I have come to believe that out of town developers will only build to the absolute limits. They don’t live here so they just see Ann Arbor as a profit generator. Why would they do less than maximize profit? They can’t. Shareholders/investors would object to doing less than the absolute maximum. Not locals, though.

The North Main Greek Orthodox Church development is a great example which I think could/should be pretty nice (if built), in relative tune with its surroundings AND which will increase downtown density significantly at only three floors!! Hmm… greater downtown density in only THREE FLOORS? Nice! But a raider from Greenwich, CT could never show such restraint. He/she has a fiduciary responsibility to max it out.

That is not a scientific observation, though, just an impression since I started paying attention to it.

Members of Council who voted for the compromise results (and who are still on Council): Briere, Taylor, Teall, Higgins, Anglin, Hieftje. Members who voted against the compromise (and still on Council): Kunselman. This vote was the first meeting at which Council member Kunselman was seated after his 2009 election. At the time, he mentioned frequently that he had not been involved in the A2D2 process and earlier votes, and would not vote for the project for that reason. He did support several efforts to reduce density on South U.

But earlier that year, on April 6, 2009 the council had explicitly considered E. Huron, but did not weigh D1 against D2; instead, the council considered splitting Huron into two character areas, one of which (which includes the site of 413 E. Huron) had a reduced height limit compared to other D1-zoned properties (150 feet vs. 180 feet). The splitting of the Huron corridor was put forward by Briere. The reduction in the height limit for the one character district was approved over dissent from Derezinski, Greden, Taylor and Higgins.

It was in the South University area where the council explicitly weighed D1 against D2.

But the previous year, the recommendation of a zoning advisory committee was to make that part of E. Huron an interface zone, [.pdf of 2007 recommendations of the downtown zoning advisory committee] which was adopted by the city council on Oct. 15, 2007 with direction to the planning commission that was essentially to resolve the recommendations into ordinance revisions. [Hat tip to Chronicle reader for unearthing the 2007 recommendations.]

In fact, D2 was adopted in just nearly every other instance of D1 abutting residential zoning. Why the planning commission and council chose to single out this one strip to override the recommendations made in the council-approved report and treat it differently than every other downtown edge is beyond me. The result is an area of downtown where the zoning is not consistent with the master plan. This is a violation of State law, which requires zoning to be based on the master plan–not the whims and personal beliefs of officials, nor the demands of property owners seeking to maximize the development potential of their land.

City Council and planning commission need to act, and act quickly to correct this unequal and unsubstantiated application of the zoning ordinance or this proposed building could be the next University Towers to stick up like a sore thumb, leaving people shaking their heads for decades.