00:00:08,900	4:00 Verizon time. Today is Thursday, March 12th and that is the appointed time. And we’re at the appointed place at Tom Baker Meeting Room for the March meeting of the Renaissance Zone Authority. I’m the chair, Jim Christiansen.

00:00:23,400	I see that we have a quorum present, but we will call the roll soon. Or Sue. Sorry, Sandra. Sue at the parking. That’s. Greg Zenker here. Steve Bakken here. Bernice Zalewski here. Amelia doll here. Kirsten Dvorak here. Nancy guy. Kate Herzog here. John Lee, chair Christensen here. So we do have a quorum. We will proceed with the meeting. Thank you. Everybody.

00:00:48,030	Um, first item of business would be the approval of the last meeting, which was November 13th, 2025. Any comments? Questions, changes, corrections, move to approve. Second. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye aye. Opposed. Same sign. That motion carries. I abstain. Okay. Okay. You wasn’t here. That’s all. Right. Bernice. Epstein’s, um, public comment.

00:01:12,470	Is anyone here wishing to comment on anything? I don’t see anyone. Anyone wishing to comment on anything on our agenda today. If not, we will move on to the regular agenda. Before we do that, I’d like to welcome our newest member, Bernice Tulowitzki. Yes. So welcome.

00:01:30,200	Do you want to tell the board a little bit about yourself and your glorious background. and tell the public. that’s eager to learn about. Bernice? Um, I’m not sure what you what you want. Oh, um, I am retired, uh, moved to Bismarck ten years ago. Um, spent a career in public service. Um, as, uh, in urban planning and public management. So I’m looking forward to working again.

00:02:00,630	Um, in building a community and where I live. And I’ve always been passionate about downtown areas. Thank you. Um, so looking forward to this. Welcome. Thank you. And for those of you who don’t know, Bernice was actually city manager of a fairly large city in Kansas.

00:02:20,270	Uh, I was the deputy county manager of Johnson County, Kansas, outside of Kansas City. So she knows how to deal with all these. Rules. All right. We’ll move on to item three on the regular agenda, which there is no regular agenda. So we’ll move on to item four.

00:02:39,200	Other business four A is an update on the downtown sections of the Land Development Code. Isaac is going to help us with that. Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Christiansen and authority members. I hope you all enjoyed your break from meetings over the winter, and now we are getting back into it with something a little out of the ordinary. There are no regular agenda.

00:02:58,670	Uh, RZ projects or downtown design review projects, but as planning staff are getting closer to finalizing our land development code adoption. Um, just wanted to bring this back to your attention, sort of as a reminder or an update or an introduction on some things.

00:03:20,600	We’re going to keep this sort of high level, um, don’t necessarily need, um, specific input from you if you don’t feel like you have input at this time, but certainly open to input whenever you might have thoughts, comments or questions.

00:03:35,070	So just going to keep this fairly high level going to review some of the existing zoning code in a near downtown, and then get into how that kind of compares to what the new downtown sections would say, and then also review some of the downtown or design review guidelines, as well as the an overview of what the proposed guidelines would be, how those might be different. And then I have a couple questions for you for which staff are requesting specific input for food for thought.

00:03:57,470	So first things first, of course. Uh, as far as the downtown goes right now, it is just that darker purple and the lighter purple, the darker purple being the downtown core, lighter purple kind of being the downtown fringe.

00:04:14,000	But the reason I have it at this, uh, this image at this extent is because the downtown is going to shift a little bit in terms of size. It is be a little bigger in terms of what the zoning would call downtown. Um, you’ll also notice that it’s not necessarily coloring all of the parcels in this case, but rather going along the street frontages.

00:04:34,870	This is because downtown as a whole, most things will be the same regardless for the parcel, regardless of where it is, what street it is on. But there are some things as it pertains to that street frontage and the public realm. From the street. There are some details there.

00:04:54,600	So this is sort of combining in some aspects of the downtown streetscape standards as well as downtown design Review, putting it in ordinance a little bit. The colors here are meant to be pretty similar to the streetscape hierarchy that is listed in the downtown streetscape standards, so the orange color there, we’re calling Downtown Signature.

00:05:13,900	That’s meant to be kind of the most pedestrian friendly, the most pedestrian oriented of streets where you would commonly see shopfronts and things like that. The darker purple is the downtown general. Most districts, I will say, will have pretty similar uses, you know, identical uses with some variations a little bit. The Downtown General is the next highest, uh, pedestrian oriented area after downtown signature.

00:05:39,470	The blue or teal color kind of off to the east side there. That is downtown Medical, where we have a lot of the hospitals and hospital systems in that area. The lighter purple downtown fringe, pretty similar to what we have for downtown fringe right now.

00:05:55,700	And then I don’t know if it shows up particularly well on the screens there, but along seventh Street or ninth Street, for example, you’ll see some gray there. That’s downtown corridor, meaning, you know, we know those are higher traffic streets. We don’t expect those to be as pedestrian oriented in nature.

00:06:14,230	So the reason that we have this area for downtown is not by accident. It is not just the whims of US planners, but it does come from our future land use plan. So on the left side here, that is that first image.

00:06:37,330	The existing zoning districts and that big dashed black line is the boundary of what would become downtown under the tentatively proposed map on the right hand side. That’s what we saw. Also, those proposed downtown subdistricts. And so then here that’s overlaid on top of the future land use plan, where that kind of teal green color is what the future land use plan calls as downtown.

00:06:55,800	So this is something that’s been established as far as we would expect. This area, given trends that we’ve seen during the comprehensive Plan process in the future.

00:07:13,400	Land use plan process that has was it was decided at that time, during all those public engagement events, that, yeah, this seems to be the most downtown or likely to turn into downtown in the future. So we’re matching up the downtown subdistricts with that. It’s not a perfect 1 to 1, um, comparison, but it is, you know, mostly they’re mostly close.

00:07:33,330	So then getting into some of the lot standards and this was included in your packets as well. Every, uh, sub, every district on the current zoning code side of things that is included here. So we have the downtown core, downtown fringe, the CG commercial, the Mar industrial and the HRM health medical. So as you can see, there’s, you know, quite a bit of variation in terms of minimum lot size.

00:07:57,670	I, I tried to summarize this well while also capturing that there is variation. There are exceptions to things across the various districts. The 5000ft or 7000ft you see in numerous districts.

00:08:15,270	That is a stipulation in the code right now, depending on when an area was platted, if it was before 1953, it says 5000ft. If it’s after 1953, it’s a 7000ft. Same thing with the lot width you see on some of those districts. Um, that 1953, you know, time boundary, if it’s before that, 50ft after that 60ft, um, the front yards, some of the you’ll see asterisks along a lot of this.

00:08:35,630	That means exceptions do exist. Meaning, you know, for the CG, for example, the standard is 15ft for a front yard setback. But there are some areas, not necessarily in this area close to downtown, but some areas elsewhere where the code says, well, actually, if it’s along this street, it must be 50ft

00:08:52,670	rather than 15ft. So trying to summarize while also having some nuance here, but then if you look to the right of the screen on the proposed LDC draft. So as I mentioned, there are some subdistricts, there are some variation between those subdistricts.

00:09:13,030	But in general, um, we’ll see a lot of the similar things across all of them. We are currently proposing, uh, no minimum lot size specifically, and focusing more on the street frontage. So there will still be a minimum lot with that 25ft. That is what a lot of this area was originally platted as, 25 foot lots.

00:09:31,170	So that’s why that number was chosen. But in terms of whether the lot would be, you know, 2500ft, 5000ft, 10,000ft, we’re not focusing as much on that, and we’re focusing more so on that street frontage there. Um, front yard. It depends on the subdistrict, but all of these have for front yard, side yard, rear yard.

00:09:51,400	That’s really kind of a range of of setbacks in most other districts, especially right now. We would say, okay, here’s the minimum front yard setback. For example, if you are at or beyond that, you’re good to go.

00:10:11,130	Whereas in the downtown now we’re proposing sort of a range of what’s being called a front setback zone or building setback zone to say, put the building somewhere within this zone. You know, you’ve got your minimum, you’ve got your maximum. The reason there is a maximum is to try encourage development closer to the street, closer to that front property line, to encourage that pedestrian friendly nature of things.

00:10:28,370	So a lot of buildings in downtown that are existing are up to the property line already. So something like that or similar to that as what this is trying to encourage. Um, the lot coverage. As you can see, a lot of the districts, if it’s downtown right now, you’re already allowed 100% lot coverage.

00:10:48,000	Um, unless in the downtown fringe, if you are adjacent to a residentially zoned area, it’s 70%. In that case, um, not counting, you know, alleys or things like that. Uh, other districts, about 80% is fairly common, with some exceptions. Again. But in the proposed downtown, all of the subdistricts would have 100% lot coverage.

00:11:07,200	Uh, so there’s some uniformity there. And the height limit would depend on that subdistrict, uh, 75ft on the lower end, 130ft would match the current height limit for downtown zoning districts.

00:11:27,200	And there is a a stipulation for some of this that if a building is on a corner lot, for example, and it’s on two of those different subdistricts, there’s a stipulation in the code that says you can either apply the appropriate subdistrict, you independently if that seems reasonable, but if it’s something like building height where you don’t exactly want a building 75ft on this street and 130ft on this street, as an extreme example, we say, okay, whatever is sort

00:11:46,970	of the most intense of the options, you have the option to do that. If you, as a property owner, want it to, um, the main thing that would be different across a number of the subdistricts is the window space, kind of a minimum amount of window space.

00:12:07,530	Again, that’s to try encourage, um, pedestrian friendly. Um, environments, particularly when it comes to retail or service type uses, uh, more window space can encourage more people to either interact with those businesses or, you know, encourage the people in the businesses to interact with the or at least see the the street and the public realm there.

00:12:27,970	Um, so that’s a broad overview of that. And feel free to stop me with questions at any time. Otherwise I’m just going to keep going. Uh. So then in terms of the uses, a lot of the CG and Ma and health medical right now, those non downtown zoning districts, they’re still pretty flexible in terms of the amount of uh, or kinds of

00:12:48,230	residential or commercial uses in the CG and health medical for example, the Ma industrial would currently not permit any types of residential uses in there.

00:13:12,130	Um, most of the Ma zoned area right now is parking lots, so there’s not necessarily any worry about either creating nonconformity there or, um, encouraging something that might be, um, put in in harms way if it’s next to some other kind of industrial area, because most of it is parking lots at the moment.

00:13:30,330	The CG commercial as it sounds, it is primarily commercial, but there are, um, multi-family uses that are permitted right now, and I should be clear that in the existing, whether it’s CG districts or Ma districts, what could be there right now, perhaps it is non-conforming, for example, on the sort of southwest side of what would become downtown in this proposed area, there are a lot of single family homes in the CG district there, so those are technically nonconforming,

00:13:51,670	legally nonconforming right now in the downtown, in those subdistricts that would be there. They would come into conformance. So we’re we’re trying to tailor the uses within the downtown to be mindful of, okay, are we going to unintentionally make any nonconformity? We want to avoid that.

00:14:13,000	And if there exist legal nonconformity, we want to try to bring those back into conformance as much as possible. And, um, try eliminate any nonconformity. Um, so within the proposed downtown, we’re talking all types of residential uses would be permitted in at least some of those subdistricts.

00:14:32,800	They might not be permitted in all of them, but at least some of them, they’d be permitted in in them. Um, most types of commercial uses would still be allowed, similar to today, that when I say most, that just means some of the heavier, uh, commercial uses that might be more car oriented. Uh, those would most likely not be permitted, at least in the current draft.

00:14:50,370	We don’t know what the final version will be until something is adopted. So that is why we’re having all of these, um, inputs from boards in the public. We’ll get into the public engagement stuff in a second to. But, uh, institutional uses, anything from, you know, government buildings, most types of schools, things like that, like that. All is permitted.

00:15:09,600	Hospitals permitted. Um, the only things that really would not be considered institutional, that would be not permitted would be cemeteries or detention facilities of some kind. And industrial. I do want to call this out for downtown, because it sort of depends on what you consider to be industrial.

00:15:30,130	In this case, when this is sort of a new term, we’re trying out in our zoning code. So artisanal manufacturing is meant to be stuff that is smaller scale, not causing lots of, well, any, uh, you know, emissions or gas fumes, things like that. So think, you know, pottery studios or, uh, coffee roasters, things like that.

00:15:52,330	So depending on how you define it, maybe it’s not, uh, industrial in your eyes, but this is how we’re defining it at the moment. So certainly nothing that would be considered general industrial. Um, I believe in the packet. It might it’s said, uh, under industrial, um, some storage as well.

00:16:13,670	Under after further discussion in other meetings, we realize that that was a typo. Uh, so that is actually not accurate. So limited to artisanal manufacturing is how we’re defining our industrial uses that would be permitted in downtown as of right now.

00:16:36,670	Um, and then other uses kind of not necessarily falling neatly into any of these categories, things like larger scale utility, uh, infrastructure or transportation infrastructure, such as a, you know, bus depot or train terminal or something like that, that sort of stuff already permitted downtown would continue to be permitted in downtown. Um, so that is a broad overview of the uses. Again, trying to get the right balance of detailed but also, uh, high level. Still.

00:16:56,370	Any questions of Isaac on the uses before we get into guidelines? Design review anybody proceed? Isaac. Thanks. Thank you, Chair Christensen. So again, being high level for the moment, what staff have noticed for the design guidelines is that they are fairly broad.

00:17:19,500	They give guidance as they say, but they don’t necessarily give specificity. So in terms of uh, developers or property owners coming to us and saying, hey, I’m thinking of doing this with the with my building or with my property.

00:17:35,030	You know, there are, uh, there’s a lot of text in there that will say something like, you know, make sure there’s active edges. So there’s, you know, glass and things. But that doesn’t give a lot of specific detail on that. Um, or create distinguishable, easily identifiable entrances. Sounds great. But again, doesn’t necessarily give a lot of guidance beyond that. So what we’re trying out in this draft of the code is going to something more like this.

00:17:58,000	We’re trying to make it as, um, understandable as possible to the general public, but certainly to a design professional like an architect or urban designer would be able to take a table like this or some of the other guidance and say, okay, if I want to do this type of building in this type

00:18:12,870	of subdistrict, you know, I know what my setbacks would be. I know how much, you know, window space to have any other details there. And so we’ve, uh, planning staff have worked with our design advisors on a couple of different stages throughout this process to get their feedback as well.

00:18:33,530	Um, so this is an ongoing conversation as well. Um, as we get into some of these details here. So as we get into the actual design review procedures, the part that you all will see the most with this board as it exists right now on the left side of the screen, there all interior work inside the

00:18:55,130	building is not subject to design review and then anything else outside the building. Exterior. Uh, if it is a sign, all signage is done administratively by staff, both planning staff and building inspection staff. We make sure it meets the sign criteria, particularly the downtown. Uh, related components there and then it can be approved administratively.

00:19:17,370	Uh, things can be appealed to the board or, you know, clarifications can be made. But generally speaking, it’s all administrative. And then all other work that is exterior and visible from the public right of way that comes to the design review board.

00:19:34,930	As of right now, what we are proposing is to create a little more clear shift so that there’s a couple of categories. The smaller scale projects, especially maintenance type projects, would be done administratively by staff, and then the larger projects would still come before this board. So what is being proposed? Interior work still exempt? That part is not changing. Stuff that is proposed to be administrative.

00:19:57,330	What we’re tentatively calling minor design review. The signs still administrative, uh, smaller scale things such as fences or changes to outdoor lighting, routine building maintenance, uh, particularly things that might be 1 to 1 replacements of things without necessarily changing where like, for example, replacing windows without changing the

00:20:19,300	size of the windows or where the windows are, things like that, that would be considered routine maintenance, um, projects that would not be subject to a building permit or other city approval, such as if someone wanted to paint the outside of their building.

00:20:34,330	Um, that doesn’t need a building permit. So sometimes we don’t even hear about that until it’s already done. And if there’s no other city approval, such as an encroachment agreement or something like that, you know, staff, uh, are proposing, uh, after working with our consultants to let that be done administratively as well.

00:20:50,830	We’re trying to, um, exempt, uh, the a lot of projects regarding single family or two family dwellings. So we’re proposing currently any construction or demolition project involving a single or two family dwelling, uh, would be administrative, unless that project would involve taking an existing single or two family dwelling and changing that use from

00:21:14,200	something to something other than a single and two family dwelling. So maybe changing a single family home to an office or something like that, that might be, uh, done either as a minor or major design review, depending on the scale of it or something like that. Uh, major design review.

00:21:31,970	Any new construction project with, you know, the usual exemption of a single or two family dwelling that would still come before this board. Most building additions, particularly larger building additions, would come before the board.

00:21:52,270	Um, exterior renovations and rehabs visible from the public right of way, something that would, you know, go above that threshold of just kind of routine maintenance. We’re talking more major work being done that would come before the board like it does today. And then other permanent or semi-permanent streetscape projects.

00:22:10,530	You know, we see, uh, outdoor seating come before this board because there’s an encroachment agreement involved there as well that would still come before the board in this, you know, tentative categorization, demolitions. Uh, this we’ll get to that in a second. That’s why the asterisk is there. So demolitions currently come before the board, and we’re still proposing they come before the board. But we we have some staff have some questions for you and would enjoy your input. So Isaac.

00:22:30,030	Yes. Um, you indicated that the design reviewers have reviewed or have bought into this or at least been part of this process, right? Yes. So if we could, before we get the next page, can we pause here for questions or comments on the. Yeah, Kristen, go ahead. Um.

00:22:47,630	So my question is such like with like the public art and where that’s kind of a, you know, it could go either way. I mean, are there going to be guidelines on how they’re approved or is there, you know, those kind of things? I mean, define the public art, you know, because we had the design

00:23:05,270	about the one that off a second street, right? I mean, we approve that one. So that’s my question. Is there a, you know, is it going to be what’s the what’s the decision making process in that? Yes. Thank you. Authority member Dvorak, uh, Chair Christensen and authority members.

00:23:28,270	Public art was a trickier one because art can be a little more subjective in terms of design. Um, we still, if I’m not mistaken, uh, we still have a a definition of public art to say, you know, it can’t have, um, logos, trademarks, things like that, things that could be perceived more as advertising, not

00:23:47,030	necessarily art directly. So there are some standards as to what the definition of public art is. But then in terms of, um, the process of it receiving approval, there are some, uh, criteria. I don’t remember all of them off the top of my head.

00:24:09,870	Um, but, you know, bringing public art before the board, we could bring it to the full board if that would be the desire of the board. But if you would want to have, uh, more criteria on sort of what constitutes approval, that would be something that we would invite further conversation on, because that’s definitely something that we as staff have discussed, but are open to ideas.

00:24:28,030	That answer your question. I have a question. Well, when we approved. The one that was on Second Street, we didn’t really have a say in the design, right? It was just more of, yes, this is an appropriate use of the space and we approve it being there. So we don’t necessarily have that authority today.

00:24:48,830	Right? You can’t be that can’t be advertised. Right. But that’s in that would be something that wouldn’t go away. Yeah. So I don’t see it being a lot different than us sitting here and being like, yeah, meets all the criteria and staff doing it as part of their job..

00:25:07,530	Is the process appealable? If someone doesn’t like what staff staff’s decision is, can they appeal it to the full authority? Yes. There are still appeal processes. Okay. Okay. Um, Chair Christiansen, authority members is like the one that sticks out to me. Is the construction, uh, or demo of single or two family dwelling.

00:25:26,900	But I see there’s an asterisk, so I could wait to ask that question. But I know right now you can still get that demo, uh, permit through the city, and it doesn’t come to us necessarily, except within the core part of the downtown, where it potentially would be turned into a parking lot, and we lose the taxable

00:25:41,730	value. So that’d be my only thing that I would look at a little bit is, you know, there’s a lot of single family or two family demos, like, when is it? What if they’re pulling a bunch of permits or they pull them separately so that they

00:25:56,900	can do that and, you know, kind of get away from the larger process. And then the county, the city parks and schools lose that taxable value. So that’s my only concern. But it’s already that’s how it’s happening currently. So. Okay. Thank you. Authority member Herzog.

00:26:15,900	Chair Christiansen and authority members. We will get to that a little more. Yes. Other questions on on the procedures. Can we move on okay. Continue. Okay. So, uh, some other notes on the procedures before we get to, uh, staff’s questions for you.

00:26:45,970	So the Renaissance Zone Authority would still act as the voting members of the Design review committee for downtown. That’s not going to change. We will still have some design advisors that will not change.

00:27:03,530	The one thing we are proposing is that if a design review related project comes in, that is specifically for a property or properties that are on the National Register of Historic Places, we would, um, invite or give the Historic Preservation Commission the authority to appoint a historic advisor to act similarly in the capacity of our standard design advisors, to provide guidance on the historic nature of the buildings. Um, the design advisor and the historic advisor would be non-voting, but they would be able to give that input.

00:27:26,870	Commissioner Zenker. Uh, chair Christensen authority members. Isaac. So I think there’s already a process for that because at the historic preservation, Historic Preservation Committee, at the end of our our portfolios that we get, there’s always a list of projects that they review.

00:27:51,170	So I don’t know why we would bring another person on to help make that decision if they’re already reviewing those projects from the from the downtown. Unless I’m missing something, it seems to me that there’s already a process in place to get the input from the HPC. So it’s being vetted at that level already. That’s that’s how I interpret it. Yes, sir. Okay.

00:28:06,930	I so, uh, third member Zenker, Chair Christensen and third members, I can certainly talk with my colleague Lauren Oster to make sure that what is happening at the Historic Preservation Commission would meet, you know, their needs and the needs of the design Review Board in this case, because, of course, they are two separate processes usually.

00:28:26,130	But if there’s ever a need to either combine them more, we can certainly chat about that. But I can double check with her to to see if that would suffice as well. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions on those topics? If not, questions. So yes. Now we get to the fun part.

00:28:45,870	Um, the first question being should demolitions be included in design review? Uh, what criteria should exist for approval? Because as of right now, they do come before the board, but there’s not necessarily strict or any criteria, uh, to clearly give you guidance as to what constitutes approval or denial. Um, of course, taxable value is something to think about.

00:29:12,530	But in terms of a, you know, a property owner doing something with their property, you know, staff cannot, for example, staff cannot, you know, require the city cannot require someone to build something there. They do have to get the permit from us to demolish something.

00:29:32,870	Um, but as staff have been discussing this amongst ourselves, both planning and building inspection staff, what I can say is that, um, we are open to either, you know, leaving the process kind of as is or changing it. Um, and then the second bullet point there is similar. So we can either discuss them at the same time or we can look at them one on one.

00:29:52,570	Let’s go. One on one. Commissioner, you had a question. Yes, I do, thank you. Chair. Melissa. Um, so I think isn’t it in the current code, now that there’s a five year time frame as to if a property gets demolished, that it has to be rebuilt on.

00:30:09,900	Isaac, do you know the answer? I don’t know the answer to that one. Uh, authority member Zenker. Chair. Christensen. The three members is. I’m not aware of that. Entitled 14. If that is in title four or some other part of the city code, I cannot think of it off the top of my head.

00:30:24,200	I might want to do some research on that, because I think I can only think of three properties that we approved for demolition. One of them was the old, uh, Knudson Photography area strip mall, and then the the hotel motel type thing, and I, maybe I and I could be wrong, but I thought there was

00:30:43,870	a time frame as to, from the downtown perspective as to when those those properties needed to be. Another would be the common goal of the post office. That’s the most recent one. Oh, right. Yeah. Yep. It’s still. Yep. Correct.

00:30:59,570	So I think there I thought there was some I could be wrong, but you might want to just double check on that. Well, I think Kate did a good job of delineating things that should be included in criteria for approval, I would think. But what’s what’s going to be what’s it going to be replaced with? What’s the property tax implications to all the subs? Um.

00:31:17,430	Chair Christiansen, authority members, um, and some there’s always things you don’t foresee, right. Sometimes you want to bring you want to demolish a building because there’s a health or safety risk or it’s attracting the nuisance of some kind.

00:31:34,600	So I don’t want it just to be like, I can’t do it or whatever. Um. You know, if it’s not going to be replaced for a while. I know when George Kaiser was on this board, he was very adamant, usually, that he wanted to see a plan and didn’t want to lose a taxable value. So I’m just throwing it out there that, you know.

00:31:51,630	Well, here’s a good what if what if the what if the building inspector comes along and condemns an old house. Does it have to come to us for approval to demolish it, or only only to approve what’s going to replace it? I don’t know the answer.

00:32:16,170	Is that a specific question? Chair Christiansen, or a her or Isaac? Run with it. Yeah. What would happen on that? Yeah. So under under the current process right now, regardless of whether it is the a public entity that is condemning a building or if someone wants to demolish a property of their own volition, we do have a process for having the

00:32:33,870	demolition permit. And there are some, you know, things to be met within title 14, usually not 14, but definitely title four in terms of dealing with the the foundation and things like that.

00:32:52,000	Um, but the the criteria for approval is just making sure there’s a plan in place on, you know, where to take the materials, making sure they’re taking an appropriate route to wherever their disposal ground may be. And unfortunately, no member of the building inspections staff is here to correct me if that is a mischaracterization.

00:33:10,370	But is this is this is the design review board involved in that process? Probably not. Only if it isn’t within the downtown as of right now, right? Yeah. Okay. Other questions or comments on that. Move on to title 14 landscaping and Grasping. Demolish lots. So yes, this next question is related.

00:33:37,330	It’s still on the topic of demolitions, but it is a little more specific in this case. So there is a detail in title 14 right now that it was not included in the current draft of the code. That was not necessarily intentionally omitted, but when staff noticed that it was omitted, you know, we were already in the process of having public conversations on things.

00:33:56,600	So here we are today to get your input on this. This particular part relating to demolitions within the downtown says that if a property is demolished and is going to remain vacant for more than 60 days, then it must be landscaped or grassed or mulched in some way.

00:34:17,400	Um, and again, this has not been added into the LDC right now. Is this something that the authority would like to still see because staff can see this going both ways in some regards.

00:34:42,000	On one on because this is applied to all properties within the downtown equally as of right now, if it is a a house, for example, that is in the downtown fringe and it’s mostly grass around it, it could make sense to grass. That remaining area if it will remain vacant for a while.

00:35:01,730	But for, uh, if a property on, you know, Main Street, for example, was demolished and it’s all concrete, all foundation right now, would it make sense for that area to have the foundation fully taken out, grassed and then, you know, have a foundation be put back in at some undetermined point in the future when a building goes back up? Um, again, planning staff have discussed this with building inspection staff, including the building official, and we are open to

00:35:19,870	amending, uh, title four as well as title 14 to sort of meet whatever intent, uh, is deemed appropriate. Um, according to the the building official. And again, I hope I am not mischaracterizing his words because he is not here.

00:35:39,670	He is stated that his primary concern would be general health and safety, so that if, for example, a building had a a basement as part of it, we wouldn’t want just a hole in the ground that someone could, you know, trip into or something like that.

00:35:54,600	But if it were kind of a slab on grade foundation, there is less concern there about that remaining. Um, either if it can be reused partially or fully for the next building or a little easier to, um, adjust that as needed for construction as opposed to making people tear all that out and then put something back in later.

00:36:15,400	So those are just some thoughts that we, as staff have had and are open to any thoughts that you may have now or from future. Questions from the authority members. Thank you. Chair Christensen, where did the 60 days come from originally? Like how did that come. Into existence? Uh, authority member dull, chair Christensen and authority members. I am not sure on the history of that specifically.

00:36:34,130	And as you maybe have noticed, uh, Daniel, uh, pine, director Daniel Nairn is also not here, so he, he may know the history of that, but I do not know off the top of my head.

00:36:49,070	Because realistically, 60 days isn’t a lot of time for unless you’re going to go right into it. I do think that there needs to be something kind of what you were saying. That’s a little more nuanced about, okay, it was mostly a parking lot ripping all of that up and putting grass maybe isn’t appropriate, but there needs to be some way to make it not a public health.

00:37:06,930	Hazard and make it a little more attractive than. Absolutely. Yep. Yeah. Commissioner Bakken. Um, actually, the bigger concern for me is when you’re looking at these is one off projects. Um, by taking a building down, especially in the core. What are you doing to the water conveyance.

00:37:24,300	So if you’re requiring somebody to put in a grass lawn, you’re changing up the water, you’re causing a leak issue to the adjacent building. Now because you’ve got moisture that can now travel along some of those foundations.

00:37:43,530	So that’s the bigger concern for me is what are we intrinsically doing to the adjacent properties by requiring something. So if staff can look into that I would like a better answer on that, because if there’s also already a partial foundation or slab on grade, it makes more sense to leave it as such rather than now you’re opening that up to water leakage into the adjacent properties.

00:38:00,530	Good question. Other questions or comments? Yeah. David, uh, technical advisor, do you have anything you want to jump in on? You’ve been pretty quiet back there. Unusually quiet. Sure. Yeah. Um, I have a couple of, like, pretty specific stuff that I don’t know if we want to get into.

00:38:20,130	It might be something we just talk about offline. Um, Isaac, uh, I think one thing that’s worth mentioning here is this is being integrated into the zoning code document, um, which I think means it will trigger engagement, um, sooner in the process than I think what’s we’ve seen at times where this is like the last

00:38:43,400	thing somebody needs before they get their building permit, and it becomes really tough to push back at that point on any kind of design. Um, I can think of one project in particular where it would have been nice to, uh, have had a little bit more dialogue.

00:39:03,200	Um, uh, but it was kind of like too late in the process. So this should I and can you confirm this, Isaac, that this gets reviewed at the, at the, at the site plan stage of a application? Uh, a design advisor, David Witham, chair. Richardson. Authority members. Yes. Uh, most any project that would be happening in downtown would go through our site plan process.

00:39:26,530	Um, the only any project that is not, you know, in the residential building code, for example. So a house or AA2 family dwelling, you know, once you get into those more commercial buildings or larger scale multifamily that will automatically trigger our site plan process in which, uh, either during that or during the building permit stage.

00:39:45,330	Yes, we would see more of these details so staff can confirm a lot of this ahead of time and we would be able to hammer out some of the trickier details before it comes to the board. In theory, anyway. Makes sense. Other questions or comments of Isaac? Well, we’ve got them. Kate.

00:40:04,330	Chair Christiansen, Authority members I think one thing about demolition that we’ve talked about for, I don’t know, ten years is in the code or in code enforcement. A lot of things aren’t necessarily we don’t have a bunch of building officials going around, you know, looking at rentals essentially like Grand Forks or Fargo.

00:40:24,200	And so they’re probably it’s been it’s years and years of things. I probably should have been updated, maybe. And it’s only by kind of a complaint basis that they get looked at. And so obviously we’re not we’re dealing with that there.

00:40:39,430	But I think that’s really what kicks in a lot of the demolitions is I mean, the budget in, for example, had I think, a lot of environmental issues, but unless you get a complaint from the tenant, um, it’s not looked at. And then it gets to the point where it is not saleable anymore.

00:40:55,600	So we’ve talked about that for ten years, but I feel like that’s what brings in a lot of the demolition discussion is it’s gone too long without being looked at. And that’s probably beyond our Ken. Um, we’ve got other items on the agenda, but Isaac wants to take us through the next 40 pages line by line. That shouldn’t take more than 3 or 4 hours, probably. And I have it all memorized right up here.

00:41:12,670	Um, what action would you like the authority to take today? Um, so, Chair Christensen and authority members staff doesn’t necessarily need a specific motion or anything, but certainly want to have this in your minds.

00:41:32,700	So as you’re thinking about things, if you have other questions or thoughts that you think could be a good idea for the downtown, feel free to send them my way or to planning staff, uh, so that everyone is aware there will be other opportunities for not only yourselves, but the public in general to provide input on this. We had a public open house last night at the Public Works Building on April 15th.

00:41:47,930	There will be another one at the library. I believe that one is. It’s either from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. or 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. I’m not 100% sure, but that would be April 15th at the library.

00:42:02,030	And of course, this would go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the city Commission as well. So we’re still really kicking off the main public process on this. So that’s the main reason why staff is bringing this to you today. You’ve explained the next steps and I appreciate that. But we’ll we’ll at some point this body be asked to vote to approve this. Not specifically. No.

00:42:20,500	Okay. So you’re looking for feedback. Okay. Thank you. All right. Anything else on the on the subject. Did you have anything else on this today Isaac. I do not know. Thank you. Chair. Awesome. All right. We will move on to agenda item for B, which is discussion about the Renaissance Zone program boundaries. Well Isaac’s back.

00:42:43,470	Are happy to see you all again. So chair Christiansen and authority members, this is something that the, uh, Renaissance Zone development plan calls for an annual review of the boundary of the program.

00:43:02,870	Uh, adjustments or boundary changes are not required to be made, but it is a goal of the plan to review it annually just to see in case so what I have on the screen here momentarily is the result of an analysis that staff did on a block by block basis, where there are some criteria outlined within the plan itself, and staff used. You’ve seen some of this before. A lot of the criteria was used before.

00:43:25,730	There was one other criteria that was added in, uh, if we can get the laptop, there we go. Fantastic. So, uh, this was also included in your packets as well, along with the memo kind of describing this.

00:43:48,130	Um, but on a block by block basis, staff looked at what is the median building value of the the block or median building condition, I should say of the block, uh, of blocks that are near the Renaissance zone boundary, but not within the boundary right now. So median building condition, median building age, um, distance from the zone, the land to value ratio, uh, building to land value ratio.

00:44:11,600	And the one criteria and assessed value over time. That’s the one I’m forgetting. The change in assessed value over time from, I believe, 2017 to now, when one of the last times a major review of this was done, and then.

00:44:33,630	So five of the six criteria that staff used, we used previously last year, during an initial discussion, there was one criteria that staff included this time that was not included last time. And that is how much of the block is currently vacant right now.

00:44:52,770	Whether that means, you know, vacant, but is grass or yard or something, or vacant, as in a parking lot or, you know, vacant as in there is no building, but also no parking lot. Anything that is not a structure was considered vacant in this case. So higher percentage of the block being vacant was used as an indicator of it. Could be a good candidate for the Renaissance Zone to encourage either building additions or new buildings on these properties.

00:45:10,870	Lower uh, land value or building value. Another criteria that could be seen as a higher need for the program and older buildings. Higher need, um, lower building. Um, quality or uh, what’s the what’s the word I’m looking for condition. Thank you. Commissioner.

00:45:36,130	Uh, authority member Herzog um, so that that is all to say that as a reminder, the authority can change the boundary if they so desire or recommend, they wouldn’t be. You know, the decision would not only be with you, but the total number of blocks is based on the population of the community.

00:46:00,530	And there’s a slight asterisk in terms of the numbers I gave for the memo. So it is 34 blocks plus another block for every 5000 population, over 5000 as the initial threshold.

00:46:22,470	It depends on if you use for us, we have a total of either 47 or 48 blocks available, depending on if you use the last census, when our population was above 70,000 but below 75, or if you go off of the more recent American Community Survey estimates in which we are above 75,000. So regardless, we have either five and a half blocks of open space that we could bring in, or six and a half blocks of space that could be brought in.

00:46:41,130	Staff is not necessarily recommending any specific blocks to be brought in. The only recommendation staff has is that, uh, blocks that are currently in the program, we do not recommend closing any blocks because once a block is closed, it cannot be brought back into the program at a future date. Um, and we’ve not had a history.

00:46:59,430	We don’t chase projects, but has there been inquiries or requests by any one outside, uh, to add their block or blocks there? There have been a couple, uh, in the last year or so. Um, one well, a few projects, a couple were in blocks that, uh, staff soon learned used to be in the program but were closed.

00:47:20,700	Uh, one that is in a block that is within this, uh, area that was shown as being close to and therefore included in this analysis. But I will not say specifically which block that is. Um, and then some other general inquiry for blocks that are already inside the program.

00:47:39,970	So there’s been a little bit of everything, um, so far. Anyway. Questions on this topic. It’s something that comes up frequently, but we don’t really we haven’t really taken any action or even recommended any action to add or close blocks.

00:48:01,200	Um, for those who might be new to the to the table or what’s the the simple process. If we wanted to add a block. So if the board wanted to recommend adding in a block, there would need to be block or blocks.

00:48:18,870	There would need to be a public hearing starting first with this board, we would send out notifications to the potentially affected property owners, including those within the block, and then if, as a result of the public hearing before this board that were approved, it would then need to be approved by all of the other, um, taxing subdivisions in the community.

00:48:36,400	So that would mean city commission, county commission, school board, and park board in whatever order they have. Their next meetings. Uh, because a change to the boundary of the Renaissance zone is considered a change to the development plan. So ultimately it has to go to the Department of Commerce. Yes, it also has to go to the state. Thank you. For the final blessing. Okay.

00:48:55,070	Are there any questions? Anybody on that matter? Thank you. Isaac, I think we’re done with you. Unless you want to run for office. Other business for see is election of officers. Didn’t we just do this? Apparently not.

00:49:19,600	Um, so I guess the procedure would be to open the floor for nominations for officers in the officers are chair and vice chair. We don’t have a secretary treasurer. We don’t. Right. It’s just the two that sound right. Isaac Isaacs nodding yes. Yes, that is correct. Uh, chair and vice chair is, uh, what is on the table. And the term is a year or is it for life? For you? Okay. Thanks.

00:49:42,030	Who’s to say so? Are there any nominations for officers? I nominate Jim Christiansen, uh, as the chair. I second. Okay. Do you want to take him one at a time? Okay. That’s fine. Are there any other nominations for chair? I’ll make a motion to close nominations. Okay. Do we have to vote on the motion or can we just vote on.

00:50:03,400	I mean. The vote on the motion to close. So I’ll second his closure. All in favor of closing the nominations? I opposed same sign. That motion carries. All in favor of the nomination for chair. Say I. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Thank you very much. I’ll make a motion for Kristen Dvorak to be the vice chair. Second.

00:50:24,200	Okay. Any further nominations hearing? None. We’ll just close the nominations. We don’t need to find that. All in favor of, uh, Kristen being the vice chair. Say, I, ii same sign. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Congratulations. Good, good. She didn’t. Even see or. hear it coming. I don’t know, it’ll sink in later. Believe me.

00:50:48,800	Peter pays the same, by the way. Yeah. Thank you for that. And then, speaking of other business, I’ll see if anybody has any, but, um, and past members. Joe Fink served nine years. He’s probably not watching, but maybe he is.

00:51:04,270	And he gets a nice certificate of appreciation from this body for his nine years of service on the Renaissance Authority. What am I going to get 20 years? What do you think? Yeah. Maybe a tombstone. All right.

00:51:24,070	Anyway, we want to we want to acknowledge and thank Joel for, uh, he was very active and influential and important member of the Renaissance Zone, but he has moved on to other things. So thank you, Joe. If you’re watching other business, anybody anybody have any other business? If not, and if there’s no objection, we will stand adjourned until the next meeting, which is April 9th. Thanks, everybody, for your