Commission tables two Columbus State–area affordable housing projects, seeks more detail after public concern

The Downtown Commission voted to table review of two related redevelopment proposals near Columbus State Community College — Opportunity 0.1 (164 N. Grant Ave., proposed five stories and 82 units) and Opportunity 0.2 (149 Cleveland Ave., proposed five stories and 100 units, including 20 student units) — and asked applicants to return with additional details after public comment flagged concerns about the projects' scale and proximity to a nearby registered historic building.

Staff presented both cases together and described changes made since a July conceptual review: the applicants replaced vinyl siding with fiber-cement siding, moved refuse enclosures based on commission feedback, and removed two surface parking spaces to accommodate service areas, playgrounds and picnic areas. Jonathan McKay of Cooper Companies and Cynthia Hayes of PCI Design Group, representing the development team, said much of the design had been updated to address commissioner comments.

Zach Woodruff, chief real estate development officer for Columbus State, described the partner organizations' goals: increase affordable housing near campus, provide some units that are prioritized for students (20 units), and re-purpose underused surface parking lots. "Approximately 70 to 80% of our students live outside of 270…we understand that is in large part due to a lack of attainable housing near campus," Woodruff said.

Commissioners and staff probed financing and implementation timing; applicants said both projects had received reservations of tax credits from the Ohio Housing Finance Agency and would undergo required environmental reviews before demolition or construction. A commissioner pressed whether demolition would proceed only after financing and environmental approvals were finalized; applicants confirmed demolition would not start until those steps were complete.

A resident and property owner, Debbie Richards, spoke at the podium to urge sensitivity to a neighboring registered historic property (the Gale House Condominiums). Richards said the proposed new buildings would come within a few feet of her historic turreted facade and asked for a setback, greater design sensitivity and renderings that show the new building in context with the historic neighbor. "Could there perhaps be a setback that would create some green space or some trees between this new development and one of the few remaining historic buildings in downtown?" Richards asked.

Following the public comment and commissioner discussion that highlighted inconsistencies between renderings and elevations, the commission moved to table both Opportunity 0.1 and 0.2 and requested specific materials to return at the next meeting (Nov. 18):

- Construction (CD) drawings and enlarged wall/window/section details; - Elevations that match the renderings (including proposed areas of brick to the third floor where present in renderings); - Clear material/color callouts on elevations; - Landscape plan clarifications, including buffers between parking and playgrounds and screening for transformers/dumpsters; - Renderings illustrating the new buildings in direct adjacency to the neighboring historic property and a demonstrative view of the five-foot walkway/sideyard; - A clearer schedule and phasing plan for demolition, interim grading and streetscape reconstruction; and - A HABS-style documentation report for the historic house where applicable.

The motion to table applied to both cases and carried on voice vote. Staff and applicants agreed to provide the additional materials, and the projects will return for further review.

Provenance: Staff presentation and project descriptions begin at 00:29:04; applicant testimony appears at 00:34:30; public comment by Debbie Richards begins at 01:17:45; the motion to table was made and voted at 01:36:57–01:39:01.