Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Standards Agriculture topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission signals support to raise agricultural‑zoning minimum lot size from 5 to 10 acres

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

In a May 14 work session the Planning and Zoning Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance change to increase the minimum lot size in the City's agricultural zoning district from 5 acres to 10 acres to better align with peer cities and to discourage small‑lot rural subdivisions in the extraterritorial zone.

City staff presented a comparison of agricultural district minimum lot sizes in other North Dakota municipalities during the Planning and Zoning work session on May 14 and recommended increasing Dickinson’s minimum from 5 acres to 10 acres. Commissioners signaled support for the change and asked staff to draft an ordinance amendment.

Planner Natalie Burchek summarized the current Agricultural (AG) district rules in Dickinson: a 5‑acre minimum lot size, minimum lot width of 300 feet and building setbacks. Staff compared Dickinson to several other cities where agricultural minimum lots commonly range from 10 to 40 acres; Bismarck and Fargo call for larger minimums, and the county’s unincorporated minimum is 40 acres. Burchek said increasing the minimum to 10 acres would better prioritize agricultural preservation and channel 3–5 acre rural subdivisions toward an RR (rural residential) designation.

County planner Steve Josephson and commission members noted that the change would align Dickinson with peer communities and give the city stronger leverage to discourage small‑lot subdivisions in the extraterritorial area. Commissioners asked staff to prepare ordinance language to raise the AG minimum lot size to 10 acres for future amendment and to include this change in the municipal code update work associated with the comprehensive plan review. Staff agreed to draft the amendment for future formal action; no final vote was taken at the meeting.