An update on Bjorkberg Grand Marais

Dear current and prospective residents of Grand Marais,

I’m writing with an update about Bjorkberg Grand Marais, a townhome housing development that was planned for your community.? At the August 14 City Council meeting Grand Marais Mayor Tracy Benson and Councilpersons Bill Lovaas and Craig Schulte voted to oppose a conditional use permit for Bjorkberg Grand Marais, effectively terminating the project’s development.? Despite seven hours of public discussion between Planning Commission hearings and City Council meetings, the grounds for their opposition are not entirely clear to us.? One of the stated concerns was the substandard condition of Third Street which the City has declined to maintain or improve over the years. We agreed to improve the segment of it that provides access to fifteen units at Bjorkberg as a condition of the permit.? Another stated concern was about the density provided by detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) associated with attached townhouse-style primary units. We removed these ADUs from the proposal. From my desk, it appeared that we had addressed the material concerns raised by residents and Councilors alike.

The Council’s vote is exasperating for a number of reasons, a few of which I’d like to consider more closely:

1. Our project is aligned with the City’s comprehensive plan and consistent with current land use and zoning ordinances with just a few exceptions to the regulation setbacks due to challenging terrain.? It received unanimous approval from Grand Marais Planning Commission and earned the support of IRRRB and Cook County HRA.? Many local proponents have publicly stated their support for the project.
2. The rejection disregards the work and advocacy of professional service providers on specialized matters like real estate development, civil engineering, architectural design, and the administration of public funds.? The Bjorkberg team produced a complete and viable design submission; its thoughtfulness was noted by the Planning Commission.??
3. Our project sought special approval via a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) in an attempt to do something especially consistent with the City’s comprehensive goals. The proposed PUD maintained nearly 60% open area, managed stormwater in a coordinated fashion, maintained dark sky and native vegetation conditions, improved part of Third Street, and provided for five subsidized homeownership opportunities for local income-qualified households. It minimized parking, impervious area, and building footprints. We turn now to working out a ‘by-right’ project alternative that cannot meet many of these goals.? I outlined the material differences between the PUD proposal and our 'by-right' alternative in a letter to the Mayor and Councilpersons the week prior to the decision so they were aware of the consequences of denying the CUP.
4. Much of the public conversation fixated on the cost of land development, road improvements, private infrastructure, lots, construction, fees… The consensus among local opponents and councilpersons was that market-rate townhouse units will be too expensive for local residents to afford. The unit mix of fourteen market-rate and five income-qualified houses was the package deal that allowed us to pay for everything. Ironically, the consensus is also that special assessments are not a fair way to pay for improvements and subsidies are not sufficient to buy down the costs for affordability. Meanwhile the City has not improved and maintained city infrastructure like Third Street because it does not have excess maintenance reserves.? As proposed Bjorkberg was a ten million dollar tax-base development that was self-sufficient in terms of infrastructure improvements and maintenance.?
5. Bjorkberg Grand Marais was never characterized as a solution to Grand Marais’ housing shortage; it was always offered as a piece of the pie.? Several other housing projects are underway in town right now that provide different real estate products at different price points.? To my knowledge Bjorkberg was one of the only projects in the works that offered homeownership opportunities.? Grand Marais, like all cities that have concentrated on expanding rental housing options, risks engendering a new class of residents: the rental class. In thirty-years the rental class will be both ‘apartment-poor’ (lacking equity and tied to monthly payments) and have no options for upward mobility via homeownership. Cities must concurrently expand the stock of owner-occupied housing in order to provide for a balanced housing marketplace in the long term.

The City Council’s parochial outlook is short-sighted and no doubt one of the reasons that Grand Marais has issued just one permit for a new unit of housing to date this year. The rejection represents a failure of City leadership to enact the community’s housing agenda which includes increasing housing options at all price points.? For those of you interested in the broader politics of housing in Minnesota, Grand Marais has just given us a textbook example of how intense public scrutiny is administrative obstructionism at its finest.? The only way to pre-empt this on future projects is to make broad changes to civic codes and processes.? Make density by-right. Relax set-backs. Abolish public hearings for CUPs. The next generation of attainable housing hangs in the balance.

We are in the process of re-imagining the project with a by-right development strategy. Bjorkberg 2.0 will hopefully maintain a generous spirit, but it will certainly lack the light touch and communal disposition that characterized the original proposal. We are now required to work with larger lot sizes, more impervious surface areas (parking, roadways), detached unit types, et cetera. Stay tuned to see what shapes up!

Take good care,

Benjamin Olsen

Designer, Bjorkberg Grand Marais

Professor in Practice, “The American Starter Home” at UMN College of Design

Winner, AIA-MN Affordable Housing Design Award (2022)

Winner, AIA-MN Commendation in Design for Economy (2023)