200 South Hamilton Road

Gahanna, Ohio 43230

City of Gahanna

Meeting Minutes

Planning Commission

Sarah Pollyea, Chair

Michael Suriano, Vice Chair

Michael Greenberg

Elizabeth Laser

James Mako

Thomas Shapaka

Michael Tamarkin

Sophia McGuire, Deputy Clerk of Council

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

6:30 PM

City Hall, Council Chambers

CALL MEETING TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL

Gahanna Planning Commission met in regular session on March 11,

2026. The agenda for this meeting was published on March 6, 2026.

Chair Sarah Pollyea called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. with the

Pledge of Allegiance led by Thom Shapaka.

5 - Chair Sarah Pollyea, Vice Chair Michael Suriano, Thomas W. Shapaka,

Elizabeth Laser, and Michael Tamarkin

Present

Absent

2 - James Mako, and Michael Greenberg

ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA - None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2026-0055

Planning Commission meeting minutes 2.11.2026

A motion was made by Suriano, seconded by Shapaka, that the Minutes be

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Shapaka, Laser and Tamarkin

2 - Mako and Greenberg

Yes:

Absent:

SWEAR IN APPLICANTS & SPEAKERS

Assistant City Attorney Matt Roth administered an oath to those

persons wishing to present testimony this evening.

APPLICATIONS - PUBLIC COMMENT

Carpenter Road

V-0005-2026

To consider a Variance Application to vary Section 1103.07(e) - Large

Lot Residential of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for

property located at 360 Carpenter Road; Parcel ID 025-002216;

Current Zoning R-1 - Large Lot Residential; Mohanad Zamara,

applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka introduced the application. She presented

an aerial image of the site and explained that the existing property

functioned as a flag lot. Although the parcel exceeded two acres in

size, it did not meet the required 100 feet of frontage for the R-1

(Large Lot Residential) zoning district.

Capka stated that the applicant requested a variance to allow creation

of a new parcel with no frontage on the public right-of-way. The zoning

code required all R-1 properties to have at least 100 feet of frontage.

After the proposed lot split, the new parcel would have no frontage

and would rely solely on shared access via the existing driveway

associated with the flag lot.

Capka explained that the existing parcel had only 27.5 feet of

frontage, which fell significantly short of the required 100 feet.

Following the proposed split, the resulting parcels would consist of

approximately 1.7 acres to the north and 0.5 acres to the south. Both

parcels would continue to meet the minimum lot size requirements for

the R-1 district.

Capka noted that the proposal required a subdivision without plat

application, which had not yet been submitted, but would follow if the

variance received approval. The applicant submitted a shared access

agreement for use of the existing driveway. Staff confirmed that the

existing house on the property would remain compliant with all

applicable code requirements, including setbacks, after the lot split.

Capka presented a site plan illustrating the proposed division of the

property. The new parcel, outlined in red, would measure

approximately 100 feet in width, which would satisfy width

requirements if it fronted a public right-of-way. However, it would only

have access through the shared driveway, which staff identified in

purple on the plan. Staff also noted that the existing house would

remain approximately 74.5 feet from the new parcel.

Capka identified the requested variance under Chapter 1103.07(e),

which required 100 feet of frontage for R-1 properties. The proposed

southern parcel would have zero feet of frontage and therefore

required approval of the variance.

Capka reviewed the standard variance criteria and stated that all

criteria must be satisfied for approval. They are:

The variance is not likely to result in substantial damage to the

essential character of the neighborhood.

The variance is not likely to result in damage to adjoining

properties.

The variance is not likely to affect the delivery of government

services.

The variance is not likely to result in environmental impacts

greater than what is typical for other lots in the neighborhood.

The variance is necessary for the economical use of the

property, and such economical use of the property cannot be

achieved through another method.

The variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the

Land Use Plan.

Whether the variance is substantial and is the minimum

necessary to make possible the reasonable use of land or

structures.

The practical difficulty could be eliminated by some other

method, even if the solution is less convenient or more costly to

achieve.

Staff recommended approval of the variance as submitted. Staff

explained that the applicant provided the shared access agreement at

the request of the Engineering Department, which subsequently

expressed no objection to the variance or the proposed subdivision

without plat application.

Capka further noted that the Planning Commission recently approved

two similar frontage variances associated with lot splits at 4444 Shull

Road and 52 Price Road. However, staff clarified that those cases

involved parcels that still maintained frontage on a public right-of-way.

Chair Pollyea opened public comment at 6:37 p.m.

Martha Hunley approached the podium and introduced herself to the

Commission. She explained that she represented the applicant, who

could not attend because he was overseas. She stated that the

applicant requested approval of the variance to allow access to a

single-family home on the property. She explained that the

configuration of the lot did not provide sufficient space for a second

driveway and that a shared driveway offered the only practical access

solution while minimizing additional curb cuts along the roadway. She

stated that the lot size could accommodate a second home while

maintaining required setbacks and the character of the surrounding

neighborhood. She added that granting the variance would allow

reasonable use of the property while maintaining safe and efficient

access. She concluded by offering to answer questions.

Mike Welty, 350 Carpenter Road, explained that he lived adjacent to

the subject property. He stated that he and his wife chose the

neighborhood because of its privacy and unique character. He

explained that approval of the variance could result in a new house

being built directly behind his property, which he believed would

reduce privacy and negatively affect property values. He stated that

the proposed development would alter the character of the

neighborhood and require him to install additional screening to restore

privacy. He urged the Commission to oppose the variance.

Larry Rumsey, 340 Carpenter Road, introduced himself and explained

that he lived immediately west of the subject property. He stated that a

new home could be built within close proximity to his house, which

would impact his privacy. He explained that he built his home decades

earlier because of the rural nature of the area and expressed concern

that the proposal would change that character. He also raised

concerns about stormwater drainage, noting that the area lacked

storm sewers and that additional development could worsen water

runoff conditions. He stated that he opposed the variance.

Craig Wales, 332 Carpenter Road, stated that he lived nearby. He

explained that he selected the area because of its rural feel, large lot

sizes, and privacy. He expressed concern that adding another home

would alter the character of the neighborhood and reduce privacy for

adjacent property owners. He stated that he opposed the request.

Russ Funk, 352 Carpenter Road, introduced himself to the

Commission and stated that he lived adjacent to the property. He

stated that he valued the privacy and natural setting of the area and

expressed concern that additional development would significantly

change those conditions. He stated that a new home would be visible

from his property and diminish the sense of privacy that residents

currently enjoyed. He stated that he opposed the variance request.

There being no other members of the public wishing to make

comment at that time, Chair Pollyea closed public comment and

opened discussion among the Commission at 6:46 p.m.

Mr. Shapaka expressed curiosity about the history of the lot. He

inquired with Ms. Hunley about the intent behind the proposed split.

Ms. Hunley stated that the applicant purchased the property at auction

and later decided to pursue a lot split. She confirmed that the

applicant intended to build a home on the new parcel, but was not

aware of specific plans for use of the home.

Vice Chair Suriano asked about fire department review and zoning

limitations; City Planner Capka confirmed that the fire department had

no concerns and that the property would remain zoned R-1.

Ms. Laser asked whether the Commission previously approved a lot

with zero frontage; City Planner Capka stated that she was not aware

of any such approvals. She noted there were not minimum lot frontage

requirements until the 2024 Zoning Code rewrite.

Mr. Tamarkin asked questions regarding the driveway setback, scope

of the variance, and administrative review of future development. City

Planner Capka explained that the applicant intended to bring the

driveway into compliance, that the Commission considered only the

frontage variance, and that staff would review future subdivision and

construction details administratively, including drainage and

engineering concerns. Mr. Tamarkin confirmed that new construction

would need to adhere to established setbacks, and that if setbacks

were not met, the applicant would need to request approval from the

Commission.

Chair Pollyea asked about the applicant’s intentions for the property,

and Ms. Hunley stated that the applicant planned to sell the homes

and had no specific construction timeline.

Mr. Shapaka inquired about current setbacks. Ms. Capka stated the

side setbacks are 15 feet, rear setbacks are 25 feet, and front

setbacks are 35 feet.

Mr. Suriano expressed concerns about emergency vehicle access and

confirmed with staff that if a new home was constructed on the site, it

would not need to return to the Planning Commission for review as

another application, such as a Final Development Plan.

A motion was made by Suriano, seconded by Shapaka, that the Variance be

Approved.. The motion failed by the following vote:

2 - Chair Pollyea and Tamarkin

3 - Vice Chair Suriano, Shapaka and Laser

2 - Mako and Greenberg

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Crescent Woods

V-0006-2026

To consider

Variance Application to vary Section 1111.03 -

Permanent Sign Standards of the Codified Ordinances of the City of

Gahanna; for property located at 721 Crescent Woods Drive; Parcel ID

025-014176; Current Zoning R-4 - Multi-Unit Residential; Casto

Crescent Woods; Don Haight, applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka introduced the next application, a variance

request for the property located at 721 Crescent Woods Drive. Staff

explained that the site was located on the northern side of Tech

Center Drive, zoned R-4 for Multi-unit Residential, and consisted of

the Crescent Woods apartment complex. Staff noted that the property

also had frontage along the I-270 on-ramp to the north.

Capka provided a history of the site, stating that in 2020 the City of

Gahanna approved rezoning, conditional use, and variance

applications for a multifamily development. In 2021, the city approved

a Final Development Plan, design review, and additional variance

applications for the same project, including a variance permitting

freeway signage up to 17 feet in height and 120 square feet in area,

as well as a variance eliminating screening along the freeway. She

explained that in 2023 the city approved further applications to modify

the project scope and site layout. Staff stated that as of 2026,

construction was nearly complete, with only final inspections

remaining.

Capka explained that the applicant requested a variance to allow one

monument sign to be located 8 feet 1 inch from the edge of the

right-of-way along the I-270 on-ramp, where the zoning code required

a minimum setback of 15 feet. She stated that the proposed sign

measured 80 square feet in area and 10.5 feet in height. She noted

that the sign area complied with code requirements and that the height

exceeded code by 2.5 feet but was already permitted under a

previously approved variance.

Capka explained that the site could accommodate up to three

monument signs due to frontage on three rights-of-way. Staff stated

that two other monument signs, located along Crescent Place and

Tech Center Drive, complied with all code requirements and were not

part of the variance request.

Capka described site constraints affecting the placement of the

proposed sign, including a water line and a retaining wall along the

northern portion of the property. Staff explained that these features

prevented placement of the sign farther from the right-of-way and

made compliance with the 15-foot setback requirement impractical.

Staff stated that the Engineering Department prohibited installation of

the sign over the water line, which required shifting the sign closer to

the freeway.

Capka presented an aerial image and site plan showing the location of

the proposed sign, as well as the locations of the retaining wall and

water line. She also presented a rendering of the sign, noting that the

setback measurement extended to the edge of the masonry planter

base.

Capka identified the requested variance under Chapter 1111.03,

which required monument signs to be located at least 15 feet from the

edge of the right-of-way. She explained that the proposed sign would

be located closer than permitted.

Capka stated that the application must meet the standard variance

criteria for approval. They are:

The variance is not likely to result in substantial damage to the

essential character of the neighborhood.

The variance is not likely to result in damage to adjoining

properties.

The variance is not likely to affect the delivery of government

services.

The variance is not likely to result in environmental impacts

greater than what is typical for other lots in the neighborhood.

The variance is necessary for the economical use of the

property, and such economical use of the property cannot be

achieved through another method.

The variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the

Land Use Plan.

Whether the variance is substantial and is the minimum

necessary to make possible the reasonable use of land or

structures.

The practical difficulty could be eliminated by some other

method, even if the solution is less convenient or more costly to

achieve.

Staff reported that the Engineering Department did not object to the

request and noted that the applicant originally proposed a location

only 2 feet from the right-of-way but revised the plan to 8 feet 1 inch at

staff’s recommendation.

Capka concluded by stating that although a freeway-oriented sign was

not necessary for the site, similar variances were approved for nearby

properties along I-270 and that the applicant cited increased visibility

as the reason for the request. Staff reported no objection to the

variance as submitted.

Chair Pollyea opened public comment at 7:07 p.m. and invited the

applicant to speak.

Don Haight, representing Morrison Sign Company, introduced himself

and indicated that he was available to answer questions.

With no members of the public wishing to speak at that time, Chair

Pollyea closed public comment at 7:07 p.m. and opened the floor for

Commission questions.

Mr. Shapaka asked whether similar signage variances along I-270

encroached into setback requirements. City Planner Capka responded

that she did not recall, though there was possibly one on Buckles

Court along I-270. Mr. Shapaka asked whether rotating the sign could

allow compliance with the setback. Mr. Haight explained that the

proposed orientation maximized visibility from both directions of traffic.

Mr. Shapaka also inquired about placing signage on the building; Mr.

Haight stated that residential use and building design made that option

impractical.

Vice Chair Suriano asked whether a smaller planter could meet the

setback requirement. Mr. Haight responded that site constraints and

structural concerns prevented further adjustment. Vice Chair Suriano

asked about potential sightline issues, and City Planner Capka stated

that the Engineering Department had not identified any concerns.

Ms. Laser asked about visibility impacts for drivers, and Mr. Haight

confirmed that the sign would not obstruct sightlines.

Mr. Tamarkin asked about the retaining wall and its relation to the sign

placement. Mr. Haight explained that the retaining wall sat behind the

proposed sign and that the sign placement avoided structural issues.

Mr. Tamarkin also asked whether total signage square footage

remained within code limits, and City Planner Capka confirmed that it

did.

Chair Pollyea asked about the necessity of the freeway-facing sign.

Mr. Haight stated that the sign would improve visibility for the

development, which sat far from primary roads and remained difficult

to see from the freeway. Chair Pollyea also asked about future

maintenance in the area, and Mr. Haight stated that the applicant

would accommodate any necessary work, including relocating the sign

if required.

A motion was made by Laser, seconded by Tamarkin, that the Variance be

Approved.

Mr. Shapaka stated that he could not support the application due to concerns

about access and lot configuration.

Vice Chair Suriano expressed concerns about access, driveway conditions,

and the lack of future Commission review.

Ms. Laser opposed the request due to the lack of frontage and potential impact

on neighborhood character.

Mr. Tamarkin supported the variance, stating that the property owner had the

right to use the land and that the variance addressed an existing limitation.

Chair Pollyea acknowledged concerns about frontage and neighborhood

opposition but agreed that the applicant had the right to develop the property

and expressed support for the request.

The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Shapaka, Laser and Tamarkin

2 - Mako and Greenberg

Yes:

Absent:

Academy Park

V-0007-2026

To consider a Variance Application to vary Sections 1107.01(g)(1) -

City-Wide Design Standards; 1109.01(e)(2) Parking, Access, and

Circulation; and 1109.02(e) - Setbacks and Structure Placement of the

Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna; for property located at

1201 Cherry Bottom Road; Parcel ID 025-004304; Current Zoning

CON - Conservation; Academy Park; John Witkowski, applicant.

City Planner Maddie Capka introduced the applications. Staff

explained that the request included a variance application and a major

development plan for redevelopment of Academy Park. The property

was zoned Conservation, a district reserved for park uses.

Capka described the proposed redevelopment, which included

repaving the existing parking lot and adding 47 new parking spaces,

including four electric vehicle charging spaces and five bicycle parking

spaces. She noted that the existing park did not currently provide EV

charging. The project also included installation of new playground

equipment and construction of a restroom and storage building of

approximately 1,500 square feet and 21.25 feet in height.

Capka explained that the building utilized permitted materials, with the

exception of a green-colored fiber cement board. While fiber cement

board was permitted, the specific green color was not included on the

list of approved colors in the zoning code. She stated that approval of

the color fell under the discretion of the Planning Commission as part

of the development plan.

Capka then presented a site plan and explained that most of the

existing parking lot would remain in its current configuration, with

repaving and updated landscaping. She noted that zoning code

landscaping requirements applied only to the new portion of the

parking lot. Capka identified the location of the new building,

playground area, and dumpster area, noting that the dumpster

location required a variance.

Capka reviewed the landscape plan and stated that the applicant

exceeded all landscaping requirements. The applicant provided

approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping where 1,100 square

feet were required and proposed 27 parking lot trees where 12 were

required. Capka also confirmed that the project met additional tree

caliper requirements. Capka explained that the code required a

continuous three-foot-high screening between the parking lot and the

right-of-way. However, staff noted that existing mature vegetation

along Cherry Bottom Road already screened the site and that the

applicant requested a variance from this requirement.

Capka presented street view images showing that existing foliage

largely obscured the site from view. She then reviewed building

renderings and noted that the structure did not include windows,

resulting in zero percent transparency, whereas the code required 25

percent. She explained that windows were not typical for restroom and

storage buildings. Capka also reiterated that the green color of the

building required the Commission’s approval.

Capka outlined three variance requests: one for the lack of required

window transparency, one for the absence of a continuous screening

barrier along the right-of-way, and one for locating dumpsters in front

of the principal structure rather than to the rear. She explained that the

dumpster location aligned closely with the existing configuration and

that site constraints prevented relocation behind the building.

Capka shared the standard variance criteria that must be met.

They are:

The variance is not likely to result in substantial damage to the

essential character of the neighborhood.

The variance is not likely to result in damage to adjoining

properties.

The variance is not likely to affect the delivery of government

services.

The variance is not likely to result in environmental impacts

greater than what is typical for other lots in the neighborhood.

The variance is necessary for the economical use of the

property, and such economical use of the property cannot be

achieved through another method.

The variance is not likely to undermine the objectives of the

Land Use Plan.

Whether the variance is substantial and is the minimum

necessary to make possible the reasonable use of land or

structures.

The practical difficulty could be eliminated by some other

method, even if the solution is less convenient or more costly to

achieve.

Staff recommended approval of the variances, noting that they were

minor and necessary for the project. Capka explained that the

building’s function justified the lack of windows, that existing

vegetation provided effective screening, and that site layout limited

alternative dumpster placement.

Capka also reviewed the Major Development Plan criteria and

recommended approval. Staff stated that the site required

redevelopment and additional parking. Staff noted that building

materials complied with code, except for the green color, which

covered approximately 30 percent of the building. Staff explained that

the zoning code allowed up to 25 percent of a non-approved color

without Commission approval and that the proposed color slightly

exceeded that threshold. Staff stated that the color was appropriate for

a park setting and complemented the building design.

Chair Pollyea opened public comment and invited the applicant to

speak at 7:23 p.m.

Ms. Catherine Eichel, Capital Projects Manager of the Parks

Department for the City of Gahanna, introduced herself and offered to

answer questions.

There being no other members of the public wishing to make

comment at that time, Chair Pollyea closed public comment at 7:24

p.m. and opened the floor for Commission questions.

Mr. Shapaka asked whether the proposed green color aligned with city

branding. Ms. Eichel confirmed that the color matched the city’s

branding palette. Mr. Shapaka also asked about the number of

dumpsters, and Ms. Eichel explained that the site served as a public

recycling location, with multiple dumpsters designated for recycling

use.

Chair Pollyea asked whether the green color would be used in other

parks. Ms. Eichel explained that the design reflected the character of

Academy Park and aligned with broader branding elements, including

nearby signage and trail features.

A motion was made by Tamarkin, seconded by Suriano, that the Variance be

Approved.

Discussion:

Mr. Shapaka supported the variance, stating that the design elements were

appropriate and that the variances were reasonable given the building’s

function.

Vice Chair Suriano supported the request, noting that window requirements

did not suit the building’s use and that existing screening conditions were

sufficient.

Ms. Laser also expressed support.

The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Shapaka, Laser and Tamarkin

Yes:

2 - Mako and Greenberg

Absent:

DP-0001-2026

To consider a Development Plan for property located at 1201 Cherry

Bottom Road; Parcel ID 025-004304; Current Zoning CON

Conservation; Academy Park; John Witkowski, applicant.

A motion was made by Tamarkin, seconded by Suriano, that the Development

Plan be Approved.

Discussion:

Vice Chair Suriano expressed support and stated that he looked forward to

improvements at the park.

Mr. Tamarkin stated that the park improvements were long overdue and would

benefit the community.

Chair Pollyea also supported the project and noted her personal connection to

the park and enthusiasm for the improvements.

The motion carried by the following vote:

5 - Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Shapaka, Laser and Tamarkin

2 - Mako and Greenberg

Yes:

Absent:

Code Changes

CC-0001-2026

To recommend approval to City Council, changes to Part Eleven -

Zoning Code, Chapters 1103, 1105, 1107, 1109, 1111, 1113, 1117,

and 1123 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Gahanna.

Director of Planning Michael Blackford provided a presentation on

Zoning Code changes. He explained that the Commission considered

the second installment of zoning code changes to the new zoning

code approved in spring 2024. He noted that the first set of changes

occurred later that year during the fall and winter. He described how

staff developed recommended changes through discussions with the

Commission, frequently requested variances, issues identified with the

code, project reviews, and unusual requests that did not always

advance to the Planning Commission. He stated that the

recommendations generally fell into three categories: reinstating

provisions from the previous zoning code, revising existing code, and

introducing new code language.

Director Blackford explained that the previous zoning code contained

approximately 400 pages, while the current code contained fewer than

200 pages. He stated that although staff removed unnecessary

content, some omitted provisions still held value and warranted

reintroduction. He reviewed several provisions proposed for

reinstatement. He described buffering and screening standards, noting

that the prior code required a continuous six- to eight-foot screen for

both A and B screening standards. He explained that the current code

omitted this requirement for the B standard and that staff

recommended reinstating it, particularly for industrial uses adjacent to

residential areas.

He discussed outdoor lighting standards and recalled that previous

code requirements proved excessively restrictive compared to industry

recommendations. He stated that the City revised those standards

several years earlier to allow one foot-candle at the property line for

non-residential uses and 0.5 foot-candles adjacent to residential

properties. He noted that the 0.5 foot-candle standard did not carry

forward into the new code and recommended restoring it.

Director Blackford addressed general sign standards and explained

that staff proposed adding a few omitted words to clarify prohibited

signs. He stated that the omission currently allowed attention-getting

devices, such as inflatable figures, which the prior code prohibited. He

recommended restoring that language to prevent such devices.

He also discussed zoning map and text amendment notification

requirements. He explained that staff previously revised those

requirements to address issues with rezoning signage but did not

include the updated language in the new zoning code. He stated that

staff recommended reinstating that language as originally adopted.

Director Blackford then reviewed revisions to the current code. He

noted that staff proposed reducing the setback requirement for

accessory structures in the R-1 zoning district from 10 feet to 5 feet.

He explained that applicants frequently requested variances for this

requirement and that a 5-foot setback aligned with other residential

districts. He stated that routinely granting variances indicated that the

standard should change.

He also discussed updates to the use table. He explained that staff

proposed adding electric vehicle charging stations as a permitted

accessory use for clarity, noting that the code already allowed them

elsewhere. He further stated that staff proposed adding funeral home

and funeral services as permitted uses, explaining that the prior

zoning code included them and that staff had recently received

multiple inquiries regarding such uses.

Director Blackford explained that the proposed addition of funeral

homes and funeral services would apply to four zoning classifications:

office, neighborhood commercial, general commercial, and restricted

institutional. He stated that these classifications aligned with those in

the previous zoning code and that the proposal remained consistent

with prior allowances.

He then discussed the Creekside Mixed Use standards and identified

conflicting language within the existing code. He noted that one

section permitted vinyl and metal materials up to 20 percent of a

façade, while a subsequent section prohibited those same materials.

He stated that staff recommended removing the prohibition to align

with the original intent to allow those materials within the Creekside

Mixed Use district.

Director Blackford reviewed parking access and circulation standards,

specifically for funeral homes. He explained that the proposed

requirement of one parking space per 150 square feet matched the

standard from the pre-2024 zoning code and that staff intended to

carry that provision forward.

He then outlined proposed revisions to electric vehicle charging

requirements, describing them as one of the more substantial

changes. He explained that the City originally incorporated

sustainability initiatives into the zoning code, including Electric Vehicle

(EV) charging requirements, but that nearly all new developments

requested variances from those requirements. He stated that staff

proposed introducing two types of EV charging options: EV-ready

infrastructure, which included wiring and conduit, and Electric Vehicle

Supply Equipment (EVSE), which included fully installed charging

equipment. He explained that the revised approach allowed flexibility

by requiring either option and reducing the number of required spaces

if developers installed fully functional charging stations. He added that,

for example, a project requiring six EV spaces could provide six

EV-ready spaces or three fully equipped EVSE spaces, with each

EVSE space counting as two.

Director Blackford addressed erosion and sediment control provisions

and explained that the proposed revisions removed specific standards

previously tied to Ohio EPA regulations. He stated that the updated

language would instead direct applicants to follow current Ohio EPA

standards, eliminating the need for frequent code updates when those

standards changed.

He then discussed variance provisions and explained that the 2024

zoning code revisions consolidated dimensional and non-dimensional

variances under the same approval criteria. He stated that the

proposed changes removed outdated references to separate variance

types and clarified that the code treated them as a single category.

Director Blackford reviewed updates to the glossary, noting that staff

added several definitions related to EV charging. He also explained

that staff proposed relocating the definition of portable structures to

the appropriate section. Additionally, he discussed a clarification

regarding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

classifications, stating that the revised language would allow trade

contractors to operate as office uses when they conducted only

administrative activities without outdoor storage. He explained that

staff supported this change based on recent inquiries and existing

examples of such operations.

Director Blackford then introduced new code provisions related to the

Creekside Mixed Use district. He provided historical context,

explaining that when he began working for the City approximately 12

years earlier, Gahanna maintained multiple area plans, several of

which focused on Creekside. He stated that the City consistently

identified Creekside as a priority area for development. He noted that

the zoning code for Creekside had already emphasized

development-friendly standards and that subsequent planning efforts,

including the 2019 land use plan and the 2024 zoning code rewrite,

reinforced the importance of the district. He also referenced the recent

strategic and economic development plan, which included significant

community engagement and highlighted Creekside as a central focus.

Director Blackford continued by explaining that the strategic planning

process provided extensive community engagement regarding the

vision for Creekside. He stated that community feedback consistently

emphasized the importance of Creekside as the City’s most valued

area and the desire for high-quality development.

He explained that both the land use plan and the strategic plan

encouraged stronger integration between planning documents and

development review processes. He stated that staff responded by

proposing code language that incorporated goals and

recommendations from those plans into the zoning review process. He

noted that staff revised the purpose and intent section of the code to

reflect those planning documents, which shared consistent themes

and objectives.

Director Blackford clarified the distinction between zoning code and

land use plans, explaining that zoning code carried the force of law,

while land use plans provided recommendations. He noted that Ohio

law did not require a comprehensive plan, unlike some other states,

and that land use plans typically influenced rezoning decisions rather

than standard development reviews. He stated that the proposed

changes would expand the relevance of planning documents beyond

rezoning cases.

He explained that the proposal introduced new evaluation criteria

specifically for projects within the Creekside Mixed Use (CMU) district.

He stated that these criteria would apply when applicants requested

deviations, which functioned similarly to variances but allowed greater

flexibility in evaluation. He explained that traditional variance criteria

focused on physical constraints such as irregular lot shape or

topography, which did not align with many modern development

requests.

Director Blackford stated that the proposed deviation framework

allowed the Planning Commission to evaluate requests based on how

well a project advanced the goals and recommendations of the land

use plan and strategic plan. He noted that the code identified

approximately ten illustrative criteria, including concepts such as

vertical mixed-use development, but did not limit evaluation solely to

those items.

He provided an example using a recent Creekside project, explaining

that under previous code requirements, applicants would have needed

to submit multiple applications, including a development plan, design

review, and variance. He stated that recent code changes

consolidated development plan and design review into a single

application, and the proposed changes would further streamline the

process by incorporating deviations into the same application rather

than requiring a separate variance request.

Director Blackford explained that this approach aligned with broader

goals of permit consolidation identified in the land use and strategic

plans. He stated that the revised process would allow the Planning

Commission to consider whether a project provided community

benefits, such as mixed-use development, diverse housing, or

structured parking, when evaluating requests for flexibility from strict

code standards.

He concluded that the proposed changes would allow the Commission

to prioritize project quality over strict adherence to code requirements,

particularly within the CMU district. He stated that the framework

would support innovative and high-quality development while still

maintaining a structured review process.

Director Blackford stated that the proposed approach would work

effectively within the CMU district because most development

requests in that area required a major development plan and typically

included requests for variances. He explained that the revised process

would streamline decision-making by allowing the Planning

Commission to make a single motion rather than multiple votes, while

still preserving the Commission’s ability to approve, approve with

conditions, or deny applications.

Chair Pollyea thanked Director Blackford and opened public comment

at 8:02 p.m. With no comments from the public, she closed public

comment at 8:02 p.m. She then opened the floor for questions from

the Commission.

Mr. Shapaka contemplated that reducing the accessory structure

setback requirement from 10 feet to 5 feet could create a precedent

that might lead applicants to request even smaller setbacks. He also

confirmed that the 0.5 foot-candle lighting standard applied only when

a property was adjacent to residential uses. Director Blackford

confirmed that interpretation.

Mr. Shapaka asked whether attention-getting devices required permits

or had time limits. Director Blackford explained that the code

previously prohibited such devices and did not classify them as

temporary signs. He stated that without the proposed language, those

devices fell into a loophole and did not require permits. He confirmed

that the proposed change would prohibit them entirely.

Mr. Shapaka requested clarification on the EV charging requirements,

specifically how fewer fully equipped charging stations could satisfy

the requirement compared to a greater number of EV-ready spaces.

Director Blackford explained that developments would still need to

provide the full number of required spaces if they installed only

EV-ready infrastructure. However, if they installed fully operational

EVSE charging stations, those spaces would count as two each

because they provided immediate functionality and required greater

investment. Mr. Shapaka acknowledged that this approach

encouraged installation of usable charging stations rather than

delaying implementation.

Mr. Shapaka then asked about the extent of the Creekside Mixed Use

district and its relationship to Olde Gahanna. He suggested that future

development might expand into adjacent areas and questioned

whether the City should proactively expand the district boundaries.

Director Blackford responded that expansion could occur in the future

but noted that City Council had expressed concerns about expanding

the district at that time. He acknowledged that development could

eventually extend along Mill Street and Granville Street and that the

City might revisit boundaries as development progressed.

Mr. Shapaka expressed support for planning ahead for future growth

while recognizing the need to balance development with existing

community character. He stated that he supported the proposed

direction and concluded his questions.

Vice Chair Suriano thanked Director Blackford for the presentation

and focused his questions on Creekside material standards. He stated

that he prioritized material quality over specific material types and

noted that modern materials continued to evolve. He asked whether

the proposed changes allowed flexibility for materials such as Exterior

Insulation and Finishing Systems (EIFS), vinyl, or composite panels

and whether differences existed between front and rear elevations.

Director Blackford responded that the code required front, side, and

rear elevations to use similar materials and levels of detail. He

acknowledged that staff could allow some flexibility but would not

support significant disparities between elevations. He explained that

public feedback influenced material standards, noting that vinyl ranked

lowest in community surveys. He also acknowledged that material

quality continued to improve and that the City could revisit standards

as needed.

Director Blackford added that the proposed deviation framework would

allow the Planning Commission to evaluate material choices more

flexibly, particularly for side and rear elevations. He stated that this

approach would allow applicants to propose higher-quality materials

on primary façades while using more cost-effective materials

elsewhere, subject to Commission review and consistency with

planning goals.

Vice Chair Suriano emphasized the importance of maintaining

flexibility while preserving the intent of high-quality development within

the Creekside Mixed Use district. He stated that the Commission

should allow innovative and durable materials while avoiding

excessive relaxation of standards that could lead to diminished quality.

He expressed concern that certain materials, such as vinyl, could

present long-term performance issues and stressed the need to

balance flexibility with accountability.

Director Blackford agreed and stated that the proposed changes to the

CMU district, including clarification of prohibited materials, would be

less restrictive than the current code while still maintaining standards.

He noted that overly rigid code requirements could discourage quality

development, particularly when applied to areas not visible to the

public. He added that the shift from variances to deviations would help

avoid concerns about precedent, as the Commission would evaluate

each project on its own merits rather than relying on prior approvals.

Vice Chair Suriano agreed that this approach would prevent

incremental erosion of standards through precedent and concluded

his comments.

Mr. Tamarkin asked about the prohibition of attention-getting devices

and how it would affect promotional activities such as grand openings.

He described past practices that included flags, balloons, and other

visual displays and asked whether temporary use of such items would

be permitted.

Director Blackford responded that many of those promotional items

qualified as temporary signs if they contained messaging and could be

permitted under the City’s temporary sign regulations, which allowed a

range of signage without cost. He explained that the proposed

language restored a long-standing prohibition on attention-getting

devices that did not qualify as signs. He acknowledged that some

businesses installed such items without permits and that enforcement

typically occurred after the fact, often after the promotional period had

ended.

Mr. Tamarkin noted his experience with code enforcement related to

temporary signage and acknowledged the practical realities of

enforcement.

Mr. Tamarkin then asked about EV charging requirements, specifically

the requirement of one charging space per 25 parking spaces and

whether it applied only to new construction. Director Blackford

explained that the requirement primarily applied to new development

or substantial parking lot modifications and noted that applicants could

request variances when the requirement did not align with the nature

of the use.

Mr. Tamarkin discussed differences among parking types, including

residential, office, and short-term retail parking, and questioned

whether a uniform EV requirement appropriately addressed those

differences. Director Blackford agreed that the needs varied by use

and explained that the variance process allowed the Commission to

address those differences on a case-by-case basis. He added that

use-based distinctions in the code could become difficult to administer

as tenants and uses changed over time.

Mr. Tamarkin expressed agreement with addressing such situations

through variances rather than additional code complexity.

Vice Chair Suriano then asked about the evaluation criteria for

deviations within the Creekside Mixed Use district. Director Blackford

explained that staff identified common goals from the land use plan

and strategic plan and incorporated approximately ten criteria into the

proposed code. He stated that these criteria included elements such

as vertical mixed-use development, housing diversity, public gathering

spaces, and outdoor amenities.

Director Blackford explained that the Commission would evaluate

whether a proposed deviation advanced those goals. He noted that

larger or aggregated sites would be more capable of achieving

multiple objectives, while smaller parcels might not accommodate all

desired features. He stated that the proposed framework allowed the

Commission to grant flexibility when projects meaningfully contributed

to the broader vision for the Creekside district, particularly in areas

such as building design, setbacks, height, parking, and materials.

Vice Chair Suriano stated that the explanation regarding evaluation

criteria made sense and asked whether any other members had

additional questions.

Chair Pollyea confirmed that no further questions were raised and

requested a motion.

A motion was made by Pollyea, seconded by Tamarkin, that the Code Changes

be Recommended to Council for Approval. The motion carried by the following

vote:

5 - Chair Pollyea, Vice Chair Suriano, Shapaka, Laser and Tamarkin

2 - Mako and Greenberg

Yes:

Absent:

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None

NEW BUSINESS - None

OFFICIAL REPORTS

Director of Planning

Director Blackford announced that he would participate in a panel at

the upcoming National Planning Conference in April. He explained that

he and colleagues from other communities would present on

incremental zoning reform and share Gahanna’s experience.

Council Liaison

Ms. Laser summarized recent City Council activity, including the final

meeting in the current building scheduled for April 6, cancellation of

April 13 and 20 meetings, and relocation to the new facility on Tech

Center Drive beginning April 27. She also reported that Council swore

in two new police sergeants, postponed an annexation ordinance

involving approximately seven acres from Jefferson Township, and

approved a resolution to improve stormwater performance at Academy

Park.

Mayor

Mayor Jadwin provided an update on the City’s community grant

program. She explained that the program originated from CARES and

ARPA funding and now operated as an annual program. She stated

that the City allocated $100,000 for the upcoming year and that the

application portal would open March 16. She noted that funding

priorities included food insecurity, housing assistance, and related

programs, and encouraged the Commission to share the information

with local nonprofit organizations.

Chair

Chair Pollyea provided a report regarding the ongoing charter review

process. She explained that a charter review commission had been

meeting regularly and invited members of boards and commissions to

submit proposals for consideration. She encouraged Commission

members to review the code and participate if interested.

Director Blackford and Mayor Jadwin provided additional clarification

regarding the charter review process, including meeting schedules,

availability of proposal materials online, and the anticipated timeline

for recommendations to City Council and potential placement on the

November ballot.

CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS

Deputy Clerk McGuire reminded members of an upcoming workshop

scheduled prior to the April 8 meeting and requested notification of

any absences to ensure a quorum.

POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT

Ms. Laser stated that the meeting provided a valuable learning

experience. Chair Pollyea expressed appreciation for the thorough

explanations provided during the meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further discussion before the Commission, the meeting

was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.