Moratorium will halt development of City Place for six to 12 months while new committee studies issue
Ann Arbor officials are forming a new committee to study the historical significance of a neighborhood where a developer has proposed demolishing seven homes to make way for high-rise apartments.
The City Council voted 9-2 Thursday night to establish the South Fourth and Fifth Avenues Historic District Study Committee in a resolution brought forward by Councilman Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward.
Hohnke's resolution includes provisions for a six-month moratorium on construction and demolition in the immediate neighborhood surrounding the proposed site of the controversial City Place development.
“A lot of the concerns that we've heard in the community were that we wanted to preserve a portion of an important neighborhood that's near downtown,” Hohnke said. “The action that we took tonight provides a six-month moratorium on work, which includes demolition.”
The vote on Hohnke's resolution came after more than four hours of deliberations and after Councilman Mike Anglin's proposal for a moratorium on development in the city's R4C and R2A zoning districts - which included a broader area - was voted down 8-3.
Only Stephen Rapundalo, D-2nd Ward, Leigh Greden, D-3rd Ward, and Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward, favored Anglin's resolution after it went through a series of amendments. Some council members said they thought such a broad moratorium would have sent a message that Ann Arbor is not business-friendly.
“It was too broad a tool that sent a message that we didn't need to send, given our goal of making sure that we didn't have houses torn down and replaced by big cubes with a surface lot in between,” Hohnke said. “I don't mean to be glib about it, but I think that's a relatively fair, accurate description (of the site plan).”
The site plan for City Place, which calls for razing seven century-old buildings along the 400 block of South Fifth to make way for apartment high-rises, was first introduced at a Planning Commission meeting in August 2007. It has since been reshaped by developers and the Planning Commission numerous times, but yet to be approved by the City Council.
Council members said Thursday they've heard the community's concerns loud and clear. Dozens of residents have shown up at meetings to protest the City Place development in recent months. At its last meeting in July, the City Council agreed to postpone consideration of the site plan - at the developer's request - until the developer can come back in six months with a revised Planned Unit Development for consideration.
City officials expect the new committee being formed will spend the next six to 12 months completing its work. A provision in state law allows the City Council to extend the moratorium for another six months, which would cover the 12-month period if needed.
Hohnke said city officials are going to spend the next two weeks identifying who may serve on the committee.
“We have a good start on identifying folks that would be interested and would be able to provide important input,” he said. “And they're going to look at the area we've outlined and try and come back to us in between six and 12 months with some recommendation about whether this is an area that we should provide some historical preservation for.”
The only two council members to vote against Hohnke's resolution on Thursday were Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward, and Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward. Derezinski said he wanted more time to consider the idea; Smith said she thought it was dangerous for the city, from a liability standpoint, to “change the rules of the game midstream” in an attempt to prohibit a specific development.
Mayor John Hieftje said the city and its residents have repeatedly voiced concerns about what's being proposed for City Place, yet the developer continues to use every tool it has to push the project. He said the city should use the tools it has available as well, and a moratorium and historic district study are within the scope of its powers.
Comments
a2grateful
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 7:09 p.m.
It's fascinating that historic districts allow high densities and small setbacks on tiny lots. Preserving characteristics of development that are currently disallowed presents a sticky contradiction. "Legal lots of record" from the early 1900s are not allowed in new 2009 subdivisions.... City Place is actually quite true to development densities in historic districts, just on a larger scale. This type of development exists throughout Ann Arbor with no detrimental effect.... This unfolding saga might prove to be very interesting.
Blaine Coleman
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 12:53 p.m.
There were also comments last night explaining that demolishing historic homes is also demolishing some of the city's historical memory and identity. The comments drew a comparison to the demolition of so much of Palestine. Finally, it was noted that, with the city begging for a million dollars here, and a million dollars there, it's unwise (and cruel) to send $300 billion to Israel. Congressman Dingell has confirmed that's the amount Congress has given Israel. Can I say, it's unreal to watch Tom Crawford talk about the cities' financial meltdowns, as if it were a natural disaster. But the meltdown is entirely the result of decisions made, in this decade, to hand trillions of dollars to military occupations, and trillions more to very rich bankers and investors in the last year. Let's use our trillions to develop our cities, starting with Detroit. We can actually demand that public officials do that, instead of sitting like sheep, letting them cut social services to fund occupations.
a2grateful
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 12:52 p.m.
The City of Ann Arbor was rebuffed in court several years ago over "spot" historic property designations. The spot designations were all overturned.... The "City Place moratorium" is no different. A "spot" moratorium placed solely to stop City Place development. The "study" is a response to a single development proposal. It is time, developer, and property specific.... Post-site-plan-submission zoning changes, moratoriums, historic district designations, etc. are CYA attempts to fix problems caused by poor ordinance language. Fix the language, and fix the problem.... Do you see it? City council tries to paddle down the river, wondering why the canoe won't move. (Yes, the water remains in Argo pond. It's not a water issue, yet.) The canoe won't move because its bottom looks like a colander. Placing a piece of bubble gum in one hole is not going to help. The entire problem needs to be addressed to move downstream.
Phil Dokas
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 11:29 a.m.
A good collection of pictures of the homes (including two former mayors' residences) that would be demolished for this trainwreck of a condo check out: http://flickr.com/photos/fej/sets/72157605124941902/ http://flickr.com/photos/leylabunny/sets/72157604080696918/
a2grateful
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 11:16 a.m.
Council defeated the general R4C/R2A moratorium, stating that it would be too costly to defend in lawsuits.... City Place is only one of numerous recent R4C projects that pushed the envelope of vague existing ordinance language and definition.... The City Place issues are R4C issues.... Lipstick on a pig is the City finding a way to stop the single R4C by-right City Place by slapping an historic study label on it.... It's classic City manuvering that will likely be overturned in court, if the developer has the stomach and pockets.... I am saddened for all parties in this scenario: the citizens that have to live with shoddy ordinances and their results; good developers that are chased away by arbitrary City resistance; a City Planning staff that has to live with a council that seems to make it up as they go; a City legal department that is tough posturing until they are scheduled to see the judge.... City Place... the development that nobody wanted... coming to a neighborhood near you.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 10:24 a.m.
One of the concerns with Anglin's resolution was that it didn't include provisions to stop demolition. But the larger issue, as alluded to here, is that a moratorium within entire zoning districts was too broad given that this is really about City Place. Another question raised last night: every time the city goes to evaluate changes to its zoning ordinance, should moratorium be put in place in each zoning district being evaluated? Is that really the best option? Council members thought no. Derezinski's opinion on Anglin's resolution: "We've put lipstick on a pig with the amendments, but it's still a pig."
Alan Goldsmith
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 8:55 a.m.
Good article. I appreciate the background covered here and it's fascinating Hohnke is now, on the surface at least, is responding to several issues that he wasn't concerned about pre-Tuesday's election. Though it would be helpful to know the difference between Aglin's proposal and Hohnke's.