The Fargo-Moorhead diversion project, a major endeavor aimed at flood risk reduction, was detailed by Eric Dods, a consultant involved in the project for over thirteen years. The project is engineered to manage up to 37 feet of water during a 100-year flood and up to 43 feet during a 500-year flood. Dods provided an overview of the construction progress, which includes the excavation of 28 million cubic yards of material from the diversion channel, with an ultimate goal of 40 million cubic yards. Additionally, 3,500 trees have been planted as part of the project’s environmental mitigation efforts.

Dods highlighted the 22-mile southern embankment, which incorporates three control structures. He reported that the diversion inlet and wild rice structures are nearing completion, while the Red River structure is about 70% complete. Property acquisition has been a focal point of the project, with nearly all necessary property rights secured within the construction footprint. However, a few parcels remain pending due to eminent domain issues. Upstream mitigation areas also require easements, with a progress report indicating nearly 60% completion.

The project’s Property Rights Acquisition and Mitigation Plan (PRAM) is in its sixth version, structured to address land acquisition strategies and mitigate impacts on property owners. Dods noted that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recommends local government units adopt zoning restrictions to prevent development within a quarter-mile of the embankment. Pleasant Township in North Dakota has already implemented restrictions, including a 450-foot buffer from the embankment’s toe, with prohibitions on residential buildings within 350 feet.

Inquiries regarding property acquisitions revealed that some structures remain within the quarter-mile buffer zone, particularly near the Red River structure and along the county line. Dods clarified that acquisition is focused solely on the embankment footprint, not the dry side, hence some houses are still located within the buffer. The presentation was concluded with an invitation for questions, with the board expressing appreciation for the detailed update.

In another significant agenda item, the board deliberated on a variance request from Jeffrey and Rayan Berg, who sought approval for a structure built without a permit that encroached into the road centerline setback. The structure, originally damaged by a collapsed roof, was rebuilt under the misunderstanding that a permit was unnecessary due to the damage. The board was informed that the new structure was only three feet closer to the road than permitted, with a row of trees mitigating its visibility from the road. The variance was ultimately approved with no opposition, acknowledging the practical difficulties faced by the applicants and affirming consistency with the Clay County Land Development code.

The meeting also explored updates on the county’s land development ordinance, particularly focusing on revisions to zoning district definitions and general development standards. The Planning Commission had recently reviewed the first four chapters of the draft ordinance, with future reviews slated for chapters addressing development standards and regulations. Discussion included potential implications for future zoning adjustments, especially in light of development opportunities and constraints posed by existing land use policies.

The introduction of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) framework was proposed, offering zoning flexibility in exchange for specific development concessions. This would allow for mixed-use developments in urban settings by permitting deviations from standard zoning regulations. Such flexibility could encourage development while maintaining community standards through development agreements.

Additionally, the board considered modifications to county roadway access standards, updating language to eliminate discrepancies and introducing the authority for parking studies for new developments. Sign regulations were also revised to ensure compliance with First Amendment rights, and modifications were proposed to improve sign visibility while respecting road rights-of-way.

A examination of the subdivision approval process revealed a need for township pre-approval of public right-of-way plats. The board also discussed potential administrative penalties for zoning violations, proposing a “three strikes” rule to offer permit holders several opportunities to rectify issues before facing revocation hearings.