Village Green seeks change to parking portion of downtown Ann Arbor apartment plan
Village Green submitted this rendering for Ann Arbor City Apartments when they were approved for downtown in 2008.
The Farmington Hills-based company, which develops and manages apartments in multiple states, filed revised site plans for Ann Arbor City Apartments with the city at the end of February.
The changes focus on the depth of the underground parking component, which was approved for 244 spaces spread over four levels.
However, due to new construction regulations that prohibit pumping groundwater from the vicinity of the project at 221 W. Washington, the lowest parking level won’t be built as deep as planned. There’s a 3-foot difference, according to a cover letter submitted with the revised plans.
To accommodate the switch, other adjustments are being made to the building - including adding 5.5 feet of building height and adjusting the “transition line” that will be visible from the outside between parking and residences.
“They’re taking the parking … at the lowest level and relocating it to a higher portion,” said city planner Jeff Kahan.
Some window design also is being adjusted, and two years would be added to the site plans if officials approve the revisions.
Plans for City Apartments were initially approved in 2008, after the city chose Village Green as the developer for the property at First and Washington. The land had been a city-owned parking garage before the city sought to redevelop it into a mixed-use project via a public-private partnership.
Financing for the parking deck will come from $9 million in Downtown Development Authority bonds, while Village Green will purchase the property for about $3 million.
Since then, the economy and housing downturn stalled progress, but the city and Village Green are now close to groundbreaking. Officials said in early February that it should happen by July.
It’s still on track for this year, said city Finance Director Tom Crawford in an email.
“The receipt of the plans is reflective of the progress we’re making,” he said.
“… We took a little longer than planned finalizing some design questions so we’re in the process of re-evaluating the timing but they’re certainly working towards being in the ground later this year still,” he said.
Village Green did not return a call seeking comment.
Paula Gardner is Business News Director of AnnArbor.com. Contact her at 734-623-2586 or by email. Sign up for the weekly Business Review newsletter, distributed every Thursday, here.
Comments
aes
Mon, Mar 7, 2011 : 6:55 p.m.
And here's another thought: how many people want to live right across a fairly narrow street from the Blind Pig, the Cave Cavern, and a few other noisy nightlife venues? Even in crowded New York City, they know better than to build apartments in the areas where the nightclubs are.
CynicA2
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
While Ann Arbor does have some beautiful old homes that are rentals, it has far more run-down, drafty old shacks that few people really want to live in, if pleasant and affordable alternatives are available. These old homes weren't built to last forever, and many of them are simply reaching the end of their useful lives, and need to be recycled, as more developments, large or small, take-up the slack.
CynicA2
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.
@ Bill #1 - I sympathize with your concerns, especially with Ashley Terrace, which ties with University Towers, IMHO for Ugliest Building in A2. The Village Green building looks a little better, though difficult to tell from the lack of detail or perspective in the drawing. BTW, good luck trying to sell your house, should this project proceed... I think you'll need it! @ Bob - It really would be nice to know who is financing this thing... probably easier to finance apartments now - they are in demand, condos are not.
Bob Martel
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 12:27 a.m.
I've been told that there is some HUD money available for multi-family rental properties with good rates and long amortizations. The downside is the long lead time for approvals and the unimaginably tedious application process. Perhaps this is who is providing the financing?
WovenGems
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 6:51 p.m.
We need rules regarding construction design. Rule 1 - building can NOT look like it was moved from Tokyo to Ann Arbor.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.
Ed, thanks for the background. The Pall/Gelman disaster seems to be the elephant in the room very few people are talking about and is going to increase as a major Ann Arbor issue in the months and years to come. The 'closed' compliance Court sessions make me nervous too.
a2cents
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
The new Library lot complies??
Edward Vielmetti
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.
Here is the letter they sent: <a href="http://a2docs.org/doc/269/" rel='nofollow'>http://a2docs.org/doc/269/</a> The "construction regulations that prohibit pumping groundwater" refer, as best I can tell, to the well exclusion zone associated with the Pall/Gellman dioxane plume cleanup. The 2005 order which regulates the well exclusion zone specifically allows dewatering wells, with conditions as follows: <a href="http://a2docs.org/doc/271/" rel='nofollow'>http://a2docs.org/doc/271/</a> 5. The prohibitions listed in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 do not apply to the installation and use of: (b) dewatering wells for lawful construction or maintenance activities, provided that appropriate measures are taken to prevent unacceptable human or environmental exposures to hazardous substances and comply with MCL 324.20107a. where MCL 324.20107a is <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-324-20107a" rel='nofollow'>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-324-20107a</a> NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT) Act 451 of 1994 324.20107a Duties of owner or operator having knowledge of facility; hazardous substances; obligations based on current numeric cleanup criteria; liability for costs and damages; compliance with section; applicability of subsection (1)(a) to (c) to state or local unit of government; "express public purpose" explained. Sec. 20107a.
EyeHeartA2
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.
Add Plymouth Green to the list of partially filled developments. Actually, I have a solution for this: Implement rent control as was proposed in the late 1980's when we felt rents were too high. That would have kept the developers out, and we would not have all this bothersome overcapacity. Just a bunch of rat infested maintenance deferred heaps. It is probably not too late to ask for some "help" from the gob'ment in this regard. That way our kids can have a bunch of rat infested maintenance deferred heaps that are at full capacity anyway. Plus, we can 'stick it to the man', which always seems to go over well on this board.
Alan Goldsmith
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
Doesn't the site plan update mention a 'toxic plume'? Can you update the story to explore this issue?
a2grateful
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
If the site plan revisions are not approved, the existing site plan is no longer viable. The existing site plan no longer meets legal requirements. The developer could possibly walk away, and may want to do so. Is "No comment" from the developer possible evidence of this? Without city approval of the developer's requested amendment, the project will likely be cancelled. The city would then have to start its development process from the beginning. This would be a blow to the DDA and their perception as being the qualified development arm of the city. If the site plan amendment is approved, the project might proceed. However, it includes a two new-year site plan extension / construction start timeframe. This would likely please the developer, allowing for additional time to monitor economic direction. Finally, the two-year extension would begin after all the details are settled with all factions in city government. If it's a desktop admin approval, no problem. If it's just another political football game, be prepared for two quarters, half time, two quarters, and possibly several overtimes. : /
Bob Martel
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
I am amazed that they got financing for this project given what has just occurred over at Ashley Terrace.
Bob Martel
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.
Hey Tom, I think Ashley Terrace has switched over to rentals for now. And even with that they could not avoid foreclosure.
Wolf's Bane
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.
No, it really is not different. Look at the rental market in Ann Arbor, read the Ann Arbor Observer's article in this months free magazine. Inform yourself. The rental market is way down as well, so why more building???
Tom Wieder
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.
Bob- These are rentals, not condos, so it's a different market than Ashley Terrace.
Joan Lowenstein
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
The changes actually make the parking spots less expensive to the DDA because it costs more for underground parking places. Village Green both develops and manages rental apartments. This is completely different from something like Ashley Terrace, which was a condo development.
Wolf's Bane
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 7 p.m.
Not true. Even if it is multi-zoned, what are you going to fill it with? Folks from Farmington Hills? Pleeeaaassseeee, as if you don't have a stake in this, being a former city council person trying to get her seat back?
Fat Bill
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.
This is a different Bill... Reduce the parking available on Washington? At least the City will get some enforcement revenue...
Awakened
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
Either way, Bill, don't leave. Government needs your money.
Awakened
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.
Bill, Maybe they are hoping that the Ann Arbor Planning Commission will deny the changes so they have an 'out.' The commission is notoriously fickle. Or perhaps because the commission is notoriously slow they can simply stall the project some more.
Wolf's Bane
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
If they start construction on this behemoth, I will sell my house and move out of the state and ask my fellow Ann Arbor residents to do the same. Enough is enough with these ridiculous "developments" that simply remain empty and go into foreclosure. As I have stated earlier, I have no issue with reducing sprawl, but this development like Ashely Terrace and so many others are simply too big and they will fail. Go ahead, make my day City Counsel.
johnnya2
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 12:04 a.m.
Bye!. I am sure your "fellow Ann Arbor residents" will move out of state because YOU tell them to. A bit self important are you? " If I don't get my way i am taking my ball and going home"
Wolf's Bane
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
Ashley Terrace is the first to manage to hit both, foreclosure and 35% occupancy. Second, the "development" on Division and Washington is basically still empty (please inquire within if you don't believe me), and finally countless other existing PUDS along Liberty, Huron Street, which have never reached 100% occupancy. Finally, please refer to this month's A2 Observer regarding the third wave of foreclosures, including "Rental properties" in and around Ann Arbor. Yes, we are going through hard times, but simply building more in an attempt to fill city covers is silly and will leave us, the City, with an even bigger glut of unwanted buildings. Yes, I will move if this continues because my home will be worth even less if this continues, and the quality of life will continue to erode.
b master b
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:45 p.m.
Name three new developments that are empty and in foreclosure ...