Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fargo Board of Adjustment denies variance request for 726 Fortieth Street North
Summary
On Jan. 28 the Board of Adjustment denied a request to allow a new primary structure to encroach into the interior side setback in the GI (General Industrial) zoning district at 726 Fortieth Street North. Staff found two required variance criteria were not met; the board voted to accept staff findings and deny the variance.
Fargo’s Board of Adjustment on Jan. 28 denied a variance request that would have allowed a new primary structure at 726 Fortieth Street North to encroach into the required interior side setback in the GI (General Industrial) zoning district.
Planning staff recommended denial after finding that two of the five required variance criteria were not met. Staff said the property is not unique within the zoning district — neighboring parcels are similar in size and configuration — and that the strict application of the standards would not create an unavoidable physical hardship because the existing business can continue to operate and alternative building designs could meet dimensional standards.
Kim Cytrowski, planning staff, explained that the GI district requires a 20-foot interior side setback while a light-industrial district would allow a 10-foot setback. Cytrowski told the board the parcel was platted long ago and noted nearby parcels have a mixed zoning history; some properties to the north were rezoned to light industrial in the early 2000s.
Applicant Vern Ray said the business is family-run and supports five families. Ray said the proposed building would store company vans and temperature-sensitive materials during winter and that a 50-foot bay depth (the applicant asked for 50 feet versus a more typical 60) is important for operations. Ray said materials are water-based and must be kept from freezing.
Shawna Radnick, building official for the City of Fargo, told the board that building-code requirements — including increased fire-resistance ratings, sprinklers and other separations — could apply if a reduced setback were permitted, and that those requirements depend on final building plans and occupancy. Radnick and other board members repeatedly raised fire-safety concerns tied to reducing the separation between buildings.
Board members discussed alternatives, including seeking rezoning or a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as a longer-term solution tied to the city’s pending land development code update. Staff said the city’s land development code rewrite is underway and that rezoning outcomes would be determined through that community process; staff stated the code update was expected to conclude in April of next year.
After discussion, a board member moved to accept the staff findings and deny the requested variance under the review criteria of section 29-14.E.1 A and C. The motion passed on a roll call vote. The board chair announced the variance was denied and reminded the applicant there is a 10-day window to appeal the Board of Adjustment decision.
