A proposal for a new townhouse development scored a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation in spite of some tense discussion and pushback from neighbors.
The proposal would see seven new townhomes built at 5216 Seminary Road. Each home will be three stories plus a roof deck and garage, with one unit set aside as affordable.
Neighbors near the project expressed their frustration in the public hearing and in letters before the meeting. Neighbor Nandan Kenkeremath submitted a 24-page breakdown of neighbor concerns, the largest of which was the fact that the townhouses are set directly on the street rather than pushed back with a front yard like other nearby townhomes. Instead, the townhomes’ open space will be behind the building with vehicular access to the site via a rear lane.
“This is simply not a good situation for families or children. Our yards have substantial decorations on holidays. Seminary Park and Seminary Heights have common areas that are substantial. The proposal is to eliminate corner lot requirements, setbacks, and yards in a place where there is great deal of traffic on Seminary Road and Echols.”
Others spoke at the meeting about concerns like trees at the site being torn down and a lack of connection to the prevailing architecture in the neighborhood.
While the meeting did feature a heated exchange between Commissioner David Brown and attorney Cathy Puskar, that argument mostly centered around the timing of when information was presented to Planning Commissioners and city staff. Ultimately, Brown voted with the others in support of the project.
The rear-load design that neighbors objected to didn’t attract the same ire from the Planning Commission.
“I acknowledge that the rear load design doesn’t look as much like other townhomes near here, but I don’t think that makes it incompatible,” Commissioner Melissa McMahon said. “I think what rear load design does is make a more cohesive and safe space for traveling around the site.”
McMahon said the project will deliver one new affordable housing unit that the city wouldn’t get if the site were developed by-right. The concerns about losing trees also didn’t hold up for Commissioners.
“Any redevelopment of property would probably lose every tree,” McMahon said. “I don’t see that as a tipping point item.”
“I would say just because it’s different doesn’t mean it’s not compatible and not consistent with the character of the neighborhood,” said Planning Commission Chair Nathan Macek. “We should not exacerbate obsolete design choice just so it matches what’s there already.”
With Planning Commission support, the project will head to a City Council hearing on Saturday, Nov. 16
