Negotiations to stop City Place apartments under way, Ann Arbor council member says
A plan to stop the controversial City Place apartments project and bring back the more-preferred Heritage Row development proposal is in the works, and it could involve granting the developer rights to a portion of spaces in the city's new underground parking deck.
Ann Arbor City Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward, said he's been in negotiations with developer Jeff Helminski and his partners about such a compromise.
A look at the Heritage Row proposal by Alex de Perry.
"My hope is that it's something that preserves the look and feel of the streetscape there," Hohnke told AnnArbor.com.
Hohnke said he's hoping to bring forward an item at Monday's council meeting that gives the city and the developer — as well as residents in the Germantown neighborhood — a few extra weeks to continue talking before shovels hit the dirt on City Place.
Ann Arbor City Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward, is in talks with the developer of City Place.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Heritage Row, an alternate development proposal for the same location, failed to secure the eight votes it needed from the City Council last year. It promised to preserve the seven houses while building new apartments behind them, and it included underground parking as an added amenity.
Four council members — Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Stephen Kunselman and Hohnke — blocked Heritage Row's approval last year, arguing the planned unit development didn't offer enough public benefit to justify a deviation from the city's zoning code.
A few of them indicated they would be open to considering a revised version of Heritage Row, and it would take only one of them changing their vote for it to pass.
But developer Alex de Parry, who was leading the charge on Heritage Row, never took the city up on its offer to bring the revised proposal back through the city's plan review process this year. Some suspect the negotiated revisions, which included reducing the height of the southernmost apartment building, made the project less economically viable.
De Parry has since handed the project over to Helminski, who is pushing forward with City Place. Helminski could not be reached for comment for this story.
One of the more expensive components of the Heritage Row proposal was a 60-space underground parking garage. Hohnke said he's been in talks with Helminski's team about striking a deal that would eliminate the need to construct such a facility.
The city is building a 700-space underground parking garage about a block north from the City Place/Heritage Row site on Fifth Avenue. Hohnke said the developer could pay the fair market rate for spaces in the new structure and reduce construction costs of Heritage Row.
"That's probably the biggest piece that helps get us to a new solution," Hohnke said. "That obviously takes a lot of cost away from the developer. Obviously, they would pay for whatever parking they get in the Library Lot, and we would work out with the DDA providing those spaces for monthly fees. They've indicated to me they'd be willing to entertain that solution."
Hohnke noted that solution also reduces the amount of curb cuts included in the project and could reduce automobile traffic in the neighborhood.
Susan Pollay, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority, could not be reached for comment for this story.
Hohnke said the agenda item he's hoping to bring forward on Monday removes a requirement in the City Place development agreement that utility construction in the right-of-way must be completed before any actual building construction takes place.
Hohnke said the developers have indicated that, in order to keep schedule, they'd have to start the project almost immediately unless that requirement is removed. Hohnke said that could buy a few extra weeks to negotiate a deal on Heritage Row.
"I've managed to open up the conversation with them," Hohnke said. "The problem is there's a lot of complexity in hammering out a potential solution. The likelihood of a successful outcome is still not great, but we think it's worth trying, so we needed some more time."
Hohnke said he's never looked at Heritage Row as an alternative to City Place. He said the city's planned unit development ordinance, which Heritage Row must meet in order to be granted a deviation from existing zoning, calls for consideration of Heritage Rows on its own merits — all opinions about City Place aside.
"It's always been a goal to come to a constructive solution that provides a benefit to the public," Hohnke said. "It's unlikely it's going to be a straight-up reconsideration of whatever's on the table, because if that was something they were willing to do, that was something they could have moved forward with. We're looking for options to kind of tweak what's on the table."
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 e-mail newsletters.
Comments
snapshot
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.
I forgot to say, who wants to park a block away from their home? Just ridiculous.
snapshot
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 7:50 p.m.
This fiasco created by both city council and uncompromising residents just keeps going on and on and on. I'm hoping the developer just says no to continued interference in his business.
Jack
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
This so-called compromise wouldn't have been necessary if Hohnke and others had not tried to bluff the developers in the first place. It would have been nice if he could have just admitted he was wrong. But no. Instread we speak of a "compromise" (one that involves lost revenue for the City and DDA) that wouldn't have been necessary at all if Hohnke and others hadn't played games in the first place.
Shirley Zempel
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 12:39 p.m.
Thanks to Carsten Hohnke, also Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Steve Kunselman and any others that might have negotiated this. Heritage row is a MUCH better idea. I have been upset that the Mayor and Council were encouraging or even thinking about allowing City Place to be built and then taxing city residents "percent for art". These beautiful buildings properly restored will be much more appealing than the previously proposed construction and properly done, a piece of art.
Arboriginal
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 11:58 a.m.
There is no "Germantown" historic district. I came to Ann Arbor in '65 via the U of M maternity ward and have never heard of Germantown.
Arboriginal
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 5:12 p.m.
It's great that realtors and landlords have a marketing tool. That's how I view the newly coined term. Kind of like "Water Hill". I live in the "Nouvel North"! I grew up on the westside. Not THEE Old Westside. How do you like them apples?
Veracity
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.
Then you should be interested in this article: <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/new-committee-will-determine-historic-worth-of-ann-arbors-germantown-neighborhood/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/new-committee-will-determine-historic-worth-of-ann-arbors-germantown-neighborhood/</a>
A2_Jim
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 11:51 a.m.
So it was the underground parking Hohnke objected too!! Once again Hohnke has shown himself to be an individual (like far too many politicians these days) with no real moral underpinning except to do whatever keeps him in office.
Veracity
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.
You would think that "to do whatever keeps him in office" means being responsive to his constituents.
Ron Granger
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 1:09 a.m.
I pale to think of how little they're going to get those expensive parking spaces for.
DonBee
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 10:48 p.m.
The city council gambled and lost. Now they have to either live with their loss or do something to change the game. Legally they have no leg to stand on. So, they have to buy a change in the project. Parking spaces may be the payment required. If the city council had been more reasonable up front, this would have never gotten here. If people don't like City Place, then some changes to the zoning laws are in order. That is where people who are unhappy should focus their attention.
Tom Whitaker
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
In fact, the resolution was passed by Council in March 2009, shortly before the City Place site plan was submitted to the City. (Over 30 months ago!) Therefore the developer submitted his plans with full knowledge that there were ordinance changes pending--changes that could have stopped (and still could stop) downtown-sized projects from being built in neighborhoods. Unfortunately, as beuwolf notes, Tony Derezinski has let the effort drag on and on--showing little interest in seeing it through. In fact, it took him a full six months to seat a committee after Council passed the resolution.
beuwolf
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
I agree that a change in R4C zoning is in order. R4C zoning (or more accurately, the city's interpretation of R4C zoning) allowed the City Place debacle to occur. The city council is currently revising R4C zoning....but Tony Derezinski, who is the chairperson of that effort, has been asleep at the wheel. He has had that project in his lap for the past 18 - 24 monthsl and nothing has been finalized.
Veracity
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 1 p.m.
Unfortunately, the city is losing along with city council. The economic cards are stacked against City Place because the University of Michigan is cutting back on class size and a glut of high-end lease student residents is being created (consider Zaragon 2, Georgetown Mall, The Varsity). Expect City Place to end up in bankruptcy which is not good for the community.
Sofia Toti
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 1:32 a.m.
My reading of it is that 4 members of the council did the gamble & the other 7 go down w/ them. & it could well be that the voters in the districts those 4 members represent will & did support their stance.
Bob Martel
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 10:10 p.m.
Perhaps I do not understand Ann Arbor City Government, but why is an individual City Council Member negotiating a deal with a developer? Isn't that properly a staff function with the ultimate proposal voted on by City Council?
rusty shackelford
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 12:01 a.m.
You're assuming that anyone on city council has any idea what they're doing.
Urban Sombrero
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.
I don't have a horse in this race but I'm hoping that City Place doesn't come into being. Heritage Row was much more aesthetically pleasing. I'm not sure how I feel about the city giving up parking spaces in the new lot, but honestly, anything is better than City Place!
ChunkyPastaSauce
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 9:39 p.m.
I feel like city place would degrade ann arbors look and feel... a reason why people come to visit or reside in ann arbor. Hope they reconsider.
Veracity
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.
Leasing 60 of the 700 parking spaces in the subterranean library parking lot will be a win-win situation. For Ann Arbor citizens, this arrangement will preserve houses most citizens believe are of historic value. Also, Ann Arbor will receive predictable revenue from the lease. For the developer, the need to build an expensive underground parking facility is eliminated. Note also that Ann Arbor parking facilities are used only 50% of chargeable time. Expect the subterranean library parking structure to experience similar usage. The lease of 60 spaces will help reduce the deficit created by revenue insufficient to cover the servicing costs of the bonds. Let's hope this deal is finalized!
rusty shackelford
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.
It's too bad that a minority on council were too childish to realize that if you spend an extended period negotiating in bad faith, and then lose, you suddenly find yourself with much less room to negotiate. Oh well, lesson learned!
rusty shackelford
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 11:57 p.m.
The council consistently changed the metrics for approval, overrode staff recommendations, dithered & delayed pointlessly, etc, all of which cost people hoping to invest in the city in a more historically responsible way a lot of money.
Long Time No See
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.
Could you explain what constitutes "bad faith" in this instance on the part of the city council members? What intentional deception are you citing? It seems to me it is only the developers that are operating in a duplicitous manner (setting up false dichotomies, etc.).
Bob Carlin
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
The root of the issue is the council's failure to approve a Germantown historic district years ago. If these houses aren't historic, then nothing is.
MB111
Thu, Sep 29, 2011 : 12:34 a.m.
Or maybe the neighbors are to blame by fighting any change and eliminating the best possible alternative as a solution
John of Saline
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 9:59 p.m.
Well, why weren't they designated historic beforehand, then?
leaguebus
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
if you divide $60M by 700, its a little over $85K per space. 60 spaces is a little over $5M. Fair market value worries me. We do not have enough money in the city budgets to give these guys a deal. Their ugly building will go with some of the other uglies in town.
pooh bear
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
sorry but we should be chiding the council members who voted no on the historic district. We wouldn't be at this impasse now if they had voted for it.
DonBee
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.
pooh bear - Because the developer filed before the process for the historic district started - the result would be a lawsuit the city would lose.
John of Saline
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 9:57 p.m.
That would have been ex-post-facto lawmaking. The historic district wasn't being established because the area was considered historic (or it would have been proposed before the developer started) but only and explicitly to block the developer from legal use of his property.
rusty shackelford
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.
Glad to see Hohnke FINALLY admitting (in effect) that he was wrong. It was clear to everyone but him for a long time, and his refusal to reconsider his position even after it became obviously untenable contributed more than any other single factor to the rejection--after stringing the developers along for ages--of the original plan that would have saved the historic buildings. Shame on Hohnke for taking this long to come around, and for still trying to play the hero. He's the one who got the city into this mess in the first place.
rusty shackelford
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 11:55 p.m.
Tom, that canard got tiresome a long time ago. It seems to be the only argument you have anymore. Anyone can see my comment history and see that I have strong opinions on a range of issues. It's you who only comment when his perceived interests are at stake. I've never worked for any developer.
Tom Whitaker
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 8:16 p.m.
It's always entertaining to read the anonymous comments from the development team as they try to spin the blame for this whole fiasco away from themselves.
SMAIVE
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.
Great, a project that could have been built without city resources is now a big draw (lost parking). The councilmembers who voted 'no' the last time need to go based on incompetency alone.