歪歪漫画

BEMIDJI 鈥� After receiving countless comments and phone calls about a proposed 42-unit senior living cooperative, mostly from residents voicing their opposition, members of the Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board voted to deny a text amendment and a conditional use permit for the project.

But even with the denial, several members of the board expressed their hope that the developer would consider adjusting their application and submit it again.

The proposed project would have been a senior living cooperative built by Gracewin Living, with a planned location on the west side of Lake Irving along Clausen Avenue Southwest. The proposal required a text amendment to allow for flexibility in height and density, which would have been 14 units more than the current maximum and 12 feet and 8 inches higher than the existing height limit.

Residents in the area expressed concern about how the development would change the character of the neighborhood, citing worries about the shade created by the building and increased traffic along Irving Beach Road, where there would have been secondary access.

With these concerns in mind, the Joint Planning Commission had recommended the JPB deny the text amendment, though they supported the conditional use permit.

鈥淭he surrounding neighborhood will be affected directly by the proposed development,鈥� the JPC鈥檚 findings of fact read. 鈥淭hese changes are building shading on neighboring properties, increased density in the shoreland and increased traffic off of Irving Beach Road.鈥�

This recommendation contrasted with that made by JPB staff, which found the development to be in line with the intent of the shoreland ordinance and recommended the approval of both the permit and amendment.

鈥淭he intent of the lakeshore districts is to preserve the natural environment while providing recreational opportunities and development that incorporates the natural environment,鈥� their recommendation read. 鈥淭his text amendment will allow higher density in the Shoreland Overlay and R-6 Zone within the city and reduce sprawl while providing much-needed housing.鈥�

When it came time for the JPB to make its decision, there was hesitation by some members due to the upcoming dissolution of the JPB, and they wondered if it wouldn鈥檛 be better to wait to make a decision until planning and zoning authority returns to the city in January.

This hesitation also stemmed from the practicality of the decision, with questions on whether changing the ordinance wouldn鈥檛 have to be redone by the city at a later date.

鈥淭he city鈥檚 going to have to come back in two weeks and hear this text amendment again because the ordinance that鈥檚 been approved by the city doesn鈥檛 have this in it,鈥� said Jess Frenzel. 鈥淚 think this belongs with the city.鈥�

Other JPB members shared their conflicting concerns about Bemidji鈥檚 housing shortage and the impact this development would have on the neighborhood.

鈥淲e need housing in Bemidji, we鈥檙e in a housing crisis, there鈥檚 no doubt about that. We need projects like this,鈥� said Josh Peterson. 鈥淏ut hearing how it would change the character of the neighborhood, I have a hard time, personally, supporting this location.鈥�

Peterson specified that he hoped the project would be constructed, just in another location.

When it came to a vote on whether to approve or deny the text amendment, it was denied 3-0. Both Frenzel and Audrey Thayer abstained, explaining their reasoning as a belief that it should go before the city in January.

With the text amendment denied, the JPB was informed by legal counsel that the cleanest decision would be to also deny the conditional use permit, which would no longer be applicable without the amendment.

The board was favorable to this recommendation, in part because a complete denial of the application would allow for the developer to reapply to the city once it takes on planning and zoning with 鈥渁 fresh start.鈥�

JPB members voted unanimously to deny the permit, though each specified that they supported the project and the developer, just with some adjustments to the proposal.

鈥淲e all know we need housing,鈥� said Jorge Prince. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what I received from some of the comments objecting. They weren鈥檛 objecting to an apartment complex (or) senior housing, they were objecting to this specific proposal and how it related to the shoreland.鈥�

Several members thanked the members of the community who had reached out to comment on the proposal, though Thayer noted that she was disturbed by the implications of some of them.

鈥淚t was disturbing when I heard 鈥榃ell, this would be a better location,鈥� because I鈥檓 thinking 鈥楴ot in my backyard,鈥欌�� she explained. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to hear that, not from our city. We should be embracing every chance and every opportunity to engage people in our community.鈥�