A team of developers representing two proposed nine-story buildings on the corner of Pine and Front streets fielded questions from commissioners on the project during an occasionally tense study session Monday night.

Commissioners grilled the team on a variety of details including property costs, affordable housing, parking, setback from the Boardman River and development height. Developers told the board they planned to proceed with a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) request with the city scheduled for a September 21 public hearing, which would allow them to meet an October 1 application deadline for Michigan State Housing Development Authority funding to cover the affordable housing component of the project. Craig Patterson of The Woda Group said the funding would allow for the creation of 16 one-bedroom and 48 two-bedroom workforce apartments, with a tenant income level set at 40-60 percent of the area median income level.

Luxury condos and apartments – as well as “a continuum” of units in between – would comprise the rest of the development, said property owner Erik Falconer. “The price of property downtown makes it such that to make housing options affordable on the one end of the continuum, you need to go up,” Falconer said. When Traverse City Mayor Michael Estes questioned the developers’ property costs and whether they truly needed to build to nine stories to make the project economically feasible, Falconer estimated the group’s land and carrying costs for the property over the last eight years at over $4.2 million. Those costs were after revenue sources – like parking fees – had been factored in, Falconer said.

Commissioner Jim Carruthers questioned what type of stormwater management system developers would use on-site, concerns echoed by The Watershed Center of Grand Traverse Bay. Project consultant Doug Mansfield said the team had hired an environmental firm to evaluate soil contaminants and would use their analysis to make a final determination on storm-water clean-up. He also noted the team had met with city engineering staff, who “asked very specific questions as to what type of contamination (is on-site) and where it’s going to go.”

Carruthers also questioned why developers, who have been working on potential project plans since purchasing the property in 2007, hadn’t yet met with groups like the Central Neighborhood Association to get their input on the development. Mansfield noted the team had only formalized site designs in recent months, and said their request last week for a three-month delay on the special land use permit (SLUP) for the project was intended to given them time to meet with such groups.

When Carruthers incredulously responded that the team should’ve solicited such input years ago, Commissioner Gary Howe jumped in. “What we’re doing is reviewing a SLUP that has ordinances and standards to it,” Howe said. “It’s a little unfair to post-application all the sudden have this requirement that they should have met with the neighborhood in 2007.” After Carruthers retorted that Howe had "based (his) campaign on public engagement," Howe replied, “This isn’t about me. It’s about the ordinance.” The exchange was one of a handful that prompted Estes to request commissioners keep conversation directed between the board and developers.

Residents both for and against the development lined up during public comment to address the project. While several criticized the building’s height, density and impact on downtown's character, others – including Hans Voss, executive director of the Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities (formerly Michigan Land Use Institute) – defended the project.

“What I’ve heard over the last 20 years is a significant concern about sprawl, an urgent need for affordable housing and a consensus about the benefits of a walkable, vibrant downtown,” said Voss. “As I think about solutions to (those issues), I think this project represents all those goals.”

At the end of the meeting – which did not result in any action, as commissioners can't vote on items during study sessions – Commissioner Tim Werner acknowledged both sides of the debate in his closing remarks.

“I’m for (the project), I’m for the density,” Werner said. “I don’t feel our small town character is defined by our buildings. I think it’s defined by our people and our sense of community and how we interact with each other. But if you feel that (the height) is just something that bothers you too much, and that a tall building does not fit in with the character, I can respect that.”

Commissioners will next discuss the Pine Street development at a September 21 public hearing at 7pm at the Governmental Center.