Board postpones National Church Residences campus vote after residents raise lake, scale and utility concerns

The City of Upper Arlington Board of Zoning and Planning on Sept. 17 voted to postpone consideration of National Church Residences' major site plan and related plat amendment for 2233–2335 North Bank Drive to the board's Oct. 1 meeting after staff and the applicant presented the proposal and a sustained public comment period raised multiple unresolved issues.

Staff gave an overview of the three‑building campus plan: a new four‑story headquarters/office building (about 55,000 square feet, two parking levels, two office levels above, capacity projected at 250–300 employees), a three‑story senior housing building with about 80 units, and a placeholder site for a future western senior building that will return to the board. The campus sits south of Northbank Drive, west of Arlington Center Boulevard and adjacent to Northwest Kiwanis Park and a retention pond the plans label as a lake. The site is zoned PMOD (planned mixed office district), rezoned in 2022.

Staff and the applicant (Kevin Brown, director of senior housing development, National Church Residences, joined by architect and designers) described the project phasing: phase one (office) completion expected late 2027, phase two (senior building) mid‑2028, and a three‑phase buildout through about 2030. Staff said the applicant seeks one variance from the front‑yard setback requirements because an angled utility easement with existing sanitary sewer, fiber, electric (AEP) and gas facilities constrains moving buildings farther north.

Public comment included about two dozen speakers representing Concord Village homeowners and nearby residents who raised repeated concerns: the size and proximity of the proposed four‑story office building at the narrow end of the pond; privacy and property‑value impacts for lakefront homeowners; safety and liability implications if the city assumes control of the pond and allows a shared pathway along the shore; inadequate detail or guarantees about who would maintain the pond during the multiyear construction period; whether utilities (especially sanitary sewer) could be relocated to allow the building to move farther from the water; the cost and feasibility of putting parking below grade; and restrictive covenants or deed language residents referenced that they said protect lakefront enjoyment.

The applicant's team said they had held multiple community meetings and revised the design since a work session to reduce balcony profiles, adjust materials and add landscaping; they explained above‑grade parking cost estimates (approximately $36,000 per space), and noted industry estimates that one level below grade roughly doubles per‑space cost while two levels below grade could triple it; the applicant cited an approximate $8 million additional cost if two parking levels were moved fully below grade, and also cited elevation and dewatering challenges because the site sits at lake level.

During discussion the board asked technical questions about the utility easement and whether moving the sanitary sewer could realistically yield additional setback; engineering representatives said the easement situation includes sanitary sewer, fiber optics, an AEP electric easement and Columbia Gas facilities and that relocating those utilities would be complex and could require additional easements or substantial cost. City staff and the applicant agreed to prepare a consolidated response that details the constraints and any realistic gain in building setback from moving city‑controlled utilities.

After more than an hour of public comment and board questions, a member requested postponement to give staff time to assemble engineering detail on easement constraints and to allow the applicant and community additional time to work through design options. The board then voted to postpone the major site plan and the related plat‑amendment recommendation to city council to the Oct. 1 meeting.

Key unresolved matters the board asked staff and the applicant to flesh out before the next hearing include a clear engineering analysis of what setback (if any) could be gained by relocating city utilities, the design implications for the lobby and parking garage if the building shifts, clarification of lake ownership and a maintenance plan during construction (staff said, per the development agreement, National Church Residences would retain maintenance responsibility until phase 2 or phase 3 completion depending on timing), pathway routing and access, and additional landscape design details. Board members urged continued community engagement and asked the applicant to return with consolidated technical responses.