Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Forks Planning and Zoning approves subdivision plats and variances, reappoints MPO representative
Summary
At its Jan. 8 meeting the Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Commission approved four land-use items including a subdivision rep plat, an access-control variance, a replat in the ET area, and an appeal to corridor overlay standards; the commission also reappointed Al Grasser to the MPO executive board.
The Grand Forks Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 8 approved four development-related items and reappointed the commission’s representative to the Metropolitan Planning Organization executive board.
The commission unanimously approved a replat of six existing lots to create Danks 43 subdivision (item 31), an access-control variance to allow driveway access from Shady Ridge Court at 5807 Adams Drive (item 32), and a replat that creates a new buildable lot from a larger parcel in the city’s extraterritorial (ET) area (item 33). The commission also approved an appeal to corridor overlay district material requirements for a proposed building near I‑29 (item 34) by a recorded vote of the commission with one member voting no. The commission then voted to reappoint Al Grasser as the planning commission’s representative on the MPO executive board.
Votes at a glance
• Item 31 — Replat (Danks 43 subdivision), 1600 S. 42nd Street: Motion to approve moved by Commissioner Eichert and seconded by Commissioner Butkey; public hearing was opened and closed with no public testimony; motion passed unanimously.
• Item 32 — Access-control variance, Lot 1, Block 1, Shady Ridge (5807 Adams Drive): Staff recommended removing an access-control restriction placed when the area was originally planned for townhomes; the homeowner requested driveway access off Shady Ridge Court. Motion to approve moved by Commissioner Eichert and seconded by Commissioner Rell; no public testimony recorded; motion passed unanimously.
• Item 33 — Replat (Mavichek 2nd Addition), 4326 N. Columbia Road: The proposal splits a remainder of an agricultural parcel into a buildable lot and retains an existing homestead; staff noted the commission’s current ET density rule (one housing unit per 40 acres) and that the existing pattern north of the site includes smaller, older lots. Public comment included a township supervisor who supported the replat and the applicant, Frank Madoczek, who described the property history. Motion to approve moved by Commissioner Reichert and seconded by Commissioner Matson; motion passed unanimously.
• Item 34 — Appeal to corridor overlay district materials requirement, 4402 16th Ave. N. (I‑29 corridor): The applicant asked the commission to allow a fully metal exterior on the face that fronts the interstate corridor where code requires 50% of certain masonry/allowable materials. Staff recommended denial to maintain consistency with previous corridor appeals; the applicant and a representative (Mike Opp) argued the site is surrounded by existing metal buildings and that a uniform façade on all four sides would be more attractive. The commission approved the appeal (move by Commissioner Reichert); the motion passed with one recorded nay.
• MPO representative: Motion to appoint Al Grasser to continue as this body’s representative on the MPO executive board moved by Commissioner Eichert and seconded by another commissioner; motion passed by voice vote.
What the actions mean
The approved plats and variances allow the specific developments and property configurations presented tonight to proceed through the city’s permitting process. The access-control variance and the corridor overlay appeal both change how future driveway placement and exterior materials will be applied on the affected properties; the corridor appeal was the only item to draw sustained discussion and one dissenting vote. Reappointment of the MPO representative keeps the commission’s current contact on the region’s transportation board.
Meeting procedure notes
Several commissioners recused themselves from specific items as recorded on the transcript; where the record shows a recusal, the commission followed its usual practice to have the recusal noted and the item voted on by the remaining members. Many items had little or no public testimony; the record shows a small number of public speakers on the replat in the ET area and on the corridor overlay item.
The commission’s actions apply only to the specific parcels and permits described in tonight’s agenda; any broader policy or code changes would require a separate process.
