Developer proposes 10‑story King Square mixed‑income housing at 222 East Third Street

Mastermind representatives presented a conceptual plan to the Mount Vernon City Council for a roughly 10‑story, mixed‑income apartment building called King Square at 222 East Third Street.

The project team, represented by Ron Shulman of Best Development Group and Radame Perez, principal of Mastermind, described an approximately 225–226 unit building with ground‑floor retail, below‑grade parking and community space. Shulman said the design would include green building measures, onsite retail and a mix of unit sizes and incomes.

The presentation matters because the site is in a highly visible area adjacent to a small park and an underpass; the developer said the project would add significant housing and would require coordination on zoning, parking and potential public‑infrastructure issues. The meeting produced detailed questions from council members about parking ratios, unit sizes, financing and whether the project could be built “as of right” under the city’s MX‑1 zoning.

According to the developer, the building would be roughly 10 stories with about 226 apartments and a mix of studios, one‑, two‑ and three‑bedrooms. The team provided these preliminary unit size averages: studio about 460–461 sq. ft.; one‑bedroom about 625 sq. ft.; two‑bedroom about 800 sq. ft.; and three‑bedroom about 925 sq. ft. The proposed unit distribution the team described was 17 studios, 83 one‑bedrooms, 108 two‑bedrooms and 18 three‑bedrooms. The developer said those figures are preliminary and subject to market testing and design revision.

On affordability, the applicant said the building is intended to be mixed income, targeting a range of AMIs (area median incomes) roughly from about 50% to 90% of AMI. The developers presented an income band they said corresponds approximately to household incomes from about $55,000 to $150,000 and estimated rents across the bands from roughly the low $1,000s up to the mid‑$3,000s depending on unit size and market demand.

Parking and site plan: architect Keith Seibel (Newman Design) told the council the project would provide two levels of parking beneath the building, totaling 148 spaces (81 in a cellar level and 67 on a first floor of the garage). Earlier in the presentation the applicant estimated roughly 150 spaces; the architect later confirmed 148.

Zoning and approvals: planning staff and council members discussed whether the proposal could be built “as of right” in the MX‑1 zone. City staff said MX‑1 allows projects up to 12 stories at the site, but the developer said MX‑1 density would produce far fewer units (the developer estimated about 176 units under a strict MX‑1 application). The applicant said it would therefore likely seek approvals or variances beyond what the MX‑1 standard yields, including potential relaxations of parking requirements.

Environmental and site history: the presenter said a Phase I environmental review has been completed and that no further environmental investigation is currently required beyond that phase. The team told council it has owned the property since May 2007 and plans to memorialize the former structure that once occupied the site (the developer referred to that structure and the site’s railroad‑stop history) in the new building’s lobby.

Design, amenities and sustainability: the team described green building measures they plan to pursue, including Enterprise Green Communities criteria, insulated low‑E windows, high‑efficiency HVAC, Energy Star appliances, solar panels and electric‑vehicle charging stations. The proposed program includes about 3,800 square feet of ground‑floor retail, a community room for residents on the second floor and rooftop/open space over the parking structure intended for residents.

Financing and public incentives: the developer said financing would rely on a mix of tax credits, bonds, subsidies (state and county programs were mentioned), and developer equity. The applicant indicated it expects to request a long‑term pilot/tax‑abatement arrangement aligned with mortgage financing (they said a pilot “commensurate” with a 30‑ to 35‑year mortgage would be sought). Council members discussed the option of funding the present value of a pilot up front as one way to align city and developer interests.

Council concerns: several council members pressed the applicant for more detail. Councilman Thompson said the unit sizes felt small, “these are like shoe boxes,” and asked whether floor plans and elevator counts could be provided; the applicant confirmed there would be three elevators. Council members also raised a nearby bridge/underpass and an open tunnel adjacent to the site; the developer said the building would not excavate or otherwise “touch” the tunnel and that any bridge repairs in the area were separate public works actions that could affect construction timing. Council members asked the applicant to meet with the Planning Department and the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and to return with more detailed plans.

No votes or commitments were made at the meeting; city staff summarized the conversation as an informal concept presentation and said the next steps are further consultation with the Planning Department and concurrent discussions with the IDA and other agencies as needed.

Quotes from the presentation included Radame Perez, principal of Mastermind: "It's about creating opportunity. It's about addressing housing shortages." Ron Shulman, representing Mastermind, summarized the concept: "What we propose here is a 10 story building, which would be approximately 225 apartments." Councilman Thompson said of unit sizes, "these are like shoe boxes."