Heritage Row project will pay reduced plan review fees to come back to Ann Arbor City Council
Ann Arbor developer Alex de Parry will pay only $2,000 in fees to bring his 76-unit Heritage Row Apartments project back through the city's plan review process.
Under a rare compromise reached Monday night, City Council members voted 9-2 to give the embattled developer a break on the costs of reviving his previously defeated project.
That's based on the fact that de Parry is now in his fourth year of trying to convince the city to approve a redevelopment of residential property at 407-437 South Fifth Ave., and he has paid more than $42,000 in plan review fees, said Council Member Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward.
"This is a very unique saga for a project," Derezinski said.
An artist rendering of the Heritage Row Apartments project from last year. The architect on the project is J Bradley Moore & Associates Architects Inc.
Courtesy Image
Derezinski joined Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, in sponsoring a resolution Monday night asking the city to waive all fees for the project. They argued the city's planning department has reviewed the Planned Unit Development proposal before, and one more look wouldn't take much.
Still, it's estimated it would cost de Parry as much as $10,000 if the normal fees were charged. The city's PUD fee is $6,705 plus $71 per 1,000 square feet of new gross floor area.
Several council members raised concerns about setting a precedent of waiving fees. Council Member Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, said it's not a standard practice. She pushed the council to go with the reduced fee of $2,000 instead of completely waiving all fees.
That wasn't enough for Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, and Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward. Kunselman said the city's budget is tight and planning staff has to be paid.
But if de Parry is going to get a break, Kunselman said, to be fair, he hopes the city will be willing to waive planning fees for the proposed redevelopment of Georgetown Mall on Packard Street near Stone School Road.
Kunselman also argued he saw nothing substantially different about the 147-bedroom project from before and pointed out de Parry is nearly $20,000 behind on paying his taxes. In addition, he said de Parry hasn't fixed all of his sidewalks like he said he would.
"It leads me to believe there's obviously something going on financially with the developer," Kunselman said.
De Parry didn't dispute that he's behind on his taxes and said Kunselman and other council members made some valid points.
Mayor John Hieftje said he normally wouldn't support waiving fees, but if ever there was a special exception to be made, Heritage Row is it.
"In my long time on council, I've never seen anything like this," Hieftje said, referencing the long process de Parry has been through.
Hieftje expressed concerns that an alternative project called City Place could be built if the City Council doesn't have a change of heart about Heritage Row.
City Place calls for demolishing seven century-old homes along South Fifth Avenue, just south of William Street, to make way for two boxy apartment buildings. Heritage Row would preserve the homes and add three new apartment buildings behind them.
City Place is already approved.
De Parry now has 90 days to officially resubmit Heritage Row to the city's planning department. He said it'll be the same revised version of the project he unveiled last fall, which scaled back the size and density and promised LEED certification.
Heritage Row fell one vote short of getting the eight votes it needed to win approval from council last summer, but council never voted on the revised version.
The eight-vote "super majority" requirement was triggered when adjacent property owners filed petitions against the project. City officials said if property owners wish to try to halt the revised PUD, they need to submit new petitions to city hall.
And that could happen. There's still strong opposition to de Parry's project in the Germantown neighborhood where the development is proposed.
Two residents who have been leaders in the Germantown Neighborhood Association, Tom Whitaker and Beverly Strassmann, sent letters to the City Council making known their continued concerns about the revised version of Heritage Row.
"I believe that approval of Heritage Row, should it move forward, will be a fiasco," Strassmann wrote in her e-mail dated Sunday. "Please do not underestimate the depth of antipathy the citizenry feels toward squeezing in very large buildings in backyards where there is not even direct street access. This is a flagrant abuse of the concept of infill."
De Parry has said he believes the project would attract national attention for being an innovative model for combining historic preservation with new infill development.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
ArgoC
Wed, Feb 16, 2011 : 2:50 a.m.
I'm glad to hear this. I still like this project, though I can understand the neighbors' resistance to change.
ToddAustin
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.
I had the opportunity to live in one of these houses for several years while in grad school. Heritage Row is an excellent plan that responds to the city's desire to increase population density while preserving and modernizing these great old houses. The developer has gone a very long way toward addressing concerns expressed by the city and local residents. To think that Ann Arbor can somehow continue to preserve every neighborhood in the state in which it existed a century before is both unrealistic and short-sighted. Growth is a fact of life. This plan does a great job of addressing our expanding housing needs while preserving the heritage of our community. I hope the city council sees its way clear to approving it this time around.
bugjuice
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 5:24 p.m.
Todd, this is the proverbial camels nose under the tent, the slippery slope. Redefining the boundaries of downtown to allow "growth" into adjacent residential neighborhoods goes against every study that the city has conducted and endorsed in the last 20 years. There is quite a bit of downtown development planned and approved and some of it is coming to fruition. Let's keep downtown development downtown instead of allowing it to sprawl into adjacent residential neighborhoods, something that is recognized by everyone as an asset that differentiates Ann Arbor from other cities its size.
Vivienne Armentrout
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
Mr. Shackelford, the whole point of Tom Whitaker's lengthy documentation on this issue is to make the point that this development is *not* being proposed in downtown. He has gone to great lengths to establish the consistent treatment of the area in all public plans as a near-downtown neighborhood, *not* planned as high-density downtown usage. This issue is not just about one neighborhood's stubbornness. It is about a determined effort on the part of some people to redefine downtown as anywhere nearby that they choose. Since much of Ann Arbor is more or less in walking distance (I live on the west side but the east side of downtown (State Street) is still only 2 miles from my house), one could theoretically redefine half the city as "downtown" and build huge developments wherever it appears to benefit those with power and money. As the long list shows, our community has engaged in substantial planning exercises over the last decade that have all stressed the importance of maintaining the neighborhoods at the fringe of downtown. I hope that our City Council will adhere to these plans and to our zoning ordinance.
Vivienne Armentrout
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 10:34 p.m.
As to whether City Place will be built if the PUD is not approved: 1. It would be a very bad precedent if a developer could thus threaten to build an unattractive, unwanted development just to make the city approve a PUD. 2. I understand that there are many small details that could in fact be contested on that development. A "by right" development doesn't mean that anything goes. 3. I also question whether that development would in fact be profitable and I assume that its eventual profit would be taken into account before actually proceeding to demolition of buildings that are currently income-generating.
Tom Hollyer
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.
"I hope that our City Council will adhere to these plans and to our zoning ordinance." With the result that City Place will be built, since it conforms to all zoning. When the plans, studies, community vison, etc., conflict with the zoning ordinances, the zoning ordinances must take precedence. And unless I am mistaken, City Place conforms to all current zoning. That's why it got approved and why it is called a "by right" project. Like it or not, community opposition at some point is irrelevant. And blackmail or not, isn't Heritage Row preferable even though it requires a variance in the form of a PUD?
bugjuice
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 6:20 p.m.
Once again, Vivienne nails it!
rusty shackelford
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 9:14 p.m.
Downtown Ann Arbor: where you can call 2 blocks a "neighborhood" and not be laughed out of the room.
Bill
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
A2: Where the only way to counter urban sprawl is to destroy neighborhoods and take kickbacks from shortsighted developers, instead of building in more suitable locations.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.
"To the editors: What is annarbor.com's policy on accepting extensive comments from people already cited in the story itself? Tom Whitaker's excessive commenting would seem to border on spamming in its own right (and it seems quite suspicious that all of his comments have almost exactly the same number of "approval votes"), and given that he is already represented in the article itself, is this really proper use of the comment section?" I for one think Mr. Whitaker's comments are valuable and right on the money. Why is this commenter afraid of the facts? What's his agenda?
bugjuice
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
Didn't stop you from continuing to post, did it?
rusty shackelford
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.
If he wants to write an editorial, by all means. But posting many lengthy comments in a row has the (probably intentional) effect of shutting down any conversation not related to his tiresome commentary.
rusty shackelford
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 7:52 p.m.
Downtown Ann Arbor: where residents (and landlords) consider legally investing in real estate with the city council's approval "blackmail." Give me a break.
rusty shackelford
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 7:47 p.m.
To the editors: What is annarbor.com's policy on accepting extensive comments from people already cited in the story itself? Tom Whitaker's excessive commenting would seem to border on spamming in its own right (and it seems quite suspicious that all of his comments have almost exactly the same number of "approval votes"), and given that he is already represented in the article itself, is this really proper use of the comment section?
bugjuice
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 9:19 p.m.
I guess that means you're unable or unwilling to accept the findings of Calthorpe, Master Plan, Zoning, the accumulated documentation of many public sessions and committees that say that this kind of development isn't a good thing in this case and side instead with an out of town slumlord who won't fix his sidewalks and is delinquent in his taxes.
rusty shackelford
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 9:09 p.m.
"No? I thought you wouldn't agree." Wow, it's almost like it wasn't worth making that comment in the first place then, isn't it?
bugjuice
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
You mean Tom's use of "essays" which are actual public documents like Calthorpe, Master Plan, Zoning regs, etc, used to support his position that the article didn't include as a way to explain the depth of the situation? Like presenting presenting public documents proving that the issue isn't as simple as pro vs anti development, that there is documented precedent for restricting development in neighborhoods adjacent to downtown where one home on a lot is the norm and has been for about 100 years? No? I thought you wouldn't agree.
rusty shackelford
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 8:05 p.m.
Yup, I comment frequently and respond in a conversational manner. I don't attach essays to an article in which I'm already cited.
bugjuice
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 7:59 p.m.
This from someone who tends to comment on almost every topic?
Bill
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.
@ Tom, thanks for all the info! It is really sad that we, the tax payers, have to choose between two lesser evils. Too bad, who would have thought that growth would need to be this painful? I agree, I'd rather avoid urban sprawl and build up downtown, but location is still key. Giant PUDS in neighborhoods surrounded by one-family homes is not just odd, but also destructive as others have pointed out.
PersonX
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.
So what can one learn from this so far? a. Blackmail appears to pay off. The mayor and many on council know that City Place is not viable and would never be built if there was strong enough opposition, but they find it convenient to succumb to the blackmail. b. The interests of the neighbors who live in the near-downtown--and it is not a "minority" of them but a clear majority, as demonstrated by the signatures on petitions--are considered secondary to those of a developer who does not even live here. c. The neighbors pay their taxes and repair their sidewalks, but council gives breaks to someone who will not pay back taxes and has not repaired his sidewalks--so the lesson is that the neighbors are chumps. d. All the downtown planning--and all the public money, time and effort spent on them--mean nothing because a few developers want to make money. e. Not playing by the rules pays off: creating projects that go against zoning and planning, trying to get Council rules set aside more than once, getting fees waved, etc. Somehow other developers have managed to get good projects approved without all this drama, but then they actually did follow rules. f. Developers have many friends who approve of development at any cost and express that view here, in editorials, editorial policy, or in postings. g. People who live across the street or a block away from the proposed project together with their families are referred to as "slumlords," but we are to have sympathy for someone who has let his rental houses deteriorate, has not paid his taxes, nor repaired the sidewalk. h. There is a drastic need for downtown housing, although three or more large apartment projects are being built or ready to go. i. Being stubborn will get you results and sympathy. These are the lessons for today, but it is all far from over and I am sure our education will continue.
bugjuice
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 7:01 p.m.
@Tom Whitaker Face it. Hieftje and the development-at-any-cost crowd walk around with their fingers in their ears chanting nuh-nuh-nuh... unwilling to listen or make any effort to debate on the facts. None of them want to revisit what a decade of studies and Master Plan documents call for. For all the professional studies, committees reports, public sessions, they have yet to find any evidence that supports their desire to expand downtown/city center boundaries into adjacent residential neighborhoods, the kind for which Ann Arbor is renowned. For all the talk of downtown density, let's keep the density downtown instead of encroaching into the assets that differentiate Ann Arbor from other cities bent on development at any cost. It's like watching a bad magic act where you can actually see what the left hand is doing.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
Central Area Plan 1992 Housing and Neighborhoods, Goals and Actions, Page 24: To protect, preserve and enhance the character, scale and integrity of existing housing in established residential areas, recognizing the distinctive qualities of each neighborhood. HN2: Establish and maintain neighborhood organizations and involve residents is the implementation of the plan. To encourage the development of new architecture, and modifications to existing architecture, that complements the scale and character of the neighborhood. HN11: Work with interested neighborhood groups to develop architectural design guidelines that define and articulate the unique character of individual neighborhoods. HN47: Identify sites where the compilation of small parcels for larger developments is appropriate. Otherwise, the combining of smaller parcels in subdivided residential areas is considered inappropriate. Historic Preservation, Goals and Actions, Page 61: To encourage the preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation of historically and culturally significant properties, as well as contributing or complimentary structures, streetscapes, groups of buildings and neighborhoods. To preserve the historic character of Ann Arbor's Central Area.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.
Downtown Residential Task Force Report 2003 Task Force Analysis, B. The Relationship between Downtown and Adjacent Neighborhoods, Page 10: "The Task Force spent a great deal of time discussing the importance of adjacent neighborhoods to the downtown. The task force felt that adjacent neighborhoods should be preserved and supported. Although these neighborhoods are outside the DDA district, many residents of these neighborhoods consider themselves to be "living downtown." The neighborhoods include registered historic districts, such as the Old Fourth Ward and the Old West Side, and represent a dense, diverse, residential housing mix." This was the granddaddy study that started the whole downtown planning and zoning effort. The report goes on to suggest increased density only in two near-downtown areas: along the river along North Main, and the State and Packard area. Other areas are recommended for possible relaxation of accessory dwelling unit regulations. Allowing additional units in or added to existing houses is one of the current draft recommendations of the R4C study committee. The intent is to discourage demolition of existing houses, combining lots, and building out-of-scale apartment buildings in neighborhoods.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.
"Downtown Development Strategies Report 2006 Downtown Opportunities and Challenges, Page 25: Policy: Strengthen Downtown Ann Arbor as a mixed-use center. Concentrate high density mixed-use residential and commercial development in central Downtown and encourage medium-density residential and mixed-used development between the central Downtown and the surrounding, historic single family neighborhoods." This study, often dubbed the Calthorpe Report, was one of the source documents used to develop the new Downtown Plan and zoning. This is the origin of the D2 designation along William, mentioned in my previous post, that was supposed to buffer the neighborhood from the downtown core.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.
"Washtenaw County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, 2007 5.5 Recommendations by Sub-Area, College Tracts of Ann Arbor, Page 187: Homeowner units: No additional unit recommendations, preserve 10 units. Rental units: No additional unit recommendations, facade improvement program." Well, there goes the affordable housing "benefit."
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.
"City of Ann Arbor Downtown Plan, 2009 Recommended Zoning Plan, Downtown Interface District, Page 52: Intent: The Downtown Interface district should act as an area of transition between the Core and surrounding residential neighborhoods. " This recommendation became reality in the form of the D2 zoning designation established in 2010. D2 was implemented as a buffer along William Street to protect the neighborhood to the south. Heritage Row would leap frog this buffer and install buildings with certain parameters that are not even allowable in D2 or D1.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 5:25 p.m.
City of Ann Arbor, R4C/R2A Study - Draft Recommendations 2011, Overlay Districts, Page 2 Recommendation: Create neighborhood overlay districts. Creation of an overlay district could address the following issues: * Out-of-scale development. * Design not compatible with neighborhood. * Combination of lots....Prohibition of lot combination could be implemented in certain overlay districts. Hmmm...Looks like Mr. Derezinski's R4C study may not be going the way he intended. Perhaps this explains his obsession with getting Heritage Row approved before these zoning recommendations make it to Council.
Tom Whitaker
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 5:08 p.m.
The Mayor is being disingenuous in claiming any fear of City Place. He and others on Council know full well that they could stop City Place with any number of simple and legal processes. But without this false threat to hide behind, the heat would be on them to enforce the zoning ordinances and live up to the expectations laid out in our master plans. It's much easier to pretend your hands are tied--to vote for a "by right" project based on weak interpretations and loopholes, yet do nothing to close them; much easier to speak publicly in favor of an historic district, but do nothing to bring even one additional vote along with you. There is a hidden agenda at play here--and it is downtown expansion. Mayor and several on Council do not see any reason to respect over 20 years of master planning, studies and reports that have repeatedly indicated the citizen's desire to maintain these traditional, near-downtown neighborhoods. They have visions of apartment buildings lining Fifth Avenue from William to Madison. I challenge the Mayor and Council to stop playing games with our lives, come out from behind the curtain and look us all in the eye. Tell us why you think you know better than us what kind of City it is we want to live in. Tell us why you would rather stand beside a Scio Township developer than stand beside your tax-paying constituents--residents who have invested in the community and take an active role in making Ann Arbor a better place. Tell us why, after eight years of master planning and study to increase downtown residency, you instead want to build a hotel/conference center downtown, and apartment buildings in neighborhoods. 2003-2033 DDA Development Plan: "Maintaining and strengthening the traditional residential character of the near-downtown neighborhoods is essential for the economic and social sustainability of downtown Ann Arbor."
Tom Hollyer
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.
Mr. Whitaker, Care to elaborate on the "weak interpretations and loopholes" that went into the approval of City Place? I apparently missed them in all the other discussions of this project. My understanding was that City Place conforms to all current zoning, the properties are owned by the developer, and there are no "simple and legal processes" to stop it. You appear to believe otherwise. Please enlighten me. For the record, I don't like the City Place project either, but my, or your, disliking it is irrelevant if it meets the current codes. I find it hard to imagine that the proposed Heritage Row would be worse for the neighborhood than City Place and my guess is that most of those opposed to it simply don't want anything built there. And I doubt anything but the status quo or an Historic District would satisfy them. Since neither of those are going to occur, why not take the better of the two alternatives?
LBH
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
City council, minus Mr. Kunselman, have made a good decision here. Why on earth is he trying to link waiving fees for Mr. de Parry with waiving fees for the Georgetown project? That makes no sense whatsoever unless he has a personal axe to grind with Mr. de Parry, which is looking more and more like the case. Adults should be able to look at situations and make exceptions in cases where exceptions are warranted, not take the gum for one, gum for all or none approach that we used to have imposed on us in grade school. Heritage row has great potential. The people opposing it may be the ones who fear that their rental property will become FAR less desirable when this project is completed. How about this, why not spiff up your own property to make it better rather than try to block other people's plans and maintain the shabby status quo?
rusty shackelford
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 7:57 p.m.
happy: and in what part of his proposal is De Perry calling to tear down the beautiful houses to which you refer? If people wanted isolation and insulation from (pretty minor) change, they probably should not have bought houses downtown.
happy
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 7:04 p.m.
LBH: Please put on your walking boots and take an up-close tour of this neighborhood. The only shabby rentals belong to Mr. dePerry himself. Other rental properties, which are adjacent/across the street from dePerry's homes are beautifully maintained. dePerry's rental homes are very poorly maintained (peeling paint, dilapidated woodwork, failing roofs, crumbling sidewalks); I can just imagine how he would carry over his poor mismanagement to his new project. Also....there are some stunning single-family homes in that neighborhood, as well. Where do you think they stand?
Oksana Posa
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
I applaud Toni Derezinski and Sandi Smith for not dropping a ball in their courageous stand on Heritage Row against vocal minority of the neighbors, and stubborn minority in the City Council. Ann Arbor as whole will win from approval of this project, the alternative being a shameful, inferior solution. I was stunned to hear how much the developer has paid to the City Planning Dept already. Adding the expense on mortgages, lawyers, architects, no wonder he's financially stretched. I don't wish on anybody to be behind in taxes, this is a cry for help. I truely hope people in the decision position would hear it.
a2grateful
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.
"Under a rare compromise . . ." Council did the right thing. By compromising they regain their project-shaping voice. Without compromise, council voice is lost in the project of City Place, a project they approved, and one that no one desires. Heritage Row, in its fourth-year iteration, should be much better than City Place.
Bill
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 1:05 p.m.
Alex de Parry has promised a big, white elephant if he doesn't get his way with HERITAGE ROW. Hence, A2 council is willing to make exceptions for him and get him back to the table. It is amusing, in my mind, that our beloved city council has folded so easily. I got to hand to him, the turn-of-the-century Victorians along Fifth ave. currently in his possession are beautiful examples of the period. it would be a real shame to knock 'em all down.
Christopher LeClair
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 12:50 p.m.
As unpleasant as this whole debacle has been, I am really excited to see the project still moving forward. Good work on giving him a break on the fees too. He has spent plenty already, and this little break is a small, but nice concession. Hopefully, city council will now approve the project so we can see some more development! (I'm a bit of a development junkie) I understand it will be quite odd to "squeeze" a building in where he plans to, but dense urban development is a much better alternative than urban sprawl!
SMAIVE
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
Kunselman said, to be fair, he hopes the city will be willing to waive planning fees for the proposed redevelopment of Georgetown Mall on Packard Street near Stone School Road. The two projects are unrealted. Besides, DeParry hasn't let his properties become an abandon dumps.
AlphaAlpha
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 11:27 a.m.
Toward the end of this great recession, it is likely that any reasonable development will be cherished.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 11:27 a.m.
"Kunselman also argued he saw nothing substantially different about the 147-bedroom project from before and pointed out de Parry is nearly $20,000 behind on paying his taxes." Was this ever reported in any previous AnnArbor.com stories? If no, why not?
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
It has been reported before, Alan. From one of my last stories: "His company, Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, hasn't paid taxes on one of the seven houses since October 2008 and now owes $21,708 in delinquent taxes with interest, according to records on file with the Washtenaw County Treasurer's Office. "De Parry also is behind on paying his attorney, Scott Munzel, who filed a claim of lien against the property on June 17 for $60,564 in unpaid legal bills. According to records on file with the Washtenaw County Register of Deeds Office, Munzel said he completed $144,852 worth of legal work on the project since Oct. 1, 2006, but had been paid only $84,288. "De Parry referred explanation of the situation to Munzel, who said it was a "private matter" between the two and declined further comment." <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/city-place-developer-asking-ann-arbor-city-council-one-last-time-to-reconsider-heritage-row/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/city-place-developer-asking-ann-arbor-city-council-one-last-time-to-reconsider-heritage-row/</a>