Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Development Commission tables 177‑unit Freebisc Avenue apartment plan after hours of public opposition
Summary
After nearly three hours of public comment and repeated criticism about scale, parking and neighborhood fit, the Columbus Development Commission voted to table a proposal to build a 177‑unit apartment complex on Freebisc Avenue so the applicant can return with revisions.
The Columbus Development Commission on June 12 tabled a rezoning application that would have allowed a 177‑unit apartment building at 1549 Freebisc Avenue, following lengthy public comment and concerns about parking, traffic and neighborhood compatibility.
Planning staff presented the application as a redevelopment of a 1.65‑acre site currently occupied by self‑storage and surface parking. The applicant, Sayam (Sai) Ibrahim, told the commission his firm had revised plans in response to community feedback, reduced overall density from earlier versions and proposed a portion of the building as affordable housing. “We’ve listened, we’ve made adjustments — we went lower in density, removed retail, and added green space,” Ibrahim said during the meeting.
Neighborhood speakers strongly opposed the plan. Marty Grace, who submitted a written opposition and spoke at the meeting, said the proposed density and unit count were far out of scale with surrounding single‑family housing and that nearby properties have experienced crime and maintenance problems tied to previous developments. “They were told to bring original architectural drawings; they brought the same drawings as last time,” Grace said. Several residents told commissioners the site was too small for the number of proposed units and raised safety concerns about emergency access and fire department reach on the steep driveway.
Other residents said the developer had not followed through on prior commitments to meaningful community engagement. Several speakers and the Deshield Park civic association said they had voted unanimously against the project at earlier neighborhood meetings.
Commission members repeatedly questioned project fit, parking enforcement and whether the on‑site and adjacent garage parking commitments would be sufficient to prevent spillover into nearby streets. Commissioners and staff noted that the application included a concurrent council variance on parking that would be addressed by City Council if the rezoning moved forward.
After public testimony and discussion, a motion to table the application passed. The commission directed the applicant to revise the proposal to address the community’s concerns, in particular connectivity to adjacent open space, on‑site usable recreational area, clearer commitments on assigned parking, and improved documentation of emergency access. The applicant indicated he would return with a redesigned plan; the commission did not set a date for reconsideration.
The tabling leaves the current zoning in place; no change will occur until the applicant returns and any future action is voted by the commission and ultimately by City Council.
