Planning commission approves 137‑room hotel at 124 West Front Street with conditions

The Traverse City Planning Commission on Aug. 5 approved a site plan for a four‑story, 137‑guestroom hotel at 124 West Front Street, subject to 12 staff conditions governing streetscape coordination, utilities, stormwater treatment, floodplain review and pedestrian access. The project is proposed by Great Lakes Capital and the applicant’s civil engineering consultant, Dusty Christiansen of Mansfield Land Use Consultants, presented the plans.

Project summary: the approved plan calls for a 137‑room hotel with an underground parking deck served by valet (staff noted the agreed parking count is 68 below grade), a restaurant, café, bar and small conference amenities. The hotel footprint will span three parcels that the developer will combine into one. The site sits at a slope down to the Boardman River and is in an area where historic contamination required city‑installed district stormwater treatment; staff said all stormwater must be routed through the aqua‑swirl treatment device because ground infiltration could mobilize contaminants.

Staff conditions (summary): the approval includes staff’s recommended conditions, which the commission adopted as part of the motion. Conditions require the applicant to: coordinate streetscape design with the Downtown Development Authority (including street trees, sidewalk heating and a bike/mobility hub); reimburse the city for any disturbed parking‑ or lighting‑related infrastructure; work with engineering, municipal utilities and Traverse City Light & Power on service connections; meet stormwater requirements in city ordinance (chapter 10‑68) and use the aqua‑swirl treatment for on‑site runoff; combine the three parcels into one legal parcel; meet fire code and access standards; install pavement markings to warn pedestrians where vehicles cross the sidewalk; secure written confirmation from engineering that any proposed encroachments in the floodplain will not increase flood levels; set the primary West Front Street entrance at least 4 feet behind the property line and add a third pedestrian entrance on the south elevation; and prohibit deliveries in the public right‑of‑way between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. (deliveries outside that window are expected to occur on Front Street due to limited internal loading space and the lack of a rear alley).

Staff and applicant technical notes: project staff and the applicants said the constrained site requires a single‑lane valet circulation into the building with a separate lane back out and a ramp to the underground deck; bumpouts will be added on Front Street to improve vehicle sight lines while preserving the existing bike lane width and maintaining an eight‑foot sidewalk where feasible. The site will lose about five on‑street parallel parking spaces across the property frontage; the applicant said overflow parking arrangements would be discussed with city parking staff and might use nearby public decks.

Height and materials: the plan drawings submitted to staff show the flat roof deck at 58 feet 2 inches above mean grade (the city and applicant said they will verify final measurements in permitting and that the ordinance measurement counts rooftop structures and pavers); the parapet was described in the packet as about 2 feet 10 inches. Commissioners extensively debated exterior materials. The applicant’s drawings show an exterior using EIFS (synthetic stucco) as a predominant finish with brick accents along the river‑facing parking level. Several commissioners raised concerns about durability and streetscape character; others noted past approvals with similar materials and counseled consistent enforcement of standards citywide. Planning staff said the ordinance requires "traditional brick and stone or materials of comparable aesthetic value" and that the commission may judge whether the applicant’s materials meet the standard. The Planning Commission did not add a condition changing the building materials; commissioners requested staff return to the commission in a future meeting with a clearer ordinance interpretation and possible code refinements for facade materials.

Public comment and environmental concerns: nearby residents and a commenter, Judy Nelson of Garfield Avenue, asked about top‑of‑roof height and whether the project would exceed the 60‑foot threshold that requires separate review; staff and the applicant stated the submitted roof deck elevation is 58 feet 2 inches and that they will verify final measurements during permitting. Residents and commissioners also raised questions about riverbank vegetation and the need for a detailed landscape/tree inventory; staff noted that the land‑use permit (a separate step after site plan approval) requires a landscape plan showing retained and removed trees and any required mitigation, and staff agreed to request a formal existing‑tree inventory for the waterfront portion of the site as part of permit review.

Vote and outcome: the motion to approve the site plan with the staff‑recommended conditions carried on a roll‑call vote (O'Brien — yes; Detturi — yes; Anderson — no; Knapp — no; McGillivary — no; Treadwell — yes; Hershey — yes), with four votes in favor and three opposed. The approval allows the applicant to proceed to required permits and to finalize construction drawings; it does not authorize any work that would violate floodplain, stormwater or land‑use permit requirements.

Next steps: before construction may begin the applicant must obtain right‑of‑way permits, complete engineering utility approvals, combine the three parcels, obtain a land‑use permit with a detailed landscape plan and tree inventory, and satisfy utility, fire and stormwater engineering requirements (including written confirmation regarding floodplain encroachments). Commissioners also asked staff to return with a clearer ordinance standard on facade materials for future projects.

Ending: The applicant will proceed to permitting under the approved site plan and conditions; staff will review building height and exterior materials in the permitting phase and bring proposed ordinance clarifications to a future Planning Commission meeting.