2026-11-03 - Planning Commission Work Session

start off with Nicole talking about where we left off. >> Yeah. Uh uh thank you uh planning commissioner. So last month we um I can't quite remember who was in attendance and who wasn't. Um so we'll

just kind of go go with it. But um the goal was to start to have um these first hours to get through the final stages of the land development code, start talking about the calendar as well as to talk

through um the details of the code as as you so desire. I think some planning commissioners want to go through it, you know, line by line. I'm looking at Commissioner Schmidt and then there's um

others that are like, let's just get the big picture done and and move on. And so it's a little bit of strike striking that balance. But um um so I thought we would just kind of review a little bit of

where we left off and and proceed into what we've learned since. And then as a reminder uh we're still on the schedule for December 1st hour and um and we're open to discuss as you as you see fit. So

um the I think the goal of last um informational meeting was to talk through the dimensional standards and so I think we started getting through the residential section and maybe got through the

residential section but didn't get much further because we um started talking about um new concepts like um accessory dwelling units and uh I think as we were going through line by line I think we got

as far as height I know that's where staff has gotten stuck on ADUs is heights and where heights of the accessory dwelling units and where they belong. And then uh that led into conversations about uh

our timeline and goals and desires. just to conclude uh where uh I do believe I'm not sure our if that was you or mayor Boscher who was able to join us um really kind of came to this goal of can we

get you know 80% there knowing it's not going to be a perfect document there's a lot of topics that um need to to kind of get reconciled and you know it's a it's a you know as they say a big elephant

to take on and so um I think at the staff level and at the consultant level. Um, and I think the general public level, we're getting a little fatigued as we get into the final stages and so we want to

build up that stamina as we get through the spring and and hopefully get done, if you will. We are basically out of contract. Uh, we will be extending the contract into the next uh spring. Um and if

we need to talk about more and processes we can um uh talk through through that. So to us that as staff that was really helpful to hear can we get the 80% um and um and start you know maybe a parking

lot of uh codes updates as we need to or as issues we need to to reconcile. And I don't know Mark if you want to chime in on on that aspect or there's anything if there's any this isn't meant to be a

presentation so if there's anything that you want to add to that u commissioner and or Tommy and Tracy I and uh I can't remember if you guys were able you three were not able to be at last were you

there no okay so this three were not at last month's meeting and these three were at last month's meeting and so if we need to build some of that knowledge gap just I can stop Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I

think that the issue that the mayor and I, we had talked about was they think we were all in agreement that we were looking for 80%, but the issue is going to be trying to figure out um uh either or a

process where they could stay in the existing code or use the new code. and that we're going to create some kind of a environment where it's going to be whatever for when we get it done in January

till the end of the year or to whatever point some point forward that allows someone to look at the code and look at the existing code and go do that which wouldn't that allow us to fix the exist the

the new code and make the necessary changes without having to wait for it to be perfect and uh and I think everybody thought that made sense I don't think there was which I certainly haven't heard

anything from developers or from, you know, outside parties saying that's not acceptable. You know, we're not going to do that. But I think if we're able to do that, getting to 80% as soon as possible

and getting this thing active and operating will will make a lot of difference. >> Yeah. And maybe I think that that was the point Mark I was trying to remember. So Mark remembers a time when at the

um staff level we were able to do updates to the land development code once a year and and kind of batch updates and I would say starting in maybe 201 or so I started in ' 07 and I don't remember

being part of anything like that. we kind of stopped that process and because we were just develing with the development and the kind of the crazy busyness of the time and so um it was back in you

know we've been talking about a new code since like 2018 and so that's where you know we're kind of getting to this fatigue level if you will about change and um so if it the point is if we don't get

everything resolved in the current future draft we do see edits and changes needing to happen on a more congruent process and level as say if we miss a number or miss an intent or or um get something

a little off. And so again, that was helpful at the staff level to to hear that. uh since last um month we um because I think um maybe to pick up on the mayor's point, we heard a little tension in the

meeting last month and so we're at the staff level uh I was trying to kind of ascertain where the tension was or what the tension was and I'm not sure if I heard tension but I think there is maybe um

if I'm missing something let me know. So, since the last meeting, just a quick briefing on what staff's been up to is uh we did meet with the development community. Uh we've been keeping pretty close

to the um building and um BIA uh building in forget what the I stands for. um the homebuilders and um and so we did meet with them. Uh we've been meeting with them somewhat periodically because

obviously the development building community uses these codes most frequently. And um the concerns and comments we've been receiving today are in line with what staff's comments and concerns are and

it has to do with interpretations and we can highlight some of those with you today. um some of the interpretations and clarity about um what I would call some of the design treatments or the openings

and the transparency and the activation some of these terminology and um and so we do we haven't heard anything too um unexpected so far from the development community the uh since then too Um Kim and

Mark have been working on um so Christy Dodson, I'm not sure if you've all had a chance to meet with her, but she was with Code Studio now full-time with CZB. Um she now is one of our primary contacts

on the on the project and she and Matt and Kim and Mark have been uh um starting um about two weeks ago meeting uh four to six hours uh about four hours a week to try to get the red lining if you will

of the document. And so, uh, the goal would be to have a, um, kind of a codifiable version by January, um, that we could, um, hopefully I'll I'll live with. Uh, we have had to adjust the consultant

time, if you will, and so we have decided to skip the break the code session and in order to keep in budget and um, yet to come, so in December, we can start to talk about the mapping. So, part of

this will include mapping all of the city uh with u the new zoning districts and uh we've started to see some preliminary versions of that, but it's going to um I think we'll we need to introduce that

to the public and to you all in a more formal way. Um we we've been so focused on getting the code language right, we haven't had a chance to get to the um u mapping itself. And then uh to Art's

point, uh we do want to start to talk about what an overlapping transition might look like. So the development community, you know, they're pushed against 2027. So they're already pulling building

permits and development permits for 2027. So they want to know which building codes to or zoning codes to work within. And um so they work with the old one or the new one. The new one is a lot of

times more in their favor um more in staff's favor. But um as we look work with the right hand being in one universe and the left hand being in a different universe, you know, staff capacity and um

development understanding of either or we want to talk to the attorneys about that and and maybe give an optional test period, if you will, or an optional choice, if you will. So, we haven't talked to

our city attorneys about that, but that is that would be the goal of of building an overlapping period of time to give some choice. And um again, the goal would be if all proceeds forward um beginning

hearings in February with the planning commission and um city commission in March. And so there's quite a bit to achieve between now and then. We've got um Kim roughly working on it 70% of the time

ideally, Mark 50% of the time and myself 20% of the time. Uh given um every day there's new triages and permit um mandates that that take us off that goal. But um we'll see how the rest of this month

goes with u in November and should be able to report back in December how how the timeline is is working. There are um the last on the agenda was kind of an some unresolved items. Uh we talked a

little bit about this last time. We do feel like the the consultants have missed a little bit and one of the first orders of expectations was a design district that we can do by right and um basically

to mimic our conditional overlays and our conditional use permits without all of the meaty inbetweens. And um right now as it's drafted in the code that by right design would come with incentives and

that's not really the goal. We want a design district that we can do by right and get us out of the weeds of a conditional overlay. And then um I'd say there's a lot of administrative steps that are a

little bogggy right now in our current code and we'd like to streamline some of those things. uh the sign code, the landscape standards, historic preservation standards, um basically are quiet right

now. We want to those don't quite work in our current code. There's some drafts in the in the draft code um but we know those are maybe out of order and have some public feedback on those items, I'm

guessing. And then um the parking standards and the res residential living definitions. These are tension points that exist right now that we're working on languaging for those that are going to get a

little tricky as we find the right size for our community. So, um that's a little bit of a staff update open, you know, willing to open the floor. Mark or others might have others to share and um if

you wanted um Art and others, we can kind of go back to uh diving into the residential standards. And we have the we don't have the computer here, but um the the um oh yeah the monitor there um to we

can pull up the draft and and talk through those andor maybe talk through some of those design standards a little bit as we kind of got feedback from the development community as well. >> A quick

question. When you say development community, what do you mean? Who is that? Um that is uh mostly um I would say our um engineers, architects, uh developers, you know, as they as folks get uh land

entitlements and permits. Um those are the ones using the codes on a daily basis. Obviously, we have a bigger general public neighborhood outreach um our boards and commissions um have been part of

this as well. And um but in terms of the um whether something measures 18 feet or 20 feet or um these kind of details and how things are interpreted become um >> so are these um these are private

enterprises right? >> Yes. >> And then are you guys meeting with them by their appointment or are you guys reaching out to them individually or are they group sessions or >> I'd say a little bit of

both. Yeah. >> Okay. And then when you say uh 2027 building season, what is how is that defined? >> Uh I would say uh like permits are coming in right now to build in 2027. And so bidding for uh

construction and development, housing, apartment buildings, et start to come in now for next build construction season. Yeah, I would say 2027 would be when the frost is out in 27 to about today next

year. That that window. >> Nicole, one question that I had while you were talking is um you know, we talked about getting to that 80%, but we might get some things not quite right, you know, right off

the bat. What does that updating process look like? Are we going to look at doing that on a yearly basis or is there some kind of structure around what that will be like moving forward? [clears

throat] >> Approximately January 2011, we stopped doing annual updates. And really what we did with the land development code prior to that for a good decade was we we would keep this list of things

that might not work right easy wording changes and then we'd kind of lump them all in the in the winter time when the building permits go down then we'd kind of work through them as a group. You know

I'd say maybe once every other year there's a pretty hot topic that we had to address and somehow come to some sort of conclusions. our our code got so out of date because we stopped doing that for

several years is probably half the reason why it needed to be re rewritten and and you know I think you've heard us say before we we took a couple whacks at commercial what we called commercial design

district back in the day and kind of got shut down and then that that commercial design district in essence turned into the overlays that we see today. Um, and really the the creation of those

overlays was uh to soften the development a little bit because we understood that they were going to be more integrated with residential uses and it wasn't so autoentric and that that's kind of why

those conditional overlays came about and um I think this code the new code takes a good whack at at that uh and does a very good representation of pulling out the old code to be able to get to that

that 80% you know in the beginning of this process like the first land development code the the the rule of thumb was we weren't going to do and I I was here after the new land development code was

implemented um we weren't going to touch it for a year and really kind of push the hard spots and see if this is where we wanted to go in in this document since there's somewhat of a unique change as

far as integrating a lot of these uses together based on how the foundation of our growth plan is. Um, I'm really anticipating maybe having a 3 or 4 month period that we say we think some things are

coming up and actually making some decisions at that six-month period and then see how that works. Um, the transitional period, uh, we're still throwing around some good ideas on that, um, and how

that works. Other communities have done that, uh, and I think it works well. I I do believe that I don't think we're going to see much people doing either or. I I do believe that our the new proposed

zoning districts accommodates pretty much everything that we're seeing today in the development world. Um but having that flexibility based on the fact that you know the design of a project was

started before this was actually adopted I think is a really good idea to bring everybody along. Um, my biggest fear is creating a zoning district that creates a bunch of non-conformities out there

and that gets to be really difficult for the city to deal with when it comes to the financial institutions requesting zoning compliance letters and can't be reconstructed and it just so I think one of

the heavy lifts in here is making sure we're not creating non-conformities as we're creating these no new zoning districts. >> Well, that makes sense. I think I just want to make sure we don't go back

to going 10 years or whatever time length where we're not looking forward to some updates and you know I I don't know if that's like written that every year there has to be some up I shouldn't say

have to be but there's an opportunity for updates or things like that so that it's it doesn't just get put on the back burner or that we aren't you know and we want to keep this being a living

document or >> and historically you know I I know I know the updates It's probably shouldn't be a knee-jerk reactions. Historically, sometimes we have some headstrong developers that want everything

and not don't want to give anything. And and I would say prior to 2011, what we would do is say, "Okay, that that's the direction you really want to go. Apply for a text amendment and we'll process

it." and they I would say the last four three four five years you know we've been discouraging that knowing that this land development code rewrite was coming and and we didn't want to preemptively

make a change in land development code that set the stage for how the growth plan was going to be established and the new land development code was going to be established because then they would say

well three years ago you did this text amendment so you should copy it and and we've had a couple unique projects that have come in that that just didn't quite fit the muster of anything. But yet the

dimensional standards that were being requested seemed like it all benefited the property owner and didn't really benefit the community. And um I think that's how that's probably going to be managed.

I think the the timeline has has become a little bit longer uh because I feel like it's extremely important to bring the community along with this adoption of this new land development code. And um I

I think you know between last planning commission and this planning commission we're actually getting some solid feedback of what is worried people are worrying about what they're not worrying about

and and I I I feel the frustrations from CCB and and our culture and it's it's kind of a joke but when our culture says oh yeah that sounds it really means I'm not sure about that. And then then what

happens is you hear somebody else saying, "Well, I talked to them and they said it's horrible." It's like, well, I talked to them last week and they said it's great. So reading through our culture to

be able to make sure what people are comfortable with and not comfortable with. If people would just be straight up and say, "No, this section is horrible, Mark. Work on it." I'd rather that than have

this soft talk of, "Oh, it's wonderful." because because that's what sets us back and extends our timeline too. >> North Dakota nice is a thing. >> Well, and I think just to add to it, uh I think and

maybe uh the planning commission meeting last month kind of fell into this a bit. Um I think it's important to remember this is not a visioning document. You know, the visioning experience happened

with the growth plan and that this is the regulating document that goes with the visioning document. And so we spend a lot of space in the it'd be nice to have space or how do we get the the thing and

um but we're really trying to get the tees crossed and the eyes dotted so we can um get as as good a language as we can as clear language as we can with the codes and um so that we think about the

implementation being fair and equitable and nonarbitrary. And so it's it's as much land use law as it is um you know I mean that's really kind of where we're at in the ordinance drafting. And so we

kind of lose the public when it comes to talking details of law versus visioning. And um and so that's a little bit of um kind of the the public feedback so far. Yeah, I mean I I assume we're going to

have some issues with this residential living definition because that seems to be a always, you know, a problem with neighbors and I mean it it's it's what we we deal with on on that. Yeah, maybe the

latest the latest on that real quick because I'm not sure if you've all received emails, but there's um some strong advocacy on so the maybe a little bit of history on that. Um the state has uh state

health and human services, I believe, has some new standards uh permitting licenses that they're trying to deinstitutionalize, if you will, um adult foster care. Uh in fact, you're going to see some

planning cases coming in front of you. Um the types of uh care needs in single family houses. And so as you define these type of living situations, uh I think there was one a few years ago um in

Golden Valley neighborhood that was um the community was quite opposed to. And then as we look at other types of care treatment what it whether it's treatment centers, residential treatment centers,

sober living, they all have kind of different terminology. And so probably myself, the [snorts] code inspections and Megan Elsag um spend quite a bit of time in interpreting definitions on is it

overnight living? Is it more than one week living? Is it, you know, are you signing a lease? Is the caregiver living there? Um do the caregivers have cars? you know, so as we define these details,

we're trying to make interpretations and um it gets a little wonky. So, we were able to work with our consultants to get better languaging and understand kind of where those tees are crossed, eyes

dotted. The Lincoln neighborhood is quite um communicative and advocate of defining these because they have some new housing in their neighborhood that is causing concerns in the neighborhood and some

um tensions if you will and um they they have a new permanent supportive housing at the YW.CA CA and um and so there's a lot there's some friction and not unlike what we've seen in other neighborhoods

and whenever you have an institutional uh land owner with single family there's transition conflicts and so the goal would be the land development code helps clarify some of these statements so we get

a little better definitions and uh obviously there's fair housing laws and um civil rights laws and other types of um constitutional protections in there. And so luckily we have consultants for that

to give us those proposals that we have now. They're not in the current draft right now, but we're working on getting those more defined. We have a technical memo we're working with and um you'll be

seeing that somewhat in the near future. Well, I I mean I I think one of the things I think it would be a little bit more helpful is I see part of the schedule, but I mean can we drill down a little

bit more on what our schedule schedule looks like? You know, by December the next meeting, are we going to have a map? I mean what what you know I know we talked about having the developers you know

are talking about one more meeting before the end of the year and if we're going to codify this in January just kind of can we kind of shoot through the specific process so that we can figure out how

we can help and what's what we got to do to to get here so that we're not uh waking up in January going we're not ready yet. we gotta go to February or March again because we didn't get these meetings

scheduled or something. >> I think right now it's it's really diving into this code. So, you know, the the iteration we have right now is a second iteration. Um we've had a bunch of comments to

incorporate in that second iteration that haven't been codified at this point. um a as well as some of it's a little disconnected. You know, I think I've said this before, the organization of this new

code is phenomenal. Um but what we ended up doing is taking our old code and kind of placing it in the new layout of the new code and we're still going over what's in our old code that we didn't

really like or didn't [clears throat] work very well. And um you know, I would say maybe mid December we'll probably have a better idea where this third iteration is going to be. My goal is this third

iteration is going to be that 80% that that we've talked about. Um and and at that point it's going to really establish what zonings transition into what zonings. And I know there's always been talk

about well we don't want a transitional zoning like you know SR2 goes to RHA. Um but to some aspect we do. the the the goal of reszoning the entire city is to cut the line off from that old land

development code and that old zoning with this brand new zoning because in the past the city's always been put in the position of well that was RHA or R1 at one time and you could have donkeys in the

backyard so I should have a donkey and it's like well no your house was built in 94 and that code wasn't applicable anymore so the idea of reszoning everything is to terminate that looking at the

dimensional standards here. Um, I would say there's this is going to be a lot more accommodating to what how how our community is built as well as where it's going to go in the future. The the one

thing that we've noticed is there's some areas that maybe we've put too many restrictions on, but then there's also some areas that we've just cut all sorts of restrictions. So, we need to really

write the ship on both of those. Um, and you know, kind of when I look at this is, you know, maybe codifying what we're getting today that's good versus trying to set the bar of perfect and then see

where that goes. You know, we when you look at how, you know, south of interstate has developed over the last 25, 30 years, you know, the development industry is bringing to some degree decent

developments in. Um, this may not prevent any everything, but the time we start seeing those really, really ugly things, that's when we probably should do that text amendment annually and wedge that

into this code to be able to prevent that from happening in the community. That's how I see it unfolding. >> So, you're feeling pretty good that we've got enough response from everyone that's been

submitting. I mean, what's what's the submissions been looking like, Kim? From the website and sent to the CZB and sent to you guys because we don't see that. So, I don't know what that level has

been. >> We've had nice participation. I I feel like it it's hard because depending on who's commenting, some folks are very specific on a topic, some folks have very broad guidance or or wish list

and then there's a very select few that are very pointed in the in the things. And so reconcil reconciling where's that balance of as you may have heard Mark or Nicole say, you know, like making sure

that we're we're considering all of the the feedback, but then weighing if this person wants this extreme and this person wants this extreme, where's that that middle that that our community can get

behind? And so we're in that phase of >> because I think the people that have been using that use the code every day and that their living is dependent on this code I think have been pretty active and

I think they've been fairly responsive not just showing up for meetings and talking about it but actually submitting the BIA and everybody else I I think has been submitting their concerns directly on

a you know dimensional things all those things that we're not just meeting to meet and talk about it but It's getting they're getting the information to you to at least review and look at from >>

correct. >> I would say uh you know we this is an overgeneralization but uh I would say there's you recognize it from planning commission. You know there's probably about 10 permit applicants that you

see >> maybe a dozen I'll round up you know that you know day-to-day that you'll see the planning commission cases on. So, they've been very closely involved and and I would say from a um you know, we

probably only have about 10 to 12 comments submitted from them, you know, usually in a letter format with an outline of a list of things and and some of it is just clarity and then they've been coming

to the public meetings when the consultants have been here, spent some one-on-one time with the consultants to just make sure they understand wording and interpretation. Um, and then I would say

there's probably another um, you know, 8 to 10 comments that I've seen from the general public uh, that are maybe more issue specific related to affordable housing, maybe open spaces, group living.

So, they're going to be very issue specific based on maybe an an an ailment or an component they see is missing in our community based on a on a vision. what our consultants do have um that we can

bring in December is um a spreadsheet of these comments and just so you see them and when I first saw the spreadsheet I'm like is that it you know and um and so um you know I think there was so much

openhouse in the growth plan and we have to remember um you know the growth plan consultant rolled right into the LDC development and so I think from a from a general public member they may not know

the difference between which item we're working on. And so, um, but I would say the comments are pretty minor so far. Uh, again, we haven't, um, gone into depth on the sign code. I assume, um, the

sign industry is known to be very, um, uh, deep, I guess, um, consistent. We have uh one sign provider that's started to uh submit some comments. You might individually get direct comments on those.

And then um as we talk about historic preservation um as well and I know um Commissioner Gl has got a lot of history with um HPC and uh as really start to talk about the way historic preservation

works today is there's overlay districts on different parts of the the core neighborhoods and those codes and the um the standards as well as lack of conditions. um are very arbitrary and so they're

not very consistent. And then the next part of that is when there is a violation, we don't have the tools to correct the action. And so, you know, they're written in a time period where we maybe

didn't have the um correct legal um setup as successful as possible. We think we have some remedies for that with the RHH district um that is in this in the zoning code and so how that lays on the map

and then the criteria and conditions related to how the HPC works um I I see some discussions for that moving forward. So that's a very detailed in-depth conversation and probably as we get into those

deep dives on certain topics um it might be um I think those can kind of go alongside with the work that Kim and Mark are doing. And so, um, there's probably side what I would consider more sidebar

conversations that we can have, um, in group settings and and find out because there's members beyond the planning commission that are going to have a big say in those topics. >> If we're looking at

that December, mid Decemberish kind of time frame to get as close to, you know, 80%, let's just keep calling it that, you know, document out. You know, when you look at the end result items, they're

pretty heavy lifting elements that are still left. Do you guys really feel confident that in about a month's time that that significant amounts of progress on all of those items can be made? Do you

have the ability, the time, staff, etc. to hit them all? I just worry from a a practicality like parking is a a big one and a big bear all in itself. sign code absolutely the you know design by right

like these aren't little sections >> I would say this iteration number two is extremely difficult to digest the way it's written right now because it's so disconnected and you know when I say 80% it's

going to be that copy that more connects everything and you know ramps up where we cut too far and ramps down where we set the bar too high. >> Sure. >> And and you know, that's going to be the

document of okay, here here are the parameters and here's how it connects. You know, when you start looking into the the uses and what they're outlined in the one sheet are different than what the

definitions are in the back. So now we're saying what's a three plus building and what's a multif family building or multi-dwelling building. Sure. >> And where do those belong? So our 80% is is going

to rectify all of that. So the whole code is speaking together. >> I don't know if that really answers the question. >> I think to your point though, Tracy, uh uh and to I think uh Art's point, um I

think what I'll do is follow up from this meeting with a list of milestones. And in any good project management, um if we don't hit those milestones, everything else is down downhill, right? Um or

pushing out. And so um the project I mean, as you can tell, and it sounds like we're talking in circles, but the project management on this has been extremely difficult and probably um uh I'll just

say difficult and hard to achieve. And we're learn you know we knew going into it is going to be an iterative process and we don't know what we don't know and as we learn along the way and find those

we knew what we needed from a technical component but in terms of um the uh right sizing it and the communication translation into modern-day planning practices cannot be underestimated on how

difficult that is for our community and for staff And so what if I could take two seconds to explain um so we're basically transitioning this into from a a type of zoning called uklitian zoning single

source zoning is what we call it and uh we're translating this we're the first in this part of the country to translate it to more of a formbbased code keeping up with the rest of the country and so

this is a formbbased code light l ght you know >> hybrid >> hybrid is what Mark will say. Mark doesn't like me using the word formbbase and forbase is not a polit politically savvy word. Um but um but

basically what that's allowing us to do is mix the uses and just wherever and and focus on the form and location and the st type. Um this is all new for us. And so um you know Mark and I I graduated

in the early 90s, Mark graduated in the mid 90s. uh Donald a little bit after that and so none of us went to school for this type of zoning and um we all went to school as ukodian zoning and so um

Mark's laughing but um so just to nerd out a little bit on planning um it gets tricky as we kind of upturn the apple cart all over and we were hoping to more fully overturn the apple cart but we're

not going to be because it's also change is hard and so now we're going to you know because what I write means is we're measuring different things than we used to measure and as a designer designs

their site layouts their site and what is their primary organizing principle what the new code is saying is blocks block length pedestrian access and layout of the site is how it organizes the site um

I'm looking at the two architects in the room you know you generally appro you know your clients approach that in a somewhat different type of way. And so we're translating how we how we do things.

What we're finding in the new draft, it may be over pushed us in a new way of thinking that we maybe are ready for right now is how I would translate it. And I can translate that even more. And then

to make matters worse, we talked a little bit about this last time is version two that was published in August and version one that was published in April. Um, I'll just say from a staff perspective,

we're disappointed in those outputs in meeting what we thought we were going to get. And so to bring Dan along and others that maybe missed that part is we didn't get the end product that we wanted.

And so back in April and so we're correcting a version, there's like four versions out there right now that um are hybrids of everything. And and so we're in a difficult challenge in it. So to lay it

all out from project management perspective, we'll lay out some milestones, we think we can get to the end and in an agreed upon end and and then take care of the rest later. >> So and I think to add

to that real quick, um you know, we have two zoning districts that are hybrid and I would say pretty much every single overlay that has been approved for the last 10 to 15 years is a hybrid zoning. So

it's not like it's a new concept. the city's been utilizing. >> So, are versions and iterations the same thing? >> Yes. >> And then what what triggers a new iteration and how many iterations do you

think you'll have until the final product? I I think that was a vocabulary word that I made up. You know, we had our first actual land development code given to us in April and then we had the

modifications in August. That's where I was calling one, two. Okay. I anticipate that third iteration somewhere being December end of December which probably is going to need some tweaking with the

fourth iteration that's probably going to be the one that's implemented >> and version two was supposed to be 100%. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And so the version three is going to be based off of the

comments that you guys have received already. Okay. >> Yeah. And I think the other thing that has slowed this down too is is we really didn't have that concrete affirmation from the community of yeah,

we think you're right or we don't think you're right. And we didn't we haven't gotten that until be between last planning commission until now. So we've redlined up through article 5 in the second

iteration. Um but we just wanted to make sure what our hunches were consistent with the community and what the public is thinking too. and and we've got that in the last month. >> And then is there a

new I mean with each version is there a communication strategy you go you go through and a process for that I imagine. Yeah. >> Yeah absolutely. Um first of all on a monthly basis we're probably

overdue for one we have the virtual code connects and then the idea is that the consultants come to town and then we have focus group meetings public meetings open houses press releases etc. Yeah. And

is there a established deadline? Sorry. >> Uh we're past that deadline, but that's where some of the tension point was from last week uh or last month. But um the new deadline we're we're giving

ourselves is um I'll just say, you know, version three, we'll call it um being by the end of December um early January. >> No, but for the final implementation. >> Oh, is there a goal for that? I I

I'm hoping February, March, April, >> and that would be, you know, B4 here. Um the hearings for February planning commission and and the hearing for city commission March >> anticipating seeing, you

know, how the horizon looks that February, March, April, planning commission and city commission for adoption. I think is fairly realistic. But um I think we need to give a lot of importance to make

sure the community is with us because we don't want a bunch of pitchforks and torches at our planning commission meeting, you know. So so there's a compromise there and and I know people cringe when I

say that, but until everyone's equally disappointed in this code is when it's actually ready for us to adopt. >> Yeah, that is good. Yeah. [laughter] I would just like to go back briefly to the 80% uh

issue that that what does it mean to be at 80% and I'm looking at the unresolved items especially the sign code the landscape standards and the historic preservation standards all three of those

fields really have um an expertise a field of uh of knowledge that is really I think outside of the main planning trajectory. And so I don't know how to deal with all of those those three things, but

I think each of them needs a special I don't know task force or or discussion at any rate. Um that's outside of the overall 80% um goal because all those three things are going to take a lot of

discussion. >> Yeah, I would agree with you on that. Um however, we also have a historic approval amongst the planning commission, city commission on some of these um areas where they developed and

and I think you can see the goals of some areas want to be more autoentric, some areas don't want want to be more pedestrian oriented. I think that's going to establish some of those parameters and

and I would drive down Main Avenue. Do you want Main Avenue signage on 32nd Avenue South or 52nd Avenue South? And I think we should be able to mold that. >> Well, and what I can do are u maybe I

don't want to speak ahead of you, but um maybe just to answer Paul's question real quick. I think we have answers for those three things that um and we can introduce that, right? We can we have about

10 minutes and so we can deep dive on those if you'd like or >> that's fine. So, for the sign code real quick, just so the public hears us at the same time, too. Um, back in, um, for those that might

remember, um, back in when was that? 20 >> 20 >> 2011 >> 2011, uh, we overhauled our sign code and it was a bloody blood bath. [laughter] And, um, and so we don't think it's all that off in terms of

our existing sign code. is just translating it to the right words that match the words in the current code. And so um uh when we talk about instead of SR and MX zoning districts that are in the draft

code versus the SRM and so it's the translation of the intention. So it's a technical translation issue. However, if we as a community want to talk about portable signs, um that might be a whole

parking lot item, um or I call it parking lot item, but a you know, a set aside thing. Um and if you the planning commission or the public thinks there's anything broken in our current sign code, we

should talk about that. It's a little bit again on the visioning space, but we haven't heard too much negative on the existing sign standards. There's some out of compliance existing standards that

exist in our community, but it's a whole different discussion. So, I don't think we're too far off on the sign code. Um, in landscape standards, we think there was a translation issue between the old

code and the new draft or the current code and the new draft. and um and it has to do with open space standards and front yard landscaping. So, in our current code, there's a tension point on how the

standards sit in the new draft. And what the proposed draft talks about is um recognizing that tension we heard of 70% in the front yard is the standard in today. And so you'll see people site their

buildings accordingly so that they can shove all their landscaping in the right in the like the front front space and they end up it ends up overturning what's maybe a good layout for the site itself.

Um what the current draft proposes is, you know, kind of to try in order to incent, if you will, buildings get closer to the street and reducing that parking lot in the front to focus on streetscape

and um things like that. And from a staff comment level, we don't think that's enough by I think the the current draft overstated and eliminated open space standards. And I don't think that's the

intention of what our community wants, but we can talk about that in deep dive with the planning commission, the public. And then in historic preservation standards, I think, um, from the overlay

standards, um, I think I do agree. I think we need to um and that was going to be next on my list is uh I need to connect with the historic preservation commission and and probably have a joint

meeting or um we have some um governance things on our historic preservation right now. Our chair had just stepped down and and um retired if you will and so we're kind of got some governance things

but um uh we're kind of waiting for this last election to to get through that. So, uh, but I think the historic preservation standards are, um, I think if you look at the RH, that's really the the

standards we were trying to to to aim for. >> I think we're getting closer. >> When we talk about signs, is it just street signs or is it advertisement signs? >> All the above, you know, building

signs, billboards, freestanding signs, um, all the above. Nicole, you mentioned that, you know, you want to talk to us about these items and get our feedback, but you know, obviously it's been like 52

minutes talking about process here in this meeting, but I think something I really liked about last month's um first hours, we we did that kind of deep dive to get that feedback when, you know, we

only went through two of the districts and we had good discussion on that. But is is the intent that each month we're going to return into that deep dive to solicit that feedback? I just don't know

when we you mentioned trying to get our feedback on the open space and the parking in the front and I I just don't know when we're supposed to give those comments. Um if we talk about process the

whole time which is it's great to talk about the process but we obviously are kind of running out of time here to kind of freely talk about it. >> Absolutely. And I think there's a couple different

ways to look at this. Um there there is a lot being transcribed that works in the old code, you know, so there's a lot of legalities in the old code that honestly are fairly robust and has kept us out

of lawsuits. Um so we have that component that transposed over. We also have the historical component of what traditionally planning commission has approved and what we're looking at. um to to

sidetrack on on the the landscaping that Nicole's talking about and that this is why we're kind of struggling with this, you know, um up there by the NDSU. Um this is where I think the pendulum swung

too far and axing stuff. They they pretty much transcribed the new zoning district to have zero setback. Um and if and it didn't require any parking. So technically, if you had zero setback and no

parking, you're not required a parking buffer. And then if you're if you don't have a a zone that you're transitioning to in the back, you don't have a transition zone. So effectively, um now wouldn't

require any zone any landscaping at all. And I do think that three plant units uh per thousand square foot has worked fairly well. So it's it's to work on those and to be able to say, okay, here's

where we're at. Now, I would say if there's an urge to completely modify what the old code, you know, maybe we want 10 plant units per thousand square foot or 100 plant units or something on that

order. I think those are some good discussions to be able to have, but otherwise, I think we're we're we're kind of trying to guide the ship based on historically what the planning commission has

approved, where we've gone and um following some of these conditional overlays. So like and and right now it's very difficult because last last month we went over RHA and RHB. Well, after the work

that we've done in the last two weeks, there's going to be RHA, RHB, and RHC. And RHA is pretty much going to be SR2. RHB is going to be SR3 and RHC is going to be SR4 and SR5 combined. So as we're

still kind of meshing this, um I think we're going to have we're going we're going to be close that we can start going through this. And I I think some people want to go through it page by page. Some

people just want to generally, you know, look at us and document, give us feedback. And so I think we're open for anything. >> Yeah. I think once that third iteration's done, that third thing's done.

And I think what we should do is what we've done before, which is, you know, block off the 3 4 hour window and kind of invite the planning commissioners that are available to do that one final time to

kind of run through that and kind of go line, you know, line by section by section, I should say. Not really line by line, but then um try to get that done before um hopefully if we can get if we

can't I mean my thought is that we can get it done if you can get it done before you know mid January or mid December so it could be read. and have something some meeting before the planning

commission meeting on January then we can if it isn't going to get done we don't have time then we do it in January and we approve it in February but um I think we we need to have that one period of

time to kind of take the final swath at it before it becomes version four take version three and and go through it and invite the commission that's available to come down and do that and then

hopefully by then we'll also have the sign commission, the sign stuff, the historic preservation, the sidebyside things that you're talking about, Nicole, as Mark and Kim are drilling through this

other part of it that we have enough together. Because that's why I thought if we can have enough together and we can get it scheduled and have a meeting before January, great. If we can't, but we'll

just kick it into January and go to a February approval. and um because I'm not comfortable with approving it without having that one period of time where we invite everybody. It's not required or

expected, but you're certainly more than welcome to sit down and and go through that because I think that was pretty helpful last >> last month just to look at a little section. But um it kind of and

then we'll just break it down into to uh you know 15 minute increments whatever half hour on each section and kind of run it down and go we got a 4 hour window and this is what we're going to cover >>

and do that if that's okay with you guys. Mhm. >> And I think if if we are planning on getting the the map in December is always is helpful too just so we can kind of >> instead of just looking out of

here and hypothetically talking about where this could be, we could actually like this is the university area and then this is maybe a reach but if we had like solid examples of when you mentioned

Mark about the plant units in the university mixed use area like a picture of a a 3plex or whatever that's like this one is just all parking. And there's like you know this is not what we want. We

want to have like a tree here like and that's how we're achieving it in the new code. Like I think having just very good examples that are just very clear so we all are comfortable approving what it

is instead of just just talking about it is helpful if it's possible. Right. I think the map is at least a really good first step of knowing what we're talking about when we say like this is bad

development here. Um this is how we're going to reszone it or things like that. >> And and I think uh you know behind the scenes as we're working on that I think that's all starting to come together

very well. And again I'm going to reiterate the fact that it's very challenging for the city when we create nonconformity. So we're also trying to trying to identify the good development and making

sure it's not conformity. [clears throat] You know the bad developments we're ready to scrap and say okay when you update this you need to modify it. Um when you talk about the umu throughout the last

15 years or when it was about 15 years ago um was created um we also saw that as a benefit to be able to encourage denser residential throughout the entire city. But the connotation of university

mixed use was really hard to resone a property south of 32nd Avenue when there's not a university around there. So I think one of the components in here that will make that a little bit more universal

maybe and maybe we might be able to use that in our centers to be able to encourage that higher density, you know, reinvestment type. >> Well, it's 3:00, so let's adjourn here and get the planning

commission