Feature,
by Matthew Williams
Founders
Landing project continues
The City of Marquette continued to suffer growing
pains with its Founders Landing project last month
when a third proposed developer for the highly
visible site on Marquettes lakeshore was
unable to procure the needed support from the
city commission.
Founders Landing is a twenty-nine-acre parcel
stretching from the ore dock next to Ellwood Mattson
Lower Harbor Park to Genesee Street in South Marquette.
It includes three-quarters of a mile of Lake Superior
shoreline, the citys bike path, Lakeshore
Boulevard and land adjacent to US-41.
The citys master plan calls for the shoreline,
bike path and park-like space near the lake such
as Gaines Rock to be preserved as public space.
Property west of Lakeshore Boulevard is slated
for various types of development.
Six of the commissions seven members voted
to sell a 3.1-acre parcel dubbed Site 1
to The Landing Development Group LLC for the appraised
price of $875,000. Commissioner Joe Lavey, who
is in his final term on the city commission due
to term limitations, was the dissenting vote.
The Landing Development Groupconsisting
of Marquette-area businessmen Joe Constance, Bill
Hetrick, Barry Polzin and Ron Thorleyhoped
to build between twenty-eight and thirty-four
condominiums on the site in accordance with the
citys master plan and with a development
plan created for Founders Landing through community
meetings. The high-density residential units would
not affect public access to the lakeshore or bike
path.
Unless the city commission reverses itselfthey
were scheduled to meet July 28, after this publications
press deadlineFounders Landing will head
back to the citys planning commission this
month and that group likely will be asked to create
yet another request for developer proposals. If
the commission did reverse course, it no longer
seems likely construction could begin this year.
Its very disappointing where we are,
said Marquette mayor Tom Tourville.
Tourville, in his third year as a city commissioner,
has been involved with the project in some way
since 1998 when he was a planning commissioner
and Marquette was looking for ways to purchase
what was then known as the South Rail Yards from
Wisconsin Central Railroad. (Wisconsin Central
Railroad later sold the property to the Canadian
National Railroad, which then sold it to the city
for $2.1 million in June 2002.)
Tourville said the city pays $22,000 each month
on bonds that were sold by the city to help purchase
and develop the Founders Landing area and hed
like to see that payment offset by either tax
revenue or income from a property sale.
We, as a city government, may essentially
have to start over and what concerns me is that
were doing a disservice to the citizens,
he said.
Tourville and commissioner Jon Kivela also voiced
concern that quality developers may be reluctant
to bid on the project given the fact that three
groups have been recommended for approval and
all three have been unable to close the purchaseone
being The Urban Project, a developer who backed
out of a signed deal and then attempted to renegotiate
the sales price.
In the overall project, Marquette proposes to
sell slightly more than fourteen acres in three
parcels. Site 1, as described above; Site 2, a
7.6-acre parcel at the southernmost end of Founders
Landing that under the latest plan calls for office
and retail space as well as residential units;
and Site 3, a four-acre parcel on land formerly
known as the tank farm. Proposed development on
Site 3 includes restaurants, retail space, banquet
facilities and a hotel, as well as a boardwalk
and marina. It also may include residential space.
The citys original idea was to sell all
three parcels at once and Marquette actually had
a signed sales agreement last year with The Urban
Project, a Minneapolis-based development group.
That contract was terminated at the developers
request in December.
The Urban Group attempted to renegotiate the terms
this past winter until the commission, in May,
voted to cease further negotiation. A majority
of commissioners expressed concerns that the Urban
Project was stringing the city along while trying
to find financing. The Urban Project, however,
said adverse site conditions, particularly soil
stability were the reason they terminated the
contract and wanted a different price.
After the city ceased contract negotiations, The
Urban Project tried to reopen them by publicly
stating theyd pay the $875,000 theyd
originally offered, but by then the commission
had asked city manager Judy Akkala to open negotiations
with The Landing Development Group, which had
been runner-up in the selection process.
Marquette Monthly attempted to contact the Urban
Project for this article, but the phone number
published on their Web site was disconnected and
they did not return e-mail requests sent to their
published e-mail address before deadline.
The reason that the Landing Development Group
needed a unanimous vote is spelled out in City
of Marquette real estate policy, Akkala said.
When selling property to a developer who contacts
the city directly with a plan, as the Landing
Development Group (LDG) did after the Urban Project
cancelled their agreement in December, all commissioners
must agree on the sale.
Lavey said he dissented because he preferred to
continue working with The Urban Project rather
than approve The Landing Development Group, even
though he agreed their proposals for Site 1 were
similar.
Quite honestly, there is not a lot of distinction
between the two proposals, Lavey said. I
felt we were in fairly active negotiations with
the Urban Project and close to terms when we voted
to cease negotiations. Another concern I had was
that the Landing Development Group seemed to be
actively soliciting us while we were in negotiations
with the Urban Project. I received phone calls
and materials from them, but I didnt return
the calls or look at the materials because I wanted
to remain above the fray.
Could Urban Project have done things differently?
Sure, he said. But they were negotiating
and thats their business. Im satisfied
they had the money and could build the project.
I felt we could have concluded a deal with them
with a take-it-or-leave-it offer.
Since Lavey was the prevailing vote in the July
14 meeting, he is the only commissioner, according
to city charter, who can bring the issue back
to the table something he had not ruled
out as of mid-July.
Do I think this commission, given another
opportunity, would have the same result?
he said. How long do I remain the lone dissenting
vote? Im confident with how I voted, but
I have to consider that if none of my fellow commissioners
felt there was anything untoward going on, if
thats the gold standard for doing business
with the city, then, maybe
Tourville said whats so frustrating is that
if you look at the proposals side by side, they
are very similar in construction, design and price.
We had a group saying Well pay
full asking price, heres a check.
and we couldnt come to agreement on that,
Tourville said . . .
MM
Editors Note: Extensive documentation regarding
the planning and development of Founders Landing
can be found at www.mqtcty.org
Additionally, for a historical perspective of
the site, check out Marquette Monthlys May
2005 and June 2005 issues at www.mmnow.com