The following editorial represents the views of the editor of Lowell’s First Look and should not be construed as the opinion of the site’s contributors, columnists or advertisers.
Last week, the Lowell Planning Commission approved a 39-unit residential building attached to a 3,800 square foot commercial space without seeing a lighting plan, without discussing pedestrian safety and without any dialogue with neighbors.
The building – which is contingent on the court vacating Horatio Street – is universally opposed by surrounding residents who note that inserting the three-story apartment building into a neighborhood of single-family homes isn’t ideal for anyone.
It creates concerns about parking, privacy, traffic and noise for existing residents. Meanwhile, those who move into the apartments aren’t exactly going to get a luxury experience seeing that one-bedroom units are a mere 650 square feet and located right up against a road where existing houses shake as trucks go by.
The approval of this development on a 5-1 vote would seem like a failure of the Planning Commission. But it’s more accurately seen as a failure of the city.
Before we go any further, there are two things you should know. The first is that I own property in the 700 block of E. Main Street, two doors down from the development site. I don’t live there, but I own the house.
The second is that the house isn’t the reason I am upset about the Planning Commission decision.
Over the course of a decade, I sat on the Lowell Planning Commission as a member and, at times, as its chair. My name is on the 2007 Master Plan that the current commission used as justification for approving the proposal to redevelop the Rollaway property into a mixed-use development. That is despite my repeated attempts to explain that this mixed-use building in no way reflects the goals or provisions of the plan.
Back when I started on the commission around 2002 – we met in the library then as city hall was being renovated – everything was done in-house. We had a building inspector who would attend meetings to offer input and the city manager made sure requirements such as setbacks were met, but we were the ones to develop ordinances, review site plans and make decisions.
One thing I’ve learned in more than 20 years of participating in and observing local government is that each city manager has his or her own strengths. Some are good with finances, others are good at managing employees and, in the case of former City Manager Dave Pasquale, some excel at planning.
Dave knew zoning issues inside and out, and he made sure we did too. We were enrolled in the Michigan Association of Planning so we received their newsletters and mailings, and we participated in trainings that walked us through the process of site plan reviews, our legal rights and responsibilities and the intricacies of variances and the zoning board of appeals. He regularly reminded us that there was money in the budget for training and that we should take advantage of it.
Eventually – I forget if there was a specific issue that prompted it – the late great Jim Hall suggested that perhaps we should get a professional opinion from time to time. So we began working with Williams & Works which provided memos analyzing certain site plans or requests. They sent someone – usually Jay Kilpatrick – who sat in the audience, came to the podium to summarize his findings and then sat back down while we discussed.
At some point, that consultant in the audience turned into a consultant at the dais. I’m not sure how that happened since it occurred after I moved to the township and left the commission. Today, the Planning Commission Chair position is largely ceremonial – opening and closing meetings and agenda items while the consultant guides the discussion.
When I began covering Planning Commission meetings for Lowell’s First Look, I was dismayed by the almost complete lack of silence from members – virtually no questions or comments, only votes. I tried gently suggesting that commissioners could benefit from the MSU Citizen Planner program but felt that was brushed off.
Since then, I have seen more conversation at meetings, but it is usually in the form of questions asking for clarification from the consultant rather than an in-depth discussion between commissioners about the merits of a particular plan or issue.
The only training I have observed is the current planning consultant providing a brief overview of topics during regular meetings. There have been no special workshops scheduled for hands-on or interactive training since I started regularly attending meetings about five years ago. I have to question whether current commissioners even know how to read a site plan or evaluate whether an application is complete.
It is not my intent to throw planning commissioners under the bus here. It’s not their fault.
What’s happened here is a failure of the city to support its planning commission. This is a vitally important body – so important that it is one of the few local boards required by state law. I’m not sure if the lack of training and support is because it never occurred to anyone to provide it or, as the cynic in me suggests, some prefer to keep commissioners in the dark so they make the decisions the city wants.
And this brings us back to the CopperRock proposal for the former RollAway property – the mixed-use building that was approved with so many questions unanswered. The one that the city has noted on more than one occasion will bring in tens of thousands of tax dollars.
My firm belief is that almost every single commissioner knew this development was a bad fit for the neighborhood, but they did not have the knowledge or resources to feel confident enough to vote no. When confronted with a memo that repeatedly stated that all requirements had been met and included an underlined sentence essentially saying the site plan must be approved – language that I have never seen used in a previous memo, I might add – they felt they had no choice but to vote yes.
The building isn’t a sure thing yet. Residents who use Horatio Street regularly – myself included — are fighting its vacation in court. If that objection is successful, a revised plan for the development will need to come back to the Planning Commission.
In the meantime, the city should step up and make sure planning commissioners are well prepared for the next time they are presented with a difficult site plan. And that training should be more than a brief overview provided in a regular meeting. It should be an in-depth session provided by people who do this for a living.
If the city doesn’t know where to look for that type of training, the Michigan Association of Planning has many options.
Leave a Reply