Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Today is January 6, 2026. Happy New Year. Welcome to Fargo Planning Commission. Um, commissioners, please note that in your packet includes the schedule for 2026 commission meetings. No action required. And moving on, let's go to approving item A, approving order of agenda. No changes to the agenda. I would entertain a motion. Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion approved. Moving to the minutes. Minutes of the regular meeting December 2nd, 2025. Everyone have a chance to review the minutes. Any changes, discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. So move. Motion. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I.

All oppose. Same sign. Motion approved. Moving on to hearing items. The first hearing item is CVY Ranch third edition with Megan.

Good afternoon, chair and planning commissioners. CVY Ranch third edition is an application for a major subdivision and zoning change for [clears throat] approximately 153 acres. General location here is south of 64th Avenue, east of 45th Street and west of I29. The Fargo Sports uh complex is right here and then NDSCS and Capstone Classical Academy is right here. Um, one quick note, your commission reviewed this as an introductory item and held a public hearing on December 2nd, 2025, uh, and did continue this item to today's meeting. There's also item D1 on this same agenda is a similar area. It's not the exact same boundary, but there's an annexation item um, that will be later on in the agenda. So the application is to is for a major subdivision with right ofway dedication and a zoning change from egg agricultural to egg SR4 single dwelling residential MR3 multi-dwelling residential with a conditional overlay LC limited commercial with a conditional overlay and PI public and institutional. So, this is if you were to be located at the northeast corner of the development, it is on 64th Avenue and where Sports Drive would be. Um, so on the right you'll see 64th Avenue behind you would be 64th Avenue Bridge and then the two schools I mentioned can be seen in the distance and this is viewing east from 45th Street. It's a little bit dark in the photo, but the Capstone Classical Academy and NDSCS is over here. And then here you can see both where the stormwater conveyance channel and pedestrian uh connectivity would both go under 45th street. This is just the zoning map. As I mentioned, you can see the schools are zoned PI here in green and then the sports complex right here.

So this development has been in discussion and in coordination with the planning department for um a number of years especially as of lately in the last couple of months um and couple of years over time we've been coordinating internally um for example with our engineering department as well as peer agencies like the Fargo Park District. So, as you can imagine, there's a lot that goes into the master planning of 153 acres, and we're also thinking about how things like roadway connectivity or stormwater infrastructure is impacted outside of those bounds as well. And so, we have to make sure that that connectivity is there. And so, it does take um a lot of coordination. So up on your screen is is a lot of the things that we've been coordinating on for quite some time. Um roadway alignment, connectivity, road type, driveway access management, utilities, including storm water management, vision and design standards, pedestrian connectivity, parks and open space. Um and in this area, I'm going to pop back over to the aerial image. There's quite a number of, as you can see in your packet, several applicants. So several property owners, more property owners directly, you know, budding to the east. So, we've got a number of property owners to work together with for things like roadway alignment and connectivity. We have interstate and so there's restrictions on connections there. And then with the storm water conveyance, um there's only there's limited connections as well. So, there's a number of considerations and things unique to this area. Um and for each of these items, I'll talk about them in a little bit more detail as we move forward. So, up on your screen is the the master plan, the area that we're talking about today. If you can see my cursor, kind of ends right here where Sports Drive, half of where Sports Drive would be down to the southern portion or southern end of the conveyance channel over to 45th Street. It wraps around the school here and then back over. So these the Capstone Classical Academy uh and NDS are both um part of different subdivisions and annexations and those are are zoned as already as well. So kind of everything outside of that is

what we're talking about. um today. So, you can see where our roadway connections are and I'll talk about that a little bit more with our when I talk about the subdivision, but our collector networks here and you can see where in orange hopefully you can see that is pedestrian connectivity. So, anything that's greater than a regular sidewalk is is shown in orange. So along our arterial roadways, you can't see them as much, but the west side of 40th Street, the south side of 66th Avenue, and of course on the north side of the conveyance channel, there will be a shared use path, a grade separation here over 40th Street. And then as you saw in the photo, a grade separated on 45th Street. And then here there's a sixacre park um that the developers are working with the Fargo Park District on and with the intention that there due to the single crossing here, there'll be a pedestrian crossing uh over that channel. There is one lot here. This the park district will own that. And there's another lot over in the residential neighbor neighborhood um that will be public as well that will allow access for the residents to connect to the channel. And then the two lots of the channel will be owned by the city. So this is the overall master plan. So you can see south of the conveyance channel. This may be what this development looks like in the future, but that developer is already thinking about how that road connectivity might work, where the lots might go, what kind of development might front the arterial roadway. Then of course we have sports drive and connection into that neighborhood so we have an understanding of where that road is going to go in the future when that property is ready to be developed so that we have that connectivity there. So up on your screen is a zoning exhibit. Also in your packet is this exhibit plus a zoning narrative that talks about the zoning proposed. So I'll start up in the top corner. Um it's currently zoned egg. These two properties at the intersection of 64th

and 45th Street are not intended to be zoned at this time. So they'll remain egg and when they're ready for development, they'll come in. This is also about the portion that is has already been annexed into the city. So that's where there's a little bit difference in what is being annexed and not. We'll talk about that more later. Um the red hatch is for commercial zoning. So that's proposed to be LC limited commercial with a conditional overlay. The brown hatch is MR3, multi-dwelling residential, with a conditional overlay. So, there'll be design standards on both those zoning districts. The orange hatch is SR4, single um single dwelling residential. And then, except for one lot right about here, that that will be zoned PI. And then green is PI public and institutional. So, there'll be a park district property, public property here, park district likely, and then this conveyance channel will also be city of Fargo. So those are the the zoning districts that are being proposed. Um also noted in that narrative is that the intent is um from what we understand from the applicants to develop the MR3 properties at a higher density about 50 units per acre. So at some point um when they get developed um we're intending for a higher level of density on those properties. So, one of the things that we have worked on with the applicants since the last meeting in December, um, there's kind of three key points. One of them is the conditional overlay. So, we work through design standards uh, on the development. It is consistent. The draft is in your packet. It's pretty consistent with what you would see along Arterials and South Fargo on or near arterials in South Fargo. There's two sections. There's commercial and mixeduse development and then there's residential development. So likely, you know, that first section will be related to those limited commercial zoning districts and then the second section will be those MR uh zoning districts. So really they um regulate the building form and style site design and have a

list of prohibited uses that includes signage. So up in your screen is the plat. Um the other couple of things I'll mention quickly since that December meeting is there was uh the last plat that you saw there was one lot back if you can see my cursor right kind of tucked in that didn't have any right ofway touch and that was something that was changed and then details of the amenities plan was another thing that we had worked on. So there's that is also in your packet largely this plat is really not changed since the last time you saw it. So, there's 153 lots uh in the subdivision. Sorry, 157 153 acres, 150 lots in the subdivision. 142 of those lots are proposed to be zoned SR4. So this plat dedicates rightofway for 64th Avenue, 45th Street South, the collector networks of 66th Avenue and 40th Street South, and then all the neighborhood roads in the residential development, 65th Avenue South right here, and then half of Sports Drive South. So at some point in the future when the adjacent property to the east comes in for development for platting, they will have to dedicate the remainder of Sports Drive South. Uh in the interim, there will be a turn a temporary turnaround on the east side of 65th Avenue that will allow that circulation in 65th Avenue to to be constructed. There will be a roundabout at the intersection of 40th Street South and 65th Avenue South and that will have some medians going north and south that will restrict some access point. So, for example, into west into lot three. [clears throat] Those four lots there will gain access through an access easement. But this this um access point into each to the east and to the west into block three and block four will be right in right out because of the

proximity that they are to 64th Avenue for access point uh access restrictions and control other than the public streets that you know we're talking about here such as 40th Avenue, 66th Avenue and the existing 43rd Avenue. There'll be access points into the private development at about eighth mile section. Uh at some point they will turn into rightinouts only um as that as merited when that time comes. And then Sports Drive South will also be a ridein right out at the time that the interchange is constructed um for I29. The ramps that are constructed constructed that are currently programmed right now for 2028. um they these items are included in the amenities plan and the developers agreement and so the applicants are aware of that restriction that will be upcoming. So the lots here you can see on the southside where that drainage channel is the city of Fargo will own those lots and this lot here is a little bit wider than those residential lots though that is also one that will be publicly owned that will provide access for residents into that development. And then 66th Avenue South is a collector until it crosses 40th Street South and will become a neighborhood road, but will also connect to the east into that development. So again, at the time that they come in for platting, we'll ensure that that connectivity will be met. So uh up in your screen again here is just a closeup of those residential lots. Those negative access easements um will restrict access onto those lots from the arterial roadway and restrict access onto the residential lots and indicate where driveway locations can go and will also create parking spots for um residents along the roadways. Um there was a comment received at the last planning commission related to the

potential for alleys and that comment was relayed um to that applicant and to that owner. And then I'm going to jump back here. You can also see, it's a little bit harder to see, but these heavier lines also are negative access easements that restrict access into that development. So along with this, we have an amenities plan and developers agreement um that has details specific to design and construction of improvements, utility specifics, access management, storm water and flood protection requirements, and special assessments. And the draft of the amenities plan is in your packet. staff has not received any inquiries on the applications and the recommended motion is in front of you. Um there are a number of folks Jayce Helman with Dabbert Custom Homes and Andrew Thworth um Lowry Engineering is here should you have any questions. That concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for Megan? Megan, can you talk about the intersection design of 66th Avenue South and 40th Street? If there's going to be any sort of crosswalk or if it's a intersection with stop signs and where I'm coming from is that we'll have 142 lots to the east of that. And I would imagine that at some point there'll be children walking to Capstone. Um, so I want to make sure that that's a convenient and safe intersection for them. So, could you talk about that?

Sure. Yep. We've and I'll I'll maybe talk briefly and and turn it over to Nathan Borbum, our assistant city engineer. Um, but we have started talking about what that design is going to look like or might look like. And I know we have talked about those crossings and making sure that, you know, you're directing people and and that there's not too many crossings because then, you know, you're causing more conflicts if you're adding more. Um, I believe in this intersection what we have talked about is having one crossing. I believe on the south side of the road. So directing traffic instead of on either side of 66th on the south side and that connects to the shared use path and then there will be there's a 10-ft shared use path on the west side of 43rd Street currently. So there would be a crosswalk that would cross there as well. Um, and so I think, you know, something that the city is cognizant about is what are those traffic volumes and what are those safety implications and at some point you know there there could be a an interim solution and a later solution if things change and we have that safe routes to school plan too that we can point to for some safety solutions. Not sure um Nathan if you have anything to add to that. Is that sort of crossing? Is that something that would show up in a master plan like this or is that just as the the plan gets finalized, those kind of things work itself out?

Sure. So, certain design details get included in the amenities plan. um probably not the location of the crossing, but I do know that our engineering department is already starting to look at that layout and again where it makes sense to have those crossings at and not and and there is potentially again I might ask Nathan this but potentially some policy already in the engineering department that might um suggest what might be most appropriate. Thank you, Megan. Related to that, you said the mixed use will be on the south side of 66th, right?

So, yes, there'll be both. There'll be limited commercial um adjacent to 45th Street and then it'll be the park district property, that 6acre piece, and then from that piece over to 40th Street will be an MR3 zoning district. Okay. Or and I'm I'm sorry, I was I meaning a a mixeduse path um like bike path and such on the south. Is there anything on the north side of that that would give seemingly easier access into Capstone?

Yeah, we we did talk about the potential probably about a year ago. Um this we received some applications on this exact same area, but a lot of it about the potential or where where should that path go? And ultimately, um the southside was determined to be the best location because the park was there. Um I I do know again there there is that shared use path on 43rd Street and there'll still be sidewalk. Um there'll still be sidewalk. We're on the north side of 66th Avenue and then on the west side of 40th Street. So there's potential um for traveling up north. And I'm not sure if the developer has any intention or how that private drive might look, but I would assume that there would be a connection over to the west based if you can see this easement, the shared use path or I'm sorry, shared access easement that connects all the way to the edge of the plat. Um perhaps there might be a connection um that might make sense for the developer to include there as well. Megan, I see that the applicant has included some draft design standards for the commercial and residential properties. Has anyone um gone through those and kind of looked in to see if they're in alignment with our future LDC um content that's being created? Does this comply or is it generally in compliance? My gut feeling is it feels a little light, but I'm not sure if that's true. Yes, thank you for that comment, Commissioner. Um, we're not quite there with the land development code yet. I think it we were hoping that maybe there was a possibility of some alignment, but I think this application just comes a little bit too early to know some of what that might shake out to be. Um so instead of guessing what we have is a pretty consistent with other conditional overlays in South Fargo or other things that you've seen in some of the recent for example multi-dwelling developments about limiting the amount of accessory structures for apartments for example.

So the co that's here today um and we've worked with um all the applicants to make sure it will work for their development but is consistent with other areas in South Fargo. Um, we're just, yeah, not quite there in alignment with the LDC. I'm not sure if Mark Williams, our assistant director of planning, has anything to add.

Yeah, I think that's a a very good answer. We're, this has been consistent with what we've been finding in the neighborhoods as far as trying to improve them to the best of the ability, especially with snow storage and driveway WS. Um, we haven't, yeah, I would say in the next two, three, four, five months, there's probably going to be some more public participation on figuring out where we need to go with how residential lots are laid out. Uh, we have identified in the process that lots under 50 ft are a little bit more challenging and a lot under 50 ft is a is kind of a new fad in the last 15 years. So, we're we're figuring out how do we develop around those, but we haven't gotten to the point where we have the community input for the land development code at this point. But I I would say this is very consistent with what we've been working on on similar narrow lot developments.

So, it just seems like to me that this could be a great opportunity for us to almost use this in the background as a case study with our consultants that we're working with to almost test it out. You know, and I'm not saying it impacts the actual outcome. I understand that it it's in compliance with what our our codes are today, but it feels like it could be something that we could use to kind of test where we're headed with that um new code.

I would agree with you and and we have a couple two three other developments that are almost identical to this as far as width. So they're they're good case studies to be able to analyze as well as how does that play in the incentive policy as far as what type of road network do we want in this and how does that get owned and maintained. So there'll be some good discussions with that. Thank you. I have a rather technical question actually. The residential streets have a 74 foot right ofway. What are the components of a 74 foot right ofway? [clears throat] Yeah. I'm going to turn that over to Nathan Barbum, our assistant city engineer.

Sure. So, like Mark was alluding to here a little bit ago, the 74 ft of rightway, we've implemented that a few years ago on these narrower lots to create additional snow storage opportunities for not just the street or the paved street section, but also the driveways of the personal properties as well. So, what we were seeing in some of the other areas where we did not have that 74 feet of rightway, uh, snow storage was an issue and our public works department then was in turn having to haul out snow in those neighborhoods, which is rather costly on those years that snowfall is a little bit heavier. So, we'll still maintain the sidewalk in the same position. It'll still be 2 feet off of the back of the or the rightway line or the property line, but then there'll be the 4 and 1/2t sidewalk and then there'll be a wider boulevard until the back occur. So, it'll it'll look real similar, just have wider boulevards opportunities for that snow storage.

How wide will the boulevards be? Oh, I'm just trying. What? Probably about 12ish feet. 11 12 feet. Okay. So, we'll still have a 32 foot wide road in here to allow for parking on both sides of the street and like I said, uh the 4 and 1/2t sidewalk. So, it'll be about 11 12 ft boulevard widths. Thanks. Any other questions for staff?

I'll invite the applicant up. Uh good afternoon, commissioners. Jayce Helman on behalf of Dabber Custom Homes, who's one of the developers within this development. Um I don't have anything new to add. Megan did a very good job uh recapping where we've come since December when we were before you last time. So I'll just be here if you guys have any questions. Um happy to try to answer what I can. Do

we have any questions for the applicant? No questions. Okay. Actually, just one question. So, you're thinking back to the Metro Cog housing study and the the need for missing middle. How would you say that this development helps support that?

I think when you're looking at the the size and excuse me, uh looking at the size of the the lots, I mean, we're getting to a a smaller lot footprint, u which could result in a smaller house footprint, which can aim towards that affordability status. It's obviously not the missing middle type of housing as this is more alluding to single family home ownership. Uh but trying to uh hit that affordability factor which is the size of the lots. I think that would this would tick that box. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

I'll go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Anybody wish to speak on item one alpha 1 bravo? Seeing none, close the public hearing. Commissioners, what are your wishes? I'll move to approve for staff's recommendation. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? I will just say that I have in the past expressed concerns about the way we are doing small lot subdivisions. Uh in in the long term I think it may be problematic and so I'll be voting no on this. Any other comments discussion? Go ahead and take the role. I Gl No. Betlock. Hi. Rosenberg. I Cecil I Schmidt I Jordy I Stafford I pass I

Mos I Tossa I. Motion carries. Thanks Megan. Moving on to item number two. Donald to present on Horus man school edition.

Uh Madame Chair, before we get started, I just wanted to disclose that I am employed by Krauss Anderson and we were selected with uh from Fargo Public Schools uh to be the CM at risk. So just disclosing that to the group. So our commission, we have an opportunity to have her abstain from the vote or vote. So, what I will do is um I'll put a motion out there that we'll do a roll call vote if anyone wants to second the motion or change the motion. I'll second.

Okay, we have a second to roll call vote. Um any discussion? Okay, go ahead and take the role. Mo I. Jordy I Rosenberg hi Cecil I Cly I Strin I Schmidt I Zetlock I Tasa I motion carries you're allowed to vote now go ahead with application number two

thank you ma'am good afternoon commissioners Donald Crest from the department of planning and development um the next two project uh projects uh items two and three A and are brought to us by the Fargo Public Schools represented here today by their facilities director James Hand and their project engineer Andrew Thai Engineering. Uh they're both neighborhood schools, Horseman and Clare Barton. Uh the they are in core neighborhoods. In addition to our regular uh required notification, we also notified the neighborhood representatives of these uh of these plats. What we're looking here at today are just the subdivisions or in the case of the Clare Barton school edition, a subdivision and a small zone change. As your commission is probably aware, uh the current horseman school built in 1915 is intended to be demolished at the end of the this school year and then a new horseman will be built on that site. Uh and I believe this is what Commissioner Hos was referring to. We're just looking at the subdivision plat today. So you're not your commission the plan for the uh new school is not before your commission. This actually uh and then the same thing with Clara Barton. No new development is proposed at Clare Barton at this time but they're just uh cleaning up the property lines one might say here. So our first one here is Horseman School Edition 1025 Third Street North. It's a full block here [clears throat] and that's block 11 of Hector's Edition. It was a little foggy yesterday, but uh here are some uh shots here from different directions of Forest Man and the surrounding residential neighborhood. This is very much a neighborhood school and the entrance of full disclosure. I went to kindergarten at first grade here. Uh so, uh building and area around it. It occupies the entire block. Little historical note there for you on horse man. And this entire property is zoned PI public and institutional. So, no reszone is required here. Uh the property is block 11 of Hector's Edition. Uh and it was there's an there was an alley in it.

That alley was vacated in 1981. So uh the plat just combines all these lots into a single lot and add some easements for utilities and sidewalk. Actually, this was uh done. We appreciate the school district's cooperation. This was done at the recommendation of city planning and engineering staff that they do this replat and unify this as one lot before they go forward with the uh development on the uh of the new school on that property. [snorts] So again, fairly straightforward, just uh unifying the property lines there. Uh the recommended motion is stated in your staff report on shown on the screen. And again, uh Mr. Hand and Mr. Thail representing the project are here if you have any questions for them. Thank you, commissioners. That concludes today's presentation. Thanks, Donald. Commissioners, any questions for Donald?

Do you have anything to add as the applicant? Andrew Phil, Law Re-engineering. We're here to answer any questions there might be, but I think Donald did a great job summing up what we're looking for here. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Let's go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Item two, anybody wish to speak? Seeing none, let's close public hearing. Commissioners make a motion to accept the findings of staff. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, go ahead and take the role. Rosenberg. I betlock I Hassi. Cecil. Hi. Shuy. Hi. Mos. Hi. Fly. Hi. Schmidt. Hi. Jordy. I Stoffin. I Tossa. I. Motion carries. Moving on to item three, alpha 3 Bravo, Clara Barton School Edition.

Thank you, ma'am. So, along a similar vein, uh this is Claire Barton School here, uh located on for between 14th and 15th Avenue South, uh uh 6th and 7th Street South. Uh this is a little different than the Horseman because the school district does not own the entire block. So, that uh makes a little different here. Uh here are some uh photographs again from a foggy yesterday. This property on the corner here, 1402 is 7th Street South, is not included in this plat or zone change. That is still under private ownership. The school district doesn't own that one. They did recently acquire this second property here. Uh and that will eventually be demolished. That residence will be demolished as I understand. And uh that lot will be incorporated into the subdivision. Again, here are just some other views of Clare Barton School built in the 1920s. So, a little bit younger than horse man. And a little historical note on Clare Barton there for you, too. Uh, so just uh there is no new development proposed at this time. Uh, here the zoning is a little different. Um, much of uh the original uh Clare Barton area here was uh zoned PI and then a lot they acquired in the 1990s was zoned PI. This uh yellow lot here, which is 1404, um was uh recently Where' my cursor go here? Recently acquired and that is going to be zone changed to PI so it matches the zoning of the entire property. Again, as you know, PI is the uh appropriate zoning for government governmentowned buildings including schools. Here the plat again was originally platted in the 1890s of Huntington Huntington's edition. Uh there's no alley in this plat as there was in the horseman area, but just unifying all these lots into a single lot and again adding some uh easements for utilities and a wider sidewalk. There are a couple existing easements that remain here. And again, the uh this lot 26 is not part of the zone change or or subdivision plat. We did meet with a neighbor yesterday. We had some just

wonder what was uh happening up here. And we also have the adjacent property owners with us here this afternoon as well. Uh [snorts] and again, Mr. Hand and Mr. Dill representing the project are with us this afternoon and staff's recommendation for the zone change in the subdivision are stated in your staff report and shown on the screen. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, Donald. Commissioners, any questions for Donald?

Applicant, do you have anything to do any questions for the applicant? Okay, let's go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Three alpha 3 bravo. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, let's close public hearing. Commissioners move to accept staff findings. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, go ahead and take the role. Gl Schmidt. Hi Hass. Hi Stafren. Hi Mo. Hi Jordy. I

Rosenberg. Hi. Betlock. I Cecil I Shuy I Tossa I. Motion carried. Thank you Donald. Thank you commissioners. Moving to delta 1 with Megan.

Thank you. Item D1 is an annexation of portions of the north half of section 10, township 138, range 49. So this is related to items 1 A and B previously on your agenda. This is again located south of 64th Avenue between 45th Street South and I29. Images of the site. Unless there's questions, I'll breeze through these slides. So this item was heard again preliminarily at the December 2nd, 2025 planning commission meeting and at that time your board recommended continuation until this meeting um here today. What your board is looking at is consistent consistency with the growth plan. So here the subject property is in super grid 3A and it is also um within the urban neighborhood designation and so the proposed development is consistent with the growth plan. This is 123 acres. So, a little bit different size than the plat as mentioned. This area north here has already been annexed into the city and then there's some changes with the right ofway dedication. So, that makes up for that difference in that land area. This is an owner initiated annexation just by ordinance pursuant to North Dakota Century Code. There are three owners working together with this annexation and the city is also working to acquire some property um right down here to complete storm water infrastructure. So the planning commission evaluates for consistency with the growth plan and the hearing will be scheduled concurrently with the city commission um for the CVY ranch third edition and so they take different paths but ultimately um meet up at the city commission. So that concludes staff's presentation and the recommended motion is up on your screen.

Thanks Megan. Commissioners, any questions for Megan? No seeing none. And I'll make one note. This is a non-public hearing item. Yeah. Thanks. I won't open a public hearing then. Um, all right. What are your wishes, commissioners? I'll move uh the recommended motion. Second. Motion in a second. Any discussion take the role, please? Schmidt. I. Metlock. I. Jordy. I. Cecil. Hi. Stuffin. Mos. I Rosenberg. I I Shuy

I pass I Tossa I motion carries. Thanks Megan. Thank you Mark. I'm wondering we talked a little bit briefly about land development code. Um can we just get a brief update of maybe where we are? And

we're still working on it. Hopefully here we'll get something out in the next couple months. um uh getting some residential type zoning districts sort of formulated so we can get them released and talk about what do those look like and how they apply in today's development world. Um and we're still starting to do a bunch of, you know, information gathering on on the [clears throat] incentives and and how maybe we want to do that in the future since things have kind of changed. I know it seems uneventful, but I would love to say we are.

Does it change timeline? Because when were we going to be done? June. You know, the goal was Juneish. Um, but we're still I think we're getting pretty close to being able to start doing more public meetings and and have those discussions as far as what we would be releasing and then get that input. So, it's we're we're close to being on the right timeline. Okay. It I think the important thing is just making sure we do it right. Right. Okay. Well, thank you commissioners for coming to first hour. I think that's working out really well. Thank you very much. Happy New Year and see you next month. Meeting adjourned.