A developer plans to ask Traverse City voters in November to approve his plans to build a 100-foot building on State Street – the first time such an election will occur since Proposal 3 was passed in 2016 requiring a public vote on buildings over 60 feet tall.

Tom McIntyre will seek voter approval for his proposed ten-story, mixed-used development called Peninsula Place at 326 East State Street, he confirms to The Ticker. While McIntyre is still challenging the legality of Proposal 3 in court – the case is with the Michigan Court of Appeals – he is simultaneously pursuing a special land use permit (SLUP) with the city that would allow him to build his project next to the Park Place Hotel. Planning commissioners narrowly approved McIntyre’s SLUP application by a 5-4 vote last fall, making a public vote the next step in the approval process.

“We’ve always had that option out there (of going to the voters),” McIntyre says. “We think it’s an illegal vote, which is what this whole case is about, but we decided we should at least give it a try since this is the process the city has set up. If the voters approve it, that could solve everybody’s problems. Hopefully that would be the outcome.”

In order for the project to appear on the November 6 ballot, Traverse City commissioners must approve the ballot language by August 14, according to City Clerk Benjamin Marentette. The ballot request will appear on the city commission’s August 6 agenda. According to city policy, the ballot language would read as follows:

“The City Charter of the City of Traverse City provides that the City or City Commission may not grant approval for the construction of any building in excess of 60 feet in height without approval by the voters. The City of Traverse City has received an application to construct a building at 326 State Street, with a height above 60 feet, with the height to be measured as determined by the applicable local zoning regulation.

Shall a building with a height above 60 feet be constructed at 326 State Street, Parcel Number (TBD)?”

Because McIntyre is requesting that the proposal appear on a regularly scheduled election ballot, the city’s costs to accommodate the request are “negligible” and won’t result in any charges to the developer, according to Marentette. The proposal requires a simple majority approval of voters to pass.

Should voters approve the project, the last step in the process would be for the SLUP application to go to city commissioners for final approval. Commissioners would review the application according to normal SLUP criteria; if the project meets the criteria, commissioners are required to issue the SLUP. McIntyre says that in the scenario of receiving both public and planning commission for the project, “it would be strange if the voters approved it and the city did not, since the city has been saying it has to honor the wishes of the voters.” If the project receives a SLUP, McIntyre says construction could begin as soon as next spring.

Should the proposal fail at the ballot, however, McIntyre has the right to return again to voters in the future – theoretically, an unlimited number of times, though he would have to pay out-of-pocket to cover costs if the request wasn’t timed with a regular election and instead required the holding of a special election. The developer says he isn’t certain yet what his next step would be if voters reject the proposal in November. Continued legal recourse through the court system remains an ongoing option, he says.

“Our hope would be the voters would approve it, because it’s a great project and it’s what the property has been zoned for for 50 years,” McIntyre says. “At the end of the day, either the voters are going to approve it or the courts are going to have to step in and decide the legality of this whole process. The election might solve the problem for our building, but it won’t do it for the city. Sooner or later someone is going to come forward and demand a declaratory judgment (on the legality of Proposal 3). That’s going to happen.”

Putting a building construction request to voters for the first time raises new questions for both McIntyre and city staff, such as whether and how the developer can “campaign” publicly for his project. McIntyre says he’s hired a firm to assist him through the election process, but says he’s uncertain what his campaigning efforts will look like. “I don’t know the answer to that…it’s going to be an expensive process,” he says. “I believe we’re getting some information out to the public closer to the date of the election.”

Marentette acknowledges the question of how campaign laws would apply to tall building ballot proposals was a new one for city staff. After researching the issue, the city clerk confirms that “any group or individuals that wish to spend money to advocate for or against the ballot proposal, including (McIntyre), would be required to comply with campaign finance rules and regulations.”

Marentette also notes “there are no limits on the amount of money that could be spent or on the dollar amount per contributor.” The unlimited donation policy is set by state law, which says ballot question committees (sponsors) “may receive unlimited contribution amounts from a legal source.” Such groups are still required to file campaign statements detailing their contributions, expenditures, and other financial activities.

Pictured: Conceptual rendering of the proposed Peninsula Place next to the Park Place Hotel. Photo credit: J. Scott Smith Visual Designs, Inc.