Public input sought on Ann Arbor developer's revised Heritage Row Apartments proposal
Ann Arbor developer Alex de Parry's proposed Heritage Row Apartments project will begin its second journey through the city's approval process later this month.
De Parry has scheduled a citizen participation meeting for the project to be held at 6 p.m. March 25 on the third floor of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.
Alex de Parry
The project includes historic renovations of seven rental houses along the east side of the 400 block of South Fifth Avenue, just south of William Street near downtown, and construction of three new apartment buildings behind those houses.
Heritage Row is proposed as an alternative to a controversial and already-approved project called City Place, which would tear down the seven century-old homes to make way for essentially two boxy apartment buildings that most city officials and residents agree are ugly and even the developer himself doesn't prefer to build.
The City Council last year denied the Heritage Row Planned Unit Development, citing concerns about density, but agreed recently to give de Parry a second chance to make his case. De Parry proposed revisions to the project late last year that were never considered by the council.
De Parry is required by the city's citizen participation ordinance to hold the upcoming meeting. He has sent notice of the meeting to property owners within 1,000 feet of the site, inviting them to attend and share input on the project.
De Parry said an application is being prepared for submittal to the city, along with a written description of the proposal and a conceptual sketch of the development and a site plan.
City review is anticipated to occur in April.
For more information about the city's citizen participation ordinance requirements, contact the planning department at 734-794-6265 or planning@a2gov.org.
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
Speechless
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 7:36 p.m.
Heritage Row: The vampire pops the nails out from the coffin, so as to rise once again. This project represents a fine way to seriously mess up a contiguous series of fine old homesteads along a historic residential street that borders downtown. These seven homes would look even better if he'd bother to do less than bare minimum maintenance for the exteriors. The Heritage Row and City Place proposals are a means to score a big financial payday for a local landlord/developer at the expense of (partial or complete) historic destruction. This isn't gentrification so much as dumb civic uglification for personal profit. Just let de Parry build City Place on top of the library lot, where it won't damage anything. Then provide his CP tenants free passes to park down below, add a little community green space on the library side of the site, and be done with both of these site controversies once and for all.
PersonX
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
As so many have remarked, there is no real need for this project and it undermines all publicly sanctioned plans for the near downtown area as well as for downtown. How is it possible for Council members to undermine existing plans that took years of time and effort by city administrators and members of the public to develop? If Council members wish to undermine these plans, they should do so in an open and transparent manner. This project would not only undermine the integrity of the area, but would also destroy all these plans. A moratorium on such unnecessary developments is a good idea.
Somewhat Concerned
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
How many times will he get to resubmit, rethreaten, re-scare, re-intimidate? Is a "no" ever a no, or can developers keep chipping away until they get what they want?
Tom Whitaker
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 12:57 p.m.
@Susan Montgomery: The choice between Heritage Row and City Place is a false one, since both are within City Council's power to stop if they had the will to do so. Heritage Row is not proposed for downtown, it is proposed for a residentially-zoned neighborhood, separated from the true downtown (zoned mostly D1) by a buffer zone called D2, and an historic district. The property would need to be rezoned to allow this project. This goes against our master plans for the area and the desires and expectations of nearly all surrounding property owners who stand to lose sunlight, privacy, aesthetics, and a certain measure of peace and quiet. In terms of the real downtown, yes, increased residency has been a goal of intense planning efforts in the community for the past 10 years. Several studies, a new downtown plan, and new downtown zoning were all supposed to help accomplish that. Some people tie this effort to the Greenbelt millage, where theoretically, less land converted to suburban housing will result in more people living in the City. I don't personally buy that, but that's another discussion. So, here we are in 2011, after all these years of "Rediscovering Downtown" and we have a majority on Council who already wants to go against the zoning and put dense downtown-scale projects into neighborhoods and a hotel and conference center, with only a few condos for new residents in the downtown proper. Yes, the same downtown we just spent 10 years trying to make more resident-friendly! Makes no sense to me. This neighborhood is already densely populated by most standards, and is a well-functioning, diverse, and desirable place to live because of the traditional one-house, one-lot aesthetic that has survived here for 150 years.
Tom Whitaker
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
City Place was approved, but there are still things Council could do, like close some of the zoning loopholes and correct vague passages in the ordinances that were utilized in the developer's submittal. As long as these revisions are applied to anything not yet built, they would at least require City Place to be revised and resubmitted. This is perfectly legal and above board. The intention of submitting City Place was for the developer to show an exaggerated and hideous version of what could conceivably be built under existing zoning, and thereby scare the community into approving a larger and more lucrative planned unit development. Zoning approval aside, we see no need to fear City Place, which analysis shows is not a viable project. The developer has threatened to run off and build it numerous times, claiming he had the financing to move forward, etc., only to come back a few days later looking for another crack at a PUD. Only proponents of expanding downtown into this neighborhood are now using the lesser of two evils argument. It is a false choice.
Susan Montgomery
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
My understanding, though, is that City Place was already approved, so we're at a "lesser of two evils" stage, no? I also would love to see the original houses fixed up and sold as is, but it IS his land to do as he wishes as long as he meets criteria, no?
Wolf's Bane
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
Seriously, Heritage Row or City Place is not needed. We have plenty of affordable student housing and plenty of condos available in Ashley Terrace and other half empty buildings in downtown Ann Arbor. Besides, we're in the middle of the third wave of Foreclosures, so building anything new is just silly. No, this is really about money. Money for Alex de Parry and the short-term monetary gains for the city of Ann Arbor; I say short-term because they'll be stuck with another half empty development and a destroyed neighborhood. What I find so irritating is that this is as clear as the setting sun to most of us, with the exception of Mr. Alex de Parry, City Planning Commission, and our beloved City Council. I urge City Council to hold off on approving any more downtown developments until we have a better understanding of need!
Wolf's Bane
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.
Why not take De Parry's Heritage Row, tilt it on its side and put it on top of the new underground parking structure? I'd say that takes care of two birds with one very ugly stone?
Go Blue
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
Clearly this project is not wanted nor appreciated by surrounding homeowners and neighbors. Instead of pushing an unwelcome project onto ones neighbors, why not just revamp each house, bringing it up into a higher market range, and sell as private homes, such as they once were. Seems this would help further establish the neighborhood rather than wipe it out. And there is a market for lovely homes when they have been remodeled, especially in this location. Its a given and I'm sure the builder knows this as well - prime location, highly in demand, no sites to build single dwellings and he has the ability to turn this into something that would be in high demand. Maybe it would be wise to rethink what the project will be and take a less toxic approach.
Tom Whitaker
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 12:58 p.m.
@Go Blue: What you suggest, is in fact, what the proposed revisions to the neighborhood zoning will encourage--improving and adding units to existing houses rather than building large Motel 6-style buildings in their backyards, or tearing them down and replacing them with box buildings, as was done in the 50's and 60's in Ann Arbor. Unfortunately, Council has so far refused to call a moratorium on big projects like City Place/Heritage Row while these zoning revisions are studied.
Susan Montgomery
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 11:07 a.m.
Heritage Row seems like a much better alternative to City Place... With City Place once those houses are gone they are gone... As for the density argument, Heritage Row will have higher density than the existing arrangement, shouldn't there be a balance between density and overall feel of our town? Do we really want just a bunch of apartment buildings downtown or do we want to try to preserve some of the charm that makes Ann Arbor special?
Bertha Venation
Wed, Mar 16, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
You're right on, Susan. I couldn't agree more!