The Bjorkberg 2.0 project, a proposed 21-unit development, drew mixed reactions from residents during the public comment period. Jennifer Schultz expressed concerns over the lack of affordable options in the project’s plan, emphasizing its potential to cater primarily to seasonal residents, thereby straining local infrastructure. Her sentiment was echoed by others who feared the development might attract wealthier individuals, further exacerbating the community’s housing challenges.

Eric Humphrey voiced support for the project, highlighting its energy-efficient design and green space as a positive addition to Grand Marais. He saw the development as a solution to housing needs while preserving the community’s character. This view was shared by Richard Olsen, a district commissioner, who dismissed concerns over unit costs, believing in the project’s ability to diversify local housing options.

The issue of pricing was a point of contention, with some residents stating that the estimated cost of $700,000 to $800,000 per unit would not benefit local residents. They argued this pricing would likely attract wealthier individuals from larger cities rather than meeting the local demand for affordable housing. One resident emphasized that such developments contradicted the comprehensive plan’s goals for the community.

Traffic and infrastructure concerns were also prominent topics. Bruce Slooh and other residents pointed out the potential increase in traffic due to the area’s topography and the lack of access roads. They questioned how the infrastructure would support the new housing units and whether families could manage the associated costs, including homeowners association fees.

In response to these concerns, the developer proposed an alternative solution involving the installation of private utilities. This plan aimed to alleviate city concerns about Third Street’s capacity to handle additional traffic and utility needs. The developer’s proposal to bring shore water from the intersection of Third and Sixth Streets was part of this strategy, with discussions about providing easements for future utility access to adjacent properties.

The conversation also touched on environmental and neighborhood integrity, with residents requesting vegetative screening to minimize disruption during construction. Janet Simon, a nearby resident, specifically asked for considerations to protect existing trees and plant new ones to create a buffer for surrounding homes.

A significant portion of the meeting focused on the communication process regarding the project. Several residents reported not receiving notification letters, raising questions about the effectiveness of the communication process. This issue led to discussions about whether it was a postal problem or an oversight in the notification procedure.

The commission also deliberated on the project’s phasing and timeline, noting that construction would likely begin on the western half of the site, starting from Third Street with five initial units. Funding mechanisms for the project were discussed, with inquiries about whether units would be pre-sold to finance construction or if they would be built first and then sold.

Concerns were raised about the housing market’s ability to absorb the proposed units, with participants emphasizing the importance of avoiding unfinished projects. A developer attempted to reassure the commission by referencing past successful projects in other cities, asserting a track record of completing projects.

The discussion included technical aspects of the planned roadways for the development. The proposed road would be narrower than typical at 16 feet wide, with one-way traffic. Clarifications were made about agreements with the city regarding road maintenance and public access, specifying that the developer would be responsible for these aspects under a development agreement.

Utility easements and access for adjacent properties were another area of concern. The commission noted that further work was needed to clarify legal rights and costs associated with accessing utilities. There was discussion about the potential involvement of neighboring properties in future utility connections and the need to ensure that such arrangements did not impose financial burdens on those neighbors.

The commission ultimately decided to delay a vote on the project, opting to gather more information before making a formal decision. A tentative schedule was proposed.