Planning Commission

200 South Hamilton Road City of Gahanna Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission John Hicks, Chair Sarah Pollyea, Vice Chair Michael Greenberg James Mako Thomas W. Shapaka Michael Suriano Michael Tamarkin Sophia McGuire, Deputy Clerk of Council Wednesday, January 8, 2025 7:00 PM City Hall, Council Chambers Organizational Meeting begins at 7:00 PM; Regular Meeting immediately follows. A. OATH OF OFFICE: Administered by Hon. Laurie A. Jadwin, Mayor Mayor Laurie Jadwin administered oaths of office to Michael Greenberg and Thomas Shapaka who will each serve a three year term ending December 31, 2027. B. CALL MEETING TO ORDER (Organizational)/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Gahanna Planning Commission met for the Organizational meeting on January 8, 2025. The agenda for this meeting was published on January 3, 2025. Mayor Laurie A. Jadwin called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Michael Tamarkin. Present 7 - John Hicks, James Mako, Sarah Pollyea, Michael Suriano, Michael Tamarkin, Thomas W. Shapaka, and Michael Greenberg C. ELECTION OF CHAIR Mayor Jadwin opened nominations for Chair. Michael Tamarkin nominated John Hicks as Chair of Planning Commission. Mr. Hicks accepted the nomination. With no additional nominations, Mayor Jadwin closed nominations. A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Mako, to elect John Hicks as Chair. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7- Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg D. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Tamarkin nominated Pollyea for Vice Chair. Ms. Pollyea accepted City of Gahanna Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 the nomination. With no additional nominations, Chair Hicks closed nominations. A motion was made by Greenberg, seconded by Shapaka, to elect Sarah Pollyea as Vice Chair of Planning Commission. Yes: 7- Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg E. ESTABLISH DAY/TIME OF REGULAR MEETING Chair Hicks recommended the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month at 7:00 PM for the months of January through October, and the first and third Wednesdays at 7:00 PM during the months of November and December. F. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATION ASSIGNED BY CHAIR Council Liaison Chair Hicks stated that Sarah Pollyea will act as the Council Liaison. G. APPOINTMENTS MADE BY PLANNING COMMISSION Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council (CRAHC) term expiring December 31, 2027 Chair Hicks appointed to Michael Suriano to the CRAHC Board with a term expiring on December 31, 2027. H. ADJOURNMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING There being no further business, the Organizational Meeting was adjourned at 7:08 PM. ******************************* A. CALL TO ORDER (Regular): Roll Call Gahanna Planning Commission met in regular session on January 8, 2025. The agenda for this meeting was published on January 3, 2025. Chair John Hicks called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. City of Gahanna Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 Present 7 - John Hicks, James Mako, Sarah Pollyea, Michael Suriano, Michael Tamarkin, Thomas W. Shapaka, and Michael Greenberg B. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA Deputy Clerk McGuire reported that DP-0001-2025 will be rescheduled to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for January 22, 2025 at the request of the applicant. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2025-0005 Planning Commission meeting minutes 12.18.2024 A motion was made by Shapaka, seconded by Greenberg, that the Minutes be Approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6- Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg Abstain: 1- Suriano D. SWEARING IN APPLICANTS AND SPEAKERS Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth administered an oath to those persons wishing to present testimony this evening. E. APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC COMMENT V-0001-2025 To consider a Variance Application to vary Chapter 1103.08(e) - Medium Lot Residential of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for property located at 70 Highmeadow Drive; Parcel ID 025-008120; Current Zoning R-2 - Medium Lot Residential; Andrew Wahlenmaier, applicant. City Planner Maddie Capka provided a summary of the application; see attached staff presentation. Ms. Capka shared a zoning map of the area. The property is zoned R2, which is Medium Lot Residential. The applicant requested approval of a variance to allow a 72 square foot shed to be installed to the side of an existing home and within a side yard setback. The zoning code states that all accessory structures must be located to the rear of the principal structure on the lot. The zoning code also requires for all lots zoned R2, that accessory structures be located at least five feet from the side yard. The proposed shed is four feet from the east property line, encroaching one foot into the required setback. The shed would be approximately 45 feet from the front property line and installed on an existing concrete pad adjacent to the home. The applicant states that this is the best location for the shed due to the constant flooding in the rear yard, as well as the yard slope. A large portion of the City of Gahanna Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 backyard is located within the 500-year flood plain, which is not subject to flood insurance or additional flood plain permitting; however, it is still subject to flooding. The applicant provided photos showing evidence of flooding in 2015, 2019, and 2024. Capka shared a site plan showing the floodplain on the Northern end of the property, shaded in purple. The proposed shed is shown in blue just to the east of the home and the four-foot side yard setback is visible. Capka shared images that were provided by the applicant showing flooding on the property, as well as damage caused to fences, a bridge, and a play structure in the rear yard. Capka shared images of the existing conditions on the property, including the existing concrete pad next to the home and the slope of the rear yard. She shared a street view image of the property, highlighting the location of the shed. It would be visible from the right-of-way. If approved, the Commission can add a condition for screening if desired. Capka shared a rendering of what the shed would look like. There are two code sections included in this variance application. The first requires that accessory structures are placed to the rear of the primary structure. The shed would be located to the side of the structure. Second, accessory structures must be at least five feet from the side property line, and the proposed shed is only four feet from the east property line. Capka shared the standard variance criteria that must be met, in order for the application to be approved. Staff recommended approval of the variance as submitted. Because the lot is sloped, and flooding in the rear yard could damage a shed, there are limited locations on the lot where a shed could be placed. Additionally, Planning Commission approved a variance for a shed to the side of a home in December of 2023 for a property that similarly had significant sloping in the rear yard, limiting where accessory structures could be placed. Chair Hicks opened the public comment at 7:15 p.m. Applicant Andrew Wahlenmaier, 70 Highmeadow Drive, expressed his appreciation to Planning Commission for their review. He explained that there is a 45-degree slope in the backyard, as well as flooding that has caused significant damage in the past. He shared that there was about $600 worth of damage done to a playset, and insurance will not cover or replace anything resting within the area prone to flooding. Photos include an image from 2019 in which there was a 30-foot wide flooded area. He stated his preference was to put the planned shed next to the garage to avoid the flooding. Additionally, the placement of the shed would allow convenient access to stored items, such as children’s bikes. City of Gahanna Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 Chair Hicks closed public comment at 7:17 p.m. Mr. Greenberg asked Mr. Wahlenmaier what would be typically kept inside the shed. Mr. Wahlenmaier explained that bicycles, mowing lawn equipment, and basic yard tools would be kept in the shed. Mr. Greenberg asked if any screening would be added for the front right-of-way. Mr. Wahlenmaier explained he did not intend to at this time, noting that there are trees in the front yard. However, he would be receptive to screening it. Mr. Greenberg asked staff if there was any difference between the previous zoning code and the new code adopted May 1, 2024 regarding this request. Ms. Capka explained that setbacks may have been reduced, but the requirement for structures to be in the rear yard was also in the previous code. Mr. Suriano asked if the shed is intended to be on a foundation or on skids. Mr. Wahlenmaier explained it will be elevated onto a structured floor that is anchored to the existing concrete slab. Mr. Tamarkin noted there is a ramp shown as part of the rendering. Mr. Wahlenmaier explained he did not intend to have a ramp, although if it was added, it would likely fall within the existing concrete pad. An alternative would be to have the shed built directly on the pad without a platform. Mr. Shapaka noted a concern of his in similar cases, is material collecting between the building and the shed, and wondered if it would abut the home directly. Mr. Wahlenmaier stated it would be up against the home and there would be no ladders or other items placed in between the shed and the home. Mr. Shapaka wondered if there were some kind of trim that could be used to prevent any items from being put in that space. He also wondered if Mr. Wahlenmaier’s neighbor had any concerns about the location of the shed. Mr. Wahlenmaier explained that his household has a wonderful relationship with their neighbor closest to the proposed shed and she had expressed her support to him. Mr. Shapaka inquired as to the color scheme of the shed. Mr. Wahlenmaier stated it will match the home and he did not want to draw attention to it. Mr. Shapaka inquired about screening, to which Mr. Wahlenmaier stated that he and his wife have discussed planting arborvitae to screen the shed, if needed. Mr. Shapaka stated his appreciation for the inclusion of photos of the flooding. Mr. Mako asked how long the concrete pad has been in place. Mr. Wahlenmaier stated it was poured in April 2023. Highmeadow Drive was part of the City’s sidewalk program, and they had their own contractor City of Gahanna Page 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 pour the pad when their sidewalk panels were replaced. Mr. Mako wondered what the source of the flooding was. Mr. Wahlenmaier said it was likely a creek bed before the neighborhood was built. He added there were several culverts from nearby apartments that spill into the area when it rains heavily. He noted during rainy seasons the flooding happens approximately monthly. Ms. Pollyea drew attention to a shed on another property visible in the photographs, wondering if it was on the same slope as his property. Mr. Wahlenmaier was unsure of whether anything is stored in the shed. It was on the property when they moved in 15 years ago. He remarked that previous residents of that property had items damaged in the shed. A motion was made by Shapaka, seconded by Suriano, that the Variance be Approved with a condition that screening be added. Discussion on the motion: Mr. Suriano expressed his support for the variance, considering the hazard created by potential flooding. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6- Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg Abstain, COI: 1- Hicks V-0002-2025 To consider a Variance Application to vary Chapter 1103.07(e) Large Lot Residential of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for property located at 142 Spring Park Place; Parcel ID 025-011562; Current Zoning R-1 - Large Lot Residential; James Knox, applicant. City Planner Maddie Capka provided a summary of the application; see attached staff presentation. The property is located at 142 Spring Park Place, which is zoned R-1 Large Lot Residential. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow a screened-in porch within a rear yard setback. The porch would be 256 square feet and attached to the rear of the existing home. The R-1 zoning district has a 25 foot rear yard setback requirement. The addition would be 20 feet from the north property line at its closest point, encroaching five feet into the setback. The screened-in porch would be in the location of the existing concrete patio. Capka shared a site plan, showing the porch in blue and the 20-foot setback from the north property line. Since the porch is at a slant, it is not entirely five feet within the setback, only a portion of it is. Capka shared an aerial view of the site showing some of the mature trees and other landscaping on the north and west sides of the property, which would help to partially screen the porch. Capka then shared elevations of the porch. It is 14 feet tall at its highest point. City of Gahanna Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 There is one code section associated with this variance, which states that the principal structure must be at least 25 feet from the rear property line. The addition is 20 feet from the rear property line, at its closest point. Capka shared the standard variance criteria that must be met, in order for the application to be approved. Staff recommended approval of the variance as submitted. The porch would be constructed over the existing footprint of the concrete patio and it would not be visible from the right-of-way. Based on the configuration of the home on the lot, there is also mature foliage to the north and west, partially screening the porch. However, there is no fence on the property or any of the neighboring properties. Chair Hicks opened public comment at 7:32 p.m. Jeff Borovetz with Suncraft introduced himself as a contractor on the project. Applicant James Knox is also a Suncraft representative but was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Borovetz noted there was some question as to which property line was considered the rear property line because the house sits at a 45 degree angle on the lot. He stated it is a large lot with trees and only the corner is encroaching into the setback. Chair Hicks closed public comment at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Greenberg asked Ms. McGuire if there were any comments received from neighbors. Ms. McGuire replied she did not receive any. Mr. Greenberg asked Mr. Borovetz what colors of the addition would be. Mr. Borovetz replied the colors will match the house, including the roof and trim. Mr. Mako asked if there were any easements in the back. Mr. Borovetz confirmed. Mr. Mako asked how long the concrete patio had been on the lot, to which Mr. Borovetz replied he was unsure. Mr. Mako then confirmed that there was no feedback from neighbors. Mr. Borovetz confirmed he was not aware of any. Mr. Hicks asked the administration how a rear yard is defined. Ms. Capka replied that the rear yard is any yard across from the front yard. In this case, the north and west property lines are considered rear yards. The east and south property lines are considered side yards, and the curved property line on the site plan is the front yard. Mr. Hicks asked Mr. Borovetz if that explanation helped him understand the issue of the property lines. Mr. Borovetz felt it was not clear which property line is rear yard and which is the side yard, noting his understanding that the rear setback is 25 feet but the side yard is 15 feet. He voiced an opinion that City of Gahanna Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 the zoning division could not fully identify which property line was the rear yard. A motion was made by Tamarkin, seconded by Pollyea, that the Variance be Approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7- Hicks, Mako, Pollyea, Suriano, Tamarkin, Shapaka and Greenberg V-0003-2025 To consider a Variance Application to vary Chapter 1109.01(h)(1) Parking, Access, and Circulation of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for property located at 817 N. Hamilton Road; Parcel ID 025-001918; Current Zoning RI - Restricted Institutional; One Church; Brent Allen, applicant. City Planner Maddie Capka provided a summary of the application; see attached staff presentation. It is located at 817 North Hamilton Road, which is the site for One Church. It is zoned Restricted Institutional (RI). Capka shared a brief history of the development of the site over the past few years. In June of 2017, there was an application for 233 new parking spaces on the lot. In April of 2023, there was another application for a new parking lot in the northeast corner of the site, bringing the current parking count to 561 spaces, which does not include the gravel lot. In October of 2023, a gravel lot was installed on the site without any approvals from the City of Gahanna, and applications were filed shortly after, due to code enforcement action. The variance application and design review went to Planning Commission in June 2024. The applications were approved with an expiration date of December 31, 2024. Therefore, a new variance application is required. In August of 2024, three applications were filed for a building addition and parking lot. Those applications were denied by Planning Commission. In October of 2024, two new applications for the same addition and parking lot were submitted, and there have been no resubmittals since that date. Capka shared an aerial view of the site that shows each of the recently approved parking lots with the gravel lot in the bottom right-hand corner. The variance application was to extend the deadline for the temporary gravel lot for an additional six months. The applicant stated that this extension is in response to the August 2024 application denials. The applicant anticipated construction on the building addition and parking lot to now begin in summer of 2025, when the gravel lot would be removed. The gravel lot has not changed since the previous application. It is still the same size and in the same location. There is only one code section included with this application since it is a timeline extension. However, the lot still violates 13 total code sections. Capka shared a site plan. The previous application was filed under the former zoning code, and the setbacks were different at that time. The new parking setback in the new zoning code requires that it must be to City of Gahanna Page 8 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 the rear of the front facade of the primary building on the lot. Capka shared the existing conditions of the lot. The single variance that is included with the application is the requirement that all parking areas must be hard surfaced. Gravel is not considered hard surfaced. Capka shared the variance criteria that must be met in order for the application to be approved. Staff recommended disapproval of the variance application as submitted, the same recommendation that was made at the June 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The reasons for the recommended denial are the same as the previous application, which include that there are no other gravel lots in the immediate area; the high visibility from Hamilton Road; it greatly encroaches into the front parking setback; and it is also inconsistent with 13 total code requirements. The Engineering Department also stated they object to the application. Finally, the applicant has not demonstrated an ability to adhere to City of Gahanna regulations or proposed timelines. There has been ongoing code enforcement action on the site and the City has not received a new submittal for the two applications since October. If the application is approved staff recommends a strict timeline that would not be able to be extended again. Chair Hicks opened public comment at 7:43 p.m. Brent Allen, Director of Operations at One Church, introduced himself. He invited Senior Pastor Greg Ford to speak on the application. Mr. Ford stated the church is able to park 60-100 attendees on the lot per service, and there are three weekend services. Without this lot, attendees will park across Hamilton Road in other parking lots and walk across the street. They have had to tow individuals out of the lot when it was sod. A staff member no longer with the church put the lot down without approval. The church sought approval from Planning Commission, and it was intended to be a temporary solution. In August, the church submitted plans for the entire site, which were not approved. They attempted to work with neighbors to find the best solution that meets their needs, and those of the neighbors. They anticipated Planning Commission’s review on the latest applications in February, 2025. They expressed their goal is to serve the church while creating a safe environment. Pete Ferguson, President of Castle Pines Condo Association, 386 Castle Pines Drive, thanked the Planning Commission for the work they did in 2024, which helped the Castle Pines Condominiums. They have a privacy fence on the northwest part of the first driveway. Clerk McGuire displayed documents provided by Mr. Ferguson. He expressed appreciation for One Church and said they have been a great neighbor since that time. Additionally, Mr. Ferguson noted an area highlighted on City of Gahanna Page 9 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 the displayed image has a “natural barrier” that had trees. One Church added some smaller trees hoping to build them up. Mr. Ferguson noted there are gaps though, and headlights shine into residents’ windows when the One Church parking lot is used. They want City staff to reevaluate the screening because it has thinned out to less than 80% opaqueness. They want fences added as screening. Chair Hicks closed public comment at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Greenberg recalled that One Church had discussions with neighbors, and wondered where they stand with fencing mentioned by the neighbors. He noted that the fencing would be included in the total site plan application, which will be discussed at a later date. Mr. Greenberg noted the gravel lot had a six-month extension that was not adhered to. Mr. Ford replied that the construction project is contingent upon City approval, and they ideally would have the gravel lot until construction began. Mr. Ford believed their original plans presented in August would be approved. However, having to resubmit plans set the schedule behind. The original timeline could not be met, and the applicant requested an extension to keep the gravel lot installed. Mr. Greenberg asked if there was a timeframe for removal. Mr. Ford reiterated that the removal is contingent upon the approval of the overall site plan. If One Church is able to present new plans to Planning Commission in February or March, 2025, they hope to be under construction by summer of 2025. The applicant would appreciate having an extension to the end of the year. Mr. Suriano asked Mr. Ford if he knew at what point in the project the gravel lot would be addressed. Mr. Ford explained that the lot would likely be the last item, due to it acting as a staging area for the other planned construction. Mr. Tamarkin clarified that the gravel lot is contingent upon the new construction of the northwest lot, which was previously declined by Planning Commission. Mr. Ford explained a new parking lot and auditorium is planned for the space directly beside the temporary gravel lot. Mr. Tamarkin noted that the 60-100 vehicles that utilize the gravel parking lot will need to find another parking area three times every Saturday. Mr. Ford confirmed that some people will utilize parking across the street or will continue to park on the grass, if it is not a gravel lot. The church will attempt to shuttle individuals across the street if the parking lot is removed. Mr. Tamarkin asked for further clarification on the timeline. Mr. Ford explained that he hoped to present new plans to Planning Commission in February or early March, 2025, as soon as they can get on the schedule. Construction would begin by the summer of 2025, at City of Gahanna Page 10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 which point the lot would become a construction zone. Mr. Ford shared hope to be in full construction by the end of 2025. Mr. Shapaka expressed understanding for the church’s problem. He noted that at present, considering the season, the lot is easy to maintain. He wondered if the church had plans for potential weeds that might begin to grow through the gravel in the warmer months. Mr. Ford confirmed. Mr. Shapaka understood the construction timeline and expressed curiosity whether one year would be sufficient time. Mr. Mako asked for clarification as to why the initial six-month deadline was not met. Mr. Ford reiterated that in June, the church communicated their hope to have an overall site plan approved and to enter into construction in the fall of 2024. However, the application submitted in August 2024 was denied. Because they were not granted approval to proceed with the project in the fall of 2024, the gravel parking lot was not removed within the intended timeline. Mr. Mako asked if the gravel parking lot met the church’s needs. Mr. Ford replied that it did not, and that the plans that will be presented in the future include additional growth for parking. Ms. Pollyea asked, if the variance were extended, how the church would continue to work with neighbors. Mr. Ford replied that church staff went door to door to engage with neighbors. He said that about nine months ago they invited neighbors to a meeting to discuss the plans and hear the concerns. He felt the church worked to make reasonable changes at the request of the neighbors. Additionally, neighbors have church staff phone numbers and email addresses for continued feedback. Finally, the latest plans that have yet to be presented to Planning Commission address concerns expressed by the neighbors. Chair Hicks asked Mr. Ford what the plan would be for the gravel parking lot if the next application is not approved, further delaying construction. Mr. Ford replied that the Commission’s advice would be considered, and it would be revised accordingly. Mr. Ford expressed belief that upcoming plans address all concerns the Commission had previously expressed. The applicant shared they are working their hardest to be in construction in 2025. Chair Hicks noted that the administration is requested removal of the lot. He wondered, if the future development plan is denied, would the church be open to removing the gravel lot. Mr. Ford said they are open to it. However, if it is replaced with sod, it would not make sense for the church to use it as a staging area. He apologized to the Commission for the initial mistake, and noted the church is working to correct it. Chair Hicks asked the administration if there is a specific amount of time the Commission can add as an extension to the variance. Ms. Capka City of Gahanna Page 11 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 informed the Commission that it can add any extension they feel is appropriate. Mr. Ford requested that an approval be granted through 2025, with the intent that the church would be in construction prior to the end of 2025. Mr. Greenberg asked if the church would be finished at the end of 2025, if the extension is granted. Mr. Ford replied that the church would no longer be parking cars in the lot, but it would be used for construction equipment staging. Mr. Suriano reiterated the timeline: if the extension is granted, the gravel stays in place. Once the construction starts, the gravel lot becomes layout space. At that point, necessary plans have been approved and the project is moving. Mr. Suriano then asked the administration if there is anything within code that would prohibit layout space in the location of the gravel lot. Ms. Capka replied there was not. Mr. Mako asked Mr. Ford who the design engineer on the project was. Mr. Ford replied the design engineer was Visioneering Studios. Mr. Mako wondered where they were in the process of putting the plans together. Mr. Ford introduced John Fiala, General Contractor. Mr. Fiala stated that Verdantas was the civil engineering firm on the project while Visioneering is the architectural engineer. The hope is to have the drawings finished by the end of January for submittal to the City to be scheduled for Planning Commission at the end of February or early March. The holidays slowed down some of the progress. Mr. Greenberg asked if the upcoming application would address the neighbors’ concerns, including the fence, discussed earlier. Mr. Ford expressed confidence that it addressed the neighbors’ concerns. He noted that it did not include a fence, because the requirement of 80% opacity had been certified by the City, noting a lot of money was invested into making that happen. He felt the plan was developed with great attention to the neighbors. A motion was made by Mako, seconded by Shapaka, that the Variance be Approved. Discussion on the motion: Mr. Tamarkin expressed his intent to vote in favor of the application. He added that he does not like the lot and does not feel it is appropriate for the location; however, acknowledged that previous plans were denied and the church would soon be back to present better plans. He noted there is a need for parking on the lot. He feels it is great for the community and church and referred to the gravel lot as the “best of two evils” at the moment. Attendees would either park across the street, or continue parking in same space as the lot, which could turn it into a mud pit. He again expressed his favor of the one year extension. City of Gahanna Page 12 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 Mr. Hicks said if a development plan were looked at today, he would be in support of this request. He noted his favor of the plan presented in fall, 2024. He felt the issues raised at that time by the neighborhood to the west and northwest – not the Castle Pines condominiums – were unreasonable. However, he feels the variance will not be adhered to. The gravel lot will remain beyond the extension. He feels the criteria to grant the variance are not met. He encouraged One Church to proceed with the development plan and looks forward to seeing that application. The motion failed by the following vote: Yes: 3- Mako, Tamarkin and Shapaka No: 3- Hicks, Pollyea and Greenberg Abstain, COI: 1- Suriano F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None G. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Hicks asked Ms. McGuire to clarify the delay of the Creekside project (Skin & Sugar). Ms. McGuire explained that the applicant was ill and requested the application be moved to the next meeting. H. OFFICIAL REPORTS Assistant City Attorney Mr. Roth shared he saw an article in which the City of Centerville had an application for a Sheetz gas station. In that instance, the Planning Commission voted in favor of an application, which was then denied by City Council. Sheetz appealed the application to Common Pleas Court, which reversed City Council’s decision. Director of Planning Director Blackford greeted the Commission and shared that he is looking forward to a productive 2025. Chair Hicks inquired about the upcoming joint workshop with Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Blackford deferred to Ms. McGuire for comment. Ms. McGuire confirmed there would be a joint workshop, scheduled for January 21, 2025, at 6:00 P.M., in the Committee Room. I. CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS - None City of Gahanna Page 13 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 J. POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT Mr. Greenberg expressed congratulations to Mr. Hicks and Ms. Pollyea on their elections. Mr. Mako thanked Mr. Hicks for serving as Chair and Ms. Pollyea for serving as Vice Chair and Council Liaison. He thanked colleagues for allowing him to be Chair the prior year, calling it a good experience. He looks forward to a good upcoming year. K. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 P.M. City of Gahanna Page 14