fargo planning commission regular meetingfiles.cityoffargo.com/content... · planning commission...

Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on cable channel TV Fargo 56 and online at www.cityoffargo.com/streaming. They are rebroadcast each Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. and Sunday at 8:00 a.m.; and are also included in our video archive at www.cityoffargo.com/PlanningCommission. People with disabilities who plan to attend the meeting and need special accommodations should contact the Planning Office at 241-1474 or TDD at 241-8258. Please contact us at least 48 hours before the meeting to give our staff adequate time to make arrangements. Minutes are available on the City of Fargo Web site at www.cityoffargo.com/planningcommission.

FARGO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 3:00 P.M.

A: Approve Order of Agenda. B: Minutes: Regular Meeting of November 1, 2016. C: Brown Bag Luncheon - Wednesday, December 21, 2016 – CANCELLED D: Public Hearing Items: 1. Continued hearing on an application requesting a Plat of Bentley Place First Addition (Minor

Subdivision) a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Brandt Crossing First Addition to the City of Fargo, Cass County, North Dakota. (Located at 5503 33rd Avenue South) (PACES Lodging) (km):

2a. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from AG, Agricultural to GC,

General Commercial within the boundaries of the proposed Interstate Business Park Addition. (Located at 3801 26th Avenue South and 2852 Thunder Road South) (Kjos Investments, LLC) (dk): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 4, 2017

2b. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Plat of Interstate Business Park Addition

(Major Subdivision) a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Adams 7th Addition, and part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 139 North, Range 49 West to the City of the 5th Principal Meridian, City of Fargo, Cass County, North Dakota. (Located at 3801 26th Avenue South and 2852 Thunder Road South) (Kjos Investments, LLC) (dk): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 4, 2017

3. Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from GC, General Commercial to LI,

Limited Industrial on part of Lot 20 and all of Lot 21, Block 18, Reeves Addition. (Located at 1409 and 1411 1st Avenue North) (Wade Wolf Properties LLC) (dk): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 4, 2017

4a. Hearing on an application requesting a Growth Plan Amendment on Lot 3, Block 2, Calico

Prairie Addition. (Located at 4462 30th Avenue South) (Fargo Housing and Redevelopment Authority) (dk):

4b. Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from LC, Limited Commercial to MR-3,

Multi-Dwelling Residential on Lot 3, Block 2, Calico Prairie Addition. (Located at 4462 30th Avenue South) (Fargo Housing and Redevelopment Authority) (dk):

5. Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from SR-2, Single-Dwelling Residential

to SR-4, Single-Dwelling Residential on Lots 14-16, Block 1, Hogans Addition. (Located at 501 and 507 15th Avenue North, and 1510 5th Street North) (Jay Krabbenhoft, Jr.) (me):

http://www.cityoffargo.com/streaming

http://www.cityoffargo.com/PlanningCommission

http://www.cityoffargo.com/planningcommission

Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on cable channel TV Fargo 56 and online at www.cityoffargo.com/streaming. They are rebroadcast each Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. and Sunday at 8:00 a.m.; and are also included in our video archive at www.cityoffargo.com/PlanningCommission. People with disabilities who plan to attend the meeting and need special accommodations should contact the Planning Office at 241-1474 or TDD at 241-8258. Please contact us at least 48 hours before the meeting to give our staff adequate time to make arrangements. Minutes are available on the City of Fargo Web site at www.cityoffargo.com/planningcommission.

6. Hearing on an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Alternative Access

Plan on Part of Lot 72, Ohmers Addition. (Located at 1211 University Drive North) (Pete Sabo) (an):

E: Other Items: 1. 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar (attachment) 2. Discussion of text amendment for telecommunications support structures (TSS)—small cell

installations in the public right of way. (attachment) 3. Discussion on the Land Development Code (LDC) Residential Task Force White Paper

(attachment) 4. Land Development Code Update Strategy Discussion (no attachment)

http://www.cityoffargo.com/streaming

http://www.cityoffargo.com/PlanningCommission

http://www.cityoffargo.com/planningcommission

BOARD OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MINUTES

Regular Meeting: Tuesday: November 1, 2016: The Regular Meeting of the Board of Planning Commissioners of the City of Fargo, North Dakota, was held in the City Commission Room at City Hall at 3:00 o'clock p.m., Tuesday, November 1, 2016. The Planning Commissioners present or absent were as follows: Present: Mara Brust, Shara Fischer, John Gunkelman, Mike Magelky,

Mary Scherling, Rocky Schneider, Scott Stofferahn, Jan Ulferts Stewart Absent: Melissa Sobolik, Kelly Steffes Chair Ulferts Stewart called the meeting to order. Business Items: Item A: Approve Order of Agenda Chair Ulferts Stewart noted the following Agenda items:

- Items 1 through 4 will be continued to the dates listed. - Member Gunkelman is excused from voting on Item 6, declaring a conflict of interest.

- Addition of Item E.3 – Review of the Bentley Square Second Addition approval at the August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting.

- Updated documents submitted to the Board for the following items: Item 9 – Bentley Place First Addition Item 10b. – Mid America Steel Addition PUD Mater Land Use Plan Item E.2 – Calico Prairie Addition Appeal of an RPS waiver

Member Gunkelman moved the Order of Agenda be approved as amended. Second by Member Brust. All Members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried. Item B: Minutes: Regular Meeting of October 4, 2016 Member Magelky moved the minutes of the October 4, 2016 Planning Commission meeting be approved. Second by Member Scherling. All Members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried. Item C: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 Brown Bag Luncheon Topic: Round Table Discussion with Area Developers Item D: Public Hearing Items:

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 2 Item 1: Kirkham’s Second Addition a. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Growth Plan Amendment on Lots 7-11, Block 14, Kirkham’s Second Addition. (Located at 1128, 1132, and 1136 14th Street North; 1404 12th Avenue North) (L2H Development, LLC): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 3, 2017 b. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from SR-3, Single-Dwelling Residential, MR-2, Multi-Dwelling Residential, and LC, Limited Commercial with a C-O, Conditional Overlay to LC, Limited Commercial with a PUD, Planned Unit Development Overlay and extinguishment of the existing C-O, Conditional Overlay on Lots 7-11, Block 14, Kirkham’s Second Addition. (Located at 1128, 1132, and 1136 14th Street North; 1404 12th Avenue North) (L2H Development, LLC): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 3, 2017 c. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Planned Unit Development Master Land Use Plan for Commercial and Residential Development on Lots 7-11, Block 14, Kirkham’s Second Addition. (Located at 1128, 1132, and 1136 14th Street North; 1404 12th Avenue North) (L2H Development, LLC): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 3, 2017 A hearing had been set for February 2, 2016. At the February 2, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to March 1, 2016. At the March 1, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued April 5, 2016. At the April 5, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to June 7, 2016. At the June 7, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to this date and time; however, the applicant has requested this item be continued to January 3, 2017. Member Fischer moved this item be continued to the January 3, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Member Gunkelman. All Members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried. Item 2: Tyler’s Addition Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Street Vacation of 22nd Street North between Block 11 and Block 12, Tyler’s Addition. (Located between the 300 and 400 Blocks of 22nd Street North) (Fabricators Unlimited) (an): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 3, 2017 A hearing had been set for August 2, 2016. At the August 2, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to September 6, 2016. At the September 6, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to this date and time; however, the applicant has requested this item be continued to January 3, 2017. Member Fischer moved this item be continued to the January 3, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Member Gunkelman. All Members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried. Item 3: Beardsleys Addition a. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from LI, Limited Industrial to LI, Limited Industrial with a PUD, Planned Unit Development

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 3 Overlay on Lots 7-8, and the East 10 feet of Lot 9, Block 34, Beardsleys Addition. (Located at 2105 7th Avenue North) (Accel Mechanical, LLC): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 3, 2017 b. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Planned Unit Development Master Land Use Plan on Lots 7-8, and the East 10 feet of Lot 9, Block 34, Beardsleys Addition. (Located at 2105 7th Avenue North) (Accel Mechanical, LLC): CONTINUED TO JANUARY 3, 2017 A hearing had been set for August 2, 2016. At the August 2, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to October 4, 2016. At the October 4, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to this date and time; however, the applicant has requested this item be continued to January 3, 2017. Member Fischer moved this item be continued to the January 3, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Member Gunkelman. All Members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried. Item 4: Interstate Business Park Addition a. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from AG, Agricultural to GC, General Commercial within the boundaries of the proposed Interstate Business Park Addition. (Located at 3801 26th Avenue South and 2852 Thunder Road South) (Kjos Investments, LLC): CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 2016 b. Continued Hearing on an application requesting a Plat of Interstate Business Park Addition (Major Subdivision) a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Adams 7th Addition, and part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 139 North, Range 49 West to the City of the 5th Principal Meridian, City of Fargo, Cass County, North Dakota. (Located at 3801 26th Avenue South and 2852 Thunder Road South) (Kjos Investments, LLC): CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 2016 A hearing had been set for August 2, 2016. At the August 2, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to September 6, 2016. At the September 6, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to October 4, 2016. At the October 4, 2016 meeting the Hearing was continued to this date and time; however, the applicant has requested this item be continued to December 6, 2016. Member Magelky moved this item be continued to the December 6, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Member Brust. All Members present voted aye and the motion was declared carried. Item 5: CBC Addition Hearing on an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Alternative Access Plan on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, CBC Addition. (Located at 3535 and 3541 25th Street South) (PACES Lodging): APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Member Stofferahn present.

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 4 Planner Derrick LaPoint presented the staff report stating all approval criteria have been met and staff is recommending approval. Applicant Nate Vollmuth spoke on behalf of the application. He noted his concern regarding condition 1 of staff’s recommended motion for a minimum of 108 parking spaces. Mr. Vollmuth asked the Board to change the minimum of 108 parking spaces to a minimum of 105 parking spaces to be required between the two lots. Mr. LaPoint added that staff would be agreeable to amend condition one, per Mr. Vollmuth’s request. Member Brust moved the findings and recommendations of staff be accepted and the Conditional Use Permit for an Alternative Access Plan on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, CBC Addition be approved as amended, as the proposal complies with Section 20-0909.D (1-6) and all other requirements of the Land Development Code, with the following conditions:

1. A minimum of 105 parking spaces shall be required between the two lots. 2. Any expansion of the square footage of office or seating capacity of the religious

institution will require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit with review and approval by the Planning Commission.

3. The Conditional Use Permit will cease if the land use changes from office or

religious institution. Second by Member Stofferahn. On call of the roll Members Stofferahn, Scherling, Fischer, Brust, Schneider, Magelky, Gunkelman, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. Item 6: West Acres Business Park 6th Addition Hearing on an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Alternative Access Plan on Lot 1, Block 1, West Acres Business Park 6th Addition. (Located at 4324 20th Avenue South) (TL Stroh Architects, Ltd.): APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Member Gunkelman declared a conflict of interest on this item and was excused from voting. Planner Maegin Elshaug presented the staff report stating all approval criteria have been met and staff is recommending approval. Applicant Terry Stroh, TL Stroh Architects, Ltd., spoke on behalf of the application. Member Magelky moved the findings and recommendations of staff be accepted and the Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Alternative Access Plan be approved, as the

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 5 proposal complies with Section 20-0909.D (1-6) and all other requirements of the Land Development Code, with the following conditions:

1. 44 parking spaces are required on site.

2. Any expansion of the square footage of the day care use or seating capacity of the religious institution will require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit with review and approval by the Planning Commission.

3. The Conditional Use Permit will cease if the land use changes from day care or

religious institution. Second by Member Schneider. On call of the roll Members Magelky, Scherling, Fischer, Brust, Stofferahn, Schneider, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Member Gunkelman abstained from voting. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. Item 7: Woodhaven Plaza Addition Hearing on an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Alternative Access Plan on Lot 3, Block 1, Woodhaven Plaza Addition. (Located at 4055 41st Avenue South) (Aldevron LLC): APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Maegin Elshaug presented the staff report stating all approval criteria have been met and staff is recommending approval. Applicant Ronald Robson, Aldevron LLC, spoke on behalf of the application. Member Brust moved the findings and recommendations of staff be accepted and the Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Alternative Access Plan be approved, as the proposal complies with Section 2-0909.D (1-6) and all other requirements of the Land Development Code, with the following conditions:

1. One off-street parking space be provided per 570 square feet of medical research office use.

2. In order to accommodate future change of use of the medical research office, the

site plan shall depict undeveloped area sufficient to accommodate the Land Development Code’s parking requirement of other office, which is currently 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area.

3. The Conditional Use Permit will cease if the medical research office use ceases.

Second by Member Fischer. On call of the roll Members Gunkelman, Fischer, Magelky, Brust, Stofferahn, Schneider, Scherling, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried.

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 6 Item 8: Noridian Center Addition Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from GC, General Commercial to P/I, Public and Institutional on Lots 1-10, Block 2, Noridian Center Addition. (Located at 4814, 4830, 4908, and 4920 14th Avenue South; 4809, 4825, 4905 and 4917 15th Avenue South; and 1403 and 1441 48th Street South) (West Fargo Public Schools): APPROVED Planner Aaron Nelson presented the staff report stating all approval criteria have been met and staff is recommending approval. Member Scherling moved the findings and recommendations of staff be accepted and approval be recommended to the City Commission of the proposed zoning change from GC, General Commercial to P/I, Public and Institutional on the basis that it satisfactorily complies with the GO2030 Fargo Comprehensive Plan, the Standards of Section 20-0906.F (1-4), and all other applicable requirements of the Land Development Code. Second by Member Gunkelman. On call of the roll Members Stofferahn, Fischer, Gunkelman, Schneider, Brust, Scherling, Magelky, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. Item 9: Bentley Place First Addition Hearing on an application requesting a Plat of Bentley Place First Addition (Minor Subdivision) a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Brand Crossing First Addition to the City of Fargo, Cass County, North Dakota. (Located at 5503 33rd Avenue South) (PACES Lodging): CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 2016 Assistant Planner Kylie Murphy presented the staff report noting an update submitted to the Board regarding page 3. She explained the update refers to the applicant’s proposed ingress/egress access easement along 32nd Avenue South, which does not meet the spacing requirements as outlined within Section 20-0702 Roadway Access and Driveways of the Land Development Code. Ms. Murphy stated all other approval criteria have been met and staff is recommending approval of the proposed plat with the condition that the ingress/egress access easement be removed from the plat. Board discussion was held regarding roadway access and driveway spacing requirements stated in the Land Development Code, as it relates to the different types of roadways within the City. Applicant Nate Vollmuth, PACES Lodging, spoke on behalf of the application. Mr. Vollmuth explained why he feels the ingress/egress access easement is important for this proposed plat. At 4:00 p.m. the Board took a five-minute recess. After recess: All Members present except Members Sobolik and Steffes. Chair Ulferts Stewart presiding. Planning Director Jim Gilmour spoke on behalf of staff, reaffirming their review process and the criteria followed to meet the requirements stated in the Land Development

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 7 Code. Mr. Gilmour noted the importance of safety, and how traffic numbers and traffic flow impact the City’s various types of roadways and developments. City Engineer Jeremy Gordon added staff is working on the Land Development Code to update the guidelines and regulations staff follows when reviewing the City’s future roadways and access points. Board discussion continued regarding the traffic and access issues faced by staff and developers as the City continues to grow. Member Schneider moved this item be continued to the December 6, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. Second by Member Fischer. On call of the roll Members Fischer, Magelky, Gunkelman, Brust, Scherling, Schneider, Stofferahn, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. Item 10: Mid America Steel Addition a. Hearing on an application requesting a Zoning Change from AG, Agricultural to GI, General Industrial with a PUD, Planned Unit Development Overlay within the boundaries of the proposed Mid America Steel Addition. (Located at 5617 19th Avenue North) (Mid America Steel, Inc.): APPROVED b. Hearing on an application requesting a Planned Unit Development Master Land Use Plan and Final Plan within the boundaries of the proposed Mid America Steel Addition. (Located at 5617 19th Avenue North) (Mid America Steel, Inc.): APPROVED c. Hearing on an application requesting a Growth Plan Amendment within the boundaries of the proposed Mid America Steel Addition. (Located at 5617 19th Avenue North) (Mid America Steel, Inc.): APPROVED d. Hearing on an application requesting a Plat of Mid America Steel Addition (Major Subdivision) of part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 140 North, Range 49 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Cass County, North Dakota. (Located at 5617 19th Avenue North) (Mid America Steel, Inc.): APPROVED Senior Planner Donald Kress presented the staff report. Mr. Kress noted that Mid America Steel is relocating to this site from their current site at 92 NP Avenue North, and an updated site plan has been submitted to the Board. He also shared staff held an open house on October 26, 2016, and have not received any opposition from area property owners to-date. Mr. Kress stated all approval criteria have been met and staff is recommending approval. The applicant’s Attorney Dan Bueide, and Owner/Manager of Mid America Steel John Simonson, spoke on behalf of the application.

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 8 Member Gunkelman moved the findings and recommendations of staff be accepted and approval be recommended to the City Commission of the proposed: 1) growth plan amendment to the 2007 Growth Plan to change the designation of approximately 19.6 acres from “commercial” to “industrial”; 2) zone change from AG, Agricultural to GI, General Industrial; 3) Planned Unit Development Master Land Use Plan; and 4) Mid America Steel Addition subdivision plat as presented, as the proposal complies with the GO2030 Fargo Comprehensive Plan; the 2007 Growth Plan; the Standards of Article 20-06; and Sections 20-0906.F (1-4), 20-0907, and 20-0908(B)(7)(a-e) of the Land Development Code; and all other applicable requirements of the Land Development Code. Second by Member Stofferahn. On call of the roll Members Scherling, Brust, Fischer, Stofferahn, Schneider, Magelky, Gunkelman, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. Item 11: 39th Street South Hearing on an application requesting a Name Change Plat for 38th Street South, located south of the City of Fargo within the Commerce on I-29 Addition, to be renamed 39th Street South. (City of Fargo): APPROVED Aaron Nelson presented the staff report stating all approval criteria have been met and staff is recommending approval. Member Magelky moved the findings and recommendations of staff be accepted and approval recommended to the City Commission of the Name Change Plat on the basis that it satisfactorily complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the Standards of Article 20-06, and all other applicable requirements of the Land Development Code. Second by Member Schneider. On call of the roll Members Brust, Schneider, Scherling, Stofferahn, Fischer, Magelky, Gunkelman, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. Item E: Other Items: Item 1: Annexation of approximately 42.6 acres of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 140 North, Range 49 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Cass County, North Dakota. (Bruce Brand and Elwood (Jay) Brand): APPROVED Donald Kress presented the staff report for the proposed annexation stating all approval criteria have been met and staff is recommending approval. Member Stofferahn moved the findings and recommendations of staff be accepted and approval be recommended to the City Commission of the proposed annexation of a portion of Section 28, Township 140 North, Range 49 West, Cass County, North Dakota as it is consistent with the 2007 Growth Plan. Second by Member Scherling. On call of the roll Members Scherling, Gunkelman, Stofferahn, Magelky, Brust, Fischer, Schneider, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried.

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 9 Item 2: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to Approve a Residential Protection Standard (RPS) Waiver on a property located at 2840 and 2860 Calico Drive South. (Calico Prairie Addition): APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Maegin Elshaug presented the staff report for the appeal of an administrative decision. Ms. Elshaug noted staff has received two written appeals, as well as a petition from area property owners. She reported the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, October 27, 2016. Ms. Elshaug stated staff does support the granting of the applicant’s waiver application with conditions, and is recommending approval. Applicant Elissa Novotny Leino, Roers Development, spoke on behalf of the proposal. Kelly Patensky, 2845 Umber Court South, shared her concern about the safety of parking spots along the property line. The Board further discussed the concern by area property owners regarding the 5-foot tall opaque fence under condition 2. The petition included the property owners’ request that this fence be provided along the entire east property line of the proposed primary structures, in lieu of the applicant’s proposed 40-foot length fence between the proposed primary structures. Member Stofferahn moved the findings and recommendations of staff be accepted and the request for a waiver of the residential protection standards be approved as presented, with the requirements that in lieu of a standard landscape buffer and 10-foot parking setback as outlined in the Land Development Code, Section 20-0704, the petitioner shall be required to meet the following conditions as outlined in the staff report, with condition 2 amended as follows:

1. One tree per 25 linear feet be provided along the east property line that requires a buffer.

2. A 5-foot tall opaque fence be provided along the east property line adjacent to

SR, Single-Dwelling Residential zoned property. Second by Member Brust. On call of the roll Members Stofferahn, Scherling, Fischer, Brust, Schneider, and Magelky voted aye. Members Gunkelman and Ulferts Stewart voted nay. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. At 5:30 p.m. the Board took a five-minute recess. After recess: All Members present except Members Sobolik and Steffes. Chair Ulferts Stewart presiding. Item 3: Bentley Square Second Addition – Revisit previous Board approval and new updates: APPROVED Maegin Elshaug referred to the documents staff submitted to the Board regarding Bentley Square Second Addition. She explained this item was approved at the

Planning Commission November 1, 2016 Page No. 10 August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting, and will be presented to the City Commission on November 7, 2016. Ms. Elshaug noted the applicant has since revised his proposal requesting to vacate a portion of the existing negative access easement for an added driveway access on 45th Street South. Ms. Elshaug stated staff is not in support of this revision, and is requesting the Board review the application changes and the resulting change to staff’s recommendation, which is to recommend approval of the plat with the condition that the plat be amended to remove the access to 45th Street South. Discussion ensued concerning the legality of this change after recommending approval to City Commission. City Attorney Erik Johnson explained there is nothing in the law that prevents a project from being revised from the time the Planning Commission recommends approval, to the time it is presented before City Commission. Applicant Nate Vollmuth, PACES Lodging, explained why the approved proposal is being revised prior to being heard by the City Commission. Member Schneider moved to direct staff to work with industry representatives to analyze the driveway spacing issue separate from this application. Second by Member Magelky. On call of the roll Members Magelky, Gunkelman, Scherling, Brust, Stofferahn, Schneider, and Ulferts Stewart vote aye. Member Fischer voted nay. Absent and not voting Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. Further discussion by the Board and staff clarified that the above motion will not remove this item from the November 7, 2016 City Commission Meeting. Member Fischer moved to recommend to the City Commission approval of the plat with the condition that the plat be amended to remove the access to 45th Street South. Second by Member Brust. On call of the roll Members Gunkelman, Fischer, Magelky, Brust, Stofferahn, Schneider, Scherling, and Ulferts Stewart voted aye. Absent and not voting: Members Sobolik and Steffes. The motion was declared carried. The time at adjournment was 6:16 p.m.

!(

!(!(

!(

25TH

32ND

52ND

1ST

13TH

10TH

VE

TER

AN

S

45TH

MAIN

19TH

§̈¦29

§̈¦94

4

56

1

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community

Agenda Items MapFargo Planning Commission

December 6, 2016

0 21MilesF

Agenda Items Number 1 - Bentley Place First Addition 4 - Calico Prairie Addition 5 - Hogan Addition 6 - Ohmers Addition

of 3

Agenda Item # 1

City of Fargo Staff Report

Title: Bentley Place First Addition Date: 10/14/2016 11/30/16

Location: 5503 33rd Avenue South Staff Contact: Kylie Murphy Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Brandt Crossing First Addition

Owner(s)/Applicant: Brandt Crossing LLC/PACES Lodging Engineer: Ulteig

Entitlements Requested: Minor Subdivision (Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Brandt Crossing First Addition to the City of Fargo, Cass County, North Dakota)

Status: Planning Commission Public Hearing: December 6, 2016 Existing Proposed Land Use: Agriculture Land Use: Commercial Zoning: LC, Limited Commercial Zoning: No Change Uses Allowed: LC – Limited Commercial. Allows colleges, community service, daycare centers of unlimited size, health care facilities, parks and open space, religious institutions, safety services, offices, off premise advertising signs, commercial parking, retail sales and service, self service storage, vehicle repair, limited vehicle service.

Uses Allowed: No Change

Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed: Maximum 55% building coverage

Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed: No Change

Proposal: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision, entitled Bentley Place First Addition, which is a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Brandt Crossing First Addition to the City of Fargo, Cass County, North Dakota. The subject property is located at 5503 33rd Avenue South, and encompasses approximately 26 acres. The applicant is proposing a commercial development within the one (1) block and six (6) lots minor subdivision. This project was reviewed by the City’s Planning and Development, Engineering, Public Works, and Fire Departments (“staff”), whose comments are included in this report. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts:

North: LC, Limited Commercial across 32nd Avenue South, with agriculture use East: MR-3, Multi-Dwelling Residential across Seter Parkway South, with apartment use South: MR-3, Multi-Dwelling Residential across 33rd Avenue South, with apartment use West: C – Light Commercial with a Corridor Overlay (West Fargo) across Veteran’s Boulevard, with an

educational use

Area Plans: The subject property is located within the boundaries of the 2003 Southwest Future Land Use Plan. This land-use plan identifies the subject property as being appropriate for “Either Office or Commercial” land uses, which is consistent with the Light Commercial zoning district and proposed development.

of 3

Schools and Parks: Schools: The subject property is located within the West Fargo Public School District and is served by Independence Elementary, Liberty Middle, and Sheyenne High schools. Parks: The subject property is less than a half mile west of Urban Plains Park (5050 30th Avenue S) that currently does not have amenities and less than a half mile west of Brandt Crossing Park (5009 33rd Avenue S) with the amenities of basketball courts, dog park, playground, recreational trails, and shelter. Pedestrian / Bicycle: Off-road facilities are located along 32nd Avenue South and Veteran’s Boulevard. Both facilities are components of the overall the metro area trail system. Staff Analysis: Minor Subdivision The LDC stipulates that the following criteria is met before a minor plat can be approved:

1. Section 20-0907.B.3 of the LDC stipulates that the Planning Commission recommend approval or denial of the application, based on whether it complies with the adopted Area Plan, the standards of Article 20-06 and all other applicable requirements of the Land Development Code. Section 20-0907.B.4 of the LDC further stipulates that a Minor Subdivision Plat shall not be approved unless it is located in a zoning district that allows the proposed development and complies with the adopted Area Plan, the standards of Article 20-06 and all other applicable requirements of the Land Development Code. The subdivision is intended to split one (1) exiting lot into six (6) new lots to accommodate future commercial development. In accordance with Section 20-0901.F of the LDC, notices of the proposed plat have been sent out to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. To date, staff has received no calls of inquiry on the application. Staff has reviewed this request and finds that this application complies with standards of Article 20-06 and all applicable requirements of the Land Development Code. (Criteria Satisfied)

2. Section 20-907.C.4.f of the LDC stipulates that in taking action on a Final Plat, the Board of City Commissioners shall specify the terms for securing installation of public improvements to serve the subdivision.

of 3

While this section of the LDC specifically addresses only major subdivision plats, staff believes it is important to note that any improvements associated with the project (both existing and proposed) are subject to special assessments. Special assessments associated with the costs of the public infrastructure improvements are proposed to be spread by the front footage basis and storm sewer by the square footage basis as is typical with the City of Fargo assessment principles. Infrastructure surrounding the bounds of the plat is existing. (Criteria Satisfied)

The applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide ingress/egress easement along 32nd Avenue South, to allow right-in right-out driveway access. The proposed access point does not meet spacing requirements as outlined within Section 20-0702 Roadway Access and Driveways of the Land Development Code of a minimum spacing of 600 feet between driveways and intersections of a principal arterial roadway. The proposed driveway spacing to the intersections are approximately 554 and 450 feet (see attachment). The Engineering Department is not in support of the proposed access point. As such, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission weigh in on the applicability of this code requirement and make judgement apart from the City Engineer review.

Update 11/25/2016: This application was heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 1, 2016, at which time the proposed minor subdivision plat was continued to the December 6, 2016 meeting. A similar case, BLU Water Creek Addition (previously Bentley Square Second Addition), regarding driveway spacing was heard on November 7, 2016 by the City Commission in which the commission approved the shortened driveway spacing. After further discussion with the City Engineer, staff feels that this item can be further discussed at the December 6, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.

Staff Recommendation: Suggested Motion: “To accept the findings and recommendations of Planning Commission and staff and move to approve the proposed Bentley Place First Addition subdivision plat as presented, with the following conditions:

1. that the proposed 50-foot wide ingress/egress access easement along 32nd Avenue South be removed from the plat

…as the proposal complies with the Go2030 Fargo Comprehensive Plan, Standards of Article 20-06, and Section 20-0906.F (1-4) of the LDC and all other applicable requirements of the LDC.”

Planning Commission Recommendation: December 6, 2016 Attachments:

1. Zoning Map 2. Location Map 3. Plat

Subject Property

32 AVE S

33 AVE S

51 ST S

34 AVE S

VETE

RA

NS BLV

D

55 ST S

SETER PKWY S

31 AVE S

50 ST S

54 ST S

56 S

T S

TYLER AVE S

TANNER AVE SVE

TER

AN

S BLVD

¯Fargo Planning Commission

November 1, 2016

Plat (Minor Subdivision)Bentley Place First Addition 5503 33 Avenue South

LegendSR-2SR-3SR-4SR-5

NCNOP/I

MHP

UMUGI

AGDMUGCGO

LC

MR-2MR-3

LIMR-1City Limits

300Feet

Subject Property

32 AVE S

33 AVE S

51 ST S

34 AVE S

VETE

RA

NS BLV

D

55 ST S

SETER PKWY S

31 AVE S

50 ST S

54 ST S

56 S

T S

TYLER AVE S

TANNER AVE SVE

TER

AN

S BLVD


November 1, 2016

Plat (Minor Subdivision)Bentley Place First Addition 5503 33 Avenue South

300Feet

of 4

Agenda Item # 4a, 4b


Title: Calico Prairie Addition Date: 11/30/16 Location: 4462 30th Avenue South Staff Contact: Donald Kress, senior planner Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 2, Calico Prairie Addition

Owner(s)/Applicant: Gate City Bank/Fargo Housing Redevelopment Agency (transaction contingent on approval of the zone change)

Engineer: None

Entitlements Requested: Growth Plan Amendment (To change the land use designation of this property under the 2003 Southwest Future Land Use Plan from “Commercial” to “Commercial or Medium/High Density Residential”) and Zoning Change (From LC, Limited Commercial to MR-3, Multi- Dwelling residential)

Status: Planning Commission Public Hearing: December 6, 2016 Existing Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped Land Use: Residential Zoning: LC, Limited Commercial Zoning: MR-3, Multi-Dwelling Residential Uses Allowed: colleges, community service, daycare centers of unlimited size, health care facilities, parks and open space, religious institutions, safety services, offices, off premise advertising signs, commercial parking, retail sales and service, self service storage, vehicle repair, limited vehicle service.

Uses Allowed: detached houses, attached houses, duplexes, multi-dwelling structures, daycare centers up to 12 children or adults, group living, parks and open space, religious institutions, safety services, schools, and basic utilities.

Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed: 55% Maximum Density Allowed: 24 dwelling units per acre

Proposal: The applicant requests two entitlements:

1. A growth plan amendment to change the land use designation for the approximately 3.87 acre project site from “Commercial” to “Commercial or Medium/High Density Residential,” in order to accommodate the proposed zoning change.

2. A zoning change from LC, Limited Commercial to MR-3, Multi-Dwelling Residential.

This project was reviewed by the City’s Planning and Development, Engineering, Public Works, and Fire Departments (“staff”), whose comments are included in this report. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts:

North: Undeveloped / LC: Limited Commercial East: Multi-dwelling buildings / MR-2: Multi-Dwelling South: Fast food restaurant and multi-dwelling buildings / LC and MR-3: Multi-Dwelling West: Bank and clinic / LC

of 4

Area Plans: The subject property is located within the 2003 Southwest Future Land Use Plan. The Growth Plan Amendment proposes to the change the land use designation for this property from “Commercial” to “Commercial or Medium/High Density” as shown in the graphic below.

Schools and Parks: Schools: The subject property is located within the West Fargo Public School District and is served by Freedom Elementary, Liberty Middle, and Sheyenne High schools. Parks: The subject property is approximately a quarter mile south of Anderson Softball Complex (2424 45th Street SW) with the amenities of baseball/softball fields, concessions, picnic table, playground, restroom and shelter and less than half a mile east of Urban Plains Park (5050 30th Avenue S) with no current amenities. Pedestrian / Bicycle: Off-road bike facilities are located along 30th Avenue South and is a component of the metro area trail system. Staff Analysis: PROJECT OBJECTIVE The Fargo Housing Redevelopment Authority intends to construct a multi-dwelling residential building on this site. The maximum density available on this site is approximately 92 units. If the project design meets the bonus density provisions of LDC Section 20-0505(A), a maximum density of 30 units per acre, would be available. The density bonus provisions may be applied for at the time of a building permit submittal.

of 4

GROWTH PLAN AMENDMENT The growth plan amendment proposes to amend the 2003 Southwest Future Land Use Plan to change the land use designation of the project site from “Commercial” to “Commercial or Medium/High Density Residential.” Adjacent areas to the east and north are designated as “Medium/High Density Residential.” The area to the south will remain designated “Commercial.” The area to the west is designated “Commercial or Medium/High Density Residential.” As required by the Land Development Code, an open house to allow neighbors of the project site to learn more about the proposed growth plan change will be held on the afternoon of November 30, 2016. Staff will report on any comments resulting from this meeting at the December 6, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. ZONE CHANGE The property will be rezoned from LC: Limited Commercial to MR-3: Multi-Dwelling. Growth Plan Evaluation Criteria: Section 20-0905(H) of the LDC states that the Planning Commission and City Commissioners shall consider whether the Growth Plan Amendment is consistent with and serves to implement adopted plans and policies of the city. The 2003 Growth Plan sets forth the following criteria that should be used to evaluate any proposed growth plan amendment: 1. Is the proposed change consistent with surrounding land uses, both existing and future? The growth

plan amendment proposes to amend the 2003 Southwest Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of the project site from “Commercial” to “Commercial or Medium/High Density Residential”. This change is consistent with the area around the project site; the area to the west across 45th Street South is designated as this. Adjacent designation to the north and east is “ Medium to High Density Residential” and to the south is “Commercial.”

(Criteria Satisfied) 2. Does the proposed change involve a street alignment or connection? If so, how does this change

affect the transportation system and the land uses in the surrounding area, both existing and future. The proposed change does not involve a street alignment or connection. (Criteria Satisfied)

3. How does the proposed change work with the larger area in terms of land use balance and other

factors that could influence the proposed change? Are there physical features or developments in the vicinity that make the change positive or negative for the City and the area in general? The proposed change would create a project site that would allow the proposed multi-dwelling residential zoning, which would be contiguous with the multi-dwelling zoned areas to the east and southeast. Though 45th Street is primarily a commercial corridor, multi-dwelling zoning does appear on the east side of 45th Street between 4th and 9th Avenues South, and on the west side of 45th at 16th Avenue South. Development on the westerly side of this property is constrained by the presence of an overhead powerline easement. No buildings can be developed within this easement. The property is undeveloped with only small changes in elevation. (Criteria Satisfied)

Zoning Section 20-906. F (1-4) of the LDC stipulates the following criteria be met before a zone change can be approved: 1. Is the requested zoning change justified by a change in conditions since the previous zoning classification was established or by an error in the zoning map? Staff is unaware of any error in the zoning map as it relates to this property. Most recently, this property was conceived of as a site for a bank. The concept did not go forward, and the Housing and Redevelopment Agency (HRA) was able to purchase this property for future HRA-developed housing options. (Criteria Satisfied) 2. Are the City and other agencies able to provide the necessary public services, facilities, and programs to serve the development allowed by the new zoning classifications at the time the property is developed?

of 4

City staff and other applicable review agencies have reviewed this proposal. Staff finds no deficiencies in the ability to provide all of the necessary services to the site. The subject property fronts on existing, developed public rights-of-way which provide access and public utilities to serve the development. (Criteria satisfied) 3. Will the approval of the zoning change adversely affect the condition or value of the property in the vicinity? Staff has no documentation or evidence to suggest that the approval of this zoning change would adversely affect the condition or value of the property in the vicinity. Written notice of the proposal was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. To date, staff has not received any comments. Staff finds that the approval of the zoning change will not adversely affect the condition or value of the property in the vicinity. (Criteria satisfied) 4.Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purpose of this LDC, the Growth Plan, and other adopted policies of the City? The LDC states “This Land Development Code is intended to implement Fargo’s Comprehensive Plan and related policies in a manner that protects the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Fargo.” The Growth Plan that applies to this property is the 2003 Southwest Future Land Use Plan. The city’s GO2030 Comprehensive plan states a recommendation to “continue to support existing affordable housing programs,” which granting this zone change would do. Staff finds this proposal is consistent with the purpose of the LDC, the applicable growth plan, and other adopted policies of the City. (Criteria satisfied) Staff Recommendation: Suggested Motion: “To accept the findings and recommendations of staff and move to recommend approval to the City Commission of the proposed: 1) Growth Plan Amendment to the 2003 Future Land Use Plan to change the designation of the project site from “Commercial” to “Commercial or Medium/High Density Residential” 2) Zone Change from LC, Limited Commercial to MR-3, Multi-Dwelling Residential, as presented; as the proposal complies with the Go2030 Fargo Comprehensive Plan, 2003 Southwest Future Land Use Plan, and Section 20-0906.F (1-4) of the LDC, and all other applicable requirements of the LDC.” Planning Commission Recommendation: December 6, 2016 Attachments:

1. Zoning Map 2. Location Map 3. Growth Plan Amendment Map

Subject Property45 ST S

30 AVE S

31 AVE S

44 ST S

BRANDT DR S

FRO

NTIER

WAY S

URBAN PLAINS DR S

45 ST S


December 6, 2016

Zone Change (LC to MR-3) and Growth Plan AmendmentCalico Prairie Addition 4462 30th Avenue South


NCNOP/I

MHP

UMUGI

AGDMUGCGO

LC

MR-2MR-3

LIMR-1City Limits

300Feet

Subject Property45 ST S

30 AVE S

31 AVE S

44 ST S

BRANDT DR S

FRO

NTIER

WAY S

URBAN PLAINS DR S

45 ST S


December 6, 2016

Zone Change (LC to MR-3) and Growth Plan AmendmentCalico Prairie Addition 4462 30th Avenue South

300Feet

45 ST S

31 AVE S

30 AVE S

45 ST S

31 AVE S

30 AVE S


December 6, 2016

Growth Plan Amendment, Zone Change (LC to MR-3)

¯

EXISTING GROWTH PLAN

Calico Prairie Addition

LegendLand Use

Commercial

Commercial or Medium/High Density

Commercial or Medium/High or Park/Open Space

Commercial or Park/Open Space

Either Industrial or Commercial

Either Office or Commercial

Either Office or Medium/High Density Residential

Industrial

Low/Medium Density Residential

Low/Medium Density or Medium/High Density

Medium/High Density Residential

Medium/High Density or Park/Open Space

Office

Office or Commercial or Medium/High Density

Park/Open Space

Public

Public or Commercial

Public or Low/Medium Density

Public or Office

Storm Water

Proposed Amendment Area

4462 30th Avenue SouthPROPOSED GROWTH PLAN AMENDMENT

of 3

Agenda Item # 5


Title: Hogans Addition Date: 11/29/16

Location: 501 and 507 15th Avenue North, and 1510 5th Street North

Staff Contact: Maegin Elshaug

Legal Description: Lots 14-16, Block 1, Hogans Addition Owner(s)/Applicant: Jay and Shari Krabbenhoft, Jr. Engineer: None

Entitlements Requested: Zoning Change (from SR-2, Single-Dwelling Residential to SR-4, Single-Dwelling Residential)

Status: Planning Commission Public Hearing: December 6, 2016 Existing Proposed Land Use: Detached Housing and Vacant Land Use: Detached Housing Zoning: SR-2, Single-Dwelling Residential Zoning: SR-4, Single-Dwelling Residential Uses Allowed: SR-2 Allows detached houses, daycare centers up to 12 children, parks and open space, religious institutions, safety services, schools, and basic utilities

Uses Allowed: SR-4 Allows detached houses, daycare centers up to 12 children, attached houses, duplexes, parks and open space, religious institutions, safety services, schools, and basic utilities

Maximum Density Allowed: 5.4 units per acre Maximum Density Allowed: 12.1 units per acre Proposal: The applicant is requesting a zoning change from SR-2, Single-Dwelling Residential, to SR-4, Single-Dwelling Residential, on Lots 14-16, Block 1, Hogans Addition. The subject properties are located at 501 and 507 15th Avenue North, and 1510 5th Street North, and encompass approximately 0.378 acres. The subject properties, all owned by the applicant, are non-conforming, in part, due to lot size. The minimum lot size in the SR-2 zoning district is 8,000 square feet, and the minimum lot size in the SR-4 zoning district is 3,600 square feet. The lot areas are 4,500, 5,000 and 7,000 square feet, and total 16,500 square feet. Section 20-1003 Nonconforming Lots of the Land Development Code (LDC), subsection C Lot Merger requires that lots that do not meet minimum size requirements shall be considered merged if they are adjacent and under common control, and the lots shall be considered together in the future for LDC compliance. Due to the requirement to consider the lots together, as well as density requirements, the vacant property located at 501 15th Avenue North could not be built upon. The SR-2 zoning district allows a maximum of 5.4 units per acre. With a combined total of approximately 0.378 acres, the three lots together would only be allowed to have two units. The applicant does not have any immediate redevelopment plans. However, in order to meet minimum lot size requirements, and allow for a residence to be built in the future, the applicant proposes a zoning change to SR-4. With the zone change, each lot would meet minimum requirements for lot size. The zone change would allow only one unit per lot based on density requirements. City Forester, Scott Liudahl, noted that mature street trees exist along 5th Street North and that discussion would need to occur prior to site design in order to minimize construction related impacts to the street trees. The applicant was relayed this information, and confirmed he will meet with the city forester prior to any project plan development. This project was reviewed by the City’s Planning and Development, Engineering, Public Works, and Fire Departments (“staff”), whose comments are included in this report.

of 3

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts:

North: SR-2, Single-Dwelling Residential, with single family residential use; East: Across 5th Street North is SR-2, Single-Dwelling Residential, with single family residential use; South: Across 15th Avenue North is LC, Limited Commercial, with commercial uses; West: Directly west of the subject properties is SR-2, and SR-3, Single-Dwelling Residential, with

single family residential use.

Area Plans: No area plans apply.

Schools and Parks: Schools: The subject properties are located within the Fargo Public School District and is served by Washington Elementary, Ben Franklin Middle, and North High schools. Parks: The subject properties are less than a quarter of a mile west of El Zagal Golf Course (Elm Street & 14th Avenue N) with the amenities of concessions, golf course, and restrooms and less than a half mile southwest of Oxbow Park (1650 Elm Street N) with no current amenities. Pedestrian / Bicycle: The subject properties are less than a quarter mile east of on-road bike facilities located along 8th Street North and less than a quarter mile west of off-road bike facilities located on 15th Avenue North. Both facilities are components of the metro area trail system. Staff Analysis: Zoning Section 20-906. F (1-4) of the LDC stipulates the following criteria be met before a zone change can be approved:

1. Is the requested zoning change justified by a change in conditions since the previous zoning classification was established or by an error in the zoning map? Staff is unaware of any zoning map error in regards to the subject property. The lots were platted in 1920, prior to current LDC requirements. Staff finds that the requested zone change is justified as the zone change will bring each lot into compliance in terms of minimum lot size. This will also allow a residence to be built on the vacant lot. (Criteria Satisfied)

2. Are the City and other agencies able to provide the necessary public services, facilities, and

programs to serve the development allowed by the new zoning classifications at the time the property is developed? City staff and other applicable review agencies have reviewed this proposal. Staff finds no deficiencies in the ability to provide all of the necessary services to the site. The subject properties fronts on existing, developed public rights-of-way which provide access and public utilities to serve the development. Two of the three lots are currently built upon. (Criteria satisfied)

3. Will the approval of the zoning change adversely affect the condition or value of the property in the

vicinity? Staff has no documentation or evidence to suggest that the approval of this zoning change would adversely affect the condition or value of the property in the vicinity. Written notice of the proposal was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. To date, staff has received two inquiries regarding the application, with no concerns after review of the application, as well as two letters of support, which are attached. Staff finds that the approval will not adversely affect the condition or value of the property in the vicinity. (Criteria satisfied)

4. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purpose of this LDC, the Growth Plan, and other adopted policies of the City? The purpose of the LDC is to implement Fargo’s Comprehensive Plan and related policies in a manner that protects the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Fargo. Staff finds that the proposal is

of 3

consistent with the purposes of the LDC and other adopted policies of the City as it brings the lots into compliance for minimum lot size requirements. (Criteria satisfied)

Staff Recommendation: Suggested Motion: “To accept the findings and recommendations of staff and move to recommend approval to the City Commission of the proposed: zone change from SR-2, Single-Dwelling Residential to SR-4, Single-Dwelling Residential, as presented; as the proposal complies with the Go2030 Fargo Comprehensive Plan Sections 20-0906.F (1-4) and all other applicable requirements of the LDC.” Planning Commission Recommendation: December 6, 2016 Attachments:

1. Zoning Map 2. Location Map 3. Public Comments

Subject Property

5 S

T N

4 S

T N

15 AVE NBRO

AD

WA

Y N


December 6, 2016

Zone Change (SR-2 to SR-4)Hogans Addition 501 & 507 15th Avenue North

1510 5th Street North


NCNOP/I

MHP

UMUGI

AGDMUGCGO

LC

MR-2MR-3

LIMR-1City Limits

300 Feet

Subject Property

5 S

T N

15 AVE NBRO

AD

WA

Y N


December 6, 2016

Zone Change (SR-2 to SR-4)Hogans Addition 501 & 507 15th Avenue North

1510 5th Street North

300 Feet

1

Maegin Elshaug

From: todd osmundson <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:52 AMTo: Maegin ElshaugSubject: 501-507 15 Av N and 1510 5 St N

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Maegin- As 24 year owners of 1509 5th St. North- My wife and I fully SUPPORT the Zoning Change Request by the property owners of parcels in Subject Line. The Krabbenhofts have highly increased the appearance and value of the neighborhood when they became owners of these three parcels. Previous owners- The Johnsons- their properties were abandoned and vacant for many years. They were a real eyesore and rodent habitat for over a decade. Jay and Shari have added a lovely home on the 1510 5 St N parcel which was a vacant parcel for years and then they demolished the abandoned house at 507 15 Av N last summer. Any structure the Krabbenhofts will build on lot 507 5 St N will be a highly valued addition to our neighborhood. For the Record- Todd and Deb Osmundson fully support the zoning change request. Owners of 1509 5th St. North. * If you receive any "Protest" letters- please call my cell at 701-306-3892 so I can attend the hearing on Dec 6th at 3pm. Sincerely, Todd Osmundson --

of 4

Agenda Item # 6


Title: Ohmers Addition Date: 11/30/2016 Location: 1211 University Drive North Staff Contact: Aaron Nelson Legal Description: Part of Lot 72, Ohmers Addition Owner(s)/Applicant: Pete Sabo Engineer: N/A Entitlements Requested: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for an Alternative Access Plan Status: Planning Commission Public Hearing: December 6, 2016 Existing Proposed Land Use: Restaurant/Bar Land Use: No Change Zoning: LC, Limited Commercial Zoning: No Change Uses Allowed: LC – Limited Commercial. Allows colleges, community service, daycare centers of unlimited size, health care facilities, parks and open space, religious institutions, safety services, offices, off premise advertising signs, commercial parking, retail sales and service, self-service storage, vehicle repair, limited vehicle service.

Uses Allowed: No Change

Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed: 55% Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed: No Change Proposal: The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for an Alternative Access Plan. The proposed Alternative Access Plan is intended to allow a reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces for a restaurant/bar (the Bison Turf) that is proposed to be reconstructed at 1211 University Drive North. Background: The subject property is the site of the Bison Turf restaurant/bar which has been in operation as a restaurant/bar under various names for many years. Tax records indicate that the building was constructed in 1957 and, as such, many aspects of the property did not conform to current Land Development Code (LDC) requirements. Earlier this year the Bison Turf was substantially destroyed as a result of a fire within the building. Because the building was destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its structural value, typical grandfathering rights are voided and any restoration or reconstruction of the structure is required to comply with all aspects of the LDC. Current Proposal: Currently, the property owner, Pete Sabo, is in the process of applying for a building permit application in order to reconstruct the Bison Turf. In accordance with the LDC, the new building would be required to have a total of 97 off-street parking spaces, based on the following square-footage calculations:

Bar/Restaurant: 6,309sf @ 1/75sf = 84.12 Outdoor Seating: 1,562sf @ 1/150sf = 10.41 Basement Storage: 4,569sf @ 1/2,500sf = 1.83

97 Parking Stalls Required Because the applicant is not able to accommodate the required 97 off-street parking spaces on the property, he is pursuing approval of an Alternative Access Plan in order to accommodate transportation/access through alternative means such as, walking, biking, and public transit. In addition, the applicant contends that parking has not been an

of 4

issue in the past and that there are adequate alternative parking areas available nearby which can adequately handle any overflow during peak times. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to provide a total of 45 parking stalls on-site and is requesting a reduction of 52 required parking stalls, which equates to a reduction of 54%. This project was reviewed by the City’s Planning and Development, Engineering, Public Works, and Fire Departments (“staff”), whose comments are included in this report. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning Districts:

North: P/I, Public & Institutional with off-street parking and college uses (NDSU) East: MR-3, Multi-Dwelling Residential across 11 ½ Street North, with mixed-density household living

and group living uses South: LC, Limited Commercial with retail sales & services use and P/I, Public Institutional, with group

living use West: P/I, Public Institutional across University Drive North with college (NDSU) use

Area Plans: The subject property is located within the Roosevelt-NDSU Future Land Use Plan and is identified as being appropriate for commercial use, as is proposed.

Schools and Parks: Schools: The subject property is located within the Fargo Public School District and is served by Roosevelt Elementary, Ben Franklin Middle, and Fargo North High schools. Parks: The subject property is approximately one-fifth of a mile west of Roosevelt Park (1220 9th Street N) with the amenities of multipurpose field, playground, and ice/hockey rinks. Pedestrian / Bicycle: On-road bike facilities are located along University Drive North and are a component of the overall metro area trail system. Staff Analysis: Overall, staff is comfortable with the proposed parking reduction due to the availability of alternative transportation modes, the locational context of the subject property adjacent to a walkable university campus, and the fact that the use of the property will not be changing. The subject property is located along University Drive N and is within feet of 12th Avenue N, two arterial thoroughfares which carry a large volume of people via car, bike, foot, and bus. There are three bus routes which run within a block of the subject property: routes 13, 13U, and 33. In addition, on- and off-street bike routes are located along University Drive, 12th Avenue N, and the surrounding blocks. There are also several Great Rides Bike Share bike rental facilities located within the adjacent NDSU campus. In addition to the availability of transportation alternatives in the area, the subject property is also located adjacent to the NDSU campus and is therefore situated within walking distance of most patrons. As the name would imply,

of 4

the Bison Turf primarily caters to the NDSU community, primarily students. Similar businesses which cater to the NDSU campus and surrounding residents can be found within the Bison Block building on the 1400 block of 12th Avenue N. Despite similarities in proximity to NDSU, bars and restaurants within the Bison Block building are not required to have any off-street parking spaces since they are located within the UMU, University Mixed-Use, zoning district. As outlined within the owner’s application materials, patrons of the Bison Turf typically walk or bike to the subject property to eat during weekdays. During nights and weekends, the adjacent NDSU parking lot to the north of the subject property is largely vacant. NDSU does not currently enforce parking regulations at that lot after its normal business hours, as indicated by the letter from NDSU which was submitted by the applicant. According to the applicant, he has an unwritten understanding with NDSU regarding the potential for Bison Turf patrons to utilize the adjacent NDSU parking lot during nights and weekends when parking demand is greatest. As the applicant points out, the parking lot for the NDSU Foundation’s building on the south side of the subject property is only accessible through the Bison Turf’s parking lot, which the applicant has allowed to continue. Additional parking could have been added to the subject property at that location, however it would have blocked access to the NDSU Foundation’s parking lot. Lastly, staff finds that the proposed land-use is not changing and there were no known parking issues prior to the destruction of the Bison Turf. As such, there should be little impact as a result of this Alternative Access Plan. It should be noted that the proposed reconstructed building will be slightly larger than the previous building, having 6,309 square feet compared to the 5,937 square feet of the previous building—a net increase of 372 square feet. It is also estimated that the previous parking lot had a few more off-street parking spaces than the proposed new development would (likely around 9 or so). Some of the previous parking lot area will be lost with the reconstruction due to the need to meet other standards such as the addition of landscaping and parking lot buffers.

Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria (Section 20-0909.D)

The following is a list of criteria that must be determined satisfied in order for a Conditional Use Permit to be approved:

1. Does the proposed conditional use comply with all applicable provisions of the LDC and will it

conform to the general intent and purpose of this LDC? The general intent and purpose of the LDC is to implement Fargo’s Comprehensive Plan and related policies in a manner that protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Fargo. Within the Go2030 Comprehensive Plan, exploring reductions in minimum parking standards is a key initiative meant to promote the plan’s guiding principles. Specifically, Transportation Initiative 07 from the Go2030 Comprehensive Plan states, “Pursue creative parking strategies to fund and activate parking structures, explore reducing minimum parking standards, and share parking between daytime and nighttime uses.” Staff finds that the spirit of the requested CUP conforms to the intent of the Go2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed conditional use will comply with all applicable provisions of the LDC. (Criteria Satisfied)

2. Will the proposed conditional use at the specified location contribute to and promote the welfare or convenience of the public? The proposed Alternative Access Plan will contribute to and promote the welfare and convenience of the public by allowing flexibility in location and the sharing of parking spaces within the immediate area. As outlined by the applicant, there is an unwritten understanding between the applicant and NDSU regarding parking in this area during evenings and weekends, when the parking demand is greatest for the subject property. Flexibility and sharing of parking will prevent the need for the excess paving that is otherwise needed to accommodate peak parking demand. In addition, a reduction in parking should encourage the use of public transit, as well as walking and biking which is beneficial to public health. (Criteria Satisfied)

3. Will the proposed conditional use cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the

neighborhood in which it is to be located? As mentioned above, staff finds that the use of the property will not change. As such, the proposed Alternative Access Plan should not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood. (Criteria Satisfied)

of 4

4. Is the location and size of the conditional use, the nature and intensity of the operation conducted in connection with it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it such that the conditional use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent the development and use of the neighboring property in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations? In considering this criteria, location, nature, and height of buildings, structures, walls, and fences on the site are to be considered, as well as the nature and extent of proposed landscaping and buffering on the site. The proposed Alternative Access Plan will not dominate the immediate neighborhood or prevent any other sites from being used in the manner allowed by zoning district regulations. As referenced above, staff is unaware of any parking issues at the subject property prior to the destruction of the building. With the reconstruction of the restaurant/bar there would be no change in use and only a minimal increase in size. Therefore, it is anticipated that the improvements to the property would not create a noticeable increase in parking demand at the subject property. (Criteria Satisfied)

5. Are adequate utility, drainage, and other such necessary facilities and services provided or will they

be at the time of development? City staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the necessary utilities, services, facilities and programs are currently in place. (Criteria Satisfied)

6. Have adequate access roads or entrances and exit drives been provided and are they designed to

prevent traffic hazards and to minimize traffic congestion in public streets? Roads and entrances to the subject property already exist. The subject property has vehicular access to both University Drive N and 12th St N on the west and east sides of the lot. (Criteria Satisfied)

Recommended Condition:

1. 45 off-street parking spaces are required on site. 2. Any expansion of the square footage of the facility will require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit

with review and approval by the Planning Commission. 3. The Conditional Use Permit will cease if the land use changes from restaurant/bar. 4. Bicycle parking facilities, such as a bike rack, shall be provided on-site.

Staff Recommendation: Suggested Motion: “To accept the findings and recommendations of staff and hereby approve the Conditional Use Permit for an Alternative Access Plan on Part of Lot 72, Ohmers Addition as the proposal complies with Section 20-0909.D (1-6) and all other requirements of the LDC, with the following conditions:

1. 45 off-street parking spaces are required on site. 2. Any expansion of the square footage of the facility will require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit

with review and approval by the Planning Commission. 3. The Conditional Use Permit will cease if the land use changes from restaurant/bar. 4. Bicycle parking facilities, such as a bike rack, shall be provided on-site.

Planning Commission Recommendation: December 6, 2016 Attachments:

1. Zoning Map 2. Location Map 3. CUP Application Form 4. Draft Site Plan 5. Letter from Applicant Addressing Review Comments with Supporting Documentation

Subject Property

12 S

T N

12 AVE N

11 S

T N

UN

IVE

RSITY

DR

N

11 1

/2 S

T N

CO

LLEG

E S

T N

ADMINISTRATION AVE N

11 ST N


December 6, 2016

CUP (Alternative Access Plan)Ohmers Addition 1211 University Drive North


NCNOP/I

MHP

UMUGI

AGDMUGCGO

LC

MR-2MR-3

LIMR-1City Limits

300 Feet

Subject Property

12 S

T N

12 AVE N

11 S

T N

UN

IVE

RSITY

DR

N

11 1

/2 S

T N

CO

LLEG

E S

T N

ADMINISTRATION AVE N

11 ST N


December 6, 2016

CUP (Alternative Access Plan)Ohmers Addition 1211 University Drive North

300 Feet

MEMORANDUM

TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald Kress, Senior Planner

DATE: November 30, 2016 RE: 2017 Calendar---meeting and Brown Bag dates Please see the attached draft 2017 Planning Commission meeting and Brown Bag calendar. Planning Commission meetings are regularly scheduled for the first Tuesday of the month at 3:00 p.m. Please note the changes on the attached calendar:

The January Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 4 at 3:00 p.m. to avoid overlapping with the re-scheduled City Commission meeting, which will be on Tuesday, January 3.

The July Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 6,

at 3:00 p.m. as Tuesday, July 4, is a holiday. Brown Bag meetings are regularly scheduled for the third Wednesday of each month at 11:30 a.m. Please note the changes on the attached calendar:

Brown Bag meetings are not scheduled in July or December. Planning staff recommends the Commission adopt the 2017 Planning Commission meeting and Brown Bag calendar as proposed.

11/30/2016

1

WiFi

Small CellSmall Cell

Downtown Locations

11/30/2016

2

EExamples of Proposed Small CellOptions in other Cities

EExamples of Proposed Small Cell Options in other Cities

11/30/2016

3

EExamples of Proposed Small Cell Options in other Cities

EExample of Proposed Small Cell in ROW not attached to existing pole.

WHITE PAPER

Findings and recommendations of the LDC residential task force

City of Fargo Department of Planning & Development

2016

Abstract [Draw your reader in with an engaging abstract. It is typically a short summary of the document.

When you’re ready to add your content, just click here and start typing.]

LDC Residential Task Force White Paper

1

Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Problem Statement ................................................................................................................................... 3

Primary Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 3

Secondary Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 4

Process .................................................................................................................................. 5

Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Identified Issues ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Setbacks ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Building Coverage ................................................................................................................................. 6

Building Height ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Other Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Development of Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 7

Amended dimensional standards ......................................................................................................... 7

Creation of new zoning district ............................................................................................................. 7

Creation of an administrative waiver process ...................................................................................... 7

Amendment of the variance approval criteria ...................................................................................... 7

No action ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 9

Short-Term Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 9

Interior-Side Setback ............................................................................................................................. 9

Building Coverage ................................................................................................................................. 9

Accessory Building Coverage .............................................................................................................. 10

Accessory Building Height ................................................................................................................... 10

Mid-Term Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 10

Accessory Building Height ................................................................................................................... 10

Accessory Structure Setbacks ............................................................................................................. 11

Setback Averaging ............................................................................................................................... 11

Long-Term Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 11

Creation of traditional neighborhood residential zoning district ....................................................... 11

Creation of an improved review process ............................................................................................ 11


2

Abstract

In response to a large number of residential variance applications being approved by the City, the Board

of City Commissioners formed a task force for the purpose of reviewing existing residential zoning

requirements and to provide a set of recommended modifications to those requirements. The task force

identified the primary issue as being a disconnect between the city’s goals for residential development

and the requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC), which results in a lengthy and prescriptive

variance process which can yield unpredictable outcomes. While exploring this issue, setbacks, building

coverage, and accessory building height were found to be the LDC standards which were most

problematic.

While developing possible alternatives to address the specific issues identified, consideration was given

to the complexity of possible recommendations and the corresponding time and resource commitment

that would be necessary to effectively carry out those recommendations. Ultimately, the task force has

proposed phased recommendations of short-, mid-, and long-term amendments to the LDC. Short-term

recommendations are intended to be achievable within a few months and include reductions to interior-

side setback standards and slight increases to maximum building coverage requirements of the SR-2 and

SR-3 zoning districts, as well as moderate increases to accessory structure height and coverage

requirements for all residential zoning districts. Mid-term recommendations are intended for a one- to

two-year timeframe and include exploration of additional considerations for accessory building height,

adding flexibility for accessory structure setbacks, and an evaluation of current setback averaging

language. Lastly, long-term recommendations were proposed which were seen as being the most

comprehensive way to address the issues identified. However, these long-term recommendations are

beyond the task force’s scope of review and are intended to be topics of consideration for future large-

scale updates to the Land Development Code. One long-term recommendation is to explore the creation

of a “traditional neighborhood” residential zoning district (or districts) that would be unique to the core

neighborhoods of Fargo. The other long-term recommendation is to explore options for developing an

improved project review process that is efficient and that also is able to consider context of design.

While differing in scope and timeframe, all of these recommendations are geared towards reaching task

force’s vision for the city to be able to quickly and efficiently approve residential construction projects

that are in line with the adopted policies and goals of the City of Fargo.


3

Introduction

Background On November 24, 2014, the Fargo Board of City Commissioners directed staff to create a task force to

review codes to adapt to existing and older neighborhoods, in response to a number of previous

variance requests which had been appealed to the City Commission. Accordingly, on March 30, 2015,

staff presented the Board of City Commissioners with a proposal to establish a task force which would

consist of two city commissioners, two planning commissioners, two members of the Board of

Adjustment and two members of the Historic Preservation Commission. This proposal was approved by

the Board of City Commissioners and over the remainder of the year, four task force meetings were held

in order to examine the issue and work towards a possible solution. A fifth and final meeting of the task

force was held on _____________, 2016 in order to finalize the proposed recommendations.

Problem Statement A variance can be described as an exception to a zoning district dimensional standard which is approved

by the City on an individual basis. Among other things, to qualify for a variance a physical hardship that

is unique to the property must be demonstrated. This requirement is difficult to meet and, as a result,

most variance requests are not granted by the Board of Adjustment. Approximately twelve applications

for a variance from the LDC dimensional standards are heard each year by the Board of Adjustment,

most of which are denied. Of those denials, about half are appealed to the City Commission where the

Board of Adjustment’s decisions are typically overturned and the variances approved. As a matter of

practice, the City Commission will often weigh other policies and factors (other than the variance review

criteria) when acting on a variance appeal. This differs from the Board of Adjustment’s review process,

which is based strictly on the five variance review criteria defined by the Land Development Code (LDC).

In addition to the cases that are heard by the Board of Adjustment, staff members from the Inspections

and Planning departments discuss variance options with approximately one potential applicant per

week on average during the construction season. Only property owners willing to pay the fee and spend

the time to proceed to a variance option submit an application. Of those, only applicants that have the

patience and confidence decide to appeal to City Commission. As such, staff believes that there is the

potential of varied results for what initially could be a similar application. As a matter of principle, staff

strives for consistent application of policies and codes. Accordingly, the following two problem

statements were developed by the Task Force in order to define the scope of the issues to be addressed.

Primary Problem Statement

Vision: The City would like to be able to quickly and efficiently approve

residential construction projects that are in line with the adopted policies

and goals of the City of Fargo.

Issue: Currently, there are many residential construction projects in core

neighborhoods which are generally believed to substantially align with

city policy and goals, but that cannot be quickly and efficiently approved


4

because they require a variance due to minor infringement of LDC

dimensional standards. While these variances are generally believed to

be reasonable, most must be denied by the Board of Adjustment because

the review criteria cannot be met, resulting in a lengthy appeals process

through the City Commission which consumes time, resources, and energy

of City Commissioners, Board of Adjustment members, home owners, and

city staff.

Secondary Problem Statement

Vision: The City desires that construction and redevelopment within core

neighborhoods be done in a manner that is contextually consistent with

surrounding properties in order to stabilize, protect, and maintain the

historic and unique character of individual neighborhoods.

Issue: Within core neighborhoods, there is concern that residential

buildings and additions can be constructed that could detract from the

surrounding neighborhood because they are not constructed in a manner

that is contextually consistent with surrounding properties. These

buildings generally tend to stand out when contrasted against the existing

neighborhood form, whether due to inconsistent scale, style, materials,

etc. As a result, they are typically viewed by neighboring residents as

having a negative effect on surrounding property values.


5

Process

Study Area To determine the study area which the Task Force would focus on over the course of this process, the

geographic distribution of several factors were examined, including the year of house construction,

location of properties for which variances were requested, residential lot size, residential square-

footage, and location of properties which have utilized community development programs or rehab

funding. Ultimately, the Task Force decided to use the area between 19th Avenue N and Interstate 94

(north-south) and the area between 25th Street and the Red River (east-west) as the general study area

to focus on.

Identified Issues In reviewing historical variance records from the past twelve years, three types of variance requests

were identified as being most common. Variances from setback standards made up a vast majority of

the applications, followed by building coverage and then accessory building height. Of the requested

setback variances, interior-side setback variances were most common. Below is a summary of some of

the issues associated with each of these types of dimensional standards.

Setbacks

Setbacks are defined as, “the unobstructed, unoccupied open area between the furthermost projection

of a structure and the property line of the lot on which the structure is located.” As previously

mentioned, a majority of variance requests involve the reduction of setback distances, especially

interior-side setbacks. Staff suggests that these setback issues are common within the City’s older

neighborhoods because most of the existing houses do not comply with current setback requirements,

as they were built prior to the adoption of the current zoning code. While traditional urban

neighborhoods were developed with houses on smaller lots spaced closely together, the City’s current

zoning code is more apt for a suburban style of neighborhood development. In addition, staff suggests

that changes in market demand for residential houses have also contributed to the issue. There is an

increased demand by homeowners for more living space and additional garage stalls compared to when

most of the City’s traditional neighborhoods were developed. Consequently, it is common for

homeowners in these older neighborhoods to construct additions onto existing homes or to add or

replace older garages with larger ones.

Additionally, current setback requirements can vary among properties depending upon other factors,

such as zoning district and/or lot width. There is a wide variety of setback standards among the City’s

Single-Dwelling Residential zoning districts (SR-0 to SR-5). Interior-side setbacks, for example, can range

from 4 feet to 10 feet. In addition, many of the interior-side setback requirements are determined by

the lot’s width. In many cases, this can result in two different interior-side setback requirements for

abutting properties, even if neighboring property owners agree to a reduced interior-side setback.

Another factor that can affect a property’s setbacks is the provision in the LDC for “setback averaging,”

which is presumably intended to create a unified front setback along individual blocks. Unfortunately,

this setback averaging provision is not clearly written and is a challenge to administer.


6

Building Coverage

Building coverage is defined as, “the area of a lot covered by buildings (principal & accessory) or roofed

areas.” Similar to setbacks, staff suggests that building coverage issues also result from modern market

demands for more space and larger garages in older neighborhoods which have traditionally smaller

lots. For example, a 900 square-foot house with a 600 square-foot garage on a 4,000 square-foot lot

would exceed the maximum building coverage for the SR-3 zoning district and would therefore not be

allowed to expand without approval of a variance.

The LDC also restricts accessory structures from having more building coverage than the primary

structure. This creates issues for property owners with small houses who would like additional garage

space. It should be noted that attached garages are considered part of the primary structure and are

therefore not subject to this restriction.

Building Height

Building height is defined as, “the vertical distance between the average finished grade at the base of

the building along the side of the building being measured and: 1) the average height level between the

eaves and ridge line of a gable, hip or gambrel roof; 2) the highest point of a mansard roof; or 3) the

highest point of the coping of a flat roof.” Most requests for variances of building height maximums are

for accessory structures. With a few exceptions, accessory buildings are restricted to a maximum of 15

feet in Single-Dwelling Residential (SR) zoning districts. Although accessory structures are subject to

relaxed setbacks when located in the rear yard area, accessory structures are still limited to a maximum

height of 15 feet when located within the standard setbacks of the primary structure. This restriction

causes issues for property owners who wish to build a taller detached garage, either to store a larger

vehicle or to build a second story “bonus room.” Currently, property owners are able to build taller

accessory structures by utilizing a gambrel (barn-style) or A-frame roof with low hanging eaves.

Although these types of accessory structures meet the letter of the law, this is generally seen as

somewhat of a loop-hole which does not meet the intent of the law.

Other Issues

In addition to the dimensional standards outlined above, several other topics were identified by task

force members as being potential issues, such as the potential for accessory dwelling units (also referred

to as “granny flats”), exemptions for front porches, the context/compatibility of design for variance

requests, and the establishment of “build-to” lines as opposed to setbacks. Currently, the LDC is silent

on allowing additional dwelling units that are accessory to single-family house; uncovered porches may

encroach into required setback areas, but covered porches must comply with setbacks; the design of a

building is not a variance review criterion; and build-to lines are not currently required. Although these

potential issues are related to residential development in the City’s core neighborhoods, most of these

were found to be beyond the scope of analysis for this task force.


7

Development of Alternatives Once the primary issues were identified, the task force began to formulate and discuss possible

solutions. The possible solution alternatives range in scale from small tweaks to some of the dimensional

standards on the simple end, to the development of new processes on the more-complex end. Several

examples of possible alternatives are detailed below:

Amended dimensional standards

One option was to simply amend the dimensional standards in order to reduce the requirements for

things such as minimum setbacks, maximum height, and maximum building coverage. These types of

amendments could be tailored to individual zoning districts. However, amendments made to existing

zoning districts would apply within those zoning districts throughout the City, and not just within the

study area.

Creation of new zoning district

Creating one or more new residential zoning district(s) is an alternative option to amending the

dimensional standards of existing zoning districts. In reviewing other municipalities’ zoning codes,

several examples of “traditional residential” zoning districts were found. In other cities, these traditional

residential zoning districts are applied exclusively to historic/older neighborhoods and allow for a more-

traditional pattern of development compared to suburban or newer patterns of development.

Creation of an administrative waiver process

An alternative to amending any of the LDC dimensional standards would be to create a new process to

allow deviation from the zoning district dimensional standards of the LDC. Currently, there are a couple

of different types of zoning standards that may be modified via an administratively reviewed waiver

process, such as residential protection standards and off-street parking standards. In both cases, the

decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and ultimately to the

City Commission. By creating a similar waiver process for deviations from the LDC dimensional

standards, unique criteria or requirements could be established in order to compel a higher standard of

design whenever a dimensional waiver is granted. A waiver process may allow an opportunity to

integrate design considerations (such as context, character, and/or compatibility of design) into the

review process. For example, if a waiver were to be granted to allow a taller detached structure, maybe

a specific roof type/pitch would be required along with additional setback distances and landscaping.

Amendment of the variance approval criteria

Similar to creating a waiver process, amending the variance approval criteria is another option.

Currently, the variance review criteria are somewhat restrictive due to the fact that before a variance

may be granted, it must be found that a physical hardship exists which is unique to the property and

that prevents the normal use of the property. The variance review criteria could be amended to reduce

the degree to which a hardship needs to be shown. This option is limited, however, due to variance

requirements that are outlined within the North Dakota Century Code. Although the City of Fargo’s

variance criteria expand upon the State requirements, the showing of an unnecessary hardship would

still be required for the granting of a variance per the Century Code.


8

No action

A final alternative would be to take no action. When making a determination on the best course of

action, it is often helpful to compare alternatives to a “no action” alternative. A no action alternative can

be used as a benchmark when considering the pros and cons of each of the alternative options.


9

Recommendations

In considering the possible alternative options, the degree of change and the corresponding time

commitment that would be required of staff were important factors. With the City’s continuous rate of

growth, staff and commissioners are currently having to juggle many competing priorities. Accordingly,

the task force and staff from the Department of Planning & Development have developed multiple

recommendations ranging from short-term to long-term. Short-term recommendations include minor

edits to the LDC text that should alleviate some of the problem. Mid-term recommendations also

represent minor edits to the LDC text; however, these proposed edits could be expanded upon to

address related issues. These recommendations are listed as mid-term since additional policy discussion

should be had in order to identify the scope of such edits and to work through the details of the

ordinance language itself. It is anticipated that mid-term recommendations could be addressed within

the next one or two years. Lastly, long-term alternatives involve the creation of new processes and

zoning districts through larger revisions to the LDC. The short-term recommendations have been

specifically defined, whereas the mid- and long-term recommendations are abstract and would require

additional analysis and direction from city leadership.

Short-Term Recommendations There are several simple edits that could be made to some of the zoning district dimensional standards

which could allow for a limited increase in the intensity of development within single-family zoning

districts, and thereby alleviate some of the demand for variances. The task force recommends edits to

the interior-side setback and building coverage requirements of the SR-2 and SR-3 zoning districts, as

well as edits to the accessory structure height and coverage requirements for all residential zoning

districts. Each of these four recommended changes are outlined below.

Interior-Side Setback

Currently, the SR-2 and SR-3 zoning districts require an interior-side setback of 10% of the lot’s width or

10 feet, whichever is less. The task force recommendation is to reduce this requirement to 10% of the

lot’s width or 5 feet, whichever is less. This amendment would have no effect on properties which are

less than 50 feet wide since, in those cases, the 10% would be less. For lots wider than 50 feet, however,

this proposed amendment would allow a reduced setback. For these lots, the reduced setback will allow

for a larger building envelop with more room for expansion. A smaller setback is also more consistent

with traditional neighborhoods.

Building Coverage

Currently, the SR-2 and SR-3 zoning districts restrict building coverage to a maximum of 30% and 35% of

the lot area, respectively. The task force recommends increasing both of these maximums by 5% in

order to allow additional opportunity for limited expansion within these zoning districts. Increased

building coverage on single-family lots is more typical of traditional urban neighborhoods.


10

Accessory Building Coverage

Currently, building coverage of detached accessory structures may not exceed that of the principal

building, with some exceptions. The task force recommends allowing accessory structure building

coverage of up to 700 square feet regardless of the building coverage of the primary structure, in order

to allow at least a two-stall garage for houses that have a building coverage of less than 700 square feet.

To this end, the task force recommends that the LDC be amended to so that building coverage of

detached accessory structures may not exceed that of the principal building or 700 square feet,

whichever is greater.

Accessory Building Height

Currently, accessory structures in SR-1 through SR-5 zoning districts are restricted to a maximum height

of 15 feet. In the short term, staff recommends allowing a two-foot increase to the maximum accessory

structure height from 15 feet to 17 feet in order to accommodate the wall height needed for larger 8-

foot-tall residential garage doors.

Mid-Term Recommendations There are additional fairly-quick edits that could be made to the Land Development Code in order to

alleviate some of the demand for variances. These recommendations are based on discussion had by the

task force, but that are related to topics that are outside of the scope of this task force and/or require

additional input and direction from City leadership. It is the intent of the Task Force that if the City

Commission wishes to pursue some or all of these mid-term recommendations, that additional direction

be given to either the Task Force or City staff to further evaluate and define these recommendations.

Accessory Building Height

In addition to allowing a slight increase to the maximum accessory building height in the short-term, the

task force also recommends that a more-comprehensive review of accessory structures be conducted in

the mid-term. Considerations should be made for the overall height or number of stories for accessory

structures. Many variances are requested for the purpose of constructing usable space in the second

story of an accessory garage. However, two-story accessory buildings could have the potential to

dominate the surrounding area, especially in neighborhoods predominated by single-story houses. One

possible way to address overly tall accessory structures would be to restrict the ridge line of a gable, hip,

or gambrel roof to an overall maximum of 20 feet in height. The intent of creating a maximum ridge line

height is to close (or shrink) the loop-hole which allows two-story accessory structures built with low-

hanging eaves. For example, today, if the eaves of the roof extend to the ground, the ridge line could be

constructed to 30 feet in height.

Accessory structures also provide opportunity for additional intensity and density within the developed

and serviced areas of the City, which is in line with some of the goals of the Go2030 Comprehensive

Plan. Accessory dwelling units (also known as ADUs or “granny flats”) are becoming increasingly

common across the nation. While reviewing accessory building height requirements, staff recommends

also having a deeper policy discussion on the potential opportunities and benefits that accessory

structures could provide.


11

Accessory Structure Setbacks

In addition to height, it is also recommended that consideration also be given to allowing flexibility for

accessory structure setbacks. One option may be to create an administrative review process similar to

the LDC’s current process for administrative review of minor parking reductions. This option would

involve 1) staff review of a proposed deviation from the accessory structure setback requirements

within a set of defined parameters or criteria, 2) notification and appeal opportunity for neighboring

property owners, and 3) a defined process for the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment to

review appeals of staff’s decisions.

Setback Averaging

As referenced in the Identified Issues section of this report, the LDC currently includes a provision for

“setback averaging” which is not clearly written and is therefore tough to administer. It is staff’s

recommendation that the merits of having such a provision be evaluated for possible removal from the

LDC. If, however, it is found that such a provision is needed, staff recommends that the requirements be

simplified and rewritten to improve the understanding of such requirements and to improve the

consistency of administration of requirements.

Long-Term Recommendations It was generally recognized by the task force that a more comprehensive update to the Land

Development Code would be necessary in order to most properly align the City’s goals (as expressed by

the City Commission and as outlined in the Go2030 Comprehensive Plan) with zoning and development

requirements. However, because a comprehensive rewrite of the Land Development Code is outside of

the scope identified for this task force, staff has drafted several long-term recommendations that are

related to residential development, specifically within the City’s older neighborhoods.

Creation of traditional neighborhood residential zoning district

Staff’s first long-term recommendation is to create a traditional neighborhood residential zoning district

(or districts) that would allow for the customization of dimensional standards in traditional

neighborhoods. The purpose of such a zoning district would be to encourage and allow residential

development that would be consistent with the dimensions and intensity of traditional neighborhoods,

but that also respects the design and character of such historic places. While the task force’s primary

objective was to analyze the current dimensional standards as they relate to older residential areas,

there was also clear desire for there to be sensitivity towards the character of these established

neighborhoods. This concern regarding design and character is reflected in the task force’s adoption of

the secondary problem statement. Staff suggests that some of the components and lessons learned

from the City’s current Historic Overlay zoning districts could be uniformly applied to such a traditional

neighborhood residential zoning district.

Creation of an improved review process

Even with the adoption of all other recommendations presented, there will still undoubtedly be

situations where deviation from the zoning standards is requested. Based on the visions presented in

the task force’s primary and secondary problem statements, it is desirable for there to be an improved


12

review process which is quick and efficient while also integrating context of design into the review

process. Such a review process could take a variety of forms, whether it would involve special

permitting, zoning map amendment, administrative review, etc. Regardless of the form such a process

would take, it is staff’s recommendation that the process should somehow encourage quality design.

The task force recognized that context and design play a key factor in how a building project or

redevelopment is perceived to impact a neighborhood.

fargo planning commission regular meetingfiles.cityoffargo.com/content... · planning commission...

Documents