ESCANABA — Two proposed ordinances that could impact how developments are approved and regulated in Escanaba were met with some skepticism by the Escanaba City Council Thursday, despite one being required for the city to continue creating historic districts and the other being modified to address council member’s past concerns about the city’s planning commission.

The first proposed ordinance on the docket for the council was related to historic districts in the city and the commission responsible for their creation, which was designed to correct errors made by the city in the past.

In essence, when the city established its first and only historic district in 2009, the district covering the former Richter Brewery building, the city adopted an ordinance that largely copied the state law allowing for the creation of historic commissioners. That ordinance specified that “the city council may establish by ordinance a commission to be called a historic district commission” and that the commission “may be established at any time, but no later than the time the first historic district is established.” However, no second ordinance creating the commission was ever passed.

“I just accidentally happened to read something and went ‘that’s worded funny,’ and then I went down the rabbit hole on it and discovered the ordinance, the existing ordinance, was just non-self-executing,” said Planning Zoning Administrator Tyler Anthony.

It is not believed that the Richter Brewery district is in any way affected by the missing ordinance, but an ordinance needs to be in place for future districts to be developed. This includes the proposed Ogden Triangle Historic District, which is in the very early research stages and may not be implemented.

The new ordinance, drafted by Anthony and the city’s attorney, is a more modern approach to historic districts. The ordinance will establish a “City Historic Preservation Commission,” which expands the commission to more than just district creation. This includes working on other preservation projects, like self-guided historic walking tours or historic research surveys.

One of the concerns for the council was the inclusion of new membership requirement language, which specifies that a members must demonstrate a clear interest in or have a knowledge of historic preservation. Specifically, ordinance would seek members who have certain qualifications, such as being a registered architect or being a teaching or published academic with a degree that includes American architectural history. Anthony said the ordinance included provisions to appoint members who might fall outside the recommendations.

The council voted unanimously to set the second reading, public hearing and possible adoption of the ordinance for the May 16 meeting. However, the council was less receptive to similar changes proposed for the city’s planning commission ordinance.

The changes to the city’s planning commission rules — which would result from the second ordinances on Thursday’s agenda — were sparked by comments made at the April 4 city commission meeting about the lack of punitive measures for planning commissioners who did not complete education requirements.

The new rules would prevent planning commissioners from being reappointed to the commission if they fair to complete their education, but as written Thursday would not have removed any planning commissioners before their term ended. The requirements for planning commission membership were also modified, in a similar way to the historic preservation commission, to add qualifications.

Those qualifications, which included people representing things like agricultural, environmental, and forestry or communication, recreation, and tourism. The ordinance further outlined specific preferred qualifications, like being a member of the county chapter of Farm Bureau or being nominated for the position by tourism organizations. If no qualified applicants were available, the council had other methods to appoint a commissioner.

The requirements raised concerns that no one would apply for the planning commission, even if they were interested, because they felt under-qualified. Council members were also concerned about language that allowed some of the planning commissioners to live outside of the city limits.

The council voted to accept the first reading of the ordinance and set the second reading, public hearing, and possible adoption for May 16, but directed Anthony to modify the language to make it more clear that the number of non-resident members was limited, soften the qualifications recommendations, and consider more punitive measures for not meeting education requirements.

Council Member Todd Flath was the only council member to vote against moving the ordinance forward. He expressed concerns that the language in the proposed ordinance was too strict and could be applied differently under a new council or zoning administrator.

In other business the council

— Heard a presentation on the city’s investments and reaffirmed the city’s investment policy.

— Approved the purchase of a stainless steel dump box for the public works department.

— Approved hiring Draze Sealcoating to seal coat the paved area in front of the Karas Bandshell for $2,627. The paving will include the areas under the benches.