Legal Battle Brewing Over Tall Buildings?

As Traverse City planning commissioners prepare for a public hearing tonight (Tuesday) on a proposed nine-story development at 305 Pine Street, a group fighting the project is moving ahead with a referendum to ban tall buildings downtown.

Brenda Quick, a spokesperson for the group, said she turned in “a little more than 900 signatures” to the city clerk’s office Monday. The referendum needs only 527 signatures to be put on the ballot for a public vote. The petition language calls for restricting buildings in downtown’s C-4(b), C-4(c) and D-3 districts – which allow buildings up to 100 feet high with a special land use permit – to a maximum height of 60 feet.

“We’re very pleased we were able to get that many signatures that quickly,” says Quick, noting the group spent less than three weeks circulating petitions. “People were overwhelmingly in support of this. I don’t think there’s any question the referendum will pass when it gets on the ballot.”

But how soon voters could weigh in on the issue – and whether it would be in time to halt the Pine Street development if approved – remains to be seen. The first step in the process is certifying the petition signatures, a task City Clerk Benjamin Marentette has 10 days to complete. If certified, the soonest the referendum could appear on a ballot is March 8, the presidential primary.

However, “the city would receive no reimbursement for the conduct of (a special election)” on that date, according to Marentette, because it’s a federal primary. Putting the issue on the March 8 ballot would cost the city “approximately $20,000 out of pocket,” Marentette says. If the city waited until August 2 – the next available city election date – it would not incur those costs.

Quick acknowledges that $20,000 “isn’t insignificant,” but says she would still like to see the issue appear on the March ballot. “We think it’s in the best interest of the voters and also the developers…to see this resolved as quickly as possible,” she says. Marentette, meanwhile, is investigating whether commissioners can set the election date. While the board is legally obligated to either put a certified referendum to a vote or else enact its recommended changes, Marentette “needs to clarify” whether that commits the city to the soonest election date possible – or if commissioners can select a later date if it reduces costs.

Regardless of the chosen date, Pine Street developers Joe Sarafa and Erik Falconer could still receive a special land use permit to build up to nine stories well before a vote occurs. Should planning commissioners approve the project tonight, it will next go before the city commission – a board that is losing at least two of its four members who oppose the project in today’s election. If incoming commissioners prove more supportive, developers could receive a SLUP for the project as soon as next month.

Outgoing Traverse City Mayor Michael Estes tells The Ticker he and Commissioner Barbara Budros explored “every single option in terms of what could be legally done” to delay a SLUP decision until a public vote could occur. “We wanted to know what options we had,” says Estes. “It turns out there were none.”

One route they considered – pursuing a moratorium on tall buildings until an election could occur – would require going first through the planning commission, then the city commission, a process that would lag behind the SLUP review itself and would also require the support of new commissioners.

Quick isn’t deterred by a possible looming SLUP approval, indicating petitioners might pursue legal action against the development. “There may be other means that will slow down or stop the Pine Street project," she says. "We'll take those steps if we need to."

Sarafa and Falconer, meanwhile, have been meeting with community leaders about the project, and recently constructed a new public website dedicated to the development. Titled River West – a “working name," says Sarafa – the site provides an overview of development details, a video on the project, a contact page for questions/comments and a FAQ section addressing topics including zoning, parking, traffic and tax revenues. Sarafa says he “doesn’t know enough” about any potential legal challenges at this point to address Quick’s comments, saying the developers are focused on the city review process.

“We believe in the project,” he says, “and we believe it will ultimately be approved.”