Council reviews draft housing market study calling for infill, townhomes and senior housing

Upper Arlington City Council on April 21 received a draft housing market analysis from Community Scale principal Nels Nelson that frames the city as a desirable, built‑out suburb with a tight housing market and limited land for new construction.

Nelson said the study estimates that meeting projected household growth and correcting a tight vacancy rate would require roughly 57 housing units per year and that the most feasible additions in Upper Arlington are “missing middle” products such as townhomes, small multifamily and senior housing rather than stand‑alone large apartment complexes. “This is a draft document, and we really want your input,” Nelson said during the presentation.

The report, commissioned by the city after an RFP process, compared Upper Arlington with peer communities, analyzed household and housing stock data, and combined that with an opt‑in community survey. Among the study’s findings: Upper Arlington’s median household income is about $155,000 (2025), regional HUD median income is about $110,000, overall vacancy is just under a commonly cited 5% benchmark (the consultants called the market “tight”), and the city has seen growth in families with children while losing population in the 20–34 and 50–64 bands.

Why it matters: Upper Arlington is largely built out and landlocked. The study says small infill and redevelopment—townhomes, four‑unit conversions, ADUs and senior projects—can add housing without drastic character changes while supplying housing better matched to younger buyers and downsizing older adults. By contrast, Nelson told the council, large rental projects typically show a negative municipal return in today’s economics and would likely require a subsidy; Community Scale estimated an illustrative financing gap of approximately $63,000 per rental unit in current conditions.

Key data and findings

- Estimated annual housing need (households → units, including replacement and vacancy adjustment): about 57 units per year through 2050.

- Affordability gap: based on local inputs the study estimates a household earning the city median (about $155,000) could afford roughly a $480,000 house under current mortgage/tax assumptions while typical prices in parts of the city are higher, producing an affordability gap.

- Product economics: a tear‑down/rebuild on a very small lot would likely price above about $1.1 million; new large single‑family on half‑acre lots pushes toward roughly $2.1 million. Converting a similar parcel into four attached units would produce lower per‑unit sales (~$783,000 in the consultant example) and would better serve buyers earning less than the highest income cohorts.

- Municipal revenue per acre and per unit: higher intensity projects can yield more municipal revenue per acre while very high‑value single‑family lots show high revenue per unit because the denominator is one unit.

- Schools: staff obtained address‑by‑address school enrollment from Upper Arlington City Schools and cross‑tabulated students per structure type. Single‑family types (medium home/small lot) showed among the highest students per unit; small multifamily and some townhome types produced far fewer students per unit in the preliminary dataset. Nelson cautioned the school analysis was “hot off the press” and flagged minor adjustments as likely.

Public input and survey

Community Scale collected 716 opt‑in survey responses (the firm noted response bias is likely). Survey respondents prioritized medium‑density infill (townhomes/quadplexes), senior housing and accessory dwelling units as preferred additions; the first choice for where growth should go was medium‑density infill. The firm also reported 64% of survey respondents were “very satisfied” with living in Upper Arlington (compared with a 33% national average noted by the consultant).

Council discussion and staff notes

Council members pressed the consultants on projections and local impacts. Vice President Close and others asked whether the charts showing declines in the 20–34 and 50–64 age cohorts were actuals or simple trend extrapolations; Nelson said the left side of that slide showed actual change and the right side simply carried those changes forward and that policy choices can alter the forecast. Nelson summarized the takeaway: “we’ve been failing to capture young adults” and noted Upper Arlington is gaining children and some senior households, creating a risk the community could become concentrated in a narrow set of life stages without policy changes.

Councilmember Walter repeatedly urged commissioners to consider school funding implications before adopting housing policy: “One of the primary reasons people move here is for the schools,” he said, and asked staff to provide project‑level student counts for recently built developments. Staff and the consultant said the address‑matched enrollment file had been shared with the schools and that James (city staff) had the spreadsheet to produce further analysis.

Calculations of municipal revenue factored in local property tax, income tax (including an assumed work‑from‑home share of earnings, which consultants said they reduced/cut to be conservative) and marginal service costs (police, fire, parks). City staff said some capital and debt service costs were included in the consultant’s breakeven calculations; they also noted that large multifamily projects compete across jurisdictional lines where neighboring communities’ abatements or incentives affect developer site choice.

Other details and follow‑ups

- Consultants flagged “townhomes on small lots” as a promising way to add diverse housing without large character changes and to modestly increase age diversity.

- Senior housing (including a project referenced with National Church Residences) was strongly supported by respondents and identified as an opportunity.

- Consultants and council agreed that final policy choices and any up‑zoning or corridor plans would be folded into the city’s master plan process; staff said an RFP to begin master‑plan work is expected this summer with more detailed options in the fall.

What’s next

City staff and Community Scale will revise the draft based on council comments and additional data requests, including clarifying year‑over‑year demographic changes and refining school enrollment cross‑matches. Nelson said the draft will be updated with council input and that the study is intended to inform—rather than dictate—master plan decisions that follow.