Future of Ann Arbor's Germantown must include a better option than City Place
What is the best future for the Germantown neighborhood? That depends on whom you ask. But it’s pretty obvious what the worst outcome would be, and that’s the outcome Ann Arbor could get as yet another development proposal has turned into the kind of muddle this town is known for.
Having turned down a historic district for Germantown and having turned down the Heritage Row development, City Council now finds itself left with the choice nobody wants -- a pair of drab, boxy apartment buildings known as the City Place project.
An artist's rendition of the Heritage Row project streetscape in which trees have been graphically removed to show the development.
Courtesy Image
City Council members approved the City Place project last September because they didn’t think they had any other choice. They feared if they didn’t, de Parry would sue them and win. But its always been clear that City Place, a proposal for 144 bedrooms in two bland, dormitory-style buildings separated by a parking lot, was a fallback position for de Parry as he sought to put forward a more palatable project.
We opposed City Place, even though it met minimum zoning standards, because we thought it was well below the kind of development Ann Arbor should be shooting for, and particularly because it would demolish seven century-old homes. We didn’t think these homes should be sacrificed for something of no architectural or aesthetic merit.
Since last fall, the city has fended off de Parry by slapping a development moratorium on the neighborhood while a committee studied whether it should be declared a historic district. The committee ultimately recommended in favor of historic status, but last week the City Council voted 6-4 against creating such a district.
It was the right call. Looking at the committee’s report, the case for making Germantown a historic district was thin. The very term Germantown and talk of its place in local history seem to be a recent phenomenon, driven more by a desire to block de Parry’s plans than anything else. We agree with Council Member Christopher Taylor, who observed that a historic district is an “extraordinary and functionally permanent imposition’’ on an area, and shouldn’t be established without the kind of justification that the council simply couldn’t find in this case.
With the historic district question now resolved, the city’s development moratorium expires in August, leaving de Parry free to tear down the seven homes and build City Place if he chooses to.
He says he’d prefer to build a planned unit development called Heritage Row, which would preserve the houses and incorporate them into a project that includes three apartment buildings tucked behind them. Heritage Row is a better project that we have supported, and a majority of City Council members support it, too. But because Germantown neighbors have presented a petition against the project, it takes a council super-majority of eight votes to approve it, and in two attempts, the council has only been able to muster seven votes.
We’ve listened to the arguments that Heritage Row is “out of character’’ for the neighborhood, but are unconvinced. Greater density of housing on the border of downtown is the city’s future, as evidence by the fact that existing R4C zoning would allow City Place. Preserving the current streetscape with Heritage Row would be far more in character with the current neighborhood than City Place would be.
We’ve also listened to the arguments that planned unit developments are a bad thing, and that the city should adhere to traditional zoning instead. But again, City Place would meet the current zoning, and the preservation of existing homes through a PUD would be preferable to that.
If a majority of City Council members can’t support a historic district, and clearly they can’t, then it’s incumbent on council to work with de Parry to achieve the most suitable development for Germantown - and that wouldn’t be City Place.
The four council members who so far have stood against Heritage Row are Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Carsten Hohnke and Stephen Kunselman. If City Place were to be built, they would be known as the four who successfully held out against something better in order to inflict the city with something much worse, and that would be no victory for them or for Ann Arbor.
There still may not be an imminent threat of that, but a more responsive compromise plan in the form of Heritage Row already has been rejected twice. If these four cannot bring themselves to support Heritage Row, they at least need to acknowledge that they’ve backed the city into a corner and show the kind of leadership that’s necessary to achieve a better outcome than they’ve accomplished so far.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the Editorial Board at AnnArbor.com.)
Comments
russellr
Mon, Jul 12, 2010 : 8:20 p.m.
Why don't all you people that gripes become a developer and builder Then buy the property you want to develope into what you think is a better Idea. Pay the taxes on it. It's to bad you all want to tell him what to do with it, but don't own it. I wish you all would shut up about it or pay for it.
Veracity
Mon, Jul 12, 2010 : 6:21 p.m.
The only winner if either Heritage Row or City Place is built will be the developer who will take his fee off the top of any funding that he can get. This "payment up front" arrangement for developers is the reason why so many projects are being presented for approval by city council. And the more expensive (translate as "larger") the projects the bigger the developers' fees. Once the developer takes his fee he has no further financial risks from the project. He will not lose money if the project does not get constructed or if it fails as an operating business. Ann Arbor has experienced both situations recently. Ann Arbor's population and student body is not projected to grow in the next five years. Yet fifteen sizable residential projects have been approved or are scheduled for approval which will add significant rental and student units to an already saturated housing market. Besides a lack of demand for many of these construction projects, business success will be challenged by other factors. Construction prices are high and therefore rental rates and condominium selling prices will have to be high to meet debt servicing requirements and taxes. High rental rates and condominium pricing will repel potential renters and purchasers. The occupancy rate of Ann Arbor hotels is presently under 60% and some hotel proposals project profits only if the occupancy rate exceeds sixty-six percent. Therefore, profit will be difficult to generate and I expect a number of these projects to fail either during the construction phase (due to insufficient funding) or from operational failure following completion. Failed projects provide no benefit financially to the city and will leave a white elephant in the neighborhood. Increasing density will only succeed if the demand meets the supply and the demand has not been established nor will it be. The attraction associated with a "Field of Dreams" only occurred in the movie. The DDA's density guidelines were established in 2005 prior to onset of the severe recession which will linger on for years and is changing our nation's economic paradigm. Ann Arbor should recognize the marked economic changes that have occurred and adjust the guidelines appropriately. ADDENDUM:I live several miles from the targeted Germantown area so it is not in my back yard. Nevertheless, I find the old houses involved in the dispute to be attractive and to have character. The facades are similar to other historic houses in scattered areas throughout the city. The homes are contiguous in design to other houses on adjoining streets. They present a charm that will be lost entirely with City Place and disturbed by Heritage Row.
Speechless
Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 9:12 p.m.
Rather than rephrase or sum up what they said, I will 'second' the points raised above by townie and Person X.  And here are a few other comments: • There exists a momentary stalemate. The historic district failed to gain approval, but so did the Heritage Row PUD. The tone of past pro-developer comments indicates that de Parry badly wants PUD status. • An end to the stalemate might not take place until after the early August city primary. At that point, there is greater risk that Carsten Hohnke may switch his vote. Assuming he wins his primary, he'll then have two years to try and repair the political damage resulting from any flip-flop. • An editorial like this, in part, is meant to help build a political atmosphere conducive to Hohnke (or maybe Kunselman) switching their vote upon possible later reconsideration of the PUD proposal. • City Council should not capitulate under duress and cough up approval for the PUD. Either reconsider the vote on the historical district and approve it this time, or else — at a bare minimum — demand that de Parry to come up with a far smaller (by-right?) version of Heritage Row. Do not cower and act bullied by the specter of City Place: • This editorial again emphasizes, maybe not intentionally, that the alternate City Place proposal is being wielded as a loaded weapon to persuade city council to quietly approve Heritage Row. The term "fallback plan" doesn't begin to describe its true political role. In essence, the developer asks the community, "Historically speaking, will you permit me to badly disfigure these properties with a strange, overbuilt PUD, or will you act stubborn and "require" me to eliminate them outright via City Place?" • It's a bad spot for a big project.  Move it north across William.
blahblahblah
Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 12:11 p.m.
Briere has lost my vote if she decides to run again. Downtown and near downtown density can only be acheived with a wide variety of housing options and costs. A quick review of the current downtown options such as Ashley Terrace, Zaragon Place and the Delonis Center just won't work for the average Ann Arborite.
townie
Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.
There are two sets of potentially harmed property owners here--those that immediately ring the proposed development site, and those who have invested in the larger neighborhood because of its residential, and yes, historic character. All of them deserve the same protection of their property rights as the developer, who is trying to combine multiple individual lots into one big project, something the master plans for the city call "inappropriate." Those immediately around the site will lose sunlight, views and open space in the form of setbacks, which are supposed to be SHARED by neighbors, not consumed by one neighbor to the detriment of the others. Both City Place and Heritage Row are too big and too close to the lot lines and therefore impinge on the rights of the surrounding property owners. If Council allows either project to be built without substantial reductions in size, why should the remaining property owners be stuck providing the "charm zone" for the new residents of Heritage Row or City Place without the ability to profit, too? If the Council majority is so determined to see this neighborhood torn down and replaced with apartment buildings, then why not give all of the property owners the same rights and privileges they seem determined to grant to this developer? Instead of granting special favors to one developer under the threat that he will build something hideous that Council already approved under faulty zoning, why not propose D2 zoning for the whole neighborhood? Because that would conflict with the City's master plan for these neighborhoods, that's why. So that begs the question, "Why isn't City Council enforcing our master plans by immediately fixing the zoning loopholes and discouraging neighborhood PUDs?"
PersonX
Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 11:33 a.m.
I do not wish to respond to every nasty little positing, but just for the record I do respect individual property rights, including those of people whose properties will be effected by the potential grotesque developments on 5th Avenue, as well as zoning laws, which in fact do not allow for such development, except for exceptional city need, not the needs of developers. As for near-downtown, that is not a nimby concept--please familiarize yourself with the area plan and the downtown plan, as these spell out these matters in detail. The citizens debated this for quite a while and spent their money on consultants, etc. This debate has nothing to do with "progress"; council has approved, as has been repeated time and again, fifteen big developments on the downtown area over the last decade. Some of them have not been built, but other proposals are coming, including Zaragon II, which most of the near-downtown people have expressed support for. All of these more than provide for any expected housing needs and constitute more than enough "progress." Nasty little rants do not help anyone in this debate, not even the developers.
James
Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.
Great editorial Tony!! Maybe Hohnkes re-election slogan should be If you like City Place vote for me! As to PersonXs comments he/she sounds much like your typical NIMBY Ann Arborite ( or Council wanna-be Jack Eaton for that matter), who has no respect for private property rights as zoning is irrelevant in their minds. In their view Zoning laws are irrelevant a land owner should only be permitted to develop in a way acceptable to his neighbors for the greater good. The R4C zoning regs are not under revision there are public hearings underway to determined IF they need to be revised, but obviously PersonX has predetermined what the outcome of that process will be (just like the NIMBY GNA neighbors predetermined what the outcome of the GNA historic district study committee would be). Stack any study committee with narrow viewed special interest types, as was the case with the GNA study committee and the result can easily be foreseen and do you really expect a State level panel with the same narrow special interests to do anything other than praise such a work? What is Near Down-Town? It is an undefined term used by anti-progress, anti-development types to foment opposition to any type of change they dont like it is what they say it is and there should be no changes in wherever they deem Near Down-Town to be. There is nothing in the zoning ordinance or cannon of law which indicates that PUDs are to be given only in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances. Again this is a perspective of a NIMBY (or an opportunist seeking political office). PUDs are simply a tool municipalities with zoning ordinances can use to permit UNIQUE developments not contemplated when traditional broad-brush zoning language was instituted many decades ago (how old is Ann Arbors Suburbia favoring zoning ordinance?). Each PUD is evaluated on its own and no approved PUD sets a president for any other future PUD proposal. The Heritage Row PUD met most all of the laudable goals set forth in the referenced area plans and should have been approved over the regretful City Place plan. Right on Tony!
PersonX
Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.
It is unfortunate that the "editorial board" chose to express such a set of one-sided, simple-minded and for the most part unsubstantiated positions. The situation is much too complicated, and this does little to help the situation; indeed, it will just lead to more vitriolic postings by developers and their friends. It is somewhat irresponsible for the head of his blog to dismiss out of hand the work of a committee that worked extremely hard under strong political pressure from all sides, and which produced a report that on the state level was described by experts, not editors, as a model of its kind. It was also not very helpful to cite--with approval--the muddled, somewhat incoherent legalistic ramblings of one council member, who was desperately seeking cover for a cynical political decision. The editor supports density in the near-downtown, but he seems to do so without much knowledge of the long history of the discussion behind the arguments on both sides. He cites the R4C rules, but a) they are under revision, b) they are irrelevant to the issue. The matter of density is substantially addressed in the various city plans that were long debated and established with broad citizen participation and support. They were not simply put in by politicians. These plans specifically situate density downtown and NOT in the near-downtown. A few developers do not like this, because they want access to every piece of affordable real estate to develop, but this is not necessarily always in the public interest. Their friends on council have been eager to subvert the existing publicly-approved plans, and they can do this by granting PUD's. But PUD's were meant to be given only in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, and not as an assumed right, which is what they have become. If council wishes to change the area plan and other such plans, it should move to do so and work with citizens to achieve this, in an open and broadminded manner, just as the existing plans were prepared. But until that happens, council members should not undermine existing plans by destroying neighborhoods that were meant to have a different look and density. Add to this the fact that contrary to certain assertions, there is no real demographic pressure to change the near-downtown because there is enough development happening or about to happen very close by, and the only real justification for the City Place/Heritage Row is the profit of a few individuals. I am not denying anyone the right to profit, but in the case of development rules and laws grant council the right to consider many aspects of the public good. A historic district would save the old houses and the overall integrity of the neighborhood and protect this relatively small but integral area from rapacious development, and this would be a benefit of the city, without substantially harming progress and development of the downtown area. Everyone involved--the developers as well as the citizens who wish to preserve Germantown from all of this destruction--deserves more nuanced pronouncements from people who have assumed an unelected leadership mantle in the form of this blog.
westsider
Sun, Jul 11, 2010 : 8:50 a.m.
Well said. Here is to hoping for some level-headed, ego on the shelf leadership from one of the four council members opposed to Heritage Row. Carsten almost showed some the other night. Hopefully he can muster the chutzpah to follow through on it if Sabra stops using him as her puppet.