Comm Huber. Comm Mutter. Here Comm Horn. Mayor Frelich. Here Comm Eveldt. Comm McLean. Comm Smith. Comm Hammond Comm Gardner. Chair Robinson. Next at we have uh. Uh, the minutes from the May 28th meeting. Any questions or comments? I can move to reprove. Second. O my Comm McLean, second by Comm Hammond to approve the minutes of May 28th. Any questions? No rocovo please. Comm Mutter. Yes. Comm Horn. Mayor Frelich. Yes. Comm Infieldld. Yes. Comm McLean? Yes. Comm Smith, Comm Hammond, yes, Chair Robinson. Yes. Motion is passed. We’ll move on to the first of our public hearings tonight. Item number one, consider Shafastate’s 3rd edition preliminary plat and special use permit and zone change. Rachel OK. OK, can you all hear me? OK, perfect. Hi, my name’s Rachel Lockway, um, just to reintroduce myself, I know Jim introduced me at the end of the last meeting, um, but I’m Rachel Lockway. I’m with Interstate Engineering. I’m serving as interim planner, um, in between planners for Mandan. So if you have any questions, let me know. I’m gonna do my best tonight, so, um. The first item on the agenda is a preliminary plot zone change and special use permit for Sha estate’s 3rd edition. Um, and I will go down to. For you so you can see it. Um, so this is an item that was tabled at the planning and zoning meeting on May twenty-eighth, um, because there was some confusion over both the plot and the zone change request, if you’ll recall. So we did clarify that with the applicants and so this is the updated request, um, so they are seeking to plot the subject property into two lots, one which contains the shop and the existing home, and so you can see that on this plot, um. The other lot is vacant, um, it’s a total of 9.17 acres with the request for the residential property, um, on lot 2 at 2.84 acres. Um, so one of the questions that had come up a few times over the the course of this has been, um, in front of the commission and with staff has been the shop that’s on the property and so the special use permit is a request for a non-enumerated special use permit, um, for the parking and storage of Personal use commercial vehicle over 2.5 tons on a residential property, which is code section 105-13-1A numbers 1 and 2. Um I apologize, uh, this is located at 2392 37th Street. I think I assumed we were all familiar with that at this point, but, um, The So, so that’s the request for the special use permit. The property itself is currently owned CB commercial. It’s located in the ETA. The surrounding properties are undeveloped, with the exception of the farms set to the east, which is zoned agricultural, um, the area is identified in the future land use plan as a commercial intersection. Um The future Beltway corridor connecting the interstate to North Bismarck would go by this property. So the applicant has also stated that the existing shop is utilized for personal use and not for business purposes. Um So with that, the plot itself is fairly straightforward. So I keep trying to use the trackpad. On here, um, so the plot itself is fairly straightforward. There’s a 2.4 acre lot which is requested to go to residential and then the 6.33 acre lot which would stay commercial. And then, um, the zone change request is just for a lot too, and so the ordinance that’s in your packet would need one update because I think it refers to the full 9.17 acres and it would just be switched to lot 2. Uh, there is some information in your packet on the special use permit request. that goes over the individual findings, um, would you like me to read those? or are you comfortable with them being in the packet. Commission. We’re OK. Yep, you just continue on, OK. I’m so sorry. Do you want me to read them or, or no? No, no, you can pass. OK, um, So The, the basis of those findings is essentially that the use will be stored indoors and in existing shop that’s allowable in the current and adjacent zoning district of commercial as well as in the future land use of commercial, there will be no excess noise, no additional commercial vehicles beyond the one existing and that the special use permit will sunset at such a time as the property or existing personal use commercial vehicle is sold and that the special use permit would also be conditioned upon that if the personal use commercial vehicle is determined to be utilized and serviced to a business that the special use permit would be revoked. So that’s a list of conditions that would be attached to it, um. The findings though if, if those conditions were met, the, the findings were all satisfactory. Um, defining effects for the preliminary plot were all satisfactory, as were the zone change requests. So the recommendation, um, would be that The city staff would recommend approval of the shop estate’s 3rd edition preliminary plat and the zone change request from CB Commercial to R7 residential for lot 2 and approval of the non-enumerated special use permit as conditioned in the staff report. I can answer any questions. Questions for Rachel. Thank you. Sam has been for us before, so are there any questions? From the Commission With none at this time, I’ll open it up for a public comment or questions on item number one. Taking comments or questions on the Shafatate’s 3rd edition. Questions or comments? What then, I’ll close public comment and return it back to the commission. Rachel, I’m gonna ask you one question. Because Craig Smith told me I had to. No. Uh, actually, in the suggested motion you have use permit conditioned on in the staff report. Are you OK with that? You, you don’t want us to. put with the South Report said, you’re OK with the wording of that? I’m fine with it, but if you would prefer to, you’re OK with it. This is part of the public record, so it should be OK to say as conditioned in the staff report. Perfect. Thank you. Good question. Any other questions for Rachel? Roberts, I can make a motion if you’d like. Ready for a motion. I move to recommend approval of the preliminary platform for shaftate’s 3rd edition and the zone changed from CB commercial to R 7 residential for lot 2 and the approval of the non-enumerated special use permit as conditioned in the staff report. I’ll second We have motion by Comm McLean, seconded by Comm Mutter. Motion is to recommend approval of the preliminary platform for Shafestate’s 3rd edition and the zone change. From CB commercial to R7 residential for lot 2. And approval of the non-enumerated special use permit as conditioned in the staff report. Are there any questions? Nonrocavo, please. Comm Mutter. Comm Horn. Yes. Mayor Frelich? Yes. Comm Infeldt. Comm McLean. Comm Smith, Comm Hammond, yes, Chair Robinson. Yes. And the motion is passed we’ll move on to public hearing number 2. Consider a zone change from RM, which is multi-family to a PUD planned unit development for Clover Grove. Rachel A This one was also tabled at the last meeting, so And also, we do have a recommendation, so that is good news, um, I’m gonna zoom in here for you. Again, I’m going to assume that everybody knows where we’re at, but we’re south of 19th Street. Um, OK. So this was an application for a zone change from RM multifamily to PUD planned unit development for Macedonia Hill’s government lot too less outlawed in the northwest quarter of northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 138 North Range 81 West. Um, the PUD request, if granted, would be followed by plotting and approval of a phase subdivision plan. So staff and the applicant did meet after the May 28th meeting to discuss changes to the PUD application, um, if you’ll recall there were some questions about street with public and private utilities, etc. Um So the 14.82 acres is currently intended for 57 entry level single-family detached and duplex type home lots, the R 3.2 zoning district serves as the basis of the PUD narrative. The adjacent properties to the West and north are zoned to R 7, residential single family and our 3.2 residential, single and two family and the property of the South is zoned Ag. The future land use plan recommends low density residential land use on this property. Um So the notes. I’m gonna go over these and highlight where it’s different, um, from the previous submittal. But if you have questions, feel free to stop and ask and clarify, um, so access to the property will be from a new north-south local street on the west side of the property that’s currently a 100 ft township right of way. The applicant has proposed changing this to an eighty-foot wide city right of way with a 40-foot back of curb local street with sidewalks and boulevards on the east. side of the street, um, that is a, a change from the prior submittal. There was no sidewalk on the east side of the street. Um, there was, I guess there technically would have been a boulevard, um, and they have clarified that eighty-foot right of way. The interior access to the property will be via a 50 ft or 51 ft access easement with a 31 ft street, 5 ft boulevard, and 5 ft sidewalk, um, so in the plans that we had reviewed last month, the street was the only part of the easement, and then there was a second easement for the sidewalk and the boulevard. And so, um, this is all now in one easement. There’s a slight difference in a couple of measurements. throughout the plan set, but it’s either 50 or 51 ft either way, it essentially functions the way that we’ve discussed with the 31 ft street and then the 5 ft boulevard and 5 ft sidewalk. Um There was a lot of discussion at the last meeting regarding access management to the property itself fully from 19th, um. So international Fire Code Appendix D 107.1 allows for only one access per 30 houses and requires additional access point for additional units. So the applicant has only one existing access, which is the new North-South public right of way on the west side of the development. And then any additional access to the east or west requires cooperation from additional landowners, um, Which Rightly, they’ve noted that they can’t necessarily guarantee. Um, access management guidance from the transportation plan does indicate that there should not be an additional permanent access allowed on to 19th from this development. So what the applicant is showing. I can go down to that really quick. Sorry, bear with me here. I find the right. Image I’m not seeing it in here, um. Two pages this one. No, um, I’m not seeing here. They did submit a new, uh, plan that shows that emergency access going from this cul-de-sac out to 19th. Um So Mentally, if you can draw that into this math, that’d be great. I, am I on the wrong one still? Yeah, it would just be an access easement. um, so it’d be a class 5 gravel emergency and temporary access onto the eastern edge of the property. Um. It would be able to be used for temporary access to the property south, um, while the new North-South road is being constructed and then the applicant is recommending that for the moment it remain as an emergency access point. The applicant is recommending that it be gated both fire and building, um. Staff in general have concerns with that gated, um, emergency access, so the recommendation would, would not be for that, but uh, that is something that can be. Finalized at a later point. Um, so staff is essentially recommending that The applicant only plot phase 2 when East West access to existing subdivisions becomes available. They have provided a viable plan to connect Westward, but they don’t have an agreement with that landowner. So That’s access in a nutshell, we can come back to that one, but there, because there’s a lot there. Um, utilities, again, we’ve clarified this with the applicant, um. So all interior utilities are now private, um, they’ll be metered individually per unit and privately owned and maintained by the HOA. So at the time of final Plot finalized HOA documents should be provided. The parkland, the PewD shows adequate park space connecting the development to 19th and the applicant has noted that the Park District plans to accept this park space. It should be plotted as a separate lot and the park district should confirm acceptance of the final plot stage. And facing this PD would allow the ability to plot phase 1 and phase 2 with phase 2 being restricted until such time as East West additional access has been planned for and secured. Phase one is able to be fully self-contained. Any site grading that occurs on phase 2 prior to plotting should be both approved by the city and should be grasped and maintained until phase 2 is plotted and construction begins. So the dividing line between phase one and phase 2 is essentially The power line here. Um So the findings of fact are in the packet for the zone change, um, it is consistent, um. It provides necessary public services and facilities. It has undergone extensive review and the recommendation is approval of the zone change from RM multifamily to a PUD planned unit development with the following conditions, plotting of phase one and a master plan of phase two, along with everything else that was in here that would be part of the development agreement when they get to that stage. So I know that was a lot. I can answer any questions that you might have. Questions for Rachel. I have one and I’m still stuck on the 31 ft across because I, if I remember right, between DCP and Prairie West, it’s 34 ft across there, and I know how narrow it gets during the rodeo and stuff. I’m kind of concerned, is it OK? I I guess my question is, is the fire department and the police department, are they OK with it? And the second thing is I a little more clarification on the emergency road. I thought I read somewhere in here it was gonna be a gravel road is. Who’s going to take care of it and stuff like that. Thank you. Can I answer that? OK, so the first part about the road with Agreed, it’s definitely a small, narrow road, right? And that was one of the concerns that had come up, um, last month that we had talked about and obviously I wasn’t privy to a lot of the conversations prior to last month, but, um, one of the things that we, we did is we did go out and measure streets, right? We looked at how they operate. It’s a small road, um, I The parking situation is probably able to be managed. There’s not a whole lot of double. Double loaded spaces in, in this, um, subdivision at the moment that would allow for parking on the street, right? Um, so you’re parking on the street is probably going to be fairly minimal, um, at least in front of homes, um, we did talk with the fire department, the fire department did say that they felt like they would be able to get through. They were part of a, a meeting with the applicants, um. Like I said, we did go out and measure streets. There are other private streets, um, Jordan and I’m blanking on the name of the subdivision that we looked at that is north of here. That is private streets, private utilities. Yeah, there was a few that we looked at it it’s one of them one of them 30 ft wide streets and the general consensus was that it works. OK, but they are private, right, which is a big distinction there. It’s private, it’s not public, so, um. The staff had a level of comfort with that after review measuring and looking at the overall easement size. Um, and then the second question you had asked. Well, I’m sorry. About the emergency, the 2nd, that’s gonna be a gravel road and who’s going to take care of that. That would be my question. Yeah, that is their intention at the moment. That would be maintained by the HOA as would all the other roads. Thank you. Just for clarification, Rachel, the gate on that access, they’re not having the gate now with that. Gravel road, emergency. Staff is recommending no to that. So again, that is an item that probably belongs more in the DA right? Um, so staff’s recommendation is no, I believe the applicants still would like it, but we didn’t feel that that was a big enough of an issue to hold this from going forward. I agree. Any other questions? Thank you. Yeah, Rachel, actually I got one. I, I was in unable to attend last month’s meeting. Was there any other concern from the neighboring landowners at all on this development. I don’t believe that there were any comments received Nancy? None. OK. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions? Thanks. No more. No more. I got No more. one No more. No more. I got one No more., snow removal is what’s the plan for cause I know it’s private, but whether you plan on doing first. I’m worried about snow removal. I don’t know why, but that’s, it’s winter, so we’ll talk about snow. Um, I will let them address their specific plan, but it is all, it’s private roads and private utilities, so all of it would be handled by their HOA, um, and yes, that is obviously always a concern, right, when you’re looking at who’s going to get the calls for it. It’s still going to be the city, but it will be private roads, so it will be their responsibility. So I can let them explain exactly what how their HOA would handle it. Any others? OK, thank you. No, no, uh, open it up for public comment and the applicant is here, so. Well I waspe first. Good to see everyone again. My name’s Lucas Meyer. And I want to thank the staff for working with us to find the best path forward on this project and I wanted to go on the screen for a second. Just show that site plan that we were trying to look at a moment ago. There we go. That’s what we ended up doing with the, the temporary access road, uh, the reason we put it here is when phase 2 comes and if, if there is no solution for secondary access, that’s east to west in this property. We want to look at this as a potential opportunity to make that secondary access, a permanent solution for this community and the growth in that area, um, so that’s why we ended up doing gravel roads and ah. not a gravel road, it would be uh a road that allows the weight of a fire truck, which I believe is 75,000 pounds. We, we want to have that there as an option for the community and we also have to serve the residents to the south and ensure that their, ah, they have the fire department has access while we’re constructing that north to south, but again, that’s, that’s all gonna happen at later discussion to see where we’re at. 34 years down the road, and if, if there is feasibility to go something east to west, we, we do prefer that, but we want to give this area at least the option for it. Uh, and then I wanted to answer this no question. So we, we thought about this quite a bit and. Right by that road, we have a. Large area right here where we believe would be a great place to stockpile snow during the winter and then you can see this row of houses. We did leave, uh, quite a bit of room on the back side that’s not on their property but on HOA’s property to stockpile snow there. And then Additional, oops, additional snow would go in this area, so we have accounted for that and Uh, we do plan on managing that through our HOA and charging the residents the fee for that service. If you guys have any questions. I’d love to answer them. Uh, the temporary road, where is that in relation to the, uh, is it culverts that they have there? Yes, I’m gonna try to zoom in. OK. Can you see this right here? That is where your storm is currently running underneath the road, and you have culverts, uh, enter, I believe right here. So it’s a little ways away. But we would have to put culverts in to continue the flow to This area And then that space you had for. For, uh Staging snow. That the HOA would. Owned, is that supposed to be a permanent, uh, arrangement. Yes, so we’ll, once we get down to plotting this, we’ll look at where the line for the dedication will happen, uh, we’ll, we’ll end up taking most of what is that drainage area, um, just because in discussion with the park and reck, the mowers don’t really get down there that great, so when we bring out our landscape crews and clean it up, we’ll clean up the drainage easement. OK, thank you. Questions for the applicant. Just about your HOA. When are you gonna have, I’m assuming you’re gonna run the HOA until you get a certain amount sold. What, what’s your vision for? Correct. We’ll, we’ll do a 70/30, uh, on the full development. So once that once 70% of the lots are transferred to uh individual owners, that’s when we’ll start the handoff period. Thank you. Thank you. For those in the room or uh. Calling in, we’re taking questions or comments and item number 2. Again, comments or questions on. Clover Grove. With none I’ll closed public comment. And return it back to the commission. Do we have any further questions for? Rachel or the applicant. Uh, Mr. Chair, I would move to recommend approval of the zone change from RM M multifamily to a planned unit development with the following conditions plotting of phase one and master plan of phase 2. I second. We have a motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Enfeld. And motion is to recommend approval of the zone change from RM to a PUD with the following conditions. Planning a phase one and a master plan of phase 2. Any questions? Roll call vote please. Monsieur Mutter. Comm Oborne. Mayor Frelich? Yes. Comm Enfield? Yes. Comm McLean? Yes. Comm Smith. Comm Hammond. Yes, Chair Robinson. In motion is passed. Well when we on to our 3rd public hearing, uh, consider a zone change. Requests from CB commercial to RMH. Residential for lots 3 through 6 block 2 Meadowlands subdivision. Rachel Uh to this one as well. Short, sorry. OK. So this is, um, Meadowlands Park LLC is requesting a zone change from CB commercial to RMH residential for lots 3 through 6, block 2 Meadowlands Subdivision. Um, so this is in the south. East, uh, essentially the southeast corner of Memorial Highway and the unbuilt 18th, um. Avenue Southeast. Um, so the existing Meadowlands development to the West is zoned Rh and is a single lot manufactured home park, um, the proposed RMH zone for lots 3 through 6 block 2 is intended for manufactured home home units with fee simple lot ownership. There is no proposed layout at this time. As the applicant wanted to ensure that the zoning would be able to be approved prior to creating that layout, um, they are looking to have 40 to 50 lots, all access would be from 18th Ave Southeast, um. The main access points and then all, um, and that would require at least 2 accesses into the subdivision based on the proposed number of lots. Um This was originally plotted in 2015 as the Meadowlands edition, um, which included the right of way for 18th Avenue Southeast that goes from Memorial Highway to 3rd Street southeast. Um, the initial plan envisioned commercial development along Memorial Highway and 3rd Street with right in, right out access due to high traffic volumes and so the lots along Memorial Highway are still zone CB which you can see. Um, the connection to Memorial Highway has not been developed as 18th has not been developed. Um To the north and south, it’s own CB commercial to the West, it’s owned RH residential Mobile Home Park and then to the east, it’s zoned MA heavy commercial, light industrial and MB heavy commercial, heavy industrial. Um, the future land use plan designates this area for industrial use. No amendments have been made to alter planned land uses and an amendment is not required at this time, given that the adjacent uses would not support industrial development on these properties, um, the proposed land uses are unlikely to significantly impact the area. Um Any modifications to access along Memorial Highway Southeast will require review by the DOT, um, construction of 18th Avenue would be required as part of the development of lots 3 through 6 with no building permits being issued until road construction has substantially complete, layout and plotting of the site will be required and all streets and utilities internal to the property will be privately owned and maintained via an HOA. Um, there is an item that I believe we’re unsure if it still needs to be addressed, which is, um, some street lights on some private roads and phase one. So I’m not sure if those have been completed or not, but it is in there as a. In case, um. And then Buffering on the east side of the property between lots 3 through 6 and then the industrially zoned riverwood commercial Park will be need to be maintained or replaced as part of this, any development that occurs. And then, as noted that connection of 18th and Memorial Highway will need to be completed as part of the 18th Avenue construction. Um So there’s quite A number of items, um. That this zone change would be contingent on in in my recommendation, um, there’s finding of facts, and so, um, There are a few contingencies noted, um. Such as that the city of Mandan would be able to provide necessary public services, facilities and programs to serve the development allowed by the Sochi contingent on an approved preliminary and final plot development agreement and all roads being constructed to city standards, um, the zone change is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, provided that the above are achieved. The proposed zoning change. Um, without their items being addressed is still generally consistent with future land use plan and other adopted plans and policies. It’s compatible with adjacent zoning. Um, and that The proposed zoning change without an approved preliminary and final plot construction of 18th Avenue, an intersection of Memorial Highway. Secondary access, street lights, and other potentially applicable items would adversely affect the public health safety in general welfare. So the recommendation, um, is to approve the zone change from lots 3 to 6 of the Meadowland subdivision from CB commercial to RMH residential contingent on that approved preliminary and final plot approved development agreement and all Standards and access management requirements being met. So If you have any questions, I can answer them. Questions for Rachel. Thank you. It’s time I’ll open it up for public comments or questions on the. Application were taken comments or questions on Uh, don’t change for metal and subdivision. Good evening, everyone. A Balmer with Independent Land serving and Engineering, um, working with, uh, the developer on this. What we’re trying to do is trying to see if you guys would allow the zone change before we go thousands and thousands of dollars down the rabbit hole with layouts and everything else. Uh, that’s why we’re actually asking for this to be contingent on the preliminary plant and final plat if, if you guys, if it seems like you guys are in agreeance that RMH is a good fit for these lots. I think that triggers our next steps to. go down the road with layouts, everything else to bring to your guys. approval down the road, so. Stand for any questions. This does, and just for information, this does butt up what is. Presently considered a levy a long term. It’s we’re applying for a redundancy and it gets removed, but uh, Uh I know they have initiated some communication on doing the preliminary work, OK. Uh, that needs to go through the core. Yeah OK, thank you, thank you. In comments or questions on Meadowlands. With none, I’ll close the public comment, returning back to the commission. I’ll Make a comment wearing a little bit different hat here for, for lower heart, the levee board, um, The zone change would be easier to work with. Uh In the levy capacity, it’s, it’s, uh, surface development if it was commercial, you could. You’d have a lot, a lot bigger structures and, and other development issues that would go along with it. Since you brought it up, how much more land are you gonna have to take or use? Well, it isn’t so much. We wouldn’t be taking anything here. The, the issue is when you develop next to a lever, you have that 500 ft, uh, Area that the corps wants additional studies on which this is enveloped in that area. Um, but as far as long term, even long term plan, uh, nothing in this area. OK. Any other questions? Jerry Robinson I can move to approve if you’re ready for that. I’ll make a motion to approve zone changes for lots 3 through 6 of Meadowlands subdivision from CB commercial to RMH, residential contingent on approval of preliminary and final plot plot proved development agreement and all road standards and access management requirements being met. I’ll second. Motion by Comm McLean, seconded by Comm Hammond, the motion is to recommend approval of these own change for lots 3 through 6 of the Meadowland subdivision. From CB commercial to RMH residential contingent on approved preliminary and final plat. Approved development agreement and all roads standards and access management requirements being met. Any questions? Nonrocavolis. Comm Mutter. Yes. Comm Horn. Mayor Frelich, yes, Comm Invelt. Comm McLean? Yes. Comm Smith. Yes, Comm Hammond, yes. Chair Robinson, yes. And motion is passed. Uh, Fourth public hearing, uh, consider a building setback variants for lots 4 through 15, block 2 Mandan proper. Rachel OK. OK, so this is, um, a request for a building setback variants, um, This is at the corner. zoom in here and see if I can. Of Main Street. Between 4th and 5th Avenues. Um So this variance request is, um, From section 105-4-2.2 C4 of the city code of ordinances, which relates to front yard building setbacks in the Downtown Fringe district, um, The property surrounding this area are zoned Downtown C of the West and Downtown Fringe to the northeast and south, and the future land use plan identifies a serious commercial. So the applicant purchased this property in order to reuse the existing building, which I believe is Hardee’s, but is not able to do so, um, so they will be fully reconstructing the property, which means that the property will not fall under non-conforming ordinances. So there’s a minimum setback or a maximum setback, sorry, there’s a maximum setback of 25 ft allowed in the Downtown fringe district, and the applicants is the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 59 ft setback to allow for parking in front of the building along Main Street. Um The ordinance is the way it’s written with that maximum setback is is written to disincentivize parking along the front of buildings in order to provide a walkable, interesting environment. Which has shown further by the requirement that building entrances face the street. Um, the buildings to either side of this property have varied setbacks, and they really don’t seem to provide super clear guidance, Buildings to the West are built with 0 or close to 0 setback buildings to the South have a greater setback, but one that’s closer to their requested 59 ft. One building to the east has a zero setback and one has a larger setback, um, other buildings on the same block have also been built with what appears to be a 0 ft or minimal setback. So there’s really no guidance to either side, um, of this, the findings of fact, the hardship is, um, Not caused by the provisions of the zoning ordinance strict application of provisions of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the property owner of the reasonable use of the property. The requested variance is, is the minimum variance that would accomplish the relief sought by the applicant and the granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, um. Planning staff is recommending review of the requests and findings of fact, consideration of a statement of hardship and potential identification of a hardship and then modifying or accepting staff’s findings of fact as necessary to support the motion of the board. I can answer any questions. Reachel of the other buildings that are In excess of 25 ft, which are a lot. 40 to 50 70 ft. Were any of these Or does it maybe the commissioners know too or any of these bill after the ordinance took effect. So I know that Capital Bank, which is the building immediately to the east. They requested a variance in 2011, um, and they were granted it, um, and I believe, Jordan, correct me if I’m wrong, it was like the date of the flood. Yeah, the, the dates, uh commissioners and uh Cha Robinson are, uh, May 17th, 2011, so I, I, I. I come to say I think there are some other things going on in town as well at that time frame, so. Yeah, um, that is the one that we could find. I’m not sure about the buildings to the south. I don’t believe we pulled those building permits, and I would I’m not sure compared to the ordinance on that one, but I, I do know it’s a variance was granted to the, the building to the east in 2011, so 114 years ago. Any other questions? Questions for Rachel? But none, I’ll open it up for public comments or questions. Um, item number 4, Requests for a setback variants of, of, uh, lots 4 through 15. Good evening. My name is Dr Lee Brady, and I’m the owner of ID Limage Dentistry, as well as BS Real Estate LLC. I’ve proudly served the Mandan community for 15 years, all of which I’ve been located on Main Street. Both as a health care provider and a small business owner, I’m deeply invested in the vitality and visibility of Main Street. Not just for my practice but for the continued economic and cultural strength of the area. The Main Street present in front facing parking lot are not simply aesthetic preferences. They are essential elements to my business strategy. Nearly 25% of my new patient acquisitions are directly attributed to our visibility in a uh accessibility of from Main Street. This access plays a crucial role in the building of trust with new patients, fostering walk-in interest and reinforcing our reputation as a community-centered dental practice. Moreover, the main street presence and accessible parking area are central to my broader vision of community engagement. These elements allow me to support in some participate in long standing Mandan traditions such as the Fourth of July parade. By offering a space that welcomes residents beyond the scope of dental care. This kind of outreach is critical to the component of modern dental business plan, cultivating relationships, enhancing visibility and building goodwill among local residents. The front facing Lot in the main street facing entrance also creates opportunity for collaboration with other businesses, entrepreneurs and community organizations providing a flexible, inviting space during and after, after business hours. These relationships do not just strengthen my practice but contribute to the growth in interconnected success of the entire business district. When BS real estate acquired the property we intended to remodel the existing structure to suit the needs of ideal image dentistry, while preserving the design principles common to other businesses in the downtown fringe zoning district. Namely a building with its entrance facing Main Street and front parking lot for accessibility and visibility. Unfortunately, the condition of the existing building required more extensive modifications than initially anticipated. This led us to pursue full reconstruction of the site. However, the compliance with the 25 ft set back would force us to position a building directly adjacent to Main Street, relegating parking and primary entrance to the rear or side of the building. As a result, the back of the structure would face Main Street, which is both counterintuitive and counterproductive to the core goals of being on Main Street in the first place. It undermines the sense of welcome, visibility, accessibility, that are vital for a patient-centered business. A further hardship arises with access, shifting the building south to meet the setback would eliminate the ability to use the property’s existing main street entrance. One of the prime reasons. Reasons of property was purchased. Removing this access would force reliance on alleyway entrances with a lack of visibility, functionality and safety desired for a health care practice. It is important to note that the property lies within the Downtown fringe and not Downtown core, where many of the nearby businesses operate with similar front. um parking layout, holding this property to the same restrictions as those in the downtown core ignores the contextual differences in established developmental pattern within the cell. Our proposed layout is not only consistent with the surrounding area, but with its harmony with other existing businesses in the same zoning district that enjoys substantial setbacks in front facing parking lots. Some examples include the capital Credit Union building, which is directly east to me, which has approximately a 52 ft setback. Senex, which is approximately a 40 ft setback. Taco Johns has approximately a 70-foot setback. Man Dan Tyre has approximately 52 setback, and railway Credit Union approximately at 73 ft setback. These examples clearly illustrate the greater setback coupled with the front facing parking is not only reasonable but aligns with the existing fabric of the community. I respectfully request that you approve our variants request for an increased setback. This will allow us to retain a layout that supports our visibility, access, and a role as a long standing engaged member of the Mandan business community. The Main Street presence and front facing parking lot are not just conveniences, but our core. That continued success in my business into the shared vision of the thriving connected Mand Dan. Thank you. Uh, real quick question is, how many parking spots are you planning there? We have 49. Any additional questions? The existing building, it looks like it’s about 55 to 60 ft, said Be. Right now, I think. Does that sound about right? And Azer, so the new bill is gonna have a real similar footprint to what’s there right now. Is what you contemplate. OK, thank you. Any more questions for myself? Have you already purchased the property? OK, and closed on the property, not OK. And hear the questions. Thank you. Thank you. Evening. Abe Almer with ILSE again, uh, if I. Give me a second. Technology is not my friend. OK. This is the proposed site actually it’s a two phase building. 100 ft 100 ft by 50. Sorry. Somebody’s got to guide me. So ideal image would be uh it’s a two-phase building. Ideal images looking at doing or taking the east. East half of the building, which is 100 by 53 ft and there’s a second building planned for future commercial there, but at this time we’re looking at building the entire parking lot. All the way around this main access is is the big hardship is is not having any main street access. If we take that access away and and shift that building down our main access is now going to be the alleyways. Uh, the other, the other part of a hardship that I haven’t stated is working through the stormwater plan, uh, this site, the way it’s designed right now, actually matches the existing drainage of The existing hardy site if we flip that drainage around, push that building closer to Main Street. It’s going to increase the size of a couple drainage basins. Uh, or drainage areas, watersheds, and we might, I have not done the math yet, but we might have to look at some kind of stormwater pond or or some kind of detention. To compensate for the bigger flows going to that area. So Queens Thank you. Thanks. Comments or questions on uh. The Main Street, uh, variant setback. on no clothes and return it back to the commission. I’ll just make a comment, I guess more than anything, um, looking at the paperwork and hearing the comments, it looks like there could be two hardships, I guess, one could be access and then the drainages. Abe stated, and I do like the vision of having a front facing building to mainstream that could be more. Customer friendly looking. kind of look we’re after for long term vision. Jared, that almost sounded like a mo, didn’t it uh it nipped at its heels, yes. Open other opinions, of course. Well, Mr. Chair, I agree with that and uh. No one else has uh. Any thoughts, I’ll I’ll move to approve the requested variance. Of the front yard set back in the DF Downtown Fring District for lots 4 or 5 Manam proper. From a maximum of 25 ft to 59 ft. Uh, due to the following hardship, um, strip strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. would deprive the property owner of the reasonable use of the property due to access limitations and drainage issues. I second. We have a motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Mutter. Uh, motion is to recommend approval of the requested variants of the front yard setback, and the DF town down Downtown Fringe district for lots 4 through 15 Mandan proper from a maximum of 25 ft to a maximum of 59 ft due to the following hardship. Uh, which is strict application to the, uh, ordinance, uh, would restrict access to the property and and Uh, drainage issues. And to modify the staff finding of facts. Any questions with the motion? Any further questions? call, please. Comm Mutter, Comm Horn, Mayor Frelich, Comm Anelld. Comm McLean. Comm Smith, Comm Hammond, yes, Chair Robinson. And motion is passed. We’ll move on to our 5th public hearing, uh, consider a building setback variance for Lot 6, landa subdivision, Replat lots 4 through 6. Rachel OK. So Still short, still have to move the microphone. Um, OK, so this is a request of a variance, um, at 2145 37th Street, um, it’s lot 6 Laa Subdivision Replat of lots 4 through 6, and the variance request is um a variance to section 105-3-5E1A, um, which is building setbacks in the R7 residential zoning district. So there’s a 50 ft required setback from an arterial street, which is what 37th Street is designated as on long-range planning documents. Um, currently thirty-seventh Street is a collector Street and has a 35 ft required setback. So they’re requesting a variance, um, for a building that currently is currently exists at 39 ft from the property line to be torn down, rebuilt, and expanded into a 2 existing building on the property. Um, both the existing garage and the planned building project will meet the required 35 ft setback for 37th Street as it’s currently designated as a collector. Um The future land use plan for this area identifies it as low density residential. Um, the findings of fact are listed in the packet, um, and planning staff is recommending to approve the requested variants from section 105-3-5E1A that requires a 50 ft front yard setback from an arterial roadway based on the existing designation of the road as a collector street with a required 35 ft setback, which the existing and proposed building meet and because thirty-seventh is not likely to be improved. in the near to mid-term future based on planning documents. I can answer any questions. Questions for Rachel. Any questions? Rachel, just one, you said uh there was some letters sent to adjacent property owners. Any feedback from them at all? Thanks. Any other questions? Thank you. But then I’ll open it up for public comment or questions. Uh, taking questions on item number 5. Setback variants for Lot 6, landa subdivision. Any questions? With none, I’ll close the public comment and return it back to the commission. Do you have any further questions for Rachel. No questions. Do we have any further discussion or motion? I can make a motion. I move to recommend approval to approve the requested variance from Section 105-3-5 subsection E1.E, which requires a 50-foot front yard setback. From Artrial roadway based on the existing designation of the road as a collector street with the required 35 ft setback which the existing and proposed building meet and is not likely to be improved in the near to mid mid-term future based planning documents. Also I A motion from Comm Infeld and seconded by Comm Smith. motion is to recommend approval to approve the requested variances from section 105-3-5 subsection. E 1 A, which requires a 50 ft front yard set set back from an arterial roadway. Based on the existing designation of the road as a collector’s street with a required 35 ft setback. Which she existing and proposed building meet and is not likely to be improved. In the near to mid-term future based on planning documents. Any questions on the motion? Non Rocavo please. Comm Mutter? Comm Horn. Mayor Frelich? Yes. Comm Anel. Comm McLean. Comm Smith, Comm Hammond, Yes. Chair Robinson. And motion is passed. Thank you. And last at other business, uh, appointment to the board. Chair Robinson and commissioners, um, we have a vacancy, um, created when Ben Buckmiller resigned from the commission on April twenty-eighth, um, Nancy has worked hard with the. Other applicants um from future that are from past that we’re interested in, in, uh, serving on the planning and zoning, she reached out and one respondent, Nick Renner, who many of you may recall as a member of the planning and zoning Commission from 2017 to 2021, so the recommendation from staff is to appoint Nick Renner to fill the board vacancy seat with the term ending of December 31st, 20. 27 and I know Nick is in the room if you have any questions for him. Any questions for Jim. We also have Nick here. I think he’s got at least stand up and wave or something. Cheer you want to Motion I’m ready for a motion. I move to approve Nick Granner to serve out the term ending in 2027. Is that right, Jim? Correct. December 31st, 2027. December 31st, 2027. I second Motion by Comm McLean. 2nd by Comm Enfeld. Motion is to. Uh Move to a point Nick Brenner to the board to fill the vacant seat with the term ending December 31, 2027. Ocavo, please. Comm Mutter, Comm Horn. Mayor Frelich, Comm Enfield. Comm McLean. Comm Smith. Comm Hammond, yes. And Chair Robinson. Yes. What is approved. Thank you, Nick. Jay Robinson just wanted to share, throw a large shout out to our team, Nancy and Jordan and also for Rachel for assisting us through a lot of difficult and challenging situations that you all dealt with very. Well, tonight, um, and you remember our last meeting we had a lot of questions, those were answered and I think we all came to solutions that were amicable and really work well for everyone involved, so we appreciate our folks and Rachel and her team working with us and also with all of the uh folks in attendance tonight, so I thought a job well done, so shout out to all of them. Thank you And with that we are ready for a motion to Adjourn, so moved. 2. The motion in 2 to Adjourn. All in favor signed by