City of Hancock parcel (in color) borders on Swedetown Creek, at left, and the Portage. The City is considering sale of public waterfront property to the east of the creek for residential development, arousing considerable public concern because of the ecological and recreational value of the area. Click on photo for larger version. (Photo © 2007 Joe Kaplan. Reprinted with permission.)Text and meeting photos by Michele Anderson, with information from Hancock Planning Commission minutes.
HANCOCK -- Public participation at the August 27 Hancock Planning Commission Meeting and letters from residents led to a vote recommending a larger buffer of recreational land near Swedetown Creek and a reduced area for the proposed residential land sale near the mouth of the Creek on Portage Lake. The vote is not final, but is a recommendation to the City Council, whose members must vote for any land sales. Thus, the issue may be decided at the City Council meeting, which begins at 7:30 p.m. this Wednesday, Sept. 19, in the Council Chambers of Hancock City Hall.
After residents had expressed much opposition at a public hearing on July 18, the City Council sent the land sale proposal back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.*
At the July 23rd Planning Commission meeting, residents again spoke out against the proposed sale.** At that meeting, City Manager Glenn Anderson suggested the Commission ask the City to obtain a survey of the city-owned parcels on both the east and the west sides of the creek so that any plan could be reviewed in the entirety of the property. The survey was done previous to the August 27th Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Terry Monson also asked residents attending the July meeting to submit their written comments to the Commission.
Many residents -- both those who had attended the meetings and others -- wrote letters expressing their interest in keeping the area near the mouth of Swedetown Creek in its natural state for public access and recreation.
At the Aug. 27th meeting of the Planning Commission, Chairperson Dan Lorenzetti discussed the City Council's request for a review and recommendation on the proposed sale. He stated the commission had voted last year -- on August 28, 2006 -- a vote of 5 yes and 1 no to recommend sale of the three lots, but added that they would review the sale again.
Lorenzetti invited the those in the audience who had not written to the Commission to comment on the proposed land sale. He expressed appreciation for the letters received by the Commission.
"The comments were very well put," Lorenzetti said. "I don't know if I agree with a lot of them, and I think there's a lot of misconception."
He said many people wrote that the City was planning to sell an area they were using for recreation and seemed to be unaware that the City was not planning to sell anything to the west of Swedetown Creek (sometimes known as the north side of the creek).***
"Nothing beyond Swedetown Creek was ever being thought about -- being sold," Lorenzetti said.
Swedetown Creek itself was not in the proposed area considered for sale either, he added. However, comments from the public concern the effect of potential development on the ecosystem of the whole area and watershed. The Commissioners asked the City Manager to look at the property on the east side of the creek to determine whether people's concerns can be accommodated. Some copies of concept sketches of the area were made available to the audience.
This concept sketch shows the three city-owned parcels -- A, B and C -- being considered for sale for residential housing. At the Aug. 27 Planning Commission meeting, two votes resulted in a recommendation to keep Parcel A as a buffer along the Swedetown Creek recreational area. Click on image for larger version. (Image courtesy City of Hancock)Glenn Anderson said he learned from the letters that birding in that area was a concern of residents -- in addition to kayaking and fishing (which were mentioned at previous meetings).
In fact, a letter from Owen Mills, Copper Country Audubon Club (CCAC) life member, and Dana Richter, CCAC president, says the CCAC members favor leaving both sides of the creek undeveloped to protect bird habitat.
Their letter states, "The mouth of Swedetown Creek is an important sanctuary for birds that require the riparian habitat. The water opens in early spring at the creek mouth providing feeding for early migrants. Spring and summer residents include waterfowl and perching birds that depend on seclusion from development to successfully reproduce. Development of any kind would disturb these species during nesting. We expect our leaders to recognize that the environment is inextricably linked, because a negative impact to one species has a negative impact on the entire ecosystem."
"That's one of my more favorite fishing places," Anderson said. "We weren't fully aware of the multitude of uses there."
Noting the roughness of the existing trail along the creek, Anderson added he thought it would be a perfect place for a boardwalk (suggested in the letter from the Audubon Club) and possibly a kayak launch. He noted the City might be able to apply for a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant for recreation.
Commissioner Bob Wenc mentioned that he understood even on the south side of the creek, a half acre of city-owned parcels right next to the creek were not being considered for sale.
Lorenzetti confirmed that in the present plan the City would own both sides of the creek and the entire gorge.
Hancock City Manager Glenn Anderson, second from right, reports on letters he, Council members and Planning Commissioners received from the public -- about 30 at the time of the meeting, Aug. 27, 2007 -- expressing concern at the City's potential land sale near Swedetown Creek. Planning Commissioners pictured are, from left Dan Lucchesi, Bob Wenc and Dan Lorenzetti, chair. (Photo © 2007 Michele Anderson)Joe Kaplan mentioned the Commission should take into consideration the present low water level and the need to protect the mouth of the creek.
Marcia Goodrich commented that Swedetown Creek is "a fabulous blessing to the City -- a beautiful little coldwater stream that's still running even in this kind of drought."
Goodrich said she understood the temptation to waterfront development and knew the tax base could stand to be improved, but a place like that is "irreplaceable ... a gem."
Bill Deephouse, retired DNR (Department of Natural Resources) fish biologist, spoke about collecting samples of Coho salmon with the DNR at the mouth of Swedetown Creek in 1992 and noted an array of different fish species they found instead of Coho.
In his letter to the Commission, sent shortly after this meeting, Deephouse says he remembers finding "big rainbow trout (steelhead), large smallmouth bass, lots of yellow perch, northern pike, always several nice-sized walleyes each day, crappies, rock bass, white suckers, redhorse (a type of sucker), bullheads and various forage species (alewife, golden shiners, etc.)."
Noting the drop-off in the cove on the south side of the creek, Deephouse writes, "All fish were easily available to the shore angler. It would be a shame to take this wonderful public recreation area away from the citizens of Hancock and the public, in general. The recreational values of this property with respect to the fishing are obvious and well documented."
Bill Deephouse, retired DNR fish biologist, addresses the Planning Commission at their Aug. 27 meeting, reading parts of his letter to city officials on the ecological potential of the mouth of Swedetown Creek, especially for fishing. (Photo © 2007 Michele Anderson)Deephouse adds that the creek acts as a natural fish hatchery for such species as young rainbow trout.
"I encourage the City of Hancock to reconsider the proposal to sell this valuable recreational water frontage. Instead, they should consider making the entire area more user friendly to enhance more outdoor use. The public water frontage the city owns is vastly more valuable for public recreation than allowing it to be sold to a private entity to generate tax dollars. And it will only increase in value to the public as time passes. I think you owe it to future generations to formally dedicate this area as a park," Deephouse concludes in his letter.
Keren Tischler commented that the wording of people's letters may indicate that they recognize the value of the entire watershed. In her own letter she says she sees the Swedetown Creek rivermouth as both a natural and an economic resource.
"It represents greenspace within the city limits that offers waterfront access for the public," she writes. "I believe selling Government Lot 5 is a step in the wrong direction for the City of Hancock, especially at a time when cities across the country are spending taxpayers' money to buy greenspace."
Lorenzetti mentioned he had found out that 1.95 miles of waterfront in Hancock is privately owned, i.e., 62%, while 38% is publicly owned. He added that the city also has control over some of the private property, such as the area owned by Portage Health System.
Merle Kindred asked that the City provide a color-coded map of this ownership so that citizens could be better informed about it. In her letter to the Commission, Kindred asked for a Citizens Waterfront Committee to allow more citizen involvement.
Commissioner Dan Lucchesi said he had caught 10-lb Steelhead on Swedetown Creek and had walked the property with Lorenzetti.
"It's a compromise" Lucchesi said. "You do understand that we do have a responsibility to everybody in the city to try to develop tax base and also preserve something as pristine as the Swedetown Creek."
He said he knew the Commission couldn't make everyone happy but they would try their best.
Commissioner Terry Monson said he was against selling the property, with the exception of the Sintkowski property (Parcel C).
At the Aug. 27 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Terry Monson, right, repeats his opposition to most of the land sale. Also pictured are Dan Lorenzetti, chair, left, and Barry Givens, Hancock mayor. (Photo © 2007 Michele Anderson)"I voted against selling the property whenever it came up last time, and I'm going to vote against it again," Monson said. "I think it's a wonderful area."
Monson noted the city has other attractive properties on top of the hill (that could be sold instead).
Hancock Mayor Barry Givens said he hoped they could come to some compromise.
"It's great to have a lot of publicly owned property, but you have to manage that property and manage it well," he said.
Givens pointed out the problems of managing Hancock Beach and the Campground are not for lack of effort, but for lack of money. He noted the land sale could provide a grant match for supporting recreation.
George Desort, who said he moved here from Chicago because of the natural beauty, said Hancock's greatest asset is waterfront, which he would like to see kept in public ownership.
George Desort, standing, who recently moved to Hancock from Chicago, addresses the Planning Commission at their Aug. 27 meeting. Also pictured are, from left, seated, Bill Deephouse, Keren Tischler and Allyson Jabusch. (Photo © 2007 Michele Anderson)Allyson Jabusch said she opposed the sale because of the peace and solace she enjoyed in the Swedetown Creek Corridor. Jabusch said she would support an increase in property taxes to pay for the city needs.
In her letter to the Commission, Jabusch writes, "It is a valuable resource with its waterfalls, wildflowers, berries, song birds, and the nonesuch shale that occasionally juts up along the creek bed."
A preliminary motion was made to sell parcels A, B and C and defeated 4 to 3.
Bob Wenc then made a motion to sell parcels B and C and leave parcel A as a bigger buffer zone for the creek.
Joe Kaplan commented that the buildable site is closer to the road. If the city markets this land (parcel B) as lakeshore the new owner will have to cut down a great deal of vegetation to get a view of the lakeshore.
"I would consider some sort of limitation on viewshed," Kaplan suggested.
Finally, it was moved by Wenc and seconded by Givens to recommend to the City Council to sell one 20-foot-wide parcel (parcel C) and one 100-foot-wide parcel (parcel B).
This motion carried, with five in favor: Lucchesi, Wenc, Anderson, Givens and Lorenzetti. The two opposed were Monson and Tom Gemignani.
Letters from public oppose land sale
Here are some more excerpts from residents' letters and emails to City of Hancock officials:
Norma Veurink of Houghton: "Part of what makes the Keweenaw special is the many natural places that residents and tourists can enjoy. Other areas, particularly in lower Michigan, are riddled with 'No trespassing' signs. Please do not contribute to this happening in the Copper Country."
Shirley du Fresne McArthur of Hancock: "The Council perhaps lacks vision in not realizing that great waterfronts are not dominated by residential developments. A case in point, Helsinki, Finland, has the Esplanade which masterfully leads from the heart of the city down to the water .... The waterful is an inherently public asset to be protected. Development should never interfere with pedestrian connections."
Gregory Booth of Hancock: "High quality natural areas accessible to the public for recreation are an important element of what makes this community a unique and appealing place to live."
Linda Nagel of Hancock (Associate Professor, MTU School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science): "As a member of the Michigan Tech community, I chose to buy a home and raise my daughter in Hancock seven years ago partly because of the access provided to natural areas ...that are literally out my back door....We have the power and responsibility to conserve and preserve this wonderful and unique place."
Doug Holmes of Hancock (MTU Research Engineer, Keweenaw Research Center): "I think it is obvious that the loss of recreational opportunity resulting from this proposed sale would greatly outweigh the monetary gain. You simply cannot build a creek and they aren't making any more of them!"
Robert Pastel: "The city has already made a mistake permitting the building of a 4 story near the bridge. I advise not (making) another mistake."
David Flaspohler of Hancock: "As a professor at MTU, I have used the Swedetown Creek area for ornithology field trips and have visited the area with my family. Such areas, once developed, cannot be replaced in terms of their public value and the role they play in increasing the quality of life for Hancock residents. I am an advocate for development but believe that a wiser and more viable model would focus development on the city center and areas immediately adjacent to Hancock, leaving nearby natural areas to increase the amenities our community has to offer."
Christa Walck of Houghton (Dean, MTU School of Business and Economics): "I am not a resident of Hancock, but I own property in Hancock township and drive past this area daily in the summer. There is almost always someone at the mouth of the river walking, fishing, putting in a boat, kayak, or canoe, or giving their dogs an opportunity to swim. This is the only place I am aware of that allows residents this kind of access to the Portage."
Matt Van Grinsven of Hancock: "Aside from ecological importance it would be a shame to spoil such an area for aesthetic reasons .... I have heard innumerable negative complaints with regards to the enormous condo complex that is being built next to the bridge. This structure is entirely out of place in historic Hancock, and I think the citizens have suffered enough at the sight of this monstrosity to at least have a natural river course be preserved."
Billie Yarbrough of Hancock: "Already too many of Hancock's lakeside lots have been put into private hands. One glaring example is the Moyle condominium, which is practically under the Hancock-Houghton bridge."
Ann Pace of Hancock: "I believe that property has much greater long-term value to the city and its residents as public land. I do not believe that it needs any further development. We do not, for example, need a boat dock or ramp. In fact it would make the area less, not more, useful for kayakers and canoers. Perhaps the city should even consider zoning it as 'Conservation-Environmental Protection.'"
Evan McDonald, Executive Director, Keweenaw Land Trust: "The City of Hancock's current Strategic Plan identifies quality of life, recreational opportunities and environmental protection as values and goals for the City, representing tremendous overlap with the mission and goals of the Keweenaw Land Trust (KLT). The KLT also believes that economic vitality in our region is essential to our quality of life and is very important for the success of our land conservation efforts....Our recommendation is simply that the City of Hancock should retain ownership of all of its parcels in Government Lot 5, permanently maintaining them in their natural state for public enjoyment and to benefit wildlife and the water quality of Swedetown Creek and the Portage Waterway."
John Slivon of Hancock (fisherman): "Another large house will mean another large lawn with all the incumbent lawn chemicals that will naturally leach into the creek and subsequently into the lake .... Beyond its value as a fish habitat, what makes Swedetown creek unique is its accessibility to the fisherman. Privatization of any property bordering on a stream automatically limits access to that part of the stream."
Douglas LaBar of Hancock: "This river mouth area is an outstanding natural area and very important to wildlife. I have spent a lot of time in the area fishing with my children and it is an outstanding asset for the City of Hancock. It would be a complete tragedy to see this wonderful place forever ruined."
Editor's Notes:
*See our article on this July 18 hearing and City Council Meeting on Keweenaw Now.
**
See also the article on the July 23 Planning Commission meeting.
*** Keweenaw Now requested and received copies of about 30 of these letters -- all of them opposed to the proposed land sale near Swedetown Creek. We also quoted City Manager Glenn Anderson in a previous article as saying the City did not plan to sell land on the west side of the creek. The letters indicate to us not a misconception as Lorenzetti claims, but a concern that development on the east (or south) side of the creek could spoil the whole atmosphere and ecosystem of the area that is now conducive to the recreational activities of fishing, kayaking, canoeing and birding.
No comments:
Post a Comment