Moravian apartment project deserved approval based on its merits
There is a constant, underlying tension in this town between the interests of old Ann Arbor and emerging Ann Arbor. Every now and then, it becomes more like a head-on collision.
One of those collisions occurred last week, when the Ann Arbor City Council failed to muster the eight votes necessary to approve the 62-unit Moravian apartment project proposed on East Madison Street.
The Germantown Neighborhood Association distributed this drawing in 2009 showing the roofline of The Moravian project in relation to existing houses along Madison Street.
Courtesy of Germantown Neighborhood Association
The impassioned debate that played out for more than three hours at Monday’s council meeting echoed many of the arguments that Ann Arbor has heard time and again in recent years over attempts to develop higher-density apartment projects in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding downtown.
But each project has to be considered on its own merits, and the Moravian had merit. It should have been approved. The fact that it wasn’t only reinforces Ann Arbor’s reputation for arbitrariness and inconsistency in the way it handles development projects.
The Moravian proposal was in the works for five years, and revised and improved in response to criticism of it. Ultimately, the city Planning Commission endorsed it by a vote of 7-1, and the city planning staff supported it as well, saying it was beneficial to the city, consistent with the city master plan, and offered many desirable features, including 12 units of affordable housing, innovative land use and energy efficiency.
A project that meets the city’s development guidelines and master plan and has earned the nearly unanimous support of the planning staff and Planning Commission should not die at the City Council table because the vocal opposition has enough political clout to kill it. But that’s what happened last Monday.
The revised plan for the Moravian submitted to the city by the developer.
The Moravian would have been built across the street from an industrial-zoned lumberyard, and the surrounding houses on other sides are nearly all rentals. One planning commissioner reported that of the 37 properties closest to the Moravian site, only six were owner-occupied. So while opposition to the Moravian was fierce, it was not “neighborhood’’ opposition in the traditional sense. In this case, the opposition was primarily current landlords working aggressively to stop the construction of a modern, energy-efficient apartment building in the midst of their older rental housing stock.
Although the Moravian was presented as a much-needed housing option for young professionals, its opponents claimed it was really student housing in disguise, and that point we wouldn’t argue. Most units would have had three or four bedrooms, which seems geared more toward student living. We just don’t understand how student housing could be deemed inappropriate for an area already dominated by the same.
Opponents also claimed the Moravian was too large for the area. At five stories, it would have been somewhat taller than other buildings, but not conspicuously so. We agree with the conclusion of city planners that the project “blends with the varied character’’ of the area and was “compatible with the scale and style of East Madison Street.’’
But planning guidelines and good land use are always at the whims of City Council in Ann Arbor. Ultimately, the Moravian went down because not enough City Council members were willing to risk the wrath of an angry, entrenched and well-organized opposition in an election year.
The decision made last Monday keeps a small area of Ann Arbor safe for aging, marginal rental housing, and perhaps keeps a few politicians safe for re-election. But it was not made with Ann Arbor’s future or the city’s best interests in mind. A community that doesn’t plan for its future and carry that plan out with conviction should worry what kind of future it has.
Comments
URmaster
Thu, Apr 15, 2010 : 7:45 a.m.
No it did not. It clearly would have impacted the neighborhood in a negative manner which is why it did NOT pass.
PersonX
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 6:18 p.m.
In response to the last opinion: a PUD is a formal legal process, and a number have been granted, but not in residential areas of the kind that the Moravian developers wanted to ruin. As for buying out neighbors, that us a novel idea, but I do not know any neighbors of the site who want to be bought out--those of us who live in Germantown like it here. It is a fact that the developers never met with the neighborhood association, only with a few direct neighbors very early in the process. They thought that networking among powerful members of the Ann Arbor community would suffice.
ChuckL
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 5:49 p.m.
Why did the project need a PUD? A PUD is an exception to the Master Plan and this to me implies secret, non-transparent back room deals. I want the council to make rules, publicly announce them and then live by them. This is what the council did by voting down the Moravian; this is the way things should work. Another thing that bothers me is that the Moravian developers apparently did not want to buy out the neighbors, which would have rendered moot many of the concerns expressed by existing owners in the area.
The Picker
Mon, Apr 12, 2010 : 5:24 p.m.
It never ceases to amaze me when I hear the youngsters complain about the sorry state of student housing. How do they think these properties get to that condition? The landlords don't abuse these houses, they don't move kegs into the living rooms, tear the doors off the hinges, dig chair legs into the roofing shingles, ect. ect. When landlords fix them up, a few parties can take them back to the condition they so distain. and then they wonder why they can't find a nice place to live. A generation that touts itself as the most earth friendly, never thinks twice about throwing food wrappers, cups,ect on the lawns of houses they pass on their way to class. I truly believe that they believe their mamas will be following behind them, like they did at home, picking up after their little darlings and telling them how wonderful they are. So please spare me the whining about student housing, the Monrovian is only three years from this fate. And always remember that when your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall.
John Q
Mon, Apr 12, 2010 : 12:09 p.m.
In what part of town do these people claiming that the city never allows any development live? Perhaps it's perspective but bring someone back to Ann Arbor who has been gone for 5 or 10 years and ask them if they've noticed any change. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with the no development allowed claims.
say it plain
Mon, Apr 12, 2010 : 12:56 a.m.
@misti3k, Ann Arbor could be like Austin if we just built more boxes to house students, I mean "young people" closer to downtown?! I love your youthful optimism lol, if that's what it is, but Austin is a state capital of 3/4 of a million people, in a state that has seen economic stability and/or growth, where it's warm year-round, and so on and so forth...I'm sorry, I just had to point it out, I am not understanding your ideas here. Do you think if you build overpriced boxy multi-bedroom apartments, "they" will come?! The interesting diverse population to make significant cultural contributions?! I suppose *then* will come the jobs for both the well educated and less well educated, and the studio space, and the cheap food and grocery stores downtown, the cool music venues and quirky affordable shops and so on? I totally respect a desire to live in Austin TX. And I agree that there are terrible student housing landlords out there, with awful stock. And that we need to create more affordable housing options closer to the core of the city. But getting rid of some nasty student-rental slumlords in favor of a young social-networking developer who tried to work out a deal with a tricky parcel so that he too could get in on the profit from providing still-overpriced alternatives to wrecked old houses for students and 'young professionals'? I don't think this is the path to creating austin from ann arbor somehow...
PersonX
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 10:41 p.m.
First of all, sorry about the Flint reference--I was apparently quite wrong. As to the the comments about planning staff--yes, many of us think they were wrong. The building was out of scale, offered very few real benefits that fit the PUD requirements, etc., and that was all very well documented in reports submitted to council which are all public. This is not a fewer of change, as there is plenty of it in town, as I keep repeating, and the opposition to this was spearheaded by residents, not absentee landlords, since the Germantown association consists entirely of neighbors, I believe. Some absentee landlords signed the petitions, but that is all. Nor was the opposition directed against students, many of whom live in the area. It was directed against an inappropriate development that was misrepresented as workforce housing, which is the main reason why the fact that it was actually planed as a dorm was brought up. Please read the documentation, listen to what opponents wrote and said, but do not demonize them and create conspiracy theories. There is and will be development in Ann Arbor, but it does not have to be everywhere. The developers never dealt with the neighborhood and thought they could use networking and connections to obtain their goal, but overwhelming council with people who had little knowledge of the actual project and trying to push matters on blogs was not going to overcome the obvious faults of the project and it still does not.
MB111
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 6:48 p.m.
Bruno, I think you misunderstand, personX didnt like the basis for the PUD - therefore there was no basis. Change is too challenging for most Ann Arborites.
misti3k
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 6:43 p.m.
The townies can't have their cake and eat it, too. Ann Arbor is a college town, and frankly the University of Michigan is the main reason why Ann Arbor hasn't been hit as hard as the rest of the state in this recession. If you don't want to live near students, I suggest you move to a city without a college. Ann Arbor could be like Austin, Texas right now -- a true progressive city with significant cultural contributions and a diverse population. Ann Arbor's biggest problem is a lack of affordable housing near the city proper. This would have helped bring more people to the area, not necessarily students, either. Just because there's more potential student housing doesn't mean the student population will increase. Young people are so wild and scary!!
yua
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 5:47 p.m.
The petition sealed the Moravian's fate--there's no way they could have ever won eight votes. I don't completely agree with the editorial--I think that despite the proposal's substantial merits, the neighborhood was rightly suspicious of increasing the student density of their neighborhood with a large, student-oriented development. I do agree, though, that the winners were absentee, minimum-labor-only landlords who are more than happy to let neighborhoods go to seed as long as they can reliably collect rent from the captive market of students. Seriously, please take a look at the properties that would have been replaced--are more than one or two worth preserving? I suspect a similar proposal will be back someday soon, with a smaller footprint, or a modified fifth story. Maybe the financials of this particular proposal wouldn't have allowed that. But there's always next time.
MB111
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 5:44 p.m.
Bruno, I think you misunderstand, personX didnt like the basis for the PUD - therefore there was no basis. Change is too challenging for most Ann Arborites.
bruno_uno
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.
PersonX- if there was no basis for a PUD, why didnt the planning staff say that at their first consultation? I think I just caught you in a lie.
townie
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 3:38 p.m.
Completely uninformed drivel, annarbor.com. I didn't see this Dearing guy at any of the meetings. Why wasn't Ryan Stanton given this piece to write? Yes the Moravian was only five stories, but they were five stories straight up from the street. Did you even bother to do little reading on this? If you had, you would have learned that D1 zoning, our most dense, most urban zoning district, five years in the making, only allows FOUR stories to go straight up from the street--and that's in the CORE of DOWNTOWN. After four stories, the buildings must step back. Why? To provide a smaller scale feel that is compatible with the existing surrounding, downtown buildings. Why shouldn't a neighborhood be entitled to the same compatibility. Instead, you propose this neighborhood of 1.5 to 2.5 story homes be obliterated by a massive building that wouldn't even be allowed downtown? Second, the first wall was 95% blank walls or views of parked cars. That's no longer allowed downtown either. This is just a couple of small aspects of how this project did not meet the codes or master plans, yet annarbor.com chose to reprint the Newcombe Clark version of this story and even to use his manipulated, photo-shopped renderings. You should be out doing your own research and coming to conclusions based on independent fact-finding instead of reprinting propaganda. Perhaps you're hoping to land a gig with Concentrate? Looks like the Fifth Estate has been bought out by the Real Estate.
LiberalNIMBY
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 2:46 p.m.
Good piece. I agree that the developer did commit a PR blunder with the "young professional" branding, essentially diverting attention away from the more problematic politicization of the development process. It will be interesting to see how the Cabal of No fares in elections this year and next. Looks like they'll be taking each other apart in the primaries, quibbling about 1) what should've happened instead of police/courts and underground parking, 2) what we should spend more money on (that we don't have), and 3) what minor budget cuts should be made to magically pay for increased services. In the meantime, people with a forward-looking vision that actually MAKES the city money (you know, that stuff that hires cops, mows the parks and fills potholes?) will hopefully drag us kicking and screaming into a less-bleak future.
PersonX
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.
This is silly; enough time has passed, everything that can be said about it has been said, and just when it has all calmed down, someone from Flint, who clearly has not read all the pertinent material, including the detailed analysis provided to Council by the neighborhood association, based on professional input, has to fire the flame up once again. Whose interests....??? There was no basis for a PUD and the project was presented to the public in a manner that was misleading. Council would have not voted against it if their own lawyers had not cleared the legality of turning it down. It was not "anti-development" but against THIS development. There is plenty of change in Ann Arbor--just look at what has been built downtown recently and what is coming up-Zaragon II for students and the Kingley development which is precisely for the young professionals who were misled into supporting the Moravian dorm. Enough already.
beuwolf
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 2:26 p.m.
I'm not happy that a guy who lives in Flint is comfortable giving the residents of Ann Arbor lessons about Ann Arbor's housing policies. Link to Flint Journal website article re Dearing's residence: http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/editor/about.html
Alan Benard
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 1:02 p.m.
Spot on editorial. Thank you, Tony.
bruno_uno
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.
suswhit and all you townies- we have been hearing your NIMBY comments for every project for years and years. time to move on and let the next generation build a sustainable city. something happened with this recent rejection, you will see it at the election polls.
bruno_uno
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 12:46 p.m.
hate to break it to you old townies
suswhit
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 11:23 a.m.
"Chalk up a victory for old Ann Arbor - achieved through political expediency, and at the expense of good planning and the citys best interests." No point in reading beyond this point in Mr Dearing's column. Anyone who thinks a massive student dorm crammed in a near downtown neighborhood is either "good planning" or in "the city's best interest" is clearly not an expert in either good plannning or what is in the city's best interest. Simple as that.
MB111
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 11:17 a.m.
Once again, the fear of change prevents progress. The reactionaries will flout their standard fare - in this case zoning (by the way City Place complied with all zoning requirements) - in an effort to keep the status quo.
amlive
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.
Very well said Tony. I couldn't agree more with your views as laid out here.
Rita Mitchell
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 10:16 a.m.
Please re-read David Cahill's comment on zoning. The Moravian developers proposed to provide 50 units of three and four bedrooms at Market Rate, a rate that the developers did not reveal to the public. Rent cap for the remaining 12 efficiency and one bedroom units would be $689, available to one person making no more than 80% of the Area Median Income, $44,800, per HUD 2010 data. Compare that income with the low income needs of those written about in today's edition of annarbor.com. The developers project lacked adequate public gain to warrant building outside the downtown boundaries, and overriding the existing zoning rules and the Central Area Plan.
in situ
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 10:03 a.m.
I'm a student that walks 3+ miles daily rather than pay the same amount of $$$ to live in a crap apartment closer to campus. I choose to live in a neighborhood where the homeowners take pride in their investments. Competition is healthy, yes? The editorial suggests that the council's decision "perhaps keeps a few politicians safe for re-election." I'm not so sure about that. I live in the 5th ward and I vote.
ordmad
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 9:31 a.m.
Not sure what's "arbitrary" about saying you can't build a downtown size building outside of downtown. What's arbitrary is letting other folks do it (like Near North), not, as Council did here, following the master plan, etc..., and saying if you want to build a downtown size building, build it in what the city has defined as downtown.
red9seven
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 9:17 a.m.
Well folks, I think a lot of us have seen the real estate developer side and the nimby side duke it out. I hope that Mr. Clark is serious about joining the council, so we can take this to the next level. Beyond the self interest of the above groups are a lot of fifth ward voters who see what's happening to their property taxes, who see how slum landlords take advantage of students (and students respond in kind). The time for managed change has come, Ann Arbor!
greenwoodkody
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
I haven't followed this debate closely until this week, when the vote came in, so I hadn't seen the illustration of the proposed development superimposed onto the site. The block looks much better with the theoretical apartment building, quite frankly. Last Tuesday evening, in the wake of the denial vote, my running buddies and I detoured to Madison to have a good look at the proposed site. This block is an eyesore, folks. ANYTHING would be an improvement. I do think the developers made a mistake by claiming that this housing would be for young professionals, not students. Pish-posh. Yes, Ann Arbor, there are STUDENTS living in your midst. About 35 or 40 thousand of them, in fact. THEY are the reason this town exists. THEY are the reason this town remains relevant. And the campus that is the reason for their presence here literally borders the proposed Moravian build site. So, yes, OF COURSE students would want to live in that building, and it's their right to do so. Hey, I don't like student ghettos with empty red plastic beer cups littering the lawns and saggy, fire-prone sofas decorating the porches any more than you do. Nor do I like unchecked development. But the Moravian project seems to have been well designed, well considered, and completely appropriate. Versus, for example, that proposed monstrosity out near Stadium Boulevard--I completely support that neighborhood's opposition, because that's rational, reasonable opposition. Very little of what I've heard from the Moravian opponents seems rational. But that's Ann Arbor for you.
Somewhat Concerned
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
Moravian would have become another massive beehive of noisy, beer pong playing and drinking students who care nothing for the upkeep and civic life of the neighborhoods they destroy before they move on to adult life. Ann Arbor needs a real newspaper again, not a mouthpiece for real estate developers who make promises that they break the first time their rent roll goes down.
AAresident
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
I agree with David Cahill. The developers did not meet the requirements and as well, their attempt to use the smokescreen of housing for young professionals to hide the fact that they were building a dormitory was an inappropriate tactic.
David Cahill
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 7:43 a.m.
Tsk. I see AnnArbor.com has fallen for the developer's propaganda. The reality is that zoning governs what can be built. It was illegal to build this big student dorm where the developer wanted to put it, without getting special permission from City Council. Because the neighbors filed protest petitions, 8 votes on Council were needed. The developer couldn't convince that many Council people that the project meet the stringent requirements in the zoning law for getting special permission. No surprise here: the project didn't satisfy the requirements. If the developer had wanted to build this dorm where the zoning allowed it--in downtown--he could have done so. But what he wanted was to take advantage of the cheaper land in the neighborhood. I'm glad the City Council didn't give the developer a subsidy by allowing the Moravian to be built where it didn't belong.
a2bucks
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 7:32 a.m.
Well said! Why build something that might actually provided decent housing when we can keep the student ghetto housing already in place? Why do something that would help the regular people of Ann Arbor when we can help a few powerful landlords? Why be forward thinking when we can be ruled by special interests that don't represent the needs of the community as a whole? Obviously change is always bad, development is always bad, helping people have affordable, decent housing is always bad. OR, Maybe some backwards thinking city council members are the ones who are bad. Maybe we need to finally show them they run this town at our pleaure. Maybe we need to remove our "pleasure" by removing them.