Residents from Burns Park, the Third Ward and other nearby neighborhoods urged the Ann Arbor City Council to scale back a proposed large residential development at 601 South Forest, arguing the plan’s height and density would harm neighborhood character and strain infrastructure. The council opened public comment on the proposal and left the hearing open; the item will return for further consideration at a later meeting (the council indicated a tentative date of Aug. 18).

The concerns centered on building height, assumed parking behavior, potential occupancy and the scope of environmental incentives. Susan Fratt Walton, a Burns Park resident, opposed a very tall building and said, “This 20 25 story monstrosity is completely out of proportion.” Peter Negurni, co‑chair of the Burns Park North Association, argued the developer’s marketing of the project as a student dormitory is misleading and said, “It’s not a student dormitory. It’s a 1,142 room, bed rooming house.”

Why it matters: The site lies adjacent to established single‑family neighborhoods and parks, and speakers said a project at the scale proposed could increase traffic and parking demand, alter neighborhood character and generate unforeseen public‑safety and city‑service costs. Several speakers told council the available studies and assumptions that underlie traffic, parking and environmental subsidy decisions are incomplete or unreliable.

Speakers and neighborhood groups pressed several technical points. Christopher Taylor, a city resident, asked the council to “interrogate the assumptions” behind parking and traffic estimates and questioned whether the developer’s projections account for the likely vehicle ownership of higher‑income student tenants. Peter Negurni and others called for project review under apartment/residential standards (rather than a dormitory standard), noting federal housing law means nonstudents may lawfully rent units. Negurni also warned that the maximum legal occupancy for rental units — up to six unrelated adults — could raise long‑term occupancy and infrastructure impacts well beyond the developer’s present estimates.

Other neighborhood concerns echoed those points: Dan Burrell, a medical‑school faculty member living in Burns Park, said neighborhood groups have assembled technical critiques of the wind and utility analyses and urged the council to study them carefully. Ellen Ramsburg emphasized process issues and asked that any continuation of the hearing be tied explicitly to receipt of missing data and a finalized, publicly accessible development agreement.

Supporters of density urged caution about scale rather than opposing development outright. Dave Duvarti, a Downtown Development Authority member and former council member, said he favors increased downtown density generally but called a 25‑story building “way out of scale” for this location and urged use of transitional zoning.

Council action and next steps: The council left the public hearing open and said it will continue the item at a future meeting once the outstanding studies, the final development agreement and related documentation are available for public review. Several speakers requested at least five days’ public notice and access to the finalized materials before the resumed hearing.

Clarifying points from public remarks: speakers flagged that the developer’s parking plan assumes parking for roughly 20 percent of residents; that wind‑study methodology may have gaps; that use of brownfield tax credits requires a clear cost‑benefit showing; and that if the building is treated as conventional housing the practical maximum occupancy could be substantially larger than the developer’s present counts.

Ending: Councilmembers did not vote on the project at this meeting. The public hearing remains open and will be resumed once planners provide the outstanding analyses and the development agreement for public review.