Dublin planners give nonbinding feedback on 75‑unit inclusive housing plan, flag parking and open‑space concerns

The Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission on March 18 reviewed a concept plan (case 25‑042CP) for a four‑story, 75‑unit multifamily building proposed by All Inclusive Living and design partner MA Design on a 1.5‑acre parcel in the Bridge Street District.

The applicant team — Jenna Kessler, project manager for the architect, Russ Garber of MA Design, Dan Gore (a Dublin resident and All Inclusive Living board member) and Mark Dunham, executive director of All Inclusive Living — described the project as a mix of one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom units with shared common areas and a small public pocket plaza intended to activate the corner at Dublin Center Drive and the 161 corridor. “Our mission is to expand inclusive housing options for individuals with disabilities,” Mark Dunham said, adding the project intends both deeply affordable set‑asides and a preference for older adults.

City planner Bassem told commissioners the review was a concept‑stage, nonbinding presentation and outlined next steps (preliminary and final development plans if the project moves forward). Staff said the proposal fits the Bridge Street District’s height limits and general land‑use intent but identified a number of items that will need detailed resolution later: finished‑floor elevation relative to the sidewalk, stormwater on this small lot, meeting the Bridge Street frontage and open‑space requirements, and how parking and access are handled. Staff noted the applicant proposes 81 parking spaces and that the site technically requires more under code, but that a transit proximity reduction and access refinements could change the final tally.

Applicant and staff discussed access options. Staff and several commissioners favored using cross access through the adjacent Fifth Third Bank lot rather than an additional curb cut on Banker Drive to reduce duplication and preserve future block connectivity. Bassem said staff’s preference is for the single, shared access that minimizes conflicts with future redevelopment.

Commissioners broadly supported the project’s purpose — introducing new housing and an inclusive‑housing set‑aside — but pressed for changes to reduce the visual and functional impact of surface parking and to improve public open space and street‑level activation. Commissioner Chenowk summarized a common thread of the comments: “There’s a lot of surface parking, so I think if we can address that, we can add some more landscaping, some more green space.” Several members suggested either structured or underground parking should be explored or that the building footprint be reoriented to move open space outward so it counts toward the district requirement.

Members also raised safety and privacy concerns about placing residential units directly at grade along the 161 corridor. The architects said programmatic and funding constraints influenced their decision to include some at‑grade residential units and noted that many units would be elevated or on the back side of the building; they also said they had studied options for moving common space and activating the corner while preserving livability.

On household targeting and operations, Dunham said the proposal would set aside 25% of units for adults with disabilities using Section 811‑style vouchers and seek a 40% right‑of‑first‑refusal preference for older adults for a limited period; remaining units were described as workforce housing. Brad Carmen of TFG Housing Resources said his organization would lead asset management with a qualified property manager, and that tax credits and partner guarantees (including involvement by the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority) are anticipated as part of the financing.

No motion or vote was taken; commissioners provided detailed design and policy guidance and requested the applicant return with additional information on parking counts and strategies, justification for any open‑space waivers, stormwater solutions, finalized access arrangements with the neighboring property owner, and more developed architectural elevations that differentiate the 161 frontage from the side street. Chair closed public comment (staff noted one written comment on density and traffic had been received) and confirmed that the presentation was at the concept or “crayon” stage.

The commission did not take formal action; staff and the applicant were asked to address the specific items above and to return for a future review.