The developers behind two proposed nine-story, mixed-use buildings on the corner of Pine and Front streets have requested a three-month delay on a public hearing for a special land use permit (SLUP) that would allow them to build to 96 instead of 60 feet.

Commissioners were expected to take action on the SLUP request on September 21 following a public hearing that night. But in a letter to City Manager Marty Colburn Thursday, property owners Joe Sarafa and Erik Falconer requested that commissioners "table the consideration of our SLUP" for 90 days to give the developers time to "properly consider and respond to the issues raised" by commissioners at previous meetings. Several commissioners have questioned the project's height and setback from the Boardman River, as well as its potential impact on the surrounding downtown corridor.

The three-month delay would mean the SLUP hearing would take place after the November 3 election - putting the request in front of a new board of commissioners, with three commission seats and the mayoral seat up for grabs. Traverse City Mayor Michael Estes acknowledges the delay could be politically motivated, but said it was the developers' "choice of when they want to bring it forward."

"If they're not prepared to go ahead now or answer questions, then I support the decision to delay it," Estes says.

The public hearing would still take place September 21 - albeit without a commission vote - and a separate request from The Woda Group for a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement with the city for affordable housing in the development is still slated for an up-or-down vote from commissioners that night.

Meanwhile, a study session scheduled for Monday that was originally set to give commissioners more details on the project ahead of the September 21 hearing will still proceed. In a memo to commissioners Thursday, Colburn recommended canceling the study session in light of the requested SLUP delay, but asked the board to let him know if there were any objections. Estes says that based on Colburn's decision to go ahead with the meeting, "he must have heard" from several commissioners they didn't want to cancel. Colburn did not return phone and email requests for comment.