Planning Commission

200 South Hamilton Road City of Gahanna Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Michael Tamarkin, Chair Thomas Shapaka, Vice Chair Michael Greenberg John Hicks James Mako Michael Suriano Thomas J. Wester Pam Ripley, Deputy Clerk of Council Wednesday, September 28, 2022 7:00 PM City Hall, Council Chambers A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL Gahanna Planning Commission met in regular session on September 28, 2022. The agenda for this meeting was published on September 23, 2022. Chair Michael Tamarkin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mako. Present 6 - John Hicks, Michael Tamarkin, Michael Suriano, Thomas J. Wester, Michael Greenberg, and James Mako Absent 1 - Thomas W. Shapaka B. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2022-0277 Planning Commission minutes 8.24.2022 Motion was made by Hicks, seconded by Suriano, that the Minutes from August 24, 2022 be approved. Motion carried with the following vote: Yes: 6- Hicks, Tamarkin, Suriano, Wester, Greenberg and Mako Absent: 1- Shapaka D. SWEAR IN APPLICANTS & SPEAKERS Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth administered an oath to those persons wishing to present testimony this evening. City of Gahanna Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 E. APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC COMMENT DR-0015-2022 To consider a Design Review Application for a site plan, landscaping and building design for property located at 1600 Eastgate Parkway; Parcel ID: 025-001138; Current Zoning OCT; Columbia Gas Training - Weld Shop; Katie Bauman, applicant. In accordance with Planning Commission Rules Section 7.4.1.1., if there is more than one application on the same project, they may be discussed as one. Director of Planning Michael Blackford provided a summary of the application; see attached staff presentation. The request is for approval of a Design Review and Final Development Plan for a weld shop at the Columbia Gas training facility and ten additional parking spaces. The Land Use Plan designates this property as Industrial, Research, and Innovation district. The proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Plan objectives. The new building will be adjacent to an existing building and is consistent with the existing building. The Design Review Criteria consist of the following four criteria; is the proposed structure compatible with existing structure? Does it contribute to the improvement of the design of the district? Does it contribute to the economic vitality of the district, and does it enhance the physical surroundings? Staff’s opinion is the request meets the criteria for approval. The Final Development Plan Criteria consist of, does the plan meet applicable development standards? Is it in accord with appropriate plans for the area? This plan meets the strict requirements of the code. It would not have undesirable effects on the area. It is consistent with the land use character and development of the area. Staff recommends approval of the Design Review application and the Final Development Plan. The building and site alterations meet all applicable zoning requirements without the need for variances. Chair opened public comment at 7:08 p.m. Applicant Katie Bauman is available for questions No comments from the public. Chair closed the public comment at 7:08 p.m. Chair called on questions from the Commission; Greenberg asked if adding this building, would it add any additional flow to the detention pond. Bauman said the site master plan included this as a portion of the future. They will be changing the orifice size of the detention basin. Motion was made by Hicks, seconded by Greenberg, that the Design Review be approved. Motion carried with the following vote: City of Gahanna Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 Yes: 6- Hicks, Tamarkin, Suriano, Wester, Greenberg and Mako Absent: 1- Shapaka FDP-0006-2022 To consider a Final Development Plan Application for property located at 1600 Eastgate Parkway; Parcel ID: 026-001138; Current Zoning OCT; Columbia Gas Training - Weld Shop; Katie Bauman, applicant. In accordance with Planning Commission Rules Section 7.4.1.1., if there is more than one application on the same project, they may be discussed as one. The application was discussed under DR-0015-2022. See attached staff presentation. Motion was made by Hicks, seconded by Wester, that the Final Development Plan be approved. Motion carried with the following vote: Yes: 6- Hicks, Tamarkin, Suriano, Wester, Greenberg and Mako Absent: 1- Shapaka F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE G. NEW BUSINESS H. OFFICIAL REPORTS Assistant City Attorney - none Director of Planning Director of Planning - Blackford said there will be three residential variances on the next agenda. Council Liaison Council Liaison - Blackford said the Morse Road multi-family request was before City Council at the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 26, 2022. A public hearing and vote are anticipated on October 17, 2022. City Council passed the ordinance for the purchase of 825 Tech Center Drive. City of Gahanna Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 Chair Chair - Tamarkin asked for a discussion on how the commission will handle variances when there are multiple variances in one vote when one member of the commission is opposed to just one variance in a bundle of variances. He asked if they should automatically break it out or should they discuss breaking it out. Should they have a separate vote on the variances? Tamarkin said Hicks and Shapaka were not in favor of different variances in the residential apartment building application. They were all voted on as one and passed. Tamarkin asked for Assistant City Attorney Roth’s opinion. Roth said there is nothing specifically in the rules of procedure about this. It may be something that they look into in the future. He doesn’t think there is anything that would prohibit stopping the meeting and seeing if the majority of the commission wants to split it into separate votes. He thinks it would be prudent to do so, so it is clear that there is support for some of the request and not for some of the others. If the chair sees that happening, he should stop the meeting and ask if the commission would like to split them. There does not need to be a formal motion to split them out from the agenda. Hicks said that in the past the commission has done what Roth just suggested. There was the discussion on amending one of the items and does that require a vote. It has been at the discretion of the chair and there has been a poll of the commission members to gauge the temperature. He thinks that if it is just one commission member that has an issue it probably would not be prudent to split it out to satisfy one member. But again, it is at the discretion of the chair in the will of the commission. Wester said he is in favor of having variances listed individually, as individual items on the agenda. They have been broken out in the past where you look at what the variances are. If one variance does not pass, the project can die. He thinks that when they are all lumped together you can lose the importance of one or two of them. You could lose conversation or debate on one of those variances that could be condemning to the project. Each variance should stand before the commission individually. He thinks that goes back to the rules of procedure. The commission might want to consider changing the rules of procedure. Otherwise, it could come before the commission and become a long debate point. If they were broken up that situation may not occur. Suriano agrees with Wester. He thinks breaking them out on the agenda is good for cleanliness and expediency. He doesn’t think it adds any extra time. It keeps it cleaner in terms of Rules of Order and appropriateness than having to do it on the fly in the meeting. He is in support of breaking each variance out on the agenda. Tamarkin agrees and asks what the process would be. Mako said he is of the opinion that this is a good course of action. In his professional experience whenever he has a subdivision review where they City of Gahanna Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 have a preliminary plan and there are two or three variances that go along with it, they always have a separate motion, a separate vote on those variances. Then there is the vote for approving the preliminary plan. Separating the variance out is a prudent course of action. Suriano asked Blackford, procedurally, if three out of four variances get approved, and one does not, in terms of an applicant’s recourse are they able to amend it and bring it back in front of the commission a month later. What is the turnaround on something like that? Blackford said codes does have language on variances and when you can resubmit. Code reads is that you can’t file an identical application. They could refile if one of the variances is denied. Suriano is thinking about turnaround time for applicants. If a project is going to completely die because one variance is not approved, it doesn’t make any sense to do this. But if there is recourse for the applicant, they can make an amended application in a timely fashion and resubmit with the adjustment that would make sense. Hicks said he wouldn’t be opposed if they had this suggested edit to the rules of procedure, but rules should be for the norm not the exception. Thinking back over the last six years, less than five times has this become an issue. We have a means to address it as discussed earlier. He wouldn’t be opposed to listing things out separately but is thinking about how frequent or infrequently they had a discussion around it. They might create a solution to the problem that they don’t have. Wester said he hears what Hicks is saying, and going back to what Roth said, he doesn’t know if it has been formalized in the rules of procedure. We can go back to the rules of procedure. If it comes up, the commission knows what to do, whether it stays with the chair to break it out at a meeting or starts back at the application. He thinks that there is transparency with it and the applicant won’t get blindsided when it comes in front of the commission. If someone here is going to object to it, we break it out because that is the one that is going to kill the project. Again, this is for transparency. Let people see what we are doing and how the commission operates. Tamarkin said he thinks it also forces the applicant to speak to each variance. Tamarkin asked for Blackford’s opinion. Blackford said however the commission wants to do it. It becomes clear when you break them out. He would side with Hicks, as it only happens occasionally, but it seems there is nothing preventing the commission from doing it at the meeting. If you don’t approve a variance, that affects their project, and the applicants are going to have to make changes based off the vote. His only concern is the city only requires one application. We cannot require five separate variance applications from one project. How it is broken up on an agenda is between the commission and clerk. He doesn’t see a lot of negatives, but as Hick said, it maybe a solution to a problem that only comes up maybe once a year. Tamarkin asked if it should be tabled until the first of the year and review the rules of procedure. Greenberg questioned; does not the chair have the discretion now to break apart the variances if they are grouped together? It could be broken out at the City of Gahanna Page 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2022 beginning of the meeting or if a member says they are opposed to one of the variances it could be broken out before the vote. The chair will know whether or not to break it out. Blackford said there is precedent for what the commission is talking about. Last December this happened with the multi-family project. There was the variance to have the fees in lieu. There are some variances that go onto city council. He believes that every time there has been one of these variances it has been lumped in with non-city council ones. Those have been broken out separately on an application. From his standpoint, it was still one variance application, but from a Planning Commission agenda that was broken out separately. He thinks that has worked well. I. CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS - NONE J. POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT - NONE K. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. City of Gahanna Page 6