×

Apartment project decision reversed

Escanaba Board of Appeals approves low-income housing unit downtown

Jenny Lancour | Daily Press The Escanaba Board of Appeals listens to public comments made during Tuesday’s meeting concerning the planning commission’s decision on Feb. 26 to not approve a proposed four-story apartment complex in downtown Escanaba. From left are Brian Thorsen, Jon Liss, Chairperson William DeHann, Mark Hannemann, Dennis Renken, City Code Official Blaine DeGrave, and Administrative Secretary Lisa Glish.

ESCANABA — A proposed $9 million apartment complex in downtown Escanaba — previously nixed by the city’s planning commission — was unanimously approved by the city’s appeals board during a meeting in council chambers Tuesday.

Craig Patterson, representative of Bay de Noc Limited Dividend Housing Association, appealed the planning commission’s Feb. 26th decision to not approve a proposal to build a four-story 50,768-square-foot multi-family housing structure on the 1400 block of Ludington Street.

The planning commission voted 4-1 against the project after the developer amended the design to improve the exterior appearance of the building, meet parking requirements, and add more green space as requested by commissioners during a previous site plan review on Feb. 8.

After listening to public comment Tuesday, which included two letters received, the five-member appeals board declared the site plan “meets or exceeds all requirements of the city of Escanaba zoning ordinance standards and facts, and therefore is approved, subject to conditional items.”

Conditional items, which were recommended by City Code Official Blaine DeGrave, included the developer submitting a full-scale plan for utilities and snow removal. Also, any future changes to the use of the plan’s community space/lobby area will be required to add more parking spaces according to the city zoning ordinance.

The plan’s first floor includes five apartments, community space, a residential lobby, an indoor play area, and two commercial spaces. The second, third and fourth floors each contain 12 apartments for a total of 41 apartments in the building.

“I’m very pleased with the outcome,” stated Patterson following Tuesday’s meeting. He also noted he was pleased with the leadership of the zoning appeals board and thanked DeGrave for his work, also.

“I’m pleased we requested another audience to set the record straight,” he added. “We are ready for development… This is encouraging for all developers.”

In regards to concerns a couple commissioners had previously made about the project not being in line with the city’s goals, Patterson said, “I believe it meets the needs of the community as reflected in the master plan.”

At the start of Tuesday’s public hearing, Board of Appeals Chairperson William DeHaan explained the role of the board was to hear and decide on the appeal which alleged the planning commission had made an error when it was considering the site plan for approval based on the city’s zoning ordinance.

DeHaan said the appeals hearing would determine if the standards and guidelines of the zoning ordinance were strictly followed by the planning commission at its Feb. 26 meeting when the site plan was not approved.

The chairperson also reminded the members of the public attending Tuesday’s meeting that comments could only be made in relation to the appeal and could not be a “rehash” of the comments made at the planning commission meetings.

Prior to public comments, DeGrave reviewed the site plan process to date, the process of the appeal that was filed on March 20, and the duties of the appeals board. He also offered his own comments as the city’s code official.

“In this case before the board of appeals, the applicant had complied with the modifications of the plan for the proposed project as requested by the planning commission, meeting all basic zoning requirements, codes, and standards,” stated DeGrave.

Public comments were presented by six individuals including two of the planning commissioners who voted against the proposed apartment complex.

Commissioner Christine Williams said she opposed the project mainly because the location would require the demolition of the former Northern Motors building, which she said would be the loss of an historic structure.

Williams admitted the site plan did meet zoning requirements, but added she felt “very strongly” about the existing building and would rather see the apartments constructed on a different site.

Commissioner Paul Caswell, who also opposed the site plan, stated there was no promise made to the developer that the site plan would be approved if the changes were made as requested by the planning commission. He also said the plan was good, but the location on Ludington Street was not a safe place for children to reside and play.

Caswell also claimed the appeal application was not done properly because it didn’t state what the planning commission did wrong.

Other comments made by the public included the city is building a playground at the marketplace next door and there is a need for more affordable and decent housing in the city. Letters received stated there are long waiting lists for existing low-income apartments in Escanaba and the apartment building is a welcome development to the city.

Escanaba resident Paul Neumeier, who stated he is “definitely opposed to the project,” said he was concerned there is no place for snow storage in the site plan and the 47 parking spaces is not sufficient for the number of people who could live in the apartments.

Former Escanaba Downtown Development Authority Director Roger Good commented the developer adjusted the apartment plan as the planning commission requested and the project “might fit well” in the neighborhood.

Good also said the city was recently certified as a Redevelopment Ready Community (RRC) to be more prepared to attract new investments and new businesses by streamlining development processes.

According to the RRC Program, certification lets developers know Escanaba has a vision for the future and the city has created a sound foundation for redevelopment including removing barriers and streamlining processes to be more attractive for economic growth.

Tuesday’s board of appeals’ decision was a final approval on the project. Anyone with a substantial interest in the board’s determination may appeal within 28 days to circuit court.

The apartment complex will be presented to city council at a later date for approval of a payment in lieu of taxes agreement and a municipal services contract.

Patterson explained the payment in lieu of taxes, also known as PILOT, is important for filing for low-income housing tax credits that would help fund the project through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. The deadline for the next round of applications is Oct. 2.

— — —

Jenny Lancour, (906) 786-2021, ext. 143, jlancour@dailypress.net

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today