Developer asks Ann Arbor City Council to delay vote on 14-story high-rise
A look at the design for 413 E. Huron unveiled at the Ann Arbor City Council's last meeting on March 18. This shows the signature corner at Division and Huron.
Humphreys & Partners Architects
But the developer behind the controversial 413 E. Huron project is now asking city officials to pull the project from the council's agenda.
In a letter sent to Mayor John Hieftje and council members on Friday, Conor McNally, chief development officer with Georgia-based Carter, requested consideration of his firm's project be rescheduled to the council's April 15 meeting while revisions are being made.
The development team for the controversial 413 E. Huron project unveiled this new design at a March 18 meeting of the Ann Arbor City Council. The project is still opposed by residents who would be in the shadow of the new building.
Humphreys & Partners Architects
"Although not required, we are still revising the 3D rendering that we presented at the last meeting to reflect the further changes we made to the rear elevation since the last meeting," he wrote.
"We believe it would be prudent to give staff additional time to review the revised plans and renderings prior to City Council's review of the site plan."
For now, the council's agenda for Monday night still includes a public hearing and consideration of the site plan for 413 E. Huron. Council members said those items will continue to appear on the agenda because only the council can postpone them.
"Since it's already on the agenda, it will be on the agenda, but I don't see a reason why we couldn't postpone it," Hieftje said.
"I'm encouraged that it appears the developer has been listening to the community and the City Council, and changes are being made in the design," Hieftje added.
Hieftje said "it seems as if they're moving in the right direction," but it's still a relatively dense development and it inevitably is going to face some opposition.
Since a March 18 hearing where several members of the community protested the project, McNally said the development team has continued to receive followup email questions from City Council members about the plans, including 11 questions received this Thursday.
"In order to ensure that we can provide thoughtful and unhurried responses to these questions, we will need more time than would be available from now until Monday, April 1, especially considering the holiday weekend," McNally wrote to council members on Friday.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Jungoni
Tue, Apr 2, 2013 : 4:12 p.m.
Following up on Jeff Crockett's comment, the developer's landscape consultant told the Council at its 3/18 meeting that having the proposed 413 building block the landmark trees from sunlight most of the year would be no big deal because for a good part of the year they dont have leaves on them. Is it true that trees dont need sunlight when they dont have leaves on them? I'd sure like to hear from an independent arborist on that.
Jungoni
Tue, Apr 2, 2013 : 3:56 p.m.
After reading Mayor Hieftje's observation that ""it seems as if they're moving in the right direction...", I took a look at the developer's "revised" site plan. I'm reminded of "the mountain that roared mightily, and brought forth a mouse." Except that the 413 developer has not brought forth a mouse, but rather a flea. What an insult to the City and its citizens, the Mayor and City Council, and the neighborhood! Rather than "moving in the right direction", the developer's only movement is to rub Ann Arbor's face in the dirt.
timjbd
Sun, Mar 31, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.
Off-topic, but current owners in Stonebridge- who have just discovered that an oil pipeline runs right across the end of Prairie Dunes Lane, which was NOT disclosed by the developer, Harris Homes and Bayberry- will be interested in this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57577164/homes-evacuated-after-exxonmobil-oil-pipeline-spill-in-arkansas/ Now that they are doing pressure tests in advance of filling that pipe with crude oil, and not the light, sweet crude either. This will be tar sands crude. The worst, dirtiest imaginable.
Arboriginal
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 6:38 p.m.
Finally, something to block my view of Sloan Plaza as I turn left onto Division from eastbound Huron!
timjbd
Sun, Mar 31, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.
1. The Federal Building 2. Tower Plaza 3. University Tower 4. The Google Building and Sloan Plaza 5. All the new student storage facilities. I believe this 413 E. Huron will be the most hated structure in all of Ann Arbor once built. It won't be the ugliest, until it has had a few years for the cheap materials to be attacked by weather and students, but that will come too.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sun, Mar 31, 2013 : 12:14 a.m.
@DJBudSonic: Yes, it is my understanding that the same architect, William Meier, currently with Meier Group Architects designed Sloan Plaza and One North Main. As Freed Group's architect for their Ann Arbor high rises he also designed 4 Eleven Lofts at the corner of Division and Washington (formerly Citi Centre) and Ashley Terrace just west of One North Main on Huron Street. See: www.annarbor.com/business-review/sale-pending-4-eleven-lofts-student-high-rise-in-ann-arbor-under-contract-to-texas-investors/ [P. S. See we agree on something else!]
DJBudSonic
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 7:21 p.m.
One North Main must be on that lost too. Similar, and also ugly. They might have even shared the same architect, Hobbs and Black. If so, that would explain a lot, I was in their offices once and they had a big pile of wooden blocks on a table for "conceptualizing structure" I was told...
timjbd
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 7 p.m.
Yes, it's funny to hear Sloan Plaza residents arguing against this building on the grounds that it will block their views. Sloan Plaza is currently in the top 5 of the most hideous structures in the city and we all have to look at IT. Funny only until you realize this project has the mayor's thumbprints all over it- meaning it's a done deal.
DJBudSonic
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 4:12 p.m.
One of the biggest problems we have with planning and development in Ann Arbor is that people seem to forget that we are committing this land use for all time. We are going to be living with these ugly, towering structures for the rest of our lives. There will never be a chance to knock down a 14 story 280,000 square foot building and start over if we don't like it. This is not some commercial parking lot in-fill one story strip mall that might be raised in 10 years for a better use. These things are here forever, but we act like it is no big deal. It is a big deal. Those who approve these towers are committing all of us to a life in their shadows. A decision not to made lightly, or defaulted to because we were too busy/lazy/corrupted to correct the zoning plan. Is this tower something to be proud of? If you are on planning commission and city council and you approve this development, your name is on it, too.
Sla2
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 3:53 p.m.
Tower Plaza is the tallest building in Ann Arbor (26 stories). It is also arguably the most densely developed parcel of land in the city. With just less than an acre of land, it houses roughly 180,000 square feet. The results of this dense development are mixed at best: there has been no cradle of economic activity surrounding this building in the decades since its construction. If anything, it has until only recently been one of the more blighted corners of the downtown. Our collective distaste for the density in this one building is precisely what led to the height restrictions that we are only now- 50 years later- debating again. 413 Huron is proposed at roughly 280,000 (!) square feet on .9 acres. That is 50% BIGGER than Tower Plaza on the same sized piece of land. It would stand immediately across the street from over 200,000 square feet of the exact same type of housing. Is this really what the proponents of density are looking for? The Mayor states it is a move in the right direction that the 413 developer wants to make changes to its proposed building. Perhaps this is true, but I remain concerned that they (developers) feel the building needs just a minor facelift, while what is required is major bariatric surgery.
SMAIVE
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 3:23 p.m.
Has anyone taken a serious look at the hideous building nearly completed across the street? Who on Planning thought any aspects of that prison structure added any aesthetic value? Talk about an eyesore!
PersonX
Sun, Mar 31, 2013 : 1:35 a.m.
Same "architect" as the motel-like cheapo on Fifth Ave aka City Place ...
DJBudSonic
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 4:03 p.m.
Don't you love how the two attractive ( now even more so by comparison) older oases sit tucked into the bases of those monstrous towers? Get ready to look at that for the rest of your life.
Joann Green
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.
This plan does not comply with the guidelines set forth in the city's planning documents (2009 Downtown Plan, Central Area Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines) in regards to a building of this type in this location, so City Council should NOT approve the plan.
lefty48197
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 6:26 a.m.
Build it!
DJBudSonic
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 1:19 a.m.
That tree is doomed by this development. Yet another reason to say no. Our mitigation standard is pathetic for a place that used to be Tree City. Planning needs to look at this... Make these developers work for us if they want to build here and tap into the Ann Arbor market. These developers should be bending over backwards and kissing a$$ to get to build here. We don't need them, they need us. If we don't like what one team is proposing, send 'em packing, there will be another, just wait and see. We need to strengthen the demands made of all new development, whether it be for natural features protections, architectural integrity, sustainable or low/zero-energy operation, or any other thing that preserves the reasons Ann Arbor is a desired investment opportunity and all around decent place to live in the first place.
Bayport
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 7:47 p.m.
The problem is they own the property, and the zoning laws have to be changed. However, it behooves us to do everything in our power not to let this be built as it stands, and if, Heaven Forbid, it is built, not to ever let this happen again (oh it is happening again -I forgot City Place).
timjbd
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 6:56 p.m.
They own the property now.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 11:22 p.m.
As a Yale trained historian and someone who loves history and historic preservation, I am very intrigued by a comment made in the earlier article about this proposed development that some of the landmark trees that could be cut off from light by this proposed development are among the trees that Ann's Arbor is named after. I'd like to know the historical evidence for this claim and would love to read more about this. Does anyone have a link to any historical information that would prove this claim? If it is true, it would seem to me a true permanent loss of history for our community to lose even one of those trees. As a downtown resident, it would be fun to know which tree is being referred to so when I walk by I can ponder the history behind that tree.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 5:49 a.m.
@ionic: Thanks so much for this info! Very cool! @Reverend Bubba X: I use the hyphen hundreds of times every day, my email is ranzini@university-bank.com, however the style guide I was taught to use at both my high school, & then college at Yale (Kate Turabian on Style) taught me that hy-phens are never used in English prose except in composite words and the end of lines if a word is too long to fit. Ever. ;-) Or were you referring to my name? I gave up the hyphen between Lange & Ranzini many years ago as too much of a hassle, since "Lange-Ranzini" is too long to fit in many forms...
Reverend Bubba X
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 11:58 p.m.
It appears that Yale failed to train you in proper use of the hyphen.
ionic
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 11:33 p.m.
The tree is in the backyard of 120 N. Division - no trespassing, please - which can be seen from the public sidewalk or from the back of the project site. Arborists who have evaluated the tree have estimated its age as 225-250 years old, but otherwise it was not inventoried when the city was staked out in the early 19th century. There are only a few of these icons left in Ann Arbor, and they should be protected beyond the so-called mitigation described in the proposal that puts this one in shade much of the year and cuts into its critical root zone.
PersonX
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 11:19 p.m.
This is all window dressing. We need Council to vote the project down this coming Monday and be done with this. A delay is just a ploy to confuse voters who want to speak out against the monstrosity.
Kafkaland
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.
While we're slightly off-topic: does anyone know when construction on the Fox tent and awning site will start? It looks really desolate right now.
Brad
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 11:01 p.m.
I cannot begin to imagine how out of place that new building will look there.
Kai Petainen
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 10:41 p.m.
slightly off-topic... at the Landmark construction, the city road sucks. They built the building, but the road beside it sucks. Are they going to fix that road? If you're going to build this stuff, fix the road beside it.
annarboral
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 10:29 p.m.
How will trucks make deliveries to that location without seriously blocking very busy roads in both directions on that corner? It was bad enough when the semis paked there to deliver to Papa Johns. With a bigger foot print and more retail it will become a much bigger problem.
ionic
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 4:59 p.m.
i used to call the city about the public sidewalk being blocked by Papa Johns drivers and deliveries all the time. The good thing is that the City generally responded and ticketed them. i can only imagine the number of times i will be calling the City about similar or worse problems, but i wonder if the city will be as responsive... it will be a major hassle and a danger to pedestrians and drivers alike!
Jay Thomas
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 2:47 a.m.
I agree. Same thing happens down at the courthouse also.
Jeff Crockett
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 10:17 p.m.
Mayor Hieftje states in the article that the developer is moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, what we have seen are a few baby steps when the community is asking for some giant steps. A major area of concern for me continues to be protection of our landmark trees. In the latest proposal, we know that the developer has rejected the "no risk" option to protect the 48" landmark oak because that option leaves fewer parking spaces than the zoning law requires. The developers conveniently failed to mention that the "no risk" option would meet the zoning law parking requirments if they simply had fewer units. The sad part of this story is the zoning law really offers few protections for landmark trees. Natural features studies are conducted by consultants representing the developer. That's a joke. Why isn't an independent arborist evaluation mandated? And, the penalty is laughable, prompting the current developer to offer to replace a 24" walnut with a few 6" saplings and a donation to the park fund. Big deal. Do you think this makes the owner of the 24" feel any better? Make no mistake. Losing this tree diminishes the quality of life for anyone living in that house. If our community was serious about preserving our landmark trees, they would adopt an ordinance similar to what Rocklin, CA, has adopted, the Oak Tree Preservation Guide . Take a look at http://www.rocklin.ca.us/depts/develop/planning/publications_n_maps/oak_tree_preservation_guidelines.asp. Until then, we are doing nothing more than selling our soul for some brick and mortar.
Kai Petainen
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 10:08 p.m.
Ryan, Can you get a quote from the University of Michigan? This is a major development and some quote would be good to know. The quote could provide some clarity on the development from their perspective.
Tom Whitaker
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
Guys it really doesn't matter which fund (although I notice that no documentation has been offered--what was "pored over?"). UM has $180 MILLION invested with Greenfield Partners and Greenfield Partners is the developer of this project. That means Greenfield would very likely take a phone call from someone at UM asking them to treat our community with more respect. I don't know that, contractually speaking, they would have any obligation to do anything for UM, even if they WERE invested in this particular fund, but money does talk.
Kai Petainen
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 3:17 a.m.
as I think about it more... it's this 9th fund that must be investing in that property -- since UofM officials say they are not involved, and I see no evidence on the regents website that UofM is invested in that 9th fund. also, prior funds are already invested. from my understanding, the other older funds are already invested in properties, and so this property wouldn't be a part of the earlier investments by UofM. source: http://tinyurl.com/cnnxm52 "Greenfield Partners, LLC ("Greenfield") is a private partnership that specializes in real estate and related investments on behalf of itself and a select group of private and institutional partners. Since inception in 1997, Greenfield has secured in excess of $3.5 billion in equity commitments to eight different investment funds and operates in both North America and abroad. The firm's most recent funds are Greenfield Acquisition Partners V and Greenfield Land Partners II, which have equity commitments of $1.0 billion and $400 million, respectively. "
Kai Petainen
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 2:49 a.m.
Thanks. That provides some clarity. It's good to know that UofM is not involved. Thanks for checking with University officials. It must be a new fund at Greenfield that UofM is not involved with -- hence UofM is not involved. "Upon completion of capital formation for its ninth co-mingled fund (Greenfield Acquisition Partners VI, LP), Greenfield Partners will have secured equity commitments in excess of $4 billion from leading institutional and individual investors to its investment vehicles." For historical reference, from the regents website, here are the ones they were involved with. You can compare/contrast this list with the funds on their website. From the regents site: "The University committed $40 million to Greenfield Acquisition Partners V, L.P. in March 2007. The University committed $90 million to previous Greenfield Acquisition Partners funds." "The University committed $35 million to Greenfield Land Partners II, L.P. in April 2007. The University committed $35 million to Greenfield Land Partners I, L.P. in December 2005." Source: http://tinyurl.com/bs67hb7 And you can compare that list to the funds at Greenfield Partners: http://tinyurl.com/d3uhmjf
Ryan J. Stanton
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 1:25 a.m.
Our higher ed reporter looked into the alleged connections between U-M and this project and talked to university officials about it and pored over records and determined there isn't a story there. As you saw her write the other day, it appears U-M has invested in a different Greenfield fund from the one involved in the 413 E. Huron development.
Arboriginal
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 10:03 p.m.
Let's hope this project and others like it will free up some of the lovely homes that have been cut up into multi unit rentals.
Tom Whitaker
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 9:30 p.m.
Once again, I will repeat my public appeal to the Regents of the University of Michigan who have invested over $180 million in the developer of this project to please contact them and ask them to reconsider the whole project and instead propose something that will be an asset to the community, instead of so clearly detrimental.
say it plain
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 8:56 p.m.
Oh, wow, please. aa.com staff, if this is not the same Greenfield Partners that the UM has invested in, then please clarify again for readers to whom this info is new?! That would be *shocking* if UM is so deeply behind this hideous project...
timjbd
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 6:49 p.m.
Didn't the A2.com reporter from the last article claim it was a different Greenfield Partners, LLC?
Tom Whitaker
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 2:17 a.m.
$180 million is over 2% of the total endowment, and over 15% of the endowment's real estate holdings. It is a very sizable amount to be placed in the hands of one firm.
Tom Whitaker
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 2:15 a.m.
The University endowment has invested over $180 million in Greenfield Partners, LLC, of Connecticut, the primary owner/developer of 413 E. Huron. This is per Regent's meeting minutes and UM's response to a Freedom of Information Act Request.
leaguebus
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 12:14 a.m.
Could you elaborate about the $180M?
Luke Skywalker
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 9:13 p.m.
How could someone consider this a good thing for that corner? This monstrosity will block the sun to the entire neighborhood to the north. Why are high rises only being built for students. Will all of ann arbor be allowed to become a student ghetto? Why not housing for empty nesters? Young Professionals? People have no idea how huge this is - the biggest projectvever built on the city - and it is scary to think it could happen. Just how big is it? Take 2 and a half Walmarts and turn them on their end and stack them on that corner - that is how big this is.
Basic Bob
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 11:34 p.m.
You must mean biggest building not owned by the University of Michigan.
Kafkaland
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 8:58 p.m.
At this point all the city can realistically do is to work with the developer to get the least-bad outcome. Or it's City Place all over again.
Arboriginal
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 9:42 p.m.
Exactly!
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 8:25 p.m.
Here's a brand-new city staff memo on the proposed changes (I just added this link into the story as well): http://www.annarbor.com/032913_staff_report_413_E_Huron.pdf Read it and let me know what you like or don't like.
Tom Whitaker
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 9:23 p.m.
In one sentence, the report says that garbage trucks will have to back out onto Division. In the next paragraph, it says garbage trucks will NOT have to back out on to Division. Which is it? It also says there will be two dumpsters--an 8-yarder for trash and a 4-yarder for recycling. How often will these need to be emptied if being used by over 500 people?
My2bits
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.
Lipstick on a pig.
A2K
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 8:12 p.m.
So let me get this straight: this is ANOTHER project for 3-4 bedrooms all surrounding a central living space, each room with toilet/shower, model? This will only work for students, period. This does not encourage young professionals, families, singles, or anyone else to move downtown. Very short-sited IMHO. I DO think that downtown needs to grow up, but there is still plenty of space on the interior streets *cough embassy hotel cough*
DJBudSonic
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 1:21 a.m.
Do away with the Embassy? But where would all the junkies and prostitutes stay?
ionic
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 7:24 p.m.
So, really, we don't know what Council will do on Monday, since the site plan is on the agenda only until and if a majority on Council present that evening decide to vote for postponement. This is being dragged out by parties on all sides, and the project is not getting significantly better the current tweaks offered by the developer. We want lower-rise density on that corner, something that fills the site but respectfully steps down to its adjacent residential neighbors to the east and to the north. Newer projects need to respond to per-existing conditions, not be designed in a vacuum irregardless of surrounding scale and setbacks. That is the responsible thing to do, and something we elect our Mayor and Council representatives to uphold on our behalf, thereby protecting our health, safety, and welfare in spite of pressures by out-of-town developers to max out any site to inappropriate zoning criteria.
clownfish
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 1:59 p.m.
Well said!
Basic Bob
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 11:32 p.m.
The zoning should be changed to urban blight. Then we can leave things just as they are. We certainly need another rat sanctuary downtown.
Solitude
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 9:20 p.m.
But it's ok for the site to be zoned in a vacuum?
ntyler
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 6:50 p.m.
I am very disappointed to read that some on Council feel the developer has been listening to the community. The problem is they have NOT been listening, and push ahead with their original intent, to build as large of a building as Council will permit. The controversy surrounding this project is not about the design and the perspective drawings, which illustrate minor modifications, it is about its massiveness on one of the downtown's most significant corners and the negative impact it would have on its neighbors.
Bayport
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 7:37 p.m.
I couldn't agree with you more, ntyler! The developers aremaking a few cosmetic changes and want the Council and populace to think that somehow they are being resposive to the concerns of the towspeople. They are NOT! This is a huge building, completely out of porportion, built to the very inch of permitted space, and will not be open, friendly, or enhancing. Look at the Tyler's drawings and see how this building looks compared to all around it. So many people think that this building is already a competed fact "by right", but the right thing is to demand that the developers build someting which enhances that corner and the City. If it is built as the plans stand now, we will forever regret having that monstrosity standing on one of the most important corners entering town. And that corner could be as wonderful as the corner where North Quad sits!
a2grateful
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 6:47 p.m.
Oops, the leviathan evoked enough fear to disorient my directional sensibility: that would be looking NE, not SE. . .
a2grateful
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 6:32 p.m.
Pedestrian friendly? The building's street rendering looking SE appears to have the look of a snarling leviathan. . . A giant fang (column) appears to block the sidewalk center. What happened to the pedestrian safety devices for the crosswalk? (The beast ate them for a snack.) Not very inviting. . . and stunningly overbearing. Note to developers: please revise your project in a neighborhood and pedestrian friendly manner.
Bear
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 8:23 p.m.
uhm, the rendering is showing the SW corner, looking NE.
My2bits
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 6:29 p.m.
These pictures don't tell the tale well. This building is HUGE, will be built to minimal standards to warehouse students and does not constitute the type of mixed used development or residential density that enhances downtown living and working.
Scott Reed
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 5:31 p.m.
This will be a great improvement to that corner, where currently there are two abandoned blighted buildings. It will be nice to see more people actually walking around that area, too. The downtown needs to achieve a critical density of residents and businesses, and this is a step in the right direction. I just hope that the project is not sabotaged by competing landlords, who cynically claim to care about "historic preservation" but are really just guarding their own revenue stream. Let's make the downtown a place worth *caring about* by making it walkable and filling it with people and businesses.
clownfish
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
They are abandoned because the developer abandoned them.
DJBudSonic
Sat, Mar 30, 2013 : 1:03 a.m.
There is critical density surrounding this project alright, coming from those who think this is an appropriate and welcome addition to our rapidly blighting skyline.
Brad
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 6:35 p.m.
Density blah blah walkable blah.
yohan
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 : 6:12 p.m.
Another ugly 14 hi-rise will "make the downtown a place worth *caring about*" ?!?!?! Now that's laughable, like something from the Onion.