Planning and zoning commission meeting for May 28th order. Roll call please. Commissioner Langing. Commissioner Huber. Yes, Commissioner Mutter. Yes, Commissioner Horn. Mayor Frelick, yes, here. Commissioner Innfeld. Commissioner McLean, yes. Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Hammond. Here. Commissioner Gardner, here. Chair Robinson, here. Next item, we have a copy of the minutes from April 28th. Any questions or changes? I can move to Peru. I'll second. We have a motion by Commissioner McLean, second by Commissioner Hammond to approve the minutes of April 28th. Are there any questions? No roll call vote please. Commissioner Huber. Yes. Commissioner Mutter. Yes. Mayor Frelick, Commissioner McLean. Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner Hammond. Yes, Commissioner Gardner. Yes, Chair Robinson. Yes, and motion is passed. We'll move on to public hearings. First item is to consider Shaw Estate's 3rd edition and preliminary plat and zone change. Chair Robinson and commissioners, I am Jim Neubauer, city administrator, and uh we will be tag teaming you tonight or triple teaming you tonight with several of our staff members as we try and do the yeoman's work that Andrewrami so adequately did for roughly 4 years to the day, just about so, um, the first item on your agenda for public hearing is considered the per preliminary platin zone change for Shafa state's 3rd edition, um. This was, uh, recommended to be postponed at the April 28th meeting from the minutes you just approved and therefore we re-advertise and we're in front of you today. The applicants are seeking to rezone the existing home and shop from CB commercial to R7 Residential, uh, property is located at 2392 37th Street. The, uh, it's currently zoned commercial exception of the farmstead to the east zoned egg and the one house already zoned residential. It's identified as a commercial intersection. Future Beltway corridor connecting the interstate to North Bismarck would go right by this property. Again, the uh. Findings of fact or first we'll cover the public outreach. Um, I think letters were sent out to 5 adjacent property owners. No comments that we are aware of have been received to date. The preliminary plat, all technical requirements for approval of a preliminary plat have been met. Proposed subdivisions generally demonstrates an ability for the property to align with the future land use and other plans and studies. The proposed subdivision is not located in the special flood hazard or an area that the proposed development would adversely impact water quality and or environmentally sensitive lands or areas that are topography topography topographically, sorry about that, um, unsuited for the development, the subdivision is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. The proposed subdivision is generally consistent with the master plan or other adopted plans, policies, and accepted planning practice, and the proposed subdivision would not adversely affect public health, safety and general therefore general welfare. The city staff recommends approval of the Shaf estate's 3rd edition preliminary plat and the zone change request from CB to commercial are from CB. Commercial to our 7 residential. If you have any questions, we can certainly attempt to answer them for you. Questions for Jim. Again, questions for Jim. With none at this time, I'll open it up for public comments or questions. We're taking comments on item number one. Again, any comments on item number one? With none I'll close, public comment and return it back to the commission. Do we have any questions? I did did they get their um occupancy for that house or not? This is a building official singer. They did receive their occupancy for that, and they are, they are moved in, if I remember correctly as well, about 1.5, 2 weeks ago. Thank you, Jordan. I do have one question, Mr. Chairman. um, I just want to understand, does the zone change apply to the whole property or only to the piece where the. Residence is Um, Cher Huber, I believe it only applies to the area pulled up on the map here on the right where the house is, is shown here. It's carved out from the shop area. The commissioners, my concern originally was that with that corridor going in there just that we preserve the commercial aspect of that to the rest of it, so I think. It seems to me that that's what this does it with it just being, um, Commissioner Huber just with this just being that area that we would still have that preservation of the commercial aspect for the future corridor. Thank you. Any other questions? Sorry, may I? So, um, actually it is for the area it's the house and the shop so it's pretty much the tree I he resubmitted uh. Another uh paper. That shows the line actually covers pretty much exactly where the tree rows are on that picture. That's where we were looking at for the house and the shop to possibly for being for being zone residential and to see I know because the biggest concern is since we have those trucks. And with residential, you're not supposed to have any commercial trucks on there, but we were wanting to see about it being zoned residential with a special use permit that would allow us to park our semis on that property in that shop. So yeah, it was supposed to be a different pictures but they should have submitted. Oh let me state your name for the record, Alex. Thank you. So can you just stay, so you're saying that you kind of squared off the, yeah, yeah, we just completely squared it off where the tree I don't know if there's a different picture that kind of rows are. gives you a little bit of where our tree rows. would be Yes, so where you see the tree rows, we were wanting just all of that just pretty much inside that square. So it would include the house and the shop as residential. And then like I said, see if there is a possible chance of getting it residential with a special use permit allowing the semis. To be parked on there. So maybe a question for City gym, so are we? Voting on to do that, the squared off portion or what you guys have in our packet, you know? Sorry, I was gonna ask you some other questions like how far, what's city response time for fire and snow removal. These guys want me to mess with you, but I, uh, this is a serious question. That I could um Chair Robinson and and commissioner I think we could talk about response time and snow removal. I might be able to help you out on that one the it's simply the zone change request right now and we're checking to make sure that the map. That was submitted a few weeks ago was the accurate map that was in your agenda packet. Um, this is not covering any type of special use permit. At all as part of this, so. OK, um, The map that we just have is different than what was in submitted in your agenda packet there for I think we would ask that we table this until the next meeting. Unfortunately, that's I can make the motion the table to make sure we do it right. Do we wanna see if we can get the special use permit then too, or if they wanna do that. If that becomes an application, then yes we would consider that. I guess maybe just Chair Robinson and commissioner for clarity as as I recall this went from residential to commercial because the truck shop was there. And so then now taking it back to residential and then a special use permit. Seems like um that. Otherwise you'd have a noncompliant use within residential and so I had been under the understanding at the last meeting that we were gonna see in a request for the one piece to go residential and the rest to remain commercial, but maybe I was confused about that. J Robinson and Commissioner Huber, I think that's what we were expecting also, and so that's why I think the map that we just got supplied was like one. One piece and so that's why we're asking that it be tabled. Yes, I'll second to table it. Motion by Commissioner McLean, seconded by Commissioner Mutter to table the item number 1. Do we have any questions? No questions, Rocavo, please. Commissioner Huber, yes. Commissioner Mutter. Mayor Frelick, Commissioner McLean. Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Hammond, yes. Commissioner Gardner. Yes. Chair Robinson. Yes. Motion table is passed. Uh, public, uh, hearing number 2. Consider a special use permit for lot 1B, Block 1, Lakewood Commercial Park, 3rd edition 43 plat. Jerk. Chair Robinson and commissioners, um, my name is Jarre Witness. I'm the city engineer. I'm gonna try to do my best andrew impression as well. Um, uh, this is for the a special use permit for Lot 1 Block 1 of the Lakewood Commercial Park 3rd edition 43 plat. Um, Steven and Erica Mitlier have submitted an application to build shop condos on a pair of parcels, um, just south of the new Discovery Montessori, um, preschool. I will, I have it pulled up on the screen here. So this is split into two, this is two lots right here, and this is the general location of the application. Um, I can pull it up. In Andrew's Packet to where you can visualize it a little bit more. Um, the applicant currently owns the west lot, and the east lot is kind of a low-lying city-owned lot. Um, Of note, the lots are currently commercial business, uh, business commercial, and future land use for these lots is high density residential. Um, the surrounding area is generally residential and we sent out 95 letters to adjacent properties, and I believe that many of the property owners are here to, um. To, uh, participate in the public hearing, um. item of note is that this, the sale of the city-owned East Lot was brought to the March 4th, um, City commission meeting and the city commission denied the sale of the lot. On the basis that, uh, I'm gonna quote Andrew's agenda document here. Staff will recommend denial of any future applications for this for multi-use shop condo development on this property due to the same due to land use conflicts and lack of alignment with the city's adopted plan. Um, for those reasons tonight, we are also, um, Recommending denial of the uh special use permit in that the proposed plan includes the city lot and we are not um interested in selling to build shop condos on the city lot at this time. um I can try to answer any questions otherwise Rachel might be able to answer questions better than I but um. That's all I have. Question for Jarre. Jared, I had, I had a question if you can pull up the map again, just uh relating to drainage. I'm not sure if you can answer it or not. Um, maybe the Gullah Earth imagery would be better. So you have the city lot, that's the lower area and there's elevations that are provided in our um packet that shows the low end is about 1633. But if you go, if you can continue to go south, that drainage channel. And go to uh McKenzie at the very end there. It's not showing in our packet, but the elevation is like 1627, 1628, and even in this picture you can see the water basically forms a dam in that area. Uh, one question I had is there a drainage or or culvert that goes from McKenzie to the south side? I don't know that off the top of my head, but I can certainly find that out. It's on the south side that's part of the Lakewood development, and that's designated core wetlands there. We can't touch that. I don't know about the north side. I just wondered if they were connected so there'd be. Underneath the drain. Correct. Yes. I did a few years ago when the water was high backed all the It will back up. way up from that day. In 2011. Yeah, OK. 0, 17. And it fills up that. Manmade day that goes down past the drinking. Fill that up, backed up come to McKenzie and backed up right below my house on the south side so it backs all the way up. North west Well, we'll actually go up back up under. We appreciate the help. I'll have you state your name for the record, please. Thank you. Any questions for Jarre. None at this time. I'll open it up for public comment or questions. Item number 2. Hi, we're Steve and Erica Mitlighter. We're the ones that, um, own the lot at 2510 40th Avenue Southeast. We've lived in Lakewood since 2007. Um, and like Jarek said, the lot is currently his own commercial business. We've applied for the special use permit to build the multi-use shops. Um, we previously stood before the commission and asked to purchase the landlocked city owned lot behind ours. Um, the commissioners asked us to follow order of business and come to the planning and zoning committee first to get approval for the special use permit. So our main focus today was um to see if we can get approval to build the multi-use shops on the lot that we currently own. Our goal with the shops is to provide an aesthetically pleasing development that will blend in with the surrounding area. Um, home builders reached out to us about, um, relocating their office to the unit right off of 40th Avenue, and we've also had a chiropractic office, um, expressed interest in relocating their office from Bismarck. Um, with having said that, we plan to follow any man and city ordinances and policies to gain site approval and ultimately a building permit. We've had multiple meetings with Andrew from the city, um, Jordan from the city, Swenson Hagen and KLJ engineering firms. Wetland delineation and stormwater are being addressed, um, and you know, we realized that city staff has the final say in these matters and we plan to continue to work together. Um, so tonight with our lot currently being zoned, um, properly for our project, having some great businesses already expressing interest, um, even before advertising and having the owners of the preschool next door in agreement with the project, we're asking for your approval for the special use permit. Um, we were hoping that KLJ would be able to attend, I mean Swensenhagen, but with Bismarck's meeting being on the same night they had a prior obligation and then also Sarah, the owner of the preschool next door, um, wasn't able to attend tonight either. She planned on attending and wasn't able to. She sent us a text message kind of with what her voice like voice her opinion. And um if it'd be OK, I could read it or we could hand it out or would you rather have like hand out copies and then. OK, so Sarah says, um, I'm the owner operator of the new Discovery Montessori. My family and I own the lot next door for 13 years. We decided to wait and sell it until we saw what was going up around us. We were told that only apartments. That the only apartments that were to be built would be luxury apartments. Not long after they were built, um, did we see a huge change in our once quiet and safe neighborhood. We have been witness to many drug busts and other crimes as well. My family decided to sell the land to Steve because he promised us that he would not build something that would cause more traffic concerns like an apartment or Starbucks. I am, uh, begging you to allow Steve to build what he had intended something quiet that would add value to our Lakewood neighborhood and not cause any traffic concerns. Thank you. Thank you, um, and if you have any questions for us. Any questions for the mid lighters? Just one question. So you did you purchase the land yet or are you still? So we own the 2510. We own that next to the Montessori, the preschool. The lot behind us is the low spot and when we originally brought our project to Andrew's attention last August, um, we've been working with them, um, with Swenson Hagen, KLJ, uh, determine the wetlands. It is under current, uh, we did do delineation. Um, KLJ came out, did their studies, dug their holes, um, turned in their report. It is handed over to the core, um, and we're just waiting for the core's response to address the current wetlands. Um, you are correct, that's south of McKenzie Drive, um, many years ago, Swensenhagen, when this area first got developed, they had to go take soil samples of like the whole entire Lakewood project, um, way back in like 2003. And Uh, so they took their soil samples and that by that south of McKenzie Drive there was determined wetlands at that time had characters characteristics. The city's lot did not at that time, however, we are still doing our due diligence still, you know, we need to do this legally to form a correct site plan, um, so KLJ did come out, they did do their study and they now submitted it to the core. And actually, we asked for Derek uh with KLJ to um submit or, well, for a status update, and actually on our way over here, he actually got back to us. Um, he said we're still waiting to hear back from the core and basically, If they say no, they don't claim jurisdiction on it, they, then we go ahead, fill it or try and purchase it or, you know, move forward with it. If they do, um, claim jurisdiction, then, you know, there are possible ways to mitigate. It being wetlands or if it is, but that's kind of what we are waiting back to hear from. Um, So yeah, so I mean we, we have just the one. I'm sorry, yeah, yeah, we own the one lot, yeah. Is there anything, if this was not approved, is there, is there anything else that you could build on there? So, um, we, you know, we appreciate what, like when we first talked to Andrew about this and first brought this up, um. We basically that's when he pointed out that the 2015 like it's currently used or zoned for this like it currently is zoned so we're good right now currently commercial business, but the 2015, so you know 10 year ago future land use plan, he noted that it's gonna be high high density residential and high density res and he also told us that they're not. Gonna pursue, you know, like the city of Manan is not gonna actively try and rezone it. They're gonna leave it at commercial business, but, um, we're talking about that future land use plan, the 2015 future land use plan. Being high high density residential, Sarah that owns the Montessori next door, um, high density residential, the definition is actually basically putting as many units on the smallest piece of land you can looking upwards of possibly 30 units per acre. The city's lot is 30 units. Our lot is or so yeah, 1 acre. I'm sorry, the city's lot is 1 acre, so that'd be 30 units. Our lot is 1 acre, that'd be 30 units. So that's where. Um, just hearing Sarah, you know, hey, when those apartments first got built, they promised us they were gonna be luxury apartments. They put all these, you know, background checks, these guidelines, and she said that lasted about 4 years. So she said, now at my preschool, which our own kids have attended, she said, I have seen drug deals go on. There's police cars in my parking lot and just several items like 40th Avenue Southeast with us living in, um, Lakewood since 2007. We know that we're aware that 40th Avenue Southeast is a winter snow emergency route. You can't park on that, um, during the winter, so. You know, for us, for the neighbors to the west of us. You know, we're thinking that's gonna be at least a 4 story high apartment if it gets turned into high density residential. And where's that parking gonna go if you can't park on 40th Avenue? Sarah, the business next door, does not want that. She's completely against it. Um, and that's why we included parking on 21st Street and parking photos of 40th Avenue. We went there in the morning, lunch, evening, and nighttime. And during 21st Street, you can hardly drive along that street. That's why we included that in the packet. So for us, We're looking at OK. Sarah has a, you know, a very nice business. We already, we haven't advertised anything. We have a home builder asking to move their office there. We have a chiropractor wanting to move there. You know, we just feel like that is more fitting to this area rather than trying to fit on 28 well ours is just 1 acre, 30 units, you know, why go to that when no one is wanting that from our understanding from the what we've been doing so. So yeah, I mean, Yes, something else could go there, but the direction of that the city, the 2015 future plan would be potential of 60 units going up there and I. I guess we're trying to move forward with our project. I do have one more question and I'll let you guys go. I apologize. Um, so then the last question I have for you is, do you, do you, as far as like you have different shop condo uses permitted, so for example, like you can have people working on small engine repair. Also, is this gonna be very limited to like storing boats? Is that kind of that's a great question. That's I'm glad you asked that. It's like there's so much we wanna address that, you know, we've been going through the last year we're trying to hit all the points and it's, we don't wanna take up so much time, but So my wife and I, we actually do own apartments in Bismarck, so we're familiar with, um, rentals and needing to set up, you know, um, rules basically we work with NAHUS Law and that is who we're currently working with to set up bylaws to put the plans in effect that we are not gonna allow, um, you know, trailers overnight or we, we're we're very familiar with setting up rules. And laws and developing an HOA that make sure that like for dino doesn't move in there for cars or something really loud instance like a that would disturb the neighborhood or something that would make like a paint booth with fumes and. Yeah, I mean, we, we live in Lakewood. We want this, this is gonna be. You know we're not allowing that but we are aware of of working with, you know, a law firm setting rules in place to basically police it we're, we're not gonna allow, um, yeah, some things that are allowed that basically what Sarah's concerned about, you know, with the apartments and stuff. I'm gonna piggyback a little bit, um, so instead of shop condos, did you think about doing so it's just like a commercial building there instead of a shop condo? And the reason why shop condo versus a we kind of did and then I know no matter what way we kind of talked about it, it just the drawings kept on coming back to a shop condo and then working with meeting with Andrew all the time and uh Jordan. We just came down. He goes, no matter what, what you end up building, it's gonna come some form of shop condo, so that's why we just started saying it's just a multi-use building and then when we met with Swenson Swenson Hagen and did the setbacks and dealing with filtering and screening, um, we're just basically coming up with, OK, we have this much area. Let's break like our phase one would be 6:30 by 60 units. Phase two would be 630 by 50 units, and then phase three was, uh, 7:30 by 70 units, and that just seemed like that was just the best fit to use the land for. Um, they took an account for parking. You know, dumpster area, uh, um, handy, yeah, but handicap parking and stuff, so we, oh yeah, and then the fire department making sure that we have like the correct hammerhead turn that, that, you know, the fire um chief was happy with. We've been trying to address all these issues and it just seems like this was the plan and. You know, it takes such a long time, it's hard for us to change it up. I'm gonna, I'm gonna ask another the probably the toughest question and it really smile, but, but since I already brought up snow, where for snow removal and stuff like that where you got planned for that? I don't know if that packet, um, it, it has actually the site plan in it. I don't know if we can change to it. The packet does have the site, their site plan. OK. It's kind of like. So what they were really trying to do is on the north, the north end there, they're kind of keeping that like off to the northeast, and then the Northwest that that was leaving open. And then um I just told you like 30 by 50s, they put 30 by 45s on this drawing cause they were leaving a little bit more room on, on the north end to try and that's kind of where we would, you know, be pushing the snow too. Um, and I guess, yeah, on that picture, it's it'd be on the left side more so. OK, thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question. Um, I just want to understand, uh, typically when I think of a shop condo I think of the units are being sold and and individual businesses or owners own the individual units as compared to a multi-tenant building would generally be leased. So which is your approach here and that would kind of go to to maybe some of the control. Yep, yep, we understand that yep, very good question. So our intent is we without just not even advertising, that's just people, you don't believe how many people found out that we own this lot. They're like. You know, I was after that lot for the longest time, and they wanted it because of this, you know, they wanted to move their chiropractor's office there they, you know, they live in Lakewood, but their chiropractor's office is in Bismarck, um, so they wanna be right there and then this home builder, um, that actually, you know, wants to move their office there. Our goal is to, once we get approval, then advertise, hey, we're, we're advertising this. Our goal is to try and sell everything and have it in. However, if that doesn't happen, yes, then we have to go, you know, to the next option of. You know, trying some type of a rent, but our, our goal is to, we just don't wanna advertise when the we don't wanna get too far ahead of ourselves and hey. Oh, for our business that's what she's asking is like you're, you're meaning are we planning to like keep all of them or some of them and rent them out then we would have more control over the enforcing the covenants is that what you were. Um, yes, so I really was getting to what controls there would be over, over what happens inside of those individual units and so if you retain ownership, you get to choose who you rent them to once you sell them and unless you do have a, uh, you know, I guess some kind of a business association and and covenants, but those are outside of planning and zoning's control and without I guess without some kind of um. I guess, um, without seeing those, I don't know that I would be comfortable just, um, throwing this open. To whatever uses could go in there, we understand that, but that is kind of what HOA yep, that's what we're working with currently working with to set that up. That would be essential for sure. Any other questions? We'll, we'll take questions and comments from Other folks here. Thank you. I have a comment. I'll have you state your name for the record also. My name is Jane Husingay. I currently live in the Cook Villas. I live at 2503 Nash Lane, and I have since 2010. In life I have two fears snakes and public speaking. If you personally know me, you'd be shocked at the public speaking part. If you live near me, you've probably heard me yell snake. My reason for coming here tonight might solve my snake problem. But my other reason for coming, I come to ask you that you not grant this special use permit for the shop buildings in my backyard on this picture that's listed on here, can you. On that same one that was just up. Like this blue one. I kind of have my own diagrams cause I like, I'm not a very good map reader, so I've had to drive around town. So do you get complaints about the crazy lady with the camera, it was me. Oh. So I live. Back in that area where they were just talking about putting the snow. I live right there. These are gonna be somewhere about 10 ft off my fence. I would assume there's probably gonna be some air conditioner units back there for me to listen to. My neighbors who live in the condo behind me are going to be looking at a parking lot. If this is 10 ft setback, that might be a foot setback, so they're going to be looking out their decks at a parking lot with a dumpster. I'd drive around town to figure out what these were. I believe these are where the dumpsters are gonna be placed. This is going to be my yard. I'm gonna be looking at 60 or 70 ft long. This will be my neighbor Tom. This is my neighbor Chuck. We have Dean, we have Sean, and that's the empty lot. 17 ft side wall, about 10 ft off the back of my house. When I originally bought that. We understood that nothing could go back there it was just kind of a rain drain type thing. And we were OK with that. Yes, I've had 11 snakes in my yard and I hate them, but I do like the buffer. The lot that they purchased that they want to put a couple of buildings on. I don't think anybody sitting here has a problem with that. It's just when it gets back into where we live. I don't know if any of you guys have a 17 ft side wall 10 ft off your back fence, but I don't think it's gonna be very good for my property values. None of my neighbors who live in the condos came here tonight. I'm not even sure if they've looked at this or understand it. I recognize that lot because the city had it for sale for about $85,000 a couple of years ago. So when that plan came out. That's what brought me here tonight because I know what I'm gonna be looking at for the rest of the time I live there. With There's, there's no way to pay us for the value of our houses we would lose if that went there. But a steel building 10 ft off my back fence with 17 ft side walls, noisy air conditioners, extra traffic would do harm to the lives and yards we have spent the last 15 years creating for ourselves. We have no objections to the two buildings on the other lot. Our reason for objecting. For what will be directly behind us is we actually object to any building going on that 4205 shoal loop. We know we're going to be subjected to noise. I already told you when we purchased our home, that one acre lot behind us was a no access lot. That's what they told us no access to it, no electricity, no water. So we knew we probably would get some snakes in the yard and we have the 40th Avenue lot we don't have a problem with. The other thing is there's nothing else like that down in Lakewood that is a business that backs up to a residents. The only thing I could find close to that was the shop condos on 21st Street that back up to, uh, Lee, you remember what that street was? What was it? Amity? So I drove over there and took a picture so I could see what my future would be if you grant this permit. There'll be a fence, a little bit of green, and boom, the wall right there. And I would just ask that you kind of take into consideration what we're gonna be forced to look at. And I don't know. That's just. Lee, you got anything, Tom? Chuck. I, I have just, I just to make, make a comment. Uh, I'm Chuck Wyan. I, I live in, like you mentioned, I live at 2419 Nash Lane, and this pro this shops will be 10 ft off my fence in the back. And I bought that place 13 years ago. We bought it from Cook Construction. And of course Cook owned the property behind us. It's televised. OK, yeah, thank you. Can we just start over? I'm Chuck Win. I live at 2509 Nash Lane, and I've lived there for 13 years. And I submitted a uh. My comments to Nancy this afternoon and she said, OK, I appreciate if, you know, if everybody would look at that, rather than me stand up here and read them, I was gonna let you read them. But anyway, when Cook bought that property. When I bought my particular home from Cook, he told me that that lot back there was for watershed, and it's designed for watershed. All our water that comes through our lots goes out under our fences and goes down into that watershed. It has done that for 13 years. And it's my understanding when Cook owned it, he didn't pay the taxes on it and the city acquired it for back taxes. No, it was mentioned that the city wanted $80,000 for that lot. It's a non-functional lot. I mean, there's, there's no access to it. It was designed for watershed. That's what Cook designed it for. He wouldn't have put that fifteen-foot ditch in there. And my concern is the watershed and of course the same concerns that Jane. I look out my back, my wife and I sit on our back deck, which faces to the the west. And I have a couple trees back there, it's really nice to sit there in the evenings. I really don't want to look at a 17 ft wall. 10 ft off my fence. It's just, it just doesn't make sense. As I put in my notes there, he's trying to put a 5 pound turkey in a two-pound bag. It doesn't work. Plus we got all those residential people there I gotta look at this. Now I don't have any problem. He can build anything he wants on his lot. But please The lot that the city owns, leave it the way it was designed to be watershed. And let all us old people die in peace, not looking at 170 ft walls in our backyard. Thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Dean Morris. I live in 2507 Nash Lane, and I agree with everything they're saying. What I wanna really stress is how much water runs back there. Chuck is to the south of me. His roof comes down. Our roofs come together or meet and that it can be a river between his yard, between his yard and and my yard. I mean, it's just unbelievable how much water runs down, we get big roofs. Where's that water gonna go? I mean, that drainage like Chuck said, that drainage is there for a reason. And if you, if they, if you sell it, he fills that hole up or whatever, where is it gonna go? And once it's built and everything's done and we got water trouble, we could have water coming back into our yard. We don't right now because we got good drainage. And we don't need to have water in our backyard. Something interesting I heard them say is. They're gonna rent this out and they got control of it and they can make covenants or whatever and then all of a sudden now they're saying they might sell them. If they sell them, there's no control. And then what? And then we're stuck with whatever's left there. Like I said, the main thing is, the drainage is unbelievable how much water runs through there. So please don't let that water come back to our yards. Thank you. I can have some time. I guess I spoke up about the drainage comes right on the south side of my place Sean Frost at 2511. It does come all the way from, uh, actually it will end up in the river. It goes underneath McKenzie comes all the way, but also I guess um. What we're saying means nothing if the court comes in and says yes, that cannot be done, plus it's still is owned by the city. So we're assuming a lot of things here, I guess it's kind of what I'm looking at. But first the city has a cell, then the core has a say they can. Close it in, cover it up, do whatever they want to with it. So let's not get too excited about all this, you know, I, once again, they own that property. I guess they can do as they want according to you people, you know. But let's hope that you know it all works out for the best for everybody but it is actually as of now it kind of does act as a little bit of a drainage area, pretty substantial drainage area, so we'll see what the core says if they buy it and go from there I guess. So thank you, thank you. And I'll take one last comment. Richard Long, 2504 Nash Lane. Um, on the condo shops, I was wondering you're talking about, are you having the living quarters upstairs? OK, so the height of your building is actually going to be lower than. Then doing it the way they're doing it over on. I can't remember, but they've got their living quarters above their shops, and those buildings go up extremely high. However, there is OK. No, OK. I guess and the other comment, uh, they already made it, but I know how the condo deal goes and you can make all the rules you want, but all you need to do is get a few, few of the people that are are renting or leasing there to make the changes. Once you sell it, you can go to attorney and have the Deals change around pretty soon. You got somebody in there that wants to work on their motorcycle all night long or you got a race car down there with no exhaust, um, so yes, at, at this point I would be against that too, so I'd just like to express that thank you. And I'll let you make one last comment. I just wanna say, you know, that, that there is a lot of, um, I understand that about like, you know, the bylaws and talking about um People trying to change the rules or anything, I just wanna. I just wanna say Out there a little bit that with us currently owning apartments, um. We have had to deal with evictions and we have rules in place and for what the future land use plan for this to be high density residential 30 units per acre, you're talking about you're, you're worried about a 17 ft side wall. We're talking about at least a 4 story apartment that you're gonna have to stare at with decks looking at you. And you're talking about people buying these shops and trying to change our HOA, like trying to legally do it. Once it's an apartment, I'm telling you the renters of your apartment have way more rights than you believe it. We've had drug dealing going in our apartment. We have it on camera and Nahus law said, I will be straight with you. You have a 49% chance of evicting them. And it is a pain in the butt to evict people. So if you're worried about us having a home builder move into a shop, a chiropractor move into a shop, and you're scared about things changing, I just wanna let you know a 30 unit building is gonna be much harder to please. You will have people working in their garages. You'll have people throwing trash. They do not care about apartments. That's, that's all I just wanted to just wanted to say what we're, we're not going from an open lot non-developed to. To shops, it's. High density residential. The court and say go ahead and go for it. What's your plan? That if we get OK, then we want to start advertising that we're It is on here. I don't have the exact setback. Um, I do believe it was roughly 30 ft from that back fence on there 10 10. Uh, it's so your place is right on the back. I have it right here. 100. I could, I could have the city clarify that for us. Yeah, I'm sorry, yeah, and that's, that's where like the setbacks like that's why I wish, you know, Snhagen would have been here to, to go about that, but I mean it, they are doing it, um. You know, legally the proper filtering and screening that the city like that's not our decision, that's the city doing that stuff. Our plan is to do what's in this packet instead of put two apartments there. Then it's just then it's just phase 1 and 2 yep, so this is in three phases phase one, phase 2 and phase 3 is what we're so on that special use permit also it says 60 by 180 if I'm correct. These buildings say 70 and that square footage is 210 ft. I, I know those are 30 wide and 700 and there's 7 of them, so that's 7 times 3 is 210. It's not 180 and these are not 60. These are 70. This is your, oh, that's the permit says for that that's on that one right there phase one. This one is 60 by 180. This is 45, and this one is 210, but on the special permit, isn't that what we'll we'll have to put a stop to this part of the discussion. Thank you. Yeah, but anyways, that's just all I wanted to address that. You know, just I understand those are good concerns, but yeah, yep, so, OK, well, we've had good comments from both sides here, so. Uh, with that, I'll close the public comment and return it back to the commission. So the request today is special use permit for their lot only. Is that correct, Jer? No, it's for both. Um, after reviewing the application, I believe so. I believe it is. For Lot 1, Block 1 at 2510 40th Avenue Southeast. Yes. So it's just the one lot. Correct. And then, but the plan submitted would have included both, both lots in the, in the. Proposed proposal. So what are we voting on? The the lot that he owns, correct? That's where we're voting, not the city lot, right. Correct. Looking at the application, the, the lot with uh 0.92 parcel 0.92 acre parcel, which would be. This this lot. On the west 92 acres right there, yep. Can I ask then if on the since we're discussing the first lot, will that affect the watershed in that area? Um, commissioner, I believe that would, that would affect, uh, they would, they would be held to development standards which where they would have to meet pre-development, um, peak runoff and they might shed water towards the west or maybe towards the east, but likely towards the west. We would, we'd want developers to shed towards the right of way. Thank you. Maybe um just some overall comments I mean the the request before us tonight is really about the, the use of the land and and so my concerns would remain the same whether it's one or both lots in terms of um shop condos and um the lack of ability to control the, um, the types or intensities or heaviness if you will, of, of the commercial. Uh, nature use of those, um, properties and it's, it's not really just a hamburger hot dog type of a choice here and I, I really respect the Mitt lighters for wanting to invest in commercial property and in Manda and it, but I think there are some alternatives that are between shop condos and. And the suggestion that high density apartments have to be at 30 units on each of those lots again, you know, if apartments are built, it needs to be commensurate with the the number of units and the amount of parking then has to be accommodated for either above ground or beneath, you know, ground and so forth. So I, I, um, I don't want necessarily scare tactics to say, well, you only have these 22 choices, you know, there could be, um, alternatives of, of some medium residential or something something. Different, but I don't think um it's appropriate to, um, lock in the interior lot um you know this is part of a due diligence process so I realize it seems to to some of you like the cart might be in front of the horse, but we wouldn't want the Mitt lighters to purchase that interior lot and then not be able to do anything with it so it is, it's smart of them to be exploring what all, um, types of uses could potentially be um approved for for that lot. And then in terms of who sells the lot, so the folks up here are all just appointed members of the planning and zoning commission by virtue of either their affiliation with other entities or as volunteers in the community and then it's the city of Mandan and the city commission that would ultimately determine whether or not to sell that lot and who to sell it to and for what price. So just want to provide a little bit of, uh, you know, clarity on. On some of those topics and maybe just to ask the Mit lighters if you have explored anything in between shop condos and high density apartments for this property that might respect the residential, you know, that is on um all sides of the property with the exception of the childcare, um, center that's also very fitting within a a residential area. And hear the comments Maybe just one question, this might be maybe for Jarrek, but the situation with this lot and and, and kind of the thought that it is needed for watershed. I know from my understanding as the city now approves plats for properties, uh, a lot like this probably would not be allowed on a plat any longer. It would be made into a what a pro rata share of all the surrounding lots. So maybe just a little bit of perspective for for everyone in the in the room on maybe what kind of the options are for that property because we. We don't always have the right to just say because a vacant property is adjacent to us that it's always going to remain vacant. Um, commissioner, yes, I, I would say that the, the city's not interested in just hoarding hoarding a lot and keeping it out of production if it can be in, if it can contribute to the betterment of the city. Um, this lot, I, if, if this lot were a storm pond, it would, it would have, it would have, um, Had undivided interest among the, the contributing parcels, um, or that's at least how we would have done it today, um, the size of the, the size of the depression there. I, we, we specifically didn't use the word stormwater pond in our packet because, um, we would have to maybe do a little bit more investigating to determine, but, um. But uh it it is. Kind of abnormal, I would say right now, does that answer your question? Jerry Robinson Jer Jerk, if we, if we allow this on his lot and, and Steve's lot, and I'm, I'm all for property rights and you should be able to do something of what she wants to, but you're really hand tying the city lot at that point like if we give him what he wants on his lot. The city lot is either gonna have to go that direction or I don't even know what you'd be able to do, cuz you wouldn't have access. Uh commissioner, yes, um, the, the lots do seem tied to each other at this point in time where it would make sense for one lot to go the way of the other lot, but, um, With, with the high density residential future land use, um, it has been the city's or it was the city's position not to allow the, or not to go through with the purchase purchase agreement for the multi-use shop condos. Yeah. Any other questions? Can I make a comment? Uh, uh, no, uh, public comments over. Thank you. Um, my, my one concern is, is that I You know, especially when I see somebody trying to make an effort to, to develop and build and just do something productive, um, I just don't want to see property rendered useless. I know we had another. Another property right next to, right off of Expressway, um, I think it's right across from Moore. It's, there was that, was it 5 acre parcel. And when I started hearing the history of that land, it was denial, denial denial of everything that they try to do and the residents next door said we want this and we want that and we want this and we want that. And, um, that's, and I'm not saying I, I'm on board with, with the proposal here or that I'm on board with, with doing this, but my concern is that we just keep denying opportunity and I, um, I'm resonated, you know, with the with what else do we build and if they do come back again with something else, um, are we denying that too because that's not gonna fit the, you know, I, I believe when you have vacant property next to you the the property. the the the alarm bells should go off that there's that. Why is vacant and um not just for free enjoyment I'm, you know, it, it should be a concern that I mean just because you're told something that. That, oh, this is never going to be developed, I mean. You gotta be, you got, I mean, it, it does, it shouldn't shackle the rest of the community because, because of that, um. Again, I'm not saying I'm in agreement with this. I think there are some issues, the watershed. is a is a big concern of my of my own. I want to make sure that that we don't want water backing up into, into your neighborhood, um. I think the covenants if you're setting covenants for that neighborhood, I don't think anybody's gonna want to disturb those covenants because it's gonna devalue those if they're gonna drop the drop the bar um. So I'm, I'm a little conflicted myself, but Well, the property owner has options here. They, it's, it's zoned, it's, uh, they discussed, uh, Potential buyers that fit. Uh, with a different type of construction. Um, And I'm sure the city considered all this that they're going to get landlocked should it develop because that's, that's exactly what's going to happen. Or at least they should have Um, When they denied the offer. And I, I'm assuming, and I've been by there, the, the drainage, it does look like uh it was retention at some point, you know, but keep in mind this development started 30 years ago. So there, I'm assuming at some point in the master plan, this was an element of that. And then development occurred and things changed, but uh that's, I think that's what you got here. In terms of the city, I don't think that lot has much value. Regardless, I mean, it's primarily drainages, as you said. The city's never made anything off it from the beginning. No when I go back to when, uh, the Lakewood and Borden harbor master plans were. Submitted, I mean, Looks like one thing on day one, but on day 1000 it's something else. Just strikes me there's a couple issues here. One, the future of the city lot that may or may not be the Mint lighter's direct interest here today as they might be most interested in what they can do with the property adjacent to 40th, although it would seem there does need to be a plan for that lot at some point, um. Um, and I don't know if there's any opportunity for that to, to be, you know, melded into the, the, um, adjoining property owners probably don't want responsibility for it either, but to say it never had any productive use for the city, it was once on the private tax rolls until that, um, owner ceased to to pay property taxes and so now it's the city's burden to maintain that property. So those are things to be considered, but I guess just with regard to the, you know, if we keep the focus on the property on. On 40th, I mean, one, I would think you would want to see some type of a layout that provides access to the lot behind it so that it not become um permanently landlocked, but two, I would just be interested in in some different approach um so the types of businesses that you com uh you know mentioned could they be um you know, accommodated with more of a multi um tenant commercial. Um, rather than a shop condo approach, you know, or is there an opportunity for some town homes, you know, or something that is there, is there some room for some happy medium, I guess here would be my question. And I would have the same concern that the plan does include access to the back lot. Whoever owns at some point in the future. Um, uh, Mammy brought up Amity as one of the examples. I, I'm a realtor. I have shown properties behind Amity, um, Like you have a house and then you have a yard and then you have a very large shop condo behind there. Um, I, I guess it wasn't a super negative for, for when I just my personal opinion of it. Um, there's some definite privacy you get from that, but, uh, I mean, I'm not trying to say it's your cup of tea or mine like it, you know, we all have our own taste there, um. I, I would like to ask the city a question, um, is there a way to sell part of that lot? Because I'm, my really concern is the watershed, to be honest with you, and, and, and I know they're looking at just their lot, but, but can we somehow. I, and I'm just asking we a part of that lot to them or something, or is there a way? Um, commissioner, may, I probably can't speak for the whole city, but I, I, I think that the city would be interested in selling the entire lot. I'm sure there's a way to sell a portion of the lot, but then the city would still end up with a landlocked parcel. Um, that is a maintenance burden, um. And uh that would not solve solve what what the city's problem if the city had a problem. I think what you could do is you could solve a whole lot, but you could have a drainage easement that you couldn't develop on part of it. That's a that's a good, yeah. My, I guess my thing too, I am concerned about watershed. We have the problems with the apartment complex right to the north of there it sheds a ton of water from that parking lot and if these your guys' homes over there are shedding that much water already into there and you're gonna shed uh a parking lot into there as well. It's a lot of water. It's a lot more than a person thinks. My thoughts about. Kind of a partial, I don't even know if we could split the lot off, but I don't know if the homeowners have an HOA of themselves or not if that HOA wanted to buy a part of it and just made it a storm water drainage system and then half the lot goes to this for the development that might be an idea as well, um, because then you'd have the watershed and you'd have a little more, more of a buffer zone for part of it, but just the thought. I know that if you put a high density. With the parking lot in there, you're gonna shed just as much water as what he's proposing. I guess it strikes me like there's some work to be done on this either way and so um with that, with what's before us this evening, I would recommend a move to recommend denial of the special use permit. All second for the same reasons. Motion by Commissioner Huber, second by Commissioner Smith. Uh, the recommendation of a denial for the special use permit. Any questions? Comments The only comment that I'll make before voting is just I, I do agree that the question mark of the watershed is, is I'd like to have some of this answered before, before I give my blessing on it. I think I'd like to make a comment to like these, say, I'd like to see what it would be if you took out the city lot. It's what your engineering firm has for development. I know you have phase one, phase 23, but just the watershed from that part if you didn't have the city lot. Any final comments? Non roll call vote, please. Commissioner Hubert. Yes. Commissioner Mutter Yes. Mayor Frelick. Commissioner McLean. Yes. Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner Hammond. Yes, Commissioner Gardner. Yes. Chair Robinson. Yes. And the motion to deny is passed. Move on to item number 3. Consider a zone change from RM, which is multi-family, to a PUD planned unit development for Clover Grove. We'll give everyone a chance to leave the room if they want before we get started. Less of an audience for you, Jordan? No comment. Good evening Chair Robinson and commissioners. My name's Jordan Singer. I'm the building official, uh, the last of the three-legged stool filling in and trying to be Andrew, which we all know So, um, before you for our third and final public hearing we're not. tonight, we have a consideration of a zone change from RM multi-family to a PUD planned unit development for Clover Grove. Um Evolution Planning and Design has submitted an application for a zone change from RM to PUD for Macedonia Hills. Government lot 2, less outlet A in the northwest quarter of Northeast quarter of Section 3 Township 138 North Range 81 West. The property is 14.82 acres located at 151 19th Street, and I will. Get you there now on Google Maps if I can. Get my bearings straight. This would be uh the parcel that's located on the screen right now that we're looking at is this one right here. Uh, the intent of the PUD is for 57 entry-level single-family detached and duplex type home lots. The 3.2 zoning district serves as the basis for this PUD narrative. Um, adjacent properties to the west and north are zoned R7. Uh, residential single family property to the east is um also zone 3.2, residential single and two family. The property in the south is egg currently. That would be down here. Um, The, uh, the item was, or excuse me, the future land use plan recommends low density residential for this property. This item was published in the Man and News and 46 letters were sent to the uh adjacent property owners on May 9th. Uh, as of the drafting of this agenda document, uh, no comments have been received by the city. There are many attachments and I'm just gonna go to the. Uh, PUD portion of this clover Grove and just kind of go through, um, as, as customary for PUDs, a, a plan is shown. Um, with Many documents. And different items. that are involved in that. I'm just gonna jump down here for a second. Give me a second. We know Andrew could do this in about 2 seconds, so bear with me. So, um, at the northeast corner, there is a drainage culvert outlet that runs through here and this is kind of, uh, this is a waterway that, that we have that there is water draining through there, um, that they have on the backside of the lot. There, um, our staff comments that we have in the packet are about density access management, um, emergency access, and I think the biggest one for us that we've looked at with staff would just be the future connectivity and the number of units that are proposed, uh, exceed the International Fire code Appendix D related to the number of units allowed with one access point from. Um, the development. There are a few other things I'd like to go over and just in the specifics of this, uh, planned unit development that we don't have in the staff comments. Let me get back to the site plan. wrong one, excuse me. I just have to find it. This is the zoning Why can I not find that? So the next one, thank you. Thanks. So in in this site plan. Let me just get a little closer. Um, we show a public street coming off of 19th currently. And a public park and then the development. uh within this is a roadway that's showing at I believe it's 40. Foot along with um private streets that are 31 ft and uh that is a major concern that we have. The other one would be the private and then public utilities um the city is not in any way, shape or form wanting to do a public street with private utilities or the other way around private street public utilities, um, that's not something that we are looking at doing at this time. The other piece of this is the density and for not necessarily the development but in our fire and building codes we have a section noting anything above 30 units would need two access points. Now this public street counts as one access point and any of the um. Street connections are still part of that connection point. Uh, they have one that would be temporary next to the park, but it's not far enough away to be considered a secondary access. Uh, I know that the development team has, uh, expressed interest in doing part of it up to a number of units and then a second phase. Um, I, I think in a normal world we would be OK with that as long as we had the complete master plan and, and how that second road connectivity would happen for the city and that piece we do not have yet. Um, so that, that would be the second half of the division. So for those reasons and a few others, um, that we were looking at snow storage being one of them, and then just kind of the roads in general within the streets, um, we would recommend denial of this PUD. Is there any questions that you would have for me? Uh, the one access point that's there, uh, with that volume of housing. So, uh, if you're coming from the west, you don't have a visual of that intersection. As it drops off below the hill. Are you talking, uh, Chair Robinson, are you talking about over here? 1 on 19th? Yeah, so if you're traveling from west to east on 19th, you come over a rise. And then that access point is right there. This would be that. Yeah. Well, yeah, but if you go back farther west. If you're, if you're coming off that access street onto 19th. You don't necessarily see the traffic coming from the west till they're pretty much on you. It's probably a little better now that the housing development is as far along as it is. I think traffic is slowed appropriately, but obviously. There's still people that are doing 40. 45 on that road. On occasion Sometimes me Jordan, I guess like my question would be like, do you want another access point, does the city have a recommendation? For a secondary access point for that chunk of land, like, cause now I'm confused like what we're gonna be able to use that chunk of land for a little bit. Chair Robinson, Commissioner McLean, um. That's the hard part with future development and knowing that, um, I know we've had uh past developments come through with at least a plan showing that um, that's, that's kind of where we struggle with right now is that. We probably could get the first half, but to get the second half and then to get a road in is where we really hit a point and we've been dealing with this with other developments that are in the 2nd phase of construction and no longer want to construct the road that they showed in a master plan that connects the city for connectivity, so probably the south and west, but that would also require other things with other developments and things like that. The, the other question I have, Jordan, just because you're talking about two access points, and I'm looking at the, I looked at the development that's just to the east of it, and it only has one access point that I can see as well off of uh Macedonia. Yes, so, and that's, I'm just wondering how that one got through. The um development to the west is uh obviously you're talking about Macedonia, um, the connection point that was supposed to be in this was off of Mario court up to 23rd, and that was deemed not viable to work, but that's something that we need to work on as a city to have future connectivity and make sure that uh these missing connection points don't happen. So it's, it's one of the reasons that we're denying rec uh recommending denial is, is based on things that have happened in the past because um if you count the number that is in this area, you are well above 30 units. Sure. Jordan, um. How why do you want those streets far as? What would you minimum recommendation? I think we would use what we have in ordinance and then I, I would probably have to defer to some other people for that, but yeah, wider than it is. Any other questions for Jordan? Jordan, could you explain the Why the uh partial private street public street, the combination of not partial, but the combo, how that is it because you wouldn't have access to the or yeah explain why that doesn't. Yeah, I think, uh, Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gardner, I think, um, Jarre probably could do this better than I, but I know when. There are street improvements to be made and, and things like that when you have, um, private utilities or a public street or, or vice versa. It's really tricky to get underneath that road surface when you have something that's not in your control. Um, so if it was all private. That would be one thing or if it was all public, that would be another thing, but um to do one and the other is uh. Not something that We prefer to have Can I ask you what the fix is for that and as well like, would you want to make it all public in that private street, private road. I'll let the development team handle that one. OK, thank you. Well, well, but to that point, the city doesn't want, I'm guessing the city does not want private. I mean, whether or not they came up with a solution, the city probably wouldn't approve it, right? Uh, commissioner McClain, or excuse me, Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gardner, yeah, I, I, it's hard to say, but no, we, I, I don't think we would prefer to have private streets. There, there are a few though in with within the city. Maybe just one more question. So if the developer were to come back with a proposal for just 30. Um, units and would address the, the other issues that you've outlined with it, with regard to the, um, streets, would that be something that you think that, um, Your office and and that of the engineering and um planning departments could could support? Chair Robinson, Commissioner Huber, I think with the um just one of the other things that we've talked about was just street layout and um just more specs uh Jerri and I we deal in the world of specs and specifications of of a project. And I know this is early on in their process, but if we could have more documents that would guide and drive our decision, I'm not here to say yes or no, but um that would be very helpful in making uh a recommendation or denial in the future for other other things. Jordan, I appreciate your effort working in this, um, one of the questions. So I just, I, I'm not trying to say your logic is not sound. I just want to make sure I understand it. So, You, um, you mentioned Macedonia and that area, and I agree you don't want to get in a position where you can't, where you're in. You're already in jeopardy or you're already done something right that you, that's not safe, right? You don't wanna be in that spot. Um, you said that one was over 30. Does fire in the different departments, are they OK with 30 because my, my understanding is that, uh, first of all, with development, it takes time and I mean it, it's a, it's a large commitment to dollars and to just have a massive development. Slows development of mandan because no one will take it on. I mean, conceivably, um, or less people are capable of taking on that kind of project. So I mean what should have happened in Macedonia if we were to go back as well we should have stopped at 30 to where it's safe, but it didn't it went further along where this plan, as I understand it would stop at 30 if it was done in two phases. That wouldn't be a repeat of the Macedonia is that so I guess my question is, wouldn't that suffice. Yeah, Chair Robinson, Commissioner Gardner, I, I understand your point with, uh, stopping and development, but I guess in, in my world and what I think what we're looking for in a development plan, especially with a PUD is where is that future connectivity. So if we have a, a two phase, um, plan, how does the second phase work so. Uh, you know, so we get to 28, 29, OK, let's put the brakes on because they that will happen in my office, um, so then we sell the second half, then what happens to the second half of it if we have no plan, um, at, at a minimum I think we would be looking for that piece of that for the second part. It's in, I guess I'm, I'm, what I'm trying to say is it's as a PUD as a whole, and that's what's being brought is incomplete. And I'll, I'll just say I'm gonna be recusing myself on any votes if we do vote on this. I, I, I am helping with the development further to the, to the east west, sorry, to the west, yep, south and west, um, the 127 acres. I, I'm helping the, the school with that project so I won't be I just, but I'm, I've been thinking about it enough to voting on it. where I, you know, I have thought about it so. If my understanding and helping that group though is that You can't really develop further along until you get utilities closer. It, it seems to me that if that phase one was there, then it'd be the answers would become more clear because you'd have it further along and people say, oh well utilities right there or we could, you know, I guess if it's safe. It seems to me that that would make sense to just to to get a start. That wasn't a question, sorry. I guess my issue is basically they're asking us to approve phase two as well at this point and um. I tend to agree with staff. I don't think we have enough information. I don't think the project is far enough along for us to grant approval of that at this point, but I do think, uh, this would be a great development and the city should work with the developer to to try to get this done. That's kind of where I'm at. Yeah, so with that comment, uh, um, I will open it up for public comment questions at this point. Yeah Commissioners, my name is Lucas Meyer. I've been working on this project, Clover Grove, with Missy Martz, Steve McCormick, our land planner, Harvey at Toman Engineering. We started this back in January, um. I'll tell you a little backstory about the property. I came home for Christmas. I was in Arizona. I've been in Arizona for the past 6 years attending college, studying construction management and real estate. Um, I've been working for a developer for the past 3 years. We've done close to 20 different communities down in Phoenix, um. We're pushing upwards to 800 homes built to date since I started there, um. A lot of exposure, a lot of experience with just great people down there that have really guided us. Our land planner, Ron, who's on virtual today. He, he was a part of that team and We brought him up here when we found this piece of property and. Really wanted to bring some perspective that I was familiar with and also have Tollman. Ah, working with us to really bring together a great plan for this community. When Looking at just this community and how we want to put it together, there are challenges, challenges that we are comfortable addressing with staff. Uh, we want to find a solution. We want something that works and In our response to the staff, we put a solution together where we put a master plan together. We get through zoning, we put a master plan together, we plot the first phase of this project, and then we plot the second phase um at a later time. With that being said, we don't wanna stop development on the second phase, so we wanna There's neighbors to the south of the property which they will need access to their homes while it's under construction. We're comfortable, um, building a temporary access point, not an emergency access point, in phase one. And then when we start phase two, if there is no future connectivity, which is out of our control, we're not the landowners of the property. To the next door to us, we can only do what we can with what we have and we're comfortable putting in a uh interim solution that allows emergency access and supports the wait for phase two. I think those discussions should be had on the second phase when we plot that, uh, and not during zoning. The goal of this community is to create a family-centric community that brings attainable housing, achievable housing to the community that has been missing, um, and. That's, that's really where we're at. We want to create flexible floor plans that can bring in young professionals, families, anyone, um, and, and we'll have the amenity, the park, and we do have the verbal from the park that they believe this is a great location, centrally located, it's centrally located around other neighborhoods in the area. So it's not just serving our community, but the neighborhoods around. Clover Grove. Do you guys have any questions? Questions for the applicant, um, just I was just going to add to that, um. Uh, Mr. Haglin and Commissioner Frelick both called and said they, they, they like the, the two acre area for the park, um, but I do have some questions is, is, is, could you make the wides uh wider in that area. To help the city to the minimum at least to help improve it or is that gonna hurt the land prices or your pricing it's gonna make it more challenging for sure. We're already fighting an uphill battle with the grading that's in this area. Um, widening the roads would push our lots closer into that drainage easement, which we have kind of a tradeoff here. We have a 100 ft township easement on the West side of our property that runs north and south, and then we're adding a drainage easement to the property on the east side of the property. So we're kind of pinching ourselves. Uh, I know that roadway on the west side is only 40 ft and it will be publicly dedicated. So that, that's our solution for future connectivity is giving opportunity to our neighbors to the south, to the west, wherever. That wants to connect into this and potentially annex their property in the near future. We, we do have a landscape, uh, buffer, I believe, between the sidewalk where there's 5 ft. We have plenty of room for snow storage. Uh, if you look at the cul-de-sac within the first phase of the project, there is plenty of space to stockpile snow. Uh, there's units also on the south side of the property. That there it's a single row of them right in the middle. Uh, there is a good amount of room behind those units. Uh, we, we left that intentionally for snow and addressing the private streets with public utilities, we'll have a public utility easement on the within the streets. That will have private, privately managed rightaways. So I, I, I would want to know more on why that doesn't work for the staff. Um, we, we feel comfortable managing that right away. Um, if, if there are future needs of utilities, I think that's something we could work out in a development agreement, uh. Did I answer your question? You're welcome. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else want to comment or ask questions on item number 3? Again, we're taking comments on item number 3. With none I'll close the public comment and return it back to the commission. Any further questions for the city? Uh, probably just one, I, I think that they're, I, I don't really necessarily, I think we, there's a path forward here. Um, I think that I think if the city's willing to work with them just to see. Fix what needs to be fixed or I think there's a way we can make a compromise for both sides to make it work. Is that your impression to Jordan or Jarek? Probably not Jim doesn't know the answer to that one. Chair Robinson, Commissioner McLean, uh, yeah, just the, you know, some of the details that we're looking for in a PUD that we would normally get. Would, would help, yeah. Any other comments or questions? I guess the only question that I would have then, Jordan, would you want us to table this to redo, readdress it? How would you want to go forward? So you can uh cuz it looks like they're willing to work with you too to try to figure out how to make it happen. How would you like to handle it, I guess? Uh, as it's submitted, I, I guess we would recommend denial, um. Hard to say other otherwise. And they did they would just resubmit the change that they would make. Yes, and then, and then do they route through the fee structure again? work? Something we would handle, uh, staff How would that wide. Jim's gonna pay for it then, OK. to give you crap. No further questions, I guess that was one of my questions just to clarify if we tabled, would that allow them to fix these things and come back without having to repay the um the um application fees versus a denial. Commissioner Huber, the other uh option I guess we, and I think Andrew has done this in the past, but if we, um. Get some of the fixes that we need, possibly taking it to city commission. Level, uh, contingent on those items. I don't know what those all are though, and that's the hard part about this. So yes, probably come back and then go from there. I guess that that would be my just clarification to Jordan that why like why wouldn't we table it? I, I know what you're talking about with Andrew. He did it with the ones over by the paddle trap, then by Morts, uh, we fixed it and went to the city commission, but I think this is maybe a little bit more in depth with the fix. So my question is like, Why don't we table it so it doesn't have to pay a fee and then resubmit it, Commissioner McClain, that is why you sit up there and I am standing back here. My question is, do they have to re-advertise if we table it? No. Yes. Nancy says yes, we're going with that Commissioner Smith. Does that make a difference for you? Well, I mean, the fee goes for advertising expenses and that, but I, I mean, I know what we're all thinking we don't want to deny it because we like the project and want to support the developer, but I'm just looking at procedurally. And I'm, I'm looking at like why do we want to have them repay another fee depends on how much the advertising would be, but yeah. Or would the applicants have an opinion or? I, I prefer to table it and uh. Come back in the next month and address the changes with the staff, find a solution that works for both of us, um. Yeah, I'd prefer to table it. denial. Whatever. Yeah, the bigger lift here is, is probably some engineering work. I think we need to come up to the microphone because it, it's when it's recorded it may not pick up your, your voice. Thank you. So Missy Morris, um, I'm just wondering like I know when I did a project in Bismarck, I didn't have city staff approval when I had gone forward to planning and zoning. had a conversation about it, right, but I still was able to move to the next space conditionally, you know, like planning and zoning was like, yeah, keep going, but you're gonna get shut down at the next meeting if you don't take care of business, you know, so I don't really know how that works on. On this side of the river, you know, if that's an option or not. I, I personally would love to see us table it to make sure we're that everybody's on the same page before we come back here is where I would like to see it and, and. I am all 100% for this, but I would like to make sure that the city's questions are answered before we move forward. Thank you. Are we ready for a motion? See if I can do this. Hold on here um. Don't get me. I'll make caution. Sure you don't even have it. I I'm going to table. The table this motion um from the from. Zone change from RM to a PUD planning unit development. I do that right? OK I can second his. Tabling of the motion. Motion by Commissioner Mutters, second by Commissioner McLean. Motion is to table the request for a zone change from RM to PUD. Any questions? No roll call vote please. Commissioner Hooper. Yes. Commissioner Mutter Mayor Frelick. Yes, Commissioner McLean. Yes, Commissioner Smith. Yes, Commissioner Hammond. Yes, Commissioner Gardner, I abstain. Chair Robinson. Yes. And motion is passed. Any other business, Mr. Nar? Chair Robinson and and commission members, um, if you see us looking over to our right for some advice, um, we, we, we do have Rachel Laquaix and Katie Atkinson from Interstate Engineering who will be assisting us in the planning world as we, um, have a vacancy in the world of our planning department right now so you will be seeing them much more often and in the future so and they will do a much better job than myself. Other than Jordan and Jarrett did an admirable job tonight too, but we're, uh, still working through some of those kinks as we move into the world without Mr. Andrewrami. So just to give you a heads up, that's where we're at right now, and, uh, we will have them engaged, um, throughout the summer as we work to replace Andrew's spot. Thank you. I'd like to make a comment that I think the 3 of them did a great job tonight. Good job, guys, for under pressure. They did. I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved 2nd motion is second to adjourn. All in favor, so right by saying I hold same sign. We are adjourned. Thank you.