On the agenda: Mandan Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — DATA CENTER (Sep 28)

AGENDA
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
COMMISSION ROOM
MANDAN CITY HALL
5:30 PM
WWW.CITYOFMANDAN.COM

The public may access the LIVE meeting at:
Watch & Listen
Government Access (Midcontinent) cable channels 2 & 602
HD Streaming LIVE at: tinyURL.com/FreeTV-602 and on
Roku or Apple TV
Or Telephone:
Dial: + 1 312 626 6799

Listen
Radio Access 102.5 FM
RadioAccess.org
Zoom Webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81614879617
Webinar ID: 81614879617

The City of Mandan is encouraging citizens to provide their comments for agenda items via
email to [email protected]. Please provide your comments before 3:30 p.m. on the day of
the meeting. Include the agenda item number your comment references. Comments will be
forwarded to the Commissioners and appropriate departments.

A. ROLL CALL
B. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.

August 24, 2026 Minutes

C. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.

Consider a zone change from Agriculture to R7 - Residential and a minor
plat for Octavia's Addition.

D. OTHER BUSINESS
E.

ADJOURN

Page 1 of 34

MANDAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MANDAN HIGH SCHOOL
Monday, August 24. 2026
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Mandan met in session on Monday, August
24, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. CST. at Mandan High School.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Robinson called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Huber, Vayda-Hammond, Mudder, Mayor Froelich, Lang, Renner,
Smith, McLean, Intveld, Chair Robinson. Commissioner Absent: Horn. A quorum was present.
Chair Robinson announced that the Planning and Zoning Commission received and accepted, a
Resignation Notice today from Commissioner Will Gardner.
Also Present: Building Official Jordan Singer, City Engineer Jarek Wigness, Attorney Oster.
MINUTES
Commissioner McLean motioned to approve the July 27, 2026 minutes. Commissioner
Hammond seconded the motion. Chair Robinson called for a roll call vote: Commissioner
Mudder: Yes; Mayor Froelich: Yes; Commissioner Lang: Yes; Commissioner Renner: Yes;
Commissioner Smith: Yes; Commissioner McLean: Yes; Commissioner Intveld: Yes;
Commissioner Huber: Yes; Commissioner Vayda-Hammond: Yes; Chair Robinson: Yes.
The motion passed.
Chair Robinson stated that due to a larger than usual crowd in attendance, he provided the
expectations that will be adhered to throughout the meeting. City Staff will present the
Ordinance draft to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z). The P & Z Commissioners
will then submit questions to city staff and any recommendations to the staff before opening the
meeting up for public comment. The comments to the City of Mandan inbox have been
submitted to the commissioners and copies provided in their meeting packets. The comments
were largely constructive and were respectful to staff and commission with much appreciated
detail. When the session of the commissioner’s questions for city staff is done, the meeting will
be opened for public comment. Each individual providing a comment will have a three (3)
minute timeframe. Every individual speaking will state their name and sign the sign-up sheet for
the record. The comment period is not a Q & A. Questions may be posed and city staff will
address them after the closing of the open public comment session. Chair Robinson stated that
he reserves the right to shorten the three (3) minutes of any speaker if he/she is way off topic
including but not limited to accusations, insults, and those kind of activities at which time the
speaker will be interrupted and asked to return to his/her seat. There will be no repeat
commentors. The public open segment will be open for one (1) hour. Courtesy will be the
expectation of everyone commenting attending including commissioners and city staff. There
will be no shouting from the audience. You will be mindful of the commenters. The Comment
Box has been open for six to seven weeks. Public comments are expected to be directed to the
1

Page 2 of 34

Draft Ordinance. Comments will only be received on the main floor at the designated location
pointed out by Chair Robinson. When the meeting completes the process designated for onehour, the Public Comment period will be closed. At that time the Draft Ordinance will be turned
back to the P & Z Commission for further discussion with city staff and among the Commission
members. At that point, the Planning and Zoning Commission will make a recommendation
motion to the City Commission which means there is another step before this Ordinance gets
codified in the main Ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. STAFF PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT MANDAN DATA CENTER ORDINANCE:
City Engineer Jarek Wigness presented.
On or about July 6, 2026, the process began to create the Ordinance and it was posted on August
6, 2026. There was a Public Input Meeting at the Veteran’s Library in Bismarck and again at the
Mandan High School. Comments were reviewed. City staff has been working on the Land Use
Code for the last three (3) years since 2023. In that Land Use Code there were four (4) lines
designated for data center regulations: (1) Data centers represent intensive land use. They operate
at a scale that traditional development standards were not designed to address. (2) The
construction of these facilities places massive, rapid demands on electricity, water, roads and
surrounding properties. This Ordinance revision incorporates strict performance based
conditional use standards and evidence-based mitigation strategies. With the rumors going
around with the Dakota Planning Association releasing their model ordinance, the city did
replace that with about four (4) pages of ordinance based on that model ordinance. And
following that, the city replaced it with 19 pages of thought-out intentional ordinance that was
based specifically on the feedback from the community. Special ordinances for data centers are
necessary because they can be developed at such a massive scale that the regular Land Use Code
is insufficient to regulate them. Comments and questions that have been received include What
will be the cost to residents? How will the power grid handle it? How does it affect the water
systems? What happens to the land and buildings after the data center is completed? What does a
data center look like? and, What will its neighbors hear and feel?
Cost to Residents
~ The Concern: Large facilities can increase demand for power and strain infrastructure, leading
to higher utility rates and added costs for residents.
~ The Proposed Protections: The city’s response to this is to protect the users. The city does not
have authority to dictate electrical utility rates. That is handled by the Public Service
Commission and/or MDU and/or whatever power supplier there is. As part of the ordinance the
city will be requiring utility providers to verify capacity and then disclose how an applicant’s
project would affect utility rate structures or how they would fit in the utility rate structure
relative to residential users. This ordinance is very general and when a specific project is
addressed, they would have to disclose that to the city and therefore disclose it to the public for
public review. The city has funds available at 110% of the estimated upgraded or new utility
transportation infrastructure up front. That explains how the city will address that.
~ Can the Power Grid handle all of it at once? That is something the city has limited control
over being part of the city but city staff is requiring declarations and statements made from utility
2

Page 3 of 34

providers and the applicant to verify available power generation, transmission distribution
capacity, and then requiring them to fund the upgrades before operations begin. If they are
requiring expansion of electrical or gas facilities, they are going to be paying for those upgrades.
Statements verifying that there is no adverse impact on existing customers will be required.
How will the city of Mandan’s infrastructure keep up with this?
~ The Concern: Population growth increases pressure on water supplies and wastewater systems
threatening reliability, quality and costs.
~ The Proposed Protections: Developers must fund 110% of all new or upgraded water and
wastewater infrastructure upfront; Low water demand, closed loop-systems or non-portable
evaporative cooling methods are required; Developers must disclose how the project may affect
rates and costs relative to residential users. They will not be allowed to dig wells and they will
not be allowed to inject wastewater. They will have to haul it to an off-site facility. An
application will be required to determine specifics about a project.
~ What happens to the buildings and land long-term? The city is requiring a decommissioning
plan with decommissioning bonds for 125% of the estimated decommissioning cost, updated
every five (5) years. That would have to be submitted upfront naming the city as the recipient.
Data centers can be high-investment projects. Mandan’s standards ensure responsible use and
lasting value for tomorrow. Mandan requires: Future Reuse: Buildings are encouraged to be
designed and maintained so they can be adapted for other uses. Minimum Floor Area Ratio:
Building coverage requirements help ensure efficient uses of land and room for future flexibility.
The city does not want another roadblock within the city rather the intent is to allow
infrastructure from one point in the community to another. Decommissioning and Reclamation:
Sites must be restored and returned to productive use when a data center is no longer operating.
Financial Assurance: A performance bond ensures funds are available to fulfill decommissioning
and site restoration.
~ What will it look like? In Mandan’s existing ordinance there is a Gateway Overlay District.
This has many aesthetic and screening requirements associated within it. That is used as a model
guideline since massive concrete buildings are not desirable that are eyesores that could impact
neighboring properties. There is at least 50% of each façade that includes architectural
treatments. That is up from 20% and 30% in the Gateway District. Height limits are applicable
to zoning and district lighting standards. The Dark Skies model ordinance was used that prevents
light trespass onto neighboring properties and would require down-lighting and would
specifically restrict up-lighting. The city ordinances already include several of these
requirements to manage appearance(s).
~ What will neighbors hear and feel? This is the component of the project that has absorbed the
most time in research and discussions. Measurable Standards: Enforcement Noise Limits: Set
enforcement noise limits at the property line for day, evening and nighttime hours; Vibration
Limits: Establish vibration limits to protect homes and sensitive structures; Monitoring: Require
continued monitoring to ensure compliance with established limits; Community Notification:
Requires community engagement throughout the life of a data center development. No data
center will be able to operate until they had field verified for noise and vibration thresholds being
met. Any applicant will be required to engage with neighbors within a half mile as part of the
Special Use Permit. There will be notification requirements that are inherent to conditional use
permits, zone changes, future land use updates. There are many other mechanisms in place that
would require public notification.
3

Page 4 of 34

~ How do we know it actually works? Operational testing verifies that data centers meet the
standards before they are fully online and at each step of increased capacity. Testing at each
capacity Tier: 25% Test Independent acoustic testing; 50% Test Independent acoustic testing;
75% Test Independent acoustic testing; 100% Verify Final compliance verification. No new
capacity can come online until testing confirms compliance at the current tier. For facilities to
begin operations, they would need to verify what their stated model performance was and they
would have to meet infrasound requirements. They would have to meet SAE weighted
requirements, light requirements, vibration requirements, all weighted requirements. For
facilities that are constructed in stages, there is a split for those requirements and verifications to
happen at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the master build outs for electrical capacity.
~ What happens if Standards are not met? The ordinance creates a clear, five-step enforcement
pathway to protect accountability. (i) Identify: Concerns are confirmed through monitoring,
testing or public input; (ii) Throttle: Operations are immediately limited to a level that meets the
standards; (iii) Correct: The facility must fix the issue and return to full compliance; (iv) Verify:
Independent testing confirms compliance at every step; (v) Enforce: Continued violations result
in suspension of operations and escalating penalties up to closure of the facility. Fine structures
would be difficult in this particular situation(s) because of the scale that these corporations
operate at. It was determined that the most effective punishment or the most effective
consequence(s) would be to cease operations and that would naturally scale how big the facility
is if it were to lose revenue.
~ Who pays for the impact? The operator is responsible for the real costs their facility creates in
the community. Operator Responsibilities Include: (i) Roads: Road repair and maintenance
affected by heavy traffic; (ii) Infrastructure: Upgrades and capacity for utilities and public
infrastructure; (iii) Testing: Constant independent testing and verification at every tier: (iv)
Reclamation: Site restoration and reclamation when operations end. These costs are not
absorbed by Mandan residents. They are the full responsibility of the facility operator. They will
be required to analyze and make improvements to the roads required for construction. The city
will be requiring all of the testing that is associated with the Special Use Permit to be paid for by
the developers but administrated by the city through independent third-party consultants. They
will also be required to put money up front to handle site reclamation through a bond. The goal is
to insulate Mandan residents from any of the costs associated with this and to mitigate as much
impact as possible.
~ Preparing Today for Tomorrow. Every development creates more than buildings. It creates
infrastructure that must be managed long after construction ends. Every Project Should Plan For
What Comes Next: (i) Built to Last: Infrastructure should be designed and constructed for longterm performance; (ii) Allowed Smart: Permits should include requirements for operations,
maintenance, and end-of-life planning; (iii) Funded Ahead: Financial assurance ensures the
operator can cover future costs, not residents; (iv) Restored Responsibly: Sites must be returned
to a stable, safe condition when operations end. Mandan’s standards ensure the full life cycle of
a project planned, funded, and the responsibility of the operator.
~ The Public Remains Part of the Process: A transparent process. Real communication.
Accountability every step of the way. (i) Half Mile Notice: Property owners within 0.5 miles
receive notice; (ii) Public Hearings: Multiple opportunities for input; (iii) Public Liaison:
Through construction and operations; (iv) 48-hour Response: Substantive responses to inquiries
or complaints.

4

Page 5 of 34

~ What Happens Next? This meeting is part of the process and the Board will be presented with
a draft copy of an updated ordinance. This ordinance does not approve a data center. This is the
time and place for an opportunity to consider whether these proposed standards adequately
address Mandan’s needs and concerns: (i) Public Input: Community feedback and public
comment; (ii) Review: City staff and leaders will review input and analyze impacts; (iii)
Refinement: Proposed standards may be adjusted based on feedback; (iv) Formal Consideration:
Future action by the Mandan City Commission.
There have been numerous public input comments received. In addition, city staff have provided
suggested additions and revisions that are being considered as a result of public input received
thus far. Staff is willing to hear everyone’s concerns including the Planning and Zoning
Commission members.
Chair Robinson inquired if there were any questions for Engineer Wigness at this time.
Commissioner Lang inquired how staff came up with the half mile? Wigness replied that the
half mile was in the Planning Association’s Planning Code and that was originally a set-back.
Staff translated that to comments received, in particular, a half mile was too short, it should be
one mile. Bismarck’s is 1,000 feet. Other comments received stated it should be ten miles;
however, the City of Mandan is nine miles wide. Staff was comfortable with the half mile; then it
shifted to being entirely reliant on noise to dissipate over a distance. We want the applicant to
prove that noise will dissipate over a half mile. If it dissipates over half a mile, everything a mile
out should be protected. Ten miles out should be protected. Staff shifted from a distance-based
performance standard to a result-based performance standard. Commissioner Lang inquired what
if the half mile does not work? Do you think it should be increased a little bit more? Wigness
stated this is a sensitive area that needs to be considered and the modeling up-front, he does not
believe that would be an issue and that it’s dynamic modeling-wise. Staff felt that the most
sensitive properties would end up being closer rather than further away from whatever proposed
development there would be, however, consideration will be given to look at expanding.
City Building Official Jordan Singer presented the first half of the ordinance that addresses the
technical pieces. The beginning contains the authority general framework of this ordinance,
definitions, and the different engagement processes for that as applicable. Data centers are
classified within industrial group B and permitted in the mWBE and zoning districts with an
approved conditional use permit. Staff hopes to at some point have an ordinance to work with.
Once that is in place, after that will be additional processes through the Mandan City
Commission and their processes and subsequently there will be a final version of an ordinance
adopted. This is the process that will be in place for any application for a data center.
(1) The Land Use process will include the Conditional Special Use permit process. All
application requests will come to the Planning and Zoning Commission and that will fall in line
with the Ordinance. The project conditions will be put on an application prior to going through
the Planning and Zoning Commission flowchart processes before it goes to the City Commission
for their approval or denial. This is not the last hearing that will occur related to a data center.
This hearing is the first of many before moving to the Special Use Permit process that includes
another hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a full application received by the city
5

Page 6 of 34

of Mandan from an applicant and at that time work will begin with city staff and any components
necessary to make sure all steps are in place as outlined in an ordinance. Currently there is no
Agricultural zoning within that. There would also be a zone change that would require the
Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval process before moving forward. Building Official
Singer reiterated that there is no application at this time for a data center. The focus of this
meeting is determining the guidelines for an ordinance.
(2) The Entitlement Process Review, Public Review. Any alterations to the structures, layout,
utility providers, engineering methods utilized for energy procurement, electrical supply, and
water supply will need approval(s).
(3) The Conditional Use Permit is required in order to bring forward any of these processes. If
construction hasn’t commenced within three (3) years, the permit shall automatically terminate.
A new application will need to be submitted and the process would start over.
(4) Permit Modifications will be anything that is changed within any of the site specifics that
would be considered a major change and that would be required to start this whole process over
again. An increase in the total number of accessory structures on a developmental parcel or the
expansion structural modification or additions that increases a building more than 5% of its
originally permitted footprint, any modification, alteration, expansion of the boundary line(s), all
of these revisions, and then the layout, structures, utility providers or any building change of any
kind of the site in general will have to come back through the Special Use Permit process.
(5) The Permit Process Transfers. Prior to any change in ownership of any data center will be
required to come back through the application process made to the Board via the Conditional
Use Permit process. Approval for that shall be conditioned upon explicit written agreement by
the new permit and will be attached to the original permit with approval.
(6) Public Notice. There will be someone designated as the liaison for the project.
(7) General Development Requirements and Submittal Requirements. Many of the items in this
proposed project identification are normal processes that staff already have in place. There were
additional things added such as cooling conditions, description of the wastewater, wastewater
disposal and all of those things will have to be submitted with the site plan details. Within the
site plan details and the site-specific details being reviewed, there are many items referenced.
One of them is found under No. 12, Stormwater Management Components. That is not just one
piece. That entire process is already up and running at the city level and is a sixteen (16) page
document with a checklist that is required to be followed. The applicant will be required to
follow the City of Mandan’s Stormwater Plan. There may also be references to things that may
be outside of this specific ordinance that the city will have available. There are also other
processes that include state and federal requirements that may apply to the process. The
Engineering Department has reviewed and adapted the stormwater process so that it will be
ready to go, not just for this ordinance but within the whole zoning process. This has been a
three-year work in progress update conducted by the city to assure all codes and ordinances are
up-to-date and ready to go.
(8) Receptor mapping. The city is working towards having a map of all these items and
processes. If there would be one, the city and staff would list all the spatial data, topography,
building equipment, footprints, buffer zones, etc. of all the data they access for city use within its
GIS, CAD, Civil, 3D systems.
(9) Environmental Assessment. Prior to scheduling a hearing, the city will require access to the
studies, biological, comprehensive, pre-constructive inventory, archaeological study or any other
study conducted by the applicant. One necessary one related to this is the submitting of other
6

Page 7 of 34

agencies necessary for the project compliance with all applicable state and federal law statutes,
rules, utility verification and regulatory standards along with anticipated schedules. That will all
be part of the process required by the city ordinances that include FEMA and other regulatory
bodies.
(10) Stormwater Emergency Plan is in place and covers what is necessary for set up, monitoring,
and regulations.
Engineer Wigness inquired if the Board had any questions at this time.
Commissioner Mudder commented that the Commission members received separated data
centers for sizes and he commented about downtown Minneapolis will possibly become a data
center. Will the city of Mandan have an ordinance pursuant to concerns like that or will the half
mile cover situations like that? Is that a micro data center? Engineer Wigness replied that there
are specific exceptions for very, very small scale “data centers”. Those are handled through
specific allowances for the major micro and minor data centers that would be at a scale that
would be much less impactful. Commissioner Mudder inquired if there will be rules and
regulations in place for construction centers? Engineer Wigness replied that the ordinance will
have rules specifically related to nuisance noises and lighting issues. Road damage, dust control
is something that is common on other construction projects where watering trucks are required to
keep the dust down or add some sort of palliative to keeping dust down. There is also a
Stormwater Ordinance in place that will address mud, track out control. It should be looked at
because the Stormwater Ordinance is a fine structure and might prove to be ineffective for
something at this scale. In general, the city is capable of handling construction activities with the
current ordinance on a fairly large scale.
Commissioner McLean inquired about setbacks that have been setting at linear feet at 500 or
1,000, has there been discussion about changing that? That goes hand in hand with decimal
levels at the setback range, which if the setbacks are at 500 or whatever, and that Morton County
looks at it and they are considering at about a 45 decimal level at the setback or at the property
line. Is that something being looked at to match that? The daytime level of 55 in this zone is the
current level. Engineer Wigness replied that yes, this has been a point of discussion such as a
minimum setback distance on top of performance requirements is being viewed as a possible
safety net. Other rural municipalities or political subdivisions might not be appropriate for an
urban environment and it would most likely be measured in feet rather than miles. As far as an
appropriate decibel level is, included in the user-friendly version report, references were included
and the protective noise levels document is where discussion landed on what is an acceptable
decibel level for residential noise limits that was rated around A weighted noise wherein data
centers can generally trend on the lower side. There is also C weighted noise limits that are in
line with the professional community as in relation between DBA and DVC noise limits. As far
as going to 45 or going to 50 instead of 55 and 50, that might be something that could be
considered. Commissioner Intveldt inquired about landscaping discussions that occurred in the
past around variances and such. How will landscaping plans fit into the current plan for data
centers? Building Official Singer explained that we have the (landscaping) types now with the
new and the data centers will follow nicely. One of the added benefits of adding that extra layer
of the gateway overlay that is normally reserved for the downtown corridor or the major arterial
roads that are within the city. Adding that as an extra will benefit. Commissioner Huber
7

Page 8 of 34

inquired as a follow-up question that if it does specifically state a Type B buffer as described in
Article 13 Landscaping and could you explain what a Type C buffer is? Engineer Wigness
replied that he reviewed the Zoning Code update, a Type C buffer is called an opaque buffer. It
is designed for lots in higher intensity districts and bordering lower intensity districts for
lowering substantial visual and sound barrier. It is highlighted by a 20-foot-wide vegetated
buffer with 80% opacity. It is the most restrictive buffer in the ordinance. And regarding the
landscaping he believes that a developer’s landscaping would be multi-purpose and being used
for buffering purposes to meet performance requirements. Commissioner Huber inquired that
absent an ordinance if an application would have come forward within the last year, what would
have guided that? Would it have been the highest level of industrial zoning? And how would that
compare in contrast to the 20-page document being presented? Engineer Wigness replied that
the city would not have been standing on solid ground as far as regulations are concerned. It is
unclear if that would have been properly defined as a use group. There would probably be legal
ambiguity trying to regulate it and the most restrictive industrial regulation still would not have
captured some of the nuisances that are associated with large scale data center development. It
could’ve been a difficult situation. Building Official Singer commented that in the process of
updating the zoning code, the city had a few lines but up until recently there was not a lot in
there for that. Credit is given to the Leage of Cities and other jurisdictions and groups and the
public for engaging in this that provided the city’s work group a gauge of what they should be
looking for throughout the process of developing a draft copy of what is being presented.
Chair Robinson commented on the ordinance noting that he has been on this Commission for
nearly thirty (30) years. The ordinance was updated when the single-family homes had single
stall garages, among other very dated items in there which is why this process has been needed.
Engineer Wigness stated that the acoustic section report is where staff started the process and the
area where most of the time has been spent. There are 15 sub-items in the requirements for an
acoustic impact report. Generally it would require a developer to establish a baseline ambient
noise at identified sensitive receiving locations within a half mile of a proposed development and
they would use their design data to model their projected noise impact to that ambient baseline
and they would have to show compliance that changes for residential districts, commercial and
mixed use districts and industrial districts based on A weighted and C weighted requirements,
they would have to meet both. It is not an either-or, it’s both. There are daytime limits that are
five (5) decibels higher than night time limits. Included in their modeling they would have to
show the spectrum of the noise they are producing. There are definitions for tonal noise and they
would receive automatic penalties to their modeled scores if tonal noise is modeled and then on
the back end if the tonal noise is detected as far as acoustic verification. There are limits for
residential receiving properties even if they meet the 5550 A weighted decibel performance if
that residential property was at 40 to begin with. They cannot go beyond 45. They cannot
increase it by more than 5 decibels for A weighted or C weighted performances. That is in place
for residential properties and there is plus ten or plus ten DBA DBC commercial and industrial
receiving properties. There is a specific allowance for particularly quiet performing zones. If it is
an extremely quiet zone and it is predicted to be quiet and the developer wouldn’t need to adhere
to, it would be unrealistic increased standards at that point in time. If an ambient noise is already
within the limits they would be allowed to go three (3) decibels above what is already out of
compliance. In summary, that is what the ordinance will be requiring as in front of an
8

Page 9 of 34

application. They would be required to provide proof of performance as part of the application
process although it would all be predictive at that point.
~ Pre-Commencement Agreements. There are items that belong in a Development Agreement.
This is where definitions are made. Definitions for infrastructure improvements, expansions or
rehab that would be required as part of a proposed development. There is funding of at least
110% upfront of the estimated engineering construction costs. The city will want to have that
money in hand.
~ Capital Contribution. Will be allocated directly to municipal departments for emergency
response equipment or monitoring equipment.
~ Building Site Standards. The City Commission may at its discretion, in reviewing the nature,
scope and specific details of the proposal requiring the applicant to enter into additional
agreements for the purpose of organizing the location and type of either temporary or permanent
housing that will be developed to support construction and operation of the project and to
develop in consultation with the applicant, approaches to mitigate the effects of data center
facility on infrastructure and or the community at large. This would serve as a community benefit
agreement that would be presented at meetings. There are specific items outlined in the
ordinance as part of the Development Agreement that are inherent to the construction of these
properties that they can be part of an ordinance. They can legally be tied to an ordinance.
Anything beyond that, that are appropriate. can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Those
conditions may be tied to this if the city is on good legal footings in those situations. The
additional agreement line is one that allows for a lot of heavy lifting regarding building and site
design standards.
~ The Building and Fire Codes will address the cooling systems, which are constantly being
updated. HVAC addresses the cooling that is associated with noise screening and those types of
things. These are all pieces that will be addressed in the ordinance so the information is available
as to how it is all working and how it is being used in the Gateway Overlay District. That extra
component has been added. Extensive work went into reviewing how the lighting would work
and how facing downward would be adapted along with the motion dimming fixtures
maintaining those ratings. The 30-foot above ground level for lighting will be projected
downward and closer and that also includes verifying that there is not more than point one-foot
candles at the property line the landscape buffering Type C that was pointed out previously.
Regarding the building standards, there is an added piece. There is a question as to how do we
know how much sound is going to be produced? Currently buildings are being constructed in
other parts country and specific to that, staff has looked at the structure in Ellendale, North
Dakota. They are bringing the operation up to 100% of what they use and the noises and all the
things that they create. What they’re doing on the building side is creating a temporary certificate
of occupancy that is good for 30 days. In that timeframe there will have to be proof of sounds
and lights indications of what those are doing. After that is approved, they can be given the
certificate for that section(s) of the building. And then move on to the next section.
~ Performance Tables. Performance requirements were separated out from specific sections of
the ordinance so that the other sections can refer back to the Performance Table section. This is
where the decibel limits related to daytime, nighttime, residential, commercial and industrial
properties are the weighted infrasound limits that would be associated with a special low
frequency and infrasound audit. That is the city’s right to do as a part of the conditional use
permit. That is not part of the modeling piece up front because that equipment manufacturer data
often doesn’t include that and we would get push back from applicants saying that the city is
9

Page 10 of 34

being unrealistic in the ordinances that they would need to comply with. The ordinance is trying
to keep everything within possibility while still closing all regulatory gaps as possible. There is
specific language for mixed-use zones that are going to be treated as a more restricted residential
zone. Schools should fall under a commercial zoning district and that’s a change that is
recommended to be made. Schools would be considered under the more restrictive residential
zone. That is a suggestion if we have a contingent motion and is something to consider. As a
catchall, when there is noise generated from the facility, it will be required to comply with the
noise nuisance requirements. Vibration displacement or vibration displacement limitations are
addressed in this section. These are the Federal Transit Agency associated typically with railroad
construction. These are long time vetted numbers and they are representative of residential,
commercial and industrial vibration limitations. There is an exception for emergency operations
and that is specifically called out as emergency generator testing that is not considered an
emergency operation. That is a loop hole that many developers use to get around these
performance requirements, that is they have emergency generators that are being tested daily and
yearly and they consider those “emergency operations” and should not be subject to performance
requirements. The ordinance explicitly states that they are subject to the performance
requirements.
~ Commissioning and acoustic verification. This is what they modeled as part of the permitting
application. They go through the development process and when they start firing things up, staff
will go back in there and verify. If staff finds them to be out of compliance, they will be throttled
until they are in compliance and then institute improvements that they will become compliant
and if so, they will be allowed to try again. However, they will not be allowed to operate until
they are in full compliance.
~ Ongoing Enforcement and Oversight. The measurement standards are defined in the ordinance
that will define what kind of spot testing will be conducted to check compliance throughout the
life of a facility.
~ Routine Operations. This is for emergency generator testing. They can test repeatedly as long
as they are meeting performance requirements.
~ Continued verification enforcement. At the discretion of the city a special audit may be
ordered to verify sound, infrasound and vibration compliance. This is where staff will be
conducting spot checks. There will not be any annual predictable timing on spot checking.
~ End of life. This section is the decommissioning and abandonment. There is a 125% bonding
requirement associated with the decommissioning process. The ordinance will require them to
bring the land back to its original state with the caveat that the city will encourage plans for reuse. By requiring that decommissioning bond, re-use plans would reduce the bonding
requirement and therefore be mutually beneficial for the community and the developer. Steps
were taken to include language to strike that balance.
There are still many parts that could be talked about such as, is 12-months, right? Is 6-months,
right? It is set at 125% of the engineer’s cost.
Engineer Wigness stated this is the main discussion points of the ordinance. He extended an
invitation to answer questions at this time.
Chair Robinson inquired if there were any questions for Engineer Wigness or Building Official
Singer.
10

Page 11 of 34

Commissioner Smith commented about requiring a Development Agreement. He believes that is
one of the most important additions that was added to the ordinance. A Development Agreement
is an enforceable legal document that gives the City of Mandan flexibility to deal with any
particular project if there are issues that develop that are not specified in the ordinance. This
provision allows the city to enter into an agreement that covers those issues. Even if the applicant
could satisfy every other provision in the ordinance, if they cannot get an agreement with the
city, with a Development Agreement in place, they cannot build. He said he believes this is a
huge provision that sometimes gets overlooked. Commissioner Mudder inquired if the noise
section would pertain to other manufacturing companies besides the data centers? Engineer
Wigness explained that this would be the only location that there are specific requirements in the
ordinance. He believes that when working through this process, concerns and questions have
come up if the city should bolster other pieces of the ordinance to have similar protection(s). It
only makes sense if the city is going to treat one developer one way, any other developer should
be held to the same standards. Commissioner Mudder inquired if Attorney Oster has any
concerns. Attorney Oster inquired if that question is referring just to the ordinance? She stated
she has participated in the drafting of the ordinance throughout the process.
Chair Robinson posed a case scenario, inquiring about the sound being out of compliance. He
inquired what that would look like? Engineer Wigness explained that a letter would be sent
requiring mandated throttling. Staff would continue the sound observation and require throttling
down to the point where staff would observe compliance. At that point in time, a 60-day cure
period would start in which they would make likely physical improvements to their facility such
as putting up sound walls, planting trees, changing the location of the equipment that ejects air or
sound. The city will not dictate means and methods rather it would be demanding performance.
How they would come into compliance would be up to them. If they have continued violations or
they refuse to correct the non-compliance, staff would pull the permit. If it would be a lift, that
would be a different situation beyond the scope of this ordinance. Chair Robinson inquired if
there is a timeline? Is there a hard date? Or, if effort is being done, will they still be allowed to
be in operation? Engineer Wigness replied there will be a 60-day cure period allowed. The
expectation is that all non-compliance would become compliant within the 60-day period while
they are throttling so they are not out of compliance during that year. Commissioner Renner
inquired if this would be monitored continuously or only if there is a request from the public or
someone? In particular, excessive noise. How will staff determine the directional north, south,
east, west around the property line? If staff is monitoring continuously, how in real time, are they
going to say something to the effect that this one just went over the decibel limit? How is that
going to work? Engineer Wigness replied that the ordinance does have specifics to have it tied to
spot checks, however, a continuous “spot check” would not be possible. The Board (or
someone) would have to make that determination. Staff is attempting to provide latitude to do
the compliance spot checks at their discretion. It is unclear at this time how continuous
monitoring would be possible; however, it has been discussed and is worth considering.
Chair Robinson commented that when utilizing a third-party entity to measure noise, who would
order that up? Would that be handled by the city? Engineer Wigness stated that the language
specifically says that it will be paid for by the developer and selected by the city. He clarified
that if the ordinance does not contain that language, it should.
At this time, Engineer Wigness and Building Official Singer concluded their presentation.
11

Page 12 of 34

Chair Robinson announced that the meeting will move into the next step. He reiterated the
following protocol for those individuals coming forward to speak: State your name for the
record; sign the sign-in sheet; there is a three (3) minute limit per speaker. He stated that this is
not to be construed as a Q & A session. Questions will be noted by city staff who will answer
them after the comment period is over. The comment period has been designated to not exceed a
one-hour timeframe.
Chair Robinson opened the meeting at this time for public comment.
(1) Eden Stramer, a Mandan resident came forward. She stated she supports a moratorium on
building data centers until there is an ironclad ordinance that will protect the city, people,
wildlife, natural resources and land. She voiced her concerns relative to electrical capacity of
data centers. She requested there be a cap of electricity or prohibit a major data center from being
built. She is opposed to building man camps for out of state workers. She commented that data
centers must be prohibited from applying for tax exempt status. She demanded the prohibition of
NDAs signed between private entities and public officials.
(2) Joe Robinson, a Mandan resident came forward. He pointed out that the WHO and the
American National Standards Institute have done studies that have shown that classrooms should
not exceed up to 35 decibels to maintain optimal learning conditions. It is unclear how the noise
level will be controlled that keep classrooms quiet enough. His concern is related to that and the
Frontier’s study has shown that these decibels levels have impacted from 2019 to 2023 learning
and cognitive development in children of the surrounding area. He voiced concerned for this
(proposed) company to be owned by a foreign country having access to our data. This is a
privacy concern.
(3) Jennifer Skjod came forward and stated she and her husband live in the extraterritorial zone.
Those living in that zone do not have a right to vote on city matters. She stated that it is her
understanding that ND law regulations must be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan
and that those plans be followed. She voiced concern about having a City Planner in place. There
is no information on the hiring of a City Planner on the City of Mandan Human Resource
website. She requested the city to take that into consideration. She stated that the NDCC states
that when property and zoning is identified it should be given reasonable consideration to the
character of each district and its peculiar suitability for those particular uses.
(4) Seth Owens came forward and stated that he is a conservation photographer and an outdoor
educator. He lives in Mandan. He stated he is here to represent the wildlife who cannot show up
here to talk for themselves. He is in opposition of the data center however he commented that the
Ordinance does have good framework that can be expanded upon to benefit wildlife and the
people of Mandan. He would like to see an expanded environmental assessment section. He
believes that the ND Game and Fish and the US Fish and Wildlife agencies and third party
surveys should be included in this matter. He would like to see endangered species of the
Missouri River corridor included. He voiced his opinion to include wildlife habitat improvement
and prairie ecosystems programs.
(5) Prisha Groetsch came forward and stated she lives in the extraterritorial zone. She has a
concern with zoning. They bought a 2-acre lot that was zoned residential and homeowners rely
on zoning as one of their biggest financial investments they make. She voiced concerned about
an appropriate conditional use in that zoning district. The ordinance the city adopts will establish
a precedent for years to come. She requested this Board to consider the long-term interest of
12

Page 13 of 34

homeowners and future residents and the characters of the Mandan community of any promised
economic benefits.
(6) Susan Ziemann a Mandan resident came forward. She voiced concern about the importance
that ordinances be drafted correctly. She voiced her concerns as to what a hyperscale data center
may have on a person’s health and how the noise and pollutants will affect sleep, stress and
quality of life and how it will affect children in schools that are located nearby. Given those
knowns, an important question that remains unanswered is “What don’t we know?”. She
requested that the ordinance be written for future generations that will live with these data
centers rather than writing them for the best-case scenario.
(7) Mavis Wall stated she has submitted six (6) pages of recommendations prior to this public
forum. Her information was retrieved from another city or county that approved of such
ordinance(s) and they are existing real-world protections. It is her position that every word that is
put in or failed to be put in this ordinance will shape the future of Mandan schools, the children
and the entire Mandan community. She requested that the ordinance be made strong enough so
that the future of the Mandan community, the schools and neighborhoods are protected now and
for generations to come. She commented that if there is going to be a “fight” that the commission
is fighting for its people, not a foreign corporation.
(8) Jake Schmidt come forward and requested that the Commission vote “no” on the current draft
of Section 101-11-12 or send it back to the drawing board as it’s written. He stated he was
concerned about the data center noise and how it affects residents. The potential site sits less than
one mile from Mandan Middle School and Mandan High School with homes in between. It is his
opinion that the proximity raises legitimate concerns about noise, traffic during construction and
long term impacts on children and families. He requested the Commission require three specific
improvements before any further consideration: a minimum setback of at least one mile from
schools, residents and residential zoning; stricter noise limits with third-party verification before
and after construction; clear location restrictions that direct these facilities away from growing
residential school areas towards more suitable industrial land farther from the community core. It
is his opinion that the current draft does not adequately protect public health, safety and the
character of the neighborhoods. He requested the commission to vote “no” and/or send this back
to the drawing board.
(9) Sheila Froehlich came forward and stated she has a Petition that has 1,460 signatures on it
that has been emailed to all Planning and Zoning Commission members which represents the
voices of the 1,460 citizens represented by their signatures. They requested that their voices be
heard and take action to protect the future of the community by placing a temporary moratorium
on all data center development as requested in the Petition. Alternatively, they asked that the
Commission vote to prohibit data centers, but if they could at least get the moratorium in place to
give them a chance to look at the ordinance. On behalf of the citizens of Mandan, the
Commission was requested to do their due diligence carefully and consider the concerns of the
people represented and do everything within the Boards authority to protect and serve the
Mandan community.
(10) Terry Lea Mastel came forward and stated they have been business owners on the strip for
44 years. She inquired why the city would consider having a data center in an inappropriate
location? She voiced concern that it is her opinion that the homes in this area will not be able to
be lived in because of the noise decibels that are anticipated to do harm to individuals. She
inquired how much water and electricity will it take and how much will the resident’s billing for

13

Page 14 of 34

these utilities increase? She requested that a moratorium be placed and more research and
environmental studies be conducted or permanently ban data centers from this location.
(11) Sean Stevenson came forward and stated that he is a union steel worker and that he is
familiar with the dangers in the workplace. It is his opinion that this project requires more study
due to the severe North Dakota winters. He provided his information on how winter weather will
affect a data center operation. He requested that data center operations and secure legally
binding protections be researched further.
(12) Kimball Banks came forward and stated he lives north of where the proposed data center
location is being planned. He provided three suggestions: Setbacks. He could not find any
setback listed in the ordinance and suggested that it be put in there. He recommended using the
same setback proposed by Morton County and that is three-quarters of a mile; his second
recommendation is about the proposed environmental asset assessment, Section 3A. He
suggested that the city require the developer to hire a third-party contractor to compare, prepare a
socio-economic impact study with the city retaining approval of the contractor. The city and
residents need to know what the potential socio-economic impacts will be from an independent
third party, not just from the developer. The public needs to know. He also needs the opportunity
to review the comment. The city acquiring a biological and archaeological survey, which is
commendable, but those are not the only environmental impacts. The operations will affect the
police force, the fire department, schools, health, infrastructure, housing, traffic and other
impacts of Mandan’s infrastructure. The city needs to plan for these impacts. The proposed data
center will go in near the schools. The third concern is decommissioning. A performance bond
should be updated every five years and the city should specify that it will levy a penalty against
the developer operator if the city finds it is out of compliance. Penalty could be revocation of the
permit until the compliance issues are corrected.
(13) Signe Snortland came forward and stated that she lives north of Mandan. She stated that last
week she submitted her comments to the draft Data Center Ordinance to the Commission. Her
first concern is the siting of a data center and power plan in Mandan. Regarding zoning districts
as referred to on Page 4(C) at Applicability. She stated that the current city of Mandan zoning
map does not include zones used for heavy industrial establishments. The Mandan Morton
County approved plan for the Bismarck-Mandan Regional Land Use Plan shows industrial
development outside of Mandan and not in residential areas. Her second concern is the noise
allowed under this ordinance. The World Health Organization recommends that nighttime noise
outside bedroom windows should be under 40 DBA to avoid waking or shifting to lighter sleep
stages. This is to prevent negative health effects and sleep disruption. The guideline is 30 to 35
decibels as the acceptable range for an acceptably quiet rural or suburban bedroom. This
proposed ordinance sets the acceptable nighttime noise limit at 50 DBA in a residential district
on Table 1, page 13. Her third concern is the lack of designated setbacks from homes and
schools. The Morton County ordinance specifies a three-quarter mile setback wherein the first
draft of the Mandan ordinance had a half mile set back. This ordinance has “none”. She
suggested that the city empower a subcommittee to draft the next version of this ordinance.
(14/15) Carel Two-Eagle came forward and stated she is a pipe carrier. It is her opinion that
everything the data center affects are physical, spiritual, mental and emotional. It is her opinion
that this set of regulations is not strong enough.
(16) Steven Jacob came forward and stated he resides in Mandan. He stated that according to his
research, the current decibel reading presented is about the same as human speech. His concern

14

Page 15 of 34

is the decibel level will affect the students and nurses within the community. He requested the
Commission to do-better for the community.
(17) Stacey Bendish came forward and stated he resides in Mandan. He stated that he is not
against the data center. He believes they are part of progress. He believes the decibel level should
be at 55. He does not believe a moratorium is needed to go forward for this community, this
country, this city or this county. He believes that a one-year moratorium will not give more time
rather it will kill the opportunity. He stated the presentation of the ordinance is good and it may
need some tweaking, but it is workable. It is his opinion that the data center is a good thing and
that it will provide more tax revenue for the city.
(18) Joseph White Eyes came forward and said he comes from the White River reservation and
stated that this water is just as much his as it is yours. He works for an environmental non-profit
called Honor the Earth. He stated that for those against data centers, he has all the information
needed. It is his opinion that it is not the current or proposed data centers running his phone. He
agreed with the previous speaker that a one-year moratorium is not needed rather we need an
indefinite moratorium all across the United States. His first concern is the governance over the
data that will be stored in these data centers? When talking about the types of data, will it be
safe? Who is liable for the illegal data being stored? He suggested including something in the
written ordinance that would designate who is liable for illegal data that would be stored. He
does not believe this data center will be beneficial for this community and it is his opinion that
when talking about surveillance, militarism, authoritarianism, privacy rights and nuclear energy
usage related to data center buildout which would lead to coal phase out leaving those who love
the so-called clean coal without jobs. Other things that weren’t really touched on were tax
revenue generation for the community – what does that look like and can that be added in here?
With regard to water standards, where is the water coming from? What pipes will it tap into?
Commercial? Agricultural? Industrial? Will they have their own water line? What is the baseline
on water quality and quantity of usage? Does it cover chemical spills? What are the rules for
discharge, water storage, and water management? What legal mechanisms will be used to clean
up any of the PFAS or pollution that will be discharged from the data center? He encouraged the
Commission to pass the minimum of a one-year moratorium until the city can figure out exactly
what it wants and push for a permanent moratorium. He requested the Commission to give these
residents some ease, a peace of mind that they aren’t being invaded by a multi-billion-dollar
corporation. He inquired of the Commission if they really want to turn their people into the new
Indians? No where to run, no where to go, left to fight for what little they have left to call their
own.
(19) Waniya Locked came forward and stated she is from Standing Rock. She stated that in 2016
they were held at gunpoint by Morton County, North Dakota and Energy Transfer, a corporation
just like what’s coming to your community now. It is her opinion that the easement wasn’t even
granted and that it was illegally constructed and illegally operating right now. She stated that she
wants to remind Mandan residents to hold their ground and to know that Standing Rock is
standing with the community. She requested the Committee that it offer free and informed prior
consent of the constituents before it allows IT infrastructure to come in. She said she is in favor
of a Moratorium because there are so many questions with unknown answers. She requested the
Commission contact the tribes to inform them of this and let them know they should contact their
CBO’s so they are included in the surveying and cultural surveys of this project.
(20) Carleen Soule came forward and stated she is a Mandan resident. She stated that she
previously submitted questions and comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission and she
15

Page 16 of 34

wishes to expand on some points. She voiced concerns about the noise and how sound travels
and that a single assessment is not sufficient considering the geography of this site has different
elevations. She recommended that multiple assessments be conducted. She recommended that a
reporting process for individual homeowners be established and that a remedial remediation fund
should be established by the developers. She suggested there be a railroad spur to the
construction site to deliver the construction elements and packaging should be returned to the
manufacturer so that Mandan landfill resources are not overwhelmed. She suggested a civic
assessment be conducted to ensure the community can absorb an acute level of growth.
Considerations must be made to existing businesses and their employment needs. The civil
servant needs of the community and funds should be established in advance to help grow those
departments in advance rather than hindsight. She requested a moratorium be implemented so
that the city is not unduly influenced or pressured to finalize an ordinance from potential
developers.
(21) Sean Lengenfelder came forward and stated he is from Mandan. His concern is that the
ordinance does not address electricity costs. The proposed rate hike of 14% ceased public
comment today and the energy information administration of the United States government notes
that post data center you’ll see a raise in your electric bill of over 90%. It is his opinion that the
ordinance is not strong enough to deal with corporations; the city is assuming that the
corporations the city is dealing with will react with the city in good faith. They will not because
corporations have one motive and that is profit.
(22) Ross Leingang came forward and stated he is from Mandan. He stated he is not completely
anti-AI, rather he relied on AI access to decipher some of the information displayed throughout
this meeting by the presenters. He voiced concerned about the decibel levels realizing that
decibels are logarithmic, to which it is his understanding that means “65 decibel” is double the
sound of “55 decibel”. He commented on a previous statement made that if the ordinance is too
restrictive, a corporation may interpret it to be unrealistic and not build here. His comment to
that is if they cannot meet the needs outlined, he would be fine with that. He commented that it is
his opinion that there would be a conflict of interest if the data center were allowed to choose the
third-party source to verify that construction was following the ordinance guidelines. He
commented that the 60-day cure period seemed inadequate when it comes to a multi-billiondollar corporation. He believes meaningful fines should be in place. He requested the
Commission to keep in mind when making decisions such as this to be mindful of the residents
who live and work in the community and that it is just not businesses and corporations and tax
revenue to be raised.
(23) Gene E. Zehursky-Klein came forward and stated he is from Mandan. He commented that a
previous statement made that referenced NDAs, he believes that any Mandan entity, municipal
committee member, politician or anyone should be strongly urged to sign an NDA with this
corporation.
(24) Isaac Peterchuk came forward and stated he is from Mandan. It is his opinion that it is
devastating to know that Mandan is going to put something as harmful as this in the city. He
suggested that due to the lack of information that people are saying they have about data centers,
that the Commission should consider taking a 90-day period to figure it out. He requested that
the members of the Commission make the correct decision.
(25) Heather Muscha Metcalf came forward and stated she has lived in Mandan for ten years.
She requested the Commission to ban any data centers in the city and to set the example for other
cities and towns in the state to do the same. She voiced concerns about the noise and
16

Page 17 of 34

environmental concerns that would prohibit residents from enjoying the outdoors. She requested
the Commission to vote “no” and to put a ban against data centers in place.
(26) Tom Schoffstall came forward and stated he is from Mandan. It is his opinion that there
should be a cash bond and that bond should be held by the Bank of North Dakota and if there
should be a bankruptcy, it should be forfeited. He believes that the timeframe for violations
should be a 24-hour period and that it should be regardless of weekends, weekdays, and holidays
if there is a violation it should be handled. He believes the fine should be handled immediately
and that it should be a non-refundable fine. He believes if court costs are involved that the data
center should be held responsible and he does not believe the City of Mandan should be sued if
there are any problems. He believes that the city should get the state involved for compliance
people. He inquired if there is a violation, who will enforce that? Who will have the ability to
shut down the data center if there are violations and they are not compliant? He believes there
should be more oversight in place.
(27) Allison Schulz came forward and stated she lives on Beretta Street, southeast of the
proposed data center location. She stated her neighborhood and area has been a construction
zone for the last five years due to the high school and sports complex projects. She stated she
chose this location to live due to the quiet and lack of noise surroundings. She stated she has
concerns of environmental and legionella disease. It is her understanding that data centers use
hot water and cooling towers that produce condensation which at some point has a bacteria that
can grow and it is produced by spores in the air that is inhaled.
Chair Robinson closed the public comment period at this time. He stated that a number of
questions were asked of the speakers who came forward. He requested Engineer Wigness and
Building Official Singer to address those questions.
Engineer Wigness provided the following responses:
~ Joe had mentioned that a 35-decibel level inside classrooms being the level set that targets for
no impacts to learning. Staff researched the sound change between indoors and outdoors related
to completely open windows and propped windows. The range was from a 13-decibel reduction
to about a 27-decibel reduction. What is included in the ordinance would be outdoor
requirements and if the windows in the school were opened, it would work backwards from there
and that would be 48 decibel requirements outside the window. He said that it would be possible
to regulate decibel levels at the exterior of buildings rather than at property lines specifically for
schools. That may be something that could be incorporated. A comment was made about staff
putting in unrealistic regulations because of being afraid that data centers won’t locate in
Bismarck due to that situation, rather, he explained that more of the approach was unrealistic
regulations could expose the rest of the ordinance to legal challenges. The city would not want
the ordinance in entirety thrown out due to over-regulation.
~ Another point that has been mentioned several times is a Moratorium. The suggestions have
been made to have a moratorium in place until the state legislature meets in January through
April 2027. The current status is that the city has local control as to what happens in the Mandan
municipality without a whole lot of interference from the federal or state government. It is his
position that he would be afraid that the results of the January to April legislative session is
seeing communities around the state in stating moratoriums and then stating they are not going to
allow that and that would take some of the local authority away from the city. The federal
government has permitted streamlining activities for data centers, and state government has
17

Page 18 of 34

given sales tax incentives to data center developments inside the state. Therefore, with both those
subdivisions encouraging data center development he believes the city is in a unique position to
regulate to the extent that the city is inclined to do and that can be done without a lot of
interference from upper levels of government.
Building Official Singer explained that with regard to the zoning and the maps, specifically, none
of those changes have been made on the maps yet with the proposed zone changes. That is
because this process is between the first and second consideration with the City Commission.
After the second consideration, those would go into effect, however, that does not include any of
the zone changes. That was discussed at the last P & Z Commission meeting. All of the zone
changes that are going to happen whether it is an existing group or of the downtown fringe
district, many of those in that area are turning into a different district are the regular R7 zoning.
That plus all of these other areas will need to be changed yet and that has not been addressed and
will be coming at a later time so those maps have not been updated yet. What is shown now is
what is currently in place now until city staff continues in this process.
Engineer Wigness stated that there is a document that he drafted in preparation for this meeting
with regard to some changes that were identified ahead of this public hearing explaining that
there are concerns that staff discussed having ready for the Commission to consider.
~ One such item is the regulation of PFAS in wastewater from data centers. He believes that is a
reasonable additional request to include requiring PFAS free coolants is a realistic goal noting
that 3M is a coolant manufacturer and has recently switched to all PFAS free manufacturing.
Section 5(a)(1) “All closed-loop liquid cooling systems and chillers must utilize PFAS-free (perand polyfluoroalkyl substances) coolants. The applicant must submit material safety
documentation confirming the absence of PFAS in all cooling fluids prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.”
~ The NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) has been discussed. An NDA ban is something that
staff should consider including in the ordinance as well as subsequent Development Agreements
and possibly community benefit agreements. This language may have to be included in several
documents, not just the ordinance.
~ Supplementary Minimum Setback has been discussed. The city switched to a performance
based standard because there are residents questioning if it should be a half mile or should it be
one mile. The proposed location sits in a valley and there are sound changes due to the
environment being on a river, the reason for switching to a performance-based requirement,
however, a supplementary setback may be appropriate as a safety net.
~ Stricter school thresholds have been discussed and treated in the strictest performance possible.
Maybe the regulating should be at the exterior of the building at window locations rather than at
a generic property boundary. The goal will be to set it at the 35-decibel indoor classroom
learning environment. Commissioner Smith stated that he believes staff will need to regulate on
both property boundaries in order to have a defined decibel level due to having other areas where
there are no residents or anything to compare it to. That refers back to what was presented earlier
when Commissioner McLean brought up the decibel being at 55 as too high. Oracle was
advertising they are at 45-decibel at their property so if Oracle can do 45 why shouldn’t the city
do 45? Engineer Wigness stated the information was gathered from research information through
EPA documents but if there is some empirical evidence that staff should be working off of with
the goal of getting the right number in place. Engineer Wigness stated that the data that he found
18

Page 19 of 34

was anything below 55-decibel was acceptable. Commissioner Lang commented there is a line
that refers to project sites at 35 acres or less. If it’s less than 35 acres, there’s only one
monitoring site? Do you think it could be added that the city monitors all sites on four points
north, south, east, west? All studies need to be conducted on all north, south, east and west.
Engineer Wigness concurred and commented that 35 acres may not even be a site that the city
would ever see. He commented that with a modeling effort that would be associated with an
application, those modeling efforts are going to be like a contour map and there may be more
than just the four locations, yet to be defined when it is determined where the hot spots are.
Commissioner Renner inquired how all the changes will be incorporated since there have been
many recommendations brought forward by the Commissioners and the residents. Should a
subcommittee be appointed to work with the city staff that is working on it? He commented that
it is unclear what can actually be voted on tonight due to possible changes that will be made.
Chair Robinson stated that Engineer Wigness has indicated he will implement or include some of
the suggestions or changes that would or could be included. The list may be too long to put in the
form of a motion. Engineer Wigness replied that his intention is to compile a list of what will be
included so that the Commission would be in a position to make a motion rather than delay the
process. Commissioner Huber suggested creating the list and see what it looks like when it is
included in the ordinance and then bring it back to the next Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting? Chair Robinson replied that is possible but at some time but the Code needs to be
completed. He stated he is leery of the moratorium for a couple reasons. At the last session there
were a couple different house bills, House Bill 1427 they reviewed language to give the Public
Service Commission the ability to regulate siting compatibility which was pretty much word for
word, and is exactly what you went to last week. But that’s what the state was looking at. The
other reason is House Bill 1239, the language they used is that an individual may not be
prohibited, restricted, or otherwise prevented from participating in digital asset mining in an area
zoned for residential. This language is exactly the kind of language they were looking at that
you spoke against tonight. This is probably going to come up again in the upcoming session. He
believes they (state) will approve some low-hanging fruit, cooling systems, that type of thing,
however, he believes there will be more language like this considered in this upcoming session.
The governor spoke against a moratorium and representative/senator Keith Behm said it’s a bad
idea. And they would know more than us. He believes the state session is not going to do any
favors for the city. Commissioner Mudder inquired if this moves forward with a moratorium
does that mean they can override what we do here?
Chair Robinson stated there are two options today. Approve as is with modifications or table it,
as suggested. Commissioner Huber commented that going into this thinking the first public
hearing would be in July and due to city staff receiving a lot of public input, it has taken more
time to put something together with more teeth. She commented that the residents of Mandan
have in the past always shown civility, respect, compassion and demonstrated they are a strong
Community that Mandan has always been known for. She requested the residents to keep that
decorum intact throughout the remainder of this hearing and allow for a continued respectful
discussion. The panel presenting tonight have either been elected to a position or they have
volunteered their service at no compensation. She stated she is not aware of anyone who has
been asked to participate in a non-disclosure agreement but if that would give comfort, she
would be in favor of something like that being added to the ordinance. She believes it is very
19

Page 20 of 34

important that process is separated from project. This meeting is about trying to get the rules
right before any application or proposal for any location whatsoever of any size or shape comes
before the City of Mandan for consideration. The goal is to work in a very collaborative manner
between the city and Morton County, the two political subdivisions that have always had a strong
relationship and she believes that relationship is one that will continue. She stated that she
personally is not in favor of a moratorium and explained why. For example, in Bismarck, we’ve
had Dakota Carrier Network that was established sometime around 2016. That is a collaboration
of thirteen (13) independent broadband organizations in North Dakota. And for anyone in the
extraterritorial jurisdiction that’s getting your broadband or internet service from either West
River Telephone or BEC communications, it is because a facility like that exists. That is a data
center. For that reason, she believes that the research needs to look at some rules that make sense
and protect the rights of landowners and residents and adjacent property owners and business
owners and get this right so it may take a little more time. There needs to be a balance for those
needs and concerns. She stated she is in favor of looking at something with some refinements to
address some of the big picture issues that were heard throughout this meeting.
Commissioner Mudder inquired of Building Official Singer if the questions are to be sent to him
so they get to the City Commission so this can be moved forward? He commented that he is not
in favor of the state having control of what is done in Mandan. Building Official Singer replied
that he and Engineer Wigness have a list started and they will incorporate suggestions presented.
This is the ordinance and if something comes forward that needs to be addressed, staff wants to
have a resolution in place before it happens. Commissioner Intveld inquired as to how many
possible locations in Mandan could a data center be allowed without a variance or a conditional
use permit? Could there be another place for it today? Engineer Wigness replied that under the
ordinances that exist today, he does not know that answer, however, he does not believe there is
very much restriction on where they could be located because he does not think it is well defined
and what is in the ordinance that staff felt was outdated. Commissioner Smith commented it is
his understanding this matter is able to move forward and staff could provide the City
Commission to include any additional changes that this Commission would be in favor of. He
inquired if that revised Ordinance would be published before the City Commission meeting?
Building Official Singer replied that the current ordinance version with all of the suggested
changes would go out before any of those are sent to the City Commission. That would be part of
the process of noticing it along with the public hearing piece that has not be done yet.
Commissioner McLean inquired if this Commission moves it forward, will a list of the
suggestions that have been discussed be added to the original ordinance that will be a part of the
motion? Engineer Wigness explained that he has created a list, now being shown on the overhead
screen that include: PFAS, free coolants, NDA bans, supplements, the ones that he prepared
based on written feedback from the community. It includes the one that Commissioner Lang
proposed and that was basically the one concerning project size and having the four monitoring
locations north, east, south and west. Engineer Wigness concurred to the suggested change of
decibels and inquired if the recommendation would be 45-40 or 50-45? Everything seen is 50
and 45. Most of the new ones are running at about 42 nighttime and 48 during daytime. Engineer
Wigness said the standard will be to reduce each one by five (5) so the final “Reduced Decibel
Requirements” at Section 5(b)(i) will read: 50 dBA/60 dBC and 45 dBA /55 dBC.

20

Page 21 of 34

Commissioner Renner commented that he is struggling with this process because it seems
everyone has a list of recommendations for changes. He inquired if there was a way to advance
this with a stipulation that as Commissioners, we can all present something to the city what we
would like to see changed in the draft ordinance. And that can be presented to the City
Commission before their next meeting. He recommended advancing this by way of a motion
with the understanding that the Planning and Zoning Commissioners are going to forward their
recommended changes to the City Commission for their consideration to include or not include
in the ordinance? If you scroll through the list, will it cover what each Commissioner wants
changed? Commissioner Huber inquired if that would become one more individual piece of
public input at that time if it doesn’t come from discussion and developing some sort of
consensus and passing some sort of motion of either failure or recommendation? Commissioner
Renner replied that he does not believe that because the Planning and Zoning Commission will
still have the ability to give input to the city and the city is going to determine that before it goes
to the City Commission anyway. He stated he is unclear how to do this and requested help to
clarify the process. He inquired if this could be tabled until the next Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting so Building Official Singer and City Engineer Wigness will have a chance
to review what all the Commissioners stated or recommended before it gets sent to the City
Commission? Commissioner Lang commented that the discussion taking place is one of kicking
the can down the road. She stated it is her recommendation to act on this now. Commissioner
Renner disagreed with Commissioner Lang stating his goal is to get this right. Commissioner
Lang concurred the importance of getting it right. She inquired when the next City Commission
is scheduled. Engineer Wigness stated it is scheduled for Tuesday, September 1, 2026. He stated
that staff envisioned that if there was a recommendation at this meeting, that staff would present
the ordinance at the September 15, 2026 City Commission meeting. Commissioner Lang
inquired of Engineer Wigness, in his opinion, as to what is the best possibility for the Planning
and Zoning Commission to do now? Engineer Wigness replied that staff has worked diligently
on the Ordinance as written. He stated that every Ordinance can be refined forever, and, they are
refined forever. Moving forward tonight would be getting something in place and if there were
improvements to be made, if there was new information, staff would still be able to make
changes that need to be made but this would give us protection right now. Engineer Wigness’
recommendation would be to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Commission with
specific changes as were outlined, but something that is not so vague that it could be taken in
many different directions.
Commissioner McLean inquired of Commissioner Renner if he has something specific to be
added, why isn’t he sharing that now? Commissioner Renner stated that he has reviewed the
Morton County one. There has been discussion about data centers generating their own power so
they’re not on the power grid. Morton County does have specifics about what’s going to be
required if they have their own gas turbine generating power plants. We have nothing about that
in this ordinance and he believes there should be something like that added. Regarding
environmental assessment, the biological study, why does the applicant get to execute and submit
the comprehensive pre-construction inventory? Morton County is requiring US Fish and
Wildlife and ND Game and Fish to be involved? He believes we should be doing that also.
Regarding the Archaeological survey, this ordinance is saying just before the construction. What
about during construction? Morton County does address what happens if they do find any
archaeological remnants or whatever. This ordinance doesn’t have anything like that. Engineer
21

Page 22 of 34

Wigness explained that staff has addressed some of these things such as FEMA processes, Fish
and Wildlife is addressed through the FEMA process. Power generation plan is addressed under
layout of power generation systems and is found on the utility verifications for providers such as
a description of the approach and cooling methods. If there needs to be more detail in what they
need to supply in a description of the power supply approach, staff maybe could do that, but we
are trying to keep it as simple as possible explaining that city staff are not power supply experts
to list everything that might be included in power supply or power generation components rather
they would like that communicated as part of the utility verification process.
Mayor Froelich inquired how many changes have been added to this ordinance document?
Engineer Wigness replied there are six (6). Mayor Froelich inquired if this Commission would
want to take action on the six (6) changes and include them now? Chair Robinson stated that
yes, it possible because they are outlined in a list created by Engineer Wigness.
Commissioner Smith motioned to approve the six (6) changes that are set forth on the overhead
screen and that the proposed draft ordinance, if the motion passes, would therefore be amended,
that the Planning and Zoning Commission would vote on the proposed Ordinance draft, as
amended.
Commissioner McLean inquired if the motion is to approve the six (6) changes and then amend
the draft Ordinance with these six (6) changes in it? Commissioner Smith replied yes, that is
correct. Commissioner McLean seconded the motion.
Attorney Oster requested clarification, that the motion is to approve with or to recommend
approval with conditions. Is that correct?
Chair Robinson repeated that the motion by Commissioner Smith is to approve the six (6)
changes as shown. Commissioner Smith replied “yes” that it is to assure that the Commission is
in agreement to the six (6) changes.
Chair Robinson summarized the six (6) changes on the list:
(1) Phase free coolants @ Section 5(a)(1) language pertaining to the cooling system.
(2) NDA Ban @ Section 4(a) Prohibiting NDAs.
(3) Supplementary Minimum Setback @ Section 5(a). A minimum setback of five (5) feet shall
be maintained between all data center structures and equipment.
(4) Strict school thresholds @ Sections 3(h)(9) and 5(b)(1). If a person within a half mile
Radius contains lawfully established residential dwelling @ Table 1.
(5) Monitoring locations numbers @ Section 3(h)(2). A minimum of four logging instruments
shall be placed north, south, east and west.
(6) Reduce decibel threshold @ Section 5(b)(i). All measurements have been reduced by
five (5) for both daytime and nighttime thresholds. The C weighted requirements have been
reduced in order to keep the 10 decibel gap between the two metrics.
Chair Robinson announced the motion by Commissioner Smith is to change the draft Ordinance
to include the six (6) changes as stated. Commissioner McLean seconded the motion.

22

Page 23 of 34

Chair Robinson inquired if everyone understands the motion or if there were any further
questions. Hearing no responses from the Commissioners, Chair Robinson called for a roll call
vote:
Commissioner Huber: Yes; Commissioner Lang: Yes; Mayor Froelich: Yes; Commissioner
Intveld: Yes; Commissioner McLean: Yes; Commissioner Smith: Yes; Commissioner Vayda
Hammond: Yes; Commissioner Mudder: Yes; Commissioner Renner: Yes; Chair Robinson: Yes.
The motion passed.
Mayor Froelich inquired if there were any further additional amendments to add to this?
There was no response from any of the Commissioners.
Chair Robinson inquired if the Commission is ready for Step 2?
Commissioner Smith moved to approve the proposed Section 101-11-12 Data Centers provisions
that was amended for the City Commission’s further consideration. Commissioner Mudder
seconded the motion.
Chair Robinson repeated that the motion is to approve the proposed Section 101-11-12 on Data
Centers with the changes as amended for the City Commission’s further consideration.
Chair Robinson inquired if everyone understands the motion or if there were any further
questions. Hearing no responses from the Commissioners, Chair Robinson called for a roll call
vote:
Commissioner Huber: Yes; Commissioner Lang: Yes; Mayor Froelich: Yes; Commissioner
Intveld: Yes; Commissioner McLean: Yes; Commissioner Smith: Yes; Commissioner Vayda
Hammond: Yes; Commissioner Mudder: Yes; Commissioner Renner: Yes; Chair Robinson: Yes.
The motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss or come before the Board, a motion was made by
Commissioner McLean and seconded by Commissioner Hammond to adjourn the meeting. Upon
vote, the motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.

23

Page 24 of 34

Item # C.1.

Planning & Zoning Commission
Agenda Documentation
MEETING DATE:
September 28, 2026
PREPARATION DATE:
September 21, 2026
SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT: Planning
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR:
Jim Neubauer
PRESENTER:
dave wiosna
SUBJECT:
Consider a zone change from Agriculture to R7 Residential and a minor plat for Octavia's Addition.

STATEMENT/PURPOSE:
To change the zoning from Ag to R7, with a minor plat, for Octavia's Addition.
BACKGROUND/ALTERNATIVES:
STATEMENT/PURPOSE:
This is an application for a minor plat and zone change of part of NE 1/4, Section 8,
T139N R81W, Morton County, North Dakota. The plat, to be named Octavia's Addition,
consists of creating one new lot.
The property is located at 5406 Highland Place N, within Mandan ETZ.
Property History
This property has not been previously platted.
Project Overview
The proposed plat would create one lot. The proposed lot appears to be vacant.
Preliminary Plat
The plat includes:
• 1 lot
• 6.96 acres

Access to the property is assumed to come from Highland Place. A 125-foot
transmission line easement runs along the southern edge of the proposed Lot 1.

Page 25 of 34

Planning & Zoning Commission
Agenda Documentation
September 28, 2026
Subject: Consider a zone change from Agriculture to R7 - Residential and a minor plat for Octavia's
Addition.
Page 2 of 4

Requested Zone Change
Requested zone change is from Agriculture to R7 – Single-Family Residential.

Adjacent Properties Zoning, Land Use and Future Land Use
Adjacent property to the north, east, and south is Agriculture, to the west is zoned R7 Single-Family Residential.
Current land use is agricultural. The future land use plan indicates this property as
medium density residential. The Mandan future land use map also indicates a future
roadway alignment running east-west through the property.
Staff Comments
Staff have noted that this plat is in the middle of a future roadway alignment, part of the
Fringe Area Roads Master Plan (FARMP). Discussion with the applicant, city staff, and
MPO staff at a pre-planning meeting indicated that the FARMP is flexible and will likely
work with future property owners, should the proposed roadway be constructed at this
location, meaning there is no cause for concern.
Findings of Fact
Zone Change
1.The proposed zone change fulfills the goals, objectives, and policies of the future land
use plan; and
2.Fulfills the goals, objectives, and policies of other plans adopted by the city;

Public Outreach and Application Details
This item has been published in the Mandan News as required. An application and fee
were received on July 31, 2026. Letters were sent to four adjacent property owners on
September 10, 2026.
Findings of Fact
Minor Plat

Page 26 of 34

Planning & Zoning Commission
Agenda Documentation
September 28, 2026
Subject: Consider a zone change from Agriculture to R7 - Residential and a minor plat for Octavia's
Addition.
Page 3 of 4

1. All technical requirements for consideration of a minor plat have been met;
2. The proposed subdivision would likely not have substantial effects on the safety
and circulation of public roadways in the vicinity, and therefore no traffic impact
study is required;
3. The proposed plat includes sufficient easements and rights-of-way to provide for
orderly development and provision of municipal services beyond the boundaries
of the subdivision for projects identified in City masterplans;
4. The City of Mandan and other agencies would be able to provide necessary
public services, facilities and programs to serve the development allowed by the
proposed subdivision at the time of development.
5. The proposed subdivision is not located in the Special Flood Hazard Area or an
area where the proposed development would adversely impact water quality
and/or environmentally sensitive lands, or areas that are topographically unsuited
for development;
6. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the
zoning ordinance;
7. Staff have noted inconsistency between this plat and the FARMP, however this is
of minimal concern;
8. The proposed subdivision would not adversely affect the public health, safety and
general welfare.

ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Octavia's Applications Redacted
2.
Octavia's Location Map
3.
Octavia's Add. revisd 9-18-26
4.
Octavia's Addition with photo
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
STAFF IMPACT:
Minimal

Page 27 of 34

Planning & Zoning Commission
Agenda Documentation
September 28, 2026
Subject: Consider a zone change from Agriculture to R7 - Residential and a minor plat for Octavia's
Addition.
Page 4 of 4

LEGAL REVIEW:
This item has been reviewed as part of the agenda packet.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend approval of the zone change from Agriculture to R7 and of the minor
plat for Octavia's Addition.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I motion to approve the zone change from Agriculture to R7 and of the minor plat for
Octavia's Addition.

Page 28 of 34

Page 29 of 34

Page 30 of 34

Page 31 of 34

Page 32 of 34

OCTAVIA'S ADDITION

LAND DESCRIPTION

LOT 3

N00° 00' 52"W
687.14'

TO NW COR., NE 41
SEC. 8-T139N-R81W
CR#1465

MORTON COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA
PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
LYING WITHIN THE 1-MILE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF MANDAN
ALL IN SECTION 8, T139N, R81W

PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 139 NORTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 5TH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN MORTON COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE
NORTH 00° 00' 52" WEST ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1296.02 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00° 00' 52" WEST ON SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF
636.13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88° 32' 38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 454.71 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 05° 19' 11" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 616.70 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE WAPA TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT; THENCE
SOUTH 87° 39' 45" WEST ON SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 205.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 35' 55" WEST
ON SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 306.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.96 ACRES AND
SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.

LISA NORTON, ET AL
C/O SCOTT NORTON
5406 HIGHLAND RD N
MANDAN, ND 58554
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, MARK R. ISAACS, NORTH DAKOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 9628, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE
CAUSED TO BE A SURVEYED BY MY FORCES UNDER MY SUPERVISION THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON
AND I HAVE PREPARED THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT; FURTHER, THAT DISTANCE INDICATES HEREON ARE IN
FEET AND HUNDREDTHS THEREOF, AND BEARINGS AND INDICATED IN QUADRANTS AND DEGREES, MINUTES,
AND SECONDS THEREOF; FURTHER, THAT SAID PLAT DOES TRULY SHOW THE SURVEY TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

LOT 1

1

HIGHLAND PLACE

S88° 32' 38"E
454.71'

MARK R. ISAACS, RLS 9628

.

SCALE: 1" = 50'
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION
0

NORTH PRAIRIE
THIRD SUBDIVISION

25

50

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2026
VERTICAL DATUM - NAVD 1988.
BASED ON NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH
ZONE-NAD83, INTERNATIONAL FEET.
MEASUREMENTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED
BY RTK FROM THE "NDBK" CORS STATION
AND ARE REPORTED IN GRID.

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING SOLE OWNERS OF THE LAND PLATTED HEREON, DO HEREBY VOLUNTARILY
CONSENT TO THE EXECUTION OF SAID PLAT AND DO DEDICATE ALL THE STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS, AND
PUBLIC GROUNDS AS SHOWN HEREON, INCLUDING ALL SEWERS, CULVERTS, BRIDGES, WATERLINES,
SIDEWALKS, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON OR UNDER SUCH STREETS, ALLEYS OR OTHER PUBLIC
GROUNDS, WHETHER SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN HEREON OR NOT, TO PUBLIC USE FOREVER. WE
ALSO DEDICATE EASEMENTS TO RUN WITH THE LANDS FOR WATER, SEWER, GAS, ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE,
OR OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY LINES OR SERVICES UNDER, ON OR OVER THESE CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND
DESIGNATION AS "UTILITY EASEMENT".

______________________________________
LISA M. NORTON

D

RD

MYRON F. SCHMIDT &
CARRIE L. SCHMIDT
5405 HIGHLAND RD N
MANDAN, ND 58554

______________________________________
STEVE P. NORTON

616.70'
S05° 19' 11"E

G
HL
AN

N00° 00' 52"W
636.13'

HI

1
LOT 1

STATE OF _______________ )
) SS
COUNTY OF ______________)

303,014 SF
6.96 ACRES

NW

___________________________________
SCOTT H. NORTON

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC. THIS

DAY OF

, 20____.

NOTARY PUBLIC __________________________

LOT 4

1
APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS
THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA, HAS APPROVED THE
SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHOWN HEREON, HAS ACCEPTED THE DEDICATION OF ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, AND
PUBLIC WAYS SHOWN HEREON LYING WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MANDAN, HAS
ACCEPTED THE DEDICATION OF ALL PARKS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS SHOWN HEREON, FURTHERMORE, SAID
BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS HAS APPROVED THE STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC WAYS AND
GROUNDS SHOWN HEREON AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN OF THE CITY OF MANDAN,
THE FOREGOING ACTION BY THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS OF MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA, HAS TAKEN
BY RESOLUTION APPROVED THE_______DAY OF_________, 20___.

NORTH PRAIRIE
SECOND SUBDIVISION

_________________________________________
JIM NEUBAUER - CITY ADMINISTRATOR

LOT 3
POINT OF
BEGINNING

______________________________________
JAMES FROELICH - PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD
OF CITY COMMISSIONERS

205.59'
S87° 39' 45"W

306.18'
S89° 35' 55"W

I, JAREK WIGNESS, CITY ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA. HEREBY APPROVES "OCTAVIA'S
ADDITION" OF THE CITY OF MANDAN, MORTON COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA AS SHOWN ON THE ANNEXED PLAT.

64.6'

125' WAPA TRANSMISSION
LINE EASEMENT
__________________________________
JAREK WIGNESS, PE

N00° 00' 52"W
1296.02'

TO SW COR., NE 41
SEC. 8-T139N-R81W
CR#1463

LOT 2

OWNERS:
LISA M. NORTON
2030 N. WASHINGTON STREET #4
BISMARCK, ND 58501

ACREAGE TABLE

LEGEND

LOT 1

303,014 SF

6.96 ACRES

FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT

TOTAL

303,014 SF

6.96 ACRES

SET CAPPED REBAR "LS-9628"

NOTES:
1. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES MAY VARY FROM
PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD DUE TO
DIFFERENT METHODS OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS.
2. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD
WHETHER SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN.

SCOTT H. NORTON
5406 HIGHLAND ROAD
MANDAN, ND 58554

OCTAVIA'S ADDITION
NORTHEAST QUARTER
SECTION 8
T 139 N, R 81 W
MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA

I ndependent
Land
Surveying &
Engineering

STEVE P. NORTON
5200 HIGHLAND ROAD
MANDAN, ND 58554

Page 33 of 34

OCTAVIA'S ADDITION

LAND DESCRIPTION

LOT 3

N00° 00' 52"W
687.14'

TO NW COR., NE 41
SEC. 8-T139N-R81W
CR#1465

TO THE CITY OF MANDAN, MORTON COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA
PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, T139N, R81W

PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 139 NORTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 5TH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN MORTON COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE
NORTH 00° 00' 52" WEST ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1296.02 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00° 00' 52" WEST ON SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF
636.13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88° 32' 38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 454.71 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 05° 19' 11" EAST A
DISTANCE OF 616.70 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE WAPA TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT; THENCE
SOUTH 87° 39' 45" WEST ON SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 205.59 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 35' 55" WEST
ON SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 306.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 6.96 ACRES AND
SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD.

LISA NORTON, ET AL
C/O SCOTT NORTON
5406 HIGHLAND RD N
MANDAN, ND 58554

S88° 32' 38"E
454.71'
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE

1

HIGHLAND PLACE

LOT 1

I, MARK R. ISAACS, NORTH DAKOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 9628, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE
CAUSED TO BE A SURVEYED BY MY FORCES UNDER MY SUPERVISION THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON
AND I HAVE PREPARED THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT; FURTHER, THAT DISTANCE INDICATES HEREON ARE IN
FEET AND HUNDREDTHS THEREOF, AND BEARINGS AND INDICATED IN QUADRANTS AND DEGREES, MINUTES,
AND SECONDS THEREOF; FURTHER, THAT SAID PLAT DOES TRULY SHOW THE SURVEY TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

MARK R. ISAACS, RLS 9628

NORTH PRAIRIE
THIRD SUBDIVISION

.

SCALE: 1" = 50'
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION
0

25

50

DATE: SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2026
VERTICAL DATUM - NAVD 1988.
BASED ON NORTH DAKOTA SOUTH
ZONE-NAD83, INTERNATIONAL FEET.
MEASUREMENTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED
BY RTK FROM THE "NDBK" CORS STATION
AND ARE REPORTED IN GRID.

D

RD

MYRON F. SCHMIDT &
CARRIE L. SCHMIDT
5405 HIGHLAND RD N
MANDAN, ND 58554

______________________________________
LISA M. NORTON

616.70'
S05° 19' 11"E

G
HL
AN

N00° 00' 52"W
636.13'

HI

1
LOT 1

___________________________________
SCOTT H. NORTON

______________________________________
STEVE P. NORTON

303,014 SF
6.96 ACRES

NW

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING SOLE OWNERS OF THE LAND PLATTED HEREON, DO HEREBY VOLUNTARILY
CONSENT TO THE EXECUTION OF SAID PLAT AND DO DEDICATE ALL THE STREETS, ALLEYS, PARKS, AND
PUBLIC GROUNDS AS SHOWN HEREON, INCLUDING ALL SEWERS, CULVERTS, BRIDGES, WATERLINES,
SIDEWALKS, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON OR UNDER SUCH STREETS, ALLEYS OR OTHER PUBLIC
GROUNDS, WHETHER SUCH IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN HEREON OR NOT, TO PUBLIC USE FOREVER. WE
ALSO DEDICATE EASEMENTS TO RUN WITH THE LANDS FOR WATER, SEWER, GAS, ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE,
OR OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY LINES OR SERVICES UNDER, ON OR OVER THESE CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND
DESIGNATION AS "UTILITY EASEMENT".

STATE OF _______________ )
) SS
COUNTY OF ______________)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC. THIS

DAY OF

, 20____.

LOT 4
NOTARY PUBLIC __________________________

1

NORTH PRAIRIE
SECOND SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS
THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA, HAS APPROVED THE
SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHOWN HEREON, HAS ACCEPTED THE DEDICATION OF ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, AND
PUBLIC WAYS SHOWN HEREON LYING WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MANDAN, HAS
ACCEPTED THE DEDICATION OF ALL PARKS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS SHOWN HEREON, FURTHERMORE, SAID
BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS HAS APPROVED THE STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC WAYS AND
GROUNDS SHOWN HEREON AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER STREET PLAN OF THE CITY OF MANDAN,
THE FOREGOING ACTION BY THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS OF MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA, HAS TAKEN
BY RESOLUTION APPROVED THE_______DAY OF_________, 20___.

LOT 3
POINT OF
BEGINNING

_________________________________________
JIM NEUBAUER - CITY ADMINISTRATOR

205.59'
S87° 39' 45"W

306.18'
S89° 35' 55"W

______________________________________
JAMES FROELICH - PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD
OF CITY COMMISSIONERS

64.6'

125' WAPA TRANSMISSION
LINE EASEMENT

I, JAREK WIGNESS, CITY ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA. HEREBY APPROVES "OCTAVIA'S
ADDITION" OF THE CITY OF MANDAN, MORTON COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA AS SHOWN ON THE ANNEXED PLAT.

__________________________________
JAREK WIGNESS, PE

S00° 00' 52"E
1296.02'

TO SW COR., NE 41
SEC. 8-T139N-R81W
CR#1463

LOT 2

OCTAVIA'S ADDITION
NORTHEAST QUARTER
SECTION 8
T 139 N, R 81 W
MANDAN, NORTH DAKOTA

ACREAGE TABLE

LEGEND

LOT 1

303,014 SF

6.96 ACRES

FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT

TOTAL

303,014 SF

6.96 ACRES

SET CAPPED REBAR "LS-9628"

NOTES:
1. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES MAY VARY FROM
PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD DUE TO
DIFFERENT METHODS OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS.
2. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD
WHETHER SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN.

I ndependent
Land
Surveying &
Engineering

OWNER:
LISA NORTON ET AL
C/O SCOTT NORTON
5727 HIGHLAND PLACE NORTH
MANDAN, ND 58554

Page 34 of 34