City Place could go forward after Heritage Row denied reconsideration by Ann Arbor City Council
Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward, whispers to Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, during Monday night's Ann Arbor City Council meeting. Both Hohnke and Higgins were among the five council members who blocked reconsideration of Heritage Row.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Seven century-old houses along South Fifth Avenue potentially face demolition to make way for the controversial City Place project after a vote by the Ann Arbor City Council.
Five council members joined forces Monday night to block a motion to reconsider developer Alex de Parry's twice-rejected Heritage Row Apartments proposal.
That leaves de Parry and his wife, Betsy, considering pushing forward with City Place, an already-approved alternate development plan for the same site.
The motion to resurrect Heritage Row was sponsored by Council Members Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward, and Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward.
Because it required a suspension of council rules, it needed a two-thirds vote. But the vote fell 6-5 Monday night, with five council members declining to give de Parry another chance to make his case before council: Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward; Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward; Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward; Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward; and Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward.
Council rules state motions for reconsideration of a proposal normally must be made by a council member from the prevailing side of a vote, and it must be done at the same or next regular meeting of council. Also, a single proposal can only be reconsidered once.
The Heritage Row Planned Unit Development proposed for South Fifth Avenue was rejected by the City Council in June and was then reconsidered and rejected again in July.
In response to that denial, de Parry, president of Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, recently announced revisions to the project, reducing its size and density.
He scaled back the project from 79 units to 76 units, and reduced the number of bedrooms from 154 to 147. He also brought the height down by 8 feet, removing one floor from the southernmost of three apartment buildings proposed for the site.
De Parry also promised in his revisions to enhance affordability and construct the new buildings to LEED-certified standards for energy efficiency and environmental design.
De Parry has spent the last several months trying to convince the four council members who previously opposed Heritage Row to reverse their votes. The four council members being lobbied were Anglin, Kunselman, Briere and Hohnke.
The developer needed only one to change his or her vote, but that didn't happen.
De Parry has said for months he would prefer to build Heritage Row, a project that includes restoring seven century-old homes along the 400 block of South Fifth Avenue and adding three new apartment buildings behind them. He said he believes the project would attract national attention and be an innovative model for combining historic preservation with new construction.
An artist rendering of the Heritage Row proposal.
The controversial City Place project — which involves knocking down the seven homes and replacing them with boxy apartment buildings and a 36-space surface parking lot — was begrudgingly approved by the City Council last year. Council members said they didn't like City Place, but it conforms to the city's zoning code and legally required their approval.
Heritage Row was proposed as a Planned Unit Development that deviates from the city's zoning code, and thus required demonstrating enough public benefit to warrant special approval from council.
Betsy de Parry said she fears City Place will "leave a permanent, irreversible scar on the city of Ann Arbor," but it's the only option the council has left them. She said if anyone is calling their bluff, they're sorely mistaken because financing exists to move forward with City Place.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
PersonX
Thu, Dec 9, 2010 : 11:37 a.m.
Beowolf makes some good points, but I doubt that anything like that would happen. There are too many people on council who would like to see the near-downtown turned into downtown Atlanta, even though there are no demographic data to support such development. They and their developer friends do not want a historic district, even though this would not prevent building, but only put certain restrictions on how it is done. Mr. de Parry does not want to deal with the HDC, but perhaps may see that this is the best solution. Unfortunately, even if he wanted to go this route, I doubt that council would pass the district, but it would definitely be worth a try.
beuwolf
Thu, Dec 9, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.
Larry K.: Thanks for using your real name. I unfortunately cannot. IMO, the council would have voted "yes" on the Heritage Row, if it had passed the Germantown Historic district. Most of the Germantown neighbors (at least north of Packard) were okay with that. DeParry wasn't. He fought the historic district tooth and nail. All of which I find befuddling, since DeParry claimed that Heritage Row would be respectful of the architectural features of the old houses. The holy grail of solutions would be to bring back the historic district consideration, create a historic district, and then approve Heritage Row. DeParry wouldn't agree to that before this latest turn of events. I hope that he would now reconsider that position.
Killroy
Thu, Dec 9, 2010 : 8:26 a.m.
Arboriginal, I'm an immigrant. This is my town, no get!
Larry Kestenbaum
Wed, Dec 8, 2010 : 4:31 p.m.
I am very, very disappointed in the council members who blocked this project. The denial limits housing options downtown (right near the AATA nexus) AND destroys a significant row of historic buildings. The votes should have been YES on Heritage Place, YES on the Moravian, and YES on the Germantown historic district. Instead, we end up with "no" on all three, and the worst of all possible outcomes.
PersonX
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 9:39 p.m.
Mr. "Schakelford": not EVERYONE agrees that Heritage Row was so great. There were many things wrong with it; the fact that a blackmail horror was snuck in because of loose R4C rules does not mean that it should have been approved. The very idea that we should mourn the defeat of Mr. Clark, who was involved with this project and therefore could hardly be considered anything else than an industry booster trying to weasel his way into council, is silly, at best. The good citizens of the 5th ward recognized this and gave him 8% of the vote, even though he won the "endorsement" of this blog; this is democracy in action. Council did not have to deal with a "big bad developer," but with one who made too many mistakes and tried to push our elected officials to act against the rules by creating what many--perhaps not EVERYONE--consider to be blackmail. It is up to the developer to be sensible and not act against the public good.
Vivienne Armentrout
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 9:08 p.m.
Speechless so often hits the nail right on the head. And did again. An approved site plan or PUD is an asset. The property becomes much more valuable and can be sold. Scrutiny of the future plans for the site is often less acute than the initial project received, and many changes get done as staff-approved administrative changes, which seem to be from my limited understanding as an "innocent until proven guilty" perspective.
rusty shackelford
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 7:40 p.m.
Council had a clear choice between allowing consideration of a development that EVERYONE agreed would be better, or doing nothing and defaulting to a choice that everyone considers worse. Council would rather have one more "big bad" developer to kick around than act in what they themselves have stated is in the city's best interest. There is literally no other reasonable way to interpret this action. Thank you to everyone who voted for Hohnke (and those who insulted accomplished business man Newcombe Clark for daring to oppose him), for allowing petty canards to prevail over good government yet again. Again, that is city council opposing a proposal they have admitted would be better for the city, merely to try to get petty revenge on someone who dared to try to invest here.
Arboriginal
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 5:45 p.m.
Pinky. I don't get it. I was born at the U. You?
CynicA2
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 4:51 p.m.
I hope everyone who is crying about this ongoing 3-ring circus will keep it in mind the next time an election rolls around. What was it... around 23-24 % of the registered voters participated in the last election, most of them minions of the Hieftje and his co-conspirators? Admittedly, the opposition was weak in many ways, so maybe many just didn't care. Still, something to keep in mind going forward - if you don't vote, your only say will be on some blog like this
Speechless
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 2:23 p.m.
"... If I was de Parry, start demolishing, that'll get some attention." It would draw even more attention if, after watching him tear down all seven houses, we then discover that he has no funding to build anything on top of the newly-flattened residential lots. Anyone up for a City Place Greenway? Had de Parry successfully blackmailed our city council into approving a slightly tweaked Heritage Row last night, he would have had two obvious future options opened to him. Either he could build Heritage Row or, if (surprise, surprise) sufficient capital failed to materialize due to the Great Recession, he could turn around and sell the seven properties to a deeper-pockets developer more capable of building sizeable projects. With a city-approved PUD proposal in hand for these parcels, one has to think they would fetch significantly more on the real estate market — but now that potential sales windfall is out of reach.
Joel Batterman
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 1:49 p.m.
Oh, no. I honestly didn't expect this. I think Pinky's comment to Arboriginal - "move to Canton" - speaks to the unfortunate disregard (mostly unconscious) which a few folks have for others who'd like decent housing options near downtown. Come on, people! There's more than enough blame to go around here. But for heaven's - no, for Ann Arbor's - sake, why permit the worst of all possible worlds? In a choice between compromise and catastrophe, why can't we swallow our pride and agree on something that isn't repulsive to both parties? Naive questions, maybe, but I'm at a total loss to explain this.
Killroy
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 1:31 p.m.
@ Arboriginal, hey, move to Canton.
PersonX
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 12:40 p.m.
David is right--our elected council cannot succumb to blackmail. All those who are angry in general at council should stop to reflect on the fact that very few PUD's have actually been turned down and there has been plenty of building going on in the city or has been approved for construction. If council rubber-stamped every proposal we would have no need for them. Heritage Row was turned down because there were serious reasons for doing so; reconsidering it again and again against all rules, only because of blackmail was not only wrong, but would have opened the doors to endless similar tactics, making all progress impossible. Those who feel sorry for the developer, who apparently claims that what he wants to do will be a disaster for the city, and yet thinks he is justified to do that just because he wants to, should ask themselves if council would for one second consider the alternative possibility, that someone private would ask to have the rules bent to reconsider if the vote had gone the other way and it was approved. Not a chance. Council is NOT hostile to developers as such, it just turned down a few bad projects, which is what they are there for.
LiberalNIMBY
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 12:08 p.m.
Ryan, did any of them say after the meeting why they didn't want to reconsider? Shame on the obstructionists for turning down a project that would've extended the life of magnificent historic homes for another 100 years. What exactly was the downside to this proposal? You felt "strongarmed"? Grow up. I hope the wrecking ball motivates at least one sane person to challenge Briere, Kunselman, Higgins, Honke or Anglin. Seriously, people, if you're in these wards, think about it.
My2bits
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 12:01 p.m.
How about council reconsidering the Historic District for this area? That is the appropriate planning/zoning control for this.
Dog Guy
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 11:49 a.m.
The council's war on people continues. The reduction of traffic from 4 lanes to 2 lanes on parts of Stadium Blvd. and Seventh St. is both hazard and traffic blockage. When considered with traffic impediments and parking lot destruction, this Heritage Row denial shows a council pattern of hating people who are not benefitting them personally. Don't bother to run against them, a straw candidate will make it a three-way. Ann Arbor--one person, one vote, one time.
SMAIVE
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 11:31 a.m.
It's the middle of freaking downtown. Where else do you propose putting more people? At least this project will generate tax dollars where as the 'Cracker Jack' center will cost the citizens millions and the benefits go to a few. If I was de Parry, start demolishing, that'll get some attention.
Christopher LeClair
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 11:23 a.m.
I e-mailed one of the Council Members and she pointed out a very valid point; the fact that he went forward with a proposal (City Place) which he knew absolutely everyone would be against it, and then because they legally had to approve that proposal he created an "either-or" situation. Either they allow him to move forward with Heritage Row, or he knocks it all down. He essentially strong-armed them but I still think they should approve Heritage Row.
Arboriginal
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.
A glut of rentals means reduced rent right? You know, competition and stuff. The more people that want to live in new modern apartments means less that want to live in beat up single family homes that were converted into apartments. Then the person that is so into historic preservation that they are willing to purchase a home deemed historic and preserve it are free to do so. Seems like a good plan to me.
David Cahill
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 10:52 a.m.
It's not nice to blackmail City Council.
Killroy
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.
@ Rose Wilson, well put. But, is there an actual need for a PUD? Can't A2 for once do a study or at least research whether or not we NEED more housing? I also agree, that we should avoid sprawl at all costs, but I simply don't see a need for yet another PUD. Legal or not!
AA
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 10:20 a.m.
The people calling the shots around here are detroying are community.
ShadowManager
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 10:01 a.m.
Does this mean that we can continue with the excellent civic program of closing 5th ave for another whole year? If the Council times this right, just when the awful "Library Lot" fiasco is complete, we can just move further down 5th ave and close out the street yet again for a whole year.
Rose Wilson
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.
It should be noted that De Parry initially offered a quite palatable apartment plan with basement parking and state of the art heating. It contained a reasonable number of apartments targeted toward people working downtown. But it required a PUD, a Planned Unit Development OK, which City Council, under pressure from neighbors and others, turned down. It was then that De Parry came up with the - to my mind - tortured plan to save the houses and build the apartments behind them. Finally he's going with what's legally allowed by the R4 zoning, which City Council can't stop, and which, again in my opinion, is as bad as the mix of saved old houses backed by apartments. There's a basic conflict here between preservationists and those, including myself, who would like to see more people living downtown and less spread into the countryside. (By the way, a Convention Center does not add to density. It only adds to congestion.) Both groups have laudable goals in mind, both are sincere, but unfortunately, both cannot be accommodated, at least, not short of the aesthetically horrible mish-mash of houses in front of apartment buildings that was considered a solution or the equally dreadful six bedroom apartments now on the drawing board. If I were on City Council, I'd propose going back to De Parry's original proposal, and grant him a PUD.
Killroy
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 9:12 a.m.
I think if you live in A2 and support either of these monstrous proposals, then you should move. We currently have a housing glut and the real estate market is down. So, in all honesty, why should we allow any building to go forward given that there is no need for it and that it would only further roll back our own home values? Most of the new construction in and around A2 is still not at full occupancy, nor have countless other projects moved forward? So, why give in the DeParry's and let them go ahead and knock down Seven century-old houses along South Fifth Avenue for "City Place", which they describe as ugly and will 'leave a scar' on A2? None of this makes sense! Short-term monetary gains are not worth 7 buildings!
Christopher LeClair
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 8:24 a.m.
Please e-mail the members of the City Council! I already have and I hope you all can do the same. This is Ann Arbor, what is wrong with them?
CLC
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 8:12 a.m.
It is a sad day when City Council can't get it together to choose the more creative and attractive proposal. The developer has bent over backwards to accommodate Council's concerns. What gives?
beuwolf
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.
The solution would have been to approve a historic district for the neighborhood. DeParry could have built his project, albeit with the added requirement that he comply with Department of Interior guidelines appropriate to historic district designation. But, the majority of council wouldn't do that. Don't blame Anglin, Briere, Hohnke and Kunselman, who opposed approval of the Heritage Row PUD for this current sad state of affairs. The real blame lies with Rapundalo, Christopher Taylor, Tony Derezinski, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins and Sandi Smith, all of whom voted "no" on the creation of the historic district. When and if the historic buildings are demolished, thank them.
zags
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.
Betsy de Parry said she fears City Place will "leave a permanent, irreversible scar on the city of Ann Arbor,". Only if you build it.
Arboriginal
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.
Another smooth move by our student council rejects!
Ace Ventura
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 7:47 a.m.
The gang of five strikes again. I bet these clowns on the council would approve a parking lot on the site.
Cossur
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 7:10 a.m.
I once lived in one of those houses and while I'm of no historical relevance warranting the salvation of the homes, I do think they are very nice homes, much better kept than many in the city. I don't know the ins & outs of the zoning laws but from what this article states, this is a case of cruelty by the De Parrys. The only option left open to them? How about sit down and shut up. That option is open. Let's see, you won't approve our more attractive plan so we'll come up with something butt-ugly that you are "forced" to approve. Who wins here, Betsy? Even you don't like it.
DonBee
Tue, Dec 7, 2010 : 6:17 a.m.
Can anyone say "Long Term Vision"? I don't think the City Council can.