Good evening everyone. It is 5:00. Today is February 25th, 1925, 26. And I’d like to welcome all. Welcome you all to this meeting of the Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission. With that, I’m going to call the meeting to order. Sarah, would you please call roll? Commissioner Bittner. Commissioner field. Yes, Commissioner. Johnson. Yep. Shell. Hear. Schmidt’s here.
Clerk. Swanson here. Taylor. Wangen. Here. Wangler. Yeah. And chair. Schwartz. Here. Thank you. With that, uh, commissioners, we’re going to bypass the first item in the agenda this evening, which is approval of minutes.
And we are going to move those on to our into our March meeting, because there aren’t we don’t have them ready at this time. So if you’re agreeable to that, then we’ll move on to the public comment period. Now this is limited to items on this meeting’s consent agenda or previous Planning and Zoning commission meeting. Is there any. I will open up the public information session.
Is there anyone here that would care to come to the podium and comment? And I’ll call a second time. And I’ll call a third time. And with that I’m going to close the public comment period. With that, we will move on to item three, which is our consent agenda this evening.
We have a number of items on our consent agenda, the first being the Cottage Grove Edition, which is a zoning map amendment. Staff’s recommendation is to call for a public hearing. The second part of that is a major subdivision. Preliminary plat. And once again, staff’s recommendation is to call for a public hearing.
Item number B in the consent agenda is J. Mack, industrial second edition, and it’s a request for a zoning map amendment and a major subdivision preliminary plat staff’s recommendation for both is to call for a public hearing item number C in the consent agenda is Sleepy Willow Edition. It is a request for a zoning map amendment and a major subdivision.
Preliminary plat. Once again, staff’s recommendation is to call for a public hearing for both. And finally, item D in our consent agenda is FP floodplain District. And it’s a request for a zoning ordinance. Text amendment. And once again, staff’s recommendation is to call for a public hearing.
With that commissioners, you can either approve the complete consent agenda or pull out what you’d care to talk about. So what are your wishes? Move to approve the consent agenda. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Morgan. Second. We have a second from Commissioner Schmidt. Any discussion? I do have one question on the Cottage Grove edition.
Um, in reading through that, they’re talking about 20 foot setbacks on houses. I believe. What does that do to driveways? And that is Isaac’s. Would you care to comment, Isaac? Yes. Chair. Schwartz. Uh. Commissioner Wangler and commissioners, the setbacks for a a 20 foot setback would not impact driveways.
That is the minimum recommended setback for a driveway that is also required. In this particular case. It’s requested to be a planned unit development. So that wouldn’t cause any other issues either. Thank you. All right. With that, we have a motion and a second on the table. Any additional discussion? Hearing. Seeing. None. Sarah, please call roll. Commissioner field. Yes.
Johnson. Yes. Swanson. Yes. Swanson. Yes. Wangler. Yes. Schell. Yes. Schmitz. Yes. And chair. Schwartz. Yes. The motion is approved. With that, we move on to this evening’s regular agenda item A, which is the AFP Fox Haven subdivision. And I believe Isaac is going to provide us with staff briefing on this staff report.
Yes. Thank you. Chair Schwartz and commissioners, uh, for this first regular agenda item on tonight’s agenda, Heather Jones and Lauren Fisher are requesting approval of a zoning map amendment from the agricultural zoning district to the RR residential zoning district and a major subdivision final plat titled J.F.
Fox Haven Subdivision, as well as a major street plan amendment for a segment of the future alignment of 76th Avenue Northeast. So, as you can see on the screens before you, as well as in your staff reports, this project is located in northeast of Bismarck between 73rd Avenue Northeast and Arcata Drive, primarily along
the west side of 41st Street Northeast. The project area of the plat itself consists of approximately ten acres of currently undeveloped land, and would create five lots in two blocks as part of the subdivision.
The zoning map amendment portion of this request would change the entire platted area from the existing agricultural zoning district to the RR residential zoning district, as shown on the screens now and then. The major street plan portion of the project would shift the. As you can see there, shift a proposed future alignment of an extension of 76th Avenue Northeast, which is listed there as a future collector roadway. Approximately 200ft to the north.
Uh, in order to facilitate the rearrangement of the developable land, primarily on the west side of 41st Street Northeast, where the plat is being proposed. But it could also rearrange how land could be developed on the east, which is not being discussed directly at this time.
But the major street plan portion does impact that a little bit, or at least could impact that. The plat area is identified as being rural residential in the future land use plan, which are places for country living with convenient proximity to city life.
The public was notified of this request via publications in the Bismarck Tribune on February 13th and 20th, and 90 postcards were mailed to owners of nearby properties on February 13th, 2026, and additionally a physical sign providing information on the public hearing was placed in a publicly accessible location at the project area.
On February 9th, 2026, one additional piece of public engagement that staff did in this case because of the major Street plan portion, was we sent out um, letters to two landowners that would have the major street plan. Future collector shifted on their land. So everything to the west of 41st Street in this case is owned by the current landowner of the plat area.
And then to the east, there are two um landowners who would also have the line shift on their land according to this project. So staff sent an additional letter to those two landowners in particular about the major street plan portion, primarily on February 5th, 2026, just to provide some additional information on what the major street Plan is and inviting them to contact staff if they had any questions, and
providing an additional notice on how to provide a public comment if they should wish to do so. Uh, to my knowledge, staff has received three inquiries for more information, including from one of the landowners that received a letter.
The landowner directly across the street of 41st Street Northeast, and planning staff did ultimately receive one comment, which was forwarded to the commission, and that comments did come from the landowner directly to the east of this plat area. Uh, one other thing.
If we can go back to the yes, that map, just for everyone’s awareness, um, on March 1st is when the new Oeta map agreement between the city of Bismarck and Burleigh County comes into effect. So what you see here on the map in the RR future land use Plan designation, that is area that would be leaving the city of Bismarck’s ETH jurisdiction.
But then what you see in the Erb or urban reserve, long term and kind of, you know, southeast of there, that would stay in the city of Bismarck’s ETA jurisdiction, uh, after March 1st. So everything RR is leaving after March 1st. But, uh, Erb and and below that would remain in. So just a a point of clarification here. It doesn’t impact the projects here directly. They started the process with Bismarck.
So they will continue the process, uh, through the existing, uh, channels. But just as a point of clarification, and with that, as a cumulative result of all the findings contained in the staff reports, City of Bismarck staff find that the proposed um major subdivision final plat and the accompanying uh zoning map amendment and Major Street Plan amendment
would not adversely impact public health, safety, and general welfare as presented, and that it is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Bismarck Code of Ordinances and relevant state law.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Zoning Map amendments from the Agricultural Zoning District to the RR Residential Zoning District, and for the major subdivision final plat title, JF Fox Haven Subdivision, as well as the Major Street Plan amendment for that second segment of a future alignment for 76th Avenue Northeast. Does the Commission have any questions for me at this time? Commissioners. Questions for Commissioner Schmidt.
So based upon the public comment received or the comment received in looking at the map where the future road would go, which is a shift north, if I’m reading the map. Right. Um, um, and the impact to that neighbor to the east, um, how we how are we addressing that? I really realize the road is not going there yet, but the alignment certainly is benefiting this
particular development and might be detrimental to the property or to the east. Uh, thank you, Commissioner Schmitz, chair Schwartz and commissioners, we received that public comment after the staff reports were published and and given to you all.
But in terms of what the major street plan is and what it does, it is meant to be a guiding document for where, um, city staff, county staff, MPO staff believe a could be good locations for future major roadways, but it is not necessarily a legally binding document requiring anyone to dedicate right of way right now, or it doesn’t specify when or if the roads
would be funded. It’s meant to be, you know, given current trends and information. If this continues, this could be a good location for a road at some point in the future. This information was communicated to that landowner, as well as the other landowner who received the letter.
Um, and we talked about it. And so we knew a comment was coming, but did not receive it until last night. Okay. I’ll wait. I’ll wait for I’m not sure it answers me, but I’ll wait for the rest of the hearing. Okay. Uh, commissioners, additional questions. Commissioner fields.
So if we’re only talking about a handful of days, and you’re saying half of this area is going to be in county zoning jurisdiction, why would the city want it? Could you just. That’s what we said. This would not be out of jurisdiction. This will still be in the Oeta.
Well, this parcel and the parcel directly to the east, it’s the parcels to the north, correct? Know this. The plat area, as well as what is to the north would be going outside of Bismarck Station. Sorry. The property to the east of 41st Street would, uh, remain in um. And staff communicated with all applicants about, you know, this coming changes and whether or not they would want to wait or or go now.
So this whole area is going to be under county jurisdiction. The plot portion. Yes. So it’s still kind of seems bizarre that city zoning would retain it after March 1st.
Do you think that would be when jurisdiction changes? You think this would become part of the county zoning requirements? So this is back to the whole Oeta argument. For years. You know, things that are legal one day aren’t legal the next day because now there’s a new jurisdiction. So I guess that’s that’s the only thing I question about this is being there’s that area is going to be under county jurisdiction in a handful of days.
Why the city wouldn’t walk away from it and let the county deal with it. If I may, maybe just some points about the Oeta agreement. So so the agreement takes effect on March 1st.
And so the as Isaac mentioned, we explained all this to the applicant landowner and basically told them if you apply prior to March 1st, you can follow the city planning and zoning requirements and follow this process or wait until after March 1st and follow the county. Um, in this particular case, they decided to apply um prior to the March 1st deadline. And so that’s that’s why it’s following our process. No more questions.
Thank you for Commissioner Shield commissioners, additional questions for Isaac and Isaac. Just for clarification, for myself, the area that shows up in our drawing here, that is gray. Does that does that remain under, uh, city jurisdiction or is it the other way around. The the area? If we can go back to that, uh, plan amendment map.
Yes. That one. Yes. The darker gray and the the green for the PCAs in this spot. That would, uh, remain within the city of Bismarck’s ETA jurisdiction. The the lighter color with the RR designation up above and around. So that color is the portion that would be leaving the city of Bismarck’s ETA jurisdiction.
Okay. Thank you. Uh, one other question is with the, uh, one landowner disputing the road, how necessary is it that we do the major street, um, plan amendment.
As far as it being connected to the plat and the zoning change portion, it being necessary, I guess I’m not entirely sure if it would impact the developer’s plans. Um, I would invite either the the applicant or their representative to address that further. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner shell. Isaac, and your conversations with the landowner to the East that has voiced some opposition to changing or amending the major street plan.
Was it communicated to them that that it is envisioned that that property would be urbanized in some future year, but really, it would be their choice at which time they would want to sell the the house and the land and redevelop it with 30 units in that same space of land that
they own. Now, I just want to make sure that kind of the time component of this, that there’s no intention to build this, and really they would get to choose if and when that road is, is ever built. Quite honestly.
Commissioner Schell, Chair Schwartz and Commissioners, yes, it was communicated both in the letter and in our phone conversations that I had with that landowner that, you know, if the major street plan portion were to be approved, it would not require them to do anything with their land.
If they have no desire to either develop it themselves or, you know, sell it to someone else, they would still have full control over if or when something might happen. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, shell commissioners, any additional questions? Commissioner wagon? I do have a question. And it it follows commissioners fields. Question on the jurisdiction after March 1st.
If the action we take today would be to recommend a public hearing after March 1st, what jurisdiction would be holding that public hearing? Because they would fall under the authority of Burleigh County at that time and no longer the city? Um, or is there some type of an agreement for projects that have started prior to the transfer of the jurisdictions to continue on with the project? Because what the
public hearing should that be held with Burleigh County after March 1st? I could address that that answer. So so the way the agreement is worded, the negotiated agreement between Burleigh County and the city of Bismarck is that any applications that are received prior to March 1st are processed to completion with the city of Bismarck.
We we just needed a clean, a clean break because we wanted to avoid the situation you’re talking about, where somebody’s getting pulled in different directions. So that’s how it’s worded. Thank you. Thank you for Commissioner Wagon again. Commissioners, any additional questions for Isaac? I’m not seeing you’re hearing any Isaac. Oops. Commissioner Winkler.
I, I guess I have a question and it would probably be to the current landowner of the property that looks to be rezoned. Why would you want to split your property with the street? I mean, I don’t we try and keep the streets aligning.
It looks like we’re taking 76 and diverting it for whatever reason. I don’t know what that reason is, but it it creates 76 going into the the property across the road, not on 76, probably closer to 75th.
And I’m just curious as to is this I, I know I’m new on this board, but I’ve been watching a lot of these meetings and I they talk continually about aligning roads. And here it looks like we’re purposely taking that road and and dipping it south. And miss aligning it with what’s going to be or what should be 76th on the east side of the road. As if you want to take that one. Or should we defer to Landon on that? I would. Uh.
Defer to the to the applicant or their representative on why the the applicant wants the road in a particular spot or not. Okay. Thank you again. Thank you for your, uh, for the information. And with that, we’ll go ahead and open up the public hearing on this agenda item.
Uh, would either the request or representative care to speak to it? Thank you. Chair Schwartz. Yeah, and with Swenson. Hagen representing the developer in this one and not the owner themselves.
Um, so the owner of this property has this ten acre parcel that we’re looking at here tonight, and they also own the five acre parcel just to the northwest of this of this property. Um, they don’t have a desire to develop their own property at this point. They would like to reserve that space for their privacy and things like that. No intention to develop there.
But this ten acre piece where they felt they were fine with selling that off, um, that’s part of the reason that the the application started under the city of Bismarck rather than the county. There is some, some need for expediency on their end. They would like to close in a timely manner for them to close.
It was, you know, obviously required being approved by the by the city commission. So that’s why we started under the city commission. That’s why we’re going to continue under the city commission. Um, the road realignment, uh, there’s there’s a few things going on right there. Uh, 76th Street to the west.
If if there’s a larger map to look at, there’s bits and pieces of it that are, that are connected throughout this area. It’s not a completely whole road as it is, but eventually these roads would connect together.
76 is designed to come through this area and line up with the way we have, except we have it 200ft north as as Isaac had mentioned, um, going east from here, we did realign that road. Um, making a few assumptions based on the city’s future land use plan. This is to be urbanized at some point. We don’t know whether it’s 25 years, 50 years, maybe never.
But we we lined up that road, the future Landers Road, to basically align with the southern end of where that existing home and credo are, and then continues east, and it wraps up to a little bit more of an urbanized section.
So when we’re looking at county lots and things like that, they’re obviously much deeper, much wider lots. We’re trying to show them an option to say, well, if you would ever decide to develop, your requirement would be this is going to be an urbanized section. So this roadway network would work with urbanized roads. So that’s the reason for some of that.
I can certainly answer any questions if you have them. Commissioners questions for Landon. Landon. Um, again, I’m wondering, you know, if the street does not move. How does that impact things? Thank you, Chair Schwartz.
So so that does limit us a bit in the sense that we have these that were five lots that we’re working with. Um, if that road stays on the south end where it is shown in the future land use plan, it does limit how we’re going to lay out these lots and maybe would force us into a situation where we’re maybe putting in a cul de sac, which
neither the city nor the county really enjoy having. The county will be taking over the right of way. If this is ever approved. They would be accepting that right away and they’d be maintaining it.
They don’t love the cul de sacs, so the goal would be to keep that road in a way that we can actually split this land up a little more cohesively. Okay. Thank you. That answers commissioners once again, any questions for Landon? So you may have mentioned it, but this is not going through the through to the West right now. It’s going to have a turnaround within it until it’s connected in the future.
Commissioner Johnson yes that that is correct. There will be a temporary bulb set there. Um, but with the future land use. Excuse me, the future roadway network will still continue on through there. If you can see in those drawings, it still does connect at some point.
That’s if the home owner to the northwest, if you’re ever decides to develop. He would be a required then to to connect with those roadways. Again commissioners questions for Landon. Then I’ll ask you one more since, um, is is there if the, um, if the road does get moved, if we approve that, is there going to be some development that takes place that, um, you know, right now
we’re working with the situation where the road may or may not come in or what time will there be some development that takes place at forces that.
From from our perspective, we would have to if that road does stay where, where it is or if it’s placed where the road network shows that it’s supposed to be placed today, it’s debatable whether enough lots will be available to actually pay for that road. You know, in the end of the day, they’re trying to sell lots to to make money in the back end.
If we are limited to three lots or four lots, that may change the economics of things. So we would have to talk about it at that point. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner field. So if it was county zoning, doing this versus city with the lot sizes that you develop, change. Thank you. Commissioner. No, actually the the zoning for R-1 in the county and RR in the city are nearly duplicates.
Um, as far as size goes, they are exactly the same. The minimum is 65,000ft. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner. Field commissioners, additional questions. I’m not seeing you’re hearing any, Landon. Thank you. With that, the podium is open for others that would care to address this agenda item.
And I am not seeing you hear. Thank you. If you would add your name to the log and introduce yourself, that would be wonderful. Why not pay for it? There? Is there a log up there by any chance? Okay. Oh, this right here? Yes. Sorry, sorry. I was asked me to that whenever. I log up there.
My name is Mona Hyde. This is Bernie, my husband. We are the property owners to the east of that, um, proposed development. We are the ones that it would affect more so than anybody else.
Because with this proposed road, what we have noticed is it will be just to the south of our house, our existing house, and over our drain field. And I don’t know, we’re just we don’t we don’t want the road to move. We like the road where it was originally planned for, because that was taking it further south of our property or on the south end of our property, which is south of our house.
But it would at least give us space between an actual busy road and our actual home. Our bedroom is on that side, on the south side, which would be right on the outside of that road going past, and we just, I don’t know, I don’t know what else you want me to say.
Anything that you would think would be pertinent to, uh, helping us make our decision would be great. I’m Bernie, and they talk about 76th Street being a street through street. If you look at the maps that they provided, their development is designed around a cul de sac.
They are not continuing 76 through. And so yeah, it just take a look at the maps if you can, if you need to. But that’s one thing. And the added infrastructure on the water line, the water pressure is not great that we have right now.
And if we add five more houses onto that, I have no idea. I talked with the Rural Board for a while, and they say it will probably drop it even more. They’re not sure yet. And so that’s something that they’re going to come out and do some testing on.
So just little things like that, it’s I don’t like the idea. So that’s, that’s our thought of it. It also the road that they are putting in. If you look at takes that dip south and then back up. That’s because it goes past our house.
So they put the road dipping down because our property, our houses right there. So I and I don’t know why they then designed it to dip back up to the north instead of just going straight across.
The way the road is designed now or proposed now, that would pretty much wreck any good chances of us subdividing, because the road goes far enough north that it cuts out any lot. If it went down through the middle, the way it starts, then it would be more feasible that if so, we’re going to develop it, then at least it would have a chance here.
So we’re gaining nothing out of this new proposed road or the new neighbors that we would have. So it is all for one party and none for us. Commissioners, questions for Bernie or Ramona. Commissioner shell. Thank you, chair Schwartz. If I can maybe just address two, two concepts.
Um, the first being this this area, your property, um, is in the city’s ETA and is being reserved for future urban growth. So if it were to develop, it would develop with urban densities.
And those urban densities come along with a city water main and a city sanitary sewer system that would be in the premise or nearby to be able to connect to. So the trigger or the concept of this road being on the drain field I would view is, is not very significant because by the time the road would be needed, when you or your heirs and assigns in the future sell it or subdivide it, um, there would be municipal sanitary sewer in the area and
you would not need, even if you kept the structure, your house exactly where it is, you would not need the drain field anymore because there would be sanitary sewer systems on the premise. Um, so I just want to maybe address that piece of it.
The other component, in terms of reserving land for future development, um, in the same token, when we look at urban development, we would look at smaller lot sizes typically, and not acre and a half sites or larger pieces.
So even your your home site to the north, we would typically see that size of of structure be redeveloped or incorporated into whatever that development is over the time or, and even in some situations, the existing structure razed and demolished because there’s more value of the land that it’s sitting on than the house might be.
So I guess we’re I say these things because when we put this map out here and when the city and the MPO and the and Burley County adopt a future land use planner, fringe area, road master plans and major street plans, it’s to look into the future. But that future is decided by the people that live there.
And if you have no desire to ever develop, then whether or not that road is right next to your house, on top of your house, or 300ft away from your house, it really it doesn’t matter because it is up to you. Ultimately, if you want to develop the land.
So hopefully all that was communicated to you initially, but I just want to make sure that that’s understood in this process that the city is not proposing, nor is the county, nor is the developer proposing any roads on your property. And all of those are triggered only by your decision to develop. If you make that decision in the future. So I just wanted to share that. Thank you. Commissioner shell. Commissioner Johnson.
I’m just curious, were you aware of the future road plan before this item came up? And you’re asked, okay, okay. Thank you. Commissioners. Additional questions. Bernie. Mona, how long have you owned your land out there? We actually. Not very long. It’s been two and a half years. Two and a half years? Yeah. Okay.
Any additional questions? I’m not hearing or seeing any. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. With that, the podium is open for others that would care to speak to this agenda item. And I’m not seeing or hearing any. So with that, I’m going to close the public hearing. Isaac, any additional information you care to offer? Uh, no additional comments at this time.
Thank you. Thank you. Uh, commissioners, this is a request for a major street plan amendment, a zoning map amendment, and a major subdivision final plat staff recommendation is to approve all three. What are your wishes? I think you should call for a public hearing. Just because of how convoluted this becomes when it’s.
It’s rural, residential. And then it’s going to be city, and then it’s going to be county. And they obviously aren’t happy with even the thought of a plat. I think I think there should be a public hearing. That’s actually what we have here today. There would be another public hearing at the city commission if this moves forward.
The city commission. If it moves forward, there will be at the city committee. If this moves forward, the City Commission will also hold a public hearing before it would be finally adopted. So with that, we’re looking for a motion. I move to approve. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Swanson. Second.
Okay. We have a second from Commissioner Schell. With that, commissioners, I’ll open the floor to discussion. Commissioner Schell. Thank you. Chair Schwartz I would want to stress that if this I think it’s critically important to keep all these items together.
Whatever the decision is, I wouldn’t want us to approve a plat, but then not approve a plan for where all the roads will need to interconnect into the future. I think that’s very short sighted.
So I guess that’s my my main request through through this action here is if it’s the board’s desire to to move forward with all of these, that they are kept together and not pulled apart and kind of picked just the approval of a plat, but not addressing the fact that that plat might not line up across from where we think the roads will need to be into the future, whatever that future might be. So I just wanted to state that, I guess.
Okay. Thank you again. Commissioner Johnson. I think I’m more torn on this one because I understand the flexibility that’s in the plan and that it’s not saying a road has to go in at a certain type time.
But when you talk about where one road is going and intersecting with 41st, you know, the expectation is that it’s going to align or be drastically separated. So you really setting the East landowner up for a change. And I, I could see it being a benefit in ways. And then I can also see it being a negative for that current landowner.
And the same thing for the if that quarter section is eventually consolidated and developed as a, as a whole, I can see it both ways. Like it’s it might be actually a better location for that road in the future. Um, so it’s really hard for, for me to kind of put a blinders on, say, well, it’s, it’s in the future.
It may or may not ever happen. You are saying that that road likely is going to connect at that location, and that does have a real impact, though, when you’re on the East.
Um, and I can see the benefit and why the owner on the, on the West would want to want to do this. So just a comment, I, I’m really torn on this one. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioners Commissioner wagon. I struggle with the the major street plan amendment for the landowner on the east. Um, because we’re this geographic location is north of Bismarck.
It’ll be a long time before it gets annexed into the city. But their situation may change in five years from now where they want to develop their property for rural, residential and subdivide into 65,000 square foot lots.
And this road plan could have some negative impact on their ability to develop their land at a later time, because there’s a higher probability it gets developed as rural residential in the future. Um, prior to the city ever getting out to that point and where the city services would be provided, where they could use the smaller lots. Thank you, Commissioner wagon Commissioner shell.
Thank you. If I could address that component or part of that commissioner wagon in terms of the, um, most likely development future, I guess with this being in this, the city’s ETA and being raw land, these are the types of properties that we would request that no development really occurs here until the city is there, with
infrastructure. So the scenario that there would be a a rural residential development that could take place before the city is available with infrastructure, um, that’s not what our plan would support in terms of what we kept as raw land, so that when we make the investment in a sewer line
here, we actually have someone to connect to, and we didn’t have it, um, encumbered with an additional 20 homes of rural stature. That wouldn’t be potential 90 homes of urban stature.
So I guess I just note that the development potential, so long as it’s in the East City to and so long as that ETA is, is this this line of really would be waiting until such time that the city services and density would, would be available. Thank you, Commissioner Shell. Commissioner Winkler.
My question would be is if we, the Commissioner, shall, um, suggested, requested whatever that this day is one group tonight. And I understand that part of it. But if we as a group. Um, deny this application now, it could be, um, appeal, I believe, to the commission, to the city commission for an override. Is that correct? Okay.
Um, if they decided not to do that, this property to the west then becomes, um, addressed or regulated by the county. If the county came along and said, we’re going to allow this, does that have to coincide with a major street realignment project on the east side? I’m the area that belongs to the couple now.
Or does that then become two separate entities? The county can come up to here? That’s their jurisdiction. Stop. And the city’s got to deal with that in the end. Is that how that works? Daniel. Yeah, maybe I’ll address that question relating to the agreement. So if this were to be reapplied for after March 1st, it would go to the county.
Um, really county planning and Zoning and Umbrella County commission. One thing I will emphasize, though, and even in this process, we’ve involved Burleigh County staff all along in the review of it. So I would anticipate we’d have those same conversations on the other end.
So when Burleigh County brings things forward, um, we all adopt the same Fringilla road master plan, which is Gabe mentioned, is the regional entity, the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Uh, organizes that. And so we really try to make sure our roads are lined up between the jurisdictions. So, uh, it would be up to them, up to the county, how they would wish to approve things. But we do work together on our making sure our plans are aligned.
Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Wagner. Commissioner Schell. I just might add that in the absence of any plan, it really would be the first one in that puts their road wherever they want.
It kind of sets the standard for the next person, because the next person would be requested to put their intersection, probably opposing wherever the first guy went in at. So in the absence of any planning, uh, it probably would just be whoever gets there first.
So I think having a plan in place of how where we think we want these and having our discourse here to be able to understand what that future may hold, I think it’s important so that we aren’t just kind of letting it go to whoever first gets there. Thank you. Commissioner, shell commissioners, Commissioner Johnson.
Uh, Commissioner Schell, just I wanted to clarify on on what you had said previously that right now we have a development that’s 6500ft, plus lots that you wouldn’t support something like that happening on the east side until city services are there in place. Is that right? The commissioners Commissioner Johnson in a nutshell. Yes.
I mean, that’s what we have in our urban reserve area is we recognize that the city is not ready to to provide services to that location this year, next year, maybe even within ten years. But it’s in a corridor that when we zoom out and see the amount of raw land in this entire area, once we bring a sewer line in here, it opens up, you know, sections of land or whatever that might be.
So in an effort to still preserve that opportunity for for the rest of that to be city of Bismarck proper, we would likely not promote or not promote rural residential development in these other situations. But the the properties to the West are they’re not going to be supported by city services currently are what they are. Um, commissioners. Commissioner Johnson they wouldn’t be.
And that’s how we look at this one as being kind of a ten acre site, but surrounded entirely by rural residential. It’s not very likely that we’d be able, as the city be able to economically provide services to two homes for the cost of bringing that infrastructure in. Thank you. Commissioners, commissioners.
Additional comments. Isaac, I have a question for you. Both Bernie and Mona mentioned that, uh, moving the road, um, to the new location would impact their home out there. I did not get out to look at the property, but, uh, what is the I’m assuming there’s a structure already in place.
And what would the distance be from the road to the structure? And how does that change things? The existing approximate distance, because the plan is not particularly precise, but the existing approximate distance to the structure itself would be about 330ft.
Um, the amendment would place it closer to probably 50 to 80ft away, at least from the centerline of a roadway, something like that. Just ballpark estimates. I would say. Chair Schwartz. Okay, that answers my question. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, any additional discussion? We have a, uh, Commissioner Field. Thank you.
You know, not to always be the obstinate one at a meeting, but I live out in rural residential, which is soon leaving the ETA. And if you guys told me you wanted to move Apple Creek Road, which is several hundred feet away, and you wanted to put it 50ft from my house, I would sue every one of you.
That would really anger me, because when they bought the land, they assumed they had residential property, and they were going to be 300ft from the road. So I’m a definite no on this one because it doesn’t benefit these people that bought rural land one bit.
And supposedly in the distant future, when we have great grandchildren, it may help somebody. Well, it ain’t worth the stress to them. So I’m a definite no vote on this one. Thank you, Commissioner Field. Any additional comments? Commissioners? I’m not seeing or hearing any. With that, we have a motion on the table and a second to approve. Um, Sarah, would you please call the roll? Commissioner Johnson. No. Commissioner Schmitz. Yes.
Commissioner. Wagler, no. Commissioner. Swanson. Yes, Commissioner. Shell. Yes. Commissioner. Field. No. Commissioner. Wagon. No. Chair. Schwartz. No. The motion wasn’t approved. We’ll move on to our next item in our regular agenda. Daybreak, third edition. And that is a request for a minor subdivision final plat. And I believe Jenny is going to provide a staff briefing.
Thank you. Good evening, Chair Schwartz. Commissioners. Belfield Access Terminal, LLC and Four Kids Property LLC are requesting approval of a minor subdivision final plat titled daybreak third Edition. Go.
The request is located in northwest Bismarck, north of 57th Avenue Northeast between North Washington Street and State Street in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Ridgeland Drive and 64th Avenue Northeast. It consists of 7.21 acres with three lots in one block. The proposed plat is a plot of lot one, block five daybreak, second edition. Again, they are creating three lots from this one lot.
Lot three of the proposed plat includes two sizable easements for stormwater and drainage, and for an overhead utility line, but remains large enough to be developed. Adjacent uses include undeveloped commercial uses to the north across 64th Avenue Northeast and to the east, vacant agricultural zone land to the south, and developing commercial uses to the west across Ridgeland Drive.
The public has been notified of this request. A notice was published in the Tribune on February 13th and 20th, and two postcards were mailed to the owners of nearby properties on February 13th, a physical sign was placed on the property in a publicly accessible spot.
On February 9th, the request was evaluated according to standards contained in our Comprehensive Plan Code of Ordinances and State Law. As a result of the findings contained in the staff report, staff find the proposed minor subdivision plot would not adversely impact the public health, safety and general welfare and is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan Code of Ordinances and State Law.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision final plat titled daybreak, third edition. Do you have questions, commissioners? Questions for Jenny. I’m not seeing you’re hearing any, Jenny. Thank you, thank you. With that, this is a request for a public hearing. And Landon is once again stepping up. Thank you, chair Schwartz. Uh, yes. Representing the applicants in this one as well.
Um, a minor plot tonight. Just looking to to take one of the large lots that are available up in daybreak. Second, split it into into three different lots. Um, basically, the lot two is set to be developed as a commercial property. Uh, a lot. One is basically the remainder of this large area.
And lot three is, is a mix of, uh, stormwater easement and then some buildable property and then a Wapa overhead line easement as well. But I can certainly answer any questions if you have them. Commissioners questions for Landon. Commissioner shell.
Land, can you speak any more to the the lot three remnant piece that’s encumbered significantly by easements on it. And the buildable nature still that’s left there. Thank you, Commissioner Shell. So yeah we’ve had some some recent conversations with uh with Wapa and their their language in their easement is pretty is pretty intensive.
And they say effectively if you read the language on their on their agreements, it’ll say effectively no development is available underneath our power lines within our easement. Uh, but the fact is actually when you speak with them, uh, they do give license to actually develop under those lines, but they would like to see site plans and things like that are going to take place.
So, uh, parking lots, uh, driving lanes, all those things are allowable in the, in the Wapa easement. And then there is room on this plat on the, on the southwest and the northeast portions of it, just outside those easements for, for structures to be placed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Shell. Additional questions for Landon.
I’m not seeing or hearing any land. Of thank you. With that, the podium is open for others that would care to address this agenda item. And I’m not seeing or hearing any. So with that, I’m going to close the public hearing. Jenny, any additional comments? No thank you. All right. Thank you.
With that, commissioners, uh, this is a request for a minor subdivision final plat staff’s recommendation is to approve. What are your wishes? Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Wagon. Second, a second from Commissioner Johnson. Any discussion? Commissioners, I’m not seeing. You’re hearing any. Sarah, would you please call roll. Commissioner. Field. Yes, Commissioner. Wagon. Yes. Commissioner.
Swanson. Yes, Commissioner. Johnson. Yes, Commissioner. Wagner. Wangler. Yes, please. Yes. Did I say Wangler? What did I say? Winkler. Okay. Oh, it’s Winkler. I said Winkler. Oh, okay. Thank you. I’ll enunciate the next, um, Commissioner shell. Yes. Schmitz. Yes. Chair. Schwarz. Yes. The motion is approved.
With that, we move on to item C in our regular agenda, which is. We get to this item, recuse myself. Or maybe I should wait. Well, I’ll just announce it. Okay. Uh, item C in our regular agenda, Prairie Hills, seventh edition. And it’s a request for a minor subdivision final plat.
I will recuse myself due to, uh, professional relationship to this project. All right, thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Isaac will provide us with staff report this evening. Yes.
Thank you again, chair Schwartz and commissioners, this next regular agenda item comes to us from Four Partners, LLC, who are requesting approval of a minor subdivision final plat titled Prairie Hills seventh Edition. The project location. As you can see on the screen, is located in sort of west central Bismarck, along the north side of Turnpike Avenue, West Turnpike Avenue between West Divide Avenue and Xavier Street. The project area is approximately 1.
05 acres of land, and it is a replant of lots two and three a block one Prairie Hills fourth edition. The area is currently one parcel, and the applicant intends to use this minor plat to split it into a two lot in one block subdivision.
The property is entirely within a CG commercial zoning district, which is not being requested to change. As part of this project. Adjacent uses, including to the north is Interstate 94. To the east, we have some multifamily residential. To the south there are some offices, and then to the west or southwest maybe, uh, is a hotel.
The plat area in the future land use plan is designated as destination mixed use, which is broadly described as major commercial and employment centers that serve the entire regional trade area of Bismarck, as well as visitors.
The public was notified of this request via publications in the Bismarck Tribune on February 13th and 20th, and seven postcards to nearby property owners were mailed on February 13th, 2026 as well. Additionally, a physical sign was placed on a publicly accessible location providing information on this hearing. On February 9th, 2026. And to my knowledge, staff have not received any inquiries. For more information or written comments regarding this request.
So, as a cumulative result of all the findings contained in the staff reports before you, City of Bismarck staff find that the proposed minor subdivision final plat would not adversely impact public health, safety and general well-being, and that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Bismarck Code of Ordinances and relevant state law.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision final plat, titled Prairie Hills seventh edition. Does the Commission have any questions for me at this time? Commissioners questions for Isaac. And I’m not seeing or hearing any Isaac. Thank you. With that. This is a request for a public hearing. I will open the public hearing is either the requester or representative here to speak to this agenda item.
And I’m not seeing or hearing anybody out there. Then I will ask again the question, is there anyone that would care to step up to the podium and address this agenda item? And with that, I’m not seeing or hearing anybody. So I will close the public hearing. Uh, Isaac, any additional comments? No additional comments.
Thank you. All right. With that, commissioners, this is a request for a minor subdivision final plat staff’s recommendation is to approve. What are your wishes.? Motion to approve. Motion to approve from Commissioner wagon. Second. Second from Commissioner Schmitz. Any additional discussion? Commissioners. And I’m not seeing hearing any.
Sarah, would you please call roll? Commissioner. Oh excuse me, Commissioner wagon. Yes. Swanson. Yes. Schell. Yes. Schmitz. Yes. Field. Yes. Wangler. Yes. And chair. Schwartz. Yes. Motion is approved. With that, we’ll move on to item D in our regular agenda, which is Hate Creek Township, part of sections 19 and 20. And Lauren is going to provide us with staff report this evening.
Good evening, chair Schwartz and commissioners, the city of Bismarck is requesting approval of an annexation of the part of the south half of section 19, uh, Township 139 uh, range 80 uh, as well as which is pursuant to document 975320, as well as auditors.
Lot B1 of the West half of section 20, Township 139 North, range 80 West, part of Hay Creek Township, which is pursuant to document number 727447. Um, both of those documents are attached within your staff report as well. The project area contains 54.13 acres and is located in northwest Bismarck, east of Claremont Road, north of Valley Drive and East Valley Drive.
The city of Bismarck wishes to annex the reference land due to its association with stormwater detention, construction, as well as roadway improvement projects. The area is surrounded by a mix of parks and open space, as well as developing single and two family residential uh.
It has been identified as parks and open space, as well as urban neighborhood. Within the future land use plan, and those places are generally kept within a natural state, providing many important functions for the community and ecosystem, as well as places for quiet, quiet enjoyment of home life, respectively. Uh, annexations do not have a public hearing, with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
However, the public will be duly notified of the request before it’s heard with the city commission. Um, as will Burley County and Hay Creek Township, uh, in accordance with provisions of section 40, Dash 51.
2, Dash zero five of North Dakota country code, um, the request was evaluated according to standards contained in the Comprehensive Plan Code of Ordinances and State Law. Uh, and as a result of all those findings contained within the staff report, city Bismarck staff find that the proposed annexation would not adversely impact the public health, safety, and general welfare and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Code of Ordinances and State Law.
Uh, based on those findings, staff recommends approval of the annexation of the south half of section 19, Township one, 39 North, range 80, west of Hay Creek Township, uh, pursuant to document number 975320, as well as auditor’s Lot B1 of the West half of section 20, Township 139 North range 80, west of Hay Creek Township.
Pursuant to document number 727447. Do you have any questions for me? That’s a lot of numbers. Just a bit. Uh, commissioners, do you have any questions? Uh, any questions for Lauren? I’m not seeing or hearing any. Lauren. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
This is, uh, commissioners, this is a request for an annexation, and it is final consideration. So there is no public hearing at this point. Staff’s recommendation is to approve. What are your wishes? Move to approve. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Schmitz. Second. Second from Commissioner Wagon. Any additional discussion. And I’m not seeing or hearing any with that.
Sarah, would you please call roll? Yes, Commissioner. Field. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Swanson. Yes. Schmitz. Yes. Angler. Yes. Schell. Yes. Wagon. Yes. And chair. Schwartz. Yes. The motion is approved. With that, we move on to our other business this evening. And, uh, Daniel is first on the list. Good evening. Chair. Commissioners. I’ll be very brief tonight.
This is mainly to give you a heads up and an invitation. Uh, the land Development code is a project. Uh, many of you have been involved in. Some of you haven’t, because you’re you’re new on the board.
So, uh, this is something that we’ve been working on since, uh, I think about 18 months now, since the beginning of 2024. Uh, we are here on the process. You can see on the diagram, uh, we are about ready to release the full draft publicly. Uh, we’ve been through a few different phases at this point.
Uh, there, module one, which deals with the zoning districts, the uses and dimensional standards within those districts. Um, module two, which deals with development standards. So the parking, the landscaping, all of the details of developing a site. And then module three, which is the procedures, the things that we deal with on a regular basis of how things get, get done.
So all three of those modules have been reviewed independently. But right now we’re putting them all together. We’re making sure it fits. And working with our steering committee and our technical committees, and we will be ready very soon to reveal this to the public.
Um, if you want to go to the next slide, the so there are two components to this, the land development code, which is the written text of title 14, uh, which will be restructured entirely, uh, as first time since 1982 we have done this, which is why it takes six takes some time.
And and then the other component is a zoning map, which will be changed to reflect the new districts in the zoning code. Uh, this is the use table, uh, to give you a little introduction of, I think maybe the best place to start once you see this and start digging in, uh, this will this is where you can see all
of the uses that are allowed in each district. And then you can follow from this to what the different rules are for this different uses. The we do plan to unless something delays. Uh, bring this to you for your consideration next month.
So in March it’ll be on your consent agenda, but it will be in your packet, so you’ll have a good, hopefully a good amount of time to really to get into it and start reading it. It’s quite a sizable document, but we’re always available for questions or if you’d like, we have a we’ll have some public input sessions. If you want to go to the next slide.
The first one will be March 11th. Uh, we will be holding this in the Public Works building, uh, down on South 26th Street. There’s a large room, plenty of parking. So we’re hoping, uh, people will come out and hear what this is all about. We’ll have the full draft ready for the public there, and our consultants will be there.
Staff will be there. We’ll be able to answer any questions. Of course. This we know this is pretty dense. Some of this material, and especially for the public, uh, not something you’re dealing with every day.
So sometimes it’s helpful just to, to talk things through and hear about what, what what they really mean, what some of the language really means in practice. Uh, so that will be on March 11th. We’d encourage anyone, any of you, if you would like to come to that.
Um, you may have your own questions you’d like answered, or you may just want to hear what the public is saying so you can take into account when you make your decision, uh, at a later date, uh. The. Next open house will be in April 15th, um, at the city’s library. Uh, another chance would be very similar to that, but another chance to have questions answered.
Um, do you have any questions for me right now? As I don’t I haven’t really gotten into the substance tonight. We’ll have that for you next month. But anything about about this process or thinking you’d like to know.. Commissioners, questions for Daniel Schmidt.
So is there any link out for these individuals to look at? I mean, I’ve seen 75% of this, probably more if I really think about it. But they’re like that table, for example, would be good if they could. These commissioners could see that maybe before the material comes out for the March meeting, because I think that’s a critical piece.
And then the rezoning piece, what that means, because there are some, I will call them pretty significant changes, which should make development much easier, frankly. Um, and the developers have been a large part of this process, so maybe just even share that. So so they know that there’s this hasn’t been done in a vacuum like the affected parties and stakeholders have been a part of this. Thank you, mayor.
Mayor Schmitz, and you’re hearing from us. But really behind the scenes and and I think, you know, they’ll they’ll be able to share a little more as we get to these open houses. We do have a steering committee in a technical committee.
And a lot of people who have been looking at this and guiding it along the way, uh, so we’re doing our best to navigate this. Of course, there’s different opinions, and we can’t satisfy every single opinion, but we’re really trying to define find that balance. The. Yes. Thank you for that. That question about where these drafts live.
Uh, on the Bismarck LDC website right now, that module one and two are there. So that use table I showed you is there uh, there may be some changes that are made between that and the final version. And the map is there as well.
So you can go on and find an online map, scroll around interactively and see where these new districts will be. Uh, the old districts are in a parentheses behind the new ones. So if you if you look around, you can see what’s what’s changing.
Uh, the, the full new draft will be released, I think, in a couple of weeks. At that meeting on March 11th. So. And we’ll post it on, uh, Bismarck LDC as well. So you can see the whole thing at that point. And then of course, when it comes on in your packet, you’ll see it then to. Commissioners.
Any more questions for Commissioner Shell? Daniel, what time are those open houses? Maybe you said it, but I don’t know if it was said or I didn’t hear it. I’m sorry. I did not say that. So yes, that so. 430 to 7 p.m.. So yeah. Thank you.
And this will be also on our, on our website. And we’re doing a social media push. Oh is it, it’s for I’m sorry for it’s 4 to 7 p.m.. Thank you. Yes commissioners. They are up on the website already. Dan okay. Great. Commissioners. Additional questions for Daniel. I have one unrelated question for you. Daniel. Sure.
How solid are we on training for uh, uh, new commissioners? Well, and old commissioners too. Yes. Thank you. So that has been scheduled. Sarah, can you remind me of the date? I’m sorry. It should be on your calendars.
We did send a calendar invite out, um, to to that, uh, and what we plan on doing is having a representative from the North Dakota Planning Association, maybe teams in and and, uh, and give a little bit of broader, uh, guidance on planning commission conduct in general. And then as staff will kind of talk about some of our own plans as a city. Uh, we’ve got a good chunk of time to sit upstairs. It will be a public meeting, so we’ll notice it.
We’ll have anyone from public is welcome to join. Uh, we will video it as well, uh, for for people to watch. Uh, but. Yeah, thank you for reminding me of that. March 31st, from 2 to 4. I’m sorry. Sarah. March 31st. Hi. March 31st. From 2 to 4. Yes. March 31st. From 2 to 4.
From 2 to 4. Okay. Thank you, thank you. Daniel. And with that, we just have one other item on our other business for this evening, which is a resolution of recognition.
And, uh, I guess I’m going to start out with a comment here, just in that, uh, all of us sit around this table, our, uh, our, our dedicated to public service. We sit here because we want to serve, and we do it for various reasons. Um, it could be family. It could be friends, people that we look up to and or it’s instilled as part of us that, uh, we want to serve the community and, and help.
So anyway, this recognition is, um, this resolution is for, uh, a recognition of David J. Black’s dad. And when you look at his history, um, he sets the bar quite high for public service. He was involved for many, many years. And, uh, um, Bismarck planning would like to recognize that.
So I’ll read the resolution, whereas David Jay Black’s dad served on the Planning and Zoning Commission as a tireless advocate for well-planned growth, development of the city of Bismarck.
And Whereas David Black’s did dedicated over 40 years from 1972 to 2012, to the citizens of the city of Bismarck as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Renaissance Zone Authority. Many of those years in his capacity as chair. And whereas David Black said 97 passed away on October 12th, 2025, and is remembered by family and friends for his dedication to numerous community organizations and causes.
And whereas Bismarck is a better place because of David’s legacy of leadership and commitment to his community, now therefore, be it resolved by the Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission that David J. Blackstone would be recognized for his dedication to the citizens of Bismarck. Thank you. With that, commissioners, our next um. Do you want a motion to approve that or. That sounds like a good idea, Commissioner Schmitz.
Then it would be official. I’d move that. We accept the resolution or adopt the resolution. Adopt the resolution. Thank you, Commissioner Schmidt. Second, we have a second from Commissioner Morgan without any discussion. Commissioners. Sarah, please call a roll. Okay. That wasn’t ready for that. Sorry. I got she was having. Commissioner wagon? Yes.
Commissioner Johnson. Yes, Commissioner. Swanson? Yes. Wangler. Yes. Field. Yes. Shell. Yes. Schmitz. Yes. And. Schwartz. Yes. The motion is approved. Thank you. With that, our next meeting is scheduled for March 25th, 2026. Commissioners, thank you so much for your for being here in your commitment