Ann Arbor planning panel recommends 10‑story West Heron mixed‑use PUD with 285 units

The Ann Arbor Planning Commission on June 2 recommended that the mayor and city council approve a planned unit development (PUD) and associated site plan for 315 West Heron Street (addresses including 301–319 W. Heron St. and 102–106 S. First St.). The commission’s recommendation was unanimous on the motions as amended.

Planner Shake and staff described the proposal as a fully electric 10‑story mixed‑use building with 285 residential units (studios through two‑bedrooms), ground‑floor retail including a coffee shop and rooftop amenity, and 15% of the units—about 43 units—reserved at 60% of area median income (AMI) under the city’s affordable housing rules. The petitioner said the project proposes 95 on‑site parking spaces (roughly 0.33 spaces per unit), EV charging, and roughly 2.82 acres of open space including a proposed pocket park next to the railroad corridor. The staff recommendation to approve was conditioned on a development agreement and a set of site plan conditions to be satisfied in revised plans within six months of council approval.

Why it mattered: Staff concluded the PUD met the eight PUD review criteria in the city’s Unified Development Code—finding beneficial public effects that could not be achieved under other districts, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 2050, and mitigation measures for stormwater and historic‑adjacent properties. The project drew an extended public hearing and commission discussion on density, neighborhood impacts and technical details such as deliveries, trash staging and the project’s effect on downtown parking demand.

Key details and debate: The petitioner emphasized the project’s financing relies on a tax‑increment finance (TIFF) housing mechanism (described during the hearing as a housing TIFF) that boosts the project’s tax stream and makes lender debt support feasible. The petitioner said, “absent this, I can’t make the numbers work,” when explaining why the TIFF stream is part of the capital stack. Several public commenters and commissioners questioned whether a 15% affordable component at 60% AMI would serve downtown workers (teachers and service workers were cited repeatedly) and urged clearer limits or deeper affordability; staff noted 60% AMI affordability must meet program rules and that the 15% threshold satisfies the PUD supplemental regulation as drafted.

Backup power and a new restriction: The commission debated an amendment to the draft supplemental regulations that address the project’s “all‑electric” intent but allow life‑safety backup power. Petitioner said the backup approach currently anticipates a compact diesel generator (an integrated unit with an on‑tank fuel system) because large battery systems sized for long elevator operation would be materially more expensive and may present other code and safety tradeoffs. Commissioners and a public commenter urged exploration of battery solutions and community battery approaches; the commission adopted an amendment to the supplemental regulations that explicitly bars new connections to the natural‑gas distribution system for this PUD while allowing limited backup systems as required by building and life‑safety codes.

Public concerns and design concessions: Speakers at the public hearing raised several recurring concerns: the height and massing relative to nearby historic fabric, potential loss of longstanding ground‑floor businesses, adequacy of parking and traffic impacts, noise and light from a proposed rooftop amenity, and the mechanics of deliveries and trash staging. The petitioner described on‑site loading/turnaround space, trash rooms with roll‑out bins for pickup, and design intents to retain or reveal portions of an existing trestle/facade where practical; staff noted the supplemental regulations include public access easements and required mitigation for natural features.

Vote and next steps: The Planning Commission voted (roll call) to recommend the PUD zoning and to recommend approval of SP26‑00004, subject to the development agreement and the conditions listed in the staff report. The recorded roll call in the meeting: Commissioner Hammer (yes), Commissioner Lee (yes), Commissioner Mills (yes), Commissioner Weatherbe (yes), Commissioner Norton (yes), and Commissioner Bassuni (yes). The motions were carried by the commission and will be forwarded with the staff report to the mayor and city council for final action. Following council review and any required conditions, the development agreement and supplemental regulations will be enforced through the city’s approval process.