Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I'll call the meeting to order. Today is Tuesday, December 2nd, 2025. Time is 3:00 and this is a meeting a regular meeting of Fargo Planning Commission. First item is to um let's scratch that. Um announcements. Uh, everyone is invited to join code connect number five Tuesday, December 16th from 12 to 100 p.m. Code Connect is a live online information sess session about Fargo LDC 2026 which will feature updates, context, and question and answers about the project. To learn more about the project, join theformational session. Visit www.farggoc.org. or again that's Tuesday, December 16th, 12 to 100 p.m. Now, um, no changes to order of agenda. Um, I will entertain a motion.

So move second. Motion in a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All oppose. All oppose. Same sign. Motion approved. Item B, minutes of the regular meeting of November 4th, 2025. Everyone had a chance to look at the minutes. Any changes or discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I.

All those opposed, same sign. Motion approved. Item C, public hearing items. The first item is a hearing item 1A, hearing on application requesting a zone change. Um, CVY Ranch third edition and 1B is hearing on application requesting a plat of CVY Ranch third edition. Megan to pre present.

Good afternoon, planning chair and planning commissioners. [clears throat] Excuse me. Item 1 A and 1B is entitled CVY Ranch third edition. This application is for a major subdivision and zone change. Um, one thing I'll note is that staff is recommending continuation while we work with the applicants to further refine the details of the application. And so this will uh this application will have a recommendation for continuation, but it will be an introductory item for discussion and public hearing. And I'll also note that um there is item D1 also on the agenda today which is an annexation item which has a similar boundary to the application that we'll I'll present on uh right now. Thank you. So the application is for major subdivision which is platting a portion of the north half of section 10 township 138 north and range 49 west and a zone change application to reszone from egg agricultural to egg to and SR4 single family single dwelling residential MR3 multi-dwelling residential with a CO conditional overlay LC limited commercial with a CO conditional overlay and PI public and institutional The subject property is bounded by 64th Avenue on the north, 45th on the west, and then a little bit further to the east is I29. Up on the screen is NDSCS and classical uh Capstone Classical Academy, and then the Fargo Sports Complex, the Park District Sports Complex is right up here. [clears throat] Images of the site. This is looking from 64th Avenue to the west. This is a pretty big area. It's about 153 acres. So behind uh if you were standing here behind your shoulder would be the 64th Avenue bridge. And then you can see the NDSCS and Class Capstone Classical Academy in the distance. And then this is looking from the other side from 45th Street to the east. Those two buildings

I just mentioned on the left 64th Avenue Bridge in the distance here. And then on 45th Street, I'll talk about this a little bit more later, but these are uh grade separated PED crossings and then a um a channel crossing for storm water conveyance that would go underneath 45th Street. This is the zoning map. Again, you can see um the schools here are PI, public and institutional. And a quick overview of the master planning. So this area um has been talked about off and on for nearly two decades has kind of come back and forth to the planning department. Um at that time there was one kind of main owner talking about that vision over the years. Now we've got a couple of different owners. Um and so last couple of years we've been working on master planning um that developer vision that develop developers brought forward and talking um with them and refining some of those details. Um there are some constraints to this site. I29 is a barrier. the um there's overall over all storm water um master planning that's happened. So there'll be a series of storm water conveyance channels and so kind of nailing down that storm model storm water conveyance channel um has been an item as well as crossing uh identification where that crossing or pedestrian crossing um would be located. And so when we kind of put those owners, right now there's three property owners as well as the city of Fargo that's looking to acquire some property for um some storm water management. Um and so putting that together and working with adjacent property owners, there's been kind of some intensive efforts um in the master planning um for this development. As I mentioned, it's about 153 acres, so it's a a decent chunk. Um so some of the things that we've been working with the applicants on um for that master planning is the roadway alignment connectivity and road type. So what is that road going to look like? How much rightway is needed? Driveway access management utilities storm water

management including that channel location and crossing as I was mentioning that vision the developer's vision and then uh design standards through a conditional overlay pedestrian connectivity and parks and open space amenities. And so the applicants have all been working with the park district as well uh on these applications as they are on park dedication as they continue to refine that vision. So up in your screen is the concept master plan that's been provided um by the developers. So you'll see um right where my cursor is this south uh southern line of where that storm water conveyance is is really the south boundary of what your applications are for what you're reviewing. Um, this is just showing potentially what the master plan could look like in the future, but thinking [clears throat] about these things like connectivity and pedestrian uh movements, parks and open space um holistically within that development and how they will continue to develop in the future. And so the boundary that we're looking at here is north of this conveyance channel. The east side is is kind of where Sports Drive would be here along 64th Avenue wrapping around the schools and which are Cubby Ranch first and second editions up to 64th and then bounded by 45th Street. So I'll talk uh about some of the things in the master plan and have some different diagrams. There's also two um exhibits as layown items. One of them is an updated master plan which is which is this. The changes to that just include um this layout that you see for Sports Drive. The packet included an old layout or previous layout. And then um a zoning narrative um is also a layown item. So some of the things that we coordinate is placement of those roadways. You know, we know where 64th and 45th is. Those are the arterial roadways, but where would the collectors go? So 40th Avenue, I'm sorry, 40th Street and 66th Avenue would be the road collector roadways um connecting within the development.

and then [clears throat] the remainder would be local roadways, pedestrian connectivity. So, the arterials will have two 10-ft paths on either side. 66th Avenue South will have a 10-ft path on the south and 40th Street South would have a 10-ft path on the west. And the conveyance channel would have a 10-ft path on the north side. There'd be an atgrade crossing over 40th Street and an uh grade separated crossing that I was mentioning um under 45th Street. There would also be at approximately the um quarter mile there would be a path that would connect from this park property and cross the drain. Um again because we can only have one crossing um over the drain, this ped pedestrian crossing um is important to have to keep that continuity. [clears throat] There will also be two connection points to the east into the development to ensure that connectivity. um one right here and one here for 65th Avenue. And just a quick note on ownership, the city of Fargo will own um these stormwater conveyance properties. the park, Fargo Park District will own this park property and over about right where my cursor is, there'll be an additional park property that will allow um the residences to um the [clears throat] residences to get to um the path connectivity within the neighborhood instead of having to go all the way around. This is a zoning exhibit uh identifying what is proposed for the zoning. And so in red you'll see what's proposed as LC limited commercial. Brown is MR3, the multi-dwelling residential. Orange is SR4, single family, single dwelling residential. And then the green is PI, public and institutional. So the layown item, the zoning narrative talks a little bit more about the development that's intended, uh, including the LC, the limited commercial zoning district, as well as the MR3. Um, those properties, the MR3, um, are intended to

be developed at a higher density, around 50 units per acre. Um, as you all probably know, that's not allowed by right at this point in our land development code. And so at some point in the future when those are ready to be developed, um, they may be back to talk about that higher density development. With the LC properties and the MR3 properties, there would be a conditional overlay with some design standards on it, those of which we're working with the applicants on the details of those currently. Up on your screen is the subdivision plat. You can see the roadway layouts maybe a little bit more clearly here. Um, there would be a roundabout at 40th Street and 65th Avenue South. And because Sports Drive is only dedicating half of that rightway at this time, there will be a temporary turnaround on the east side of 60th Avenue that will uh allow that movement. And at the time that the remainder of Sports Drive, that right ofway is acquired and constructed, that is when the Sports Drive would be constructed and that roundabout or I'm sorry, that turnaround, temporary turnaround would go away. The plat shows access management negative access easement. So this heavier line along the roadways will restrict access and movements into the properties. Your commission has seen on for example Selkerk um development kind of those short negative access easements and in order to have some snow storage and parking that will also happen on these um SR4 zoned lots. That is something that we're currently working with the applicant on. And then at for access management from the artiller roadways into the property at about 8 inch I'm sorry eighth mile um access points here where my mouse is would be limited access at some point in the future as as traffic patterns increase in the area. So that access would would change over time. [clears throat]

So, at this point, staff is um recommending continuation to the January 6, 2026 planning commission meeting while we work to refine some of the development details with the applicants. I know there are folks um owners and representatives of the owners here today and they may wish to address your commission. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thanks, Megan. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Megan? Go ahead. Megan, can you talk about how this application fits in with our recently adopted growth plan? And could you also maybe speak on the development of this application in relationship to the new LDC coming next year if there's been any considerations with or anticipations for those changes.

Sure. Yep. To answer Thank you, Commissioner, for that question. to answer your your second question. Um, we have we have talked about that and we're maybe hopeful there could be some connection to it, but we are just not at a point that's been far enough along in the land development code rewrite to know exactly how that's going to lay out. And so, um, unfortunately, we're just kind of misaligned a little bit with timelines. um to answer your first question. So this is um located or identified in the as a place type of an urban neighborhood and so it is consistent with that designation in the growth plan.

Megan, [clears throat] excuse me. Um and maybe I'm missing it, but do we show or are they showing uh pedestrian connectivity over to the sports drive so that there would be pedestrian connectivity up to the sports facility? seems like that would be a logical connection.

I know that has been something that is being discussed at this point. I know that the park district is interested in in that. Um right now what we do know is that there'll be a 10-ft shared use path that connects to 64th and then over right about here I believe it is there is an underpass. Um so folks could get underneath um 64th Avenue at that grade separated crossing below um to go further north. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Megan? I'll invite the applicant up.

Make sure you state your name for the record.

Uh my name is Jacece Helman on behalf of Dabbert Custom Homes and 64th Avenue Development. uh the main owner of this uh with some parcels being sold out uh to other entities and developers uh specifically the residential and some of the multif family pieces on this. Um I don't have too much Megan did a really good job of kind of uh going through uh the overall intent. We understand that this is kind of more of a a early presentation of this as we work through some of the additional items uh working with staff. Uh I've been with Dabbert for the last three months and have kind of jumped into this one uh towards the tail end, but my understanding this has been years in the making uh with different ownership groups working together uh to develop kind of this roadway network uh staff's been really helpful on getting this to this point. U overall it's going to contribute to some of the off- streetet pathway connections uh desires of the park district. I know there was a comment about uh the sports drive connection and I believe that's a conversation that's being had between the park district and the back 40 who's the owners of the east parcels on this that are not a part of this application. Uh but those communications have been occurring on that. Um overall this development is kind of more of a mixed use and an intent res single family residential multif family some limited commercial. Uh we're providing at least a quadrant out parcel for what was lot one block three uh with a commercial on the west side of 40th uh just to try to attribute to or give an idea of you know how those smaller commercial parcels could develop. Obviously we would be back uh through any design reviews and stuff for that. Um, mainly just hear if you guys have any questions or immediate corrections that we can uh add to this application before we're back in front of you officially on January 6th.

Commissioners, any questions? I have a question regarding uh I think it's lots five, six, and seven, the uh residential lots. Uh those are all intended now for single family homes. Is that correct? It's five, six, and seven. It's the It's the uh if you go back to the the drawing with the color, it's the orange portion there with the small lots.

Yes. And I will refer to the uh owner with Brookstone Properties. I think the representative is here tonight, Andrew Th. But I believe that those are meant to be single family homes. Is that correct, Andrew? Yes, that's getting the thumbs up.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you all.

Let's go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Anybody wish to speak on item 1 A1 Braavo? Seeing none, let's close public hearing. Commissioners,

anybody want to make the motion? I'll make the motion to continue to the January 6th planning commission meeting per staff's recommendation. I'll second motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion? [snorts]

Okay, let's take the role. Well, wait before we I have some uh comments, concerns I guess about the single family lots, the the small single family lots because these lots are um 35 ft wide and and some are wider. But I'm concerned that here we have uh as we've seen before a large number of narrow lots uh along streets and what that will mean then is that these streets will be uh total garage doors scapes because uh every house presumably will have a twocar garage. It'll face the street and so there isn't very much room beyond that. And I'm [clears throat] thinking about the long-term value of such properties because they may be inexpensive now to buy. But I don't see here a real neighborhood being developed. There are models for very narrow lot neighborhoods. I think the best best model I can think of is the Chicago bungalow. Um vast areas of Chicago are 25 foot lots which are narrower than yours. Every house has a front porch, has a nice living room window, small yard in the front. Of course, the secret is that there are alleys in the Chicago bungal Chicago bungalow neighborhoods. And all of the garages are on the alleys. And those neighborhoods built as workforce housing a 100 years ago today are very much appreciated. They've appreciated in value. And I don't see the future of this neighborhood having

that same potential because there really isn't a design quality proposed here for these streets. And it just seems to me that there is a better solution. That is you can have 25 foot lots and a twocar garage on an alley at the at the back of the lot. Um but none of that is presented here. And I I would like to suggest that this residential area be rethought to provide a a true neighborhood that can have greater value in the future.

Any other comments or discussion? Okay, let's go ahead and take the role. Chewy. Hi Gl. Hi Blockwalk. Hi Rosenberg. Hi Schmidt. Hi Jordy. I Mo I

Motion carries. Next item two alpha 2 Bravo. Two alpha is a hearing on an application requesting a conditional use permit. uh urban plains by Brandt 8th edition and two Bravo hearing on an application requesting a conditional use permit on urban planes by Brandt edition 8 eth edition. Donald Crest to present.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Donald Crest of the Department of Planning and Development. Let me set you up with this one a little bit here. Uh this is a little different than we usually do it. Uh these two conditional use permits are actually on lots one and two. The next two items 2A 2 and three are on lots one and two of urban plans planes by branch 8th edition which is not yet recorded. You may recall at your November 4th meeting uh you recommended approval of this plat here. This is uh Veterans Boulevard 32nd Avenue Cedar Drive here. And the two lots we'll be talking about in items two and three are those that are on this uh this area here. This is lot one. This is lot two. So item 2 A and 2B refer to lot one. Uh with these conditional use permits, if your commission would approve these, they will just sit and wait to be recorded until the plat is recorded. So they won't be able to do anything with it until the plat is recorded. That plat is currently in review with our engineering department and will probably be going forward to the city commission in the near future here. We don't have an exact date for that, but that's why both of them seem to have the same first name, urban planes by brand 8th edition, but items two and three are on different lots. So looking at the item that the uh planning commission chair introduced there uh lot one block one there requested two conditional use permits here again this is lot one for uh uh residential use in the commercial zone limited commercial zone and one for a parking reduction a rate reduction here so this is the site here uh again you're looking way is a private drive that is uh one of the several private drives within this subdivision on Cedar Parkway here and then just uh looking here northerly across the uh subject property here it's a little cloudy here the other day Friday uh the zoning here is LC limited commercial with a conditional overlay the conditional overlay will remain so there are design standards for the site and

building design included in that uh plinary site plan this will be the same site plan for both items here for lot one uh indicates that there will be three apartment buildings uh approximately 68 uh units per building uh 204 units total. There's a shared storm water pond in the middle. There is parking here uh underneath the building and on the surface uh around the building and there also since this is a private drive. Uh the lot line extends to the middle of that roadway and that roadway is configured to have a a parking lane on one side and so some of the uh required parking will be uh taken up in there. As uh stated in the staff report there is a uh uh the request for parking reduction is supported by the uh documentation there provided by uh MBN engineering. Uh Mr. Yuko there provided that for us. Um and the normal ratio for the or the LDC ratio for residential uh rental units would be 2.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Uh the requested ratio is 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. Uh this has been reviewed by Jeremy Gordon, our transportation engineer for the city of Fargo, and uh found to be consistent with some of the a lot of the parking reductions we've done for similar uh requests in in the recent past here. Uh so that's conditional use permit uh the first conditional use permit there uh for a reduced rate for parking. The second conditional use permit also for this uh these apartments is this is in an LC zone where residential use is not allowed by right but is allowed by conditional use permit. Uh the proposed density of that is 40 dwelling units per acre. The actual density is a little bit less than that. Uh but we just always have a little extra there just in case. Um, so that's uh a residential density there uh for 40 dwelling units per acre. Again, consistent with some of the higher densities we've been approving uh

recently through conditional use permits and planned unit developments. This is a rendering. This is also in your packet there uh showing the the apartments here and the office building. There's an invisible lot line right through the back there. uh for the alternative access. Here are the conditions again that ratio of 1.75 spaces and then just our standard conditions there regarding conditional use permits that uh future permits they've not submitted a building permit yet but that would be generally consistent with the site plan that you've seen there and uh if it turns out that the site the proposed building permit is something different staff would evaluate whether would have that would have to come back before your commission or if we would deal with it as staff again when you're if your commission would recommend approval you're just approving the cup you're not approving that site plan they have to still go through a whole process with our building department and the other reviewing departments. Uh for the household living conditions there again just state the density and one of our standard conditions there is condition two. Uh as always uh we show this slide that is the approval and appeal uh requirements. Uh so again if this gets appealed the appeals must be filed within 10 days. Make this part of the public record by showing the slide. Uh the recommended motion is stated in your staff report as shown on the screen. The one on the screen is worded a little more neatly than the one in the staff report, but it's the same conditions just laid out a little more neatly there. Uh the applicants representative Brandon Raybine of Raybine Realy is with us this afternoon and may wish to address the commission. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you, commissioners.

Thank you, Donald. Commissioners, any questions for Donald? Go ahead. Donald, is this the type of project I guess? Do we have a sense that this application for a cup? Would this be something that in the future LDC this could potentially be something that they would be able to do by right that would have to go through this process? Commissioner, can I defer that to uh Mark Williams here to talk about or Nicole?

Um I'm thinking so. uh we're um you know kind of along the lines of your previous question on the last case uh commissioner um you know I think some of that's still to be decided and discussed publicly as well as with the commission as a whole but as you can see with this one and in the previous item um some of those questions related to the future LDC and um if you go back to the rendering um Donald you know these are the kind of questions we've been asking at the um any of these quote negot negotiated zonings, right? CUP, CEOs, [clears throat] PUDS, any of those things that aren't negotiated. Um, you can ask the applicants. We've been asking a lot more questions about um how they lay out on the site, what's it going to look like, how is it, you know, fitting with their CEO, not maybe estimating how that conditional overlay is changing, but to show that they have thought through architecturally how it's going to work. So, we can kind of diffuse the speculation, if you will. um as part of the application process. And so in this project for instance um really um you know kind of trying to diminish the aspect of accessory buildings like garages, things like that, the relationship to the street, the relationship to the open space. Those are all questions we've been asking along the way through the application process.

Any other questions for Donald or staff? Okay, I'll invite the applicant up.

Hi, Brandon Ray here to talk through the project. Do you do we have any questions? Okay. Nothing to add. I was here to answer some questions. It's a It's a fun project. We're I don't want to pitch you on anything. Just more of a be a resource if you need any have any questions. Okay. Well, you're off the hook. You guys are too nice. [laughter]

Let's go ahead and open public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Anybody wish to speak on two alpha 2 bravo? Seeing none, close public hearing. Commissioners, do I have a motion? I'll move approval as recommended. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, go ahead and take the role. Rosenberg. I betlock I Shuy I. Mos I. Bllye. I Schmidt. Hi. Jordy. Hi.

Stuff. I tossa I motion carries. Moving to number three hearing on application requesting a conditional use permit to allow alternative access plan for parking reduction on proposed lot 2 block one urban planes by brand 8th edition.

So thank you ma'am. So, following up on our last item, uh we're looking now at lot two of uh the proposed Urban Plains by Brandt 8th edition. This is just a request for parking reduction for office, something we don't do a lot. Um those pictures look familiar. They're the same pictures as last time there. And the zoning is again LC limited commercial with the conditional overlay which will remain in place. Uh the site plan here again showing the office building does have parking underneath and there's some surface parking here as well. It's on the sort of the point of the curve. Uh this this project is is interesting because it's entirely surrounded by rightway but part of the rightway is public here. Cedar Drive is of course dedicated public street and these surrounding uh roads are private drives that are actually uh the adjacent properties owned to the center of those. So they have it's a little different uh we deal with it a little bit differently than we would a public rideaway. Um normally when you have parking you couldn't use parking on a public street to satisfy your parking but here they're parking along the private drive which is on their lot. So they can use some of those spaces uh for parking. Uh again that same uh graphic here the office building. So uh as I was in discussion with the applicant you know the passer by would not see the lot line here. So, this seems like a a coherent development, and I I believe the applicant stated that the uh the office building and the first apartment building will start construction about the same time. So, they'll they'll go together uh a little bit. Uh recommended conditions here. Uh again looking at the chart in your staff report there the required number of spaces for office based on the 30,720 foot proposed size of the office building is one space for 300 uh requiring 103 spaces. The request is one space for 365 square feet uh requesting uh providing 85 spaces and again documentation provided by MBN

engineering in your packet there and reviewed by Jeremy Gordon our traffic engineer who found this to be a reasonable reduction. Uh again our approval and appeal slide noting that the appeal period is uh within 10 days of the date of decision which is today December 2nd. read that into the record and the recommended motion there again uh for the parking rate at one per space by 365 square feet and then our standard conditions for such cups added as items two and three there. Uh again, Mr. Rayoine from Rayoine Realy is here to address the commission if if you have any questions. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you commissioners. Thank you Donald. Commissioners, any questions for Donald?

I've got one. Donald, I'm not I guess I'm not uncomfortable with a parking reduction, but just looking at the concept plan the way it's currently laid out, I do have concerns. Okay. And so I would just I know with trying to maximize every every spot to be found um like that triangulated area at the the bottom uh portion. Yep. The southern end. Yep.

Like that just concerns me just from a general layout standpoint. So if they were to revise that to a bit more of a conventional layout, um it just seems like then the parking would be reduced even further. So I'm assuming that this solution is truly to be able to get the parking counts as high as possible. But I guess I would and I don't even know that we're necessarily voting on the layout. It's the cup, but that's just something I would be concerned with moving forward. Okay. Perhaps the applicant can address that a little more for you. Ma'am, thank you.

Well, and Donald, if I can't, if commissioner, could you uh clarify a little bit about maybe identify what's cons more concerning? So, we Yeah. Um, just in in my role as an architect, I do a lot of concept site planning as well. And just having a large kind of um area that there's no definition around. That's typically something we try to not do. So you've got this large area you're coming into and imagine if there's cars coming from, you know, from the west and from the east. There's going to be confu confusion because you have a large area where you're not sure how to use it. I mean, that's kind of the where my concern would be coming from. So from the a safety standoint

from the access from the access coming in to the correct. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions for Donald or Steph? Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? You have anything? You have something to add? Sure. [clears throat] Since I got off easy on the last one, I might as well come up and talk.

Perfect. Um, so obviously you can see the the site isn't a traditional box and so I think we're definitely all layers as far as you know how to make parking the most efficient to get the most parking spaces out of it. Our our goal was to get as much parking as we can. Um there are a few limiting factors with the lot line being to the middle of the road on a private road and they have a bunch of parallel parking in there. Even just squeezing that parking lot 5t one direction or the other is a four or five parking spot swing. So just little stuff like that become somewhat challenging. And so this was kind of the best layout we could have to maximize parking. We'd obviously, you know, technically like more parking, but we feel like the the parallel parking spots on the road at a really nice buffer for any any overlap. Um and then yeah, that triangular portion again is kind of like a little Rubik's cube. You kind of do everything you can to make it work in there. Um and so that ended up being a little bit of blank space. Um, but I think that's also some open space for turnaround and flow of traffic and and I don't I really don't think we'll have a ton of traffic on the south portion of that to the east. Just that one little lane um that'll run into any parking. So, I'm totally get your concerns. I I don't know that there's a better way that we've seen to do it, but love to hear your expertise if you have something to

No, and I appreciate your explanation. I think um anytime it's the solution is different than what is expected, there can be an issue. So, it's just a matter of how do we help ensure that public safety is at the forefront, right? So, it might just be additional striping. There's a lot of different ways that it could be resolved or or looked at closer. And I know this is early, but it was just something that popped. Yeah. And and honestly, I think we took something into account with our accesses. So, uh phase one of our project is the office and apartment one. on the upper left you you'll see the underground parking access is right there and then phase two is on the right hand side. So there's really no underground parking access. So that's really kind of overflow parking and there'll be like a you know

tenants can walk in there but there won't be cars flying out of the underground parking. So thank you. That's my story. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Thank you guys. Go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on item three? Anybody wish to speak on item three? Seeing none, let's close the hearing. Commissioners,

I'll make a motion to accept the findings of the staff and staff recommendation. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? [clears throat] Go ahead and take the role. Why I Schmidt? Hi Scoffin. I Mos I Jordy I Rosenberg I betlock I Shuy I Hassa I motion carries. Thank you commissioners.

Thanks Donald. Moving to for alpha for bravo. for alpha hearing on an application requesting conditional use permit to allow household living in GC general commercial zoning district on lot 5 block one Veteran Square Edition for Bravo hearing on application requesting conditional use permit to allow alternative access for parking reduction on lot one block one Veteran Square Chelsea to present

good Afternoon, commissioners. Chelsea Leverson with the planning department. Agenda item 4 A is a request for a conditional use permit to allow household living in the GC general commercial zoning district. And item 4B is a request for a conditional use permit for an alternative access plan for a parking reduction. The property is located at 5600 38th Avenue South right here. It is just northeast of some commercial development on the corner of 40th Avenue South and Veterans Boulevard. Cheyenne High School in West Fargo is located right here to the west. Here are a couple photos of the property. Uh for your reference, the map at the bottom left of your screen will show the photo location and the direction it was taken. The top photo is facing north from the southeast corner of the property and the bottom photo is facing east from the northwest corner of the property. The top photo is a Google Earth image taken from the intersection of 38th Avenue and 56th Street South. And the bottom is sorry, the bottom f photo was taken facing northeast from the southwest corner of the property. The property is zoned GC, general commercial, with a conditional overlay. The conditional overlay provides higher design standards, separates vehicle and pedestrian traffic, prohibits some uses, and restricts the maximum building height to 110 ft. There's also an existing conditional overlay, sorry, an existing conditional use permit for residential land use, which will terminate if the proposed household living conditional use permit is approved today. The applicant has provided a preliminary site plan of the proposed development. They are proposing to construct a five-story 69 unit multi-dwelling

residential building. The first floor will provide ground level parking and bicycle storage and floors 2 through 5 will offer 1, two, and threebedroom residential apartment units. The applicant is requesting to provide 124 parking spaces which which is approximately 1.8 8 spaces per unit. The land development code requires 2.25. So they are requesting a reduction of 32 spaces which equates to approximately 20.5%. The layown the layown item you received is a parking narrative provided by the applicant that references the parking generation manual from the institute of traffic engineers as well as the metrocog traffic study. The proposed parking ratio falls within those recommendations. Here are some renderings provided by the applicant of how the building may look. This bottom photo is on the corner of 38th and 56th. This list of conditions is a bit longer than the previous case that Donald presented due to the building's orientation and its proximity to single dwelling residential homes. Uh staff worked with the applicant to create these conditions in order to add pedestrian scale design elements and ensure that the structure will fit contextually within the neighborhood. And the applicant did provide an additional rendering showing how this development may look incorporating some of those pedestrian scale conditions. I will note that the approval of the conditional use permits does not approve the proposed site plan or rendering shown today. On your screen is information about the appeal process should these items be approved today. We have not received any inquiries

regarding this project. The applicant Ian Bulis of Eagle Ridge is here today and may want to address the commission. Staff's recommendation is for approval with the following conditions as shown on your screen and stated in your staff report. Thank you, commissioners. That concludes staff's presentation. Thanks, Chelsea. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Chelsea? I'm just uh somewhat confused. It seems to me that this is really in effect a reasonzoning change because residential is not allowed in commercial. But why is not why is it not a zoning change request?

Sure. I can I can go back and give you a little bit more history on the um on the property. So um I believe it was in 214 2014. Um the property was zoned um LC which is similar to the surrounding properties on the block. Um and then so let me see find my notes here. In 2014, it was zoned LC, limited commercial. Um, limited commercial does have a maximum building height of 35 ft. So, in 2016, development plans did change. Um, and at the time, the owner was proposing a sevenstory 24 um condomin condominium building. So it was the it was reszoned to general commercial with a conditional overlay. Uh that conditional overlay is the same one that was proposed or that is existing on the property now um limiting the height to 110 ft and then at later on the conditional use permit for residential land use was added. So, currently today, um, a residential building could be built on the property with the existing conditional use permit. Um, the applicant is requesting a new conditional use permit that increases the density.

So, that'd be consistent with the Epic apartment buildings about a block further north, correct? It has the same zoning. Uh I'm not sure which ones.

Yeah, it would be. Um to summarize this really quickly again, we're rewriting our land development code and when we have MR3 zoning that only allows 24 units per acre and we keep hearing we want more and more density and we have developers proposing 40 units per acre. It's getting to be really challenging to be able to provide that opportunity to build the buildings that we would like to see based on our historical conditional overlays that we've approved. So that's why you see the GC in this proposal this way. Hopefully the new land development code will have a zoning by right that allows such a building to be built at with administrative approval.

Any other questions for staff? Do we have questions for applicant?

Good afternoon, commissioners. Ian Bullis here with Eagle Ridge. Just here to answer any questions you might have. I just [clears throat] have a question for you. Um, so your development, I think it's Maven West, uh, just north of here, and then your other two developments on 52nd and 32nd. The way that you guys have kind of developed those where you have underground parking and then first floor apartments really, you know, helps activate the street, gets eyes on the street. I was wondering why that wasn't implemented with this project.

Sure. So, uh, in a perfect world, you keep doing that. It's kind of been our model. It works great. Unfortunately, there are just some sight conditions on this property underground. Um I think it's a sand vein. I'm not entirely certain, but it did not uh the soil conditions didn't allow us to do underground parking on this one. So, we were kind of forced to bring it at grade and then go up from there with the residential. Thank you. Any other questions? I have one question I don't know if you'll be able to answer, but

Sure. So, we have a lot of part or parking reductions. How and we don't ever hear how the parking reductions are working with these apartment buildings. I'm assuming that the parking reductions on these apartment buildings, what you're seeing on other similar properties. There's no issues with the parking reductions,

right? And so, we certainly don't want to underpark our own buildings. Um we we we are proposing something that is more in line with um the the Institute of Traffic Engineers guidelines, we'll call them, for multifam construction. Um which I think aligns also a little bit more with the Metrocog um goals for for similar type properties as this. So that's kind of what we based our um ask on. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.

Thanks. Go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on item 4 alpha for Bravo? Anybody wish to speak? Seeing none, let's close public hearing. Commissioners, what are your wishes? I'll move to approve per staff's recommendation. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Motion and a second. [clears throat] Any discussion on the motion? Go ahead and take the role. Schmidt. Hi Zetlock. Hi Jordy. Hi Saffron. Hi Mo. Hi Rosenberg. I

Tossa. I motion carries. Number five. Thanks Chelsea. Number five. Hearing on an application requesting a plat of Valley View Estates fourth edition. Donald Crest, take us home. Thank you, ma'am. There's actually one more after me. There is one more. Okay, you're right. But, uh, anyway, I appreciate the getting really excited here.

Okay. [laughter] Uh, commissioners, thank you. Again, Valley USA's fourth edition. I'll preface this by saying that you'll see that the recommendation here is for denial. Uh, staff did meet with the applicant uh, prior to going forward with today's hearing and did advise them of that denial. U, we've been in contact with them. and they got the staff report last week, so they're familiar with everything that's in it and our reasons for denial. Uh, this property is located here, uh, 36th Avenue South and between 36th Avenue South and Big Goose Lane. Um, and, uh, this was developed as part of the Valley Fate second edition. And this is our last our last property. Our last item is right down here. So, these are pretty close to each other. And these were developed as uh as you see here in the close-up photo as attached housing, but they are on individual lots. And these were developed at the time under the alternative development standards. And this is described in your staff report uh to create uh you know, individual individual sellable units, individual single family units um even though they're attached. And there are actually uh six buildings here, two uh four fours and two threes there. And uh the site looks like this. Been on 36. You probably even buy these Valley View Town Homes. Their access is all from the alley behind here. And they are all individually served with utilities. So each one has its own each unit has its own water and sewer connection either from 36th Avenue, Big Goose Lane, or the alley, which is a dedicated public alley on the plat of Valley View Second Edition. And here just some views all the way around here looking down the alley. The zoning here is SR5 single dwelling residential. This is the current configuration of the plat. So this is an excerpt from Valley Estate second edition. As you see the individual lots, the proposed configuration here keeps the outline of the uh block but eliminates the

individual lot lines that the dashed lines would indicate those lines are no longer there. And here's the full plat for that. Um, as stated in your staff report, staff's recommendation for denial is based on the idea that when this was um, developed with the alternative development standards and the LDC, there were there are specific purposes and benefits defined in the LDC for that. It's one of the rare items in the LDC where there actually specific features of using that that are defined. And as uh just uh reading that here um section 20506A1 states that is the purpose of these development options to allow variety in development standards while maintaining the overall character of a single dwelling neighborhood. And uh section 20506A1D states that a public benefit of using these development standards is they promote opportunities for affordable housing. There's affordable you know purchasable ownable single family residences. And uh this is we've done this a few different locations uh in the city at various times. These development standards have been around as long as the LDC has. And they're set up to work a specific way. And uh the applicant here would uh propose proposes to take those lot lines out and basically just create one uh well in this case two big lots uh you know three buildings on each lot. Um and they would no longer be uh on individual lots. they would not be single dwelling residences in the sense they would not be on individual lots and staff feels that this would contradict the original purpose of these. So it's not just a simple plat that created them. It's there's more to it than that. And so staff believes that by uh allowing those lot lines to disappear, you're changing the nature of the development. You're not just taking the lot lines out. You're changing the nature of the development and the original intent of the development. And that is the basis of our recommendation for denial which is stated in your staff report. and uh uh Reed Midow representing the applicant is with us this afternoon and

may wish to address the commission as well as Brian Patentale, the project engineer. That concludes staff's presentation. Commissioners, thank you. The recommended motion is stated in your staff report and shown on the screen. And that concludes our uh presentation. Thank you. Thanks, Donald. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Donald? I have a question. Yes, sir. So this application would essentially turn these uh units into condominiums. No, they're on one line.

No. No. They would have to go through uh that would that's a separate just for the commission's background. Creation of a condominium is a separate process that's actually done through the county recorders office. So basically they just become um rental properties. Uh the applicant has stated that all these units are rented. They are for sale units but they're all rented. uh which that may be the case but the planning department does not consider them rental units as like a sing a multif family building would be if these were created just to go back uh and there are many factors commissioners that that figure into this u but as we mentioned I mentioned in the beginning these are all served with individual uh water and sewer connections. If these were just you know three buildings and each one had its own just one water meter and one sewer connection that would be a different type of building. that would be a multi-dwelling building. So, there are a lot of factors that feature figure into this. But yes, there so um you know there's building code, there's fire code, there's utility connection, there's platting, there's several factors that figure into this, but just taking the lot lines out would not create them a condo. They would have to go through a separate process with the county. Your commission and the planning department are not involved in that process.

Any other questions for Donald? Nope. Okay, I'll invite the applicant up. [snorts]

Afternoon, commissioners. Brian Patent Gill with Houston Engineering. Uh Reed Midaw with Edgewood Reit. We own the special purpose entity that owns these properties. want to talk.

Uh so we bought these uh units in uh July of 2025. They were all rented at that time. We paid $270,000 per unit. Um they're all assessed above that at at the current moment. Um there's 22 units. My understanding is that only 16 of the 22 units would get a reassessed value uh by doing this. So it' be four of six buildings. the two buildings with three units in them would not be reassessed. Um, and we just want them to be taxed and assessed in accordance with the way that we bought the property and the way that it's currently operated and will be for the foreseeable future. So, questions for the Go ahead.

So, so with regard to these properties, they have never been offered for sale ever by any of the since they were built. I can't say that individual individual residences. I apologize for cutting you off. Um, as far as I know, they were not ever offered for sale. They could have been for sale, but the original developer rented them up and then we purchased them from the original developer in July. Totally uh totally occupied, all rented. So, and you when you bought them, you had no intention of ever selling them as individual. Correct. We do not intend to do that and that's why we're

even though that that was the original intent of the and you bought them with the understanding that that's what what was designed. We did know that they were on individual lots when we bought them. Yes. Okay.

So, what what's the purpose of this? Why are we doing this? The purpose is to pay uh less in property taxes. I'm not going to beat around the bush on that one. That is the the purpose. uh you know we have shareholders and we have a fiduciary duty to our shareholder to our shareholders to um operate the properties u you know the most efficiently that we can. So so why can't this be done without tearing this apart? I'm not sure I quite understand your question.

Why why do we need to reszone this? Why can't we find another solution to get the taxes down to the right way that it's being used versus tearing it apart? My concern is you're not here forever. These are really important components of our future growth and our strategy of of building density and having houses and these are already done. So pulling this off, you can't put it back on later. So if we're going to do this, it's it's a problem. And if it's to save money, I think we need to try to find a different solution, whether it's essentially code issues or other issues to try to address your concerns of money of saving money versus doing this at this format. That's what I'm trying to understand. What what remedies have we tried? So the my understanding is that by changing this to two partials versus 22 partials, the sale comparable comp set that the city assessor's office will use will be multifamily versus single family. Currently they're assessed with a single family comp set and they're not operated as a single family property. It's a multif family property. So we just want the proper comp set to be used in the assessment process. That's all. Any other questions for the applicant? We also have um the Michael the assessor here. If we have questions for the assessor. Any other questions for the applica applicant? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions for staff? I was wondering if we could ask the assessor a few questions. Absolutely. Thanks for coming today. You're welcome. For the record, Michael Splinskowski, city assessor.

So, just a you know, back to the uh developers concern um when these are reassessed, how much value is put on what the per unit price was for the previous transaction and during the summer? Well, um I I don't know that I could say, you know, per unit what this is. He said that they bought it for $270,000 per unit, and that's probably pretty close to what we have it as. Um but ba basically the bigger question becomes is how are we going to look at it from a valuation model standpoint? Um what you know, how are these things selling in the market today? And I can say um uh very surely that um as a single family dwelling these are going to sell more per unit than they are as say an apartment building as a forplex or as a 3plex. Um generally the um apartments uh that are commercial, they're definitely selling for less than that per uh per unit. And then if we take the other ones and make them change them to a 3plex, that is definitely lower as well. Um and that's how we would have to look at them if this goes forward. Um so you're looking at a pretty significant reduction in value um when it comes to changing the classification and how we look at them from a valuation model. Um I you know I didn't run the strict numbers uh to tell you know exactly what that change would be. Um but um I can tell you it'd be a significant change.

And when running your models, do you take into consideration what the current use is? Like in this case, yes, absolutely. Essentially multif family. Yep. So one of the aspects that we have to look at it from a an appraisal standpoint is highest and best use.

Um and um so we would say, okay, what what is it currently being used as? And one of those is what is the uh legal um use as determined by this body. Um you know what can it be used for? And if we're it's not being used in a legal way, you know, then we would necessarily you know we would have to consider you know in from a market aspect how it does that affect it one way or the other. Um so you know right now um they are all single family dwellings and we have to consider that as as part of our appraisal uh process. Um once it changes to uh basically in effect uh an apartment building a forplex or a 3plex then we have to look at that and and apply the valuation model for those. So with the previous sale where it's, you know, the seller decided to sell it all as one instead of individually, wouldn't it have been more beneficial for them if the highest and best use was as single family dwellings to sell it individually? And since they did sell it as a package, doesn't that kind of show the highest and best use as more of a multif family project?

Um, you could make that argument. Um but the other thing you could say is that because they sold it all as one package there's some assemblage and uh what basically what that means is that be being they assembled it all and sold it all as you know several units altogether. They either sold sold it for less than it could have or maybe more depending on what the motivation of the buyer is. Um and we just have no way of um tracking it that at this point because they never sold any of the single units to say okay what is that difference? Thank you.

Go ahead.

Okay. So is there a way going forward since we're going to want to do more of this housing and rental property? Is there a way that we can win this process the best way of saying if it's rental property, it's going to be assessed as rental property and if it becomes a sellable product because I can envision this happening where somebody's going to build these units, rent them out for a while and then try to sell them over time. And if the financial mechanisms don't work for saving property taxes and saving income, they're just going to build them without the lots and they're not going to be able to be individual houses. They're going to have to go to condominiums. And the problem with condominiums in this world right now is they're hard to get financed because national lenders will not finance condominiums. So, is there a way that we can set up a process that allows it to be done like this right here that says they're rental units and we assess them as rental units, but when they start to sell that it gets converted. Is there a way to do that?

Um, part of your question I'm not going to be able to answer because it's not in my wheelhouse. Uh, but what I can tell you is that we have um over the last five or so years we've had it where we had these these buildings that were had condos in them. Um, and they were all owned by one company and they decided to get rid of the condo decks and change it back into an apartment building. Uh, does it happen real often? No. But it has happened. Um, and is there a good way to predict when that's going to happen or to try and avoid it? That's the part that I can't answer.

But is there a way to start out this process that way so we know? So if it was presented, if this was a brand new project and it was presented and it was going to be rentals, but we but the builder decided to put individual lots in and individual hookups so that down the road, 5 years, 10 years from now, it could be sold. Is there a way within the the system to to look at that and to value it as rental property because that's what it is for today.

If it's being used as a rental property, then we would value it as a rental property. And if they went, you know, down the road, they went ahead and condoed it and started selling off the individual lots, then we would or the the condos, then we would start valuing it as condos. And typically you are seeing the condos do sell for more than you know on an individual basis than the apartment buildings. Um but I I know that I'm still not answering your question and I think the answer is I don't know the answer to your question. That's a planning question. I think

well [laughter] but I I guess my point is is if I brought this project brand new in and it was going to be a for rental project today and they weren't going to sell them. They were never going to list them, but they brought it in exactly like this. How can we look at this and say it's rental property? It should be assessed as rental property. Is there any way to do that? Because it's got individual lots, individual infrastructure, but it's not for sale. The individual buildings are not for sale. The whole thing is rental property. I I would say that what you're presenting is kind of contradiction in terms in that it's an individual property, but it's a rental property. And there's kind of a from an appraisal standpoint, we would not be able to do that because we have to define it as one or the other. You know what I'm saying? It's like I can't say this is a rental property and it's an individual property at the same time. I've got to I've got to appraise it as what it is. So, I'm going to have to define either it's a rental property and it has to be valued on a rental or an apartment scale or it's an individual property and it has to be um valued as that.

Okay. Any other Go ahead. So a question if if it was if this went through you would appraise it as rental property and the appraisal values would go down as would the taxes. Yes. Would that also reduce the market value for this property? I mean we're

likely. Yes. and and and so I I'm really kind of if somebody's trying to protect the interests of the of the um purchasers, the owners just by reducing property taxes, reducing their expenses, doesn't it? It seems kind of foolish to reduce the overall overall market value of the same property if you're worried about the investors.

Yeah. Um I I guess to a certain extent I would say that from again that highest and best use theory um it seems to me from an appraisal standpoint that this is the highest and best use as it current is currently is being used. Um and to change it would from a feasibility standpoint uh to change it back would would reduce the value and uh therefore reduce the highest and best use. And you said that the purchase price of this block was very similar in terms of the valuation that you've placed on it.

I think that was the statement that he made that the it was currently valued at 270 per unit and that's what they bought it for. So I have a question. If you were to change this, how does that impact the adjacent property owners all around it?

I do not [clears throat] know the answer to that question. Um, I would have to look and see what they're currently being uh what their current use is, what their value is. Um, if they are similar types of properties, then you could see that it would be uh somewhat of a ripple effect. Um, but if they are com uh, you know, right now they're not the same type of property, they're not being valued the same, then it may not affect them at all. Thank you. Any other questions? Yep. I think this is might be a Donald uh planning question. Do we have any other questions for Michael before?

No. Thank you. We very much appreciate it. Yes, sir. I really like this project, this town home style, and I think it fits this neighborhood really well. Provides a good option. You mean as it exists right now? As it as it exists right now. And I guess just the concept too of just the the forplexes and the three plexes. I think it fits really nicely. Um, in this proposal with the twob block configuration, let's just say this project didn't exist and they came at it in this approach. Would they be able to recreate what's there right now doing this same uh what they're proposing with the two blocks? Like could they make this SR4 with this many units? It's SR5

or SR5. Um, I'm not sure I follow that, sir. You mean if they just had a a Let's try this. So, looking at this here, so if this was just a blank space, Yeah. could they come in and plat it like this? Is that what you're asking me? Platted, but also just uh build what's currently there. Would they be able to do uh We still have those those development standards available. So, it you know, and we get requests for them occasionally still to use those. Uh I'm trying to think of when the last one was. It's been the last couple years we've done this. So, it seems that they could, you know, build it like this again. Yeah. It's It's not locked in time somehow. Um is that Yeah,

Mark has some additional information.

I think the challenge here is um as some of you may remember, this was a pretty contentious area when these requests were coming in to redevelop this area. And and the request from the developer at that time was to make this individual single family dwellings. And so that's how the approval process that's how we worked with the neighborhood um on on that level. Now if the developer would have at that time came to us and said okay I want this two blocks I want uh what three fourplexes and two three plexes um we we would have worked with the neighborhood differently. Uh, one of the challenges that I see here is is this really is the first for me with the platting process as far as platting a piece of property to reduce the value to lower the tax value. And one thing that I'm also thinking is, okay, if if our single family market crashes and our multif family market goes up in price, now the goal would be having individual lots to have it assessed as a single family dwelling versus a multifamily dwelling to be able to take advantage of the tax purposes and using the tool of platting as that tool to achieve that goal.

That was going to be my question. So could they if we change this and they want to go sell it, can they then propose going back to single dwell? No. Okay. No, I think um just to add to Mark and everybody's commentary here, um we agree this is one of the first times um we've seen something like this and we also appreciate the applicant bringing the concern, you know, straight to you as a point of conversation and um yeah, once those lot lines go away, we never get them back and um the ability to get them back becomes quite difficult. Also, I think to answer one of the commissioner's questions, if this were to come in as an original Greenfield development in say the two blocks like they're seeking, we would have maybe per uh seen that as an application, but the zoning would have been different and um we wouldn't have seen the individual taps per unit and the cost of the public infrastructure that went in to support the single family development. And so the infrastructure expectations and costs that's still being special today is at that SR, you know, with the individual taps and and things like that. So it's more costly to put the infrastructure in to serve what exists today than it would be to serve the multifamily if it was a multif family. So for us to align the zoning with the pladding is what our primary one of our primary concerns is by just doing the platting um and it wouldn't meet MR standards and so you would got have gotten a different product altogether and so this is a really interesting test for our growth plan implementation and for our future zoning discussions and LBC discussions and um and I think we are going to probably see more of this as we see what happens in the investment arena with um development and housing.

Any other questions for Donald or staff? No. Okay, comments. I move to deny. You have a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any comments, discussion?

I guess the one thing that is listening to the discussion is, you know, it there's a certain role for the planning commission and the planning commission's role is not to make adjustments simply to make a developer happy on their property taxes. And that's the one thing that just seems like that's not what we should be looking at when we're making these decisions. Madam Chairman, just for clarification, did you open a public hearing? No, I didn't. Okay. Do you want me to open a public hearing? Yeah, it's a public hearing item. Yep. Okay, hold on. I'll hold my motion.

Let's go ahead. Um, open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Anybody wish to speak? Seeing none. Okay. Close public hearing. Thank you, ma'am. Are we still good? Motion reintroduced. Okay, we have a motion. I think I seconded. Okay, we have a second. Perfect. Back to where we were. Any other comments, discussion?

Well, from my point of view, I don't see a compelling reason to make this change that is being requested. If there were a compelling reason, then uh I could entertain it. But it seems to me that the the current configuration of the lots leaves of flexibility. They can certainly be rented forever and ever if that is the wish of whoever owns it, but they can also be sold. And to remove that flexibility, I think would be uh a bad decision. Any other comments? Seeing none, go ahead and take the role. Jordy,

hi. Mo, I Schmidt. Hi, Metlock. Hi, Shuy. Hi, Sron. Hi, Rosenberg. I toss I motion carries to deny the proposed plot and ma'am just for your and the applicant's clarification this will still go forward to the rec the city commission with a recommendation of denial. Thank you ma'am.

Thanks Donald staff. Thank you Michael. Um, oh, yep. D1. That's why I didn't open up hearing. I I I figured it out now. Okay. Um, other items, annexation of approximately 122.95 acres, portion of the north half of section 10, township 138 north, range 49 west of the fifth principal, Meridian, Cass County, North Dakota. Megan,

thank you chair and planning commissioners. So this is a uh in as far as geography about the same area as the Cubby branch third edition items 1 A and B earlier on your agenda today uh except for some portions of right of way and this property in the northeast corner that have been previously annexed. Um again we're at 64th Avenue South on the north side here, I29 over here, Fargo Sports Complex to the northeast, and 45th Street over here on the west. This is approximately [clears throat] 123 acres. There's about a 30 acre difference um from those properties that I just mentioned that have been previously annexed. It's an owner initiated annexation uh which is by ordinance pursuant to the North Dakota Century Code. There's three owners uh that have applied for this. Dabbert Custom Homes Enclave CVY and Brookstone property and the city uh as I mentioned previously is also working to acquire a portion of prop property for storm water infrastructure. the planning commission evaluates. Sorry, I jumped a little bit further uh little too quick ahead, but uh these are the same images that you saw earlier for that same location. So, this is the annexation plat. Um the planning commission evaluates this for consistency with the growth plan and a hearing will be scheduled concurrently at the city commission with the CVY ranch third edition. So, similarly to item 1 A and B, we continue to work with the applicants as part of this development and staff is re recommending continuation to the January 6th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Uh, and just a reminder, this is uh not a public hearing item. So, with that, that concludes staff's presentation. Be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thanks, Megan. Any questions for Megan? Megan, what is it? Because it's an owner uh owner occupied or owner initiated. Is that why we're just doing this that we're not squaring it off? I mean, down below what's what's the what's the reason for for down below that with a funky little line there? So, what this Thank you, Commissioner. this line follows that south portion of the stormwater conveyance so that it's it's in alignment and as part of that annexation and something that we look at as part of technical review to make sure that that line between the dedication plat are the same.

So is that dedicated already? Is that drain already dedicated for has it been purchased? I mean who won't it's not on here yet. Um so it is within this portion. it will be within this portion of the annexation, the stormwater conveyance. And so that's something that the engineering department is is working closely with those applicants on and and making sure that all of that property is located within it. So all of all of the storm water conveyance channel will be located within Cubby Ranch third edition and within this annexation plat. Thank you.

Any other questions for Megan? Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicants? Applicants want to add anything? No questions. Kate don't need to open up hearing. So, commissioners, I'll move to continue to the January 6th planning [clears throat] commission meeting. Staff's recommendation. We have a motion. Did I hear a second? Second.

Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, go ahead and take the role. Rosenberg. I Shuy. I Stron. Jordy. I Schmidt. IA.

I. Motion carries. Um again just a reminder of December 16th 12 to1 join code connect um the 5th one at www.farggoc.org. Um thank you very much and hope you all have a merry Christmas. Meeting adjourned.