Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bismarck board grants University of Mary variance to build 80-foot athletic dome
Summary
The Bismarck Board of Adjustment voted to allow the University of Mary to exceed the rural residential 50-foot height limit and construct an 80-foot seasonal athletic dome, with staff noting the city is updating zoning rules and the variance must be used within 24 months.
The Bismarck Board of Adjustment on a 4-1 vote granted the University of Mary a variance to increase the rural residential nonresidential height limit from 50 feet to 80 feet for a proposed seasonal athletic dome.
The variance request was presented by Jenny, city planning staff, who said the application cites city code provisions governing variances and noted that 81 postcards were mailed to nearby property owners on Sept. 19. Jeremy Wiesen, an architect with ISG representing the university, told the board “the 50 foot variance just does not accommodate the safety or the clearances needed” for multi-sport use and for the infrastructure that will hang inside the dome.
Proponents on the board pointed to the facility’s institutional context and to design constraints. Board member Kurt told the board his research shows dome height typically equals roughly 30 percent of a building’s width and that a 275-foot-wide dome would “basically” recommend about 82.5 feet, a figure Jeremy confirmed as driven by structural and clearance needs. Opponents argued the property owner is proposing a new building and the board should not grant exceptions absent a unique property hardship or should leave code changes to a formal rezoning or ordinance update.
Staff noted the city is in the early stages of reviewing a new zoning or land-development code that could address similar situations and reminded the board that an approved variance must be used within 24 months. The city’s site-plan review is underway for the project and staff said a building permit filing is expected, which would satisfy the 24-month requirement.
The motion to approve carried with recorded votes of yes from Seaford (recorded as Seifert in the roll), Wengler, Jansen/Janssen and Chair Clark; Board Wolf voted no. The board did not receive public testimony on the request at the hearing.
The board’s action allows the University of Mary to proceed with permitting under the approved variance; staff said the project remains subject to site-plan review and building-permit requirements.
