler Parkway. The plaque consists of 59.24 acres with 118 lots and nine blocks.

00:05:01,330	The annexation request includes the entire latt and all of Tyler Parkway from Fifty-seventh Street to the northern boundary of the Platte. The total size of the annexation is 63.03 acres. The area of proposed annexation is contiguous to the existing corporate limits and all costs associated with extending municipal infrastructure will be the responsibility of the developer.

00:05:22,370	The proposed, uh, zoning amendment, final plot and annexation are being proposed for future residential development. The plot includes green spaces, walking trails in a neighborhood park. The neighborhood park would be located on lot 1, block 6 of the proposed latt is 2.53 acres in size and proposed to be zoned public.

00:05:39,900	The park development agreement has been reviewed by staff and is acceptable and was approved by the Bismarck Park Board at their September 11th meeting, the signed Park development A agreement will be forwarded to the City Commission for final consideration of the plaid zoning change and annexation. You held a public hearing on these requests last month. Multiple people spoke during the hearing, including the applicant and their consultant and adjacent property owners.

00:05:57,430	Concerns were raised regarding the speed limit on Tyler Parkway adjacent to the proposed Platte. The proposed temporary access point on Lot 12 Block 9, and the proposed RM 30 residential zoning on Lot 1, block 2 of the Platte.

00:06:17,170	After additional review by staff and the applicant, the access, uh, the temporary access would be gated and include a Knox box that would be utilized for emergency services to gain access in the event of an emergency. The city will be entering into a development agreement with the developer that lists installation and maintenance responsibilities, time frames and triggers for removal of the temporary intersection and road, gate and knox box and

00:06:35,430	restoration of Lot 12 to a buildable lot. Staff have met with the applicant and their consultant, and um they have requested that the RM30 lot that was originally proposed that lot 1, block 2 be zoned conditional RM 10 with a building height as a condition, a building height of

00:06:53,630	no more than 40 ft. The height limitation mirrors the height limitation or requirement for principal residential structures in both the R5 residential and R10 residential zoning districts. Staff also reviewed and discussed the concerns raised regarding the speed limit on Tyler Parkway.

00:07:13,800	The city engineer has indicated that a traffic impact study for the proposed development is not necessary at this time. He also noted that the speed limit for Tyler Parkway adjacent to the proposed Platte will be monitored and may be reduced if warranted upon annexation and continued development of the property.

00:07:31,530	As part of our normal subdivision submittal and review process, the applicant submitted a waiver to request to modify the lot width of the property boundary adjacent to the street and a lot with that the building set line, setback line, excuse me, for some of the lots within the proposed plan.

00:07:46,970	The city’s zoning ordinance currently requires a lot width of no less than 40 ft at the property boundary and no less than 60 ft measured along that line approximately parallel to and 40 ft back from the front property line. Staff is supportive of this request as these lots are either identified as non-buildable green space or adjacent two lots identified as non-buildable screen space.

00:08:06,530	The city engineer has also requested temporary turnaround easements outside of the proposed latte at the terminus of Holberg Drive, Burning Lane in James Wright Avenue. These easements must be provided prior to recording the plot.

00:08:23,630	The city engineer has also requested a separate dedicated right of way or separate easement to the city of Bismarck for all municipal services from Fifty-seventh Avenue Northwest to the southern boundary of the Platte. This sement is is proposed to be located within in Tyler Parkway and, um, parts of the latt and would be um required prior to Platt reparation. The applicant’s consulting engineer has prepared the easement, which was reviewed by City Engineering staff and public works staff.

00:08:44,170	A portion of this easement has been added to the southern, um, to the boundary between lots 13 and 12, Block 9 shown on the revised plat I submitted, um, handed out to you prior to this evening and shown on the screen.

00:09:09,800	in the next slide I promise Yep, if you just want to zoom in between if you could please zoom in between lots 12 and 13 on the southeast side of the Platte. There is a 20-foot Wa main Eastman shown. So that is different than what was included in your packet.

00:09:29,330	You considered and voted unanimously to call for a public hearing on the proposed zoning map amendment and tentatively approve the preliminary platform for William Blackstone edition at your meeting on January 24th of this year. You considered and called for a revised zoning map amendment at your meeting on January, July 23rd, the revised zoning map Amendment included our 10 residential zoning for lots 2 through 12 blocks 6.

00:09:47,430	Let’s, um, and lots 1 through 8, lots 22 through 27 blocks 7 of the proposed plot. The applicant and their, um, consultant determined that a zoning of our 10 residential would be needed as the buildings proposed did not meet the lock coverage requirements for the R5 district.

00:10:02,430	The R 10 district provides for more flexibility and allows for both single and two family dwellings with a lot coverage limit of 40%. The R5 district allows for 30%. As noted earlier, you held a public hearing on these requests last month and continued the hearing to address concerns raised during the hearing. The public has been notified of this request.

00:10:19,630	A notice was published in the Tribune on August 15th and 22nd and 29 postcards were mailed to the owners of nearby properties on August 15th. We did receive written comments which were included in your packet from the last meeting. To my knowledge, we have not received any additional public comments regarding this request.

00:10:39,170	The annexation zoning map Amendment, and Major subdivision final plot were evaluated according to standards contained within the comprehensive plan, Bismarck Co of Ordinances and state law as a result of all the findings contained in your staff report. Staff find that the proposed annexation.

00:10:54,970	Zoning map amendment and final lap would not adversely impact the public health safety and general welfare and are consistent with our comprehensive plan, code of Ordinances, and state law. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the zoning map Amendment from the Agricultural Zoning District to the conditional RM 10 residential.

00:11:15,530	Our 10 residential, our 5 residential, and Public zoning districts, the Ma subdivision final plat titled William Blackstone Edition and the annexation of the proposed latt and all of Tyler Parkway from Fifty-seventh Avenue Northwest to the northern boundary of the Platte, including granting a waiver to reduce the lot with set building lines outlined in the attached waiver request with the following conditions temporary turnaround easements at the terminus of Holberg Drive, Burning Lane, and James

00:11:32,270	Wright Avenue are provided prior to recordation. Separate dedicated right of way or separate easement to the city of Bismarck for all municipal services from 5/7 Avenue, northwest to the southern boundary of the Platte is provided prior to recordation and a development agreement outlining the installation and maintenance responsibilities, time frames and triggers for removal of the

00:11:51,970	temporary intersection and access road, gate and knock box, and restoration of lot 12, block 9 to a buildable lot be submitted prior to recordation. Do you have any questions? Comm, questions for Janie. Jenny, I have one question for you before you step away.

00:12:11,470	Are you under the understanding that the concerns that were expressed at the last meeting were for the most part addressed. Staff is comfortable with the concerns being addressed in the staff report as well as with the pot. Thank you. Thank you, Jenny.

00:12:37,270	Are there additional questions, Comm Schell? Jenny, regarding the development agreement, um, I think the more appropriate time to have that, uh, be approved or be subject to city commission approval and not at Platt recordation so I guess if that’d be something this moves forward, um to be revised in terms of the timing of when that would be approved. Sure, and, and Comm Schell, Comm, Chair, we can make that change of the, um, conditions for approval tonight if you wish.

00:12:57,500	Additional questions, Virginia I’m not seeing you hear me. Thank you. With that, this is a continuation of a public hearing from our August twenty-seventh meeting. With that, I will open the public hearing is either the requester or representative here to speak to this agenda item.

00:13:22,100	Good evening, Commissioners Bob Martin, Bob, thank you, representing the Ward family. I was going to ask you to put your name on the log, and you’re already there. Will do. Yeah, I get used to signing it a lot.

00:13:41,800	Um, I just wanted to say that we’ve just reviewed the proposed developer agreement from the city, uh, neither I or Mr. Cullen saw anything objectionable in it. We’ll be signing it so it can be presented to the city commission if that is your choices as soon as possible. We have received the, uh, Park, uh, board development agreement as well signed by Mr. Clipfel.

00:13:58,000	It’s being circulated amongst the six landowners of the family and the 2 spouses. I signed it this morning and one of the spouses, and, um, everything else seems to have been addressed. I would believe if you have any questions or comments, I’m glad to listen and try to answer. Commissioner’s questions for Bob. I’m not seeing or hearing anything about. Thank you.

00:14:13,970	Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and attention. With that, the podium is open for others that would appear to address this agenda item. Well, thank you, Mayor, uh, Commissioners, uh, and Chair Schwartz.

00:14:50,730	Uh, my name is Chad Moldenhauer, and I got a chance to speak, uh, at the last public hearing, and I’m not only an adjacent property owner, but I’m also the developer of Heritage Ridge and Heritage Cottages, which are the two developments that are adjacent to, uh, the William Blackstone edition.

00:15:05,230	I guess the first thing that I want to say is, uh, thank you to the planning and zoning Commission for giving us some more time to work with the developers and try to address some of the concerns that were shared at the last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.

00:15:21,170	Um, I did have a chance to reach out to Nick Cullen and share some of the concerns that I was hearing from some of our adjacent residents and uh I know one of the things that came up a lot was the RM30 lot and you know the opportunity to build an apartment on a space that we felt like wasn’t very conducive of a higher density structure like that um, had a really nice conversation and they agreed to

00:15:36,100	zone it down to RM 10 with a 40 ft height requirement. So I think we do feel really comfortable that the, the style of home or homes that we’d be be built on that lot would be conducive to the, the style of homes that we have kind of

00:15:51,270	across the way and and around the area. So I’m very happy that, that we were able to, to come to some mutual agreement on that. Um, there was also some discussion about the the gated secondary access and um I think that does quell some of the concerns that we hear from residents about, uh, just

00:16:08,100	the multiple access points and the misalignments of the access points. Um, also, uh, had a really good conversation with uh with Jenny Wohlmuth with the city of Bismarck, uh, the lead planner, um, I, I understand that that the city is becoming more flexible for developers and as a developer myself, I’m, I’m,

00:16:25,800	I’m definitely a big fan of that. We’ve got a new planning code that the city of Bismarck is considering adopting right now. I think that’s gonna allow for more developer options as well, and, and I think that’s a good thing.

00:16:41,800	Um, I do have some lingering concerns about the secondary access and and working in fifty-seventh Avenue potentially as a secondary access. There was some discussion that that Mr. Comm Schell brought up after the public hearing was closed, kind of about the secondary access points in heritage cottages, and I thought maybe it might be helpful for the commission to kind of hear, uh, how that occurred and and what that

00:17:01,530	process looked like. Um, first and foremost, when, when we first proposed Heritage Cottages to the city of Bismarck. It did not have a secondary access. It had one access point. We were relying on the International Fire Code, which for multi-family homes allows for up to 100 units to be built without secondary access.

00:17:20,870	Um, it was, I believe the Ron Kunda, who’s the fire marshal, he said, hey, you’ve got to have a second access point here and then uh we actually did have a follow-up meeting with Joe Bafluke, who is the, um, the fire chief, and he said that that we actually treat uh rowhouses like this development,

00:17:36,800	like a single family homes, so you’d have to have that secondary access point. Um, at that point, it was a county road. There was no talk about the city annexing that road. Um, so I think it was Mr.

00:17:48,070	Schell that said, you know, you’ve got to reach out to the county and and get approval for this secondary access point. Um, we did that, we reached out to, to Marcus Hall. Marcus Hall was a little bit hesitant, um, but did grant us that secondary access with, with the gate on it.

00:18:05,070	So, um, back in, in, in those days, I guess the county had kind of full control over what was happening there. Um, now, um, you know, it seems as though there’s, you know, the city is kind of more in the driver’s seat there.

00:18:17,000	So I just wanted to kind of point that out because it was something that was, that was brought up and, and that’s my recollection of it and looking through emails and and trying to um to to reform my my thoughts as to what that conversation was. So uh certainly Comm Schell, if you, if you have anything else to share, I would entertain it.

00:18:31,270	My show, I’ll just add one item to a chat, and, and the site plan that was submitted to the city for development of that showed a one of those access points, the northerly one, is a full access, but the southerly one having a a gate and knoox box scenario similar to what we’re talking about at Blackstone.

00:18:44,800	So that, that’s our understanding of how that will be developed when it’s fully completed, but we understand during construction that you might be using those accesses more freely, uh, uh, while you’re constructing the facilities.

00:19:02,100	Yes, um, I, I, there’s one other thing too that, that I’d like to point out, Gabe, is, is that there was some conversation about, you know, what came first, the chicken or the egg, which development was happening when and and I, I did go back and do some research and, and our site plan was actually approved March 4th, 2022. Um, the pre-application meeting, as you can see in your packets, um, first occurred for the Blackstone development April 5, 2023.

00:19:18,900	Ours was actually in the works about a year before then. So I know there was some conversation about matching up the access points and they were happening at the same time, but, but we were in the works at least a couple of years before the Blackstone development was uh was being proposed with the

00:19:30,630	city of Bismarck. So still like to see those access points match up. I know from just hearing the conversation, uh, at the, the last planning and zoning Commission meeting that, um, that, that may be tough tough for us to achieve at this point, but, um, in a perfect world, I think, um, and as the

00:19:46,000	county even talked about in the last meeting, they like to see those access points match up to. Um, I do still have some, some lingering concerns about the secondary access as a developer, um, as someone that lives close to the road, I know what, what kind of speed that traffic

00:20:01,900	moves at. Um, I’d really like to see, uh, Fifty-seventh Avenue put in as a secondary access point. Um, one of the things that we requested from the developer was kind of a master plan of the roadways so that we could see, uh, kind of how those, those roadways interworked with, you know,

00:20:15,730	with the, the future phase of the development, um, and, and Nick was kind enough to provide that to us. The first access point on that roadway master plan that he showed us is uh 2,195 ft from the intersection.

00:20:33,100	you know, I obviously, um, I don’t have the ability to tell other people what to do with their land or how to develop it, but I’d like to see something a little bit closer to that intersection because I know what kind of traffic moves to that road, and I just feel like having more traffic go on to the intersection versus a temporary secondary access

00:20:46,970	which is now gated off would be, um, would be a better idea. Um, I also wanted to, to, uh, and and Ky NMIC is here for the county, so I don’t need to speak for him, but there was also some statements made at the last meeting that the county was kind of holding up the

00:21:03,430	construction of that that roadway on Fifty-seventh Avenue and I just wanted to share a very quick experience that I had when I was developing heritage Ridge and Heritage Park. Um, we, we needed a secondary access for between uh Sonora Way and Crested Butte Road. At that time, it was a gravel road.

00:21:20,900	and uh there was an impression at least that I got that the county was going to pay to pave that road. Um, I was very quickly, uh, brought to the, the, the real realization that was not going to happen. And so as a developer, I needed to pay to pay that part of the road.

00:21:34,000	So, um, as, as a developer, you run into things like this all the time, where there’s a section of road that’s maybe not developed that you need or you know the city tells you you have to have it, the county has to have it.

00:21:43,630	Say you have to have it. You just roll with the punches and you put it in, you know, which is, has always been kind of my experience in the past.

00:21:57,270	Um, I do feel like 118 lots, 130 plus homes is too many for, uh, for one access point, um, even if there is a gated secondary access point. I think those people in the development are going to need that, that place to get in and out of as badly as, as the folks that, uh, that are emergency service personnel, um, so personally I’d still like to see um a traffic study, um, to show that that that access

00:22:11,600	point is safe. I’d like to see a traffic study to show that we have the correct speed on that road, um, Casey from the county will probably tell you that the road was designed for 55 miles an hour, so whatever you put there, people are going to travel at that, that speed, um, but as someone

00:22:25,600	who sees that, you know, what happens on that road everyday, I’d feel better if there was a better secondary access. And we also heard last time there was a potential school site that is is being considered on that property and once again it raises the question, you know, how and

00:22:38,470	when that secondary access comes in place on, on Fifty-seventh and, and who pays for that, um, when it does happen. So, um, I don’t want to take any more of your time.

00:22:53,470	I probably have droned on longer than than I should, um, but last time that I was, I was here, uh, I asked the Commission to take the time to get it right, and I really appreciate that you consider continuing the public hearings so that we could work on some of these, these concerns that we had. and I still believe really strongly that um that we should see that 5/7 Avenue access.

00:23:07,530	Um, so if you do decide to move it on to the city commission for their consideration, I would strongly urge you to consider adding that 5/7 Avenue secondary access, uh, that’s all I wanted to, to share today. Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you again and certainly sit for any questions if you have any. Commissioners, questions for Chad.

00:23:25,370	I’m not seeing any chat. Thank you for your comments and for the clarifications. Appreciate it. Thank you. I hope I’m not jumping the line and have a couple of brief observations and a response or two Uh, the reason that the, uh, access on the fifty-seventh Avenue Northwest is 2000 ft from the corners that

00:23:49,900	we’re trying to comply with the city’s overall master plan for the roads and the access and incorporate them into our development. And it’s actually sort of a miser to say it’s only 2000 ft because it has to run up into the development as well to connect with our road system, probably closer to 300

00:24:05,900	to 4000 ft, I would respectfully submit that uh telling the developer to suck it up by putting in 3000 ft of pavement is a little unrealistic under the circumstances, especially when the concerns of the secondary act access are addressed as per the request of the city. We’ve been very compliant with the city.

00:24:25,730	It’s becoming increasingly obvious we can’t please everybody, but, uh, and I would also add that the school that we were talking about is not going to be to the south of the current development.

00:24:41,870	Phase 2 is going north, and that would probably even be a bigger play of uh reducing the speed limit as more and more houses in the school system is actually incorporated into that. So nothing for nothing, but some of these, uh, objections are starting to seem a little like they just want to slow us down entirely. We’ve been very patient. We’ve put in 2.

00:25:00,430	5 years working with the city with these commissions and with the Army Corps of Engineers, and we would really like to have our project annexed. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Bob Podium is open for others that would care to address this agenda item. My name is Mike Morrell.

00:25:36,100	Uh, we’ve heard from developers on this development, and I am a resident in the area. I, uh, live at 6201 Tyler Parkway across the street from this development. and um, I first want to thank the commissioners and Chair for uh hearing our concerns last month and changing the zoning.

00:26:05,000	uh, for this development that’s much appreciated, but we still have concerns, I believe, as residents in this area. with the access, uh, and people coming from this development and also from Heritage Cottages on the other side. and I do believe that there is a real concern there, and if you look at what’s being proposed with two temporary accesses that are ultimately going to be gate.

00:26:29,070	It appears to us then that we have coming from Heritage Cottages, one access out to Tyler Parkway, and this development’s going to have one access out to Tyler Parkway, and in its disturbing that that the the accesses don’t align, so you’re gonna be coming out to Tyler Parkway, and you’re gonna have to look over, I don’t know

00:26:55,370	how many feet to, to see if somebody’s coming out of the development, plus watch your traffic, and it’s much easier when the intersection lines, that’s, that’s one of my big concerns for myself and family and friends there.

00:27:16,530	The access, if there was an access off of 5-seventh, that would serve as at least the folks on the other side within the Blackstone development and alternative to either come out on Tyler Parkway or Fifty-seventh, and they would, they would have sole use of that uh that portion of 5/7 Avenue there too uh, get out of their development and uh so it is important for us that, that uh

00:27:39,470	you know, that things are done, all, all the differences or issues are looked at in in and uh considered and to me there’s more than just whether the intersections align and the speed on Tyler Parkway.

00:28:02,070	It’s, are there going to be turning lanes? Is it recommended to have turning lanes into our developments, uh, crosswalks, crosswalk’s gonna be aligned or are they gonna be offset, you know, who gets the crosswalk? Our development or the, the other development and it seems like this is all temporary, but I believe that it’s gonna take a long time for this development to, to, to develop

00:28:20,730	out to the full development. So I think it’s very important to look at what’s proposed today that would be into the foreseeable future and take that into consideration.

00:28:41,870	I was very disappointed to hear that the traffic impact study is going to be delayed, uh, in kind of taking an attitude, let’s wait and see type of attitude. To me, planning is all about doing it upfront. right the first time. And I heard concerns about the time it takes, and uh, and, and money to, to make changes, uh,, $60,000 to change the the plat seems to ring a bell.

00:29:07,530	Uh, to me, that’s, that’s insignificant to what’s being proposed in terms of this development and the impacts that’s going to leave to the, those of us that are in the, in the area. Uh, using these roads and, and, and so forth.

00:29:26,870	And I just want to leave one last comment is, is there’s a saying that says if you think you don’t have the time in the, the funding to do things right the first time. What makes you think that you’re going to have the time and the money to, to make corrections later, and I think they’re that bolls true here. Uh very much so. So unless there’s any questions Comm questions for Mike I’m not seeing or hearing M.

00:29:51,900	Thank you for voicing your concerns. Yep. Thank you. OK. Excuse me, if we could, uh, hold down the applause this evening. It’s I, I, I, I, I appreciate this support for everyone, but, uh, it’s, it’s not uh an appropriate time for doing that. So, if you would, would hold it until after the meeting, that would be great.

00:30:18,270	Thank you. The podium is open for others that would care to address this agenda item. Um Darryl Do Guy, I’m also a neighbor of Mike’s. We’re right next door to each other. One question, the RM 10, there’s an R10 and the RM 10.

00:30:44,100	What’s the difference between them two? Jenny, would you care to address that? Sure, I’d be happy to So the R10 is, um, allowed for single and two family. The RM 10 you could have multi multiple families.

00:31:01,900	Similar to what you guys have across the street, um, no more than 10 units an acre, and I think the site is just shy of an acre, just a little bit more than an acre. I don’t remember offhand. Um, and then that height limit so it matches the residential structures in the area. plexes or 26 or something like that. Perhaps we’re thinking perhaps. OK. Um and I just wanted to say instead of clapping, for Mike, that everything he said was well put.

00:31:22,000	well understood, and deeply, we all feel the same way So if we could just ditto them comments, that’s what I would say. Thank you very much. Sounds good, Darryl, thank you. The podium is open for others that would care to address this agenda item.

00:31:43,000	and I’m not seeing or hearing any, so with that I’m going to close the public hearing for this item. Jenny, do you have any further comments? Um, thank you, Mr. Chair, just if you are, if the board does choose to, um, recommend approval with the modification to the one condition that was outlined by Comm Schell.

00:32:05,800	And to which one was that, Janie? You’ve got 3 of them less than I did do three of them. Three That, the development agreement, um, be submitted for final consideration with the city commission, not prior to recordation. Correct, Comm Schell? that’s correct.

00:32:29,870	I guess in my view, I think it’d be more appropriate to make sure that the plat isn’t approved without um, that development agreement with it at the time of the Plat’s actually approved. OK, so you’ll change the wording on that condition. All right, thank you.

00:32:54,430	Uh, with that, Comm, this is a request for an annexation, a zoning map amendment, and a major subdivision final plat and uh staff recommendation is to approve with the 3 mentioned conditions What are your wishes Motion to approve with conditions. We have a motion from Comm Zen to approve. Second, we have a 2nd from Comm Wogan. Comm, the floor is open for discussion. Comm Schell. Thank you, Chae Schwartz. I just want to address the traffic study component.

00:33:21,170	Um, it’s something that we, we do require from time to time on, on developments as they come in. Uh, for this one in particular, the, the types of things that we’d look for on a traffic study, uh, would be compliance with our master plans.

00:33:36,170	It’d be looking at where those access points are, uh, and you’ll be looking at the speed, and those will be all things that, uh, we’ve had internal discussions and feel comfortable with, with those answers on the, the master plan meets our, our compliance component with master plans are um ing the lat does, um, in terms of the access points, uh, I would have a strong desire to

00:33:50,730	have those access points line up, uh, directly across from each other if there was a, uh, a high degree of likelihood that traveling public will be crossing the roads to get just from one side of the street to the other, whether it’s to get

00:34:01,270	to the school or to get to a, a park or to get to that development, whatever it might be. But when the adjacent developments and the adjacent roadway networks will be likely using Tyler Parkway just to, to gain access to other locations north and south on Tyler Parkway and less likely to be

00:34:16,370	crossing um, to, to go to the neighbor’s house across the street. Um, I have less of a, uh, desire to have those, uh, uh, roadways line up opposing each other directly.

00:34:29,100	Um, so it’s all things that we’ve discussed internally, um, and we didn’t view that a traffic study with a, a recommendation to consider monitoring the speeds on Tyler Parkway is, is worth the effort because we know that that’s something that we’ll need to do and that we will be doing is monitoring the speeds and, and considering lowering those speed limits, uh, with, with the timing of development, uh,

00:34:44,430	many of these traffic studies don’t list out a you shall do this or you must do this. They’re just suggestions and recommendations, then staff and ultimately the boards would take into consideration. So we felt like we had a good handle on the traffic impacts associated with this development and didn’t need any additional analysis performed.

00:34:58,430	So, um, safety’s always top of mind for us, and it’s not something that we, we didn’t do. It’s just something that we felt we had those answers without the need of, of additional analysis. Thank you, Comm Schell. Commissioners.

00:35:15,330	Comm Johnson Comm Schell, I’m not sure if this is for you or, or not, but just outside of this there are collector roads in the future road. plan. Uh, is it fair to assume that at this point we, those roads are going to be in place as this develops and collecting a lot of the traffic as this continues to fill in, and

00:35:31,700	whether it’s a school or more houses that those collectors which are planned to align with 6-Fourth and go down to 57th would be in place and taking the most of that traffic Uh, Comm, Comm Johnson, I guess that’s our expectation.

00:35:48,100	I mean, all, all we can see right now is the plat in front of us, but as we’ve looked at what the master plan looks like for this entire section of land and how this particular first edition fits into that larger master plan.

00:36:01,870	Um, and we have a comfort level that, that that is where the, the majority of that traffic or the high generating traffic uses would be developed along that collector road network. So when it is time to talk about where’s a, a traffic signal or a roundabout in some of these corridors, it’s onto that collector roadway network and not just uh, the, the James Wright Avenue that might only have 100 vehicles coming to it.

00:36:17,000	It’s on that collector roadway up the way or down on Fifty-seventh that might see some more active transportation there. Thank you, Comm Johnson. Comm, additional discussion. All right, well, I don’t see any more, so with that we have a motion on the table to approve. Sarah, would you please call Roll? Comm Johnson, yes.

00:36:40,800	Comm Schmitz Yes, Mr. Schell, Comm Field, yes. Comm Seak. Yes, Comm Wangan, Comm Zent, yes, Chair Schwartz, yes, the motion is approved. With that, we move on to item B in our regular agenda, which is olive tree’s 2nd subdivision, and Jenny is once again going to provide us with staff report.

00:37:05,370	Thank you, Chair Schwartz, Comm, Dare Hoorner is requesting approval of a major subdivision final plot titled Olive Tree Second Subdivision, the proposed plat includes a previously platted lot where Mr. Horner’s home is an adjacent unplatd property. Both properties are zoned for rural residential.

00:37:30,630	This request is located northwest of Bismarck along the west side of Burt Creek Loop and south side of Dietri Place and consists of 7.05 acres with one lot in one block. You tentatively approve the proposed plat at your meeting on August 27 th Adjacent land uses include rural residential to the north and west and east across Burt Creek Loop, undeveloped rural residential zone property to

00:37:49,800	the south and west. The public has been notified of this request. A notice was published in the Tribune on September 12th and 19th and 88 postcards were mailed to the owners of nearby properties on September 12th. Hack Creek Township was also notified of this request on August 4th and have not yet provided a comment.

00:38:07,370	Additionally, physical science providing information on the public hearing were placed in a publicly accessible spot on a project on September 9th. We did receive one phone call, neither for or against this request, just curious.

00:38:24,630	This request was evaluated according to the Stans contained within our comprehensive plan, Code of Ordinances and state law as a result of all the findings contained in your staff reports, staff find that the proposed major subdivision plot would not adversely impact the public health, safety, and general welfare and is consistent with the comprehensive plan Code of Ordinances and state law.

00:38:41,530	Therefore, staff recommends approval of the major subdivision final plot for Olive Tree seconds. Subdivision. Do you have questions? Commissioner’s questions for Jenny. Jenny, I am nuts seeing or hearing any. So with that thank you.

00:39:03,870	Thank you With that, this is a public hearing, so we will, I will open the public hearing and uh ask if the request or representative here speak to us here to speak to us. Thank you, Chair Schwartz. Uh, yeah, I just add a little bit of uh detail to what to what Jenie had presented to you.

00:39:19,330	Everything absolutely perfect, of course, um, just looking for an expanding of of somebody’s existing rural residential A to allow them a little bit better space for um an accessory building in the future. Uh, we also provided the city with sort of a master plan for the area.

00:39:32,970	Most of the area is undeveloped to the south and to the west of this, just showing that if somebody were to develop later on, there is room for road connectivity and things like that, so I’m certainly can answer any questions if you have them though. Kirians questions for Lan Comm Schell Landon, can you maybe address the, the 42 ft non-access line. on the south side of Burt Creek Loop and why that’s included on this particular platform. Certainly, Comm Schell.

00:39:53,700	So, uh, right now the, the roadway already exists on, on the east side of this plant, um, but it is a section line road, so we will be dedicating 75 ft of right of way.

00:40:07,470	However, uh, the county still has, of course, really anybody has the rights to to access that 33 ft that is statutory right away on a section line. So of that 75 ft 42 ft of it is, is a non-access lines with this property and property south of it cannot be accessed through the right of way at that point, but the, the 33 ft of statutory still exists. OK, thank you. Thank you, Comm Schell.

00:40:25,600	Commissioners, any additional questions for Lanon. I’m not seeing or hearing any. Thank you. With that, the podium is open for others, that would care to address this agenda item. and I’m not seeing or hearing anybody stepping up, so with that I’m going to close a public hearing.

00:40:48,530	Commissioners, this is a request for a major subdivision final plat and staff’s recommendation is to approve. What are your wishes? Move to approve. We have a motion from Comm Wogan to approved, a second from Comm Zan. Any discussion, Commissioners? And I’m not seeing or hearing any. With that Sarah, would you please call Roll? Mr. Wongan Yes, Comm Field, Yes, Comm Johnson. Yes, Comm Schell, Comm Schmitz.

00:41:18,330	Yes, thank you, Comm Seach. Yes. Comm Zent Chair Schwartz, yes, the motion is approved. With that, we move on to item C in our regular agenda, which is uh Silver ranch, 3rd edition, 3rd replat, and, uh, Isaac is gonna provide us with staff report this evening. Yes, good evening, Char Schwartz and Commissioners.

00:41:38,730	So for this next regular agenda item, we have Stoneshire Builders LLC, who is requesting approval of a zoning map amendment from the RM 20 residential zoning District to the RM20 and R10 resid ent ial zoning district and a minor subdivision final plat titled Silver Ranch 3rd Edition,

00:41:57,530	3rd Replat, as you can see on the screens before you, uh, this project is located in northeast Bismarck in the northeast quadrant of 43rd Avenue and Silberagle Drive. Uh, the project area consists of about 3.

00:42:18,730	65 acres, and it is a replat of lot one, block 15 of Silver ranch, uh, 3rd edition, including the adjacent rights way of Davies Drive, Silberagel Drive, and 43rd Avenue Northeast. So for this minor latt project, uh, they are changing the existing one lot in one block to 13 lots in one block, and the zoning map Amendment portion will keep the northernmost of those three lots as RM 20, as you can see here.

00:42:38,530	And then those southern 10 lots would be R 10, uh residential zoning district. The applicant include intends to use uh the minor plat and zoning map Amendment to facilitate some row house style development of either 2 or 3 units in each building.

00:43:00,900	And as the property is in the broader SilverRach series of developments. Um, it would be primarily bordered on the West side by other residentialally zoned land that is still developing.

00:43:16,600	There is some commercially zoned land to the south that is undeveloped right now and then kind of to the east, northeast or so, there is uh some land that is intended to be for stormwater retention and management there. The plat is identified as Nehood mixed use in the future land use plan, which are broadly considered the social and gathering spaces, uh, commercial gathering spaces for the surrounding neighborhoods, and then the public was notified of this request via publications in the Bismarck

00:43:35,170	Tribune on September 12th and 19th, and four postcards were mailed to owners of nearby properties on September 12th of this year. And additionally a physical sign providing information on the public hearing was placed in a publicly accessible spot at the project location on September 9th of this year as well.

00:43:55,370	Uh, to my knowledge though, uh, staff has not received any inquiries or written comments prior to this hearing regarding this request. So as a cumulative result of all of the findings contained in the staff reports before you, City of Bismarck staff find that the proposed subdivision, uh, minor subdivision final Platt and the accompanying zoning map Amendment would not adversely

00:44:13,000	impact public health, safety, and general welfare, and that it is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. Bismarck Code of Ordinances and relevant state law.

00:44:33,800	So therefore staff recommends approval of the zoning map Amendments from the R 20 residential zoning district to the RM20 and R10 residential zoning districts and approval of the minor subdivision final plat titled Silveran 3rd Edition, 3rd Replat. Does the Commission have any questions for me at this Commissioner’s? Questions for Isaac. Comm Zent, Isaac, come So the average lot size is about what, 50 by 120, 48 by 120.

00:44:54,800	Is that ring a bell? I, I’ll believe you until I double check it here. So, is that consistent with the rest of the lots and Silver Ranch. Uh Commissioneren Chair Schwartz and Commissioners, I would have to double check to see exactly how that matches up with the other lots, but it, it would be of sufficient size for the R10 and RM20 uh residential districts.

00:45:16,000	Thank you, Comm and Comm, additional questions. Comm Schell Isaac, regarding the, the zoning component and the, the need to keep some of it as RM20, whereas the rest move to R 10.

00:45:36,330	You maybe just walk through that, the distinction between the two and it kind of seems like it’s one big concept, but why is there a difference between the zoning? Certainly. So there’s, there’s two reasons for that, Comm Schell, Chair Schwartz, and Commissioners. The first part is that in the R10 you can have a twin home or two rowhouse type units side by side.

00:45:54,230	Uh, you cannot have 3 or more in the RM uh districts, whether that’s RN 1015,,, 2030, you can have 3 or more wide. So that’s part of the reason that some of this is staying RM 20 in this case and the others are going to R10, then that other part is the R10 has a slightly smaller, uh, minimum side yard setback of 6

00:46:10,470	ft compared to uh, you know, 10 ft for RM districts as well. So those are the two reasons there. OK thank you. Thank you, Comm Schell. Comm, additional questions for Isaac. I’m not seeing or hearing any other. Thank you. Thank you.

00:46:29,730	With that, this is a public hearing, and I will open the public hearing for this agenda item is either the uh requester or representative here to speak to it. and I’m not seeing anybody jumping up, so with that, um, the podium is open for others that would care to address this agenda item. And again, I’m not seeing any, anybody jumping up.

00:46:52,330	So with that, I’m going to close a public hearing. Uh, Commissioners, um, and Isaac, uh, any additional, uh, comments no, no additional comments. Thank you. Thank you.

00:47:09,270	J Schwartz, um, if, if I may, I can elaborate a little bit on, uh, Comm Rozen’s question, uh, I have, I have the advantage to look into the computer while I was up at the podium, but the, there are other lots within Silver Ranch, 3rd edition that are similar in width just down the street on Davies Drive, roughly 40 ft in width or so, so this would be fairly consistent with that. Daniel, thank you for the clarification.

00:47:28,530	With that, Comm, this is a request for a zoning map amendment and minor subdivision final plant staff recommendation for both is to approve. What are your wishes? Move to approve is presented We have a motion to approve from Comm Schmitz. 2, we have a second from Comm Seva. Any additional discussion Mr.

00:47:55,600	Schell I just want to note, probably for the record’s sake, the City of Bismarck is the owner of the property across the street from this proposed, uh, zoning change and replat, uh, at Davies and Silber Eagle Drive, uh, with the purpose of that, uh, purchase, uh, to house a future fire station at some

00:48:11,330	point in time, so it’s not something that we’re pursuing the construction of said fire station now or in the immediate future, uh, but that might be why you didn’t hear any neighbors because we’re, the city of Bismarcks, the neighbor, um, and maybe to just put on the record when that fire

00:48:25,530	station does show up, so at least more from the public look back on meeting minutes from 10 years prior to or whatever it might be to note that that was the intended plan of that site and isn’t surprised when a fire station shows up now in the neighborhood, uh, maybe in the future.

00:48:37,270	Mr. Schell is that the CA’s zoned area below, uh, Comm Chair Schwartz. It’s actually the RM20 if you want to pull them out back up for a second, Daniel or, or Dakota Media Access, that would be. just maybe to show a visual of what we’re talking about for a second.

00:48:56,900	Yeah, to be the site there that, that is being highlighted on the screen or was highlighted on the screen till the screen disappeared. Yeah, now we’re right there. Yeah. So, just, just west of, of the proposed lat year of Silver ranch, 3rd edition, 3rd Ret is what is owned by the city. Thank you for the clarification. OK.

00:49:18,270	With that, any additional discussion, Commissioners? All right, we have a motion on the table to approve. Sarah, would you please call Ro Comm Seac Yes, Comm Johnson, Comm Wangan, yes, Comm Schell, yes, Comm Schmitz. Yes, Comm Field, Comm Zent Chair Schwartz. Yes, the motion is approved.

00:49:47,730	We move on to item D in our regular agenda and the Silver ranch 5th edition, part of Blocks 2 through 5. And again, Isaac is going to present us with staff report. Yes, thank you again, Chair Schwartz and Commissioners, for this regular agenda item, we go to a different area of the broader Silver ranch neighborhood.

00:50:07,530	Invest Corp is requesting approval of an annexation of Lotts 11 through 12 block 2, lots 14 through 19, block 3, lots 1 through 2, block 4, and lots 1 and 2 and 35 to 38, block 5 of SilverRach 5th edition, and the adjoining rights of Way of Davis Drive and Halvorson Avenue, or more succinctly parts of blocks 2 through 5.

00:50:24,600	As you can see on the screens before you, this project is located northeast of Bismarck, north of 43rd Avenue along future extensions of Davies’s Drive and Halvorson Avenue. This particular annexation request consists of about 4.1 acres of land and includes a total of 16 lots in four blocks.

00:50:43,170	So this project area is part of the Platte of Silver Ranch 5th edition, which the Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval of in May of this year, and it was then approved by the City Commission on July 8th of 20 25, so this area is still in the very early stages of

00:50:58,900	development and as such, the surrounding area is largely undeveloped, but, uh, it’s um if you remember, part of that previous uh product that came through was a zoning map amendment to change this area to APUD that uh the plat, the PUD, those are still in the final stages of being recorded,

00:51:16,900	finalized, published, all of that. So when that is, um, approved or formally finalized, we would expect to see primarily single family homes in this area with some uh lots designated for stormwater management as well as a community clubhouse or community center, um, but again, those are still being finalized, uh, the zoning map

00:51:37,800	Amendment project also uh the previously was included with that major plat had two separate annexation projects as well. Those projects are also still in the process of being finalized.

00:51:54,800	So once they are formally finished, this area would be, uh, as you can see there, this area would be adjacent to city limits. Right now it technically is not, so there will be a condition which I will highlight in a second, but this, uh, area is identified as being urban Ne hood in the future land use plan, which is broadly described as places for the quiet enjoyment of home life,

00:52:10,800	and the public will be notified of this request prior to the public hearing at the City Commission in accordance with state law, as well as formal notifications to Burleigh County and Gibbs Township since technically this is not a public hearing right now.

00:52:27,900	So as a cumulative result of all findings contained in this staff reports before you, City of Bismarck’s staff find that the annexation would not adversely impact public health, safety, and general welfare, that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan Bismarck Code of Ordinances and relevant state law.

00:52:47,330	So staff recommends approval of the previously described lots and blocks succinctly put as part of blocks 2 through 5, Silver ranch Fifth edition, and the adjoining rights of Way of Davies Drive and Halvorson Avenue with the condition that the previously approved annexation of lots 20 through 27 block 3 lot 44, block 4, and lots 32 through 34, block 5 of Silver ranch 5th edition and the adjoining Ris of Way of Davis Drive and Halvorson Avenue is recorded prior to this annexation.

00:53:10,070	Does the Commission have any questions for me at this time? Comm, questions for Isaac. I’m not seeing any, Isaac. Thank you. Thank you. With that, Comm, this is a final consideration for an annexation. Staff’s recommendation is to approve with conditions. What are your wishes? Move to approve with the condition.

00:53:34,100	We have a motion to approve from Comm Wogan Second, we have a second from Comm Johnson. Any discussion? I’m not seeing or hearing any. Sarah, please call Roll. Comm Field. Yes, Comm Johnson, Comm Schmitz. Yes. Mr. Schell, yes, Comm Seach, yes. Comm Wongan, Comm Zent, yes, Chair Schwartz.

00:54:00,470	Yes, the motion is approved. With that, we move on to item D in our regular agenda, which is Silver Ranch 5th edition, and once again, Isaac is going to provide us with staff report. Hello again, Chair Schwartz and Commissioners.

00:54:16,270	We are getting a lot of silver ranch, uh, additions in this particular meeting. Uh, for this one, we are going to broadly speaking, the entirety of Silver ranch 5th edition, uh, where Silver Ranch 18 LP and Investor Inc are requesting approval of a revision to the zoning map amendments that I described a little bit in the last agenda item where there was a request

00:54:35,700	to go from the agricultural district to the RM20 residential zoning district and APUD plan unit development in the area that is, you know, will soon be called SilverRach Fifth edition.

00:54:56,270	So this project is located kind of in the northeast portion of Bismarck, north of 43rd Avenue, east of Silver Ranch Boulevard, uh, Silver Boulevard, a long future extensions of Davies Drive and Halvorson Avenue. So just kind of making sure we’re all um comfortable with the background of this. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision and the zoning map amendment at your May 28, 2025 meeting, and then the citycom Commission approved the projects at their July 8, 2025 meeting.

00:55:15,530	The applicant has requested a revision to the PUD portion of the zoning map amendments, not the RM20 uh portion, but for the PUD portion of the zoning map amendment, there is a request to adjust some of the front yard setbacks of the proposed single family homes uh from 2

00:55:34,230	5 ft, which was previously approved to 20 ft for yards that would have a garage face fronting on a street and then for corner lots, the other, uh, portion that would not have a garage face that is proposed to go to 15 ft.

00:55:51,800	Additionally, the lot width is the minimum lot width is being proposed to go from 55 to 50 ft. Nothing on the latte itself is changing. This is just going to offer a little more uh flexibility in case some things need to be moved around in the future via a lot modifications, for example.

00:56:10,730	Again, the uh proposed subdivision is not being proposed to change the RM20 residential portion of the zoning map amendment is not being proposed to change and as you can see there, the surrounding land to the north, east and south is still undeveloped or agricultural land, and to the west we have some of the earlier phases of the Silver Ranch neighborhood.

00:56:29,900	So the Platt is, uh, the Platt area where the PUD portion would be requested to be revised a little bit is identified as urban Nehood and parks and open space in the future line use plan and these areas are respectively described as places for quiet enjoyment of home life and as areas kept largely in a natural state providing various important functions for the community.

00:56:50,070	So, the public was duly notified of this revision request via publications in the Bismarck Tribune on September 12th and 19th, and 12 postcards were mailed to owners of nearby properties on September 12th, uh, as well.

00:57:08,230	And then a physical sign providing information on the hearing was placed in a publicly accessible spot at the project location on September 9th as well. Uh, but to my knowledge, staff has not received any written comments or inquiries regarding this request or the revision request.

00:57:27,470	So as a cumulative result of all of the findings contained in the staff reports, City of Bismarck’s staff find that the proposed revision to the zoning map Amendment would not adversely impact public health, safety, and general welfare, and that it is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan Bismarck Code of Ordinances and relevant state law.

00:57:48,800	Therefore, staff recommends approval of the revision of the zoning map Amendment request from the Agricultural District to the RM20 residential zoning district uh on Lot 1, block 1 and lot 1, block 2, uh, but then for the remainder of the plot of Silveranch Fifth edition, uh, going from our from a agricultural to a PUD plan unit development. Does the Commission have any questions for me at this time, Comm, questions for Isaac. Comm Schell.

00:58:05,800	Isaac, uh, made question then a comment on the lot with, uh, if the platin is already approved. does the 55 to 50 ft change that’s being discussed.

00:58:24,000	um, uh, affect the plat or, or there’s something in the plat that would need to be adjusted also, or can you maybe speak to that? Uh, Comm Schell, Chair Schwartz and Comm, you know, perhaps the applicants uh consultant can answer that a little more clearly, but to my understanding, the plat is not changing. So by reducing the minimum width, the, the lot widths would still be conforming because the lots themselves are not getting smaller.

00:58:40,000	So it probably would be a follow-up question then for the applicant of, of what that um, accomplishes then if the plat itself is not changing what the minimum lot width in zoning would accomplish. So that’ll be a question for the applicant. Thank you, Comm Schell. Comm, additional questions for Isaac. I’m not seeing any Isaac. Thank you.

00:59:01,330	With that, this is a public hearing, so I’ll open the public hearing, and he’s a, is either the requester or a representative here to speak to this agenda item. Thanks again, Chair Schwartz. Yeah, just to, to add a little bit to to what Isaac is presented and to Comm Schell’s question.

00:59:17,330	Um, a few things happened with the, with this PD one if you guys remember this before when we were bringing this forward, we were really focused on sort of what are the community aspects of this PUD.

00:59:28,900	They have some, some, some shared fence lines and some shared things like that, the community center, a lot of, a lot of items that’ll work together as a as a community and, and some of the details of the individual lots possibly were were left out at that point.

00:59:42,530	So here we’re sort of here to correct that, uh, particularly for the, for the corner lots, which are, you know, we’re trying to do a little denser, uh, single family. It’s a 55 plus community, um, the homes will occupy a bit more space than what would typically be done in R5 district in the city of Bismarck. Um, the 15 ft side yard on, on what is effectively a corner lot, of course, there’s no garage there, so there’s no need for a driveway.

00:59:58,900	Was us to to have a little smaller lots to to work on those corner lots. Um, for the 20-foot setback and, and this relates to, to Comm Schell’s question regarding what differences it makes now though if the plant’s already approved, why would we have a different, uh, front yard width that is

01:00:13,900	required. Our concern there is a little bit of some of the pie-shaped lots, um, how that gets interpreted so you have a a lot that gets wider at the back if the home is coming closer to the front, then that front gets a little, can get a little snug sometimes.

01:00:26,370	So we like to just give ourselves a little bit of wiggle room, we don’t anticipate anything being smaller than 55, but that just gives us that a couple of feet there just to, to deal with it. Fair enough, Comm Schell.

01:00:39,600	Maybe I’ll just add another comment to that line and thank you for the, the, the piece on the lot with, but the, the minimum front yard setback of, of 20 ft. Uh, a lot of times where we as staff have have found issues is a driveway constructed with a garage and then that vehicle parked in front of the garage doesn’t pull all the way up to

01:01:00,370	the garage and it might be a 20-foot long vehicle in and of itself, and so that tail end, it’s hitch, whatever might be behind it, is projecting into the public right of way and into the sidewalk area. So I just note that that’s a concern.

01:01:15,500	We’re not looking for those problem areas, but when the citizens say I can’t walk on the sidewalk because there’s things projecting into them, we would then follow up with that landowner saying you’re, you’re encroaching in the right of way without authorization it just becomes a compliance component so hopefully everyone who builds a house and lives

01:01:29,170	here, it drives a small car, or if they drive a big car, they pull it all the way into the driveway or at least onto their own property.

01:01:40,070	And Comm Schell, just to, just to address that a little bit, we’re anticipating that the dry wheel still be that full 25 ft length, uh, most of these homes are designed to have like sort of larger front yard decks and that extend down to that setback, so that setback is really gonna apply more to a covered deck in the front rather than to the face of the garage, even though it would be allowed, but the intent is to

01:01:54,000	have those those front yard spaces. OK, great, thanks, Landon. Thank you, Comm Schell. Commissioner’s additional questions for Landon. I’m not seeing any land. Thank you. With the podium is open for others that would care to address this agenda item. and I’m not seeing anybody stepping up at this point.

01:02:14,730	So, with that, I’m going to close a public hearing Uh, Commissioners, this is a request for a zoning map amendment and staff recommendation is to approve what are your wishes. Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve from Comm Zent. A second from Comm Seach.

01:02:38,630	Any discussion commissioners? And I’m not seeing or hearing any. So with that, Sarah, would you please call Roll? Comm Wong in Yes, Comm Johnson, yes, Comm Seac. Yes, Comm Field, yes, Comm Schell, yes, Comm Schmitz. Yes, Mr. Zent? Yes, and chair Schwartz.

01:03:04,800	Yes, the motion is approved and we are down to item F in our regular agenda, which is short term rentals, and Lauren is going to provide us with a staff report. Uh, good evening, Chair Schwartz and Commissioners, uh, the Community Development department is requesting approval of a zoning ordinance tax Amendment to Sections 14-02-03 and 14-03-06 of the city code of Ordinance, ordinances to allow short-term rentals as a use on residential properties.

01:03:40,600	So some background for this request. Um, the topic of short-term rentals was brought up through the current land Development Code process, um, by both members of the steering committee and was also identified as a specific area of interest, um, through some engagement with members of the community.

01:03:58,730	Um it’s also been brought up and it is currently within our Together 24 2045 Comprehensive plan is an objective. Um, due to this interest as well as that objective within the Comprehensive plan staff thought it would be best to have a separate zoning ordinance tax amendment um for the self-contained topic, um, rather than combining it with

01:04:17,370	the full La development code process, um, staff did bring this item to the Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission on April 23rd of this year and asked for direction on this topic. Um, the planning and zoning Commission then directed city or community development staff to prepare a zoning ordinance tax amendment for short term rentals.

01:04:39,330	Um, there is a draft of the ordinance within your Agenda packet, um, that uh, zoning ordinance tax Amendment includes a definition for short-term rentals, um, it also notes that a residential appearance must be maintained, um, only permanent residential units or structures classified as permanent residential units can be a short term rental

01:05:05,370	um, noise and parking requirements for residences would apply for these, um, as well as international Building Code requirements, um, would need to be met. Um, so just some information on uh what was looked at as we compiled this draft ordinance.

01:05:25,800	Um, so there were several areas that were reviewed when drafting this. Um, one of those was looking at regulations, uh, from peer communities or what other communities um have been uh doing so there are several cities in North Dakota that do not have current ordinances in place, um.

01:05:45,530	West Fargo, I believe, is currently in the process of drafting an ordinance. They have not adopted it yet, um, so that would be the one, place within North Dakota that’s actually looking at doing this, um, what their current draft is, is it’s a little bit more restrictive, um, and it has a little bit more requirements than what we’re currently proposing tonight.

01:06:06,330	Um, some additional peer cities were reviewed, um, like those in South Dakota or Montana, and several of those do have, um, certain requirements in place. Um, some of those requirements, uh, included, um, requiring permits from property owners, um, requirements to provide certain licensures from the state, um, as part of that permit application and then requirements for maintaining

01:06:31,100	that residential appearance. um so some additional areas that were reviewed when drafting the ordinance included uh a zoning practice publications from the American Planning Association as well as the National League of Cities. Um, additionally, uh, host information, um, from some common short term rental platforms was reviewed um by staff as well as members of the steering committee.

01:06:58,100	Uh some tax requirements for short term. for short term rentals, um, including information from the North Dakota Office of the State Tax Comm was reviewed, um, a little brief rundown of that is included within the staff packet.

01:07:25,900	Um, however, it was not included within the actual ordinance itself, um, as, uh, those requirements are a little bit outside of the purview of the zoning. Um, short-term rental postings in Bismarck were reviewed, um, from two of the more common short-term rental platforms, um, BRBO as well as Airbnb, um, just a rundown of what that looked like is also included with the the Agenda packet, um, the identified numbers for those, um, are more of a

01:07:49,370	reference, um, to give the Planning and Zoning Commission an idea of what community members or members coming into the community can see for short-term rental options. um, but they’re not meant to be representative of an actual number of short-term rentals that are in the community.

01:08:12,870	Uh, additionally, a stakeholder group, including representatives from the Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh, the Bismarckandan Convention and Visitors Bureau, um, the Chamber EDC Downtowners, as well as short term rental owners and city staff, um, was compiled to help create the draft ordinance. Um, the group met twice between May and July. Um, and the reviewed requirements from the peer communities and identified how short-term rentals function within Bismarck.

01:08:40,070	Um, some additional public engagement, uh, did occur in online survey was promoted on the city’s website, as well as social media accounts, uh, between July and August. Uh, 74 responses were received um the survey results are included as an attachment to this item within your staff report.

01:09:06,870	Additionally, a notice was pub published in the Bismarck Tribune on September 12th and 19th. Um, staff has received, uh, one comment from an individual who is against short term rentals, uh, that should have been provided to you before the meeting.

01:09:27,070	Uh, the request was evaluated according to standards with it contained within the Comprehensive plan Code of Ordinances and state law. And as a result of those findings contained within the staff report, City of Bismarck staff find that the proposed zoning ordinance text Amendment would not adversely impact the public health, safety, in general welfare.

01:09:58,530	Uh, therefore, staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance Tat Amendment to Sections 14-02-03 and 14-03-06 to allow short term rentals as an as a use on residential properties. Do you have any questions? Commissioners, questions forlorn. Mr. Johnson. I, I’m not sure if you’ll be able to answer it or see Brady over there too, but the last, uh, must comply with international building code.

01:10:15,100	Is that mainly if they go over a certain unit number, number of units within there that they’re aware that they may trigger that or what would be the reason for that. I’ll let Brady answer that one. I, uh, uh, Brady Blaskowski with the building official for the city of Bismarck.

01:10:32,170	Um, we wanted that in there just, just as kind of a safeguard to to note that there is building code requirements also that these would need to meet, um, there are certain, certain types of uses of, if it isn’t just one group of individuals coming to stay there, um, a family of group that’s traveling to a destination, something like that.

01:10:49,230	they may have an occupant load that’s bigger, multiple different people. you know, living there, staying there, uh, multiple different times that may trigger different requirements from, from the building code. Um, if there’s few enough people or few enough of them, uh, people living there.

01:11:09,000	or staying there, they would just be simply considered a single family resident still, and there would be no change of use, so,, OK, thank you. Thank you, Comm Johnson. Thank you, Brady. Comm, additional questions for Lauren. I’m not seeing or hearing any, Lauren. Thank you. Thank you. With that, this is a public hearing.

01:11:28,800	Uh, so the podium, I’ll open the public hearing, and if there is anyone here that would care to speak to this agenda item. This would be a good time to do it. And I’m not seeing or hearing anybody. jump up to the podium.

01:11:48,530	So with that, I’m gonna close a public hearing Uh, Commissioners, this is a zoning ordinance text amendment and staff recommends approval. What are your wishes? Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve from Comm Zant. Second, we have a 2nd from Comm Johnson.

01:12:22,700	The floor is open for any commissioners discussion Comm Schell uh, do you want to maybe say some words that aren’t in here, so there’s no permitting that maybe I’ll look to um, staff to confirm there’s no permit required. There’s no additional oversight, um, outside of just the, the, the zoning designation, um, and it would handle complaints on a, or issues on a complaint basis.

01:12:38,100	Is that how this would be managed if passed? Uh, Comm Schell, uh, Chair Commissioners, that is correct with how it is currently written. Thank you, Comm Schell Commissioners, again I ask the question, any additional discussion? Uh, I would just like to comment that, uh, that I would like to thank the stakeholder group that was involved in

01:13:00,070	putting this ordinance together and uh thanks to staff it, uh, it is an ordinance that, uh, in having read it, it is less restrictive than I would have liked, but I liked the ordinance, and I think it’s a good one to have on the books, and I think that, uh, it may be something where, uh, the door

01:13:22,530	will be open to change it in the future if we ever need to. So I, I think, uh it would be a good one to move forward with. Comm Schell Maybe I’ll add one more comment just reading through the, um, requirements here too.

01:13:39,530	One of the comments that we received from the public was, I guess, concerned that their neighbor was running a short term rental in the neighborhood, uh, and it was the traffic impact is what it seemed to be was one of the the components.

01:13:53,100	And if you had a, a large home and you had 9 people living in there for a period of time, uh, the amount of 9 cars showing up for that period of time and that it spread out throughout the neighborhood.

01:14:07,500	So the ordinance says it’s presented does have language referring to off-street parking and loading, and so I guess if, if it turns out that they did exceed what a single family home was allowed for, I guess there would be a recourse that could be pursued, uh, but not because of the, the uses that are occurring, but just because they have so many individuals living in that home for even that short period of time. I just wanted to add that Thank you, Comm Schell.

01:14:19,870	That’s a good point. Comm Johnson just, uh, Lauren, it might be or anyone else, uh just another hypo hypothetical, but if someone had a home and they converted, you know, 9 bedrooms into 9 units.

01:14:38,900	Is that allowed in a R5? could they still do that? Or is it, uh is there any zoning restrictions that would limit someone from doing that Uh, uh Comm Johnson, Chair Comm, uh, just a question of clarification, are you talking a family of nine? Are you talking units, so 5 or 9 individual units in one large house that there’s a current requirement, um, for unrelated individuals of per zoning right

01:15:06,730	now, and that may or may not change in the future, but as it currently stands within the organs that’s in there. Alright, thank you I, I think I, I personally like that it’s not too restrictive and that there’s other ordinances, whether it be noise or zoning or.

01:15:24,270	unrelated individuals that should limit and provide other means to to regulate issues, so. um. yeah, thank you, Lan Thank you, Comm Johnson Any additional comments, Commissioners? If not, sir, would you please call Roll? Comm Seak? Yes Comm Johnson. Yes, Comm W Wagen, Yes, Comm Schell, yes, Comm Field, Comm Schmitz. Yes, Mr. Chair Schwartz, yes.

01:15:55,100	the motion is approved. With that, we are down to item 5. in our reg in our agenda and that is other business. and um I believe Daniel’s going to give us an update on signs. Good evening.

01:16:12,800	Cha Commissioners, yeah, we do want to give you a brief update on something you discussed this this winter on public notice signs. Uh, it wasn’t the ordinance that you had moved forward through this, this body, that ordinance actually did not get adopted, so, uh, it went to the city commission and they chose a different route, which was still giving us the same outcome, which I’ll describe today.

01:16:31,530	Uh, we just placed our first public notice signs this month. Uh, so all of the hearings that are held, uh, every time we send post c ard s out, we’ll also go out there and put some signs. Uh, these are being done by staff, uh, so the applicants are not doing it themselves.

01:16:44,430	We’re putting them mostly in the right of way, uh, if available, although the applicants are also asking them to give us permission to go on their property if we need to, uh, if we can’t find a suitable site in the right of way. Uh, we’ve decided not to puncture the ground in any way.

01:16:58,730	Oh, we just really didn’t want to deal with one call or, you know, digging through the snow or ice in the winter. So we really decided to use weights and, uh, we’ve tested this a little bit and, and believe that it, it will withstand wind loads for the signs. Um, so we will take them out, um, uh, tomorrow or, or later this week if not possible by by tomorrow.

01:17:15,800	Uh, the signs do have, uh, it’s very limited in the information on that product. However, they do have a QR code that will take you directly to Prospecific information.

01:17:31,000	Um, there’s also a website URL or phone number, if you’d like to call to learn more about the project, but of course the date of the hearing is on, on the sign as well. Uh, so this is something we’ve talked about for a number of years We do postcards, we do newspaper ads, we do the city website, um, but, as you know, uh, we still do, we’re, there’s always somebody right outside of our postcard range.

01:17:44,170	There’s always somebody who doesn’t read the Tribune, maybe, um, and so this is just one more effort to try to make sure everyone who wants to know about it can come to the meeting. Thank you, Daniel.

01:17:58,530	You know, I, I went out looking for, uh, the signs after I knew they were going to be out, and I drove by him and then I had to come around, back around.

01:18:15,070	I’m going, you need to put balloons on them or something because they’re, they’re so darn easy to miss, but you know, I understand the need for uh for getting them out there and providing another opportunity for, uh, folks out there to see that there is something going on and where they should look regarding the size of the sign and Leca beats me to it on this question. So the, these are not meant to be read by a driving moving vehicle.

01:18:33,870	They’re really meant to be you’ll be pulling over, especially the QR code. We don’t want you using that while driving, but so, so that, that, and we actually are trying to place them in a location where you really could pull over or or walk by pretty easily. Sounds good. Thank you.

01:18:47,530	So, I haven’t seen one yet, but is it a paper that fits on there? It’s not painted or anything, it’s paper that’s laminated or something on there.

01:19:04,630	So, uh, Contrazine, it’s, it’s a, it’s a sturdy plastic, um, that we have them printed on any of the permanent text, and then it’s a vinyl sticker that we place on the sign for the projects specific tax and we just pull the zip sticker off, we use it. Comm, any other Mr. Logan. That particular sign was near where I live.

01:19:26,070	And to me it was very noticeable, um, and it was stood wind and storms didn’t tip over or anything, it, it stood out. I think the only challenge is in the rural areas when you post those um. people will notice them, but there’s no place to park or stop. Where people have access if they wanna read what’s on the sign unless they park on the roadway.

01:19:47,370	Good comment Commissioners Any additional comments for Daniel while we have him up there? Mr. Schell I guess I’ll, I’ll add one more item. There’s times if we put up a, a new speed limit sign or something along those lines. We might put some orange flags above it just to bring more attention to it.

01:20:02,430	So it’s something maybe to consider if there’s additional just ways to make it more obvious that that sign’s there, but it sounds like if people are seeing them, then it’s, that it’s working, but just keep that in mind too if, if you put them out there, but you still have complaints saying I didn’t see the sign,

01:20:14,530	there may be ways to, to upgrade, not the sign itself, but bring attention to it anyway. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schell Any additional comments Daniel? I’ll try and slow down. OK. All right. That brings us to, uh, item B in our um in our uh other business and that is uh land development code update.

01:20:40,800	OK, thank you, uh, Chair and Commissioners. I’ll just briefly stay here and then reintroduce you to the consultants, uh, who you have met before, but it’s been a little while. Uh, this is our land development code, as you know, an update to Title 14 of the Code of Ordinances relating to zoning and subdivisions.

01:20:57,370	It’s a full scale project we’ve been working on it for quite a while. Many of you have, have been along for the ride and, um, and we’ll be looking to, of course, in the near future to be, to look at the whole thing together, but we’re not quite

01:21:10,230	there yet. Uh, the technical ad vi s ory committee and the steering committee and a few other bodies are meeting this week and so our consultants are in town to, to work with them. Uh, but we also wanted to make sure to speak with you and give you an opportunity to answer any questions you may have.

01:21:23,500	So, uh, as you may recall, uh, it’s Jenny Baker with Clarion Associates and Mary Madden with Madden, um, planning, uh, who will be giving us an update today. Good evening, Comm. Thank you. Uh, some of you will have the great pleasure of hearing this a second time, I’m sure you will enjoy it just as much.

01:21:47,000	Those of you that it’s the first time we’re glad to be back in front of you. We are here today to tell you a little about 22 parts of the ordinance that we are working on. You may recall that it was going to be done in 3, 3.5 modules.

01:22:04,070	And so we’re going to talk to you about module 2 and what we’re calling 1.5, but it’s actually for the, um, for the downtown. So we’ll give you some update on what’s been happening. Talk to you about the content that is in there and, um, tell you where to find the drafts if you’re interested, and then answer your questions.

01:22:28,630	OK, so let’s go into the project objectives just as a reminder, you all had a part in approving the Together 2045 plan recently and one of the main reasons to undertake a zoning code update is because those regulations are one of the most important ways that you can support accomplishing

01:22:50,470	the goals and objectives of the plan. So the plan is advisory, goals, objectives, vision, the zoning code is legal and regulatory and mandatory, so you can draft the regulations to get you to some of those goals, and we’ll talk a little bit about that with some of the

01:23:06,500	some of the sections that we will go over this evening. Other objectives included to provide you with a code that is more user friendly. You all are familiar with the current ordinance. It is blocks of texts.

01:23:26,370	There are very few illustrations, not much in the way of tables, graphics, anything to kind of help people understand particularly if they don’t really like to take in information through reading so much. I think the code is very challenging currently in, in that respect. And it’s also pretty legalistic. The writing is not, I would say the most accessible plain English.

01:23:47,730	So one of the things we’re really focusing on is providing you something that, you know, mere mortals can understand, and that will be a little easier to access and understand from the perspective of graphics and illustrations. We’re also hoping to kind of establish for you a set of objective standards when you are reviewing projects.

01:24:11,630	So you should not be asked to judge whether something is compatible, whether it’s harmonious. We want to give you objective standards for making those decisions. Go ahead. Thanks, Daniel. Recently, staff and other, um, consultants, local folks from SRF have been out in the community to do some outreach.

01:24:33,600	They went to the street fair, a couple of weeks ago at the beginning of the month, I talked to about 100 people. You can see here what the, um, people were talking about. When you go out for public things, it, the, the conversation isn’t necessarily guided to be exactly on topic of what the zoning district or what the zoning ordinance is going to cover.

01:24:50,800	So this is what we heard from people as we get further along, I think those conversations will become more directed, but 100 people at the street fair and then a week later, um, Bismaret, and so actually it was about 60, 70 people at the street fair and then 30 at Bizaret.

01:25:10,900	So, um, we’re starting the outreach trying to bring up the awareness in the community of this project going on. And as we get closer to the end and the potential adoption there will be a lot more of that to make sure that nobody is surprised. Mary’s going to tell you about downtown.

01:25:28,530	Thank you, Jenny. I’m Mary Madden, and I’m part of the team, um, I have been focusing specifically on downtown, uh, Daniel, if you want to go to the, the first slide, um, you may ask why is Downtown being called out, and one of the things that we recognize and the new Comp plan recognizes

01:25:48,870	that Downtown is specific and unique, um, it’s a traditional downtown this so the downtown district in the Ordinance is a little bit different than the uh other districts, um, it’s not just focused on land use and density.

01:26:14,630	It’s about the character of Downtown traditional mixed use, walkable, um, it does build on the current Downtown Core and downtown fringe, so it’s not like we’re coming up with something totally new, but we are gonna have more of what we call subdistricts within the downtown area, but down the downtown district is a defined geographic area. The standard for downtown will not show up and be part of other districts around the city.

01:26:36,370	Um, as I said, it is focused on traditional downtown form in character with the idea you want to make sure that it’s easy for people to build consistent compatible buildings in downtown and so that you’re not having people wanting to come in and build suburban drive-thru restaurants, etc.

01:26:55,630	There may be other places in the city that makes sense, but that downtown you want it mixed use, walkable pedestrian friendly, and arguably one of the most intensest part intensive parts not only in Bismarck, but in the whole state, um.

01:27:20,100	next um, these objectives may be overlap somewhat with some that are part of the larger ordinance, but um one thing is we are creating these subdistricts so we recognize that all of downtown is not the same, but it is all mixed use, um, we are trying very hard that anything and everything that you all and the officials would like to see in downtown would still be permitted.

01:27:41,100	We may have a handful of things that are called out that you don’t want heavy industry, etc. but everything won’t be uniform throughout the downtown, but it will, it will be street oriented buildings at the back of the sidewalk emphasis on mixed use, um, looking at scale context, recognizing if you

01:28:02,000	look at downtown today and the historic buildings that are there, how many of them still have the original use that they had when they were built in 1910.

01:28:20,470	I would speculate not many, if any at all, and so the idea is if you get quality buildings that are compatible with downtown and 100 years from now they will still be in downtown and the use is can and will change over time, not trying to micromanage exactly how somebody uses their the downtown buildings, um, and then really important to encourage reinvestment compatible infill, not making it hard for people to invest in their properties and definitely you don’t want

01:28:45,700	to encourage disinvestment, but you do want it to be contributing to the overall value of Bismarck, um, that’s big picture of what we’re doing with Downtown and how we are treating it a little bit differently than the rest of the city, um, but I think Jenny, the next one is yours.

01:29:06,270	All right, so I will tell you a little bit about module 2, which is development Stans. We’ve come to talk to you before, and the last time we talked about zoning districts and uses.

01:29:22,000	Y’all, of course, are familiar with what those are because of the job you’re doing here, but the way that we, we tend to think about it and talk about it with the public is districts and uses tell you what you can do and where you can do it.

01:29:38,530	Development Stans tell you how does it have to look? So is there landscaping? Is there, what kind of lighting can you have? What kind of signs, how much parking. You can see here that those are all covered in this section, and there are some new pieces as well. So I will go through and tell you a little bit about the new ones and then what is changing with the existing ones. All right, starting with improvements in open space.

01:29:58,700	Improvements is a new section, but it’s not really new content. This is something that’s already being done. One of the things it covers is dedication of easements. That’s something that already occurs. It’s just, I think, been done more by custom than it has through regulation.

01:30:20,530	So this makes sure that those, uh, easements are specified, dedicated, talks a bit about timing. Not new content, just a new section. Open Space deals with the way you obtain parks again, not new content. There is a current policy.

01:30:37,630	We brought that over and kind of formatted it into the ordinance, but there is no change in the way that Parks is going to obtain land for parks during the subdivision process. There is a new section regarding mobility and connectivity. The reason why this was added was to support the plan goal that ensures a robust multimodal transportation system to serve all residents and businesses. So it’s a new section and what it covers is intended to support some steps forward towards accomplishing that goal.

01:31:05,900	One of the things that I think, um, will, will become topic of discussion potentially is the prohibition of private streets. There is and there are is an exception where if you have exceptional circumstances, you may be permitted to have a private street, but if there isn’t a reason, like if you have adequate space to devote to

01:31:27,970	right of way, the city will ask that public streets be created. Um, this also talks a bit about allowing cross-access between sites. So maybe that can deal with, you know, connecting the parking lots between two adjacent commercial uses instead of making you go back out on the street, up, and then

01:31:46,800	turn into the, the place next door. It supports secondary access, which might be on your minds after your first hearing tonight. Um, so secondary access, one of the big reasons for this is, you know, emergency access, and that’s why I think you were talking about your secondary access tonight, but there are some more

01:32:05,270	specific standards to say when that will be required going forward. There are some basic bicycle and pedestrian standards, um, if a new development of a certain number of houses is within a certain proximity of an existing shared use path, there would be a request for a connection, and there is, um,

01:32:26,100	further the request for sidewalks and walkways on sites like navigating through parking lots and things like that. There’s new content that deals with lighting and sensitive lands, um, the sensitive lands stuff includes floodplain, not new for any of you. It does include some content for protecting wetlands.

01:32:51,800	Um, there was stuff in the current ordinance, some content in the current ordinance that dealt with the Missouri River shoreline that’s been removed because it applied in very narrow circumstances and was a little too detailed and, um, it just wasn’t working very well. So that’s come out.

01:33:10,330	The one other thing that is insensitive lens, it’s not mentioned here, has to do with steep slopes, and I think that’s a section that we’re going to do a little more work on, but it is covered in environmentally sensitive lands, Outdoor lighting is something new.

01:33:26,370	It is a very basic set of standards that can help when you hear the inevitable complaint my neighbor put up a big light, it’s shining directly into my bedroom, right? It’s as bright as the sun.

01:33:45,600	Well, these are a set of standards that you can use to, to determine if it is too bright and kind of use, I think, primarily as enforcement, um, and then it covers exceptions like holiday lighting so you can still put up all of your Christmas lights, and it covers exceptions like, um, playing fields. So at night when there are lights on for football games or other things. All right. Among the existing sections here is what, what is changing or what is proposed to change and the reasons for it.

01:34:07,970	You all have done recently some adjustments to your parking, which we thought brought it into a really good state in terms of comparison with many other communities where we work. And this just goes a little bit further.

01:34:27,970	So the proposal is that instead of just you have to have 36 parking spaces per 600,000 square feet of whatever space, um, which is, which is honestly like I, I don’t think it’s the most exact science in the world. Now there is a range where you can offer a minimum or a maximum. So there is a little bit more flexibility in there.

01:34:45,970	It’s not just this determined number and you have to do it. There are a lot of opportunities for people to demonstrate that even that minimum is too high, and so they would like to provide less and it will still work for their site.

01:35:04,170	So you will see that in there, um, still no parking for downtown and the event that parking is provided or if loaded, loading spaces are provided, which are also not required. There are standards they have to meet, but it is not a mandatory thing to do. Oh, something that’s the same is that if you provide bicyclical spaces.

01:35:21,230	This is one of the ways that you can get a reduction for the number of car spaces. That isn’t new. It’s just one example of how you can do that, and there are others that you can see in the draft.

01:35:40,330	So for landscaping and buffers and fences, this is something that we kind of put together in a section There are a couple of things with this. One is to sort of change, change the focus a little bit and with landscaping to focus on trees, primarily the reasoning behind that is that trees in particular give the greatest benefits at maturity in terms of helping with air quality in terms of

01:36:00,100	providing hat shade mitigating heat islands and, um, so we are trying to focus on that rather than providing shrubs that are never taller than 3 ft. or, you know, ground cover with mulch or something.

01:36:22,700	So you will see that in the section, there is now a street tree requirement for single family subdivisions, so that’s part of the emphasis on trees, that is something new and it’s something that we see in a lot of places. You’re familiar with the older areas right around town and how beautiful those trees in the boulevard are hopefully in 100 years, this requirement will produce the same thing in other areas.

01:36:40,270	Um, buffers, we are going to change to also focus on trees, not focusing on planting a lot of shrubs in there. That’s kind of under revision. We haven’t determined yet exactly what those standards will be, but that’s the direction it’s going.

01:36:59,370	Um, finally, there is a proposal to do a certain percentage of a site in multi-family mixed use and commercial development that is devoted to landscaping. So what that means is all sites have to be covered with something, right? You can’t just have like bare ground and dust blowing around, but this is specifically saying that with a multi-family project, you will devote, I think it’s 20% of the

01:37:19,330	site to, to landscaping of some sort. So in this picture, it would be that planting bed or the trees. It’s not just the turf grass. for mixed juice, I believe it is 15 commercial development has 10%, and we have industrial at 5.

01:37:40,530	There are a number of exceptions in here for industrial development in terms of landscaping and also buffering their parking lots just because of where it is in the nature of the development. It maybe doesn’t need to be as pretty as your residential zones. Signs are staying the same.

01:37:59,270	Uh, it looks different because we were trying to make it a little more user-friendly, but we have not substantially changed any of the requirements, understanding that you all have gone through that fairly recently. There are standards in there right now for downtown signs, and I think those will likely change in in substance and location, but so far they have not yet.

01:38:23,900	So that’s what’s in module 2, module 3 status, um, is, well, first of all, module 3 is administration and procedures. So what that will cover is the procedures by which you make your, um, decisions on your applications, your development review, and then it has kind of administrative stuff about, you know, the authority for the code.

01:38:47,270	It deals with nonconformities and basically like those kinds of administrative things for the zoning ordinance overall. Um, enforcement and penalties will be in there as well. We are nearly done with the staff draft that we will get to the staff here in October after a review, we will release that with all of the other sections of the code.

01:39:06,370	So what you will see next is the consolidated code. All of the chapters in one place that you can review, start to finish, should you wish to. Um, it will go through the same round of, of presentations.

01:39:26,730	so that you will hear about it, the technical committee, steering committee, um, and then after that one final round, we will come back with an adoption draft. So there are opportunities for change all along this process. If you come up with something when you review it that you think won’t work, or if we hear from the public, something that they really don’t want to go in that direction.

01:39:41,630	There are still many opportunities to make adjustments. We hope that we’ll see you with the consolidated draft, and we certainly hope that we’ll see you again in the spring where there will be the opportunity to adopt it. I think that’s it That is it. So thank you for your attention.

01:40:06,630	May I answer any questions, Commissioner’s questions No one wants to talk about zoning. Mary, is, uh, is the draft available to everybody? Oh. the, so there is a version of it that is posted and I don’t know. I We can distribute it to Stay tuned Stay.

01:40:28,370	It will be on the website and it will be accessible. I think there are some limited access postings of it, but we will get it up for everyone to be able to see, I would say within a week. Sounds good. Thank you.

01:40:43,600	One thing just I, I want to add that I failed to say is in addition to the steering committee and the technical committee committee we have also met in regards to Downtown with the historic preservation Commission and the Renaissance Zone Group, so we’re trying to make sure that anybody who’s actively interested in downtown is giving us input now, not at the back end, so thank you. Sounds good. Thank you.

01:41:04,370	All right. With that, I just, oh, excuse me, Comm Johnson. could you, uh, you know, PUDs are used a lot right now to deviate from ordinance and kind of do a little bit of whatever you want, is that addressed at all in this? You mentioned private roads, you know, that’s. Yeah.

01:41:24,630	The source of a lot of private roads. So, so that will be addressed. There are a couple of things. PUDs generally we find are used in communities that don’t have workable zoning districts. So if you can’t use a regular zoning district to develop something.

01:41:43,000	People just resort to PUDs and so first of all, you have an updated slate of zoning districts that we hope will help the community just be able to say it’s going to be our 10, it’s going to be our M20. And there’s flexibility built into those districts.

01:41:56,900	So for any small deviation, you don’t need to resort to what is effectively, you know, spot zoning. It’s not spot zoning, it’s legal, but so there’s that and then we do retain in the codes that we draft, the opportunity to do a PUD because you really need it in case something truly unusual comes up? What if you were going to have, you know, a stadium or an

01:42:15,900	outdoor concert venue. There’s no way to accommodate those or really predict them in regular zoning. So we keep PU D s for unusual projects, but through functional zoning districts try to reduce the reliance on it. Thank you, Comm Johnson, Comm Mel. uh.

01:42:40,000	Jenny, maybe for the next time that we have the presentation, especially when we’re talking about those signs and that the signs that you were referring to are the on-premise or off-premise advertising signs that we would have a picture of something like that and not a bunch of stop signs and yield signs as we previously discussed earlier.

01:42:53,900	So next, next presentation, just give me a different lip part video I did say I need to update this and then I did not update that we, uh, the ordinance doesn’t regulate traffic signs, government signs, and so I should have updated that and I am sorry that, if that was confusing.

01:43:12,470	Comm, is anything any additional questions Chair, uh, if I may add, uh, something. Yes, Comm Daniel, go ahead. Sure, and this is just in relation to Comm Johnson’s question. So, so the, the PUDE issue is certainly one that we’ve been looking at very closely.

01:43:30,430	And one thing that staff is doing is, as well as writing into the, the new ordinance, how to do PUDs is looking at the existing PDs that we’ve adopted and conditional zoning ordinances. We have about 135 different zoning districts that are custom in some way, either condition al district or PUD, uh, we’ve, we’re going through each one of those, and many of them may no longer be necessary in the new

01:43:52,170	code. Some of them were created for a very specific purpose that hopefully we can address with this new code. And so we, we may be recommending, uh, reasoning those to us a new base district and, and getting rid of those conditions if they’re no longer necessary.

01:44:10,230	Uh, the ones that are will continue to be necessary, uh, could be reworked into, into whatever this new, new format may be for, uh, PUDs. Um, one thing that is being discussed and was in module one that instead of using PUDs to be.

01:44:31,600	purely standalone districts that would be all self-contained, that they would reference a base zoning district and and adjust that base district. And the reason for that is if, if in the future if there are changes to that, they would, it would also change with the base district and it would just, um, continue to adjust that because we have a lot of PUDs that become outdated over time, uh, because,

01:44:50,270	because they’re no longer, um, the, the overall zoning ordinance has changed. So those are a few things we’re, we’re discussing in that Thank you, Daniel Without anything else, any other questions? The only other thing I have on my list is, uh, Comm Lukkins has resigned his seat on this commission, and I wanted to let

01:45:12,170	you all know, and I want to thank Comm Lukins for the, uh, service that he put in with us. Our next meeting, uh, is gonna be scheduled for October 22nd. and uh Mr. Johnson is going to lead lead the meeting, so again, thank you so much, uh, Commissioners and staff for your time this evening.

01:45:35,470	And with that, I’ll Adjourn the