Harbor reflections, while we wait

Nancye Belding

True North correspondent

The Grand Marais visioning workshops are done. The consultants have gone home to read over everything everyone has told them and come back with a draft report and recommendations, probably in about six weeks. Now we are waiting, but we are also asked to reflect on some questions posed by the CGI team.

First, the team thinks there is consensus on the following concepts and strategies, even after this last round of input:

ü The five concept areas (core downtown waterfront district, Highway 61 corridor, residential mixed use area, proposed downtown design overlay district along Wisconsin and Broadway, and proposed expansion of downtown district at least in part).

ü The need for design guidelines adapted to each of the concept areas, as well as the greater part of those proposed guidelines, aimed at preserving the scale and character of downtown by limiting heights, setbacks total square feet, and breaking up large building facades.

ü The permitted uses proposed for the various districts in large part, and also the option of conditional uses subject to Planning and Zoning scrutiny for larger structures in terms of height (up to 35 feet, third stories, and more than 10,000 total square footage). However, there was a lot of discussion about the process for conditional use approval and whether/where building height variances might be granted.

ü The critical need for strategies that will promote pedestrian safety and access along the highway corridor and permit business expansion to the north of the highway.

This consensus is quite remarkable given the deep and ongoing divisions about what direction Grand Marais should go in the future. But CGI also pointed out areas where there is NOT consensus, and where the community needs to address issues that could potentially change the city dramatically from the charming fishing village that is so attractive to tourists.

ü The downtown property owners have resisted any sort of restrictions on the sale or expansion of their own businesses. They realize that the value of their property has become so high, thanks to outside developers looking for new prime spaces to build their McMansions and DisneyVillages.

ü The older business owners feel they have worked hard for many years without making enough profit; some (but not all because of tax breaks for hotel and restaurant owners) of them are now burdened with much higher property taxes. They are convinced that tourists want luxury condos and resorts rather than the homey, old-time cabins and funky restaurants of yesteryear. They are told by people with money to invest that it is better to tear down their businesses such as the Seawall and the Harbor Inn and replace them with some high-end yuppie stuff, in addition to getting sale proceeds that increasing run into the millions. They imagine retirement in warm climates and upscale communities. In short they focus on their personal gain and not on Grand Marais. They are entitled, they say; they are the owners and nobody can tell them what to do.

ü The younger business owners who aren’t yet planning to retire have similar issues and similar motivations. They don’t want (yet) to tear down and sell, but rather to expand in any way to their liking, and to cater to what they see as the gold mine of yuppies who will buy their stuff in droves, whether it is original art or expensive food and lodging and high-end amenities like gonzo lake homes with all the furnishings and trimmings. They believe (perhaps rightly so) that any architectural changes they make to their businesses will be okay because they know and understand the community. They are the heart of the business district today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, the restrictions they are opposed to are the only safety Grand Marais has against being bought up by state or national super-developers who buy whole blocks and do what they like. Nothing in the proposed guidelines will protect against this happening, because of the “conditional uses” permitted and the burden on the city to prove that they DON’T have the right to build their two-block resort or retirement communities, or their three-story, 20,000 square foot, 100 foot wide condos so long as they make them look like they are small and discrete business facades. So far, the city has not seemed inclined to challenge outside developers at all, and has in fact changed its ordinances to accommodate them.

ü Finally, there is no consensus about what to do about what some are calling the “historic fishing village” that includes North House, Dockside Fish Market and the Angry Trout in addition to the north side of the highway from this harbor complex that includes Chez Jude and the former Waters of Superior. Some want this to be declared a historic district. The consultants have also warned that the north side would be ripe for the worst kind of development, with some large parcels undeveloped and the aging Birch Terrace along the western “gateway” that visitors love to see as they drive down the hill to the harbor. We are asked to reflect on ways to mitigate this, ways that will not interfere with the rights of existing property owners to do what they want.

There are other issues, such as how to address the highway corridor pedestrian nightmare while knowing that MnDOT will not be doing a rehab for years to come, and encouraging more business development north of the highway.

The proposed marina development was not addressed by the team, but implicit in its guidelines is preservation of the harbor and existing easements, in a goal identified in the first visioning workshop but later disputed: “Identify and preserve significant public viewsheds and vistas within the downtown.” Then there are the minor disagreements: should the design overlay district be required to have flat roofs in future development? Where, specifically, can a 35-foot building be allowed on the claim that it does not block anyone’s viewshed?

But much has been accomplished. The visioning process worked, because people with different points of view talked to one another, because we all live here. The next step is to try to find ways to keep things the way we like them when big developers, who don’t belong here and may not even come to take a look around, send their armies of lawyers to argue their right to develop as THEY see fit.