ESCANABA — A controversial low- to moderate-income apartment complex planned for the area north of Aldi and adjacent to Walmart’s southeast retaining pond was narrowly defeated by the Escanaba City Council Thursday.

The Bay de Noc Apartments would have been a four-story, 70 unit complex located at 500 N. 26th St. on land that is currently zoned as F – Light Manufacturing. In order for the plan to move forward, the city’s planning commission recommended the council rezone the parcel to C-2 – Residential Planned Unit Development. The special designation would have automatically reverted the land to Light Manufacturing if the project did not come to fruition.

However, the project was met with skepticism from many residents. Those residents, along with those who supported the project, made their voices heard Thursday during a public hearing on the issue held at the council’s regular virtual meeting.

One of the most common concerns was the location of the project, which Craig Patterson, senior vice president of the project’s developer Woda, said was prime for low-income residents, as they would be able to walk to big-box retailers and jobs in the commercially-dominated area.

“We looked at some of the core cities downstate where four story buildings with the amenities that we have in the commercial zones do thrive there, and one of the reasons they thrive there is because walkable jobs are nearby,” said Patterson, noting one of the most successful complexes Woda has constructed is in a commercial area in Grand Rapids.

Residents opposed to the project criticized both Patterson comparing Escanaba to much larger cities and the premise that being within walking distance from big box stores was best for the city as a whole.

“Just because it has walkability doesn’t outweigh the common sense reasons for saying no to this. Not only that, but its walkability will only help the big box stores in the immediate location. The same walkability is certain to be a detriment to other local small businesses surrounding the current rental areas,” said resident and landlord Craig Taylor.

Location has been a sore point for Woda, which pitched a similar complex a few years ago on the site of the old Northern Motors building, now occupied by Race Driven. That project died at the planning commission level because commissioners felt the use was inconsistent with the downtown district.

Some who participated in Thursdays meeting felt the project was not only in a good location, but was necessary — especially in an economy threatened by COVID-19.

“I support this project. I think it was going to be needed then but even needed now since this pandemic and it’s going to be an economic crash,” said resident Jim Berthiaume.

How the pandemic would ultimately affect housing in the area was also debated at the meeting. Some, like Berthiaume, felt reduced wages would drive up the need for low-income housing, while many of the landlords participating in the meeting anticipated increased vacancies when orders from the state of were rescinded and tenants could once again be evicted for nonpayment.

Landlords made up a large portion of those participating in the meeting, but the views they held about the project varied widely. Some claimed they had multiple vacant units they couldn’t fill and the complex would cause even more competition. Others said the project was needed because they had waiting lists and turned down potential renters multiple times a week. A few raised concerns over a series of tax incentives and service agreements Woda was seeking, which they felt was unfair to landlords paying the higher non-homestead property taxes that support school districts.

“We pay top property taxes, and we have for 32 years, and to put something like this in? And especially — I don’t care if it was high-income or low-income, where it’s going to go is crazy. It’s going to look like a circus over there,” said landlord Karen Anderson.

Whether or not the council should even consider the needs of landlords was even challenged.

“I would also like to suggest to council it is not your job to protect the current landlords in Escanaba. We all pay city taxes, we all take the responsibility of being landlords. With that comes the possibility that we might not have renters in our units at all times. That cannot be the reason to not go ahead with a project like this,” said landlord Kelli Van Ginhoven.

When it came time for the council to make a decision on the proposal to rezone the property and allow the project to move forward, the views on the council were as mixed as those from the public.

“I think that we do have that ability to provide a housing opportunity for our seniors, our veterans, our single people workers, our families with kids that are just having a rough spot right now, and I think that we should be able to provide that opportunity to human beings,” said Council Member Tyler DuBord, who added developers would not look fondly on the city if the council repeatedly sent developers like Woda away.

Council Member Ralph Blasier felt similarly.

“It’s not low-income, it’s low to moderate, and at moderate they could take in half of the people in Escanaba,” said Blasier.

For City Manager Patrick Jordan, moving forward with the project was a long-term economic move for the city, which would collect significantly more in taxes on the complex after a planned 16-year payment in lieu of taxes agreement ended than it would on the vacant land.

“If we do nothing with it right now, nothing, if it sits vacant, I can almost promise you — because I come from Muskegon and I’ve seen it. I can almost promise you in 15 years that property will still be vacant,” he said.

The rest of the council felt differently than DuBord, Blasier, and the city manager. While neither Mayor Marc Tall, Council Member Peggy O’Connell, nor Council Member Karen Moore disagreed there was a need for additional housing — something shown in the market study provided by Woda — they felt the need was greatest for seniors and a mixed demographic complex would not meeting those needs, especially in that location.

“If Mr. Patterson chooses to come back to us in the future with a senior citizen’s low and medium income plan I would be happy to support that project,” said Moore.

The council voted in a split 3-2 vote not to approve the parcel for rezoning with only DuBord and Blasier supporting a zoning change. The same lines were drawn on three additional agenda items that would have supported the project: a payment in lieu of taxes agreement, a municipal services agreement, and the final development plan for the apartment complex itself.

“I have no doubt that each of us has voted the way they feel it is best for our community in the future. I believe we are all sincere and that we’ve all done the homework,” Tall said after the final related agenda item was defeated.

“Well, how did we get it wrong anyway?” Blasier replied.

In other business, the council held the fourth of five planned public hearings on the proposed 2020-2021 fiscal year budget- held a close out public hearing for a Community Development Block Grant for Kobasic Creations

– held the first reading for an amendment to the city’s sign ordinance

– approved annual chemical bids for the water and wastewater plant

– went into closed session to discuss the Public Safety Command Unit 2020-2023 labor agreement.