Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Habitat Chestnut topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews plan for 32 Habitat for Humanity townhomes on West Chestnut Street
Summary
Habitat for Humanity of Greater Cincinnati presented a preliminary/final plan for 32 townhomes on roughly 3.46 acres; planning commission recommended conditions and one contested pedestrian access condition remains under negotiation.
Oxford City Council took up a combined preliminary and final plan development application from Habitat for Humanity of Greater Cincinnati for 32 single-family attached townhomes on three parcels on West Chestnut Street.
Sam Perry, Community Development Director, summarized the site plan and a set of planning commission-recommended conditions. The project would create Mitchell Court, a short public street and cul-de-sac, an alley for rear access and parking courts, and a rear retention area for stormwater. The land was acquired using American Rescue Plan funds and staff said Habitat won a competitive RFP to develop attainable homeownership units on the site.
Joe Hansbauer, CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Greater Cincinnati, told council the team negotiated design and screening changes after a neighborhood meeting and said the group considers the remaining conditions workable. Habitat requested removal of one condition (condition 8) that would have required a dedicated pedestrian hard-surface path between two buildings to access the alley; engineers reported underground utility locations and limited space made that sidewalk infeasible without losing units or building costly retaining walls.
Staff and councilors discussed the sidewalk request and neighbors’ concerns. Perry said utility equipment (transformers and service boxes) are typically placed at property lines and that fitting a public sidewalk in the constrained area would be difficult. Planning commission had requested the circulation link to reduce unplanned footpaths; Habitat and the engineer proposed alternatives but asked to remove the condition because of the technical constraints.
Councilors praised the project's design and the outreach process. One councilor asked staff to continue to explore softer design solutions to encourage safe pedestrian circulation and to monitor potential trespass conflicts if residents create informal paths.
No final council vote occurred; the plan is scheduled for second reading and a vote at the next council meeting. Staff reported that planning commission conditions included final planting/screening details and coordination on traffic-calming treatments at a pedestrian crossing point.
