Ann Arbor officials ready to 'play hardball' with developer of Maple Cove apartments
Expressing her frustration with a developer's apparent unwillingness to negotiate, Ann Arbor Planning Commissioner Wendy Woods remarked Tuesday night: "OK, then I guess we play hardball."
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
No second vote has been taken yet, but commissioners are voicing concerns about potential safety risks posed by the lack of sidewalks, which some fear could force children to walk in the street, and having two driveways close together along Maple Road.
But the reason the project appeared back on the Planning Commission's agenda wasn't because of those concerns. It was an attempt to rectify an administrative oversight.
The commission on March 20 held a public hearing and voted 6-2 in favor of the Maple Cove project, but city officials forgot to send required notices of the meeting to some residents.
Resident Stephanie Raupp voices concerns about the Maple Cove project Tuesday night.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
In order to allow all surrounding residents an opportunity to voice concerns to the Planning Commission, the public hearing was re-advertised and notices were mailed out again to all property owners, including township residents, within 500 feet of the project.
And so the Planning Commission started Tuesday's deliberations by rescinding last month's vote and re-opening the public hearing.
Property owner Muayad Kasham, who owns Superior Lawn Care & Snow Removal in Ann Arbor, wants to demolish an existing home and construct two 18-unit, three-story apartment buildings and seven single-family homes, as well as a 64-space parking lot. Site plans for the apartment buildings include 12 one-bedroom units and 24 two-bedroom units.
Several residents spoke out against the project, voicing concerns it doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood and it might increase traffic and exacerbate stormwater runoff issues.
Stephanie Raupp, who lives with her husband directly across from the site, told commissioners neighbors are mainly just opposed to the apartment portion of the proposal.
She echoed concerns shared by the planning staff, which previously requested placement of sidewalks along the street leading to the single-family homes. While the sidewalks aren't required, city staff believes they would increase safety and accessibility to Maple Road.
"This builder has done nothing — he won't even put in sidewalks," Raupp said during Tuesday's public hearing. "At the last meeting, he said 'slim to no opportunity' that he would even add a sidewalk for the kids, and this is this is right near one of the most beautiful high schools in the city. I think it's a huge concern that there are no sidewalks."
Even though there have been no changes to the site plan since the Planning Commission approved it in March, several commissioners sounded unsure about the project after Tuesday's testimony, and at least one said she's leaning toward changing her vote.
"The unwillingness of the petitioner to work or to address some of these concerns is just a big concern for me," said Commissioner Wendy Woods.
Woods was referencing not only the sidewalk issue but also concerns raised by both city officials and residents about there being two driveways or "curb cuts" for the development along Maple Road — one to get to the apartments and one to get to the houses.
Jamie Gorenflo of Midwestern Consulting spoke on behalf of the absent developer Tuesday night.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
In order to minimize potential conflicts along Maple Road, the engineer advised the developer that the single-family homes and apartment buildings should utilize the same access point.
But the developer isn't following the engineer's suggestions.
"The developer is very specific on wanting to maintain the two separate curb cuts," said Jamie Gorenflo of Midwestern Consulting, who spoke on behalf of the absent developer.
"It's from a marketing standpoint and creating identity for the single-family homes," he added. "The traffic engineer has said that we are entitled to two curb cuts and his recommendation and his preference would be to combine them, but we are under no obligation to do so."
That didn't please Woods.
"The engineer has said that it is advisable or recommended that you have the same access point," she said. "And then for this gentleman to tell me it's a marketing issue? See, that just raises my blood pressure."
The commission postponed voting on the project Tuesday night until it can get a definitive opinion from the engineer about whether having two access points 150 feet apart on Maple Road poses a serious safety risk to pedestrians and motorists.
"We just are looking for something definitive that hopefully will get us clarification," said Commission Chairman Eric Mahler. "We appreciate the public's concerns about that specific issue and hopefully next time we'll hear from the developer directly."
Gorenflo seemed to suggest commissioners are wasting their time if they think the developer is going to change his plans now.
"To postpone this to give him further consideration to change his mind on that, I'm 90 percent sure he would not," he said of having two access points.
"OK, then I guess we play hardball," Woods said at one point.
Gorenflo also addressed the concerns about the lack of a sidewalk leading to the houses, saying the site plan meets all the requirements of the city.
"To be perfectly honest, even if a sidewalk was provided from those houses out to Maple, there's no sidewalk on Maple for it to connect to," he said.
Commissioner Erica Briggs expressed frustration that it seems the city's ordinances allow for the aspects of the project that residents are most concerned about.
"People are stuck in a bad situation," she said. "Our ordinances allow this. We're sitting around the table and we have no ability to change anything here."
When the Maple Cove project came before the Planning Commission in March, concerns about its potential to attract crime were voiced. That didn't come up Tuesday night.
Courtesy of City of Ann Arbor
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
wordup
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 3:42 p.m.
What an unorganized mess! This is what we pay our taxes for? The staff cannot send out proper public notice? If this plan is rejected, it will be curious how the planning commission will not have this come back and bite them legally. Seems like the improper notification is a perfect opportunity for another vote on the same exact site plan. Sounds interesting!I support the project but am not impressed with a developer who cannot attend meetings and show a willingness to address public concerns. For the amount of money being put into this development sidewalks should be a no brainer. Any professional developer would understand that even though Maple connections may not be existing, I would think future plans for that corridor would have sidewalks. Although I support development not sure I support a develoer not willing to work with residents who have to live with the project after he collects his paycheck!
Wolf's Bane
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.
saber rattling is so passe.
15crown00
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
Tell them NO!!!!!!!!!!!! and STICK to it.
Jtcan
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 5:08 p.m.
Just like to point out that the Hardball comment only engages Woods, and does not imply, as your headline states, that the "officials are ready to play". A little more care with headlines is in order, no?
quetzalcoatl
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.
The residents' best bet would seem to be the discovery of a regulatory mother lode, something like a bug on the endangered species' list making a cozy home for itself on the project site. Even then, however, their respite will be brief since when the new Administration takes over and the camp construction regime is fully implemented, undeveloped parcels like this near high-density populations will obviously be highly prized. That means good-paying contractor jobs for anyone who can stand in a watch tower and swivel a search light.
mixmaster
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.
Wendy Woods is positioning herself for another run for council.
John Q
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 2:22 p.m.
Multiple driveways in that short a stretch of road is a safety hazard. The lack of sidewalks is a safety hazard. Over the long-term, there will be a sidewalk along Maple Road. If you don't want the developer to do it, then you must want to spend your tax dollars to do it. The same with the sidewalk on the residential street. People will want to walk and they'll need a sidewalk. Quit settling for mediocre developments and get it right the first time.
JDed
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 5:38 p.m.
there is a sidewalk on the other side of maple
a2grateful
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.
The original outcry against this development was "crime increase," a veiled phrase for racism. Now that the crime/racism is no longer the issue of contention, we can focus on the true site plan. Sidewalks are important. A lack of current area sidewalks does not preclude future sidewalks. Sidewalk evolution occurs one parcel at a time, through development or redevelopment. The developer's reluctance to enhance public pedestrian access along a busy road is disappointing. Sidewalks are of minimal cost consequence in the overall development. Inclusion of sidewalks could have fared well for the developer. The developer's reluctance to follow engineering advice regarding access drives is equally disappointing and troubling. A pattern of callous disregard for neighborhood possibly emerges, both for future and current residents. Good job planning commission in rescinding the site plan, realizing that proper notice of neighbors had not been given prior to initial approval. Careful review of this site plan is warranted and supported. Time for magnifying glasses and fine-tooth combs. . .
Jack
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.
Racism? How did that get in here? Your theory, I take it, is that anyone who objects to a low-income housing development is racist? Very logical. Just where do you live? I live in the area being discussed. Kitty corner from it. It is a mixed neighborhood, both racially and ethnically. It is not high income, quite the opposite. It is composed of hard working people, none of them even close to wealthy. We feel the fact that we lack clout is one of the reasons why this development is being proposed here. Currently this subdivision has a relatively low crime rate. And yes, I am concerned about a crime rate increase. We have a goodly number of elderly people in the neighborhood. We already have on this side of town North Maple Estates, Pine Lake Cooperative, Miller Manor, Maple Meadows, and Hillside Manor. In short, almost all of the low-income housing in the City. Most have been sources of crime at some point in their history. So now everyone wants to put yet another development in this area, so obviously not their own. Instead of trees and sky, I will now see a 3-story building looming on the skyline. Instead of knowing our neighbors, as one would in a single-family home neighborhood, we will have a revolving door of neighbors. So, yes, let's talk about discrimination - the discrimination against working and middle class people of all races and nationalities, who rarely complain about anything, pay their taxes, receive little in return for them, who have little open space (that goes to others of greater income), but who are expected to take the brunt of all the public housing. And I have yet to receive a notice about this development despite being quite close to it. Neighbors farther away than we are have received notices.
Mike
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.
Why does racism have to rear it's ugly head into the conversation?
Stephen Landes
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
So the commission wants the developer to put in a "sidewalk to nowhere"? Why am I not surprised at this silliness?
JDed
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 1:44 p.m.
There is a sidewalk on Maple, it is on the other slide of the street. It's an opportunity for the city to stop all the traffic the gets off at M-14 with strobe lights
Tom Whitaker
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.
The planning commission has a duty to determine, not just that each physical component of a proposal meets the letter of the law, but that the proposal as a whole does not create a negative impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community. That is why zoning was created in the first place--to help us all to share ever-more-crowded urban spaces in a safe, healthy manner. An individual's right to do as they please with their property stops where it negatively impacts their neighbors, or creates a public nuisance. Back in 1996, the City rejected a proposal to put a Burger King at the corner of Huron and Ashley (now Ashley Terrace), even though the plans met all of the dimensional standards of the zoning ordinance. The planning commission and city council were advised that the traffic created by the proposed use, in the driveway configurations proposed, would be a detriment to public safety. Burger King packed up and went away. I see a disturbing trend in recent development proposals in Ann Arbor: Instead of pursuing design excellence, site suitability and high quality construction, the focus appears to be on maximizing square footage while doing the absolute minimum to meet code and zoning requirements. In fact, it seems to have become a specialty for some local design and engineering firms. The real estate market in Ann Arbor has been historically strong and is likely to remain so. There's no reason to aim for the minimum, when good profits can be realized at points well above that.
Gyll Stanford
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 4:37 a.m.
It is called Return on Investment. But I agree good design will provide a good return on investment. But in this town too many socialists equate return on investment as unwarranted profit. This country was built on, someone taking a chance in the market place, to provide a product the consumer would exchange for their limited dollars. The "profit" is a secondary unselfish outcome of that effort. Profit needs not to be demonized.
Mike
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 8:21 p.m.
I guess when it's not your money at risk it's easy to force someone else to comply with your idea of utopia. Why doesn't the coty just pony up the dollars to add the little details they would like?
mixmaster
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.
"maximizing square footage while doing the absolute minimum to meet code and zoning requirements" I don't disagree with you, but this is not a recent development Tom. It has always been the case. Regardless of the cost of the development or to what economic strata it's being pitched, developers have always preferred doing as little as possible and getting a much as possible.
Captain Splat
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
I am very annoyed that everytime there is a new development that people complain about the stormwater issues. Do they not understand that developers these days and for the past 10 years have had to detain their water on-site? All these stormwater issues result from developments that were built long before the current requirements.
Mike
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.
And pay for disconnecting other citizens that were required for years by the city to connect to the sewer system
Brad
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 1:10 p.m.
""The engineer has said that it is advisable or recommended that you have the same access point," she said" Any chance this is the same engineer that thinks three lanes of traffic can convey as much/more traffic than four lanes?
Wolf's Bane
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 1:07 p.m.
The city will cave and the Cove Apartments will be built. In a few years they'll be section 8 housing and in about a decade or so, blight. "DEVELOPERS" always win. Just look at our poor cityscape and all of the monsters that have been built or are under construction. SAD! Go to Hunt Park. Look out over the city. The proof is right in front of you.
Mike
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 8:18 p.m.
And you're probably someone who touts affordable housing out of the other side of your mouth..............
Basic Bob
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 1:02 p.m.
The developer is making the right choice to IGNORE Ms. Woods. The sidewalk on the private road is completely unnecessary, because the private road will be plowed days before the any of the side streets in the city. Or the side walks along public streets which the city doesn't enforce. And there are no sidewalks on Maple, even with proximity to that monolithic high school down the street. IMO, walking from there to the high school would be taking your life in your hands. This do-over is nearly complete, with Ms. Raupp bringing up her concerns from her 30 neighbors once again, Ms. Woods objecting about sidewalks in a private development once again. Hopefully it will end in a second 5-2 vote in favor.
Steve
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:53 p.m.
That area is a dump. We should be grateful for new development on that corner. It's been lagging for years while the rest of the city has grown and modernized. We should be giving tax credits to the developer not drive him away. If he has met all the requirements that are provided by the city, that is telling me a lot of consideration has been put into his plans, and the departments approve! Why should he need to make further consideration after he already has.
PersonX
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.
It is obvious that the city needs to clean up various requirements to fit the way things are being done around town these days. But it seems that no one can act without special interests getting in the way. How long has it been since we were promised the new R4C guidelines, but the committee that is in charge of this cannot act quickly because someone does not like something and that someone has power ...
Rose Garden
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:48 p.m.
I suspect that the objection is the ugliness, the height, the commercialism of an apartment building in one's residential neighborhood. I wouldn't want one in my neighborhood. The sidewalk issue, the traffic issue, the safety issue are all excuses for the real reason. I can understand the objection.
William Flewidity
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 3:07 a.m.
JohnnyA2, there is nothing "snobbery" about it. It is protecting your investment or your home. Nothing wrong with that. No need to save the world here. I do agree with your comment though in terms of "let the poor renters live with tose common folk"!
johnnya2
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 2:10 a.m.
Wait, so an apartment is ugly, but your house is beautiful? This is snobbery at its finest. Let those poor renters live with those common folk, we dont want none of that kind around. Give me a break.
Mike
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 8:17 p.m.
First of all Wendy Woods is not that ugly............
edlab2012
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.
I don't understand the sidewalk issue ... sure as a parent I would enjoy to have a sidewalk for schoolkids to walk on but am I correct in that there is no sidewalk on the west side of the street up to the roundabout which is 0.2miles north? But why would the onus fall on the developer to sidewalk that whole area ... while there are 5-6 homes there? Wouldn't the city do that? I don't get it?
William Flewidity
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 3:02 a.m.
Its blackmail. The city forces developers to do things that have nothing to do with their project in order to get the approvals they need for the project they do want to do. It raises the cost of housing and leaves a bad taste in the mouth of developers, making them less likely to want to cooperate with anything, as in this case.
Brad
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.
Let's see ... city approves project ... city goofs up notification so they want a "do over" ... developer is complying with all current law but isn't sucking up enough ... commissioner gets huffy and blathers about "playing hardball". We sure do it different in Ann Arbor. And that isn't always a good thing.
Peter Konigsberg
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:17 p.m.
Ex-council women Woods had no problem with these rules when she forced her pet project on our neighborhood. She did everything in her power to exclude the neighborhood from expressing concerns over the expansion of the 2nd Baptist church. She was happy with the process when her interests were met. Talk about double standard!
outdoor6709
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:13 p.m.
Playing hardball with the devoloper means the Planning Commission wants something in return for approval.
Mike
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.
That's a fact of life if you are a developer........so much for affrodable housing when you have to grease the palms of elected officials............
John Spelling
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:06 p.m.
A sidewalk serving just seven houses seems unnecessary, even more so knowing there's no sidewalk at Maple. As for the two separate drives, again, one of them serves just seven houses. Any conflict would be very minimal, even at the busiest time of the day. If there were a serious safety risk, one would think the issue would have come up by now. I agree with others this Wendy Woods person should resign her position. Certainly she should not be reappointed. She is bad for the city.
johnnya2
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.
Why not have the CITY build a sidewalk. They can do it and all will be well.
John Q
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.
Sidewalks are needed in both locations. Eventually there will be a sidewalk on Maple and people will want to walk to it.
Ross
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.
I interpreted the article as though they were talking about sidewalks ALONG maple, not just on the 7-house street. Which would certainly be a good idea, IMO. Wendy is getting a lot of blow-back in these comments for her silly choice of words, but the developer is being awful stubborn, too.
Mike
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 11:37 a.m.
I guess the blighted, eyesore in that area is better than allowing the builder, who has to market and sell these units, to operate within allowable parameters because one of our officials has another idea of how things should be built. Strong arm tactics and show of power, or should I say over reach of power. Wendy Woods should step down, take some blood pressure medication, and find an occupy movement to join................
uabchris
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 11:29 a.m.
Not to city: priority #1 - let's get the loopholes cleaned up so this stops happening over and over again. City Place, now this...where does it stop???????? Fix It!
Vette96drvr
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.
As much as I hate to see more apartments as there seem to be to many as it is, I agree with the developer here. There should be 2 seperate entrances if there are 2 different "products". Also, how do you approve a project and then attempt to recind that approval because YOU didn't do your job properly? This sounds like another example of Ann Arbor government letting their ego run wild again. Miss Woods comment about "I guess we'll play hardball then" sounds a bit ignorant. If he meets all of your requirements and the issues are only suggestions and not requirements, get over yourselves and let it be. Wow, I can't believe I just defended more apartments in this area but right is right. As for surrounding homeowners, I wouldnt want to stare out my window at an apartment complex either. Move to the country!
Gyll Stanford
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 3:36 a.m.
The city makes the rules. If the development meets the requirements, approve it. Don't try to change the requirements. Don't play politics with the situation to PROVE how power hungry you are. The city made an ass of itself with the City Place fiasco, let's hope someone learned a lesson from that one. As to the NIMBY crowd, the complaints are always the same; traffic, pollution, ugly looking, objection to change. How about a off leash fenced dog park for that space?...........with sidewalks!
johnnya2
Thu, May 3, 2012 : 2:07 a.m.
" I hate to see more apartments as there seem to be to many as it is," On what do you base this argument? The fact that A2 apartment occupancy rates are very high? That apartments in this city have sold at record levels in the midst of an economic downturn? There are NOT enough rental properties in this city, especially apartments. I know of people who were looking and many complexes told them three months. Yes, there are some with vacancies, but there will always be vacanacies, just as there are with homes and any other product.
William Flewidity
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 10:40 p.m.
If they cannot afford to move to the country, perhaps the answer is to sell your house, move into the new apartments, and then you would have a lovely view of a nice home across the street that used to be your house! GENIUS!!!
Rose Garden
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.
Selling one's home and moving to the country is not a reasonable option. It is difficult to do and expensive. Most likely those who object to the project cannot afford to move.
InsideTheHall
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 11:21 a.m.
Wendy "Windy City" Woods stated she is gonna play some hardball. Yeah Wendy how about a little Pay to Play while we are at. How about talkin about the Big Stick. Great to see "Windy" Woods is in lock step with Obama......he is smiling and saying "Well done Comrade."
Brad
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:48 p.m.
It's a one-trick pony, and "Obama" is his trick.
Ross
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.
You aren't making sense.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 10:22 a.m.
"Commissioner Erica Briggs expressed frustration that it seems the city's ordinances allow for the aspects of the project that residents are most concerned about. "People are stuck in a bad situation," she said. "Our ordinances allow this. We're sitting around the table and we have no ability to change anything here."" None of which prevented ex-Council member and failed candidate for Mayor to Wendy Woods from shooting her mouth off and wanting to play 'hardball'. Lol.
Chip Reed
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 10:20 a.m.
@Ryan, Is "one of the most beautiful high schools in the city" an accurate quote? I question whether that is what Ms. Raupp meant. As far as raising concerns about sidewalks, lots of fancy subdivisions in Ann Arbor (Washtenaw Hills and the whole lovely area across the river from Huron High [another of our most beautiful high schools?]) evidently don't require them.
Homeland Conspiracy
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.
@Brad LOL Best comment I seen in a long time.
Brad
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 12:55 p.m.
No, they just strap poor people to their feet like snowshoes.
smokeblwr
Wed, May 2, 2012 : 11:35 a.m.
Rich people don't need sidewalks I guess.