Heritage Row developer making fourth attempt to sway Ann Arbor City Council on project
After failing multiple times to win approval for his project, developer Alex de Parry is asking the Ann Arbor City Council one more time to approve Heritage Row.
Courtesy Image
Developer Alex de Parry is making another run at bringing his Heritage Row Apartments proposal back before the Ann Arbor City Council.
If he's lucky, the fourth time's a charm.
"I've been asked to do one last effort," he said. "Heritage Row has garnered a lot of attention, and we've gotten a lot of community support for it, and members of the community have asked that something happen, so we'll give it one last shot.
"I hope it gets discussed, people see the merits of it, and it gets approved."
De Parry previously said if Heritage Row wasn't approved, he would push forward with the unpopular City Place project.
Council Members Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, and Tony Derezinski, D-4th Ward, are on de Parry's side for Heritage Row. They're planning to bring forward a resolution on Monday that asks the City Council to waive the application fee for de Parry to bring his near-downtown development back through the city's planning process — starting from square one.
Although no changes have been made to the project since it died before council in December, Smith and Derezinski are hopeful council members will be willing to let de Parry — who made revisions last fall that were never considered by council — make his case.
"The objection that we heard last time really had to do with process and not the changes in the development," Smith said. "So if we can work with the developer to bring it back again — but going back earlier in the process — then I think we'll have the support. And I've heard pretty clearly, as have other council members, that it's still a better project than City Place."
Alex de Parry
The Heritage Row Planned Unit Development proposed for South Fifth Avenue was rejected by the City Council last June and was reconsidered and rejected again in July.
In response to that denial, de Parry spent months in close talks with some of the council members who voted it down and made revisions that he unveiled last fall.
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 to enhance affordability and construct the new buildings to LEED-certified standards for energy efficiency and environmental design.
But when it came time for a third consideration of Heritage Row in December, five council members joined forces to block a motion to let the developer make his case.
That has left de Parry pushing forward with City Place, an already-approved alternate development plan for the same site that, unlike Heritage Row, involves knocking down seven century-old homes that stand in the way along the 400 block of South Fifth Avenue.
De Parry said he is in the process of getting plans and permitting for City Place, which essentially is two apartment buildings, and is moving forward on construction drawings.
The developer has said he would prefer to build Heritage Row, a project that includes restoring the seven homes and adding three new apartment buildings behind them. He said he believes the project would attract national attention for being an innovative model for combining historic preservation with new infill development.
De Parry still needs enough council members to see things his way. Since last year, he's been one vote short of winning council approval. Much of the concern has been around the project's size and density and whether it fits the residential neighborhood it's in.
So far, four council members have continued to oppose Heritage Row: Mike Anglin, Stephen Kunselman, Sabra Briere and Carsten Hohnke.
Hohnke, D-5th Ward, seems to be more willing than some of the others to reconsider de Parry's project, but he won't say whether he'd change his vote.
"We've always been trying to work on making it a better project," he said. "If Mr. de Parry and the development team have some modifications they'd like folks to consider, then they need to make sure they're bringing it through in a way that respects the normal planning process and community input, and all of the things that are associated with bringing a project through."
Hohnke said he's happy to consider Heritage Row if it comes back to council. He said the revisions de Parry made, but weren't considered last year, are positive steps.
"I think both the community and the development team have done a great job in continuing to refine the project," he said. "So I think those are great steps forward and add to the public benefit of the project. Obviously, it's my job to consider it if it's in front of me."
If council gives the OK on Monday, de Parry would resubmit plans for Heritage Row to the city's planning department, which would review them and forward them onto the Planning Commission. With Planning Commission approval, the project would come back to council.
De Parry also would have to hold another citizen participation meeting, and public hearings would be held on the project at both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Wendy Rampson, the city's planning manager, said the PUD fee de Parry is hoping will be waived is based on the amount of floor area proposed, which the city does not know at this point. The formula is $6,705, plus $71 per 1,000 square feet of new gross floor area.
When de Parry brought Heritage Row before the City Council last year, plans showed the three new buildings totaled 48,152 square feet, but that was before he made revisions.
The project still faces some opposition by residents in the Germantown neighborhood, but de Parry said he's learned by now he can't please everyone.
"There's some people I will never please no matter what I do, unless I do absolutely nothing, and that might not please them, either," he said.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
PersonX
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.
Unfortunately, this article is written in a manner that is designed to elicit sympathy for the developer, without properly presenting the rationale of those who oppose the project. The editorial position of this blog has been consistent in its support for the developer, but this is not an opinion piece and should be more balanced. Mr. Shackelford adds to the PR quality of the whole presentation by offering up arguments that are hardly based on the facts. a. The opposition to Heritage Row comes not from absentee landlords, but primarily from residents in the immediate vicinity of the project. The author either is completely uninformed or knows this well, but has reasons to misrepresent this. The issue is a matter of public record--just look at who is involved in the Germantown association and who has spoken at Council meetings, presenting their names and addresses in public. b. Contrary to what has been argued, CIty Place was put together to be as threatening and ugly as possible; it is nonviable and is clearly "blackmail." Of course, it is perfectly legal, but that does not make it morally right. I am disheartened that more citizens are not outraged that our elected leaders are being subjected to this kind of disgusting pressure, being forced to choose between two wrongs. This stinks. c. The drive to destroy a neighborhood in the name of profit and mindless development is a mystery--one can understand that a developer wants to make money at all costs, but why are two council members who do not even represent the district that is at risk relentlessly pushing this particular project? With all the residential buildings that have gone up lately and that are about to be built (easily approved), what is the public need for this particular one? Has anyone considered what might happen if it cannot make a profit? The developer will take his money and leave, but the city might be stuck with an white elephant.
Bill
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
Well put. An ugly, empty white elephant.
kate717
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
Tom Whitaker's comments should be read thoroughly and thoughtfully. He has the education and has done the research that must be considered. So many comments are based on hearsay and inaccurate information. He does his homework and does not say anything without considering all points of view and proposals. We should all review this as intelligently. Please read his information with an open mind.
kate717
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 1:25 a.m.
Mr. Shackleford is very uninformed and clearly misled. Where did he get the idea that the Germantown group was outside of the neighborhood. I know for a fact that they are home owners. Mr. DeParry is obviously completely self-interested. The development he is proposing DOES NOT do anything for preservation of Ann Arbor neighborhoods. The rendering by the architect is completely misleading. There is more than enough student housing available and more is already being constructed. He cannot say that his proposed building is for for young families or professionals because the plans show the type of units inhabited by students. We are already able to accommodate students. Many bedrooms and one bathroom. Germantown is an appropriate designation for this area. Read your Ann Arbor history. I don't understand why anyone living in Ann Arbor would have an interest in ruining our beautiful historic neighborhoods for an outside developer with his own financial interests. He actually owns houses on 5th avenue that he rents. We don't need Heritage Row OR City Place. We need to preserve our heritage. I encounter many, many people who visit here and they comment on how they love the neighborhoods. Again, I can not fathom why Ann Arbor residents are against preserving our lovely old homes. Remember, Mr. DeParry doesn't live here. We have a very special town. Let's not ruin it.
a2grateful
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 10:46 p.m.
BCB: #5: Heritage Row is the plan that preserves and renovates the historic structures. This architecturally penned preservation plan came about when the city attempted to block City Place by designating the neighborhood as an historic study district. The historic district was subsequently voted down by council. City Place could then be built by right, allowing demolition of the historic properties. The site can be wiped clean. #6: City Place allows greater density than Heritage Row. #7: City Place buildings have greater mass than Heritage Row. #8: The surrounding neighborhood is primarily tenant occupied. Old houses that don't meet code are owned by those that wish to limit rental competition. A supply of new housing stock lessens the demand for substandard rentals. Therein lies the crux of the opposition. #9: The mythical and perpetual perpetual-shadow argument: ". . . Heritage Row . . . will tower over the houses on William, keeping them in near-perpetual shade. . ." Absolutely not! The Ann Arbor District Library is located directly north of Heritage Row. There are no houses on this portion of the block.
suswhit
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
There are three houses on William directly north of the proposed "Heritage" row location. All three are in the William Street historic district and all three owners signed the protest petition against the project. Shadow studies prepared by the developer and submitted to the city show them being shadowed by the proposed new buildings. I can see why you'd rather pretend they don't exist.
Vivienne Armentrout
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.
BCB: Missing from your list are these: 1. A PUD allows a developer to build structures that do not conform with the existing zoning. 2. Rules for a PUD state that it should provide a public benefit in order to justify overriding local zoning. 3. One essential criterion for allowing any such changes in zoning is that it should not adversely affect adjoining properties. (The "etc." in your last item.) I would also add that it is not just the nearby residents who are concerned about preservation of historic structures and also about encouraging development that is not consistent with the Central Area Plan (the planning document that represents the community vision for the near-downtown neighborhoods). It is also not just the nearby residents who want our City Council to adhere to our zoning laws. Failure to do so represents a threat to all neighborhoods.
Ben Connor Barrie
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 9:15 p.m.
I would like to make sure I understand the details of this issue. 1) de Parry has the rights within the current zoning code to build "City Place." 2) Nobody--de Parry, The City, or current residents--likes "City Place." 3) de Parry needs to get 8 council votes to get the property (properties?) zoned as a PUD, because a sufficient number of residents signed a petition against the rezoning. 4) Being zoned a PUD would allow a different development, "Heritage Row." 5) Some residents, including the neighborhood association, are opposed to "Heritage Row" for reasons including: looming structures being next to their property lines, loss of historical structures, etc. Is this close? Are there significant facts that I am missing?
Dalex64
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 9:24 p.m.
That is an accurate summary, as far as I know. I'm wondering what the impact of City Place would be on the neighbors. I guess the city council gets to pick one or the other on behalf of the residents.
Joel Batterman
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 9:08 p.m.
Everything else aside, I have to challenge the notion that there's a housing glut in Ann Arbor. That just isn't the case. Ann Arbor rents and home prices are high because the city is a very desirable place to live, and there's been relatively little new housing development over the past several decades. If Ann Arbor had an ample housing supply, we would not have seen the same growth we've seen in Saline, Chelsea, and elsewhere.
Elena
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 8:48 p.m.
I am concerned about the residents near the project. I think that the developer and the city should work with these residents for a project they approve. It appears there will be quite an impact on the neighbors and the city should protect their interests. I do hope they can work something out because it is so nice to see someone want to do something in Ann Arbor that we can tax (rather than another beautiful piece of property being removed from the tax rolls for the University). Keep working on it.
Stephen Landes
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 6 p.m.
We have a problem with our planning and approval processes if it takes this long to resolve an issue and get development work moving. Regardless of what the decision turns out to be there is no excuse for a process that requires negotiating a maze of bureaus, committees, and meetings in order to proceed with work. If we want to be more welcoming to business and to developers then we need to have a cleaner, more understandable process that results in fast approvals. How long should the process take? Let's ask the best quality developers which jurisdictions they think are the easiest to work with and then see if the citizens in those jurisdictions think the process is fair and produces results they like. Frankly, from what I read about development in Ann Arbor I doubt we would be on anyone's list of favorites. It can only be the relatively stable economy in this town, good incomes, and potential for profit that attracts business - it certainly isn't because we're a business-friendly town.
bugjuice
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.
Because of the positive things you list, Ann Arbor, the entire city has the assets and thus the leverage to get better development than cities with less to offer .
bugjuice
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
If you think it takes a long time for developments to get approved here, you really need to get out more.
kate717
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.
I'd just like to point out that the architect's rendering is completely misleading and the view shown does not illustrate the impact on the homes. The backyards will be compromised and will back right up to the building. It is surprising that the fire department is not concerned as well.
Christopher LeClair
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 4:42 p.m.
The proposed Heritage Row sounds like a wonderful thing for our city. The combination of the renovating the historic homes in addition to a smaller scaled construction project is perfect. Yes, he did indeed try to strong arm city council and essentially force them to vote yes for his proposal, but city council cannot be bitter and turn him down for that reason alone. As a business man he is going to get done what he wants, so let's choose the better of the two options!
Bill
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 4:02 p.m.
I bet the fourth time is the charm! Bet somebody also finally received an adequate gift... wink, wink. Furthermore, I think De Parry should be scolded for threatening the city with unsightly PUDS if he doesn't get his way.
Tom Whitaker
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 3:14 p.m.
> Really? Is this not EXACTLY what he's doing? Is he not telling everyone that City Place will ruin the neighborhood and he'll build it if he does not get his PUD approved? > Heritage Row being the lesser of two evils is not the basis for a rezoning approval. And there are other options. He could compromise and make Heritage Row less detrimental. He could wait for the new R4C zoning to be approved and develop the properties individually--something he could not do before all this started. He could do nothing and continue to collect rent on the properties, as is. There is no pressing need to do ANYTHING here, but if something is proposed, it should align with the community's vision for our city as expressed in our planning documents and certainly not cause negative impacts to other properties.
rusty shackelford
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.
Tom Whitaker--yes, de Perry does not live in Ann Arbor. But unlike the opposition, he is not making his case on some sort of "it will ruin our neighborhood" argument. Yes, PUDs are meant as variances to standing zoning rules. What you and everyone who oppose the Heritage Row are ignoring is that de Perry ALREADY possesses the rights for development in a style everyone--including him!-- agrees is not ideal. This is hardly "blackmail." . There has been noting suggested that his by-right development was improperly obtained. Though he has little financial incentive to do so--especially now--he has repeatedly tried to develop a project that would be more in tact with the neighborhood than what he could do unilaterally. That is the purpose of the PUD request. Look, everyone on council agrees that Heritage Row is a better plan than City Place. So why do they keep obstructing it?
bugjuice
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
I think that "ruining our neighborhood" is a valid argument. Some on council keep "obstructing" it because they are considerate of the neighbors and the neighborhood, unlike Mr De Parry who has allowed his buildings to fall into disrepair as a way to induce some folks think it's a good thing to tear them down instead of fixing them up.
Tom Whitaker
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
Good point, John Q. How many times now have de Parry and his wife said that they were done trying to get a PUD and were going to start on City Place? "You'll all be sorry when you drive by and see those houses coming down....blah blah blah." Each time, days later, they are back scratching at the kitchen door. Give me a break.
John Q
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.
"Many developers would long ago have given up on the Heritage Row project and simply torn down the buildings and put up the (worse) plan he's already got the rights to." I doubt it. If he hasn't proceeded with his original plan it's because he thinks he can make more money with his proposal or the original plan isn't workable.
Tom Whitaker
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
All Council members were fully apprised of all of the minor revisions to Heritage Row prior to the last reconsideration vote (it was right there in their packets) so it is disingenuous for Derezinski and Smith to claim that they are bringing the exact same project for the fourth time, with no real compromises, simply so de Parry can "make his case." This new review will be a colossal waste of time and staff resources (at no charge!) at a time when Council is considering eliminating garbage collection! Ironically, to bring it forward for a re-reconsideration last time, the City's interpretation was it was the SAME project, with only minor changes. Now, failing that approach, the City's interpretation has changed. Now it is a NEW project. Certainly appears to be a very arbitrary application of the law. I wonder why Derezinski is trying so hard undermining his own R4C study effort? Draft recommendations coming from that committee will make it much easier for de Parry to develop the 5 houses he owns along Fifth Ave. (he still does not own 2 of the houses proposed to be part of the project, by the way). But these changes will allow units to be added to each house individually. This will save enormous costs, allow occupancy during construction, and most importantly, preserve the neighborhood aesthetic that is called for in every planning document (including the DDA's 2003 Downtown Development plan) produced by the City in the last 20 years.
Tom Whitaker
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
@rusty: de Parry lives out of town, too, and I think most people driving by his properties would form the opinion very quickly that his properties are "ill-kept." Now that we've heard anonymously from the development team and their friends, how about another perspective? First, let's all keep in mind that de Parry has been seeking a PUD (planned unit development) designation, which requires the City to set aside long-standing zoning for this area including parameters such as setbacks, height, and density (or in the case of Heritage Row, all of the above). PUDs are supposed to be used to help develop parcels that have particular challenges that create roadblocks to reaching their otherwise allowable density—challenges like wetlands. This site is a very typical (other than great historic significance) of the R4C district and has no special challenges. Mr. de Parry is simply trying to make a downtown-scale profit in an area that is zoned for smaller-scale residential use. PUDs, by law, are not supposed to cause detrimental effects on surrounding properties, but it is the NORTH building of Heritage Row that will tower over the houses on William, keeping them in near-perpetual shade, with a 38 foot new building located only 5 feet from the lot line. PUDs are supposed to be approved on the basis of meeting a very pressing community need—yet we have a glut in housing already in this area, with Zaragon 2 under construction and City Apartments starting this summer. PUDs are NOT supposed to be an answer to blackmail. Council has many tools to stop City Place if they have the will. Unfortunately, certain Council members value development, ANY development, over community values and the will of the citizens, so they are more than willing to play along with this extortion scheme. The R4C study (sponsored by Derezinski) is wrapping up with recommendations that will make it easier for owners to add units to existing houses. Why is he pushing the same PUD?
P Beal
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 11:10 p.m.
I cannot imagine how De Parry could come out ahead by waiting for the R4C study to be completed and implemented. That approach simply looks like more lost time (time = money here) for fewer units whose design will inevitably be compromised by being sprung off of existing structures, structures never intended to be profitably/extensively expanded. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "ill-kept"ness of his houses may be from neglect born of their uncertain future...
a2grateful
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
"De Parry said he is in the process of getting plans and permitting for City Place, which essentially is two apartment buildings, and is moving forward on construction drawings." Heritage Row may not be your favorite development for the deParry site. It is certainly a compromise development in the context of City Place. And a compromise is needed here. Otherwise, it will be City Place. The City's "NO," to Heritage Row is hurtful, short-sighted politcing. If you want City Place, then keep fighting against Heritage Row. As far as blackmail allegations go, deParry already has what he wants. The properties and legal rights belong to him. The City has blessed the full extent of his development opportunity. So, the blackmail allegation in this circumstance doesn't quite fit.
Stan Hyne
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
Management is selecting the best of all the available options, De parry has already compromised and modified his plans to attempt to solve the concerns of all parties involved. It is time to unanimously approve his plan and have the project get started. This developer has already made more revisions, modifications, and changes than could be expected of any reasonable person. Had I been in his place, after the last rejection by the City Council, I would have had dozers on site the next morning demolish all the old houses, and left never to be seen again.
rusty shackelford
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
It's worth remembering that the vast majority of people protesting the "Germantown" (a made up name) development do not live in that area. Many do not even live in the city of Ann Arbor. Most who protest are property owners of ill-kept single family homes that they have sometimes chopped into 4 or 5 very expensive, very shoddy rental units. They do not want quality competition. It is that simple. It is unclear why council pays so much attention to a group that by and large does not live in the neighborhood, and in many cases, even the city.
Forever27
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 8:01 p.m.
bugjuice, the Old West Side and Old Fourth Ward are actual historical districts. "Germantown" is no such thing.
bugjuice
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
Just like the Old West Side and Old Fourth Ward is a "made up name" So what's yer point? Property owners, rental or otherwise might not live in the city, but they are property owners none the less. They have as much a stake as anyone, and have the right along with the rest of the city particulalry adjoining neighborhoods to have their opinions and legal rights to be considered in any decisions council may make. De Parry is a slumlord and has no desire to develop the property himself. If he gets the approval to develop something. he'll probably sell the rights to a commercial developer
a2grateful
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
The project applicant revised the project, using an architect's expertise, on multiple occasions. Council voted not to hear the merits of the latest revised project. While technically correct, and within the "letter" of the law, the spirit of the law was disregarded. All the while, council has approved a project that no one desires. The project in its current status illustrates the total inflexibility of council and other leadership, producing a fruit that is lose-lose for almost* all parties involved. *The party that benefits from the stalemate is the "Germantown" rental property owner's (aka neighborhood) association. This is quite an interesting dance for the casual observer to witness . . . and quite a headache for the property owner. Multi-year drama continues. It will be interesting to see what happens next, being outside the timeframe of recent elections.
rusty shackelford
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.
De Perry is to be applauded for his valiant attempts at a development plan that preserves the area's history. It is as baffling as it is enraging that certain member's of council have continuously tried to hold up the plan--which they themselves concede is better than the by-right plan--seemingly out of nothing more than spite. (How big a difference, really, is 79 units versus 76? There's no reason the council needs to be involved with that level of detail, especially since most of them clearly know nothing about urban planning or architecture.) The council has done everything in its power to make responsible investment in downtown Ann Arbor difficult. Many developers would long ago have given up on the Heritage Row project and simply torn down the buildings and put up the (worse) plan he's already got the rights to. These largely unnecessary delays have undoubtedly cost De Perry a lot of money, and I wouldn't be surprised if he never wanted to invest in Ann Arbor real estate again after this debacle. I hope I am wrong, because he is exactly the kind of developer the city should be encouraging. Why certain members of council seem to be doing everything they can to discourage historically-sensitive development is beyond me.
Mermaidswim
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Stanton, This article includes an image of a design created by an architect, which is protected by copyright. Please cite the design professional who created this image. Thank you.
A2_Jim
Thu, Feb 3, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
Hopefully certain council people will take this opportunity to pull their heads out of their nether regions and approval a project that should have been approved long ago. How dense do you have to be to see that the Heritage Row proposal is far and away better than the City Place project they already approved.