Trending
ESCANABA -- A plan to construct condominiums in an area that has traditionally been used as a city park passed Escanaba's planning commission this week, despite a mixed response from residents.
Before any public spoke on the proposal from Matt and Beth Sviland, of Swanee Inc., to develop the site between the former Delta County Chamber of Commerce Building and the Municipal Dock into upscale housing, one commissioner recused himself from the conversation because he was among the 90 people that had applied to buy one of the condo.
"I'm going to have to declare a conflict of interest, because, after getting (an) opinion from the city, I am an applicant for Matt's development. So, talking to (Zoning Administrator Tyler Anthony), he says that that would be conflict of interest," said Commissioner Roy Webber, who left the room for both the vote on a special land use permit and a site plan review for the project, but came back between both agenda items to speak as a citizen in favor of the project.
Not including Webber or a clarification by City Manager Jim McNeil, 12 people took to the podium to speak on the project and another 23 letters were read into the record by Anthony. Nearly all of the letters were in support of the project, but those who took to the podium included both those who supported and those who opposed the development.
A key concern for those who opposed the development was whether or not the land was considered a park. Under the city's charter, city-owned parkland can only be sold if 3/5 of the electorate approves the sale in an election. It was noted Thursday that the land currently contains benches consistent with other city parks, is listed on the its master plan as open space, and is included in the city's recreation plan as an area for a future non-motorized trail.
Strictly speaking, the area of land in question has not yet been sold to Swanee for the development. Like many developments of city-owned land, the city entered into a purchase agreement with the developer to ensure the project progresses. This prevents the city from selling land that then remains undeveloped.
The city disagreed with the assertion that the land is part of a park, pointing to a clean title search conducted on the property. It was also stated that the property is zoned E3 commercial and that the confusion over the open space designation was the result of residents reading the future land use map in the master plan, which is a guiding document, and not the zoning map, which is legally binding.
However, the master plan, last amended in 2016, does include a map labeled as showing the 2014 zoning. The map, found on page 58, clearly designates the land in question as Zone O, the designation for open space areas, such as parks.
A map one page earlier identifies the area as having an existing use of "Parks or Recreation."
According to McNeil, the 2014 zoning map in the master plan is not relevant to the issue at hand because the land was rezoned to E3 commercial and Zone O includes types of open spaces beyond parks, such as golf courses and cultural facilities.
"I've actually drawn out the Ludington Park legal description and this land definitely is not part of Ludington Park. It's not deed restricted at all for park purposes or public purpose," McNeil told the Daily Press Friday when asked about the prior zoning map.
The most current list of open space uses includes airport clear zones, golf courses, athletic fields, marinas, boat houses, outdoor swimming pools, boat liveries, parks, cultural facilities, playgrounds, essential services without buildings, and recreational facilities. E3 is a commercial district specific to the downtown area that allows a variety of commercial uses, dwellings above the first floor, and -- with a special use permit -- condominiums.
The addition of condominiums, townhouses, and other types of multifamily residential as a special use is relatively new to the zoning ordinance. So new in fact, that the standards for what would allow a project to qualify have not been written by the city.
"This case finds itself in a rather strange place. Without any standards for review, the special land use request has no bar to meet," Anthony told the commissioners. "Because of this, we staff find ourselves asking these questions: What does a lack of requirements and standards mean for a special land use request? Does the lack of such things mean that a special land use should be automatically approved, or, conversely, does that lack of guidelines mean that no approval should be made?"
The commissioners, many of whom spoke in support of the project, opted to approve the special land use permit in its entirety, with the stipulation that the developer work with the city with regards to utilities. The condition was added at the request of McNeil, who said this has been the city's past practice for projects that have complicated utility requirements.
Later in the meeting, the commissioners were asked to review the site plan for the project. A motion to approve the plan was made prior to the reading of the staff report on the plan, which included identified deficiencies.
Specifically, the access to the development is only a single lane wide, not meeting standards for both traffic circulation and the parking area; utility placement plans were not complete, and therefore failed to meet the city's utility standards by default; and the front setback for the planned buildings was not met.
Despite the shortcomings, the commissioners voted to approve the site plan. Conditions were added at the request of Anthony, who recommended that all utility connections be made underground and that a traffic statement completed by a qualified engineer be provided to the planning commission within two months. The traffic statement must focus on the alley providing access to the property, consider the impact of future development to the lot adjacent to the property's west, state whether the ally needs to be enlarged or not.
The amended motion to approve the site plan with the conditions was unanimously approved by the commission.