00:00:07,070	And then planning and zoning Commission meeting for December 22nd to order. Oh please Comm Langing Comm Huber here Comm mutter. He Misser Horn Mayor Frelich here. Comm Infeldt Comm McLean, here. Comm Smith here Comm Hammond here. Comm Gardner. Comm Renner Chair Robinson, here. Next item we have the minutes from our November 24th meeting.

00:00:48,870	Do we have any changes? I can move to approve I’ll second. Uh, motion by Comm McLean, seconded by Comm Mudder, to approve the minutes of November 24th. Do we have any questions on roll call vote, please Comm Huber Yes, Commissionerm Muter. Yes. Mayor Freelich, Comm McLean. Yes, Comm Smith. Yes. Comm Hammond, Yes, Comm Gardner. Yes.

00:01:33,000	Comm Renner, Chair Robinson. Yes, in minutes are approved, we’ll move on to the first of our public hearings, Item number one is to consider a variance for lots 1 and 2, block 1, North Prairie 2nd Subdivision. Jordan, good evening, Chair Robinson.

00:01:54,470	Commissioners, uh, early Merry Christmas to you and all, all other things, uh, online tonight we have Rachel taking the first item, which would be this variance request, and I’ll be taking the second one, so. um, on the screen to be Rachel. Hey, good evening, uh, Comm, Chair.

00:02:15,270	Um, so this is a structure variance for an accessory structure at 5405 Highland Road North, um, and so this is a consideration of a variance to section 105-1-3, um, subsection 4 of the City Code of Ordinances, which is incidental uses, accessory structures, um, in the R7 zoning district, which is what this property is.

00:02:38,170	Um, the total square footage of the accessory buildings may not exceed 10% of the lot area and the maximum size of the, of any one of the accessory buildings shall be no greater than 75% of the size of the primary structure on the lot. Um, the proposed structure is larger than primary structure.

00:02:58,470	Um, so in addition, the accessory structure will add an additional structure allots 1 and 2. It’s unclear quite which lot the new building will sit on. Um, and so there is a little bit of uncertainty there.

00:03:19,370	Um, so the property surrounding this property are zoned are 7 residential with some agricultural further to the east, the future land use plan identifies the area as low and medium density residential. Um, so the variance request is regarding the storage building size. Um, however, the lot’s of large rural lot. There is a great deal of distance between neighboring properties in the area, including a large tree row to the south.

00:03:37,470	Um, the owner intends to use the additional building to store items that are now stored outside and to move them inside. Um, the use would not be allowable on its own on a lot, so the owner would need to sell lots, 1 and 2 together, um. So in your packet there are findings of fact with some potential recommended findings.

00:03:56,170	Um, those findings are that the hardship is caused because the code will not allow an accessory building larger than the primary, um, nearby property owners also have large storage barn structures.

00:04:16,970	The building size is a standard sized building, and the surrounding area operates as a rural residential area, though there is no rural residential zoning. Um, so as a whole, the staff recommendation is to review the request and findings of fact. um, but in general, the staff would be in support of this particular variance, given the location intended use, and surrounding property sizes, um, as well as the similarity of uses on the surrounding properties.

00:04:42,000	Um, I can answer any questions that you might have. Questions for Rachel I just, uh, want to clarify, um, Rachel, uh, this is Ellen Huber, and I just uh wanted to clarify, did you say it’s not yet clear whether the structure would go on lot 1 or lot 2. I, I haven’t seen a site plant.

00:05:02,900	I don’t think it’s been provided to us exactly where that lot line is. From the aerial imagery and combining the aerial imagery with the proposed site plan. I think lot 1 and 2 are like somewhere between the house and the existing accessory structure right about where Jordan’s line is. So we haven’t seen that specifically.

00:05:26,330	Um the property operates as one. and I think, I think there’s our CD and accessory structure on its own on that south lot. Um, so it’s a concern, but I don’t. I don’t think it’s you know, unreasonable for this area.

00:05:49,500	And it gets maybe just to further clarify, I asked that question because if it goes on lot 2, that would be, if I understand correctly on the lot where there is no residential structure. And so I just wanted to understand a little bit better when you said in the documentation that the lots would need to sell together. and what, um, would um, determine or control that.

00:06:12,270	Uh, yup. Chair, Comm, I, the typical route to do that would be requiring that they um that the owner combined the two lots into one. The variance itself and the fact that there’s a variance on the property, um I don’t know if it was legally require it, but it will at least give notice to anybody

00:06:32,230	that they would need to do it. Um, again, in another area of the city, I would probably be more concerned about this, much more concerned about this, um, but in this particular instance, as a lot is is large and as you know, very similar to the rural residential properties in the area.

00:06:52,800	Less so Also, just to clarify, when you say the lot is large, you’re talking the combined acreage of both 1 and 2. Uh, I’m so sorry, Chair. I didn’t I didn’t quite hear that. Uh you just to clarify in the acre, when you have, uh, when you discuss, there’s plenty of acreage here.

00:07:18,530	You’re talking the combined acreage of lot 1N2. is a combined total at 6.78%. That’s correct. OK, thank you. Chair Robinson. Rachel, does if that’s two lobster at, how does that I guess I’m just trying to make sense out of how those two would have to be tied together.

00:07:53,170	They have to be put together as one lot first before the variance then. Be there’s, you know, depending on where the lots go, that’s going to affect the square footage of the building and stuff. So does the should, should this be made into one lot first? Comm, again, it would be great if that were possible.

00:08:16,170	Um, these are two pretty combined lots. Um, if you wanted to make a, um, part of your motion that they come back in with a um a minor plot to combine the two lots, that would certainly be a way to handle that issue.

00:08:42,800	Maybe a follow-up question? Is it possible to combine two lots that have a major road separating them. Here, Comm, I’m not sure what you mean by a major road separating them. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what Slot one and lot 2, with respect to the maps in front of us, but it would look like, um, Highland Road cuts between the two lots.

00:09:12,170	Um, chair Comm, no, the area that Jordan is showing, um, where there you go. That is lots 1 and 2. Um, Jordan, if you go back to that plot, um, can you show that’s 1 and 21 is on the south. It’s 1.95 acres and then lot 2 is just to the north of it with 3.9 acres.

00:09:43,100	Thank you for clarifying that’s really light on our copies. Got you Any other questions from the commission You Uh, could you tell me, Rachel, the maybe I just I’m not seeing it here, but the difference in the proposed what would be allowed versus what is requested Um, Chair, I was not provided

00:10:13,730	that information by the applicants. I just, um, based on the, um, measurements that we could do from the aerial, the proposed building would be larger. It is proposed to be 7200 square feet.

00:10:39,370	Chair Robinson, Comm Gardner, um, there’s also a provision in, in the ordinance currently that talks about accessory buildings and the number of accessory buildings, um, and from this picture you can tell there’s 2 already on the property. and depending on the size, you’re allowed more or less of that, but it’s still based on the square footage of the main structure.

00:10:59,470	So he’s, his variance request is for adding because his house isn’t bigger in a sense, so. that makes sense. 7 75%, yeah. Any other questions at this time With none, I’ll open it up for public comments or questions. We’re taking comments or questions on item number one. Again, comments or questions on item number one.

00:11:45,370	Last call and with none, I’ll close public comment and return it back to the Commission. I just have one, I guess one question or comment for any of the commissioners, um, I know that the the road that’s the private road behind the residents to the.

00:12:23,330	West was at one point it was discussed that that road that there was a need for future development along I guess it’s wild rye uh, that wild rye circle northwest. that was supposed to actually that there was a future ro going in there somewhere, and I’m just wondering if there’s anything at this point that we need to consider in approving this variance.

00:12:50,600	Chair Robinson, Comm Gardner, um, I’ve got on my screen pulled up the site mentioned and um I think what you’re thinking of is the past variance request we had from, um, Chan Gordon, who would be just to the west, and I know that this road section was taken care of in their plot.

00:13:09,500	Um, I know there were changes in things that they did as far as, um, right of way was concerned, um, making sure that that was in place, so I, I think they have it taken care of on the other side of the trees, so and then his place would be right here, so right here would be the location of the uh requested

00:13:27,330	building and then like you said, this road comes down and then there was um things made for along here. This is uh an easement for uh uh a line, a power line. I think I’m comfortable with the clarification of what lots were involved.

00:14:05,800	I was a bit confused by the aerial that showed the, the neighboring properties to the east across from Highland Road outlined in green and our packets, but with the information that you’ve, um, shared with us here, I guess I, um, would be willing to move to approve the requested variance to Section 105-1-3 subsection 4 of the City Code of Ordinances related to incidental uses, accessory

00:14:30,970	structures for lots 1 and 2, block 1, North Prairie Second Division, due to the following, um, hardship, and that would be that, um, the hardship is caused by the provisions of the zoning ordinance.

00:14:54,370	um, and to modify the staff findings of fact, which is that the stri strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property owner, the reasonable use of the property. I just want to clarify, so you’re doing both 1 and 2 for the finding in fact. I’m just asking.

00:15:32,270	Um, I don’t know if it was correct, but I was asserting that number one would be the artship and number 2 the finding of fact OK, I can tell you that. I can go with that. Question Do you want to merge the 1 and 2 together first before we give the variants.

00:15:54,100	Well, um, I was trying to follow the suggested motion where it suggested that we find a hardship and then and to modify the staff finding of fact. But if, if I didn’t do that um correctly um, we could I don’t think we need to. I don’t think we need to modify the staff’s finding of fact cause all their fact findings are in favor of the variants. OK, so if we just need the hardship.

00:16:17,170	um then I would stick with number one, the hardship is caused by the provisions of the zoning ordinance in that we don’t have a residential, a rural residential zoning. Um, code per se. I can amend the second then too for the same.

00:16:49,730	We’re good Are you good with that chart I was just gonna ask Rachel if she’s OK with that. From what I could hear of it, I think I am. Gay summarize, we have a motion by Comm Huber, seconded by Comm McLean.

00:17:19,800	Motion is to recommend approval of the requested variances to Section 105-1-3 subsection 4 of the city code of ordinances related to incidental uses, accessory structures for lots 1 and 2, block 1 North Prairie 2nd Subdivision due to the following hardship, which would be provision of the zoning ordinance, uh uh. does not allow, uh, or would restrict this type of building, and to modify the findings of fact.

00:17:44,730	Do we have any questions I guess I just want 11, confirmation there were, there were letters sent I saw and there was no response from anyone in the neighborhood. No one had any concerns. No Any other questions None. Roll call vote, please Comm Huber, Yes. Comm Mudder. Yes. Mayor Frelich? Yes. Comm McLean. Comm Smith. Yes. Comm Hammond. Yes, Comm Gardner, yes. Comm Renner, Chair Robinson? Yes.

00:18:27,900	The motion is passed We’ll move on to public hearing number 2. Consider an amendment to a special use permit by amending the proposed site plan for Lot 1, block 1, Bridgeview Bay Addition. Jordan. Good evening, Comm. Comm in Chair Robinson, I’ve get to the site plan here.

00:19:01,600	Um, we’re considering an amendment to a special use permit by amending the proposed site plan for 2600 Marina Road. Southeast uh, the property located at 2600 is currently zoned CB Business Commercial. I think we’re familiar with this one, the existing special use permit was approved at the September 17, 2024, City Commission meeting. Uh, the ini initial application.

00:19:30,430	was submitted before that and was recommended for approval contingent upon resolving the site plan issues at the May Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Um, if, if you don’t remember, I’ve, I’ve looked at a little bit of that.

00:19:53,470	One of the big discussions then was just buffering points, uh, different things between um the neighboring property and this current property, and what happened was then by September, um, those things were resolved by getting the number of buffer points that were acquired in the zoning code that we have. And excuse me, there was excuse me, before that, I’m just gonna back up a month. No, I’m, no I’m, now I’m going date crazy here. So I got, I got a backup.

00:20:14,100	So we have uh contingent plan in May from this commission, and then we move to August there was another um decision that was for a vari request that was denied.

00:20:37,800	Um, they decided to move on from that and then in September, the variance was no longer needed because of the buffering point issue that was fixed and that was approved by the City Commission at the September 17th meeting Um, that permit allowed for the construction of multi-use shops, specifically for three structures with 18 multi-use shop condos for the property.

00:20:59,530	There were 7 units There were 6 units and 5 units, and what we’re doing in this, um, amendment is clarifying which units are which because they switched so we on the original special use permit, there were 3 numbers with nothing else on them, so for this we put the one structure on the north side of the property um, which would be adjacent to

00:21:23,170	the bay that has 7 units The eastside property has 6 units, and then the south side, which, um, you can’t see on this map currently has 5 units.

00:21:43,270	So the number of units has not changed, but the way that works has, which is why we’re bringing back this special use permit because from this um picture I show you from our um Connect Explorer program that we have shows the end unit that was not built. because it was denied at the variant request. So they came in with a new one that um follows the buffer and that was what we call unit number 7.

00:22:06,800	So the site plan which is shown here now has that added. And now is the building to the east. that’s right here So Jordan? Yes, Craig. Um on the east with the city and I have the city site plan in front of me. What they approved was 5 units on the east side.

00:22:34,000	Uh, the 6th unit was taken out because it was encroaching on a 30-foot buffer. Correct. What they’re, so what they’re doing now is they’re, they’re reinstating the 6th unit, but it’s smaller. and complies with the 30-foot setback. That is correct.

00:22:54,330	So then, so what I’m getting at is the, the building numbers, so you have billing 2 and building 3 have flip-flopped 5 and 6 units. So that, that is what we’re bringing to you tonight is the, the, the change of the special use permit. um there are other things I can get to.

00:23:20,000	Um, but this is the latest site plan and then also along with this is the uh accompanying document for the Kondo Declaration, which is in your packet. Um the other part of this is I know we’ve, we’ve talked in just amending this special use clears things up for us.

00:23:50,000	Normally on a site plan, um that doesn’t have a special use permit, it’s a a different situation for us, but because of the special use we’re bringing it to you for approval and um as city staff we would recommend approval, but I would stand for any questions, and I know we’ve been over this a few times, but if there are any, I would take them.

00:24:10,270	Questions for Jordan Jordan, just to clarify, the original, uh, special use permit did not label the buildings in a way like you’re building 1, building 2, building 3. That’s correct. OK. And I can pull it up to um if I can find it here And that special use permit was approved by everybody. correct.

00:24:49,900	Sorry, I’m trying to find it That was approved by city commission, yes. Jordan Ken you clarify one more time for me, and I know you’ve told me twice, um, and we have a 30-foot buffer, right? OK, thank you Any other questions for Jordan With none at this time, I will open it up for public comment or questions on item number 2.

00:25:27,000	Good evening. Ramona Furlong, 2700 Marina Road, Southeast. As you know, my husband Tim and I are the property owners to the south of this development. and I have a real problem with this request. We’ve been here many times discussing this.

00:25:51,600	The garlics keep asking to amend the buffer zone to keep ask Ken to amend the number of units. herb building, and it’s been denied. many times So I don’t understand. why we’re back here again Um, the special use permit that was approved. in September of 24, very specifically said how many units were attributed to which structures? The paper, the special unit. the write up doesn’t say that.

00:26:21,000	But if you look at the video, it specifies that. the riverside unit would have. which is building 3 would have 5 units. The structure in the south would have 6 and the one on the north. Excuse me, on the north, which is the bayside would have 7. This is really important to us.

00:26:42,900	um we had a lot of discussion with the garlics about how to protect our property in a way that would allow them to move forward with their. shop condos and one of the things they said was we won’t have any windows on the structure that’s next to your fence.

00:27:07,530	They’ve pulled the southernmost unit of the riverside structure, which is the one that they’re now asking to add back in. they um said we won’t have any parking, we won’t have any overnight stay. Some of the things that are addressed in the um. CCNRs and some of them aren’t, but yeah. would.

00:27:31,630	when they pulled unit 7 when, when the structure, when the special unit permit was approved. we were OK with it because the unit 7 was not on there. So that would allow us to protect our privacy with the buffer zone and the trees and the things that they’re supposed to be putting in. With unit 7 back in there. it there are currently 9 picture windows.

00:27:57,600	on that structure, 5 ft by 5 ft. I can lay in my bed and see those windows. I can be in parts of my kitchen. parts of my living room, family room. and I can see those windows, which means they can see ours. the decks, the patio, the yard, everything 5 by 59 big picture windows.

00:28:23,630	that weren’t there when this special use permit was approved in September of 24. So uh one of these previous commission meetings, I think it was Comm Huber and Comm Smith had said it would be great if the property owners could get together and work out their differences.

00:28:48,730	Well, I thought we did that and here we are back and they’re wanting to do something that we had previously agreed that they weren’t going to do. The special use permit is very specific about the about the buffer zone and about the number of units per structure. um 11 thing that’s interesting is after the special use permit was approved.

00:29:10,730	very shortly after that, they started construction and it looked to us like, hm, this looks awfully close to our boundary. It looks like there are footings for 6 units instead of 5. I’m talking about the riverside structure and I contacted Jordan and um Mr.

00:29:38,500	Stromme and they went out, well, Jordan went to the property. He said that he instructed the developers that they needed to pull the footing for that additional unit 6 because it hadn’t been approved. That was in December of 24. um nothing ever happened. By March, I was asking what’s the status because the footing is still there.

00:30:00,270	and the response I got was, What do you want me to do? Stannd over them? And I guess I, he’s I did I wanted him to enforce what was approved in the special use permit.

00:30:29,630	No He said in December that December of this year that he had instructed them to stop working on Unit 7, but they didn’t. They’ve been very busy building Unit 7 on that eastern mall structure. I’ll just say that that that unit is completely eviscerated. Our privacy. and I think that I believe that the special use permit that was approved in September of 24.

00:31:14,600	should stand Thank you Thank you Any other comments or questions? Again, we’reon, item number is Ashley Champ. Um, I don’t know what the correct order is. I’d like to speak on behalf of the developers at some point, but I’ll wait till you address me when it’s time if there’s anyone else in the room, I’m not able to see if anyone else has comments at this time.

00:31:31,230	Nobody’s at the podium. You can go ahead. Can they hear me Yeah, if you can let her know, she can go ahead. Ashley, go, go ahead. Thank you, Commissioners.

00:32:02,630	Um, you know, while I can certainly sympathize with homeowners, um, what you’ve had today as a recommendation from the uh from your staff, let’s say this plaque complies with city code, and that’s what we’re here to determine today. Um, at one point there was a 3 point buffer. Um, the furlongs demanded 6. That’s been provided to you.

00:32:17,730	There has been no change between this document in the number of units just simply the order of them, um, with a six point buffer, and I will inform my understanding that Mrs. Furlong’s home is 100 ft away. Um, whether she has good eyesight and can see the building and believes they can see them. Unfortunately, we live in city limits, uh, and we’re not allowed to be invisible to our neighbors at at all costs.

00:32:35,170	Um, there’s plenty of homes in the city of Mandan where people live much closer than Ms. Furlong to this project, um, and what I have not heard other than, you know, a general pleading for respect of her privacy.

00:32:51,270	I’ve not heard any citation to city code of which this plot is in violation of at this point other than Miss Furlong is just seeming ly exhausted by the process. Uh, I’ve also heard a lot of commentary about prior agreements. Um, also, what has not been presented is any written agreement because there was none.

00:33:10,100	Um, you know, a gentleman’s agreement, um, from what I understand, was struck in an attempt to eliminate opposition to this development, but when the furlongs continued their opposition to the project, there was no longer a need um for the removal of those windows. That was going to be a design choice when the furlongs were going to occupy that unit at the time they ceased their desire to occupy that unit.

00:33:25,900	Uh, the developers are no longer in a position uh to make an undesirable unit, um, effectively um a less um cost. generating unit, um, for the benefit of the furlongs, uh, simply because a six point buffer in a 100 ft setback isn’t enough for them.

00:33:44,170	Um, and so we really do ask you today on behalf of the developer who has tried in good faith to come before you, uh, and given you everything you need in order to get that staff approval today um that you take your staff’s approval into consideration and vote yes today. That’s all I have unless you have any further questions for Monty or myself.

00:34:02,730	Any questions I don’t know if you can hear me, but, uh, uh, thank you. Any, any other comments or questions? The, the ordinance for the buffer assigned the garlics a a number 7 is a point system, as you know, as a residential property, we’re 17 minus 1 is 6 buffer points.

00:34:44,370	That’s what we asked for. I don’t know, uh, the 3 buffer points that she’s talking about, that was never on the table as far as I know. I, I think the garlics we’re trying to say initially that they wanted to use our property as part of their buffer. They said your property, your house is.

00:35:04,100	70 ft from the boundary from the fence, so we should be able to use your property as part of our buffer. You can’t use someone else’s property to fulfill your buffer requirements. So they, we worked it out, um, but we we just asked for the 6 buffer points because that’s what was required by the gateway.

00:35:29,170	and as far as the uh gentleman’s agreement goes. We had conversations with the garlics in good faith. and I guess apparently they didn’t. So just so we’re clear, how many buffer points are is the, is she recommending that we have. because right now we have 6 under the special use permit, which was approved.

00:36:06,070	Commissioners, I’m under the impression Six is required, um, per the Commission’s opinions from a former meeting, and that’s how many you have presented to you today and will be abided by. And to my recollection, the last time they presented, we did discuss those. Uh, I’m Tim Ferlomo, so at 27 on Marina Road Southeast.

00:36:28,730	Um, I think this brings up a good point, uh, because I don’t, I don’t want there to be any more confusion on what’s what. So why don’t we discuss what these 6 buffer points are going to be made up of.

00:36:44,500	It’s going to be made up of trees fence what’s gonna make up this 6 points because I don’t want to see some interpretation later on of the 6 points come up and, uh, everything changes. So I think that ought to be out on the table. um before the to be asking those questions as well so that we don’t have any confusion in the, in the future.

00:37:04,800	Thank you. Mr. Chair, this is, uh, Craig. Um, I think the commission has already ruled on the buffer. That’s not an issue before us today. Uh, they’ve properly established a 30-foot setback and and the 6 buffer points. Uh, the buffer point analysis was also presented to the planning and zoning Commission, whitelighter.

00:37:28,870	by the City of Turney And uh I think we’re clearly in compliance. uh with the buffer requirements. And again, it’s, that’s not the issue before us today. There’s not the application does not seek to change. the 30-foot stack and the buffer zone requirement as set forth in specially use permit.

00:37:51,730	Mister Chair, if I might ask a follow-up question related to Comm Smith’s comment. There is a note, um. in our packets under staff review where it says staff note concerns regarding applicant continuing to meet other requirements in the original special use permit.

00:38:14,170	Um, could we have you elaborate on that, please? Chair Robinson, Comm Hubert, uh, I think what we’re referring to is making sure that the CCNRs or the covenants and restrictions at the time, um, this packet was put together, we’re being finalized, and we have that, um, done so I think that was part of it.

00:38:36,100	I think into the Furlong’s point, um, and I have been consistent in this is, uh, when and we’re in the middle of, you know, winter now and this project, um, and it’s in different stages, right? We have a building that was, you know, not completed but is further along than the other ones.

00:38:53,100	So on a, on a site like this, um, I am requiring to make sure that the landscaping is completed before the project um is done and if there’s, there’s things we can do in the ordinance that help that as far as um, you know, uh, concessions as far as, uh, maybe a bond if it’s not completed Well, uh.

00:39:12,070	as the city, we, we, we don’t want you to complete your landscaping in February. That would be a horrible idea. So there’s things like that where we have concessions that allow them to, um, you know, whether it’s a certificate of occupancy or or something that finishes part of the building.

00:39:27,970	if those other pieces are in place, we will allow that to continue. So I, I, I think that’s part of it, Comm Huber. um trying to think of any others, and if I don’t know if Rachel had any other, um, comments from that. film at this time Robinson, being I wasn’t on the commission at the time when this was originally started back in 204.

00:39:56,630	Is the proposed buffer zone, the way it is right now with the 30-foot setback and the trees and bushes and stuff that are on here right now. Is that what was originally agreed upon for the special use permit back when it was voted on by the city in 24.

00:40:21,730	Is that the same as was already agreed upon That’s a very good question. So I’m gonna, I’m gonna back us up. what I’m getting at on this is if, if the agreement between the two parties was, you know, if they’d already agreed on the buffer zone and I seem to remember the last time this came before the committee, there was a discrepancy in the

00:40:41,070	buffer zone. If we’re back to the buffer zone the way it was that the parties originally agreed upon I don’t know what we’re arguing about.

00:41:02,330	Comm on the screen, you’ll see the original one When Andrew was presenting in May, this is what was presented and we, as staff um had a problem with this and that, and this is what went forward. But then when it went to city commission, it had that in it. the, the buffer, no, not this one. It’s on page 32. Thanks, Craig. The one that’s on the proposal right now.

00:41:23,330	minus minus this last unit. Right, but I mean the buffer part is the same, correct? OK. Just to clarify, Comm, that was approved by the City Commission. Yeah Comm, that’s correct. The 30-foot was approved by the city. If I recall in the last discussion, there, there was uh some alluding to modifying that buffer, but we did not.

00:42:01,100	We denied that request So we’re looking at 30 ft of separation, four rows of trees, and a fence. Is that right? You know, uh, OK One thing about this project.

00:42:40,000	it’s offices with oversized garages, Sho condos, right? They still uh 7 units that were on the north should stay I mean they still have the same number of offices still have the same number of shops. They want to move it closer to our property to we lived there. They can have an office and an oversized garage on the bayside.

00:42:57,700	I mean, we, we, this is the agreement that we reached if, if they were intending this entire time to do something differently, they should have let us know so that we could have come to some other kind of an agreement Commissioners, if I might, one last time, I can sympathize with Miss Furlong’s feelings, uh, but she did build her home

00:43:18,530	next to a commercially zoned um uh piece of property, and again, I pushed back on this idea that there was any actual agreement, um, I, I, I see none and, and while the parties tried to work together, they’re not bound by anything.

00:43:37,900	The Commission is bound today by um the ordinances in front of it and as you can see there’s been no points raised today that say that any of this proposed special use permit plat uh violates city code at this time. So, again, I think you’re missing the point. This is an overlay zone. The overlay zone requires certain points in the buffer to, to create the buffer.

00:43:57,470	Part of it is the separation from the properties The other part of it is, is made up of a point system and you get points for certain things. Some of it would be trees, and they have to be a certain caliber is my understanding.

00:44:13,800	And the other thing is, is that a fence will also be figured into that. So my question still is, this is in the overlay zone. You’re required to have a buffer according to the zoning requirements. What is that, how are you going to meet the points of the buffer z one That’s all I’m asking for.

00:44:33,270	I, I don’t know why there can’t be a transparency on that, and that should be part of the approval of this project, and I think it was, but I, I just, we just don’t, I don’t want to get down the road here and go through this again where they

00:44:45,800	say, well, you know what, we can’t quite fit this in. We don’t think we should have to have these 6 points of, of what is required in the overlay zone.

00:45:02,070	So why don’t we just get it out of the table and figure out what it is so that it’s part of this approval process because it is, it is pertinent to the approval of the project. That’s all I’m asking for. I don’t, don’t,, and Mr. Smith, I don’t think that’s correct. Um, what you’re saying that’s that’s not important today because it is part of the project. So thank you. Mr. Chair. I can, I can answer Tim’s question.

00:45:23,430	Way Andrew calculated the 6 points was 4 points for the trees, 1 point for the fence, and 1 point for the 30-foot setback. Be in excess of 25 ft. But here today we’re not going over the points.

00:45:44,270	We’re, we’re going over the amendment for the to put what building goes where, right? We have nothing to do with the buffer zone or the points. That’s not what we’re here to prove today. Right? And I, I don’t recall what month we we discussed this, but they, they did ask about the 6 points at the their prior presentation and we denied it.

00:46:00,270	And mainly to stick to the six points that you’re seem to be fuzzy on. Um, so we’re not addressing those today. Chair Robinson, just to clarify on page 32 of our packets and, and the, the, um the plan that you’ve showed that shows the landscaping.

00:46:21,170	I, I, I can’t quite, you know, hone in on the amount of setback, but I just wanted to verify that that is, I can see 4 rows of trees. I can see a fence. I just can’t quite tell if it’s depicting the 30-foot setback.

00:46:52,800	Does that suffice, Comm Hubert? I’m not able to tell from looking at it if it’s a 30-foot setback. Now, I think I’m starting to see it. It’s OK. Yeah. OK. Thank you, and that, and I can confirm, um, that the building setback is beyond 30 ft by a few inches, so.

00:47:15,070	And so, yeah, I just wanted to make sure that what we’re talking about is what we’re being presented so that if we can agree that that issue is addressed in this plan, then maybe we can turn our discussion to the reconfiguration of the units. Well, to help bring some clarity here, I think based on Jordan’s presentation, the only, the only thing we’re deciding on is bringing clarity to the uh identifying the buildings.

00:47:42,170	And so number and location. On that note, I don’t know if this would be appropriate time to ask a question, but it just seems like maybe there’s a discrepancy in pages 2021 of our packets.

00:48:03,730	Um, it’s if I’m reading this, it’s suggesting that the previous the 2024 agreement allowed for 7 units on the north, 6 on the east, and 5 on the south, and that that’s now being proposed to be changed to 5 on the North, 7 on the east, and 6 on the south. But when we look at the, that, again, page 32 plan, those aren’t the numbers there.

00:48:23,900	It’s 6 on the east, 5 on the south, and 7 on the north. So I just wanted to again, so that we don’t wind up having ambiguity as to anything we do or don’t agree to tonight. It seems like maybe there’s a, a discrepancy in the outline on pages 2 and 21 of the packet.

00:48:45,730	Comm, that’s a good point, and I think the applicant should clarify because my, my understanding is what they’re applying for is on page 32. Wait, are you able to comment on that since I don’t have the packet in front of me. I can’t confirm or disconfirm that.

00:49:13,500	Commissioners, um, this is Wade, um yes, so the the special use permit that was voted on, that was approved, um, just simply stated the special use permit is for 3 structures. One structure was 7 units, one structure with 5 units, one structure with 6 units. Didn’t specify which building was which.

00:49:33,270	Um, we do, we do now have the 7 units on the north side, our intent is 5 units on the south side and 6 units on the east side. as shown on the the plot that’s, um, before you has been um redone by Toman Engineering, replatted and yes, to answer previous questions, we are, um, outside

00:49:59,530	the 30 point, the 30 ft buffer. that answered the question. So wait, just to clarify, on the river side, there’s only going to be 6 units, correct? That’s with the one you’re adding, correct? Or the one that you’re finishing. That’s correct. It’s 6 units. Thank you.

00:50:28,730	Comm also, I, uh, up on the screen I have pulled up the original special use permit, um, stating the three structures. I know it’s hard to see, but one structure was 71 structure with 51 structure with 6. Sorry, back to that.

00:50:59,630	So the intent behind today’s recommendation is to bring clarity as to where those buildings sit or situated on the loch itself. That’s correct. So, Chair Robinson, I feel comfortable with that clarity. Are we also to be taking a look tonight at the, the condominium documents.

00:51:29,600	Are they part of what we’re considering here this evening? Yes, they’re part of the packet And so I guess on that note, on page 41 of the packet, item 11, uses of units. I don’t see anything in there that holds the buyers or tenants to anything tighter than um, central Business District zoning, if I recall correctly, I thought there had been prior discussion about things like, um, some limitations on operating hours, no overnight

00:51:54,630	stays or a couple of things that, um, come to mind. But if there’s nothing in the the condo documents or covenants that holds it to, um any higher standard that could allow for some fairly intensive uses. But even if we did, I mean, as our, as our purpose to approve.

00:52:21,900	these because I mean the association could just change them without our. without our visibility on it. So I, I don’t know if is there, do we even have a role to approve any covenants, I guess.

00:52:45,470	I brought it up because I thought we had been given some assurances that there would be an agreement that would help to prevent those types of things. And so I’m just trying to, you know, maybe look down the road at how to best avoid conflicts and have some predictability in, in this. Comm, this is Wade speaking again. um.

00:53:11,800	in, in the special use permit, um, Comm Thomas, it spells out, um things like external illumination, um, item 15 says noise producing business related activities other than those of Officer Cclerical nature are limited to between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. um so the, I think the special use permit covers those things, so they’re not spelled out specifically in that document. And that’s also pulled up on the screen.

00:53:37,800	if we can have it Chair Robinson and, and, um, and Mr. Vogle, I maybe would just suggest that for a Belt and suspender’s approach that it might not hurt to reiterate that language in the condo documents so that it’s very clear to anyone purchasing or renting one of these units that they’re expected to abide by those requirements in the special use permit.

00:53:56,970	Or make a copy of the special use permit and attachment to this document, but because I, because I could see that too. If I, if I buy one of these 20 years from now, I get the association document, but I don’t get the special unit special permit, uh special use permit language.

00:54:16,230	I’m just gonna go ahead I’ll be down the road before they start knocking on my door. Is this is a special use permit, is that officially recorded somewhere? I mean, as we have our meeting minutes, I’m so recor recorded, but is there anything that can be enforced by anyone?

00:54:34,870	I, I believe, uh, Comm, that the special use permit is part of, yeah, this these documents that go with this whole project, yeah, is part of it. I can address a little bit of what you’re saying though, Chair Robinson.

00:54:53,170	I, I honestly, I’ve looked at a lot of Do covenants and I’ve never Rondo Docks, if you want to say, I’ve never seen an attached, specially used permit. on them I it will, you can ask if you have, but I, I’ve never seen that. And, and I, I would believe that didn’t, however, if you have restrictions in the special use.

00:55:14,970	shouldn’t the buyer be aware of that? I, I guess, I guess I would, I would prefer that they do put them in the covenants, what was, what was put in there, I guess that’s my initial knee-jerk thought. 100%. I’m just saying I, it’s not common practice.

00:55:33,630	So, so because it’s not common practice to attach them, we should put them in the covenants. I agree, even though, you know, just for clarity, even though. Miss, this is Ashley Chang speaking. My, my clients are happy to put whatever language that was mirrored in the special use permit, um, restricting noise producing businesses and and lighting issues into the covenants before they are recorded.

00:55:53,330	Thank you Any other final comments With none, I’ll close the public hearing. Return at the commission. Chair Robinson, I can make a motion to move to recommend approval of the amendment to the special use permit by amending the proposed site plan to present to the present present site plan for 2600 Marina Roads southeast.

00:56:35,600	Um, I might also add that we probably should make that change on page. um 21 where it says the units. 20 and 21 that Comm Huber pointed out. it’s in the top third of the page, Jordan. Just a question on the motion.

00:57:08,170	So do we want to add the into the motion, the clarity about putting it into the covenants, or is it? Do you want those in there, Jordan? Yeah, you can. I’m, I’m a, I, I just have a clarification que uh question. The units that are listed on page 20 are correct.

00:57:30,730	Yeah, it’s, it’s the paragraph that that that starts with Wild the applicant that says it’s moving from 6 units to 7 units. These structures moved from 6 units to 7 units. That’s not correct Oh, in the paragraph. Thank you. Yeah, and I will amend to add in that it goes into the the goes into the condo docks.

00:57:57,870	I’ll second the motion I think I made that clear as mud for you and Chairmans and. He’s still so I think what we’re doing is approving the the site plan that’s on page 32 of the packet. I’ll review the motion here, motion by Commissionerer McLean, seconded by Comm Gardner.

00:58:31,000	Uh, motion is to recommend approval of the amendment to the special use permit by amending the proposed site plan to the presented site plan for 2600 Marina Rose, Marina Road southeast and add into that, uh, uh, amend the uh uh draft condo documents to include the special use. uh, permit, uh, language. Questions with the motion No none roll call vote please Comm Huber Yes Comm Mutter, yes. Mayor Frelich? Yes Comm McLean. Comm Smith. Yes.

00:59:17,800	Comm Hammond? Yes, Comm Gardner, yes. Comm Renner. Yes, Chair Robinson, yes. motion is passed We’ll move on to the other business for the evening, um. we have presented to us a couple of items, appointments for the 2026 chair, vice chair and secretary, and also the scheduling regular scheduled meeting dates for 2026.

00:59:57,800	We’ll start with the appointments You’re on a motion Uh, do one at a time. I moved to a point Bill Robinson as chair for 2026. a little too quick You get extra extra pistachios. Any other nominations? But then I’ll close the nominations. All in favor for Bill Robinson to be chair in 2026.

01:00:46,970	Paul, same sign motion is passed Uh, move on to vice chairir. I’ll take nominations. I would nominate Comm McLean for vice Chair. Second motion is to nominate, Comm McLean for vice chair. Any questions All in favor? So youabbi say I. All right, I, Paul, same sign. motion is passed, and the secretary. I can nominate Nancy that what we do? Yes, I’ll second that.

01:01:45,170	Any questions Motion is to uh Nancy’s nominated for secretary for 2026. Motion by Comm McLean, seconded by Comm Gardner. Any questions? All in favor, Signorva and I. Paul and sign. motion is passed. Uh, we have before us the suggested dates. This is the 4th Monday of each month.

01:02:22,000	Is that correct? Comm is the only one that we maybe had a question on was that May 27th, which is a Wednesday after Memorial Day weekend, so just throwing it out there as to OK. that’s a good point Did we do it before Memorial Day this year? When did we do it? Do you remember? I think it was after.

01:02:43,870	I think it was like this Wednesday, the Wednesday after. I can move to leave the dates how they are has suggested, I think, uh, if we do need to change something, I forget what the time frame is, 3 weeks, something like that.

01:03:16,470	So if something should come up mid-year You have a second I’ll 2nd Motion by Comm McLean, seconded by Comm Mutter to uh uh schedule the 2026 regular meeting dates as shown in the packet. Any questions None. All in favor, signal by saying I. I.

01:03:47,470	Pa, same sign motion is passed Anything else The only, uh, the only other thing I have for you, commissioners is I, I know that, um, Rachel and the planning team and our, our team and staff here in, in the office is going to be working diligently to hopefully have some zoning code updates for you this spring, so, um, we’ll probably be asking some of you and most of you, all of you to look at them, um,

01:04:08,900	at the changes and different things and yeah, I know those are coming. We’re, we don’t want to throw a date out yet, but hopefully in February, we can work on that process, so there you have it. That’s all I have. Are we looking to tackle them all in one meeting or over the course of a couple.

01:04:27,470	I’ll let Rachel comment on that one. We can address that. Yes, that is the intention. So I’ve been working with our team kind of in the background, um, going through the changes that were recommended, um, and we’ve been working with Andrew as well, and so I, I think we’re gonna

01:04:45,900	wait till the start of the new year to make sure everybody’s around. Um, so I think we’ve got a, a good path forward, and yes, it would be.

01:05:00,630	I think the majority of the changes at once, just to make sure that we’re moving into the the New Year, um, well, I guess a little bit after the start of the new year, right? But mostly moving into the new year with that, that full update, and then there are probably, I mean, there’s always updates to zoning codes, right? Like they look great.

01:05:15,070	You think they’re gonna work great, and then there’s probably gonna be one or two things to update down the road, because that’s just how it always works, but, um, that’s the plan. It’s all at once.

01:05:31,100	So, there’ll be a lot of information we’ll make sure we hold a couple meetings ahead of time with, with you either, um, kind of like ad hoc meetings, um, or going over it and giving you a chance between meetings to to prevent that. That’s the plan as of right now, we’ll work with, with the staff to get that done. Uh, Jordan, I just wanna good job tonight for pitch hitting and for Rachel and I want to wish all the staff happy holidays and thank you for everything.

01:05:52,000	And Rachel, thank you for the gift. Yep. Merry Christmas all I’ll entertain a motion to Adjourn Second all in favor? I poles, same