Ann Arbor City Council should not be stampeded on 14-story high-rise decision
The proposed development at 413 E. Huron, if it goes forward, will be a blight on the city that will last for 80 to 100 years. The outpouring of testimony from neighbors, citizen advisory groups, historic preservation groups, and urban planners has catalogued the debasement of our fair city’s character that would be caused by this oversized monstrosity. Despite the flood of negative testimony and a decided lack of enthusiasm for the project from anyone but the out of town developers, the city council may be on the brink of approving the project. Why? Fear of lawsuit.
Our current downtown zoning regulations contain a mistake - they fail to adequate provide for the interface of huge developments with our neighborhoods, especially our historic neighborhoods like the Historic Fourth Ward. Mistakes happen; the city leadership, as good as they are, are not perfect or clairvoyant. But why compound the mistake?
A recent rendering of the proposed 413 E. Huron development.
First, once denied the developers may realize that the student residential market is indeed saturated and new downtown residential construction should target young professionals and baby boomers who want to live downtown. The developers may well start over with a more modest proposal for a different market, on the same site.
Second, if they file a lawsuit, they will lose. Many lawyers have told City Council that the developers have no vested legal interest in the project until there is “shovel in the ground”. The city is on solid legal ground to reject the project. The developers must do more than comply with zoning laws. They must also follow the other city guidelines and rules that are meant to safeguard the integrity and character of our fine city.
Third, losing a lawsuit would not be the worst outcome. The worst outcome would be 100 years of a building 165% the size of the new Varsity going up on the same Huron Street block. If the council approves the building, the chances are 100% that that bad outcome will be realized.
But if the council stands up for the city, the negative consequences to the city are speculative and may be zero. Even if there were a lawsuit and even if a court awarded damages (both of which are far from certain), the damages, if any, would be an acceptable cost for correcting the zoning mistake and safeguarding the character of our beloved community. Spread the dollar cost of any damage award over a hundred years of the blight of the new building, and it is a fair trade-off, a fair price to pay to correct a city planning mistake. Even if damages were as large as $100,000, risking $1000 per year as compared with the certainty of the defilement of this ugliness, is the reasonable choice. I urge City Council to have the courage to protect our city and vote NO
Don Duquette is an attorney and a nearly 40 year resident of Ann Arbor. He and his wife Kathy recently moved to a condo downtown -- and love it.
Comments
lefty48197
Fri, May 3, 2013 : 12:40 a.m.
Ann Arbor is growing up. Buildings are getting taller. That's a fact of life and if you try to stop it, you're trying to stifle the natural forces of economics. The most important thing is for people to recognize that forces are trying to replace one or two story downtown buildings with taller buildings. If people recognize and accept this fact, then you can come up with reasonable plans to moderate or regulate the forces. I think it would be a good idea to redraw the downtown master development plan and codify how tall buildings can be in certain areas. For instance, you could say that a certain 2 by 4 block area could have buildings up to "ten" or "twenty" stories high. Adjacent properties could be limited to 5 or 10 story buildings. Properties adjacent to those could be limited to 3 or 4 story developments. Codifying the height limitations would give developers a better idea as to where their projects might be accepted and where they are likely to not be accepted. Personally, I'm all for putting students into high rise buildings and getting them out of the single family homes that abut Campus. That would free up more single family homes in Ann Arbor's always tight housing market.
JRW
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 7:30 p.m.
I hope a copy of this well-written article is sent to the mayor and every member of city council. Thank you for this excellent contribution to aa dot com.
Bill Wilson
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 3:29 p.m.
It never ceases to amaze, and disgust me, that after all of the lesson's learned, some still practice an apartheid, in this instance, against students.
Townspeak
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 3:24 p.m.
I don't think it is ugly at all. What is ugly is the vacant lot and dilapidated building that has been there for years. Zoning is proper, big buildings are all around, it is the main artery in town. Let them build it and move on to a real issue this city should concern itself with. We want to be a real city or a tiny provincial town? I say build, build, build. City council needs to step up and stop any further discussion on this issue. It is boring and a waste of time, resources, and municipal focus.
Veracity
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 4:50 p.m.
You will be happier in Chicago or New York rather than this small rural city and college town. Many residents choose to live in Ann Arbor because of its quaint and charming character which are being endangered by unrestricted growth of highrise buildings.
Chris Blackstone
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 3:08 p.m.
There seem to be many assumptions in this article that don't seem to be backed up by facts. "First, once denied the developers may realize that the student residential market is indeed saturated" Would a developer actually choose to build in a saturated market if he/she didn't think he/she could make money? I don't think so. Obviously, the developer thinks there is money to be made through this development. That may be incorrect, but any denial from the City Council won't change the data that the developer is relying on to guide this project. "and new downtown residential construction should target young professionals and baby boomers who want to live downtown." Is there any evidence that young professionals and baby boomers actually want to live downtown? "The city is on solid legal ground to reject the project. The developers must do more than comply with zoning laws. They must also follow the other city guidelines and rules that are meant to safeguard the integrity and character of our fine city" Why would a developer NOT follow city guidelines and rules knowing that failure to do so would endanger the project? Now if you're talking about the "spirit" of the law/guideline/rule, why should someone follow that, as the "spirit" of a law isn't binding. If we somehow have to divine the spirit of a law each time we try to follow it, there are going to be many varying and contradictory interpretations. "Third, losing a lawsuit would not be the worst outcome". Depends on your definition of worst. If by worst you mean thousands of dollars in legal fees and lost tax revenue, then yes, losing the lawsuit would be the worst outcome.
nowayjose
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 2:45 p.m.
Mr. Duquette,I'm sure someone said that about your house when it was going up.
cindy1
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 2:05 p.m.
Excellent column. Many, many thanks, Mr. Duquette.
TB
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 1:57 p.m.
"The worst outcome would be 100 years of a building 165% the size of the new Varsity going up on the same Huron Street block. If the council approves the building, the chances are 100% that that bad outcome will be realized." That's a bit dramatic. How many people can honestly say they've been negatively affected by the Varsity building? It's just a building. If that's the worst outcome, that's really not so bad. Sure it's bad for the people who own condos in Sloan Plaza, but how long can you seriously expect to prevent all your neighbors from building anything ten stories high that would block your precious view of the sunset. The city losing a lawsuit may not be the worst outcome for you PERSONALLY, as whatever increased taxes to pay the damages would probably be less to you than the hit on your property value, but speaking for the 99% of Ann Arbor that doesn't own a condo there I would much rather have an "ugly" building built than having to pay damages to subsidize the property values of some of the most expensive condos in town.
TB
Fri, May 3, 2013 : 3:49 p.m.
John, It's not like they're kicking anyone out, just giving them some extra shade. With North Quad and Varsity just a few blocks away, it doesn't dramatically change the demographic of the neighborhood. I'm pretty indifferent about the building, but it's not worth spending city resources on fighting a lawsuit to stop it from being built. Calling the building ugly or just like 1000 other places is pretty ad-hominem. Demanding that all buildings to be built in Ann Arbor must be "unique and pretty" is unrealistic, and objectively enforcing that requirement even more so. I think the proposed building looks fine aesthetically. It's an apartment complex, not an art museum. If the opposition to this building were actually about it being ugly or preserving neighborhoods, hardly anybody would care enough to fight so hard against it. This fight is 100% about preserving the property values of the people who live nearby. Not exactly the greatest cause to warrant support from the rest of the city, so they frame it as "that big ugly building from that big evil out-of-town corporation will ruin all of downtown Ann Arbor. Are you with us, or with the corporations?" Very few in Ann Arbor have as much to personally gain from the building's construction than it's neighbors have to lose from it, so the opposition is much louder than the support, and much louder than the apathy coming from from the rest of us.
John Floyd
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 10:49 p.m.
TB, I don't own a condo at Sloan Plaza, and The Varsity affects me negatively. Degrading the existing downtown neighborhoods, who have a varied population in them, in favor of mono-culture buildings that look like 1,000 other places is not a long-term plus for the city.
Brad
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 2:27 p.m.
Thanks for the perspective. Not exactly an "Oh, the humanity!" moment.
Julius
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
You know what? If I can live in a convenient location to my job without going broke trying to pay the taxes or the rent/mortgage/association fees, feel safe, and still have a vehicle to use when I choose to use it, then great. Until then, I'm driving right around this town back and forth to work. Don't worry, I'm usually at work well before all the traffic that this area has refused to deal with properly for 30 years is out.
Rod Johnson
Tue, May 7, 2013 : 12:15 a.m.
Good rant though! Now I want to read the right article. Which one was it?
Julius
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.
Oops. wrong article.::embarrassed smiley::
ManA2
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 12:28 p.m.
The city's development plan is density at the core, green belt outside and mass transit to support all of it. If we don't allow the density, we encourage sprawl and reduce the tax base. Yes, that density drives change to the character of Ann Arbor. It also funds schools, fire and police departments, road repairs and provides jobs. If you don't want density at the center, then we need to start over completely.
ManA2
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 8:12 p.m.
I disagree. Quick search led me to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_City "Sprawl is independent of density/lack of density." is an astonishing statement.
Jack Eaton
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 8:03 p.m.
ManA2, Students are not going to "sprawl into the City" if we deny this project. In fact, the combination of the University's increased student housing and its plans to reduce enrollment mean that the off campus student population is unlikely to grow, much less sprawl. More important, city core density will not prevent the surrounding communities from also growing. Sprawl is independent of density/lack of density. Scio Township, Dexter, Chelsea, Saline and countless other nearby communities will continue to grow, without regard to how many highrise apartment buildings we allow in downtown Ann Arbor. The DDA serves a variety of purposes, including the task of keeping many consultants employed. But, it also captures most of the new tax revenue within the downtown. The little revenue that might be added to the City's general fund from any of these highrise projects is far less than the new demands on infrastructure, police, fire and other public services. Adding to the DDA's revenues is not the same as adding to the tax base of the City, County, Library, AATA and Community College.
ManA2
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 6:48 p.m.
Actually Jack, your comment is wrong in so many ways. First, if the density of students is increased by developments like this, they won't sprawl out into the city. If they sprawl into the city, they displace other residents who have to sprawl further out. It is a zero sum game. Doesn't matter whether they are students or not for purposes of density. Density reduces sprawl, period. Second, fundamentally the same answer as the first. You don't like where they add to the tax base, but they add to the tax base. You may not like the DDA, but this building will also increase the general fund. So, you are incorrect.
Jack Eaton
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 3:41 p.m.
Your comment: "If we don't allow the density, we encourage sprawl and reduce the tax base" is wrong in so many ways. Not all density is the same. When the A2D2 zoning changes were implemented, they were meant to help provide downtown housing opportunities for young professionals and empty nesters. This project is not targeted to either group. This project - a student highrise apartment building - will have no impact on sprawl. Students are not going to live in suburbia if this project is not built. On the other hand, empty nesters and young professionals might choose to live outside the City (or at least outside the downtown core) if the downtown area becomes a collection of student housing projects. This project will add little to the tax base. The site is located within the DDA's area where increased tax revenues are captured and transferred to the DDA's coffers, not to the revenues of the City, County, Library, Community College or AATA. All of the recent highrise projects in the downtown area are adding much more to the DDA's revenues than they are adding to the other taxing entities revenues. The DDA's revenues have regularly and significantly increased while other governmental bodies have been under significant fiscal restraint.
Arboriginal
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 12:11 p.m.
One of the benefits about the current zoning is the ability of many houses bordering downtown to house businesses. If the zoning is changed, will the loss of these wonderful shops be an unintended consequence of meddling? I hope not!
PersonX
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 11:59 a.m.
Thank you for a well presented set of arguments. One can only hope that council members will listen to the many, many voices that have spoken out against the wisdom of this very bad development. At some point council has to acknowledge past mistakes in zoning regulations and act swiftly to turn this thing down and change the zoning to avoid future crises. As the author states, the risks of losing a law suit are not very high, and the bottom line is that it is a risk worth taking. Please turn thus down and encourage more responsible development on the site.
DonBee
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 11:51 a.m.
Mr Duquette - Are you willing to dig into your personal pocket and pay the costs of the lawsuit and the settlement, and then watch the building be built? The damages could be millions, enough to have to raise taxes to pay the settlement AND the building could be built anyway. All you have to do is look at the lawsuits settled on this topic to see that your chances of winning are minimal at best. The thing to do, is to sit down with the developer and try to work out in a reasonable fashion, any changes that you can. Parking is one area the developer is not in compliance with zoning, that is a way to get changes. The other thing to do is to change the zoning, this horse, like city place is out of the gate, learn from it, make changes and stay involved in the future. Far too few citizens got deeply involved in the prior round of zoning.
John Floyd
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 10:44 p.m.
DonBee, There was also quite an outpouring of citizen opinion about the original zoning, both for this local and for the A2D2 rezoning in general. Council simply ignored it, and so now we have this problem.
Jack Eaton
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 2:47 p.m.
DonBee, Your statement: "All you have to do is look at the lawsuits settled on this topic to see that your chances of winning are minimal at best." raises a number of questions. First, how can one predict the outcome of litigation based on prior settlements? A settlement is the result of an agreement not to litigate. It deprives the court of the opportunity to rule on the questions of law and instead represents the willingness of both parties to compromise. Your reference to "lawsuits ... on this topic" is, at best, too vague to decipher. To which "topic" are you referring? Do you believe that the site plan has fully complied with all laws, ordinances, regulations and standards applicable to such projects? Is the topic you refer to the impact this project would have on the adjacent historic district? In reality, courts are quite deferential to local governments' application of their zoning and land use regulations. Your prediction that the City's "chances of winning are minimal" seems to imply that you already know the basis upon which the site plan will be rejected by Council. There are at least a couple of different grounds for rejecting this site plan that I am aware of. The likelihood of success in court, if the developer sued, relates to the reason the Council uses for rejecting the plan. At this time, I don't think anyone can predict what grounds might be asserted in support of denying this site plan. In conclusion, your comment relies much more on your self confidence of being right than it does on providing any measure of reasoning. Cite a case decided by a court that supports your belief that the developer will win the litigation you predict.
Tom Joad
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 11:20 a.m.
One need only look at the eastern facade of The Varsity to see a gargantuan building that is wildly out of scope and prospective for that neighborhood. Now developers want to erect another hulking edifice across the street. These over-sized luxury dorms with $1000/month bedrooms do indeed detract from the character of a once-quaint college town feel Ann Arbor formerly enjoyed.
Steve Bean
Mon, May 6, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
@smokeblwr: Unga gunga lunga.
smokeblwr
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 3:55 p.m.
Well, if they put a big building across the street from another big building then its no longer out of scope. So they got that going for them, which is nice.
Arboriginal
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 11:12 a.m.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the last time the nimby's and council tried to flex their muscle we ended up with City Place? Let them build it, the way they want to build it. Do you want to change the zoning? Get thee with it!
A2anon
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 11 a.m.
Yes, yes and yes!!! Well written, well said. City council, pleeeease listen!
Chip Reed
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 10:35 a.m.
The combination of this article and the piece about the hospital cover-up scandal in today's edition certainly showcase the legal profession...
Jay Thomas
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 11:37 p.m.
Hired guns, nothing more.
ordmad
Thu, May 2, 2013 : 3:03 p.m.
Said no one ever who understands that the practice of law is as much of an art as it is a science and, just like in every profession, now and again people make mistakes. But, heck, skip the 3 years of intensive training and sit back in your LazyBoy and castigate that which you do not understand: it's a lot easier.