Sunny Side Digger
CASE FILES → NAVY STREET
Hancock, Michigan · Portage Canal

The Navy Street File

Every source behind the Navy Street video: the primary documents, the city records, the news reporting — and the things no public record answers. Compiled August 2026 from the record itself; where a claim is disputed, both sides are here.

every claim cited updated Sep 14, 2026 45 sources 9 open questions
Correction · Aug. 26, 2026

An earlier version of this file said the 2023 nine-unit application was withdrawn by the applicant before the commission reached a final determination. That rested on a recollection, not a record. The posted record shows the application was tabled (Aug. 28, 2023), received no motion in support (Sep. 25), and was set for a special meeting on Oct. 4, 2023 — for which no minutes exist in any posted record. The timeline entry now says only what the record shows, and the gap is listed under open questions.

2:35 — designed to play muted; every word is on screen.

The short version

Hancock has been planning a road and walking path along its canal waterfront since at least 1986, across multiple planning documents.

Daily Mining Gazette, Oct. 8, 2025 & Aug. 20, 2026

In October 2000, City Manager Glenn Anderson asked every waterfront owner for a free 20-foot easement — enough for a 12′ one-way lane, 2′ shoulders, and a 4′ walking path — and put the city's end of the deal in writing: "If all the easements were granted, the City would agree to construct the road."

City memo MEM135, Oct. 2, 2000

By January 2001 the city reported favorable responses from all owners, and six or seven parcels signed easements at no charge. The easements never covered the full route. The road was never built.

City letter, Jan. 2, 2001; Daily Mining Gazette, Aug. 30, 2023

The 2024 Master Plan designates the corridor Shoreline Mixed Use and calls Navy Street the city's principal public access to the canal. Under the zoning ordinance, a multi-unit building is a permitted use in that district — but every lot must "have frontage on an improved public street," and a "street" is a public right-of-way at least 50 feet wide (or 30 to 50 feet, only if it predates the 2022 code and has been accepted by Houghton County). The city's corridor is a 33-foot easement.

2024 Hancock Master Plan, pp. 30–32; Zoning Ordinance §3.27, §5.05.13, Art. 9 definitions of "Lot" and "Street"

On Aug. 20, 2026, Taylor Auguston filed the first formal application for the west-end lots: a 10-unit, 24,732-square-foot building with 40 parking spaces. The city's staff sheet finds it meets setbacks and height, then ends with two words: "NO ACCESS." Four days later the Planning Commission's agenda listed it as an information item that "needs site access for Planning Commission formal action."

Zoning application 2026-41 & staff findings, PC packet, Aug. 24, 2026; PC agenda, Aug. 24, 2026

The city restarted the project in 2025 — preliminary plans, a $10,000 survey, a six-member committee, and Anderson rehired as facilitator — and now proposes building in a 33-foot easement granted in 1996 behind the Portage Lakeside Condominiums garages.

DDA minutes, Oct. 6, 2025; Council minutes, Nov. 19, 2025; TV6, Nov. 26, 2025

The easement runs along a steep hillside behind the condo garages — building there means deep cuts and a large retaining wall, and fourteen of fifteen condo owners say that isn't safe. Their attorney has presented the city a Memorandum of Law with Demand to Cease and Desist. The mayor says a 2011 lot split obligates the city to build; residents dispute that. The 1996 easement is a right the city holds, not a duty: it grants the city "the right to construct … a public roadway" as "deemed necessary in the good faith discretion of Grantee," and contains no promise by the city to build. No legal opinion has been published.

PC minutes, Sep. 25, 2023; Daily Mining Gazette, Apr. 17 & Aug. 6, 2026; Council minutes, Apr. 15, 2026; Conveyance of Easement, Dec. 3, 1996, and 1997 engineering cross-sections, facilitator's packet, Aug. 19, 2026

The city has spent $83,840.50 on the project from 2021 to 2026 — $64,793 of it with engineering consultant OHM. Attorney fees so far: $1,697.50.

City cost report to council, responsive to the Apr. 15, 2026 motion

The timeline

Dates link to the record they come from wherever one is posted online.

Before 2000
The 2000 deal
The years between
The restart, 2023–2026

The players

Roles as the record shows them. Every entry cites its source.

The city. Mary Babcock, City Manager, led the project until handing it off in November 2025. Kurt Rickard, elected mayor by council that same month, also sits on the Planning Commission and the DDA, and is the project's most vocal advocate on the record — telling council in August 2026 the city "has an obligation to build a road through the parcels."

Council minutes, Nov. 19, 2025; Daily Mining Gazette, Nov. 18, 2025 & Aug. 6, 2026

The Navy Street work group. Dean Woodbeck and Laura Givens (council), Kurt Rickard and Johnathon Nagel (Planning Commission), Stephen Olsson and Frank Fiala (DDA). It held six sessions and a waterfront walking tour, met with the two west-end owners, and "could not come to an agreement." How it was created is now itself a question: the facilitator told council in August 2026 that no motion created it, and none appears in minutes posted to date — though several 2026 minute sets remain unposted.

Daily Mining Gazette, Aug. 20, 2026 (membership) & Apr. 17, 2026 (impasse); Facilitator Comments, Aug. 18, 2026

Glenn Anderson. City manager in 2000 and author of the easement memo that promised the road; now a Houghton County commissioner. Rehired by council in November 2025 as project consultant at $75/hr, capped at $2,000, and titled "Navy Street Facilitator." In August 2026 he recommended council end the work group — and his own appointment — and route the next steps through the city attorney and a public hearing.

City memo MEM135, Oct. 2, 2000; Council minutes, Nov. 19, 2025; Facilitator Recommendations, Aug. 18, 2026

Taylor Auguston. Bought the three ex-Finlandia lots west of the condos on Aug. 21, 2023 for $215,000 — the parcels created by the 2011 "Navy Street Extended" split. Reported plans: 10 residential units at an estimated $4.5M. On Aug. 20, 2026 he filed zoning application 2026-41 — the first formal application for the parcels: a 10-unit, 24,732-square-foot building with 40 parking spaces. The city's staff finding: "NO ACCESS."

Houghton County parcel record 051-310-003-17; Daily Mining Gazette, Aug. 6 & Aug. 20, 2026; application 2026-41, PC packet, Aug. 24, 2026

Andrew "Andy" Lahti. The 2023 nine-unit application lists J.S. Stringer as owner and Andrew Lahti as contractor — at the same Hancock address and phone number — and its OHM-prepared site plans are titled "Andrew Lahti Contracting, Hancock Waterfront Development," client "Andy Lahti." A DDA member, he has abstained from the project's votes "citing potential conflicts of interest due to property holdings in the area."

Zoning application 2023-013 & site plans, PC packet Aug. 28, 2023; DDA minutes, Oct. 6, 2025; Daily Mining Gazette, Oct. 8, 2025

OHM. Engineering consultancy appearing on every side of the record: it received $64,793 of the city's $83,840.50 in project costs from 2021–2026; it prepared the site plans for the 2023 Stringer/Lahti application ("Andrew Lahti Contracting — Hancock Waterfront Development"); and in August 2026 it drew the site plan and road profile for the Auguston application (sheet C-130, "Keweenaw Park — Navey St Development").

City cost report to council, responsive to the Apr. 15, 2026 motion; site plans, PC packet Aug. 28, 2023; sheet C-130, PC packet Aug. 24, 2026

Portage Lakeside Condominiums. Fifteen owners at 340 Navy Street, on whose land the 1996 easement runs. Association president Glenn Bugni; represented by attorney Matt Eliason; 14 of 15 owners oppose the road behind their garages. Their core objection is physical: the easement climbs a steep hillside, and building the road means deep cuts and a large retaining wall — shown in the project's own 1997 engineering cross-sections — which they contend is unsafe ("The construction could disturb the hillside and it could cause a landslide that could take out their garages" — Bugni, minuted 2023; "The slope is extremely steep" — 2026). The work group's six alignment options largely exist to shrink or eliminate that wall.

PC minutes, Sep. 25, 2023 & Sep. 23, 2024; Council minutes, Oct. 15, 2025; Daily Mining Gazette, Apr. 17, 2026; facilitator's packet, Aug. 19, 2026

Michael Mattila / Yalmer Mattila Contracting. Developed the condominiums, signed the 2011 lot split whose public purpose reads "Navy Street Extended," and quit-claimed the three lots to Finlandia University in October 2017.

Daily Mining Gazette, Aug. 6, 2026; Houghton County parcel record 051-310-003-17

What the zoning ordinance requires

The provisions that bear on building at the west end, quoted from the city's ordinance. No public record applies them to the Navy Street corridor; that is an open question below.

The use is allowed. In the Shoreline Mixed-Use District, "Dwelling, Multi-Unit Building" is a permitted use. No special-use approval is needed for the use itself; the district's stated purpose is "commercial and residential development and recreational uses on a neighborhood scale."

Zoning Ordinance §3.27.D and use table (pp. 68–73)

The plan goes to the Planning Commission. "All development, except Single-Family and two-family residential," must be "submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits," and in the shoreline district a site plan and zoning permit come before any construction or earth moving.

Zoning Ordinance §7.09.A (p. 207); §3.27.E.1

It needs a public street. Every use other than one- and two-family homes "must have access to a public street or alley," and a lot "shall have frontage on an improved public street."

Zoning Ordinance §5.05.13.i (p. 130); Art. 9, definition of "Lot"

What counts as a street. "An improved public right-of-way fifty (50) feet or more in width which provides a public means of access to abutting property or any such right-of-way more than thirty (30) feet and less than fifty (50) feet in width provided it existed prior to the enactment of this Code and provided street has been accepted by Houghton County." A right-of-way is "a strip of land taken or dedicated for use as a public way"; an easement is "authorization by a property owner for the use by another … of any designated part of said owner's property."

Zoning Ordinance Art. 9, definitions of "Street," "Right-of-Way," "Easement"

The five options on the record

As raised publicly through August 2026. Costs are shown only where a public figure exists.

1. Full one-way street + walking path

The 2000 specification, restarted in 2025 as the "Navy Street extension and trail."

Estimates range $1.6M–$3M, depending on who's counting.

2. Shorter road to the west parcels

Build only to the Auguston/Lahti parcels using existing easements — the mayor's stated position.

No estimate made public.

3. Gravel road on the existing easement

A minimal build; council sent it for costing in April 2026.

Figure not yet public.

4. Walking path only

The non-motorized corridor drawn in the Master Plan, without the road.

No published estimate.

5. Stop the project

Urged by condo residents and letter-writers; DDA funds would go elsewhere.

—

Paying for it: the DDA does not have this kind of money on hand. Building would mean issuing a bond. The facilitator's August 2026 recommendation proposes repaying it with tax capture from the new development; if that capture falls short, repayment falls to city taxpayers.

Within the condo parcel, the work group has sketched six alignments

1 — build on the existing easement per the original condo-era plans · 2 — road on the easement, with a new pedestrian easement in front of the garages (narrower road, shorter retaining wall) · 3 — shift the easement tight to the garages (shorter wall; combinable with 2) · 4 — acquire land or an easement in front of the garages and put the road and path there (no retaining wall at all) · 5 — road in front, walkway behind · 6 — open to alternatives. Several of these move some or all of the build off the disputed strip.

Source: "Suggestions from the Navy Street Group," facilitator's packet, Aug. 19, 2026

What no public record answers

  • The legal weight of the 2011 split. Asserted as an obligation by the mayor; disputed by residents. (The 1996 easement, by its own text, is a right the city holds, not a duty — see the timeline.) No legal opinion has been published — but as of August 2026, the facilitator has recommended council authorize the city attorney to produce one.
  • How the work group was created. The facilitator says no council motion created it; council members' recollections differ; the minutes that would settle it (including the April 1, 2026 joint session) are not yet posted.
  • Who declined the easement in 2001. No record or news account names them.
  • What the alternatives would cost. Neither the shorter road, the gravel option, nor a path-only build has a public figure.
  • Whether the corridor is a "street." The ordinance defines one as a public right-of-way of 50 feet — or 30 to 50 feet if it predates the 2022 code and has been accepted by Houghton County — and requires every lot to front on an improved public street. The 1996 corridor is a 33-foot easement, and the three west-end lots were created in 2011 with access designated to a road that was never built. No record shows whether the county has accepted the corridor, or applies these definitions to Navy Street at all.
  • On what basis the 2011 split was approved as "accessible." State law required the city to find each new parcel "accessible" — a driveway or easement to an existing road — before approving a division, and says approval "is not a determination that the resulting parcels comply with other ordinances or regulations." The 2011 form designated access by a road that did not exist. No record shows what the city relied on.MCL 560.102(j); MCL 560.109(1)(e), (6); Parcel Division Application, Aug. 19, 2011 (facilitator's packet)
  • Whether a variance has been sought. The ordinance bars variances from the use table but allows dimensional variances on a showing of "practical difficulties," weighing among other factors whether the owner "purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction" and whether the predicament "feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance." No record shows a variance application for the west-end lots.Zoning Ordinance §7.11.3 (pp. 217–218), §7.11.8 (p. 219)
  • What the Planning Commission did on Aug. 24, 2026. Its agenda said the Auguston application "needs site access for Planning Commission formal action"; the minutes are not yet posted.
  • What happened on Oct. 4, 2023. A special meeting was noticed to reconsider the nine-unit application. No minutes of it exist in any posted record, and the record never says whether the application was withdrawn, denied, or simply abandoned — nor who abstained from the Aug. 28 tabling vote.

Where this gets decided

Hancock City Council — first & third Wednesdays, 6:00 p.m., City Hall, 399 Quincy St.

The DDA and Planning Commission also take up the project; agendas are posted before each meeting. Public comment is taken at every one.

Agendas & minutes — cityofhancock.com

The documents

Primary records held in this file. City minutes are linked from the timeline above at cityofhancock.com.

Complete source list

Primary documents

City records (posted at cityofhancock.com)

News reporting

Compiled August 2026 from public records and published reporting; last updated Sep. 14, 2026. Where a name is spelled differently across sources, this page uses the spelling confirmed by county or city records. Quotes are verbatim from the cited document or article. Nothing here is legal advice, and this page takes no position on which option the city should choose.