[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6573141,"mediaKeyId","3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f","parentId",3113480,"title","Landmark proposes 16‑story student housing at High and Lane; board presses design, affordability, neighborhood impacts","audioSeconds",2799,"startMs",154000,"endMs",2953000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f&start=154&end=2953","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f/thumbnail_154000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6573141/Ohio/Landmark-proposes-16story-student-housing-at-High-and-Lane-board-presses-design-affordability-neighborhood-impacts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6573141-aae2c2d55a3d8b9d9e8385a87af1fefa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770698250&Signature=YMcukezStVWCMk9FcaEQb0ptrp7xBUZRL~~ptzNuFKf19wVThgVoIP442SpLHJfo1hNQa88aMcB3-c1ZIAMnxc175DNDFTCXEwEeN0DENetBgCTPIBswCiFdhoalpHT9Lpwd4D~f-coIfkH1DJOHP0y94ZIMqz9B2L1bmjukN0An7Hi971Lw9ifcDqwa8PE-6GssIz89MDe1oWAcIujrVXRP7gq08hnMXxYGf-F~IwIpBWA2j-GhPp9lxjGsKhrcRP~wzTPGuttpeDXSB8ikOB29exaR2qafmm261YeTBhOnBd8D3iIE6oFxRjS6svtocVFNyo7Jh8lk4f7zrEP-tw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Columbus","date","2025-04-24T21:47:16.903Z","article","Landmark Properties presented a conceptual plan for a new 16‑story, mixed‑use student housing building on the northeast corner of High Street and Lane Avenue at a University District Design Review Board meeting. The project would demolish the existing CVS on the site and construct roughly a 378,300‑square‑foot tower with about 10,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space, below‑grade parking and bicycle parking to meet code requirements, according to the developer and design team.

The board’s review focused on how the building’s mass, ground‑floor activation and materials will relate to adjacent low‑rise residences to the north and east, and on how the developer intends to implement the city’s new affordability bonus that would allow the building to rise above the base height limit. Stephanie Kinsler of the planning division noted the application is a conceptual Certificate of Appropriateness submittal and that staff had not issued a recommendation of appropriateness at this stage.

“Currently we manage something like 71,000 beds across the country,” Jim Buchanan, representing Landmark Properties, told the board, describing the company’s experience as a long‑term student‑housing manager and investor. Zachary McJordan, the project architect, said the site is now zoned urban core under the city’s ZoneIn changes and that the district permits taller, denser buildings and reduces minimum vehicular parking requirements.

The team said the proposal would provide one level of below‑grade parking with roughly 64 vehicular spaces and aims to meet or exceed the code bicycle parking requirement (one bike space per two residential units and one per 5,000 square feet of retail, as cited by the applicant). They said they are planning for the affordability bonus that, if implemented for this project, would allow a 16‑story, 200‑foot height rather than the base maximum of 12 stories (150 feet).

Board members and commenters pressed for design changes and more detail. Staff suggested the applicant further mitigate height and massing impacts on nearby residential properties through additional setbacks, articulation and better response on the north and east elevations. Staff also recommended moving the retail entrance to the corner bay, increasing ground‑floor transparency, adding public art on Lane Avenue, and providing more information on lighting, landscaping, materials and any rooftop uses.

“[This site] is a gateway into the campus area,” McJordan said, explaining the design intent to activate the corner with retail and to step the building mass down toward adjacent residential lots. Buchanan and the team said they plan to provide a palette of masonry and storefront at the lower levels with panelized systems above.

Public commenters urged caution. “It’s too big…there’s gonna be nothing but shadow on the east side of that building,” resident Bob Singleton said, adding concerns about the visual impact on nearby Alhambra Court Apartments. Another resident, Winnie Mozemple, asked the developer to substantiate claims of a housing shortage near Ohio State University and whether the project’s units would be affordable to students.

Board members raised several recurring issues: stronger street‑level retail activation (some members recommended more retail on High Street rather than ground‑floor residential), clearer corner articulation and a more dynamic façade to avoid a monolithic wall, confirmation of how the 20% affordability requirement will be implemented (bedroom‑level vs. unit‑level accounting), and additional detail on accessible parking and bicycle facilities. Several board members also asked the applicant to bring additional elevation studies (including the Pearl Alley/Northwest views), material samples and a clearer plan showing how the building steps back to meet adjacency requirements.

The applicant said discussions are ongoing with city housing staff to determine how the affordability bonus will be applied to a student‑housing lease model; the applicant described 20% of units targeted to meet the affordability threshold but said implementation details may change as they finalize unit and bedroom counts.

No formal project approval was recorded at the meeting; the board provided conceptual feedback and requested additional studies, materials and revisions before a subsequent review. The applicant said they would return with revisions and respond to the board’s suggestions about site activation, materiality, façade articulation and public art.

The board’s comments reflected the meeting’s dual priorities: enabling higher‑density redevelopment under the ZoneIn rezoning while urging stronger mitigation of scale impacts on existing nearby residential neighborhoods.

The project will return for further review once the applicant provides the requested materials and clarifications, including how the affordability bonus will be implemented and more detailed façade and landscape information.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Meeting: University Impact District Review Board (04/24/25)","oneSentenceSummary","Landmark Properties presented a conceptual plan for a new 16‑story, mixed‑use student housing building on the northeast corner of High Street and Lane Avenue at a University District Design Review Board meeting.","taxTitle","Columbus City Council, Columbus, Franklin County, Ohio","taxId",75950,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6573126,"Design board asks applicants to scale back and refine signs for several student housing sites; three signage packages continued",993,4205000,5198000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f&start=4205&end=5198","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f/thumbnail_4205000.jpg","/articles/6573126/Ohio/Design-board-asks-applicants-to-scale-back-and-refine-signs-for-several-student-housing-sites-three-signage-packages-continued","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6573126-716decb94d509f21fdc19b7a83cc7cda/orig.mp4?Expires=1770698250&Signature=KltBmLTeFUGzr0SiLXLvJWzt-k8O3o1YVQwoRZKhmyAg-5bWfFwfxNWAP4mBSGKb10PGld48wsCZ9iakl1u54UONs9p0iyQ8F~nllQMNijoNNbV7vW1whPp9KNopdt0-rh5GR7TacVP~7GYPAFkyA0fdDDJUKOn9sDkGL8a8V6NeOSw9RnE5lhGEtUPyb87RZCZAT6cuaxI2mJBl~fdecrNDJHR5zfWXwT2a6cwjnJTk8CgEOy9OCcESOkyLhPddr78mPlC2tcujdQfuDUh3vMYmbA6aOwIjBVXwBhnV9NN6n0Ukl0snrZPPwsvlr6Ajk6JkKlQo6hlplRYlcM8~WQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The University District Design Review Board reviewed signage packages submitted for multiple student housing properties in the district — including proposals for projecting signs, illuminated channel letters and awning signs for properties described by applicants as part of a coordinated “State House” portfolio (Highline, Varsity and Marcy/other addresses).

Staff said the University District Plan allows internal illumination in some circumstances and endorses projecting and wall signs that complement storefronts, but also urges limiting sign size and careful placement so signs do not dominate building facades or shine into residential windows. At the hearing staff recommended continuance to allow applicants to revise size, placement and quantity of signs to better align with plan guidance.

Applicants told the board the packages are intended to unify multiple properties under a single brand and to identify leasing offices and main entrances. Board members and staff raised several recurring concerns: the height and projection of blade/projecting signs relative to upper‑floor windows and trees; the number of illuminated wall signs on a single façade; and whether a large “State House” wordmark is appropriate at the high point of a pedestrian‑scale building rather than nearer the storefront or primary entrance.

Board members suggested options including lowering blade signs, relocating larger wordmarks to appear above main entrances rather than at the highest parapet, reducing the number of illuminated wall signs on a single elevation, and reducing red illuminated elements that could be visually dominant. Several members said leasing office and directional signs are appropriate, but that redundant or oversized identity signage should be reduced.

For each of the three sign packages — the Highline package, the Varsity package and the Marcy/State House package — the board voted to continue to give applicants time to revise the proposals. Staff also noted that a small set of minor administrative items were approved as staff approvals during the meeting; the board voted to ratify those staff approvals.

The applicants agreed to return with revised, smaller and better‑located sign proposals, adjusted mounting heights for projecting signs to avoid shining into residential windows, and more consistent consolidation of identity marks across the buildings.","Three related signage packages for multi‑building student housing properties (parts of the “State House” portfolio) were discussed; the board asked applicants to revise sign sizes, placement and projecting sign details and continued the applications for further review.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6573131,"Board continues review of roof and gutter work on potentially contributing building, asks for details and repair options",1037,3328000,4365000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f&start=3328&end=4365","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f/thumbnail_3328000.jpg","/articles/6573131/Ohio/Board-continues-review-of-roof-and-gutter-work-on-potentially-contributing-building-asks-for-details-and-repair-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6573131-f1d260028a528db4b8da9ab68d8f4b44/orig.mp4?Expires=1770698250&Signature=j4G7jR~sfI1gqOeCEU3XICedGkZu4ZMHUR7mKDemhz94mOHpx9iUlSUr1blVVBl~Y13Fe3gatfuxKfXOmHLErf7Y9QPcWh9BZJ-lfEpqAphDtxHYrcANF6nVtIk~8UvkSGJ9IOhpmfr1JpcRYF~mh6-TFcUHqWtnjTdeWJFpFkRY6VHY~BhGb-8yZq8kl8cv78cJaZR32Mr8~UU6o7W1kOXmaGWlrgPvO8ohl8933yu-fWnkAKS4RzSgtLeEwMpj43iaOVyZzh9KQd8KKNfpU-QJlnITuzpv0~kKSgf6ECA4NT9FFtuOtRHk456q4~8VljmJwUYMFIJ9s4saj2goUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Owners of a building identified as potentially contributing to the University District’s historic character asked the board for approval to replace deteriorated roof gutters and to reroof portions of the building. Staff said the university district plan recommends preserving character‑defining features and cautioned that covering or removing the building’s existing gutter detail could affect its architectural character.

The applicant’s representative said the existing gutters are in poor repair, holding debris and failing to shed water properly. They asked the board to allow replacement with new 6‑inch k‑style aluminum gutters and a black finish to match the building’s brick. The applicant also said they plan to replace roofing materials and install a ridge cap to improve appearance and performance.

Board members and the historic preservation reviewer discussed whether the existing gutter elements are original character‑defining features (box gutters, stop gutters or similar). Staff and the preservation officer asked for clearer documentation and detail drawings. Several board members said they were open to repair rather than wholesale replacement if the existing elements can be conserved, but also recognized that some pieces appear beyond repair.

After discussion the board voted to continue the application and asked the applicant to provide additional documentation: clear, close‑up photographs of existing gutter details, a proposed replacement detail that either replicates the original profile or explains the repair approach, and (if feasible) a small trial removal in a non‑prominent location to allow inspection of the underlying construction. Staff said the board could consider a narrower approval if photos and details show the feature can be repaired rather than replaced.

The board recorded a motion to continue; the motion carried. Staff advised the applicant to consult with the historic preservation officer and return with the requested details at a future meeting.","Property owners requested permission to replace deteriorated roof gutters and associated roof work on a building potentially identified as contributing in the university district. The Design Review Board asked for additional documentation, condition photos and proposed details and continued the application.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6573136,"Design board approves revised site plan for concrete parking pad after applicant adds landscaping",249,3030000,3279000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f&start=3030&end=3279","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3113480-105ae24df3e01c43a7b3765a09675c2f/thumbnail_3030000.jpg","/articles/6573136/Ohio/Design-board-approves-revised-site-plan-for-concrete-parking-pad-after-applicant-adds-landscaping","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6573136-924c785ed1f825caadd0c8233d78e48f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770698250&Signature=WkPNY7Az9SveqQTNQtxwYKf4BtdbvnZsaTfcfrjJx2LZQ8cbwr0uXTt9H7tND4OGhMhoRXrbAOAjrRRJbjLOzlp2k8OYABrRZBK9J77luUmuP7m4h4pY0hBoJ30KLsff0UjAmfV5URhhAfla0NiTbYbAXW8I0VPzwdo6fwwQP~RIgELqm7U-OLawDI8PtU681QGWvZz9jLH6PWSVBYVwj2CstzmCUVYql6luAYQsjrBbRkNYv3trFxZKQdf0mHRZAM8awUMjfvYPEe4juER3MS7HH6xu4cvdS39ZHhEtLzaxNwI4-wvQBNE6UywgrOnpC-jW43~DIGt04IQjuCtTRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The University District Design Review Board approved a revised site plan for a residential property where an unpermitted concrete parking pad had been installed. Staff said the application was continued from February after the board asked the applicant to reduce the paved area and add landscaping to unpaved sections. The applicant submitted a revised plan and photos showing the reduced concrete footprint, perimeter landscaping and perennial plantings.

Board members confirmed that the applicant removed a concrete section measuring about 18 by 40 feet and replaced gravel areas with shrubs and other plantings. Staff said the lot’s current landscaping coverage is roughly 12.6 percent but that the applicant increased pervious area and added plantings consistent with board guidance.

A motion to approve the revised site plan was made and seconded; the roll call recorded affirmative votes from Board member Fleming, Board member Gunzelman, Board member Parker, Board member Reed, Board member Dunlap, Board member Smanski and Board member Miller. The motion carried.

Staff indicated the property will return for any remaining outstanding items and for final administrative review as needed.","A property owner returned with a revised site plan showing reduced concrete, added landscaping and perimeter plantings for a small parking pad; the University District Design Review Board voted to approve the updated plan.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Landmark proposes 16‑story student housing at High and Lane; board presses design, affordability, neighborhood impacts

Design board asks applicants to scale back and refine signs for several student housing sites; three signage packages continued

Board continues review of roof and gutter work on potentially contributing building, asks for details and repair options

Design board approves revised site plan for concrete parking pad after applicant adds landscaping