Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Forks moves to ‘right‑size’ off‑street parking; council limits administrative reductions to 10%
Summary
Council gave preliminary approval May 18 to a rewrite of the off‑street parking code intended to lower parking minimums, add maximums and allow flexibility; after debate council limited administrative reductions to 10% (preliminary approval 6–1, Ocelske dissenting).
The Grand Forks City Council gave preliminary approval May 18 to a substantial update of the city’s off‑street parking ordinance, a measure staff said aims to 'right‑size' parking requirements that often drive up development costs.
Planning staff presented the proposal, noting the ordinance had not been substantially updated in roughly 20 years. The draft would reduce required stall counts in some project types, add maximum parking limits, allow shared or off‑site credits and create an administrative pathway for modest reductions when projects meet set alternatives (bicycle amenities, transit improvements, parking demonstration studies, land banking or traffic demand management).
Staff used a local case study to illustrate the change: the SoCo project would have required 237 stalls under the old table but would require 187 under the proposed standard — a 50‑stall reduction that staff estimated could lower construction costs by about $425,000 (using a cited range of $7,500–$8,500 per stall). Staff emphasized the proposal is intended to preserve parking on a site while avoiding overbuilding that raises project costs and can be a barrier to housing production.
Council members debated how much administrative authority staff should have to approve reductions without sending projects to Planning and Zoning. Vice President Weigel moved to limit administrative approval to a 10% reduction (rather than the 30% originally proposed). After discussion about neighborhood parking impacts and safeguards such as parking studies or land banking, the council adopted the 10% cap and gave the ordinance preliminary approval by a 6–1 vote; Council Member Ocelske dissented.
What happens next: staff will incorporate council feedback and return the ordinance for final reading; projects seeking larger reductions than the administrative cap will use Planning and Zoning or a variance process and may be required to submit parking demand studies or other documentation.
