I will call the Mandan Planning and Zoning Committee meeting of September 22nd to order. Roll call, please. Commissioners Huber here Langing Horn Yeah Mum Muder Mayor Frelick Comm Gardner Yep Comm Renner. Comm Smith Comm McLean, Comm Intel. Comm Hammond, here, Chair Robinson, here. and we have quorum uh, first order is, uh, we have a copy of the minutes from the August 25th meeting. Do we have any changes? I can move to approve Chair Robinson. I’ll second Much by Comm McLean, seconded by Comm Inveld to approve the minutes of August 25th. Any questions? None. Roll call vote. Commissioners inel. McLean, Renner Gardner? Yes. Mudder, yes. Horn Huber Yes. Hammond, yes, and Chair Robinson, yes. motion is passed. We’ll move on to the first of our public hearings. And number one, consider a preliminary plat for Keidle’selhart Terrace 5th edition, and he’s own change from our 7 to R32 and R 7. Good evening, Chair Commissioners. Um, we are requesting again that this be tabled until October. Think it probably needs one. It is posted, so I’ll open it up, uh, uh if there’s any quick questions here Any questions from the commission before I open it up? I just have one and, and I, I was reading it and said it’s minimum. standards and maximum standards for the cul-de-sac, but I want to make sure that, that we can get our fire trucks and our buses because I live in a cul-de-sac and it’s bouncing off the curb and it’s cost the city already money to fix the curb in less than 5 years. So I want to make sure that our, that cul de sacs is able to fix or be able to get, get stuff around there. Thank you. And I would have a point also, it did the suggested motion does indicate uh until the October meeting, and I, we had a similar motion last month, should we state October or until the both parties have completed their meeting I What did you say, sir? Oh, I like that idea. OK. Sorry. I didn’t lean in right now. Any other questions in the Commission With none, I’ll open it up for public hearing at this point. Do we have any questions, comments from anybody in the room? Good good evening, Chair and Comm Abe. Bollmer with ILSE say I just want to explain, we are working with a neighbor, uh, same, same excuse we had last month. Um, working with a neighbor to try to solidify where our connection point would go, uh, grade is a absolute issue in that area. We’ve been kind of switching that around a little bit, um. didn’t want to cut 20 ft into the hill to try to make a road work and so we’re going back and forth with the other uh consultants trying to figure out exactly. what’s the best situation for both parties, so. just wanted that was the main reason why we’re tabling it and pushing it down the road is to figure that out a little. more clear. so. any questions for me Uh, I can speak to the cul de sac. It will be designed as a 98 ft diameter standard. uh what’s required by fire. Oh. Thank you. Yeah OK, thanks Thank you Any other comments or questions? Item number one. Comments or questions on item number one. With none, I’ll close. Public hearing and return it back to the commission. Chair Robinson, I can make a motion. I move to recommend to table this preliminary plot and zone change requests until both parties are in agreement. based on the conversation with the applicant and neighboring property in order for both applicant to churn in complimentary p preliminary plots to address cross connection concerns between the two parties. I’ll second Motion by Comm McLean, seconded by Comm Mudder. Motion is to recommend to table the preliminary platin zone change request until both parties have agreed on the next meeting based on conversations with the applicant and neighboring property in order for both applicants to turn in complimentary cul in ary plats to address cross connection concerns between the two properties. Any questions Roll call vote Comm Gardner Yes, Horn. Yes. Huber Yes. Mudder, yes McLean, yes Intel, Renner, Hammond, yes, Chair Robinson. Yes motion is passed Second public hearing consider a final plat for call addition. Rachel. Chair, Comm, um, so this is a final plot for the call Ire edition. Uh, we have had a name change. Let me get down to this. I apologize. Here you go. Um, so the Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat and the master plan at the July 28th, 2025 meeting. Um, the preliminary platinum master plan were approved by City Commission at the August 19, 2025 meeting. um the original subdivision name, uh, for the preliminary plot was the call edition, the September 4th, 2025 pre-planning meeting had a recommendation that the name be changed in order to avoid confusion with a similarly named subdivision. So that name has been updated, but otherwise, there have been no changes since the preliminary plot, other than a couple small typos, um, they would record this with the master plan, um, and it’ll go to City Commission from here if you make a motion to approve. and we would recommend approval and I can answer any questions. Questions for Rachel. Any questions for Rachel from the commission? With none at this time, I will open it up for public comment. Uh, we’ll take questions or comments on item number 2. Final latt for call edition You know, a call for comments or questions on the final platform for call addition. With none all Clothes, we turn it back to the commission. Any questions No, I would move to recommend approval of call I Ire additional final plot. All 2 motion by Comm Renner, seconded by Comm Intfeld. Motion is to recommend approval of the call Iri Edition final plat. Any questions None. Roll call vote Commissioners inel? Yes, Renner McLean, yes. Gardner, yes Mutter Yes, Huber. yes Hammond, yes, and Chair Robinson, yes. and motion is passed. Oh, excuse me, I have one more. I’m sorry. Comm Horn as well. Yeah Thank you. And um and the emotion has passed. Third public hearing. Consider an amendment to a special use permit for Lot 1, block 1, Bridgeview Bay Edition. Rachel. Comm, chairs. Chair, Commissioners, sorry. Um yeah get down to my map here so you can see this. Um this is an application for an amendment of a special use permit. um, for shop condos on lot one block one of Bridgeview Bridgeview Bay Edition. Um, so this amended special use permit seeks to update the approved site. building, and landscape plan that was originally approved via a special use permit on September 17, 2024. Um, so this property is, uh, located at 2600 Marina Road, Southeast. It’s currently zoned CB Business Commercial. Um, so the existing special use permit. um, was approved at the September 17, 2024 City Commission meeting. So originally the application was submitted in December of 2023. It was recommended for approval contingent upon resolving site plan issues at the May 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Um, then the applicant requested a variance at the August 26th, 2024, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And in August, the Commission delayed a decision on the zoning variants, um, which had sought a reduced width screening buffer between the property and a neighboring residential lot, which was required by the city’s Gateway and Buffalo Ordinance. Um, by September, the applicant had made changes to the site plan and a variance was no longer needed, and the special use permit was approved by City Commission on September 17th. So that special use termmate allowed for the construction of multi-use condo, shop condos, um so they specifically allowed for 3 structures with 18 multi-use shop condos on the property. And I I don’t know that I have a the original in here Um, and an image. So I apologize for that. Um the 3 buildings had one structure with 7 units, which was the North unit. One structure with 5 units, which was the east unit and one structure with 6 units, which was the south unit. And at the time, they intended to have 56 parking spaces based on the declared uses of retail and office. So the application showed on the south side of the property 30 ft of open space with four rows of conifers and a fence. Um, the permit also required landscape buffering that adhered to the city of Mandan Gateway screening requirement. They approved the special use permit contingent upon a stormwater management plan and C review of the condo declaration. So. now this current application has a reduction in units, but we believe in increase in size to the units. Um, and I say we believe for a reason. So the landscape, uh, so the current application is what’s in front of you. I’ll see if I can rotate this. Here we go. Um, so the North structure has 6 units, so 1 fewer. The east structure has 6 units, so 1 additional and the south unit has 5 units, so 1 fewer, um, the landscape buffer to the south shows two rows of conifers in 20 ft of open space, as well as a proposed fence. So while they’re reducing the number of units overall, the building size, while not clearly shown, has appeared to increase on both the E structure and the south structure. Um, we have not been able to review a complete appli or complete landscape plan, um, this plan is not fully dimensioned and is really blurry. So it’s, it was kind of hard to determine what is going on specifically, um. but review of the plan that has been provided only shows meeting 5 landscape points, not 6, which is the required amount. Um the change in development pattern, even though that number of structures is less is what requires a special use permit amendment. So, um, the applicant did provide answers to the required questions with the special use permit application, which are in your packet. Um Staff has noted concerns regarding the applicant continuing to meet the requirements that were in the original special use permit, um, and we have requested a detailed landscape plan, but we have not been able to meet with the applicant um prior to tonight. So we have not been able to determine if there are in fact buffer requirements that are being met. um but again, our evaluation of the plan that was provided is that they are not quite there. Um, so the recommendation would be that if approved by the Planning and Zuloning Commission, the applicant would provide a detailed building and landscape plan prior to City Commission review. The adjacent properties um, the current and proposed zoning is CB commercial on the properties within the gateway Overlay District, adjacent properties to the north arez RM residential and CB Commercial and consist of a marina and restaurant to the west, the property is, um, zone CB commercial to the southwest is RM residential, multi-family, and to the south there are single family homes zoned are 7 residential. Um, the Future land use plan did recommend commercial development on these properties and the proposed land uses have been declared to be commercial and personal recreation and storage. We have received one letter of objection, which is in front of you. Um, we received that yesterday. I did email it to all of you as well. Um, and then we did receive a phone call from that applicant as well. I believe both Jordan and I did, or not the applicant, I’m sorry, the, um, concerned resident, um you do have findings of fact in your um, packet with a note that the um that staff has concerns regarding whether the landscaping plan fulfills the buffer requirements in the gateway Overlay District. Um, and then the recommendation we recommend review of the special use permit for lot one block one and materials provided by the applicant and staff, Future Landscape, or Future land use plan zoning ordinances and modifying or accepting staff findings of fact as necessary to support motion of the board with any potential approval being contingent on requirements that the applicant demonstrate the ability to abide by all requirements of the original special use permit and provide a detailed landscaping plan to the city prior to final approval by City Commission. So that was what we wrote, assuming that we’d be able to meet with the applicant prior to this meeting and have a better understanding of what was going on for you. We haven’t had a chance to do that, um, and so it, we just want you to be aware of that, that we really feel that this doesn’t meet the requirements of the landscape code, but we just don’t know for sure. So if you have any questions, I can answer them. Questions for Rachel Chair Robinson. So what, give it to me clearly because I’m a little bit confused. What changed from last year to this year, or maybe I should wait for the applicant to come up like I thought they changed the building size last year and that’s what we did and I thought it went through ARC already. for review, but I could be wrong. Chair and Comm, that is one of the things that we are also slightly confused about, we have gone through the minutes and through the approvals, um, and what we can find is what was approved was those numbers that I had put in the memo of, um, and I, I wish I had the site, the original site planned and I apologize for not having it in there, but, um, the units were smaller, so these units, um, that are on the site plan that is in your packet. Some of them are like 2 units. So in that same space that you see one unit, it was 2. It was split vertically. So the units changed from the, the original plan till now is that maybe, yeah, the unit numbers have changed, and they do appear in the South Building to have gotten larger because they are it, it’s showing a 20 ft buffer on the south side where there was a 30 ft buffer. So the only place that we think those 10 ft could have gone as if the building got larger, but again, we haven’t had the ability to confirm that. Sure, OK. So Rachel, just so I’m clear, there’s, there’s actually two concerns and one is the landscaping, but then also there’d be the size of the, the building against what city code may be to, is that right? I, I guess I would assume that it probably meets city code based on the allowances within the code and the size and the parking. It probably is. it probably meets City Code, but yeah, we haven’t been able to confirm that. along those lines. So may I ask would it meet the setback requirement with the 20 instead of the 30? Chair Comm, I’m uncertain. And in reviewing uh Attorney Oster’s letter, it uh I’m, I’m assuming the footprint does cut into what was the intended. buffer. if I interpret that properly I don’t think she’s on today to explain her position Chair, that is our understanding. I have 11 question. So the, the points, there’s 6 points of the landscape points, so I’m guessing two of them are like two rows of trees, one’s a fence. Do you know what the other you said there’s 5 of 6 that they haven’t met. I unfortunately, I don’t have those in front of me. I’m sorry. Gardner, I was just reading in Attorney Oster’s letter in the bottom of page one, last paragraph at, it does also mention the separation between buildings. So perhaps that distance of separation is. part of that Any other questions for Rachel Rachel, so basically you’re telling me you need more information to to give us in the end run, right? Chair Comm, yeah, I would prefer it, um, to be able to really give you a good answer, a good, clear answer of like, yes, this does meet or no this doesn’t mean. I feel like I’m giving you a lot of I don’t knows, um, and it is due to that lack of information. So yes, if, if we had more information, we hopefully would be able to, to be a little bit more certain in our evaluation. So my second part of that question is, do you want us to deny this or do you want us to table this. She Commission She, I am not sure I have an answer for that one. I do know there’s some neighbors here with comment as well, and I think the applicant is here as well. OK, thank you. Just a quick question too. The minutes from when we approved the special use print, do we have those or the ability to get them? I know Nancy’s not here and I don’t want to, you know, put Jordan on the spot to have an aneurysm or anything, but. Comm, it sounded like the website was down. I was, I was trying to pull some of them and I, if I can, I, I will. OK, thank you. Yeah, we can subpoena Andrew or have him come in too if need be, yeah. Yeah, we’ve had commissioners up here having trouble to sign in tonight also, so. Any further questions before I open it up? Thank you. With none at this time, I’ll open up for public comments and questions on item number 3. Chair Robinson, Commissioners, I’m Wade Vogel. I’m here once again, um, on this topic, and I apologize for taking up your time once again, um. everything Rachel said was absolutely, I feel correct. Um, she is correct in that we’re here, um, requesting, um, a little bit more space on building one. Well, at the same time uh cutting some space on some of the other units, um, we were first here before you on May 29th, 2024, to request a special use permit, and that was approved and I do have a copy of what was approved, what was submitted in those minutes and approved. Does that something you could show Building one is the south unit. Uh, 2 is the unit to the north. and 3 is the river unit. OK. So, in that application package, um, from May 29th when we originally here. This is what was submitted. and as you can see um, the numbers of units and I oh. I’m sorry and I um the X’s are the units that we’ve deleted and the lines, the dark black lines are combining the original, they were 2 units each, and they were combined into one. And that was this did not have the specifics if it was 15 ft, if it was 20 ft, but we had 55 ft, I believe there, um, originally. we had 58 ft deep there originally, um, we are now at 50 ft deep, so we’ve actually taken 8 ft off of that building. The building that was approved though at the city commission is one where there was only 40 ft deep on Building One, which is the building to the south Um in order to proceed with the project, um, we were getting headwind from the former city planner and so in order to move forward with the project, um, we moved that building back. We didn’t move the building, we took it from 58 ft down to 40 ft, which gave us a 30 ft buffer there and we removed um the first unit on the south side on the river. which is this unit right here. And that’s what was presented to City Commission, and that was what was approved. um so when, when we say we seek minutes, we should be looking at the city commission and it’s not the PNZ minutes Does that make sense? Yep, it does. So this, that’s what was originally approved at Planning and Zoning not at citycom Commission. That’s correct. And when I say um when we went to the city commission again um. we were I had met with um the former city planner and we were told that the ordinances were going to be rewritten this past winter and I think there was a very good effort to get that accomplished and to get that done, but it didn’t, I don’t think it made it to the finish line. And so when if the ordinances would have been rewritten to what we were led to believe, we wouldn’t be here tonight because we would have met the criteria of the new ordinances. Um, again, that wasn’t done so. we had to come back with a request to revise the special use permit. So what we’re asking for now am I doing that What we’re asking for now is an up to revise the special use permit to allow us to have two layers of 2 layers of trees on the south side and a fence which to answer the question, that’s the 3 buffer point. We need 6 buffer points, so the ordinance as written says we can use 1 point for each 25 ft of separation between buildings. Between the buildings we have 60 65 ft between those buil our buildings, so we should at least receive one buffer point for every, every separation between those units. We did send a letter to the city and asked for attorney Oster’s opinion, and that’s the opinion that was, um, that was presented here earlier uh by Comm Huber. So to answer the question is how did we get to 6 points. We have two rows of trees and a fence, and then we have 175 ft of separation combined between these units, so we’re asking for some of that separation to be allowed for uh for the ordinance. Um, the ordinance states um buffer points must be satisfied through a combination of the following 1 point for each 25 ft of separation between buildings, 1 point for a single row of conifers, 6 ft in height, 1 point for a solid fence or wall, at least 6 ft in height, 1 point for a berm at least 3 ft in height, 1 half point for overstory trees and one half point for a hedge or shrub at least 4 ft in height. and we feel our proposed plot exceeds these requirements as laid out in the ordinance. Would this be appropriate juncture to ask for clarification. Um, it had been my understanding with regard to those buffer points that those were written in reference to. the, the subject building and the building on the adjacent property, not separation of the buildings within the site itself because this is talking about buffering it from the, the property to the south or the residential buildings. So I think that would be the distance that would be pertinent here if I’m understanding this correctly. That was my question as well. That’s, that was when I was wondering. Can I answer that Comm Huber, you’re, you’re, you’re correct in your assumption, and that’s what we originally assumed also that it was the separation between our building and the adjacent property owner’s building, which is currently 75 to 80 ft, so we thought that we would get some points for that, and Attorney Oster said, um, stated that it, it didn’t pertain to any any units off our property, so the ordinance has to mean something, so it has to mean that it’s the units within our own property. So instead of putting one ginormous unit there. We have 3 separate units which gives us the separation. We didn’t write the ordinance. We’re just following the rules. I, I still think it means though in reference to that. property line splitting those two properties or in other words, the the setback from the property that we’re talking about buffering That’s what we thought also Any other questions for me? Well, maybe, maybe clarification wait, so the South really in question is the unit, the building one, the South one, the buffer zone between that and your neighbors to the south, correct? I mean, in at one point the take us back a year ago, we had that buffer, we got exemption. It was here. It bypassed us and went to City Comm. He got approval from that because what you and Andrew worked out previous planning zoning. What did you work out? What was the distance between those two? What, how many points did you have at that point? So we, yeah, so we had 30 ft away. um, we had 4 rows of trees. and you have now what, wait, just so I get it right. So you have 30. We have, we have 20 ft, two rows of trees, and a fault. So back to when you got approved by ArRC and City Commission, you had 30 ft and 3 rows of trees. Now you have 20 ft and 2 rows of trees. No, and we got approved by ARC, we also had two rows of trees and one fence. OK. And I’ve got that with me too if you want to see that too. This is, this is what was approved by City Commission and we had, again, we did that to comply with um. Andrew’s request. um that we have to have that 6 points on that south. um. property line But there’s nothing in the ordinance that states that um that we have. So there’s nothing in the ordinance I’d say it’s between the property line and our unit or the property line in the ad adjacent neighboring property. It just says um, that buffer points must be satisfied through a combination of the following. Again, it’s not, it’s probably not clear. but again, we follow the we follow the, I guess the the opinion of Attorney Oster and her opinion was that we should get some points for separation of building through of the buildings. And you started building one already, right? Yeah, no, uh no, building one has not been started yet. OK, that’s what I thought, yeah. And we do not have the the South River unit started. We have a foundation in, but, um, we did not proceed with that because we did not have a permit to build that unit. Any further questions for Wade I, I apologize. I’m just gonna slow it down just a little bit and one more time if you could go put that back on the board, the, the visual. there. So this map right here has 4 rows of trees. and this was approved by City Commission. That’s correct. And so so in counting there’s 4 rows, so I’m guessing that’s 4 points. You get the fence that’d be 5. and then 6 is the distance. I mean, that’s correct. OK. And then was this city commission was approved last year then, correct? And so, but now it’s 20 and this, what was the distance on this one here? 30 ft 30 ft And now it’s now it’s two rows 20 ft. and you’re saying that I mean, you’re kind of doing letter of the law instead of spirit maybe spirit of law is the way I see it. Um, and not that there’s anything wrong with it. I’m just that I’m trying to what that you’re following the letter of the law, not necessarily maybe the spirit of the law is. a couple of us commissioners have just assumed that’s the way I’m not saying he’s 100%. I’m just following what the ordinance states. you’re going to do two rows of trees and the fence. You’re getting 3 points on that. That’s what we have, that’s what we have on this plant, yes. Um-hum. And we’re not here to be bad neighbors. I mean, if I don’t know if there’s a different alternative or different option, we’re all for it. I just, we’ve been, we’ve been here down this path for 18 months and, um, we’re just, we’re just ready to finish the project up, so. and it’s so you can remind me, it’s 1 point for every 10 ft or every 25 ft, every 25. 0, OK. Yeah Yes it strikes me that the special use permit is what should be followed, and it seems like that would have stood even if there had been a change in the, in the ordinance because the special use permit would have proceeded any change in ordinance, which hasn’t occurred yet, so. I’m I’m not fully understanding the thought to change it. OK. Well, we were just coming back because we have not, we’ve not submitted for permit for building 1 or 4 unit. south unit on the riverside, which is considered unit 7. So uh, the city request we come back for an amendment to the special use permit. Karen Robinson, I guess that’s kind of my take on this. I’m, I’m, I wasn’t on planning and zoning when this was all started, but as it, as that map is sitting right there, which was approved by the city, what was the impetus from to changing it to two rows where you’re just trying to make the buildings bigger or why, why are you trying to go from 2 because in my mind you’ve got 5 points right there. Plus, if you interpret it that the distance of 25 ft has to be between adjacent properties. You’ve got your 6 points. By removing two rows and making the buildings closer, you’re losing 2 points right away if I’m understanding this correctly. So what was the reason behind going away from this and going to two rows for a couple reasons. Thanks for the question. For a couple of reasons, we originally, when we first came to planning and zoning, we were 58 ft deep there. We cut that down to 40 ft in order to address the concerns of the previous city planner, although we didn’t agree with it, and, um, we do have a legal opinion also from an attorney that’s you know, that shows that we were in compliance We bypassed and did this just so we could continue on with the project without delaying it because this was in October, November time frame, and we didn’t want to sit until this spring in order to get approval. So we went forward with this plan after talking with the former city planner so that way we could get going and it was agreed then um there would be no no rebuttal, and they would allow us to go through with buildings 2 and 3 as they sat here and we would come back for building one and unit number 7 this year. And that was our intention when we submitted this, that was our intention all along to come back. I, I don’t, Comm Revenner, was your question answered? I mean, what’s, I was kind of curious what the what what the reason, I mean the reason is that he’d like to get more bigger space, I think. Yeah, yeah, yeah, a bigger, yeah, sorry, bigger, bigger, bigger shop size there and be be able to add that unit on the river. um. I’m still, you know, maybe I’m a little confused here too if, if the intention all along was to come back and if the intention all along was to not to accept this. Why did you accept this? So we were asked to we were asked to accept this because the ordinance was going to be rewritten. So when we came back, it was under my impression that when we come back, that we would have an opportunity to represent this. and maybe I was wrong in assuming that, but that’s what we were told. And, and see, that’s where I would view that differently, that again, you’d entered into a special use agreement and, and that’s what it brought about agreement by the property to the south and so to deviate that would deviate from the spirit of that compromise. E OK. I don’t think there was a you know, we compromise with the city because of their the interpretation that there should be 6 units on the South property line, a buffer. um, we then uh we’ve since asked for a legal opinion from the city attorney and the city attorney says that there we should be able to have, um we should be able to have um various ways of satisfying that buffer other than just all 6 points on that south boundary. Um. one of the question if we’re done with that thought is, so you said that the new ordinance was going to make this better? Do you know what particular points in the new ordinance would have alleviated the with there less points that were required. I think in Jordan, if correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I think it was gonna, it was gonna be more so that it was going to be on a case by case by uh determiner looked at by the MARC and I’m not sure if that’s 100% correct, Jordan? Yeah, Comm, I, you know, I’d have to go back and look and see what we have in our notes. Obviously, um, the intention was to have a new zoning ordinance which were still getting to, um, I, I would have to look up the specifics. I know there’s still um, things we have in there for commercial landscaping and, and those type of things, but the specifics, and I think how they correlate specifically to the gateway district is probably um maybe different, but I, I, there again, that’s, this would have been your guys’ call as well to vote on, on the uh new zoning ordinance as well. So not in place yet. Chair Robinson, I guess that’s what I’m kind of hearing here if I’m understanding all this, and I don’t, like I said, I wasn’t on the committee, so I don’t understand what was being proposed to change the zoning, or not the zoning, but the ordinance from, you know, before. And if you were under the intention of going into this that there was going to be a zoning change. Are we at a point right now where we need, where are we with this supposed zoning or not zoning, but uh ordinance change if there’s something that’s going to be coming up short term, that it’s going to be changed. I, I understand you’re 18 months into this, you’d like to get going, but are we better off waiting until we get the actual ordinance in place. instead of trying to make a variance on something that was already approved. I, I guess my question is, I mean, I, like I said, I understand you’ve got a lot of time sitting waiting on this thing, but would we be better off getting the ordinance in place first? Comm Renner, um, the ordinance, I think, had Andrew not left. I think the ordinance probably would have already been voted on and whether approved or disapproved by by this committee, um, the intent was, I think this last fall, this last winter, um, and then I think just with him leaving and it just, it didn’t come to fruition. Yeah the schedule I think would have occurred probably sometime between this spring and now. actually I, I guess I, I maybe correct me if I’m wrong from misunderstanding this, but I, I mean, I do empathize with the business that’s trying to somebody who’s trying to build something that you wouldn’t want to wait another 6 or 9 months freeze development and until, I mean in waste time where you could be developing that makes sense to me, I guess I would, and I wouldn’t have a problem approving a variance. if I knew that it was fulfilling the spirit of the ordinance instead of waiting for the ordinances to pass 6, 12 months, whatever it’s gonna take, and we hold them off for a long time. Um, but I’d like to know that the spirit of the ordinances that are were presented we’re gonna be what that this would satisfy them. I guess that’s where I’m at I, I, I think I might have the craziest question of them all, but if we deny this, would you go back to your old plan to build? Um we’d be interested in some sort of a compromise, yes, whether that means we get to build unit number 7 along the river and we leave that 30 ft buffer on Building one. We’re not opposed to that. I just think there should be some common ground, something again, we didn’t rate the ordinance, we’re just trying to follow what the current ordinance gives us provides for I know you’re getting hammered, Wade. Thank you for standing up for the Inquisition, but, uh, I know that you, you got this submitted from the city attorney. Uh, question 3, I think bears summarizing. I think that’s where you’re saying you have approval because she says halfway through the section, while the ordinance does not expressly state so, I believe that a reasonable interpretation would require a minimum of 3 points allocated to the screening between residential and commercial parcel. So you’re thinking the three points are your two rows of trees in the fence. That’s your interpretation, and that’s what you currently have on the plan, and that’s what you’re what you’re saying the city attorney is saying that this is OK. That’s correct. OK. And is there a compromise that could be, if you want to, instead of going the 20, the feet and you want 25 to grab another point there is that OK be fine with that. OK. The other element here that I see is you know, there is a special use permit and, and there’s some detail in it and, and the reason the attorney sent the letter is what’s there does not follow the special use permit. So, so you got another, I don’t know what comes first, special use permit or ordinance. And she isn’t here to help us out, but, uh, uh Comm Robinson, the, the reason that when we passed planning and zoning, we weren’t. automatically able to go to city commission is because it was stated that we, we didn’t meet the criteria for the ordinance. So the ordinance must proceed the special use permit. Chair Commissioners, um, typically your special use permit is not a variance, so a variance to the code would be changing the code or allowing someone to do something that’s specifically is not allowed by code. A special use permit simply allows for something, um, that may work in a zoning district and maybe be compatible with surrounding uses as long as certain requirements are met. So in this case, it’s not saying that they wouldn’t have to meet the ordinance. It’s just saying that that they do have to meet the ordinance as well as other requirements in order for these shop condos to be compatible with the residential uses next door. So it’s not an either or, it’s a both. if that makes sense I know I said one last, but I’m gonna do another last last thing, um. I’m assuming you’re not trying to break ground and building one right away. So if we did were to table this to get some more information, you’d be OK for a month, like, or what do you, what’s your, yeah, I know. Built now, get it in the ground, right? Well, the problem is, is I guess we don’t live in Florida, so. Right, yeah. Um, already visiting with excavation and concrete companies. were already on a very, very tight schedule even if cause it, it isn’t that it just passes here. I still would have to go to city commission and get approval there and in between there get a detailed landscape plan and these things put together for for review by city staff, so, um, and I think we call these different than shot condos. Then we call them like flex space. Commercial commercial flex flex use spaces, , yeah, OK,. I think Andrew came up with his own term for this or something. Chair Commissioners, um, they are listed in the special use permit as shop condos, multi-use shop condos, um. yes. Sorry. Thank you. I just was trying to bring back my memory of everything, so. Any other questions for me? Any other questions? So again, I think it’s just important to remember that this was a special use permit for shop condos to be adjacent to this residential property, and we’ve been coming up against these issues of, of, you know, kind of conflict between these different types of uses, you know, not only on this project, but others, and so this was the agreed upon conditions to put those two uses adjacent to one another, so, um, you know, for, for that part, then I think that all parties at that entered into that agreement in, in good faith. and, and, and so I believe that it was a, it was a good agreement at the time and and should stand. Any other questions Thank you, Wade. Thank you Again, taking comments on item number 3. Ramona Furlong,, 2700 Marina Road, Southeast. I guess if there was a theme or a title that we would put on this agenda item, it might be been there, done that. We talked about this last year for we talked about this a lot and we went through the various ways that the buffer requirement could be met. Originally, the developers said, we can build right on the property line because we’re going to use the distance between our building and your house as part of our buffer zone point system, and we said, you can’t use our property to fulfill your buffer zone points. Then they said, OK, well, we’ll, we’ll seek a variance. Then they said, OK, well we’ll follow the buffer points in the ordinance. um, and they asked for the special use permit. But and it’s Andrew doesn’t have anything to do with it. This is an ordinance that they have to follow, and it’s what’s in place now. It might not ever be changed, and it’s irrelevant about what’s going, the talks that are going on about whether to change it in the future or not. We do have an agreement They never said anything about, well, maybe we’ll come back later and change it. In fact, they were upset because they said they didn’t have enough room. If we, if we have to have 30 ft of separation, we’re not gonna have enough room to have the size of units we want to do what we want there, and we said, well, we’re, we’re sorry, we, you know, we want you to build on your property, but that’s not our fault. They didn’t do their due diligence. They didn’t look at the easements. They didn’t, there’s too easements that someone else owned a chunk of the property, um, they that’s just the start. They didn’t know any of those things. So they had planned to build structures thinking they had more room to build than they actually did. And then when they found out they didn’t, they said, oh well we shouldn’t be the ones to bear that. Let the property owners to the south of us bear that. That’s not fair. We talked to them, we got something worked out. We came before you folks. We came before City Commission. The deal that’s in place is what was agreed to. We would object to anything that decreases any of the space between our property and theirs. Those buildings are monster buildings. If you stand in our property now, they, they tower over us and now there’s going to be another structure along the fence. It’s like, OK, we agreed to that, but we don’t want the distance shortened any more than what it already is. 30 ft, doesn’t sound too bad, but when you’re standing there looking at it, it’s like really close, and if they want to change that to 20 ft and the trees that they want to put in. I’m gonna be, my ashes are going to be blown in the wind before those trees are even above the fence. They’re so small. So oh, the attor city attorney, she was the attorney last year when we were discussing these things. There’s no letter from her there. and the buffer points, if she’s saying that distance between their buildings and their property can be counted as a buffer between them and us. That makes no sense to me at all. And again we have a deal and I think the agreement should stand. Do you have any questions Thank you Again, taking comments or questions on item number 3. A couple of other things that have come to our attention. The ordinance not the ordinance, excuse me, the special use permit was passed with a list of conditions that we’re hearing are not going to be met. For instance, there is supposed to be no, um, overnight stays in the shop condos, and we’re already hearing from a handful of people that they intend to live there over the weekends. So I’m interested to see how that is going to be enforced. They’re not supposed to be any overnight parking. um those are the two that come to mind, but we’re already they’re already not following all of the things that they agreed that they would follow. So the, the agreement shouldn’t be changed. Anyone else Uh, my name is Tim Furlong. I’m at 2700 Marina Road Southeast as well, and we’re adjacent to the property. I think one thing that’s important and I brought this up before is when we bought our property, which was 2011. we knew that there was a commercial piece of property there, but we also knew that there was this overlay zone that would give us some separation from the from the anything that was going to be built there. So we did our due diligence and then and I deal with land issues all the time, but I just can’t imagine it, it would appear to me if that gets changed now, it’s almost a takings issue to us. um because we bought our property with that in place and, and assuming that that was going to stay in place between a residential and commercial piece of property. So I’m a little concerned about that, that uh there’s even any talk about trying to change this overlay zone and when we, we went to the city means last year. when Andrew was here and we talked to him about these some ordinness changes. He said that this would not get changed. This buffer zone, he said that wasn’t even in a contention, so if something else is out there, we’re not aware of it because it was never shown to us, so that’s something new to to us that there was even a contemplation of changing that particular ordinance. OK? Any questions Thank you. Thank you Any other comments or questions? Sure, Robinson, I guess I’m struggling with this a little bit, which way is the right way? And I I think for myself, I think we have two options the way we are sitting at it, looking at it right now. We continue with the way it was originally drawn with the four rows of trees, the 30-foot buffer zone, the fence. We can continue on with what was already approved by the city commission. or if the applicant is pretty much dead set on reducing that down to two rows and gaining that extra 10 ft. I think you almost have to take a chance and a gamble and try to push to change the ordinance to allow that. In my mind, that’s kind of the two options where I think we’re at. We, we wait and change the ordinance, or we leave it the way it was already agreed to. because right now in my mind to try to change the special use permit that is questionable if it’s filling the abiding by the ordinance right now. I, I have a hard time with that one. So I think it’s, I, you know, I don’t know if it’s appropriate or not to ask Wade what his preference is, but, uh, I don’t know if that’s appropriate or not, but I guess I would like to kind of hear what you think on that, Wade. Thanks for the opportunity. I do agree with Ramona that there is an ordinance on the on the record that’s current that’s on the books today and that we should follow that. and the ordinance that’s there today says that we should be allowed 25, 1 point for every 25 ft separation between units. It’s not ambiguous. It doesn’t say between the property line and the neighbors. Thank you. On that last point, and maybe we need to get the exact ordinance in front of us, and I don’t know if, um, if one of the staff could help with that, but I think it’s, it’s just inherent. It’s a buffer inherently between a commercial and residential, um property. And so I think if we can take a look at that wording, it might help. And then I think the other thing maybe just to, to give, um, some context for, uh, Comm Renner. This any ordinance change that was referenced here would have been part of the overall zoning rewrite. And while we’ve seen, um, broad strokes at that we haven’t seen any particulars yet as a planning and zoning commission and so we wouldn’t even be able to speak to whether or not uh the buffering between residential and commercial properties was proposed to be changed, or at least I certainly would not be able to, and, and I feel like I’ve stayed fairly abreast of, of, um you know, the, the overall themes within um that zoning code rewrite. And so I personally would not be interested in, in pulling out a piece of that, but rather waiting until we get that that overall code rewrite presented to us for consideration. Chairob Robinson, they’re pulling up to, I think that we can’t base our decisions on what could happen in the future, you know, we can’t do that if they were ordinance changed, great, whatever, then we go follow that rule. But we also don’t know what’s going to happen with these flex, these shop condos as well, how they’re going to be used or whatever. So we can’t base our decisions on those either. I, I have a hard time, we don’t have the city attorney here. She gave an opinion. It’s written it from her. It says that she feels like the buffer zone between the three has 3 points. She’s very clear on that, that that could be it. So I’ve been struggling with that. I, but we did change too. I think there’s a compromise to happen here, but I don’t know what it is, but I’d like to see what the exact CD orna says, but her opinion, I mean, and this is our city attorney who states that this 3 points. allowed between the two properties. but go ahead. OK, we did pull up the um the Jordan pulled up the ordinance. If, um, I don’t know if you if we can get it up on the screen. Um to Rachel yeah, mhm, it says buffer points must be set aside for a combination of the following 1 point for each 25 ft of separation between buildings, 1 point for a single row of conifers 6 ft in height, 15 ft on center, uh, for example, 2 points for a double R, 3 points for a triple row, 1 point for a solid fence or wall at least 6 ft in height, provided the landscaping is installed between said fence or wall, and the adjacent property lines, 1 point for erm, at least 3 ft in height, 1 half point for over-story trees, 30 ft on center, 1 half point for a hedge or shrub, at least 4 ft in height and 75% opaque. So I have a few items. I would tend to agree that the interpretation, while Attorney Oster’s letter notes that those 3 points may be satisfied that the separation between buildings is probably not on the property. It is probably between the, you’re buffering between the two properties that you’re attempting to buffer between, um, that would typically be my interpretation as a professional planner. And Rachel, could you even lower that a bit to see what precedes that because I think we got it read, so we’re talking about um buffering between these different types of uses. So again anything, it has to be taken into that context and not isolated from that. Yeah, um. Rachel, do you, do you know what, what’s the distance between the property line and the neighboring property. I do not have that and unfortunately this is where when we were talking about like not having quite enough information. One of the other things that I’m, I, you know, I’m noticing with this is it talks about the landscaping being installed between the fence and the adjacent property line. I don’t know that that’s what’s shown clearly on that landscaping plan. Um, so there are just some questions still, and I think that the previously approved plan was, what was the plan and that, that the city commission and the planner at the time felt met these conditions. Um but that I, that would be these are, so these are the items that are in the code. I would say my interpretation typically as a professional planner would be that between buildings would typically mean between the two uses that you are buffering between. Robinson, I guess that’s what I’m kind of curious about without seeing where the neighbors property, you know, building actually is, is it 55 ft from the property line because then that extra 20 ft gives you 75 ft and you’ve got your 3 points. If it’s less than 55 ft, then there’s, then they maybe do have to go to 30 ft, you know, I mean that would be kind of a nice thing to know. But that would be back to the argument of using the neighbor’s property as part of that which it it was meant to be you know, that 25 points from the property line Yeah, but it says buildings Although it doesn’t say from the property line. It says 1 point for each 25 ft of separation between buildings. So if you’re going from their building to the neighbor’s building and it’s 75 ft, technically they’ve got 3 points right there. From, from my, sorry, uh, Chair, Comm, from a professional planning standpoint, that is correct. I think if you look at the items above, some of those have zero setbacks. above. And so you may not always be able to So say you have like single family next to Nehood commercial and neighborhood commercial has a zero buffer or a 00 setback, right? And you needed a buffer between the two. I, I don’t know what it is. I, I can’t really interpret it. I can just tell you what the typical would be and it would typically be. between uses I recognize that it does say building though. Comm Renner, just for your information to, like, I can look on, I have some things that can do that. It looks like it’s about 57 ft between the property line and the neighbor’s house. So I think that’s what you’re asking. and technically there is 20, there is 75 ft then. if we make an addition to the house though. then you’re not, you don’t have the separation. That’s why. generally is a buffer from the other properties so that we have the full enjoyment of our property. No I don’t disagree with. I’m just he asked the question, so I’m telling them how I don’t disagree with the way it’s worded right now in that ordinance is that separation between buildings. It doesn’t say property and to that point, that’s why the special use agreement was reached and and spells it out very clearly, and that is what the, the city commission, uh, voted on in in what August of 2024. And so it, it brought clarity to that issue as to what was expected. I thought it was a little unfair to also use the neighbor’s property as the buffer zone, but, um, but I guess as I think about it more, it’s, I mean, if I mean they both have the right to enjoyment of their own property and its own use. I mean, the commercial doesn’t be, isn’t trumped by the enjoyment of the residential that I’m aware of. So I guess if kind of whosever builds first, I guess in the way. But the problem is, is that, um, shop condos aren’t permitted just by nature of the zoning. They do require a special use permit, and so that’s why this whole discussion happened a year ago, and, and that’s why that special use agreement was, was reached And I guess, um, so on, on that note to try to move this along, I’m going to move that we deny this application. We’re still open for public comment here, so. have you hold for a minute Any other comments With none, I’ll close a public hearing, returned to the Commission. Mister Chair, um, based on what we’ve heard in the information before us, I would move that we deny this application for a change in the special use permit. I’m gonna that We have a motion by Comm Huber, seconded by Comm Hammond. with the motion is to deny approval as special use permit. Lot 1, block 1 bridge you Bay Edition. Uh, are you following the full recommended language here It looks to me like there’s a typo in the recommended language because you wouldn’t have a denial contingent upon uh requirement that the applicant abide by. um by all of the requirements of the special use permit if you’re denying the the application to change the special special use permit because if they’re in compliant, then they didn’t necessarily have to be here. So again, the motion is to recommend denial of the special use permit for lot 1 block1 Bridgeview Bay Addition. Any questions I guess I’m, I’m struggling a little bit like I don’t know if we have enough information. We even have Rachel saying she needs more information, and I don’t know why we’re going full for denial right away and why we didn’t, even if we, I get it, time is of the essence for building, but I’d rather get this done right, at least get our attorney to weigh in a little bit and let Rachel do a little bit more research and bring it back next month and just table it until we can have a little better scope of it instead of denying. I struggle where city attorney is saying that this is could potentially be OK, and we’re denying it, and I don’t know if that’s the greatest thing we want to do. I, I also, I also, I, I felt like things got like turn real quick with all of a sudden we’re denying immediately, um, and I’m not necessarily convinced either way, to be quite honest, I, I’m, I’m still grappling with it all. Like, for example, when I, uh, you know, the 15 ft diameter of the trees, how do you get 15, maybe too much detail here, but how do you get 15 if that’s the if that’s the diameter of the tree and you have 20 ft of space, how do you get two trees that they’re offset? Can you like how many can you get in there? I mean, quite frankly, I think the the distance has been bothering me, the distance between the properties. I’d rather have the, , the, the fence and the vegetation, then the distance. I’d rather have that than no, no vegetation and immediately have parking lot and and 60 ft of space and then you have a building so I don’t think I know the professionals are telling you how to add these points up, but to me, as I’m visualizing this, I’m struggling with I really like the idea of a fence, some trees, multiple trees, 25 ft. Um, I’m struggling a little bit with the visual of how that looks. But, um, and I just agree that there’s just a lot of unanswered questions, but, um yeah, so that’s what I’m at If you guys are gonna table it, I think we should have a list of questions that Rachel can answer for us because I think um uh I, I feel like there’s, I’ve got questions all the way around, but I’m almost willing to deny it, to redo it, to do it right. also, because I feel like if we’re gonna just can’t keep going back and forth here. Next month, what are, what are are gonna be our next questions. That’s kind of where I’m at. Robin’s just a point of order. If we deny it now. is there anything preventing the applicant from coming back later? and it’s saying this is what I want to do. I’m guessing there’s some additional fees. Do we know what those are? How much Uh, I think for this 1 450 bucks. I think we talked about this last year too, and we. like let’s get them in the room together. That’s why we kind of did last time get them in a room together, figure out what works, and I think that’s what they didn’t, that’s not what they did, Jim shaking his head, he’s like, no. I can’t remember refresh my memory. Comm, I believe the, the agreement, um, that was done a year ago was that was putting the folks in together and here’s what they, here’s what was come up with. So that’s what was done and this is the agreement that was made. between developer and the the property owner. to the south, so you put them together again. I’m not sure you’re gonna have a lot of success in changing minds, um, but that’s, that’s what was done. I guess the, the one thing that I’m I mean, I blame a little bit on the developers that, you know, we did have this last year, so there was plenty of time and I feel like some of the rush that we’re putting on now is due to the fact that this didn’t come up in April or May. in my opinion. Jerry Robinson just another my own information. There’s nothing stopping if the, if they’re, if they’re denied tonight, there’s nothing stopping the developer from going forward with what the plan was originally agreed upon from the city, correct? So he could actually start building that way. tomorrow. OK, again, we have a motion and a second, uh, motion is to deny, uh, uh, the request for a special use permit. Roll call vote, please Comm Huber. Yes Dada Hammond, excuse me Yes, inel Yes. Renner Yes McLean no Gardiner, no Mum Muter yes Comm Horn No and Chair Robinson Yes 63 Well she was past 6’3. Any other items Excuse me, Commissioners, I just, um, wanted to point your attention to the city website and um there are a few of you, not all of you, we obviously have them staggered, but, um, boards and committees, uh, need to apply for renewals. I know there’s some in-betweens and things like that, but, um, if you’d go to our City of Mandan website and this is for anybody watching as well. And you go to, oh man, I did it. I’ve, I’ve been to so many sites in here in the last 10 minutes. Give me a second. Committee board application. If you click on that, it’ll take you to this site, which will indicate which boards you are interested in. In this case, you’d be applying for the planning and Zoning Commission. Give that a click. Uh, first name, phone number, email. Are you a resident, business organization, functional, we try to make it super easy for you to apply and you submit that and not uh get sent to the office, but, um, we do have two of you that are up for renewal and um if you’re wondering who you are, it is not you, but go ahead, no. Yes, Comm. it is Chair Robinson. and I also believe it’s Comm Hammond, if I’m not mistaken. I’ll have to look and see. Uh, give me my, what’s my paper say? Uh, Gardner Oh, it is Comm Gardner. Excuse me, you are correct. I only know that because I’ve been counting down the days. So anyway, if there’s anyone out there that wants to apply or um if you want to renew your application, uh, fill out that on our city website. There’ll be a bigger packet coming out here in October. But just a reminder to get that done before the end of the year so that we can get, um, those people renewed and, and updated for the before I will look Check it out. Yeah. Jordan, whether these two both are reapplied. Yes, we can let you know. Yes. Chair Robinson and other committee members, I think is just a reminder that you may say I’m interested, but you need to. commit. in writing to say yes, I’m interested in another term, or if we hear nothing from you, we’ll assume that you’re not interested and therefore you won’t be considered for another term. So you need to respond in the positive. So. and there will be a an email coming out and a notice coming out, um, the next shortly, um, reminding you of such and with the date that needs to be, need to let us know by x date so that um that information comes to the planning and zoning com Commission then goes to the city commission and then you get. your walking orders Thank you, Comm McLean, very much. That, that’s it for us tonight. All right, thank you. With that, I’ll entertain a motion to Adjourn. So moved. 2. motion 2nd to Adjourn. All in favoring to say and I. I Pa same sign.