The Land Use Commission fell short of approving a proposed townhome development on Central Street by one vote at its Wednesday night meeting.
The proposed 3-story development at 3233-3249 Central St. would consist of 10 four-bedroom units, including one Inclusionary Housing Ordinance unit. Its developers requested major variations from zoning requirements regarding the number of stories as well as the building and rear yard coverages.
Four out of five commissioners present at Wednesday’s meeting voted to approve the proposed development, one short of the requisite number. The proposal will be back on the docket at the commission’s next meeting in two weeks.
While present commissioners mostly expressed support for the proposal, stormwater drainage and green space were points of contention.
“I want to approve it because I want to see development, I want to see big development in this town,” Commissioner Darush Mabadi said. “At the same time, I want to make sure that we’re being fair-minded about what we are tasked to do as a city, and this feels like it’s pulling on both of those strings.”
The lot has been vacant since 2018, when the previous 6-unit townhome development was demolished in anticipation of a 12-unit multi-family development, which was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in April of that year but never constructed.
The Land Use Commission initially rejected the new proposed development at its March 11 meeting, with five commissioners voting against and only Commissioner Jameika Mangum voting in favor. This time around, the present five commissioners all seemed more receptive to the updated proposal.
Since March, the developers scaled down the project from 11 to 10 units and decreased the building lot and rear yard coverages, though it still exceeds zoning code requirements.
At Wednesday’s meeting, city staff recommended approval of the major variations, subject to several conditions. The commission is the determining body in this case.
The applicant, Anthony Kaplunov of Krosha Properties LLC, presented the updated plans to the commission. He said the requested variance to rear yard coverage is primarily to accommodate two-car garages for every unit — including the IHO unit, which is not required under city code.
“We believe it’s important that affordable units also receive the same functionality, convenience and the quality of life and amenities as the market sale ones,” Kaplunov said.
He highlighted the developers’ proposed $12,000 contribution to the city to add a Divvy bike station at Bent Park, across the street from the lot, as well as a $33,000 contribution to the city’s Affordable Housing Fund.
Kaplunov also emphasized that the proposal includes a stormwater detention vault below the garage structures to mitigate runoff in compliance with Metropolitan Water Reclamation District requirements.
Several commissioners expressed approval of the changes made by developers in the latest iteration and provided suggestions to improve the final design.
Mabadi voiced concerns about how the building’s facade might contrast with the surrounding neighborhood.
“This long building really stands out dramatically from what’s going on on that block,” Mabadi said. “And that does concern me.”
For many neighbors, the proposal was still unacceptable.
Several residents living adjacent to or nearby the proposed development expressed concerns at the meeting about the project’s impact on the neighborhood, including stormwater drainage and property value.
Sixth Ward James Gathii, who lives just behind the lot on Hartzsell Street, said the project would reduce permeable open space and increase flooding concerns. Gathii said flooding already happens regularly in the neighborhood, and developing the empty lot would worsen this issue.
“Preserving the permeable space is therefore not simply an aesthetic preference,” Gathii said. “It is an important safeguard for homes, neighborhood and the public infrastructure.”
Some residents also expressed concerns about the building’s size compared to the single-family residential district directly north of the lot.
Sixth Ward Frank Ibarra, who also lives on Hartzell Street, acknowledged the developers’ attempts to scale down the proposal but said the development is still problematic and would negatively impact surrounding home values.
“We made conscious decisions during the home buying process not to purchase a home where there was a large building in the back, and we found that where there were homes with large buildings in the back, those were selling at lower prices,” Ibarra said.
Kaplunov said he appreciated hearing from neighbors and thanked them for their comments.
Commissioners also acknowledged the community concerns but largely supported going through with the development.
Commissioner Kiril Mirintchev said the plan had improved and suggested design adjustments to the rear facade.
“The water issue is significant, but once again, this is a technical problem that should be resolved between the design team and the city so that there are no concerns and there are no problems there,” Mirintchev said.
The commissioners ultimately failed by one vote to approve the development, with Mirintchev, Mangum, Commissioner Luke Harris-Ferree and Commission Vice Chair Jeanne Lindwall voting to approve and Mabadi voting against the proposal.
The commission will consider the proposal again at its July 22 meeting.
Mabadi said he has remaining concerns about stormwater retention and substantial green space, emphasizing the long-term impact the development will have on its neighbors.
“They will experience this project’s growth and creation, and afterward what’s there for the rest of time,” Mabadi said. “So we need to ask ourselves, is this project going to harm their house from a water retention standpoint? And I don’t know the answer to that question. And I feel like that is a question that should be answered in order to determine whether to approve this project.”
Email: [email protected]
Related Stories:
— Central Street townhomes proposal returns with scaled-back plan
— Land Use Commission recommends Three Crowns development but not parking lot
