Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Treatment Plant Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City outlines vision for former water treatment plant site, seeks public input on Downtown South
Summary
Staff and the steering committee presented a redevelopment vision for the former Grand Forks Water Treatment Plant site, proposing a district strategy with potential for more than 600 housing units and a web portal for public feedback.
City staff updated the Grand Forks City Council on plans for redeveloping the former Water Treatment Plant (WTP) site on Tuesday and asked residents to give feedback through a newly launched website.
Mister Phelan, the city administrator, said a steering group is wrapping up work on a district-level strategy that will guide demolition and redevelopment of the WTP site. "The group that's working on this on your behalf, the steering group, they want the theme is to go big ... they're looking at 600 plus units with a public amenity that would somehow integrate into the greenway," Phelan said.
A video and accompanying materials from the consultant Development Strategies described goals for the site and the surrounding Downtown South District. The consultant said public comments collected in fall 2024 shaped key themes: support for the hub of social-service providers in the area, opportunities for mixed-income housing, better pedestrian and bicycle connections to the greenway and riverfront, and strengthening the area's historic character. The presentation directed residents to GrandForksWTP.com to "drop some pins" on maps addressing connectivity, placemaking and development opportunities and to bookmark the site for future updates.
Phelan said steering-group meetings will continue into March with a final proposal expected to return to council in April; if council approves the concept, staff anticipates issuing a request for proposals and then proceeding with demolition and redevelopment steps. Council members on the steering group include Council Member Berg and Council Member Veen; Phelan thanked both for their work on the committee.
Council members asked for more public engagement and noted the site could deliver a substantially larger housing project than nearby developments. No formal vote was taken; staff emphasized that public input in February and March will inform the April proposal.
