OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Erie City Council Approves Harbor Place Hotel with Conditions - April 30, 2026

City Council — Monday, May 4, 2026
BodyErie, Pennsylvania
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, May 4, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:59:50

Transcript — Verbatim
0:05

And bring this ACUS session into order.

0:09

Tonight we are meeting with a special meeting with the agenda before us to to vote on the resolution and discuss here in caucus the resolution that's before us regarding the harbor place.

0:21

We have a set of conditions that we've laid out.

0:24

But this is our opportunity right now as council to discuss before we move into the meeting where we're gonna vote.

0:31

So I'm gonna pause and see if we do have a couple guests here this evening if we would like to ask any questions of them.

0:40

Um so that that's that's in front of us as well.

0:43

Um but I want to pause and kind of open the floor up to council to see if we want to go through the resolution if there's any questions on on the conditions that we have laid out while we have the solicitor and everyone here.

0:59

Can we just go over some of the changes if you know on a whole no one got to see specifics?

1:08

Uh Jason, are you ready for the hot seats?

1:12

Just the material to let me see here.

1:23

So I don't know if I would agree that they were material.

1:28

It's just that they were already in place and the changes reflect the original intent of the document.

1:34

Um condition was unchanged.

1:38

The number two section, there was uh the original draft had uh what was called a contiguous areas.

1:49

However, that presents a really a an in a barrier for the because it can't be continuous because the whole campus, I'll call it a campus for lack of better word, involves stuff north of Front Street and south of Front Street.

2:06

So you can't really make a contiguous area that's all green space as well.

2:11

So that was one of the things we took out.

2:14

Now the other thing the two is so they're gonna have their certain green space, and you're gonna have the other uh we call the impervious surfaces.

2:22

So it's impervious surfaces, um initially we had 20% in discussing with everything, it sounds like 40% is a more reasonable number, and that includes because there's gonna be a paved walkway that's gonna be for public access, that's gonna have I don't know if it's gonna be like a farmer's market or access for people to sit on the benches, and that also will help.

2:47

So that's one of the changes there.

2:49

Now if you go back up to 2A dealing with uh regionally native species, the problem with this, and the reason we changed it to them to incorporate it where it was reasonable, is for instance um as explained that grass, so naturally occurring grass that would be used for like say a lawn in Pennsylvania doesn't sub doesn't last all winter.

3:17

So there the grass they use is the Kentucky bluegrass.

3:20

And so Kentucky bluegrass obviously is from Kentucky, it's not native to Great Lakes region, but that's the grass that's used for you know if you want to look there's a this second yeah on page two though, so I'm in 2A.

3:37

So all the grass theories wouldn't even qualify for regionally in base or regionally uh grasses, if that makes sense.

3:46

So it's kind of like that way.

3:48

And the same thing with flower beds.

3:50

If the flower, and the goal for the flowers too is not to be replanting new flowers, you know, every single year, but you want to have it that we can do the native species, and then but still have people the ability to upkeep the landscaping um all year round, and or hopefully not have it killed during the winter season.

4:12

Um going down to paragraph three.

4:17

The only change that was made to three was you'll see in the middle of that paragraph, vehicular use areas.

4:24

So the add the addition was the parenthesis for that excludes a vehicle emergency, I'm sorry, excluding emergency vehicle access.

4:33

So I think this is the idea is that we have all this square footage that's for open space or green space and for public access.

4:42

But what if um there's an emergency, there's a fire, and so for like say an hour, certain places are off limits due to the emergency.

4:52

Now it would make sense.

4:53

You're like, well, that's an emergency.

4:54

No one's gonna complain about that and maybe measure the square footage.

5:00

But there's a possibility that one whole street or maybe the whole area is cut off from public access.

5:03

So in those areas that are cut off from public access, they would would be below the square footage requirement for open space.

5:09

So that's why that's the exception that is listed there.

5:13

So the other change was so the only word we added at the let's see the next last sentence it was fee-based access.

5:26

We changed it to permanent fee-based access.

5:29

So that would include that kind of like so, in case like someone was you know, had asked the hotel, hey, can I have my wedding pictures taken in the morning, and they maybe they would close off you know, part of the green space so that people could take their pictures, but they would only be there for a little while, then they would leave.

5:47

But that's not a permanent thing that they do, it would be a special occasion, it would be rarity, so that's why we added the permanent, but otherwise, the fee-based access or private reservation, that is all the same.

6:01

Number four, now number four, this was a change that reflected we had some original language that would that kind of was dealing with lighting that affected the birds or migratory species.

6:15

So instead we rewrote it to really make it more broad because the part of the part of the calculation in this goes towards not just lighting.

6:24

So lighting does affect some migratory birds or some other animals, but also the glass in the building as well.

6:30

And so lighting doesn't really deal with the glass specifically.

6:34

So having the reflections be the pro bird would be helpful as well.

6:39

So that's why that was rewritten to kind of incorporate both lighting in the glass or anything else that would affect birds or wildlife.

6:48

Number five was originally written to deal with um facades, the walkway area, um, public accessibility.

6:59

But when we were looking at it, we're trying to make trying to translate that into the proper language.

7:03

And so this really was change that with the idea of public access in mind, is that you know, just like the zoning code says they're supposed to have it be harmonious, but then we wound up adding this last um two and a half lines that says we also shall avoid physical barriers, design features or site elements that would reasonably discourage public entry, uh pedestrian activity or engagement by citizens or business invitees.

7:29

So it says that we you still have to do the public access, but we're also adding in there that you can't design something that also would discourage it.

7:36

So it's again give them the flexibility to design it, but also that's in there.

7:42

Um this was originally, so I'll go to 6A.

7:48

So this was originally there was one public bench for every 25 feet of building facade, and I believe there was some confusion on how to calculate that was at the height of the building, was that um or along the waterfront?

8:05

Was it does say along the water's edge?

8:07

So we went up changing it to from 25 feet to 40 linear feet, and then that way when you do the calculation, it would add a number of benches.

8:18

And so then also doing some math mathing or guesstimating, is that you could get up to so in the reason so then we figure there's roughly three to four acres that encompass you know the Hampton Hotel, the proposed Marriott in that area, and with that, so it was like if you get to it seemed that a number that was reasonably math-wise, eight benches per acre.

8:44

So if you have three acres, that's 24 benches.

8:47

If you have four acres, that's 32 benches, all for that particular area, and that would again they're supposed to be um comply and then have them be complying with uh 306.2D and 306.5b, which is that they have to be, you know, of uh good quality, weather resistant, and then they would then need to comply with the ADA in the zoning code.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Waterfront Development███████████████████████████27%
Public Engagement████████████████████████24%
Economic Development████████████████████████24%
Affordable Housing██████6%
Tourism████4%
Procedural███3%
Historic Preservation███3%
Zoning Code███3%
Public Safety██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Erie City Council Approves Harbor Place Hotel with Conditions - April 30, 2026

At a special meeting on April 30, 2026, Erie City Council voted 5-1 to approve a conditional use permit for Scott Enterprises to build an eight-story, 139-room AC Hotel with three restaurants/bars on the Bayfront. The approval came with seven conditions addressing open space, landscaping, public access, and wildlife safety, following extensive public comment and council debate about economic equity, affordable housing, and community benefit.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved minutes from the April 15, 2026 City Council meeting
  • Approved bills for payment on May 1, 2026
  • No presentations or repository sale speakers

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Elizabeth Stanton (Harbor Creek) – Read historical context from "Journey from Jerusalem," describing how the West Bayfront was once a thriving Black community (New Jerusalem) and how gentrification has squeezed out low-income, long-term residents. Argued the hotel continues this pattern.
  • Anna McCartney (Northeast) – Cited her prior environmental writing for the Erie Times-News, noting many lake access parks exist elsewhere but the Bayfront lacks a free public park where people can picnic without buying anything.
  • Teresa Imler (Erie) – Questioned Scott Enterprises' track record with tax break programs like LERTA, noting some properties were left empty after receiving benefits.
  • Julie Hurt (Mill Creek) – Argued the hotel will blast light across the bay, disrupting the natural environment of Presque Isle, Erie's top tourist attraction.
  • Peter Lyons (Mill Creek) – Made the case for pro-economic development, citing downtown Erie's 38-year transformation from no hotels/convention center to thriving amenities, and called the proposed hotel "rather unique" (only 122 in the U.S.).
  • John Deegan (Meadville) – Scott Enterprises employee and Applebee's area director, described how the company gave him a chance as a young dishwasher with a GED and drinking problem, providing career growth and stability.
  • Jennifer Robinson (Wattsburg) – Scott Enterprises executive housekeeper, stated she started as a waitress and was given opportunities to advance; praised the company's generosity and pay.
  • Mark Jenneret (Mill Creek) – Incoming president/CEO of Visit Erie, expressed strong support, citing Scott Enterprises' track record and the $1 billion annual visitor spending the project supports.
  • Erica Fulmar (Lawrence Park) – Scott Enterprises employee at the Hampton on the Bayfront, emphasized room for employee advancement and need for more hospitality workers.
  • Nick Scott Sr. (Mill Creek) – Scott Enterprises owner, defended the project as an iconic, world-class development that will generate tax revenue for the city; noted his company held the land for 25 years, paying $1 million in taxes, then paid $5 million in taxes over five years at the Hampton Inn; stated the development will fund future phases via CRIS and create needed jobs.
  • Brian Weber (Mill Creek) – Weber Murphy Fox Architects, described the firm's 60-year Erie history and the master plan as a balance between developer needs and community needs; noted the site was a former Penelec coal-fired power plant that underwent award-winning environmental cleanup; provided open space numbers: phase two will provide 28,300 sq ft of publicly accessible parks/green space, 23,500 sq ft of plazas, 9,400 sq ft of public room improvements, 28,755 sq ft of trails, and 28,000 sq ft of naturalized areas (total 117,777 sq ft) exceeding the required 33,695 sq ft.
  • Todd Young (Meadville) – Pratt & Whitney employee, outdoor enthusiast, supported development as it gives more people the chance to enjoy Presque Isle and the waterfront, noting the existing beer garden and Oliver's Rooftop create guest experiences.
  • Abdullah Washington (Erie) – Asked bluntly, "Where's the development for the poorest among us?" and "Where's the affordable housing?"
  • Ed Kissle (Erie) – Criticized the reduction of public space, noting the original plan called for seven pocket parks and the city sponsored a $5 million grant for a public park that is now a beer garden and putt-putt; argued the developer received $7.6 million in CRIS funding and asked council to require parks be built before occupancy.
  • Martha Lachugu (Erie) – Discussed the K-shaped economy where wealthy see gains while working class falls behind; called for wages that keep pace with inflation ($26–$32/hr), health insurance, and education funding from developers; noted she was turned away from a restroom at the existing hotel.
  • Unnamed speaker (Erie) – Challenged the hotel's winter occupancy viability, suggesting rooms won't fill unless they run specials; expressed frustration with developer reliance on tax subsidies.

Discussion Items

  • Caucus Review of Conditions (Pre-Vote) – Council President Titus opened caucus to discuss the seven conditions attached to the resolution. Key changes from the original draft included:
    • Open space definition – Removed "contiguous areas" requirement because the campus spans both sides of Front Street; increased impervious surface allowance from 20% to 40% to include paved walkways.
    • Landscaping (2A) – Changed "regionally native planting materials" to "where reasonable" to allow hardier, salt-tolerant species; architecture firm explained that strictly native grasses like sedges won't mow for active recreation, and native plants often fail in urban, exposed bayfront conditions.
    • Vehicular use areas (3) – Added exclusion for emergency vehicle access in open space calculations.
    • Fee-based access – Changed to "permanent fee-based access" to allow temporary private events without counting against open space.
    • Bird/wildlife measures (4) – Broadened from lighting to include glass reflections and any other bird/wildlife impacts.
    • Public accessibility (5) – Added language prohibiting physical barriers or design features that discourage public entry or pedestrian activity.
    • Benches (6) – Changed ratio from 1 per 25 ft of facade to 1 per 40 linear ft, capped at 8 benches per acre (estimated 24–32 benches); added allowance for donor plaques (no larger than 6"x12"); changed maintenance standard from "all times" cleanliness to "reasonable cleanliness" and replacement to "reasonable amount of time."
    • Maintenance (7) – Replaced vague "management and operation" language with specific maintenance obligations for the hotel.
  • Council Member Flora – Sought clarification on regionally native plants; architect explained the term is subjective, and native plants often fail in urban, salt-exposed conditions, while lawns require non-native Kentucky bluegrass.
  • Council Member Shaw – Raised concern about losing public fishing access; solicitor clarified that Scott Enterprises does not own any water-adjacent land (35–40 ft wide concrete path is owned by Port Authority), and the waterfront zoning requires 20 ft public access anyway.
  • Council Member Horton – Discussed LERTA expiration (2029), noting the 5-year window to apply and 10-year tiered tax abatement; expressed strong opposition to LERTA, arguing it blights the bayfront and prevents schools from benefiting for a generation; also criticized Erie Events' perpetual tax exemption, saying it makes it hard to deny developers tax breaks.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion to Approve Resolution – Council voted 5-1 in favor (Flores: yes, Horton: yes, Poll: yes, Shaw: yes, Troop: yes, Titus: no), approving the conditional use permit with all seven conditions.
  • Council Member Horton – Voted yes but voiced deep discomfort, stating he was offended that the city prioritizes development while citizens live in filth; pledged to oppose LERTA, CRIS, and similar programs in the future and called for an additional hotel tax to fund housing.
  • Council Member Poll – Supported the project but expressed concern that the average city resident cannot afford to stay at any bayfront hotel; criticized the replacement of planned pocket parks with a beer garden and putt-putt; urged the developer to remember city citizens.
  • Council President Titus – Voted no, stating she had a "deep value system dissonance" because the development benefits private interests while residents lose access; described it as a "glamorous trickle-down economy" paid for by residents; noted most pro-development speakers did not reside in the city.
  • Solicitor Clarification – Explained that condition #5's clause prohibiting "physical barriers or design features that discourage public entry" is new, not in the zoning code, and reflects council's intent to ensure genuine public access.
  • Registration Reminder – Council reminded the public that May 4, 2026 is the last day to register to vote in the primary election; Pennsylvania is a closed primary state.

Meeting Transcript

And bring this ACUS session into order. Tonight we are meeting with a special meeting with the agenda before us to to vote on the resolution and discuss here in caucus the resolution that's before us regarding the harbor place. We have a set of conditions that we've laid out. But this is our opportunity right now as council to discuss before we move into the meeting where we're gonna vote. So I'm gonna pause and see if we do have a couple guests here this evening if we would like to ask any questions of them. Um so that that's that's in front of us as well. Um but I want to pause and kind of open the floor up to council to see if we want to go through the resolution if there's any questions on on the conditions that we have laid out while we have the solicitor and everyone here. Can we just go over some of the changes if you know on a whole no one got to see specifics? Uh Jason, are you ready for the hot seats? Just the material to let me see here. So I don't know if I would agree that they were material. It's just that they were already in place and the changes reflect the original intent of the document. Um condition was unchanged. The number two section, there was uh the original draft had uh what was called a contiguous areas. However, that presents a really a an in a barrier for the because it can't be continuous because the whole campus, I'll call it a campus for lack of better word, involves stuff north of Front Street and south of Front Street. So you can't really make a contiguous area that's all green space as well. So that was one of the things we took out. Now the other thing the two is so they're gonna have their certain green space, and you're gonna have the other uh we call the impervious surfaces. So it's impervious surfaces, um initially we had 20% in discussing with everything, it sounds like 40% is a more reasonable number, and that includes because there's gonna be a paved walkway that's gonna be for public access, that's gonna have I don't know if it's gonna be like a farmer's market or access for people to sit on the benches, and that also will help. So that's one of the changes there. Now if you go back up to 2A dealing with uh regionally native species, the problem with this, and the reason we changed it to them to incorporate it where it was reasonable, is for instance um as explained that grass, so naturally occurring grass that would be used for like say a lawn in Pennsylvania doesn't sub doesn't last all winter. So there the grass they use is the Kentucky bluegrass. And so Kentucky bluegrass obviously is from Kentucky, it's not native to Great Lakes region, but that's the grass that's used for you know if you want to look there's a this second yeah on page two though, so I'm in 2A. So all the grass theories wouldn't even qualify for regionally in base or regionally uh grasses, if that makes sense. So it's kind of like that way. And the same thing with flower beds. If the flower, and the goal for the flowers too is not to be replanting new flowers, you know, every single year, but you want to have it that we can do the native species, and then but still have people the ability to upkeep the landscaping um all year round, and or hopefully not have it killed during the winter season. Um going down to paragraph three. The only change that was made to three was you'll see in the middle of that paragraph, vehicular use areas. So the add the addition was the parenthesis for that excludes a vehicle emergency, I'm sorry, excluding emergency vehicle access. So I think this is the idea is that we have all this square footage that's for open space or green space and for public access. But what if um there's an emergency, there's a fire, and so for like say an hour, certain places are off limits due to the emergency. Now it would make sense. You're like, well, that's an emergency. No one's gonna complain about that and maybe measure the square footage. But there's a possibility that one whole street or maybe the whole area is cut off from public access. So in those areas that are cut off from public access, they would would be below the square footage requirement for open space. So that's why that's the exception that is listed there. So the other change was so the only word we added at the let's see the next last sentence it was fee-based access. We changed it to permanent fee-based access. So that would include that kind of like so, in case like someone was you know, had asked the hotel, hey, can I have my wedding pictures taken in the morning, and they maybe they would close off you know, part of the green space so that people could take their pictures, but they would only be there for a little while, then they would leave. But that's not a permanent thing that they do, it would be a special occasion, it would be rarity, so that's why we added the permanent, but otherwise, the fee-based access or private reservation, that is all the same. Number four, now number four, this was a change that reflected we had some original language that would that kind of was dealing with lighting that affected the birds or migratory species. So instead we rewrote it to really make it more broad because the part of the part of the calculation in this goes towards not just lighting. So lighting does affect some migratory birds or some other animals, but also the glass in the building as well. And so lighting doesn't really deal with the glass specifically. So having the reflections be the pro bird would be helpful as well. So that's why that was rewritten to kind of incorporate both lighting in the glass or anything else that would affect birds or wildlife. Number five was originally written to deal with um facades, the walkway area, um, public accessibility. But when we were looking at it, we're trying to make trying to translate that into the proper language.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com