Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues review of proposed 13‑story North High Street residential tower, asks for more drawings and historic assessment
Summary
Developers presented revised materials, façades and landscape plans for a proposed 13‑story, ~183‑unit building; the board praised lighting/mass timber details but asked for additional construction drawings, a historic assessment report before demolition, and clarity about ADA parking; the committee continued the item to the next meeting.
A Columbus City design review committee continued consideration of a proposed 13‑story residential building on North High Street after the project team presented revisions and the board requested additional documentation and conditions.
Staff introduced the application (packet listed an address and an internal project number) and recommended conditional support while requesting a historic/assessment report prior to demolition. The project team (Speaker 9) described changes since the June submittal: refined parapet heights and façade articulation, new material samples (metal ribbed panels, window systems and exposed CLT/mass timber panels), lighting strategies intended to animate the entry, and a landscape plan with street trees, low plantings and proposed public art or murals at courtyard elevations.
Board members generally praised the integration of lighting with mass timber details. "We were just really pleased as punch on that" one board member said of the lighting and material responses. At the same time, several members expressed substantive concerns: the record shows requests for more detailed wall sections and exterior details so the approved document set matches the renderings; questions about final surface treatments (e.g., a concrete base treatment used at the main entrance) and whether the renderings reflect buildable details were raised repeatedly.
Accessibility and parking were also discussed. The applicant noted the project lists zero on‑site vehicle parking and said the team is coordinating with the city about providing accessible on‑street parking along 9th Avenue; a board member countered that approving the project before on‑street accommodations are finalized could create an access gap. Staff emphasized that ADA requires accessible parking when parking is provided but does not require an accessible space when a project has zero on‑site parking; the board asked for a timeline and pledged to review updated plans that show how accessible parking would be accommodated.
On demolition and historic documentation, staff requested an assessment report (referred to repeatedly in the record as a 'HAPs' or 'HABs' report) to be completed in coordination with the planning division prior to demolition of an existing 1920 building on the site; the committee noted it has no direct purview over demolition permits but asked for the report in good faith as a condition for support.
Given the outstanding documentation needs — additional wall sections, detailed exterior elevations, clarified landscape/ADA plans and the requested historic assessment — the committee voted to continue the application to the next meeting. Staff signaled flexibility on deadlines owing to an IT outage but asked the applicant to aim for the usual application cut‑off next Friday if systems allow.
Next steps: the applicant committed to provide the requested documentation and the committee will review the updated materials at the continuation hearing.
