Board reviews conceptual plans for 20‑unit temporary housing near OSU medical center; no action required

The University District Review Board on Jan. 23 heard a conceptual presentation for a proposed 20‑unit short‑term housing building on King Avenue intended to serve families and patients affiliated with The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. No formal action was required for this conceptual review.

Staff said the project will require one or more variances and that the Department of Building and Zoning Services has determined the property will not be rezoned. Staff recommended the applicant pursue a preliminary site‑compliance meeting to identify all variances before returning for formal action, a step the applicant said they planned to take.

The applicant described the project as a 20‑unit short‑term building to support medical visitors and families and said the design aims to be respectful of the neighborhood while being “home‑like” for occupants. The proposal showed a building massing set back to align with a neighboring house, a front patio area and landscaping, and a palette of multiple façade materials intended to break up the form. The submission also included a draft list of variances the team expects to pursue; staff cautioned those items were preliminary and may change after the preliminary compliance meeting.

Board members provided design feedback at the conceptual level: they encouraged a stronger corner gesture and suggested reconsidering a boxy corner element so the corner better addresses the intersection; they recommended refining the rhythm and modulation of dormers and façade elements; and they suggested considering real or cut limestone or higher-quality veneers rather than peel‑and‑stick stone to increase durability and authenticity. One member emphasized that while neighborhood groups should be engaged, the University Area Commission and the board retain authority over aesthetics, massing and form.

Questions from the board included whether the project would provide shuttle or drop‑off arrangements to the medical center, whether accessible parallel parking could be provided at the street, and timing for variance determinations; the applicant said they plan to submit a preliminary site compliance plan to clarify variances and timing, but no specific timetable was given in the meeting.

Because this was a conceptual discussion, no vote or formal action was taken; staff requested a pass‑light (paleontological? staff phrased as “pass light”) report prior to any demolition due to the site’s potentially contributing mid‑20th‑century building, and staff encouraged the applicant to explore opportunities for public art in the front patio corner.

The applicant said they will pursue preliminary site compliance, continue discussions with staff and neighborhood groups, and return with refined plans and any required variance requests.