00:00:04,870	Well, I think it’s that time to go ahead and get started. Uh, today is the April 10th, 2025 being of the Renaissance Zone Authority. First on the agenda. Oh, we do have a quorum. First on the agenda, approval of minutes from our previous meeting. Don’t move. OK.

00:00:27,370	1st and the 2nd our motion in a second. All those in favor say aye. And the opposed? Motion passes. Next is a regular agenda item. Uh, we never did. We usually don’t we could if you want. No, that’s fine. I do so many of these is this something we do here? Yeah. Uh, regular agenda item, Isak, take this one.

00:01:00,930	Yes, thank you, Vice Chair Fink and authority members are one and only regular agenda item for today comes to us from Darryl Matthews of the Fire Pit who is requesting Downtown design review approval of some seasonally permanent outdoor seating for the fire pit restaurant located at 307 North Third Street.

00:01:21,900	Uh, just, uh, giving it the project map here to show where within the downtown this is located. The Uh, sidewalk in this area is about 15 ft in width, give or take the project as proposed would look similar to this in terms of it being, uh, treated wood, although there’s a note that you can hopefully see there.

00:01:42,100	This was in the packet as well, but the posts themselves uh would be uh proposed to be black iron as opposed to the wood as shown here, but the, the rest of it would still be treated wood, uh, to help delineate the seating area.

00:02:03,670	And Also provided in the uh Agenda packet was, uh, this just kind of trying to provide an overhead simple site plan of the proposed area based off of information that was provided to staff as it was originally proposed, it was, uh, 40 ft wide, uh, extending about 8 ft 10 inches from the building edge to uh the furthest point out into the sidewalk there and being 40 inches in height, with

00:02:23,200	again, the proposed materials being that treated wood with iron posts. The sidewalk being about 15 ft in width here, give or take, depending on the exact edge of the buildings, uh, we’ll play into one thing that we’ll touch on in a second here.

00:02:45,130	Uh, as you can hopefully see from this overhead aerial image, there are some other uh items within the public right of way, the the sidewalk area here. There’s some overhead utility poles, there’s some street lights, um. Street trees depending on where exactly this will be going.

00:03:06,530	The the reason I bring this up is that this type of seasonally permanent outdoor seating would require an encroachment agreement with the city engineering department and one of the, uh, aspects of said encroachment agreement, and this is similar to the streetscape standards that, uh, planning staff review such requests based off of refers to maintaining uninterrupted space for pedestrians to still be able to traverse through this. area.

00:03:30,100	So, in general, the streetscape standards and uh encroachment agreements call for 72 inches or 6 ft of uninterrupted sidewalk space for pedestrians, with some exceptions for if there are obstructions in the right of way, such as overhead utility poles or street lights.

00:03:52,930	There can be up to 2 obstructions per linear 100 ft in this general area, there would be two, obstructions, but with the presence of the obstructions that 7 2 inches can then be reduced down to 48 inches of uninterrupted space.

00:04:14,370	The reason we bring this up is because it’s a little unclear without going out and doing an exact measurement if the proposal in this exact manner of 8 ft 10 inches, uh, extending outward would meet that 48 inches in all locations. There is one spot where it might be closer to that 36 inches or 3 ft, one spot that is closer to that 48. inches, but not necessarily exactly there.

00:04:36,130	Um, so this, of course, could be remedied just by reducing the uh extension of the proposed seating space if necessary. Again, it’s hard to tell for sure without going out and measuring exactly, uh, but we just wanted to bring that to your attention. The applicant is aware of the encroachment agreement requirements and as of right now, that process is still ongoing.

00:04:54,370	It hasn’t been finalized, but uh I have received word from the engineering department that the The request has been received and it’s been reviewed by relevant staff before it’s, uh, signed off there. So, uh, with that as a cumulative result of all of the findings contained in the staff report, City of Bismarck staff find that the proposed design would otherwise not adversely impact public health safety or general welfare, and that it is

00:05:16,200	generally consistent with the Downtown design guidelines, comprehensive plan, Bismarck Court of Ordinances and relevant state law. Therefore, staff recommends approve. of the proposed outdoor seating at 307 North Third Street, the fire pit, with the condition that the encroachment agreement is received from the uh between the applicants and the engineering department.

00:05:38,830	Does the authority have any questions for me at this time? Um, So the encroachment agreement will take care of the question as to the width of the sidewalk and the width of the, the seating area.

00:05:57,870	Authority member Guy, uh, vice chair Fink and authority members, yes, that is one of the stipulations in the encroachment agreement that that 48 inches of space be maintained that a condition here. That is correct. OK. That you’re same, Comm. Go from here. Um, has the, I mean, uh, the application is from the. The tenant is The property owner is. I don’t think it’s the the tenant and the property owner are the same.

00:06:24,630	Uh, authority member Herzog, vice chair Fink and Authority members on the application there, you are correct that they’re the tenant and property owner are uh different entities. The property owner did sign the application as well, so they are aware of this request.

00:06:45,170	Anyone else? Any concern from our Uh, yeah, I guess I have a question for the applicant if that’s. Yeah. Um, David, if you could speak into a, a microphone so the folks online or at home can hear as well. Yeah, yeah, sorry about that. um, yeah, I have a question for the applicant if that would be the appropriate time. Come on. Uh, yeah, so my question is the uh reduced.

00:07:08,370	Um, available space in this seating area, how does that impact your ability to use that space with that reduced. That 1 ft reduction in the. Um Space that’s available to you. So for us, I think it just becomes a A design issue.

00:07:27,130	Where, you know, where it comes in, I think we go with a smaller table or so within or, you know, we space out the tables a little bit differently. Have, have you done a test fit of that space yet with, you know, under both scenarios, so we’ve looked at, you know, a ton of different furniture, um, to be able to go out there, but we

00:07:44,830	wanted to, before we order and do that, we wanted to get this approval first. Um, but being that there’s a number of, you know, different types of furniture that would fit within the parameter.

00:08:02,570	So I guess ultimately my question is, do you feel the reduced width from your original proposal versus what the reduced. Amount is, does that affect your No, it, it won’t. OK. Um Because I guess when I, and I’ll just kind of share my thoughts here. The Uh Uh, my kind of initial reaction to this was to actually want to approve. The original proposal, um.

00:08:28,630	The minimum clear width for sort of handicapped. Access is 3 ft, um, it, and if you go out and you look at the. The site that 4 ft width is provided if, if you’re able to count both sides of that pole. Um, there’s 3, there’s 2 ft on the other side of the pool.

00:08:46,000	I don’t think that pole is really obstructing the ability for two people to pass on the sidewalk, um, so if there’s a minimum of 3 ft between the pole and the Um You know, the seating area boundary, I don’t think that would actually be a problem, um. So, and yeah, and.

00:09:07,800	We both discussed this and like yeah, there’s an agreement from the two of us that. If the, you know, I think there’s a rationale to approve just the full. Original proposal of the um authority wishes to do so. Thank you. I think vice chair Fink to respond to design advisor Withham’s comments there.

00:09:32,630	This was a discussion that took place between planning staff and engineering staff, so you are correct that in terms of uh minimum ADA requirements 36 inches is that minimum width for unobstructed space.

00:09:53,870	There is also a, a separate guideline referred to as the public right of way accessibility guideline or prowag for short, that calls for A minimum of 48 inches of unobstructed space with a preferred, you know, 60 inches or 5 ft of unobstructed space, so this discussion did take place and planning staffs and engineering staff, the current agreement between staff is the 48 inches there, but we are aware of your, your comments or similar comments I should say.

00:10:15,130	Thank you. Anyone else? Um, And I don’t see it being a problem as far as. Unless there’s some event going on downtown. But as far as any plans to, cause.

00:10:39,900	Personally, I’m one of those people, it’s like, oh, hey, I’ll stop and visit with somebody that’s there and now you’re obstructing the sidewalk if it’s busy, which I can’t see it’s gonna be that. Busy all the time with the sidewalk for obstruction purposes.

00:10:56,370	Any signage or anything, so like no loitering or anything like that? Uh, a 30mb Baran is that that’s a question for me in terms of if if that’s a requirement on the encroachment agreement or things like that, or at least a conversation with the with the owner I am not aware of that being a requirement per se of the encroachment agreement, um, but I can sure look into that, uh, to see if that would be relevant and discuss that with engineering staff. OK, thank you.

00:11:18,130	Anyone else? If that’ll entertain emotion. Move to approve. Second. Moved and suck it and quick on the draw. if it was. Comm, Comm. If I may add a point of order just for clarification, is that a motion for approval or approval with the condition. Approval as presented with, uh, recommended conditions.

00:11:40,900	Has to meet the condition. Mhm Did everyone understand that? Yeah, an encroachment agreements obtained from the city engineering department prior to installation. Yeah. With that call roll. Authority member Greg Zenker. Yes. Steve Bakan? Yes. Amelia do. Yes. Kirsten Dvorak. Yes. Nancy Guy? Yes. Kate Herzon? Yes. John Lee? Yes, Vice Chair Joe Fink.

00:12:14,870	Motion passes, moving on to other business. Thanks, Joe. We have any other business. Yes, so Vice Chair Fink and authority members, we do have two, well, one or sort of two quick points of, uh, other business.

00:12:35,630	The first one I will mention, as you’ve seen hopefully in the agenda packet, there was a, a, a slight um error on staff’s part, but that has been now corrected that the Downtowners update has been, uh, provided in a written format as opposed to the standard, uh, in-person presentation that we would in the past have received. So just make a note of that.

00:12:53,200	The The second thing is sort of a request for direction from the authority, uh, in terms of the Renaissance zone program boundary. Uh, staff have received some inquiries about the Renaissance zone program, no formal applications at this time, but we have received some inquiries and some of the inquiries have been in blocks that are not currently within the program area.

00:13:14,630	So on the screens before you here, this is just a map of the existing boundaries of the Renaissance zone program, the Hashed blocks there are the blocks that were previously in the program but were then completed due to either uh most properties utilizing in the program and therefore no longer being

00:13:31,670	eligible or if there had been enough time passing with little movement happening there. It was deemed that they were no longer progressing and completed for that reason.

00:13:49,800	So per state law based off of Bismarck’s population, uh, we would be permitted to have a zone of up to 47 blocks as of right. Now the zone stands at 41.5 blocks, so there would be room to add in some more without, um, closing any blocks, but the, the ask I guess of the authority at this time is, is this something that, uh, the authority believes should be looked at in terms of and to be clear, staff does not have a

00:14:10,630	particular recommendation at this point, um, but if there were, uh, interest in having that discussion of whether or not it might make sense to either uh introduce new blocks or out certain blocks staff could work to, uh, examine that in more detail and then provide some recommendations to the

00:14:27,830	board for your discussion and or decision. And question on our is when we had last reviewed the map, I believe we had, we have the zone itself, and we indicated an area outside of that zone in which we’d be willing to uh expand the zone 2 should a request come along is the is the

00:14:47,530	requested blocks within that. That second I, where we’ve indicated we’d be willing to go to I think like a block or two away from the current zone. OK. I, I guess I’m not as familiar with that, so I’d maybe ask, uh, Daniel to provide a little uh clarification on this point. Thank you.

00:15:10,400	Sure, at the last time when the Renaissance on boundaries were evaluated, uh, this board, uh, decided to have a, a bit of a plan for the future so that property owners would know blocks that could potentially be added and property owners with no blocks that maybe were being evaluated for closure in the future, uh,

00:15:26,630	knowing that it takes a long time for investments to take shape and, and people need to have expectations for that. So, uh, there was a map and this was a few years ago. It was not incorporated into the formal development plan. Uh, I think it was, that was discussed, but opted it.

00:15:40,370	We opted against doing that. However, uh, on reviewing that map, I’m fairly certain the, uh, the blocks that were under discussion are in those areas that we were looking to expand into. Can I ask a follow up on that day? Is it within two blocks of the, of the current zone? Yes, yes. OK. Um-hum.

00:15:58,770	Can you tell us which blocks those are. I I would just say that. The, the, the inquiries or I think you can. I, I personally hesitate to say because it is not a formal application yet.

00:16:24,000	Therefore, I, I do not want to put more information out there publicly than perhaps the tentative or applicants would be willing to until an application actually happens, uh, but there, there are criteria beyond just possible projects in terms of uh how we would evaluate whether or not a block should be added in, there would be other criteria such as could, uh, Projects in this block advanced goals of the development plan, what is the, you know, building to land

00:16:45,470	value ratio, things like that. So that would all be things that we would analyze before we provide, uh, to the authority any information or recommendations there. I, I wasn’t asking about who is inquiring. I was asking about which blocks had we considered before.

00:17:03,630	Yeah, I believe if I’m, if I’m not mistaken, when we last discussed this, it was an area encompassing two blocks away from the current zone. Around the this we are willing to expand up to 2 blocks away from Where the zone currently sits up to 2 blocks away.

00:17:23,470	Indicating that, like, so if, if there was a project outside of the zone north of I don’t know what street we’re looking at 4th outside of our, our outside of the, the zone that ends on the north side of 4th, we willing to expand two blocks up if it was on the south side, two blocks down, like anywhere

00:17:36,900	from the current that was the indication that we had gave the public when we last looked at that map was we’d be willing to consider expanding up to at any point in time around that perimeter, 2 blocks away. Does that comport with our new development plan? I would, that’s why I was asking.

00:17:54,470	Uh, it does not sound as though that mapping was included within our new development plan. That is uh correct, uh, vice chair. The current plan does not indicate a preferred direction of expansion or completion of of blocks it highlights what the process would be in order to do that if the board, uh, were

00:18:14,830	interested in exploring that option, but it is not specified particular areas. Yep Go for it. I was like, remind me, if a block is closed out and there was a Renaissance zone project that was on that block and they want to do a leasehold improvement project, would they still be able to do that even

00:18:37,570	though the property’s been used and it’s out, so they’d be out, out, out, OK, thank you for, for those who could not see, uh, Daniel’s head shaking in the background.

00:18:55,730	He indicated that a yes, once the block is closed further uh projects in what used to be a renaissance zone block would not be permitted, even a lease project in a previous building. Which is why it’s Important for the board to understand like, we don’t add arbitrarily, nor should we remove arbitrarily.

00:19:12,200	It’s, it’s, it should be calculated, it should be, uh, the, the, that’s why we took the approach we did is we don’t want to add block, but we want to give the indication that we would be willing to go. Out to where a project might end up being so long as it was within knowing that the block or the the Renaissance zone needs to be contiguous, that is, it’s not 6 blocks in the single direction away three island if we wanted

00:19:28,400	to not be. I, I doubt that would ever happen at this point, but it’s, it is within Century code. Um, and I think they’re notified. I mean, the, you know, property owners are notified that they’ve potentially closed the block out, so if you have a leasehold project or, you know, you need to speak an hour or

00:19:43,730	sort of forever hold your peace situation. And then, you know, the sports talked quite a bit about let’s not chase one project or project chasing, so if a block comes in, is there more than one project or more than one property owner that would benefit.

00:19:59,670	It’s kind of been the discussion that when we’ve added blocks in the past, so some things to think about. So what direction, Isaac, are you looking for? At this point, uh, Vice Chair Fink and authority members, staff are mostly just looking to see if you would like more of an update based on, you know, further research and data in

00:20:19,530	terms of blocks that could be Nearby the existing boundaries which if you wanted to uh recommend a expansion of the zone or a completion of a block, which blocks would those be? So this is mostly an ask for uh further direction to look into this issue more than we currently have, I guess.

00:20:40,470	Anyone have input from? Go ahead. Isaac. So, um, and you might need Daniel for this one too because this is a, when we added, added the machine district, didn’t we talk about? Uh, duration of time that we’re gonna leave some of those properties in if there’s, if they’re stagnant.

00:21:00,630	Weren’t we giving them a timeline? Or did we, did we discuss it and then not approve it type thing. I mean, because we’ve never gotten a, um, We, we reached out to those people or those property owners in that district, and they said, yeah, they’re willing, they’re looking at it, they’d like to

00:21:15,530	do it. And then we, we’ve never approved a project within that. The last added district that we added. So I would have a little hesitation, um, just because there’s a, we go through a large process to get it done.

00:21:31,200	And now I think it’s a little bit bigger because we got to go to every, everyone to do it, so, um, if they’re asking us to do it, it’s almost seems like, hey, I got a project, so we’re kind of chasing a project, even though it’s not an island type thing.

00:21:45,570	I, I just have a, I have a little hesitation, maybe mixed feelings about it. So. I, I would be interested in knowing what staff thinks about the properties that are along the boundary.

00:22:04,370	Because if somebody does come to us with a project and we’re thinking about expanding out to meet that project, then we have a pretty good idea of what the rest of the. Area in that project is gonna be because we wouldn’t just have. A little island around that project we’d have to. Scoop out a block or two to get to it. Go ahead.

00:22:25,400	Yeah, uh, Comm Guy, you’re correct because I, the last time we, when we did add the machine district, we talked about going north of Main Street. Um, all of that, but there was. You know, And you would need some type of, we just didn’t at that time, we didn’t want to put them into the Renaissance zone just to put them in. Um, so, um, yeah, you’re right.

00:22:43,730	There was, we did discuss that. Yeah, and I think that’s, uh, like from what, from the Remembering the conversation as I do, you, you, yeah, it’s been a while, but like the, the indication or the, the, the onus to put an indication of this is where we would be willing to expand to was we don’t want to chase a

00:23:00,230	product or a project. We don’t want to say, well, you know, I’ll, I would like this renaissance zone, so, you know, expand to it. It was the Renaissance zone is expandable, but we have to be strategic in where we expand to so that we’re not just putting it in blocks that that aren’t going

00:23:15,270	to have anything going on. So Give an indication where we’d be willing to go should something come up and it then come to come to us and say, look, we need a renaissance project in order for Our idea to pan out, to pencil out to cash flow to whatever it might end up being is are you willing

00:23:33,870	to expand the zone to that area. We’re not chasing a product, we’re giving an indication to the public on where we would be willing to go. Right, so it would be a good idea to have staff do some analysis. Yeah, I mean it makes sense to go.

00:23:48,800	Yeah, that along with century code the whole purpose of the, the zone is to remove blight, right? It’s like where, where are we needed? Obviously expanding just to expand doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but be strategic about it.

00:24:06,500	We have a reserve of blocks, so we don’t have to remove someone if it’s not necessary, uh, on the other hand, if you’ve been in the, in the program for I don’t know how long has it been around 30 years, 20 years, and you’ve done nothing or 90% of the block is now completed and we don’t see a project coming forward, maybe it’s time to get rid of that block.

00:24:24,100	Understanding that, we have to remain contiguous. So If we remove a block, and now there is another block on the east side of that one that needs to go, we might need to add two blocks to get to it, uh, rather than just leaving that old one

00:24:36,870	in and adding one more. So it’s, it’s, you need to be strategic about how we’re adding those blocks as a, as a follow up as well. You’ve explained the process that we’re like that someone is likely going to need to go through in order to get a block added with the new plan or their understanding what

00:24:55,200	needs to happen there? Yes, so Vice Chair authority members, I have explained that to the prospective applicants and just as a reminder to the board, given the newly updated uh development plan that process would involve a public hearing at this board first to give folks an opportunity to provide

00:25:11,530	their input if they want to be included or not included, and then if there was a particular recommendation that is approved by the Renaissance Zone Authority, it would then go to the city commission for their approval if it is approved there, it would then go to the county schools and parks in

00:25:25,870	order of whoever has the soonest meeting after that if it is approved at all of those boards, it would then go off to the state for their approval.

00:25:42,530	That is the general process there, um, and that has been explained to the prospective applicants, uh, as well, and then I would add two other notes just so uh we are all on the same page. The In the past, it has been that if a property used the Renaissance zone, it was sort of done, couldn’t use it again.

00:26:00,130	Currently a property could use the zone again if 30 years have passed, so a long time. But if a block is completed and closed out, it cannot be reintroduced into the zones of the block overall is closed, the block is done. Just wanted to make sure we are all aware of that.

00:26:22,000	Great, maybe just add one other thing since there’s a lot of new people here, a block is whatever is bisected by public streets, so we have these like super long blocks or these mega blocks because there’s no public street that goes through, so a block isn’t 300 by 300 ft.

00:26:38,800	It’s wherever the next road comes through, so like the railroad blocks are super long and narrow, and Kirkwood Mall would be considered, I would assume, one block. So just You, you could get a huge amount of square footage in one block or a very small amount, um. Yep Uh, it’s a long process. Any other comments? Isaac, will be helpful in any direction? No.

00:27:06,400	In, in general, I don’t know if I don’t believe we need a, a formal motion chair, vice chair Fink, but if the board in general is open to staff looking into this more and then providing additional information, uh, possibly a, a recommended direction of staff can certainly look into that if you believe it would be a worthwhile discussion.

00:27:21,370	Do you need a motion? No. I don’t, but I, I guess as a as a suggestion that I’ll put out to the board is, is. I don’t see why staff wouldn’t look into areas contiguous or within two blocks of the current zone, uh, checking for is it’s worthwhile to, is it a valuable property to put in there? Is there

00:27:39,030	blight that needs to be removed or the city would like developed, uh, next would be an idea of where would be, where would the city be willing to expand its borders to, uh, if a project were to, to come along or we wanted to expand that, um. understanding that we need to be strategic about it.

00:27:56,170	I think it’s better to have an idea of where we would like to go and express that to, uh, the, the community at large, anyone looking at development, um, understanding that we’re not in control of that. We, we could like to expand there, but we have other boards that may not agree with that, um, so.

00:28:15,200	I mean, it’s, it’s worthwhile for the city to, to do the work to say this is where we’d be willing to go. Mhm Is there any disagreement amongst the board there’s always good to have that information anyway. You, you should express what it, what’s likely to happen. Or where you’d like to be, so.

00:28:32,800	Comm, Sir, um, Chair, I would just, uh, I’d like to expand on one thing that Isaac said about the. The uh Uh, facility or building being able to come back a second time. For, um, Uh, attacks.

00:28:52,030	and I would not be supportive of that in any way, I would think over 30 years you’ve got that back and, and it, and if that building has is blithe as you’ve referenced more than once, um, that’s not. That’s really on the owner that’s that shouldn’t be a justifiable scenario to get a second crack at this thing, so that’s just my. Opinion.

00:29:10,400	Thank you. Any other comments or direction. Thank you. Thank you. Any other business. Nope. OK With that, let’s. Anyone object? We are Adjourned. Next meeting should be in May. Thank you.