The choices were not accept or approve. The choice was to work with the developer to modify his PUD proposal so that it conformed with requirements. PUDs are a privilege, not a right and must prove themselves on the merits. Ultimately that failed.

I thought his using City Place as a club was reprehensible and didn’t deserve to be rewarded.

Unfortunately, due to the apathy of the City administration, the burden has been, and will continue to be on private citizens to fight. This battle, if waged, could continue for many more months, or even years, and waste significant resources on all sides. That’s unfortunate, especially when a legitimate compromise on the Heritage Row PUD might have been reached with just a little more give from the developer’s side to better mitigate the negative impacts of the proposal on adjacent properties.

I appreciate your well written response. I do still disagree though.

The city council could have rejected Heritage Row and City Place. That would have been a consistent position, albeit one that might have led to the city getting sued. (I do think it is the job of city council to make the best decision they can and getting sued and losing would be a mark of bad decision.)

Once the city council decided to approve City Place, however, they put the stamp of approval on it. That made it a valid choice for the developer as confirmed by our elected representatives. (If the developer had sued and won in court, that would have also made it a valid choice for the developer as confirmed by our court system.)

Once the developer was legally entitled to build City Place, the calculus of the city council had to change, if they were doing their job.

Their choices were:
1) Approve Heritage Row.
2) Reject Heritage Row.

#1 only made sense if the majority of the city council felt Heritage Row was better than City Place.

#2 made sense if either
A) the majority of the city council felt City Place was better than Heritage Row;
B) the majority of city council was willing to gamble that the developer wouldn’t build either.

The only way I can interpret their choices if they went for #2B, given that the generally reported sentiment from news reporting was that Heritage Row was better than City Place.

Assuming I am correct that #2B reflects the majority of the council’s reasoning, then claiming shock at the outcome when the gamble failed is a bit disingenuous.

At that point the decision was simply approve Heritage Row or don’t. They chose not to. The result of that poor gamble is apparent.

Despite the anonymous online spin placed on this story by some commenters, there was never a “middle ground” presented here–ever. There was a project that was approved (City Place) even though it exceeded zoning limits in several dimensions and went against the master plan’s repeated call for preservation of the neighborhood. And, there was an even BIGGER project, called Heritage Row that did the same thing to an even greater degree, just in a slightly less visually offensive way.

The City took the safe path, and allowed architect Brad Moore’s extreme interpretations of the zoning parameters to stand for City Place. The City Attorney probably did a risk analysis and advised they approve it, even on its questionable merits, simply because developers with deep pockets are more likely to sue than neighbors are (at least, usually). They are also more likely to receive large settlements when they do.

In 1996, a different city attorney, mayor, council and planning commission said “No” to a Burger King at Huron and Ashley, even though it supposedly was permitted “by right” and met all the zoning parameters.

Unfortunately, we don’t currently have City staff, commissioners, more councilmembers and a mayor who value good public policy and the property rights of average citizens, over perceived legal risks, and who stand up for ALL citizens instead of just out-of-town developers who come to exploit Ann Arbor and its weaknesses.

A previous city council applied the current zoning. The developer is acting in a fashion consistent with private property rights and existing zoning.

“These houses could have been refurbished to provide housing, but the greed of the developer won out.”

The developer tried to find a middle ground, but the Council rejected that approach, or to rephrase your words …

“These houses could have been refurbished to provide housing, but the obstinancy of the council won out.”

What else did you expect would happen?