Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I'll call this September 1st Planning Commission meeting to order. Oh, I guess I better introduce myself. I'm Art Rosenberg, the chair, and we have another, we have a vice chair now, a new one. Tommy Schmidt is going to do that position. Thanks, Tommy. And thank you for, I guess, electing us commissioners for giving us this opportunity to do this. Thank you. I'm not gonna miss a meeting again. And we'll start the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? So move. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Can I get a motion on the minutes? Any questions, changes, deletions? Move to approve.

Second.

Moved and seconded to approve the minutes. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. We'll open it up for the first public hearing, back 40 edition. Megan?

Good afternoon, Chair and Planning Commissioners. Agenda items 1A and 1B is entitled the Back 40 Addition. Back 40 Addition. This is a major subdivision and zone change request. This is in a portion of the Northeast Corridor of Section 10, Township 138 North and Range 49 West. We're located here. This is 64th Avenue South, and we're just west of I-29. Adjacent is Covey Ranch 3rd Addition, which your board reviewed back in January of this year. It's just right next door to the west. This application is for a zone change to rezone from agricultural to GC general commercial with a CO conditional overlay, LC limited commercial with a CO, and MR3 with a CO, and then finally PI public and institutional. Property is located at 3720 and 3734 64th Avenue South and 6711 and 6801 38th Street South. Later on your agenda in item D1, there's also an annexation request related to about the same area. So here are some photos on site that were taken just recently here. Up at the top of your screen, this is right where Sports Drive is proposed to be located looking into the site in the distance. And the image on the bottom of the screen is from that same location looking east. So you'll see the 64th Avenue Bridge in the distance. AND THE UPPER IMAGE ON THE LEFT SHOWS JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER EAST SO IT'S STARTING THAT APPROACH INTO THE 64th AVENUE SOUTH BRIDGE AND LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM THERE. AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN IT'S JUST LOOKING STRAIGHT WEST FROM 64th AVENUE. AND THEN JUST AT THE UPPER RIGHT THIS IS FACING NORTH AND THIS IS THE GREEN ARROW RIGHT HERE WHERE YOU'LL SEE A PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS UNDER 64th AVENUE. A larger plot, this is 61.88 acres. There's three lots, I'm sorry, three blocks and seven lots. So there's been some master planning, especially with the adjacent property owners. back when Covey Ranch third edition was coming through, particularly in terms of roadway alignment and connectivity. Other things that we've been working on with the applicants and owners are stormwater management, utilities, coordination with the park district, and then design standards related to those conditional overlays. Up on your screen is a zoning exhibit. Just note this exhibit is a little bit outdated from your current plot, including the boundary. Note that on this image, North is to your left. So 64th Avenue is right here. And if anybody needs me to rotate that to help orient them, please let me know. So this is one block. The reddish color you see is proposed to be general commercial. And then over here, block two is the MR zone property. And then in between is the LC property. And what's not shown here, again, this is an outdated plot, is PI. And this will be owned by the city of Fargo. And it will be where the interstate ramps will be located. A little bit on the conditional overlay. So those lots, GC, LC, and MR3 will have a conditional overlay. The PI lot will not. There's two sections. This is very similar to the Covey Ranch 3rd Edition, which is also very similar to, in general, conditional overlays that are located south of I-94 and west of I-29. There's two sections related to commercial and mixed-use development, though there's no mixed-use being proposed at this time. and then a section related to residential development. So typically our conditional overlays include building form and style, site design, prohibited uses, and signage. And there are a couple different tweaks in here related to the asterisk, the building form and style and signage that are a little bit unique to this area. The draft conditional overlay is in your packet. So up on your screen is the plat of back 40 addition. So it dedicates right of way for 64th Avenue North. Up here is the lot that the City of Fargo owns that's being plotted into one lot. This is where the ramps for Interstate will be located. Then we have four lots on this block and then these remaining lots that would be MR3 and Limited Commercial. So this dedicates right-of-way as well for Sports Drive South. It dedicates the remaining half, you can see my cursor, for Sports Drive South for about, I believe it's 800, 900 feet. BEFORE IT TRANSITIONS HERE IN THE FULL RIGHT OF WAY IS DEDICATED FOR SPORTS DRIVE SOUTH. COVERY RANCH OF COURSE DEDICATED THAT FIRST HALF OR IS PROPOSED TO DEDICATE THAT FIRST HALF STILL GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS BUT WITH THEIR PLOT. AND THEN SPORTS DRIVE SOUTH WILL HAVE A TEMPORARY TURNAROUND HERE AT THE END UNTIL A FUTURE POINT WHERE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE DEDICATED. ON 64th AVENUE SOUTH AT SPORTS DRIVE SOUTH IS INTENDED TO BE A THREE-QUARTER ACCESS SO THERE WILL BE A WEST BOUND LEFT TURN LANE INTO SPORTS DRIVE AND THEN ON 64th AVENUE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TURN RIGHT IN AND THEN RIGHT OUT. SO NOT A FULL INTERSECTION. AND BASED ON ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC DEMANDS, THERE WILL BE SOME ACCESS RESTRICTIONS FOR THAT FIRST BLOCK ON SPORTS DRIVE SOUTH. BECAUSE THIS INTERSECTION IS ONLY A THREE-QUARTER ACCESS, ORIGINALLY IT WAS THOUGHT for the need to be a right in, right out. But because of that intersection, the first full access intersection will be further to the west on 40th Street. And I've got an exhibit later to kind of show you where that's at. But there'll be two roadways that will go into Covey Ranch that will go into 40th Street South to get to that full access intersection. So this area of land does not have direct access to a full access intersection. The reason that this isn't full access is just based on its spacing and DOT requirements to those interstate ramps. One thing to note, as well as 67th Avenue coming from the west, originally that was intended to be 66th Avenue. It's the same avenue. It now will be 67th Avenue, and that will also carry through to the proposed Covey Ranch addition. Also note there's negative access easements on the plat that DENOTE WHERE OR RESTRICT WHERE ACCESS CAN BE INTO LOTS AND OFF OF THE PUBLIC STREETS. ONE THING I'LL NOTE AS WELL, PER THE PARK DISTRICT'S REQUEST, THERE IS A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT COMES FROM THE CHANNEL, SO THERE WILL BE A 10-FOOT PEDESTRIAN PATH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STORM WATER CHANNEL. THAT STORM WATER CHANNEL AND THE LAND FOR THAT IS GETTING DEDICATED WITH THE PROPOSED COVEY RANCH THIRD EDITION PLAT. THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT The right side of the image, but the south side of the plat will run east on the south side of the plat, connect almost to interstate here, at least the edge of the plat, and then go north all the way up to property owned by the City of Fargo with the intent that it will connect with that pedestrian underpass and that image that you saw earlier in the presentation. So pedestrian connectivity, there's not any park dedication with this plat, but the facility is part of the park district's desires. There is, lastly there is with the plat, there is an amenities plan that's attached to your packet and staff is also working on a developer's agreement. Those items relate specifically to design and construction improvements, utility specifics, access management, stormwater and flood protection requirements and special assessments. So I've alluded to a little bit, this development is dependent on the adjacent development, proposed development of Covey Ranch Third Edition for the subsequent infrastructure and construction permitting, particularly for access and connectivity. As noted, it dedicates half of Sports Drive South. There is not a full access intersection for this development. It is only through Covey Ranch Third Edition to get to that full access intersection of 40th STREET AND 64th AVENUE SOUTH. AND THERE'S IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, AND I'LL READ THAT HERE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES THAT FOR PERMITTING, DEPENDING ON SIZE, BUILDING TYPE, AND NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, A SECOND POINT FOR THE DEVELOP MAY BE REQUIRED BASED ON FIRE CODE. AND FOR UTILITIES, I'M GOING TO JUMP BACK TO THE PLAT, STORM WATER FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR THROUGH THE STORM WATER CHANNEL AND THROUGH AN EASEMENT COINCIDING WITH THAT PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT. hook up to the stormwater channel that's being dedicated as part of the Covey Ranch Third Platte. So for stormwater requirements, all of that infrastructure is needing to be secured in order to service this development. So without the Covey Ranch, there aren't other viable means to address kind of those items that I've mentioned here. And so at this point, because Covey Ranch is moving forward as scheduled for the September 14th city commission meeting, all items are addressed at this point, but you'll see that there's a contingency in staff's recommendation. So this is just a really crude splice just to kind of show you how interrelated or how connected these two developments are. And so you'll see, On either side there's half of Sports Drive South being dedicated and you'll see 65th Avenue and 67th Avenue that both connect to 40th Street that would bring somebody all the way up to that intersection at 64th Avenue that would be a full access intersection. Lastly, I'll note that a representative of the adjacent Covey Ranch addition did reach out and inquired about this application. So up on your screen is staff's recommended motion. That concludes staff's presentation. And Nate Volmuth with Goldmark Design and Development is here should you have any questions. Thank you.

Thanks, Megan. Any questions from the commission?

I just have a technical question, Megan. The three-quarter access intersection, which access is prohibited here? Or which turn?

A left hand out of Sports Drive onto... Westbound 64th Avenue would not be allowed here.

Any other questions?

Megan, you said that this conditional overlay is similar to other ones we've done, except for minor differences at signage and something else. Could you explain what those differences are?

Yep, I will. So in the conditional overlay that's attached to your packet, there are some provisions for some extra protections or some extra design requirements related to certain uses that could be like a limited vehicle service use. So maybe a tire shop or a facility that is maybe accessory to a larger structure. So think like Costco that has the tire facility with it that's kind of part of it versus a standalone. And then some specific requirements related to, so if you can see this lot one, block three is a triangular lot that butts up to the single family lots. There's some provisions related to that. And then signage due to its proximity to the interstate really ratcheting down the ability for having a pole sign or a pylon sign.

Any other questions for Megan? Thanks, Megan. I'll ask the applicant to come up and give us an update on what you're doing, Nate.

Thank you, Planning Commissioner Nate Volmoth with Goldmark Design Development. Megan did a great job explaining the project and the development. I'm here for any questions that you have. I don't have anything further to expand on, however.

Any questions for Nate right now? Nate, how are you going to deal with that limited commercial next to the residential? What's your thoughts on that? How that's going to work with the setbacks and what's going on there?

I guess we don't know yet, Chairman, what we'll need to do, but it'll be a case-by-case basis depending on the use, and obviously a more intense use will require additional buffers and restrictions onto the single-family lots to the west.

Okay. Anybody else have any questions for Nate? Thank you. Any other items, anything else? Any commissioners have any questions? I'll entertain a motion.

Commissioner, you need to open the public hearing.

Oh, I gotta close the public hearing, thank you. Okay, I will close the public hearing and call the, any, Questions? Can I entertain a motion from the commissioner?

Commissioner, I think you need to open it first and then close it.

Oh, I didn't open it either. Thank you. I don't have those notes, Donald.

Sorry.

I'm going to blame Donald.

I think you had that one, sir.

Sorry. My fault. Yeah. I'm going to open it up. Yeah. Can we? Please? Promise? No. Okay. I'm going to open the hearing for the Public hearing for back 40 addition. Is there anybody here that would like to have anything on the record or against? If not, I will close the public hearing. And commissioners, what's your?

I'll move the recommended motion.

Excuse me. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Roll call.

Glei. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Motion carries. Move on to 2A, 2B, the Village West 5th Edition, Donald Kress.

Afternoon commissioners Donald Cress of the Department of Planning and Development Our next item here is the village West fifth edition This is located 13th Avenue south here. Here's West acres. Here is 45th Street Let's try that again here This is 45th Street Here's the subject property. This is the Olive Garden as a reference point here. I There are two requests here. One is a minor subdivision and one is a zone change. And we'll take a look at those two items in a minute here. This is what the property looks like from various directions. This is facing north across 13th Avenue. This office building has been here since the late 1980s, I believe. This is looking at the east side. This red line here Shows what the basis of the subdivision is as you see these the parking for this area has Goes almost all the way to the garages of the apartment lot north to it This is actually properties actually on the next lot to the north so our subdivision will move this lot line Over to here so that the parking lot for this property is all entirely on one property and under one zone Then this is on the backside here, 11th Avenue and 44th Street. This is the apartments, the Cheyenne Estates apartments. And then this is on the other corner, just looking at those apartments. They will not change. They will just remain there as they are with their accessory buildings. So the zoning here. Again, here's our Office building down here this general commercial zoned area I'm going to move that lot line up and rezone that part to mr3 this piece of GC zoning is actually left over from 1989 That's just going to stay there for right now. That'll be addressed at a future Zone change or when the city rezones after the land development code so again just a little more detail here's that lot line that I had in red that lot lines going to move in here and And then this area will be rezoned from MR3 to GC. Sort of a complex explanation for a pretty simple idea here. Here's the plat that shows the new lot line there, lines up with the existing. The underlying plat is a replat of Village West Edition from the 1970s that has been cut up and moved around a little bit over the years. So this is nice that this creates two lots for this, very neat lots for this, lot one and lot two of block one of Village West Fifth Edition. We received two inquiries from neighboring property owners. They're just interested in what's going on. There was no opposition We talked to them send them the plat And there is no new development proposed at this time again. Just really correcting that lot line in the zoning The applicants representative david schlossman is with us this afternoon may wish to address the commission the Recommended motion is stated in your staff report and shown on the screen that includes staffs presentation.

Thank you commissioners Thanks, Donald Commissioners do you have any questions for Donald? Okay, thanks Donald. Mr. Schlossman, do you have anything you'd wanna add? Any questions for David? Okay, I'll open the hearing for Village West fifth edition. Anybody like to testify on or opposed to Village West fifth edition? If not, I'll close the hearing. Commissioners?

Move to approve based on staff recommendation.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. We'll do a roll call.

Schmidt?

Aye.

Betlock?

Aye.

Haas? Aye. Cecil? Aye. Sundberg?

Aye.

Lai? Aye. Gordry? Aye. Safran?

Aye.

Rosenberg?

Aye. Motion carries. Move on to agenda item number three, South Haven Third Edition. Donald.

Yes, sir. Thank you. South Haven Third Edition is located down here on 65th Avenue South for some landmarks here. We have the intersection of 25th Street and 64th Avenue. Here's the county drain here. These lots are located here on 65th Avenue. This original underlying subdivision, South Haven, has been here since 1964 before it was in the city of Fargo. It was replatted, as your staff report indicates, it was replatted here a few years ago, parts of it were anyway, to the South Haven second edition, and this is the South Haven third edition. So it's four lots here along 65th Avenue South. looks about like this here these just facing east and west along the property frontage the aerial photo development has advanced past your aerial photo on the far east of these lots these townhomes have been developed that doesn't show on your aerial photo those are more recent those are not part of our project but they're out there so just again looking at the area to be developed these trees there are residences on the other side of these trees here and then this is just looking down the street, same thing just so you can see what the other side of the street looks like ready for development there. The zoning here is SR3 single dwelling residential and will remain the same. So these four lots are going to get divided into eight lots and we're going to do something that we don't do very often here and that is use a configuration called a flag lot. This is very common in some parts of the country. We generally discourage it here but The background of this, for your commissioner's background, is when these lots were platted, think of these as two pairs of lots. This is just one of them. They were platted in the second edition as having a common easement up the middle, an access and utility easement. and to have those townhomes like are being built on the east end, built on all these pairs of lots. Well, in this case, the applicant is proposing something different and talked about dividing each of these larger lots into two and then into three, and we had some back-and-forth discussion, but we settled on having two. But instead of just using that easement, since these are going to be large single-family lots, we felt it was appropriate for each lot to have its own right-of-way touch. So I see the flag imagery. Here's the flag, and here's the pole. So that's why we call it that. So we will have these rear two lots have their own right-of-way touch. So everybody touches the right-of-way. Here is the plat. So again, you see here are the lots one, two, three, and four are the lots in the rear. They're the flag lots. And then lots five, six, seven, and eight are the front. So again, individual large lots. And based on some discussion we had the other day with the Applicant and the commissioners will clarify that there will be one driveway for each set of four lots So there won't be the fronts the front here won't have their individual access They will all share this that easement will remain there So that they can all traverse across that probably about 20 foot wide driveway comfortably But there will be just one access for each group of Lots and The applicant's representative, Trent Carl of Houston Engineering, is with us this afternoon. I believe Mr. Tihan of Kruger is with us too. Jimmy Tihan, the builder. They may wish to address the commission. We did not have any questions or comments on this from the public. And the recommended motion is stated in your staff report and shown on the screen. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you, commissioners.

Thanks, Donald. Any questions from the commission?

I have one. Donald, will there be an insurement that sidewalks will be provided to all of the lots?

Right. I didn't want to overload you with photographs here, ma'am. But as you see here, so we're looking down the street here. This is where those developed lots are. So the sidewalk will go in as the buildings are built. And then the sidewalk's just off the left of this picture here. So as the buildings get built, the sidewalk will be continued as it has been on the other side.

Thank you.

Yeah, Don, you said that you'd normally discourage these flag pipe lots. Can you explain the purpose or the reason?

Oh, it's really... It's sort of a planning theory idea. We think of these more as a problem solver lot to do something a little different. There are developments in other places where they just stack flag lots back six or eight deep, and it's really an odd configuration, and you can see the problems that could lead to complications that could lead to. There's nothing bad about it. It's just we don't usually... Opportunity doesn't come up to use it very often because you know we have some our land is pretty open. But those who live in lakes country might have long strips of property before you actually get to your lake lot. That's the same kind of thing. So again, not a not a bad or an evil thing, just something that we don't really use here and and we try not to create overly complicated plots. But this lent itself to this.

Donald, how do you deal with snow removal then?

How do you mean, sir?

Well, I mean, if you're in the back and the guys up front aren't moving the snow, what?

I believe there will be an agreement for the shared driveway that will address that. Perhaps Mr. Tehan can talk about that as well.

Any other questions for Donald? Okay, I'll have the applicant come up. Come on up.

To answer your question, it's a private shared driveway, as Donald implied. So we'll be either setting up an agreement or HOA to have that taken care of through the HOA or privately.

Could you state your name?

Oh, sorry, Jimmy Tehan with Kruger Construction.

Thanks. Okay, that makes sense. Any other questions for Jimmy? Do you have anything else you want to add about what you're building there or how it's going to work? Just single families, that's the plan right now?

Correct, single family is the intended purpose.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll open the hearing for South Haven third edition. Does anybody have anything they want to add? If not, I'll close the hearing for South Haven third edition. What's the commission's wishes?

I'll make a motion to accept the findings and recommendations of staff.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Roll call.

Bly. Aye. Schmidt.

Aye.

Cass. Aye. Stofferin.

Aye.

Sundberg.

Aye.

Geordry. Aye. Vetlock.

Aye.

Cecil.

Aye.

Rosenberg.

Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thanks, Donald. Move on to agenda item 4A, B, and C, title Urban Plains Medical Park, third edition. Chelsea.

Hello, Commissioners. Chelsea Laverson with the Planning Department. Agenda item 4A, B, and C is for Urban Plains Medical Park, third edition. Entitlements include a minor subdivision, a zone change, and a conditional use permit for a parking reduction. The property is located at 4767 and 4745 30th Avenue South. It is located along 30th Avenue South here. 32nd Avenue South is just to the south and 45th Street is to the east. Here's some photos of the site. Both photos were taken from 30th Avenue South, shown right down here. THE TOP PHOTO SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FACING NORTHWEST AND THE BOTTOM PHOTO IS FACING NORTHEAST SHOWING THE ADJACENT DAY CARE CENTER. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED COMMERCIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO MR3 MULTIDWELLING RESIDENTIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING. The proposed MR3 zoning would allow a maximum density of 24 units per acre, which equates to approximately 103 apartment units. The draft conditional overlay is in your packet. It is a modified version of the original with added requirements for detached accessory structures. THE MINOR SUBDIVISION IS A REPLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, URBAN PLAINS MEDICAL PARK EDITION AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, URBAN PLAINS MEDICAL PARK EDITION OR SECOND EDITION TO BE TITLED URBAN PLAINS MEDICAL PARK THIRD EDITION. NO EASEMENTS ARE BEING ADDED OR REMOVED. THE SUBDIVISION WILL SIMPLY REPLAT TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT. ON YOUR SCREEN IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. applicant is proposing 103 unit multi-family apartment building with outdoor amenities. As part of the proposal, the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for a parking reduction. The land development code would require 2.25 spaces per unit. Therefore, 232 spaces would be required. The applicant is proposing to provide 206 spaces with a parking ratio of two spaces per unit REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF 26 SPACES OR 11.2%. OF THOSE 206 SPACES, 46 WILL BE TUCK UNDER GARAGES WHICH ARE SHOWN IN BLUE. 20 WILL BE DETACHED GARAGES AND 140 WILL BE SURFACE PARKING. ON YOUR SCREEN IS INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS SHOULD THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE APPROVED TODAY. Staff have not received any inquiries regarding any of the requested entitlements. The applicant's representative, Brian Pattengill, is here today if you have any questions about the project. Thank you, commissioners. That concludes staff's presentation.

Thanks, Chelsea. Any questions for Chelsea?

I do. Is there adjacent on-street parking adjacent to this site that can help fill some of that parking gap?

There is not. 30th Avenue South right here does not have on-street parking. Brant Drive over here does allow for on-street parking on both sides, but 30th does not.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Chelsea? Thank you. Thanks, Chels. Mr. Patengale?

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brian Pattengill with Houston Engineering. We will talk a little bit about the parking reduction there. We have met with staff beforehand on this to discuss the parking reduction. We originally had requesting a 1.8 stalls per unit ratio. After some discussion with Jeremy Gordon, he felt that that was a little tight due to the specific citation of lack of street parking on 30th. So we came back and proposed the two-unit ratio, which Jeremy Gordon was acceptable with that. Additionally, we kind of tinkered with some of the on-the-street accessory building structures versus detached garages versus surface parking to deal with that. Additionally, the parking reduction we're requesting is based on the maximum theoretical reduction, that 2.25 per unit is based on one bedroom and larger we don't anticipate all units being one bedroom and larger in this but we don't know the exact mix so to be on the safe side and actually present the maximum reduction we would need would be the 26 26 stalls we anticipate our actual reduction once we determine the final unit mix of the building to be less than the 26 stalls Because we will have some studio one-bedroom like some studio apartments versus or efficiency apartments versus all one-bedroom and larger apartments So our actual reduction when we come back in for permitting will likely be Less, but as we're still working through the metrics and everything and getting the final building Layup figured out we proposed the maximum So everyone to be clear that we weren't trying to hide anything or play any games Any questions for mr. Pat and Gail

Brian, when you've been doing these parking studies and this analysis for all these multifamily Is there been any? Is there any information that talks about the people that are renting that rent 2 bedroom units that are only one person that are using for an office? And you know, do we have any of that?

I don't have any of that information. The numbers we've proposed. If you look in the attached parking memo, the numbers we pulled are from other properties. The developer owns as far as what they're actually seeing on their properties for people who are renting garages and renting extra stuff. They're generally seen and ratios are closer to that 1718 ratio type of thing as far as what they're actually seeing on their property as a whole now I don't have to have any detailed information, but I don't have any of that off the top of my head I'd have to go back to the developer and request if they've got some information on Who's renting one bedroom two bedroom what your occupancy is as far as a number of actual occupants in the building I?

I was just curious because of the national standards and other things, if anybody had said, you know, any of the write-ups were talking about the fact that, you know, some of this parking reduction makes sense because of, OF WHAT THE USES AND THE PEOPLE IN THERE.

YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE STUFF FROM I.T.E. AND THINGS LIKE THAT, INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, IT'S HARD TO CORRELATE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS TO UNITS A LOT OF TIMES BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO GET THOSE ACTUAL COUNTS. MOST OF THE STUDIES ARE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE BUILDING AND JUST HOW MANY SURFACE PARKING AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SEE FOR VEHICLES. So I don't know if there's any studies out there that directly correlate resident numbers to parking stalls and kind of how it's broken down between how many occupants are in each building. Again, I could talk with my developers and see if they've got any of that internal information, but I do not have any of that.

I think the numbers they presented were fine, but I just was curious. As we work on LDC and we're looking at these parking minimums and reductions of all the options we have available to us, Any other questions for Mr. Patengale? Thanks, Brian.

Thank you, guys.

I'll open up the hearing for Urban Plains Medical Park third edition. Does anybody here like to testify for or against? If not, I'll close the hearing for Urban Plains Medical Park third edition. What's the commission's wishes?

I'll move to approve per staff's recommendation.

I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. We'll call roll call vote, please.

Cecil.

Aye.

Vetlock.

Aye.

Georgie. Aye. Sundberg.

Aye.

Stafford.

Aye.

Schmidt.

Aye.

Lai.

Aye.

Pass. Aye. Rosenberg.

Aye. Motion carries. We'll move on to item number five, Christensen, 32nd Avenue South, fourth edition. Luke.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Luke Moorman with the Planning Department. Item 5 on your agenda is located at 3102 and 3150, 36th Street South. If you follow my cursor on the screen, here is I-29, 32nd Avenue South, 36th Street South, and 31st Avenue, which is on the north side of the subject property. Looking at the site photos, on the top we are facing south along 31st Avenue South. And same thing here, kind of in the center of the screen, which is more focused on the adjacent residential garage as well as the pond slope here, which I'll explain further in a moment. And then on the bottom right, we're facing west from 31st Avenue South, and you can see the existing sidewalk there. The zoning is currently GC General Commercial with a CO Conditional Overlay, and it's changing to GC with a CO Overlay. SO THIS ENTITLEMENT REQUEST IS ESSENTIALLY TO MODIFY THE CURRENT CO. SO TO TALK THROUGH THE PROPOSAL A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS AREAL IMAGERY, FROM 2024, YOU PROBABLY RECOGNIZE THE SUBWAY PROPERTIES THAT WERE RECENTLY PLATTED WITH CHRISTIANSEN 32nd AVENUE SOUTH FOURTH EDITION WHICH CAME BEFORE YOU COMMISSIONED IN JULY AND HAS SINCE BEEN RECORDED. GIVING A QUICK HISTORY OF THE AREA, IN 2022 THE PROPERTIES BEGAN REDEVELOPMENT WITH PLATTING AND ZONE CHANGES WHICH CREATED THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THAT'S BETWEEN 36th STREET HERE AND THEN 33rd STREET IS TO THE EAST WHICH RUNS NORTH AND SOUTH. AND THEN WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO PORTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION WERE DEVELOPED WHICH YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HERE AT THE END OF THE IMAGE IS A RETAIL STRIP CENTER AND THEN CIRCLE K GAS STATION. And during that time, the stormwater pond was also built. As the applicant began subdividing and applying for building permits on some of the remaining lots in 2026, the prospective buyers and the applicant indicated safety concerns and other challenges when trying to provide pedestrian connections from the proposed developments in the existing context of the site, specifically for the pond along 31st Avenue South on the north here. The CO was created before the redevelopment and this area has kind of been developed lot by lot over the years without an overall master plan which has led to the current zoning change request today. With the auto-centric users proposed in two of these subject properties, the residential protection standards that exist, limited space between the pond slope adjacent properties, adjacent buildings, the applicant contends that the proposed layouts are difficult to account for the pedestrian connectivity and safety. To address these concerns, the applicant proposes a fence and landscaping along 31st Avenue south here. So that would kind of protect and screen the pond from pedestrians. The applicant has additionally provided a narrative to summarize the discussion and concerns, which is attached to the packet. Through coordination with the applicant and reviewing city documents, such as the 2024 growth plan and Go 2030 comprehensive plan, there's conflicts that exist between the proposed development and city plans to promote the infill, walkability, and safety. However, taking these aspects into consideration, staff finds the proposed zone changes consistent with these city policies. Looking at the CO changes, the existing CO includes verbiage to require design standards for buildings, parking lots, pedestrian connectivity, similar to other areas of South Fargo along arterial roads. And so this is just the focus of the changes themselves. And the full draft CO is included in your packet The red underlined portions are added to the existing CO verbiage, and then the strikethrough is being removed. The existing CO requires pedestrian circulation to connect to all sidewalks along the adjacent public right of way. And so these changes clarify that pedestrian circulation will need to connect to 36th Street South, I'll refer back here. that pedestrian circulation connects to the sidewalk along 36th Street and not 31st Avenue South. And as you can see within the 2.3 item, all the other pedestrian connections are still required. Additionally, under item 2.4, a decorative fence will be placed along 31st Avenue South, which corresponds with the applicant's proposal. And in item 3, under prohibited uses, We changed some terminology that was corrected to match some LDC changes since the original CO was adopted. Staff has received no inquiries in response to the project. We find all criteria to be met and are recommending approval. The project representative, Chris Mack, with Christensen Companies, is present to answer any questions. And that concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thanks, Luke. Now, so, Luke, we're going to put they have to put sidewalks on 36th Street, and then is there sidewalks over at Circle K to get over to 32nd Avenue then?

Correct. Yeah, so each development needs to connect basically from the front door parking lot areas to the public sidewalk. And so the public streets, 36th Street and 32nd Avenue, all need to be connected to. And then they'll kind of connect to each other privately between each development.

So going north to the storage unit, there's supposed to be sidewalks there too, right?

Public sidewalk, yes, when that engineering project would come in, but currently there's no existing sidewalk along 36th Street by the storage unit, but the storage units themselves don't have this overlay on it, so it's not required to connect a sidewalk to this development, or a private sidewalk, I'll clarify.

Okay, any questions for Luke? Okay, any questions for Chris from Christensen? Do we have any questions about what they're doing? Okay, I will open the hearing for Christensen, 32nd Avenue South, fourth edition. Anyone like to make a comment? Not, I will close the hearing. And what is, any questions of the commission, anything? I'd like to make a motion.

Motion to approve staff recommendation.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. We'll call the roll.

Georgie. Aye. Pass. Aye. Sundberg. Aye. Lai. Aye. Diesel. Aye. Schmidt. Aye. Betlock.

Aye.

Stoffrin.

Aye.

Rosenberg.

Aye. Motion carries. We'll move on to item D1, Megan, or the annexation.

Thank you. Item D1, this is a non-public hearing item. This is annexation of a portion of the northeast quarter of section 10, township 138 north, range 49 west. This is a similar boundary to items 1A and B on your agenda. of the back 40 addition, though this is a little bit different boundary that I'll talk about here shortly. So this is review, your review is reviewing the proposed annexation for consistency with the growth plan. So right here is the area we're talking about. This is just 6711 and 6801 38th Street South. So for context and location, this is south of 64th Avenue and just west of third, I'm sorry, Interstate 29 and the Park District Sports Complex is right here. The main difference in this area, this is 49.78 acres. The other subdivision plot you saw was 61.88 has to do with portions of 64th Avenue and city-owned property that has already been annexed. So that's a little bit of difference between the area. These images are the exact same ones you saw from item 1A and B up on your screen. So I won't talk through them unless anybody has any questions. But there's the images and the corresponding vantage point image as well. Again, looking south and west into the development. So as noted, your board is looking for consistency with the growth plan. This is located in Super Grid A, so you can see this arrow here. This is pretty much the area that we're talking about. This is identified as mixed commercial, office, and residential, as well as urban neighborhood. Those are the place types that are identified in the growth plan. The proposed project is consistent with The growth plan up on your screen is that annexation plot. So you can see the portion of 64th Avenue and the city-owned property that is already part of city limits with the remainder being proposed to be annexed. This is an owner-initiated annexation. So it's by ordinance pursuant to the North Dakota Century Code. There is one owner that is back 40 LLP. And your commission is reviewing for consistency and this will go forward to the city commission. They take a little bit different paths, but to the city commission at the same time of the subdivision and the zone change. So they will kind of meet up at the city commission. Similar to the back 40 subdivision and zone change, you'll see in their recommended motion that there's that same contingency that I had talked about before related to the dependency on the adjacent development of Covey ranch third. That concludes staff's presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Any questions for Megan? Thanks, Megan. Commission, do you have a motion?

I'll move approval. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Do a roll call.

Cecil?

Aye.

Sundberg?

Aye.

Betlock?

Aye.

Goliath?

Aye.

Pass? Aye. Stauffern?

Aye.

Geordry? Aye. Schmidt? Aye. Rosenberg?

Aye. Motion carries. Now I guess I'll call on Nicole for the Land Development Code update.

Sure. First of all, thank you all for coming to the Joint City Commission meeting, informational meeting last week, and for those that were able to attend some of the focus groups. Just to kind of recap, most of our focus groups, there are some similar themes, but they were all well attended and had good discussion. Probably similar topics to what came up in the informational meeting as terms of concerns or comments. But over the next month we'll be going through kind of a real extensive line by line type of deep dive with the staff and other department staff as they were to use the code and answer questions or things. We still think we're maybe about 80, 85% complete as we work through some of the details. And wanted to point out that they will, looks like they'll be coming back towards the end of October. So we'll, as soon as we know those dates, we'll let you know. And then we will really sit down with the technical users of the code as part of those break the code type of sessions, and so we're discussing right now exactly what that would look like, but it could be something to the effect of we give them a design problem that they have to apply the code to and make sure they can't find loopholes in it, or interpretation issues, things like that, They might have design projects that they're working on and want to test against the code. And so as we get those details, we'll share those with you. And then we're starting to work on the mapping part of it. So laying down those zoning districts that you've been introduced to and how those would apply to the map. And so as soon as we have some more updates, probably towards the end of September, definitely by our October meeting. we would be able to connect with you in a little deeper dive. Be glad to answer any questions you might have or thoughts you might have had since we had the meeting last week or things you might be hearing. Glad to have that discussion here at this meeting today or offline. And then for all those that might be watching or for yourselves as well, any formal comments that you want to submit either through the link that's on the project website or through the direct planning email, feel free to do that for the official record and we'll continue to process those. Does that answer any questions?

Any questions for Nicole? Go ahead, Donnie.

For those of us who weren't able to attend some of the brown bags with the developers and designers, could you maybe summarize some of the themes or concerns that were coming out of those meetings? SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

IT KIND OF WAS ALL AROUND, ALL OVER THE BOARD AS FAR AS CONCERNS AND SOME OF THE THEMES. push to try having things a certain way, and maybe it's an opportunity for us to look at the fact that this new land development code is designed in such a way that doesn't prohibit any one type of development. But I know staff still has quite a bit of concerns in a couple different areas of the code that we need to work on here in the next month or so to be able to figure out exactly what direction we want to go.

I think most of those meetings were more Q&A, like how would this work or how would that work, and less about, you know, most people only had the code for about a week, so most people weren't maybe ready to come with in-depth review comments, but it was more project specific or related to certain pain points they knew about the code currently and coming in. So whether it was more details about landscaping or setbacks or set parking or how certain operations would go, but it was more Q and A than anything, than it was like group discussion.

I would say I attended one of the BrownBank sessions and I was really impressed. One of our local developers came extraordinarily prepared with a slew of questions and had deep dove into the LDC. It was phenomenal to see somebody taking it that serious and really diving in and how much great feedback I think that that produced. So it was encouraging to see. Amy?

I think throwing scenarios out there will be very important. We'll learn a lot. I know the brown bag was very helpful, but I couldn't help but think of different things that have come in front of our commission, and it'll just be a good exercise to start thinking of, like you had mentioned just now, Nicole, if we can be part of that, and just seeing how certain things will play forward now with the new LDC.

Yeah, I think we, overall, I think it was great. The consultants and what the staff has done has been you know, we're really getting somewhere. I was very concerned before the meeting that we were another year away from figuring this out. And after seeing the presentation, really liked the way that it's more user-friendly, that the design, you know, so really the guts are there that you need to do, that the importance, and now it's just trying to figure out, you know, what kind of things that we're gonna require from, you know, setbacks and, you know, the road sizes and all those little details that matter that we're gonna give the developers and the people that work this code every day, their chance to object and figure out how we can do it and see if we can break the code and figure out how to make sure it works for us as a community. But overall, I think we're, like Nicole said, I'm pretty comfortable that we're 80, 85% there. And I think in the next few months, we'll be able to bring it home and hopefully have a code starting in the first of the year that we can start figuring out what's gonna happen and where we're gonna go. It's not gonna be perfect, it's definitely going to be good enough for us to get started and to figure out what works and doesn't work over the next couple of years to really nail this down and use the growth plan. I mean, the growth plan was a good roadmap to get us to where we need to go. And now it's the details. And obviously that's, we're going to mess some things up, but at the end of the day, I think it's, we're going to be better off. And hopefully from a development standpoint, a build standpoint, we're not, We're getting too far out right now in my opinion of it's just taking too long for somebody to bring a project through our process I mean when it's when you're missing seasons for construction We're doing stuff when it's taking nine months just because of these CUPS and all this process If we can start reducing that down and getting these projects through the pipeline faster it's going to help us build out and develop the remainder of Fargo's property and and but do it right so I think I Overall, the staff's done a great job. The consultants are coming along. We just have to kick them once in a while, but I think once we get through this next meeting, the only thing I will request that a lot of the commissioners have asked me, Nicole, is that we would like the next, the October meeting, we'd like some private time with the consultants and the staff without everybody else. Just three, four hours to look at everything, make our notes. And since ultimately it's going through our commission, we can do a meeting jointly with them, but we also wanna have something where we can sit down and just kind of everybody's comfortable to ask the questions they want. You have a choice to come or not. I'm not forcing anyone to do that, but at least I'd like to be able to have the commissioners here have their conversations and we can get it through that way without developers, everybody else having what they want. I mean, it's certainly going to be an open hearing, but I think it would be important for this group to have their chance to really dig down and kind of go through it.

Yeah, and I think that will be important because I think as we wrestle certain viewpoints and perspectives, we'll need your guiding vision to help us find that middle road or whatever that recommendation or validity of recommendation becomes. So I think we'll have really specific questions for your consideration in October as well.

I think that's a good plan. Anybody else have any questions or any issues about the LDC and where we're going?

I would just say that the theme that I see through the new LDC is a greater flexibility in what can be done in the rigid code that we have now. And I think that's a very important step forward.

Thanks, Paul. Is there any other staff updates? Anybody have anything else? Nicole?

No, I was just going to let you know that Covey Ranch was advertised for September 14th City Commission, so that will be moving through through that last stage, if you will.

Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you.